|
On February 18 2023 05:35 ZeroByte13 wrote:
WC3 has simpler economy and production because you have less bases and less production buildings.
Many games are one base vs one base, less strategy / decisions about expos.
WC3 economy is more complex. Sure, you have less bases and production buildings but that's not what economy is all about in WC3. There's income from creeping, decisions on buying/selling items, having to make decisions on hitting upkeep breakpoints. Expos in WC3 are also far from a simple decision as they affect the game in much more profound way than SC2. Also, since it has more impact and is also a bigger investment expos aren't usually something you can simply abandon and rebuild later like in more traditional RTS that's mostly based around unit production. There's also the experience economy, which is another resource/mechanic on top of that.
I really don't get where people get the notion that when you don't have to constantly ramp up your production and churn out masses of units it's suddenly "simpler economy". It might be smaller in scale but there are actually more decisions involved and more factors influencing it. If you also factor in experience then loss of a unit is also a gain for the enemy so you can't just throw money at the problem or afford to build wrong units or units at a wrong time.
Most of SC-like games are mostly muscle memory and going through the motions when it comes to economy. With some random factor included in WC3 you must be more actively involved with it. Smaller production capabilities also mean that it's much harder to switch tech when you need to.
There were pro games in WC3 where you had 5 base vs 5 base economies and were going on for an hour but they're far from norm.
The saddest thing about WC3 is that formats where it shines the most aren't that popular. 2v2 and FFA modes really show full capabilities of the game (and make TP have way more sense).
|
First and foremost - thanks for your great writeups! I always love to have conversations with someone who both knows and cares about what they're talking about.
I'm not sure creeping makes economy decisions more complex.
You have to go and kill creeps, it's not like you can decide to avoid creeping to get some other benefits instead. Or can you?
It adds additional complexity in micro/tactics because creeps are random and you need to know how to attack them.
But does it make economy more complex? I'm not sure.
In SC2 you can have different saturation depending on number of workers. WC3 is just 5 for gold per base, right?
Also gold bases, rich geysers? Mules? Secret expos (almost absent in WC3)? Worker transfers?
I'd say there's more than enough of complexity that doesn't exist in WC3 to compensate for creeping/items.
Warcraft franchise is much, much bigger than Starcraft one.
How come then SC2 Versus is much more popular, if WC3 is a much more complex and deep game, and also a much more popular franchise? And SC2 is so stressful with its super lethality.
And it's still much more popular now after 13 years than WC3 versus scene ever was at its peak.
I think SC1 Versus is also more popular. WC3 was always the least popular versus game out of three, most of its scene was in (great) custom maps.
It's a great, super great game, but I don't think it's more deep/complex in every area. For me it has areas where it's more complex and areas where it's more shallow than SC2.
|
On February 18 2023 20:05 ZeroByte13 wrote:
First and foremost - thanks for your great writeups! I always love to have conversations with someone who both knows and cares about what they're talking about.
I'm not sure creeping makes economy decisions more complex.
You have to go and kill creeps, it's not like you can decide to avoid creeping to get some other benefits instead. Or can you?
It adds additional complexity in micro/tactics because creeps are random and you need to know how to attack them.
But does it make economy more complex? I'm not sure.
Experience is another resource and part of your economy, so creeping relates directly to that (correct creep paths, creepjacking, creepstealing etc.). Killing creeps also gives minor amount of gold as well as items that you can potentially sell for big boosts in eco. Also, what people tend to gloss over is that every faction has workers that function completely differently and it can affect your economy. Undead need 2 different types of workers, some of which are also used as basic units in the early or late game (imagine if Zerg had to use zerglings for gas mining). Human workers can also be turned into militia and used to defend your base, grab early expansions and such. Wisps also do not deplete lumber they gather so you can have an infinite supply of it (but at the same time they can't clear ground like other workers) and can also be used in combat to deny your opponent mana and destroy summons. You still need to make decisions on how many workers to build, how many to send to gather lumber etc. Mining gold is simplified but not much different than saturation in SC2, just smaller in scale. Then there are unique mechanics like entangled/haunted gold mine, where if you lose it you can't immediately restart your economy because your workers can't gather gold without it. In this regard WC3 is much more asymmetric than SC2 and the fact that most workers can also be used in combat somehow makes for some harsh decisions when and how many to pull from resources for example. Their purpose is much more than just scouting, building and gathering.
|
On February 18 2023 14:18 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 05:35 ZeroByte13 wrote:
WC3 has simpler economy and production because you have less bases and less production buildings.
Many games are one base vs one base, less strategy / decisions about expos.
WC3 economy is more complex. Sure, you have less bases and production buildings but that's not what economy is all about in WC3. There's income from creeping, decisions on buying/selling items, having to make decisions on hitting upkeep breakpoints. Expos in WC3 are also far from a simple decision as they affect the game in much more profound way than SC2. Also, since it has more impact and is also a bigger investment expos aren't usually something you can simply abandon and rebuild later like in more traditional RTS that's mostly based around unit production. There's also the experience economy, which is another resource/mechanic on top of that. I really don't get where people get the notion that when you don't have to constantly ramp up your production and churn out masses of units it's suddenly "simpler economy". It might be smaller in scale but there are actually more decisions involved and more factors influencing it. If you also factor in experience then loss of a unit is also a gain for the enemy so you can't just throw money at the problem or afford to build wrong units or units at a wrong time. Most of SC-like games are mostly muscle memory and going through the motions when it comes to economy. With some random factor included in WC3 you must be more actively involved with it. Smaller production capabilities also mean that it's much harder to switch tech when you need to. There were pro games in WC3 where you had 5 base vs 5 base economies and were going on for an hour but they're far from norm. The saddest thing about WC3 is that formats where it shines the most aren't that popular. 2v2 and FFA modes really show full capabilities of the game (and make TP have way more sense).
This makes sense, and in hindsight, WC3 didn't really work, as it was trying to do too many things at once.
Creeping, heroes, items and experience was super cool, but worked even better for team fights. 5v5 sounds neat! Maybe they should rather skip on the whole basebuilding aspect, and have units spawn in waves instead? They should not be player controlled, so the players should focus more on the heroes! Maybe just skip gold mining all together, and have only kills giving you gold!
And maybe Blizzard should have launched their own full version of a game like that before it was way too late.
|
Ya it worked it was big for quite a while, filling mainstage at esport events side to side with CS that was the #1 game. Mobas took over the RTS genre as a whole probably partly because they are rather easier to play / less stressful (require way less apm) so they have more players and more viewership. I think mobas are cool though.
|
On February 20 2023 04:49 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 14:18 Manit0u wrote:On February 18 2023 05:35 ZeroByte13 wrote:
WC3 has simpler economy and production because you have less bases and less production buildings.
Many games are one base vs one base, less strategy / decisions about expos.
WC3 economy is more complex. Sure, you have less bases and production buildings but that's not what economy is all about in WC3. There's income from creeping, decisions on buying/selling items, having to make decisions on hitting upkeep breakpoints. Expos in WC3 are also far from a simple decision as they affect the game in much more profound way than SC2. Also, since it has more impact and is also a bigger investment expos aren't usually something you can simply abandon and rebuild later like in more traditional RTS that's mostly based around unit production. There's also the experience economy, which is another resource/mechanic on top of that. I really don't get where people get the notion that when you don't have to constantly ramp up your production and churn out masses of units it's suddenly "simpler economy". It might be smaller in scale but there are actually more decisions involved and more factors influencing it. If you also factor in experience then loss of a unit is also a gain for the enemy so you can't just throw money at the problem or afford to build wrong units or units at a wrong time. Most of SC-like games are mostly muscle memory and going through the motions when it comes to economy. With some random factor included in WC3 you must be more actively involved with it. Smaller production capabilities also mean that it's much harder to switch tech when you need to. There were pro games in WC3 where you had 5 base vs 5 base economies and were going on for an hour but they're far from norm. The saddest thing about WC3 is that formats where it shines the most aren't that popular. 2v2 and FFA modes really show full capabilities of the game (and make TP have way more sense). This makes sense, and in hindsight, WC3 didn't really work, as it was trying to do too many things at once. Creeping, heroes, items and experience was super cool, but worked even better for team fights. 5v5 sounds neat! Maybe they should rather skip on the whole basebuilding aspect, and have units spawn in waves instead? They should not be player controlled, so the players should focus more on the heroes! Maybe just skip gold mining all together, and have only kills giving you gold! And maybe Blizzard should have launched their own full version of a game like that before it was way too late.
What do you mean "it didn't work"? At the time it had a pretty big e-sports scene with multiple big tournaments all over the world. It had pretty iconic campaign and was a big contributor to the vision behind the biggest MMO in history. It is still very highly regarded and was the title that got Blizzard's RTS e-sports spread worldwide instead of just South Korea, which then paved the way for SC2.
If that's what you consider "didn't work" I really don't know what a game would have to accomplish to be successful in your eyes...
|
WC3 was pretty successful back in the day. Just a pity they botched WC3:R so badly. Could have been big IMO
WC3 and SC2 are two very different games and comparing them directly to each other is apples and oranges. Both games did some stuff right and some stuff less right. For me personnally WC3 was much slower and more "relaxed" than SC2 but I'm obviously not a pro player of either, just played WC3 versus some friends at LAN parties back in the day
|
I wasn't really trying to compare the two gameplay-wise. Just tried to banish the idea of WC3 somehow being dumbed down easy mode game when it's far from it and actually offers quite a lot of complexity. Any comparisons between the two I've mostly used to highlight the differences between them.
|
On February 20 2023 04:49 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2023 14:18 Manit0u wrote:On February 18 2023 05:35 ZeroByte13 wrote:
WC3 has simpler economy and production because you have less bases and less production buildings.
Many games are one base vs one base, less strategy / decisions about expos.
WC3 economy is more complex. Sure, you have less bases and production buildings but that's not what economy is all about in WC3. There's income from creeping, decisions on buying/selling items, having to make decisions on hitting upkeep breakpoints. Expos in WC3 are also far from a simple decision as they affect the game in much more profound way than SC2. Also, since it has more impact and is also a bigger investment expos aren't usually something you can simply abandon and rebuild later like in more traditional RTS that's mostly based around unit production. There's also the experience economy, which is another resource/mechanic on top of that. I really don't get where people get the notion that when you don't have to constantly ramp up your production and churn out masses of units it's suddenly "simpler economy". It might be smaller in scale but there are actually more decisions involved and more factors influencing it. If you also factor in experience then loss of a unit is also a gain for the enemy so you can't just throw money at the problem or afford to build wrong units or units at a wrong time. Most of SC-like games are mostly muscle memory and going through the motions when it comes to economy. With some random factor included in WC3 you must be more actively involved with it. Smaller production capabilities also mean that it's much harder to switch tech when you need to. There were pro games in WC3 where you had 5 base vs 5 base economies and were going on for an hour but they're far from norm. The saddest thing about WC3 is that formats where it shines the most aren't that popular. 2v2 and FFA modes really show full capabilities of the game (and make TP have way more sense). This makes sense, and in hindsight, WC3 didn't really work, as it was trying to do too many things at once. Creeping, heroes, items and experience was super cool, but worked even better for team fights. 5v5 sounds neat! Maybe they should rather skip on the whole basebuilding aspect, and have units spawn in waves instead? They should not be player controlled, so the players should focus more on the heroes! Maybe just skip gold mining all together, and have only kills giving you gold! And maybe Blizzard should have launched their own full version of a game like that before it was way too late.
Except for S. Korea, WC3 was WAY bigger than BW in both China and the Western countries.
It absolutely "worked".
|
My only advice for Stormgate: don't pick your race from the start, wait until you see which race the community hates and make sure you don't pick that race. If you end up picking the race that the community hates your experience with the game is going to be insanely shit when compared to your experience with the other races.
|
On February 21 2023 05:56 Nebuchad wrote:
My only advice for Stormgate: don't pick your race from the start, wait until you see which race the community hates and make sure you don't pick that race. If you end up picking the race that the community hates your experience with the game is going to be insanely shit when compared to your experience with the other races.
Which race is being hated in SC2?
|
They mean protoss, who currently are pretty comfortable at ladder and even low-mid pro level but are less successful at the very top level aka top-5 players in the world.
|
On February 21 2023 05:32 M3t4PhYzX wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 04:49 Slydie wrote:On February 18 2023 14:18 Manit0u wrote:On February 18 2023 05:35 ZeroByte13 wrote:
WC3 has simpler economy and production because you have less bases and less production buildings.
Many games are one base vs one base, less strategy / decisions about expos.
WC3 economy is more complex. Sure, you have less bases and production buildings but that's not what economy is all about in WC3. There's income from creeping, decisions on buying/selling items, having to make decisions on hitting upkeep breakpoints. Expos in WC3 are also far from a simple decision as they affect the game in much more profound way than SC2. Also, since it has more impact and is also a bigger investment expos aren't usually something you can simply abandon and rebuild later like in more traditional RTS that's mostly based around unit production. There's also the experience economy, which is another resource/mechanic on top of that. I really don't get where people get the notion that when you don't have to constantly ramp up your production and churn out masses of units it's suddenly "simpler economy". It might be smaller in scale but there are actually more decisions involved and more factors influencing it. If you also factor in experience then loss of a unit is also a gain for the enemy so you can't just throw money at the problem or afford to build wrong units or units at a wrong time. Most of SC-like games are mostly muscle memory and going through the motions when it comes to economy. With some random factor included in WC3 you must be more actively involved with it. Smaller production capabilities also mean that it's much harder to switch tech when you need to. There were pro games in WC3 where you had 5 base vs 5 base economies and were going on for an hour but they're far from norm. The saddest thing about WC3 is that formats where it shines the most aren't that popular. 2v2 and FFA modes really show full capabilities of the game (and make TP have way more sense). This makes sense, and in hindsight, WC3 didn't really work, as it was trying to do too many things at once. Creeping, heroes, items and experience was super cool, but worked even better for team fights. 5v5 sounds neat! Maybe they should rather skip on the whole basebuilding aspect, and have units spawn in waves instead? They should not be player controlled, so the players should focus more on the heroes! Maybe just skip gold mining all together, and have only kills giving you gold! And maybe Blizzard should have launched their own full version of a game like that before it was way too late. Except for S. Korea, WC3 was WAY bigger than BW in both China and the Western countries. It absolutely "worked".
I am not sure if you understood my post. My point still stands.
|
On February 21 2023 07:10 Slydie wrote:
I am not sure if you understood my post. My point still stands.
Not particularly, they're just different games and war3 didn't "not work".
On February 21 2023 05:56 Nebuchad wrote:
My only advice for Stormgate: don't pick your race from the start, wait until you see which race the community hates and make sure you don't pick that race. If you end up picking the race that the community hates your experience with the game is going to be insanely shit when compared to your experience with the other races.
Well I think they have a good shot at handling feedback better.
|
I'm of the mind that you should just pick the faction you want to play the most and feel most comfortable with, regardless of public's opinion on it. Not only does the public opinion tend to shift but balance patches also do change the power structure. Sure, there will probably be some hate towards certain faction/style of play and people abusing some OP stuff but this shouldn't really influence your opinion. I do like the underdog/least played stuff and uncommon strategies but if playing those would make me use a faction I don't really "feel" and would have to force myself to play it then it wouldn't bring me any joy and defeat the whole point of playing a game.
Just like in my WC3 days, where I played all the races but UD was still my favorite through thick or thin. But whenever I played any race I would often pick sub-optimal strategies instead of blindly following the current strongest meta because quite often most effective builds just weren't fun for me. I'd rather play the kind of game I like than the one that's "best" at the moment.
|
On February 21 2023 07:10 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 05:32 M3t4PhYzX wrote:On February 20 2023 04:49 Slydie wrote:On February 18 2023 14:18 Manit0u wrote:On February 18 2023 05:35 ZeroByte13 wrote:
WC3 has simpler economy and production because you have less bases and less production buildings.
Many games are one base vs one base, less strategy / decisions about expos.
WC3 economy is more complex. Sure, you have less bases and production buildings but that's not what economy is all about in WC3. There's income from creeping, decisions on buying/selling items, having to make decisions on hitting upkeep breakpoints. Expos in WC3 are also far from a simple decision as they affect the game in much more profound way than SC2. Also, since it has more impact and is also a bigger investment expos aren't usually something you can simply abandon and rebuild later like in more traditional RTS that's mostly based around unit production. There's also the experience economy, which is another resource/mechanic on top of that. I really don't get where people get the notion that when you don't have to constantly ramp up your production and churn out masses of units it's suddenly "simpler economy". It might be smaller in scale but there are actually more decisions involved and more factors influencing it. If you also factor in experience then loss of a unit is also a gain for the enemy so you can't just throw money at the problem or afford to build wrong units or units at a wrong time. Most of SC-like games are mostly muscle memory and going through the motions when it comes to economy. With some random factor included in WC3 you must be more actively involved with it. Smaller production capabilities also mean that it's much harder to switch tech when you need to. There were pro games in WC3 where you had 5 base vs 5 base economies and were going on for an hour but they're far from norm. The saddest thing about WC3 is that formats where it shines the most aren't that popular. 2v2 and FFA modes really show full capabilities of the game (and make TP have way more sense). This makes sense, and in hindsight, WC3 didn't really work, as it was trying to do too many things at once. Creeping, heroes, items and experience was super cool, but worked even better for team fights. 5v5 sounds neat! Maybe they should rather skip on the whole basebuilding aspect, and have units spawn in waves instead? They should not be player controlled, so the players should focus more on the heroes! Maybe just skip gold mining all together, and have only kills giving you gold! And maybe Blizzard should have launched their own full version of a game like that before it was way too late. Except for S. Korea, WC3 was WAY bigger than BW in both China and the Western countries. It absolutely "worked". I am not sure if you understood my post. My point still stands.
What was your point then, exactly?
|
On February 21 2023 06:34 ZeroByte13 wrote:
They mean protoss, who currently are pretty comfortable at ladder and even low-mid pro level but are less successful at the very top level aka top-5 players in the world.
Sounds exactly like BW..
guess some things just never change, huh 
|
On February 22 2023 01:17 M3t4PhYzX wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 07:10 Slydie wrote:On February 21 2023 05:32 M3t4PhYzX wrote:On February 20 2023 04:49 Slydie wrote:On February 18 2023 14:18 Manit0u wrote:On February 18 2023 05:35 ZeroByte13 wrote:
WC3 has simpler economy and production because you have less bases and less production buildings.
Many games are one base vs one base, less strategy / decisions about expos.
WC3 economy is more complex. Sure, you have less bases and production buildings but that's not what economy is all about in WC3. There's income from creeping, decisions on buying/selling items, having to make decisions on hitting upkeep breakpoints. Expos in WC3 are also far from a simple decision as they affect the game in much more profound way than SC2. Also, since it has more impact and is also a bigger investment expos aren't usually something you can simply abandon and rebuild later like in more traditional RTS that's mostly based around unit production. There's also the experience economy, which is another resource/mechanic on top of that. I really don't get where people get the notion that when you don't have to constantly ramp up your production and churn out masses of units it's suddenly "simpler economy". It might be smaller in scale but there are actually more decisions involved and more factors influencing it. If you also factor in experience then loss of a unit is also a gain for the enemy so you can't just throw money at the problem or afford to build wrong units or units at a wrong time. Most of SC-like games are mostly muscle memory and going through the motions when it comes to economy. With some random factor included in WC3 you must be more actively involved with it. Smaller production capabilities also mean that it's much harder to switch tech when you need to. There were pro games in WC3 where you had 5 base vs 5 base economies and were going on for an hour but they're far from norm. The saddest thing about WC3 is that formats where it shines the most aren't that popular. 2v2 and FFA modes really show full capabilities of the game (and make TP have way more sense). This makes sense, and in hindsight, WC3 didn't really work, as it was trying to do too many things at once. Creeping, heroes, items and experience was super cool, but worked even better for team fights. 5v5 sounds neat! Maybe they should rather skip on the whole basebuilding aspect, and have units spawn in waves instead? They should not be player controlled, so the players should focus more on the heroes! Maybe just skip gold mining all together, and have only kills giving you gold! And maybe Blizzard should have launched their own full version of a game like that before it was way too late. Except for S. Korea, WC3 was WAY bigger than BW in both China and the Western countries. It absolutely "worked". I am not sure if you understood my post. My point still stands. What was your point then, exactly?
His point was that Blizzard should have released their DotA way sooner because it has turned out to be a much more successful mode. They basically jumped on the bandwagon 10 years too late.
On February 22 2023 01:18 M3t4PhYzX wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 06:34 ZeroByte13 wrote:
They mean protoss, who currently are pretty comfortable at ladder and even low-mid pro level but are less successful at the very top level aka top-5 players in the world. Sounds exactly like BW.. guess some things just never change, huh
I mean, in BW everyone flames everyone, so it's not the same I suppose. There also is tesagi...
It also changed in SC2. I haven't followed it closely since WoL, hence my question, but I do remember times when Zerg was the community target in HotS, no?
|
I believe that after SC2 blizzard started reacting to loud feedback a lot which they had started to do with Wow expansions whereas they weren't really doing that previously (rather following their own design intentions). I mean I think a problem with reacting to loud feedback, unless you're also polling at the same time, is problematic because how can you tell the dev that you think everything is fine now, do you need to spend a lot of time writing on forums to disagree with whoever wants this and that changed? I'm not following closely what blizz was doing more recently, but I would point to PUBG again as great handling of feedback. They are constantly polling the players and if you don't want to write on forums you can just quickly answer poll to give feedback. If you look at forum posts in some places you will see a lot of loud negative feedback that interestingly doesn't reflect at all what the global player pool seems to think because the numbers don't match. For example players would hate on the game and call it dead while it's one of the top games. Other players would insist that cheaters are everywhere while you actually almost never meet any when playing (because they seem to handle anti-cheating extremely well). Some players hate on the maps yet they keep giving us amazing new maps and the game is updated quite amazingly including overall balance etc. Long story short reacting to loud negative feedback can be very detrimental I think, one reason why being that players who think very positively may not write or not write much (when you're happy you're just playing etc).
|
On February 22 2023 01:59 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 01:17 M3t4PhYzX wrote:On February 21 2023 07:10 Slydie wrote:On February 21 2023 05:32 M3t4PhYzX wrote:On February 20 2023 04:49 Slydie wrote:On February 18 2023 14:18 Manit0u wrote:On February 18 2023 05:35 ZeroByte13 wrote:
WC3 has simpler economy and production because you have less bases and less production buildings.
Many games are one base vs one base, less strategy / decisions about expos.
WC3 economy is more complex. Sure, you have less bases and production buildings but that's not what economy is all about in WC3. There's income from creeping, decisions on buying/selling items, having to make decisions on hitting upkeep breakpoints. Expos in WC3 are also far from a simple decision as they affect the game in much more profound way than SC2. Also, since it has more impact and is also a bigger investment expos aren't usually something you can simply abandon and rebuild later like in more traditional RTS that's mostly based around unit production. There's also the experience economy, which is another resource/mechanic on top of that. I really don't get where people get the notion that when you don't have to constantly ramp up your production and churn out masses of units it's suddenly "simpler economy". It might be smaller in scale but there are actually more decisions involved and more factors influencing it. If you also factor in experience then loss of a unit is also a gain for the enemy so you can't just throw money at the problem or afford to build wrong units or units at a wrong time. Most of SC-like games are mostly muscle memory and going through the motions when it comes to economy. With some random factor included in WC3 you must be more actively involved with it. Smaller production capabilities also mean that it's much harder to switch tech when you need to. There were pro games in WC3 where you had 5 base vs 5 base economies and were going on for an hour but they're far from norm. The saddest thing about WC3 is that formats where it shines the most aren't that popular. 2v2 and FFA modes really show full capabilities of the game (and make TP have way more sense). This makes sense, and in hindsight, WC3 didn't really work, as it was trying to do too many things at once. Creeping, heroes, items and experience was super cool, but worked even better for team fights. 5v5 sounds neat! Maybe they should rather skip on the whole basebuilding aspect, and have units spawn in waves instead? They should not be player controlled, so the players should focus more on the heroes! Maybe just skip gold mining all together, and have only kills giving you gold! And maybe Blizzard should have launched their own full version of a game like that before it was way too late. Except for S. Korea, WC3 was WAY bigger than BW in both China and the Western countries. It absolutely "worked". I am not sure if you understood my post. My point still stands. What was your point then, exactly? His point was that Blizzard should have released their DotA way sooner because it has turned out to be a much more successful mode. They basically jumped on the bandwagon 10 years too late. Show nested quote +On February 22 2023 01:18 M3t4PhYzX wrote:On February 21 2023 06:34 ZeroByte13 wrote:
They mean protoss, who currently are pretty comfortable at ladder and even low-mid pro level but are less successful at the very top level aka top-5 players in the world. Sounds exactly like BW.. guess some things just never change, huh I mean, in BW everyone flames everyone, so it's not the same I suppose. There also is tesagi... It also changed in SC2. I haven't followed it closely since WoL, hence my question, but I do remember times when Zerg was the community target in HotS, no?
Disagree. Protoss always got the brunt of the balance hate in BW. Especially in the foreign scene.
Btw I always thought that zerg is the most hated race in SC2, not protoss?
As for Bli$$ard getting into DotA - SC2 was on top of the e-Sport world when Riot's LoL was starting to get huge (idea stolen from the WC3 custom map, nonetheless), so there was no incentive for Bli$$ard in creating their own moba. Nobody could have predicted that it will eventually be the biggest thing in e-Sports ever, tbh.
What they could have done is to handle competitive SC2 way better, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
