|
On August 02 2017 02:13 palexhur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 02 2017 00:58 Jae Zedong wrote:On August 02 2017 00:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:
That's not how it works, obviously you have to reason your way to the conclusion that it is "extreme volatility".
You are basically cherrypicking a lot, i could also say "damn that reaver drop in my mineral lines proves that bw is extremely volatile!!".
That would be absurd though. sc2 is "more volatile" as in it's way more important to actually look at your army a lot and micro it. That's interesting right, it's more important to micro it. I think the word you're looking for is babysit. Kind of rich to call people out for making baseless claims while out of the blue claiming that SC2 armies require more micro. When it could just as well be argued that it takes a whole lot more micro to control a BW army with its janky pathing and small control groups. Having to babysit your blob so it doesn't misstep into ouch does not necessarily equal micro. Call it "babysit" or "micro", it's essentially the same. As i said before, it's fine if you don't like that but it's still micro. They require more "micro" or "babysit" because efficiency in sc2 is more important than in bw. I mean just watching Jaedong play ZvP, he sometimes doesn't give a damn that his hydras are in a storm because he knows he can win through sheer macro advantage. He could decide otherwise and focus more on micro and thus macro a bit worse. I get that this decision has value. But at the same time it means that "microing" or "babysitting" is less important. I am just trying to give a different perspective here, i don't care about "which game is better objectively" because nobody can make sucha claim to begin with. I like both games for different reasons, both are imperfect. In which world babysit is the same than micro? sorry but that is a huge false statement.
Can you explain why you think that is
|
Yeah it does seem a bit over engineered, specially considering how many players who were great at different expansion then completely fail at other ones.
|
On August 01 2017 10:24 Jae Zedong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 09:43 -NegativeZero- wrote:On August 01 2017 09:26 [F_]aths wrote:
I agree Blizzard sometimes patched too soon in order to get the balance right and yes, some mechanics always feel out of place.
However I am not sure if the proposition that SC2 died is correct. BW had a very good run in just one country, while SC2 had a run on many countries. Now at the advent of a remastered BW, we might ask why BW is still sought after while the interest in SC2 is declining. But how large is the overall interest in BW?
SC2 did some things wrong in my opinion, for example Protoss building shapes are no longer that unique than in SC1. And the deathball issue is present in both casual and pro games. But I think the memory of BW is much better than it actual was.
I watched the infamous MSL finals via the live stream where there was power outage in the Jaedong vs Flash match. That level of incompetence would be not acceptable today.
What choice did Blizzard have? Not making SC2? I think that the announcement of SC2 rekindled the interest for SC1.
Making SC2 like BW just with a graphic update? That means to make a game which already exists.
Catering only to existing fans seems hardly like a wise business decision. Blizzard tried to bring new players (and viewers) in and succeeded at that for years.
i think blizzard was kind of stuck in a lose-lose situation. bw got a lot of things right purely by chance. so for sc2 they had 2 options: they could either replicate all the units exactly and get criticized by the game reviewers and casual players for lack of innovation, or they could try to add new units and features and run the risk of upsetting bw's delicate balance and unit interactions. The whole point of this thread is that there is a third option. Nothing about the way SC2 turned out suggests they were even remotely aware of or even cared to find out what made BW work. There was no respect for or curiosity towards all the things BW got right by chance. They kind of just arrogantly assumed they could wing it. Hell, the marauder was added after Mike Morhaime had trouble dealing with zealots in early in-house testing. That says quite a bit about the lack of a cohesive vision. Not that I think the development of BW was any more sophisticated, but they should have realized BW's success was mostly due to luck. That presents a unique opportunity to study and take heed of BW's winning formula that was utterly squandered. SC2 could have been good had it resembled an actual sequel and not an arrogant usurper with no respect for its heritage.
This is one of the truest things I have ever read.
|
On August 02 2017 02:15 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 02:13 palexhur wrote:On August 02 2017 01:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 02 2017 00:58 Jae Zedong wrote:On August 02 2017 00:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:
That's not how it works, obviously you have to reason your way to the conclusion that it is "extreme volatility".
You are basically cherrypicking a lot, i could also say "damn that reaver drop in my mineral lines proves that bw is extremely volatile!!".
That would be absurd though. sc2 is "more volatile" as in it's way more important to actually look at your army a lot and micro it. That's interesting right, it's more important to micro it. I think the word you're looking for is babysit. Kind of rich to call people out for making baseless claims while out of the blue claiming that SC2 armies require more micro. When it could just as well be argued that it takes a whole lot more micro to control a BW army with its janky pathing and small control groups. Having to babysit your blob so it doesn't misstep into ouch does not necessarily equal micro. Call it "babysit" or "micro", it's essentially the same. As i said before, it's fine if you don't like that but it's still micro. They require more "micro" or "babysit" because efficiency in sc2 is more important than in bw. I mean just watching Jaedong play ZvP, he sometimes doesn't give a damn that his hydras are in a storm because he knows he can win through sheer macro advantage. He could decide otherwise and focus more on micro and thus macro a bit worse. I get that this decision has value. But at the same time it means that "microing" or "babysitting" is less important. I am just trying to give a different perspective here, i don't care about "which game is better objectively" because nobody can make sucha claim to begin with. I like both games for different reasons, both are imperfect. In which world babysit is the same than micro? sorry but that is a huge false statement. Can you explain why you think that is
Micro is the way that you control your units to make them more efficient at fighting. Things like splitting marines vs lurkers or getting 2 zealots to splat 8 lings before going down.
What you're describing as "micro" is just another facet of player attention/multitasking. And a tedious one at that.
|
I don't think you can make that distinction that easily. Looking at my army and set it up the right way for the fight surely has elements of what you just described. I make sure my vikings come from the right angle before the fight starts so they won't die as easily to blinks of the enemy, etc.
I presplit my marines because i am aware there will be a fight in a few seconds. You say it is simply "attention", but that seems reductive because it's obvious that every single micro interaction requires attention.
It's similar to mobas actually, you focus on your unit all the time, "micro" it 24/7.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 02 2017 01:37 The_Red_Viper wrote:I actually simply follow things you already take as granted. If you lose after that one big engagement (few ones) that probably means that it's really important to be efficient with it. You want to win that fight. If we agree that there are big spells which can do a lot of damage fast then that also means that you have to babysit your army more, because it would be game over to not do so. You call it volatility, i say it at the same time makes the actual micro more important. You call it babysitting, but essentially it is the same. Ofc i am not writing a thesis about all of this, but comparing this to him doing oneliners about disruptors is quite the stretch. Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:19 BigFan wrote:A lot of what I would post has already been stated. For me, I thought WoL was a dynamic game at first but after playing it enough times, I got sick of the Colossi in TvP and of how things overall always progressed in a similar direction. I watched a lot of the pro scene (or what I could) and streams but even then, eventually I just got really bored of the game. When I tried to get to masters and be serious, I made it to platinum, played a diamond (or two? dunno) then I stopped bothering after a week. It felt like I was trying to do work haha. Ironically, I never have to worry about this with BW. The skill ceiling is so high that so long as I played a great solid and fun game against a friend, it's all good. While I never dabbled much in UMS (I really only played FMP and some 3v5c/4v4c in BW), I can see how that had an effect on the SCII scene. Same with lack of chat channels and the ladder being an isolating experience. After the infestor/BL period, HoTS came out and it felt a bit fresh at first with Bogus dominating everyone but after WCS (or was it blizzcon?) finals against Shy, the novelty peeled away and revealed the same game again. I tried playing some games but played what, 50 in HoTS before I quit for good. Whenever I tried to play a quick game to see if my passion may come back, I just asked myself why I'm torturing myself haha. LoTV seemed to have taken things into an even worse direction. The idea of forced expanding is frankly quite stupid and doing it BW's way is the much better option. Heck, TL even went to the trouble of explaining how mining etc... can work and how overhauling the economy now is a good option but it got ignored. I enjoyed SCII when it was first released but I can't even watch the game anymore and haven't since Jaedong's ASUS RoG win and the 2014 KT/SKT PL finals. For lack of a better word, the game might as well be dead to me. This doesn't even get into the anti-micro crap that they threw in. Fungal growth rooting you or forcefield blocking retreats or what about concussive shells? Then you had charge which was stupid because with the AI, it was incredibly taxing to face chargelot/archon with MMM. For a casual player, that stuff and others are incredibly frustrating to play against. Blizzard should've just made units that were fun to play overall and buffs counters while trying their best to avoid hard counters. Of course, the double expansions also made people mad. Deciding from the start that you had 3 parts to a game and had to get them all was a terrible move imo. They should've had a different approach because to me, it looked like a clear cashgrab. On August 02 2017 00:58 Jae Zedong wrote:On August 02 2017 00:47 The_Red_Viper wrote:
That's not how it works, obviously you have to reason your way to the conclusion that it is "extreme volatility".
You are basically cherrypicking a lot, i could also say "damn that reaver drop in my mineral lines proves that bw is extremely volatile!!".
That would be absurd though. sc2 is "more volatile" as in it's way more important to actually look at your army a lot and micro it. That's interesting right, it's more important to micro it. I think the word you're looking for is babysit. Kind of rich to call people out for making baseless claims while out of the blue claiming that SC2 armies require more micro. When it could just as well be argued that it takes a whole lot more micro to control a BW army with its janky pathing and small control groups. Having to babysit your blob so it doesn't misstep into ouch does not necessarily equal micro. there's been cases (unfortunately can't point to the game) where actually microing during an SCII battle in the past has lost you the engagement because the AI is efficient enough that it'll do a concave and other stuff on its own. I've also had this happen to me plenty of times, really frustrating to lose a battle because you tried to micro lol. Agree, babysitting an army isn't exactly fun and I wouldn't consider it micro either but to each his own. And if i micro my hydras in bw stupidly i am better off not microign them at all as well. Don't see your point tbh. Again, i understand that you might not find it fun, i actually prefer to run my hydras out of storms and snipe hts when the opportunity arises as well, but saying it isn't micro seems absurd. You are actively controlling your units, that's micro.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Also, you should always micro your hydras unless the benefit of a macro cycle is more important than the hydras but even then, hydras won't go splat all of a sudden if you take your eyes of them to make some units.
|
On August 01 2017 09:26 [F_]aths wrote:
I agree Blizzard sometimes patched too soon in order to get the balance right and yes, some mechanics always feel out of place.
However I am not sure if the proposition that SC2 died is correct. BW had a very good run in just one country, while SC2 had a run on many countries. Now at the advent of a remastered BW, we might ask why BW is still sought after while the interest in SC2 is declining. But how large is the overall interest in BW?
SC2 did some things wrong in my opinion, for example Protoss building shapes are no longer that unique than in SC1. And the deathball issue is present in both casual and pro games. But I think the memory of BW is much better than it actual was.
I watched the infamous MSL finals via the live stream where there was power outage in the Jaedong vs Flash match. That level of incompetence would be not acceptable today.
What choice did Blizzard have? Not making SC2? I think that the announcement of SC2 rekindled the interest for SC1.
Making SC2 like BW just with a graphic update? That means to make a game which already exists.
Catering only to existing fans seems hardly like a wise business decision. Blizzard tried to bring new players (and viewers) in and succeeded at that for years. There still is a following.
I go by how much fun they were, though.
I played both games. I had much, much, much more fun on BW than I did on SC2.
Even from SC2 beta, the problems were apparent, and Blizzard did not do anything about them. Their design was intentional.
SC2 was designed as an eSports game, not as a "fun" game. And that's where they went wrong. A solid game can become an eSports game, and designing it as an eSport is usually detrimental.
Look at what happened to other companies that tried to design a game as an eSport before being a "fun" game, such as GW2 and their structured PvP system.
It inevitably leads to bad game design. Games are intended to be fun, competitive games are designed to be fun and competitive. If you try to make it JUST competitive without the fun... That's not really a "game" anymore.
Especially when we're talking about a sequel. BW was not designed as an eSport. BW was designed to be fun and strategic. BW became an eSport. They were not true to the series. SC2 made it as an eSport with more exposure than BW, but it never surpassed the game BW was.
|
I disagree and think Blizzard were not only slow with patching issues but targeted the wrong issues.
The Queen buff in the Patch 1.4.3 Balance Update is a prime example of this. Nobody asked for a Queen buff, TvZ and PvZ were in a good spot balance wise and Blizzard proposed giving Queens 50 Energy, which was enough for each Queen to lay down two creep tumours on spawn. When this was shot down, Blizzard instead decided to buff their ground attack range from 3 to 5, allowing them to outrange Hellions, match the attack range of Reapers and hold pretty much any early game harassment with ease.
Thus, the patchzerg era was born and we saw Zerg players that otherwise would never have achieved results in a professional environment like Jonnyrecco, Ziktomini and Xlord suddenly dominate tournaments. In fact, if it weren't for Mvp's TvZ mech build and Parting's PvZ Sentry/Immortal all-in, we probably would have seen outright Zerg dominance in Korea as well as the West.
The buff was catastrophic to the balance of the game, because it allowed Zerg to 14 min no rush their way to a maxed out Corruptor/Brood Lord/Infestor tier 3 army. Queens and slowlings alone could basically hold things like Reaper harass, 4 Gate, Reactor Hellion expands, etc. The only thing they couldn't hold was a Sentry/Immortal all in which hit at the 10 minute mark.
|
On August 01 2017 22:57 opisska wrote:
@Jealous: It seems to me that more than a half of your problems with SC2 are quite silly. Why would you care that something is "shoved down your throat", why would you care so much about how something is called and categorized? I really don't want to argue about what should you like or dislike in the game, but that's not really even what you talk about most in your post ... maybe if you just tried to ignore the marketing for a bit, you'd realize that there isn't that much of a problem after all?
I gave you a long list of reasonable and realistic in-game expectations, then said that the expectations were not met. How is that silly, and/or how do the few other reasons I listed constitute themselves as "more than half" and silly?
As cerberus said, your statement of "why would you care if something is shoved down your throat" is almost comical in how stupid it sounds. BW was forced out, SC2 was forced in. "Ignoring the marketing" was impossible. This was the problem, so you can't say "isn't that much of a problem after all." Now that Brood War is getting more high level competition, more incentives for growth, more marketing, the return of top tier players who have abandoned SC2, more viewers, more money, etc. yea, it is less of a problem. That was not the case for many years. Cerberus and Prometheus did a good job explaining all of this more fully, so I won't expound further upon this.
"I really don't want to argue about what should you like or dislike in the game," okay, but you asked what my expectations were so...
|
On August 01 2017 23:58 opisska wrote:
Your life doesn't have to be decided by marketing. Hell the BW scene is a perfect example of that, with private servers and grassroots tournaments after Blizzard abandoned the game. Why do you care so much for big daddy Blizz acceptance? I think what BW had after SC2 was still pretty cool and the worst aspect of the scene has been the constant bitching about SC2.
If SC3 comes out and I don't like, I will derive inspiration for what to do next from what BW did, except for the hate.
Blizzard was actively trying to kill BW when SC2 was about to be released. They are directly responsible for the decline of the game and the end of the pro scene. You don't seem to be acknowledging this history. You didn't answer how you would feel if SC3 came out AND Blizzard shut down the SC2 pro scene and tried everything they could to stop people playing the game you love.
Many people will express their hatred for SC2 yet don't actually hate the game. What they really hate is Blizzard and how they caused the death of BW. Although it is less accurate to say "i hate sc2", it is often expressed due to convenience or anger. This has understandably caused many SC2 fans to wonder why so many BW fans passionately claim to hate SC2.
Before SC2 was released, one of my favorite things to do was to follow the pro BW scene. I was crushed when there were no more leagues to watch my favorite players. You ever run into a crazy sports fan that dedicates their entire lives around for instance, american football? Can you imagine how these people would react if the NFL was shut down so that a new, different game could be played instead? How angry do you think these football fans would be?
I'm not trying to defend SC2 bashing. At this point I feel like it's both unproductive and misdirected. I'm just trying to help some people understand why SC2 evokes so much anger and emotion from so many BW lovers. For people like me, it's not elitism, nostalgia, or anything about SC2 itself that is the reason that the thought of SC2 instantly creates negative feelings and emotions. It is how Blizzard used SC2 to actively and intentionally destroy my favorite game of all time.
|
MOBAs were probably the most damaging thing.
Look at DotA's effect on WC3.
Simple, accessible fun is just going to be preferred by most.
I think anyone suggesting that SC2 was too easy, or too mechanically simplified compared to BW to gain an audience are out of touch with the reality of the average gamer's interests.
Edit: also, this thread is in Brood War?
|
On August 02 2017 08:12 Autumn22 wrote:
MOBAs were probably the most damaging thing.
Look at DotA's effect on WC3.
Simple, accessible fun is just going to be preferred by most.
I think anyone suggesting that SC2 was too easy, or too mechanically simplified compared to BW to gain an audience are out of touch with the reality of the average gamer's interests.
Edit: also, this thread is in Brood War?
I think the thread is in the Brood War section because its 'target audience' is the people who populated TL back when it was a pure BW forum.
|
On August 02 2017 08:12 Autumn22 wrote:
MOBAs were probably the most damaging thing.
Look at DotA's effect on WC3.
Simple, accessible fun is just going to be preferred by most.
I think anyone suggesting that SC2 was too easy, or too mechanically simplified compared to BW to gain an audience are out of touch with the reality of the average gamer's interests.
Edit: also, this thread is in Brood War?
MOBAs, F2P, Games as a service, cheap games, are all factors when it comes to capturing the eyes of the casual player. Back in the day, you would get every hour you can get out of a game, but now games and patches are incredibly abundant, lots of options to scratch all kinds of itches. That's kinda why even if they didnt fuck up the Arcade with the editor/lobby, we'd probably ultimately not be impressed by it like we were BW/WC3.
|
Just my opinion on SC2 and BW... and this applies to almost every esport game out there... I believe games should grow into esport games, not be born into them. You should never take a game and force promote it from birth to become something great without first letting the community grow a competitive scene around it first. You have to let the players find the imbalances, and you have to fix them correctly, and then when it has gone through many years of growth and assistance, then promote it into the esport scene. This is why LoL pisses me off so much, it surprised me that minecraft wasn't right next to league as an "esport" game.
I think it was really dumb how the "pro scene" first started, it felt like everyone was jumping on board to milk money from it and I personally feel that was what ruined it. Lets charge people to watch starcraft, promote selling replays for profit, and over hyping a pro-scene for a game that was not yet ready for the competitive scene.
|
On August 02 2017 12:17 DanceSC wrote:
Just my opinion on SC2 and BW... and this applies to almost every esport game out there... I believe games should grow into esport games, not be born into them. You should never take a game and force promote it from birth to become something great without first letting the community grow a competitive scene around it first. You have to let the players find the imbalances, and you have to fix them correctly, and then when it has gone through many years of growth and assistance, then promote it into the esport scene. This is why LoL pisses me off so much, it surprised me that minecraft wasn't right next to league as an "esport" game.
I think it was really dumb how the "pro scene" first started, it felt like everyone was jumping on board to milk money from it and I personally feel that was what ruined it. Lets charge people to watch starcraft, promote selling replays for profit, and over hyping a pro-scene for a game that was not yet ready for the competitive scene.
this right here is what i have been preaching to my friends and everyone i know every multiplayer game out there now everyone is going THIS NEEDS TO BE AN ESPORT and do everything to make it happen instead of letting it grow and test the waters to see if it possible.
That is what to me made sc2 fade away from my interest of watching and playing was after 2014 everything just seemed forced and not normal all the patches and tournaments felt like WE HAVE TO DO THIS TO SAVE THE ESPORT and the community and personalities felt the same way to me were everything was just forced and kinda hear it in their voices were two very good players faced each other and gave us a good match the commentators be like THIS IS A RIVALRY NOW LOOK HOW MUCH THEY DISLIKE EACH OTHER when in reality it really wasn't that heated between the two. compared to flash and parting where every time parting beat flash he showboat and you could see flash was annoyed by it. The story lines were all forced as well and it just turned into this mentality where everyone is trying to force all this to be like SEE SEE sc2 IS NOT DEAD (not saying it is) at any given moment to try to prove something.
as the game sc2 and bw i liked playing them equally each game has it flaws some bigger than others *cough cough broodlord infestor cough cough and pluses and i have great memories playing and watching the esports and i cant really pick one over the other since they have both been part of my life for so long.
|
On August 02 2017 08:12 Autumn22 wrote:
MOBAs were probably the most damaging thing.
Look at DotA's effect on WC3.
Simple, accessible fun is just going to be preferred by most.
I think anyone suggesting that SC2 was too easy, or too mechanically simplified compared to BW to gain an audience are out of touch with the reality of the average gamer's interests.
Edit: also, this thread is in Brood War?
DOTA didn't do anything bad to War3. They coexisted nicely for a bit. War3 died because the game is imbalanced and sucks. Blizzard NEVER patched the things that killed it. It's a broken game that was neglected. It's miraculous that people still had faith in Blizzard after leaving that game in such a shit state
|
I think its simple, SC1 was natural born masterpiece, SC2 was fabricated hit. Everything in SC2 has artifical feel and no soul.
So it goes like this Natural > Artifical 
|
On August 02 2017 14:23 ShrieK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 08:12 Autumn22 wrote:
MOBAs were probably the most damaging thing.
Look at DotA's effect on WC3.
Simple, accessible fun is just going to be preferred by most.
I think anyone suggesting that SC2 was too easy, or too mechanically simplified compared to BW to gain an audience are out of touch with the reality of the average gamer's interests.
Edit: also, this thread is in Brood War?
DOTA didn't do anything bad to War3. They coexisted nicely for a bit. War3 died because the game is imbalanced and sucks. Blizzard NEVER patched the things that killed it. It's a broken game that was neglected. It's miraculous that people still had faith in Blizzard after leaving that game in such a shit state
There's nearly twice as much to balance, and each change affects 1.5 times as many non-mirrors.
And the scene lasted a long time while "broken." It is in fact imbalanced, but that's obviously not the only thing that matters. Plus Blizz has talked about patching it (remaster?).
|
I dont know, when you departed Warcraft 3 ShrieK, but I assume it was during the Undead vs. Orc era?
I dont think any videogame can be perfectly balanced, even though that is a different discussion. But Warcraft 3 is at this moment, probably as close to balance, as it can be. Even when the game did not gain any patches, Undead players are now better armed than ever before - main thanks to one player that showed the way.
|
@Jealous: please go back to your post and check the 7-point list of reasons why are you so salty about SC2. Most of them boil to "people I don't like say things I don't like on the internet". The points about the wrong kind of kids infesting the "starcraft" brand is particularly absurd. Also, if you want to resort to such terms, I would like to note that to me, the statement about anything being "forced down your throat" sounds stupid too. Did Blizzard come to your house and physically restrain you from playing BW and force you to buy SC2? I don't think so. Are you really such a sheep that the your life is decided by marketing? Do you have an iPhone, too?
Anyway, I think it was pretty stupid from Blizzard to force SC2 in Korea into PL the way they did, but how much do we actually know about what would have happened otherwise? Are you even sure that PL would continue wiuth BW without Blizzard's interference? From what I have heard, the sponsors were getting quite reluctant already before SC2 came out. Sure, if SC2 was to your liking, it could have really helped rebuild the scene, but was it actually worse than status quo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
