What wrecked SC2? - Page 9

On July 27 2017 22:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:

Sorry but if anything this behavior is a result of there being (perceived) problems with the game. This also happens in every community ever, go to the big subreddits and you will see threads complaining about the game, the developer, etc.
That's just how things go and as long as it's somewhat constructive that's also how it should be.
If the developer reacts and actually understands what the majority of the community wants, that's another issue.


WIth that being said, i still stand to my first statement that starcraft "got wrecked" (well it obviously didn't die or anything that extreme) because there is actual competition right now. Competition the more casual audience would rather play.
The same will happen to SC:R in korea as well, young people play OW and LoL there.

On July 27 2017 20:48 Endymion wrote:
similar to the arguments against allowing hotkey rebinding in bw, i just don't think that there was enough mechanical stress in the game, so every single game above a certain level started becoming exactly the same game. what i mean is, since it was so easy to macro perfectly like flash, if you took every terran above like C- on iccup or F on fish and put them on sc2, they would never miss a single step with macro, scvs, depots, mules, etc. so every game was mechanically playing like flash, which is cool for a while maybe, but it gets boring after a while since there is no variation between players. in broodwar the game is so difficult mechanically that there's a "scarcity of mechanical skill," and players actively have to make the decision to either macro or micro more, and they choose whatever avenue is more effective on a w/l% for them personally, since it wasn't a cut and dry decision most of the time. what this results in for pro players is you get players like jaedong and julyzerg who both have very different playstyles, both of which are still effective at a pro level, given their different outlook on the game and their different idiosyncratic skillsets.

at a GM or pro level it sucks even more because literally all of your time better be spent studying strats, because your mechanical skill at the game is irrelevant since everyone is a mechanical god past GM. it also means that literally every player is the same and they're all doing the same strats, unless they're playing at a distinct disadvantage or doing something stupid. So imo, it hurts ALL aspects of the scene despite being intended to help the new players.

On July 28 2017 00:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:
You think it's a cause, i think it's a reaction. The outcome is obviously the same. (unhappy people who might leave sooner or later)

On July 27 2017 23:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:

This is just not true at all...even the best pros miss macro steps in SC2. Where do you get the idea that everyone could easily master SC2 mechanically? It's complete bullshit. And pros have many distinct playstyles. Bly is not Scarlett who is not Nerchio who is not Elazer. All foreign zergs, all different playstyles.

On July 27 2017 22:43 Nebuchad wrote:


The fact that there are problems within a game isn't enough. Broodwar has units that literally can't be controlled accurately, dragoons. That is what we call, objectively, a problem. They created a legend of autumn protoss schematically cause protoss couldn't win in normal conditions and so in autumn they put favorable maps for protoss in the map pool and a protoss would win the competition off of that. That's a problem. I'm pretty sure I remember reading about periods where a race would be at 20% winrate against another and no patch would come. That's a problem.

Problems don't kill a game on their own. You do.

On July 27 2017 17:14 Lucumo wrote:

Damn, why didn't you watch Brood War on TV? It was there, along with CS 1.6, Fifa, Warcraft 3 and the like.

On July 28 2017 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:


When you say it's a reaction it seems to imply that there's a root cause x (problems in the game) that inevitably leads to y (community being shit). I used the example of problems in BW to show that it's not the case. If you didn't mean the inevitable part, then sure it's a reaction, but that's not really an interesting point to make cause I would then argue it's a bad reaction.

On July 28 2017 00:35 KungKras wrote:


Maybe, just maybe. The problems that you listed in BW are not the kind of problems that drain the fun out of it and alienates an audience? I mean BW never alientated its audience because of those problems. In fact it remained relevant for 20 years.

All problems aren't equal you know.

On July 28 2017 00:42 Nebuchad wrote:


SC2 community can't stand a 45-55 imbalance and thinks the game is dying because Blizzard is shit and don't listen to the community if it lasts for a month. BW community stands a 80-20 imbalance for longer periods and defends it.

Maybe, just maybe it's not the size of the problems that is important, but how you react to them?

When you say that the game is dying because of negative voices you're putting the blame on the players and the community, which is ridiculous. The responisbility lies on the game, not the other way around.

On July 28 2017 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:


When you say it's a reaction it seems to imply that there's a root cause x (problems in the game) that inevitably leads to y (community being shit). I used the example of problems in BW to show that it's not the case. If you didn't mean the inevitable part, then sure it's a reaction, but that's not really an interesting point to make cause I would then argue it's a bad reaction.