|
On June 09 2015 03:27 tokinho wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 02:19 captainwaffles wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 20:37 tokinho wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
Brief background- been playing starcraft competitively since 2008 when I discovered the pro scene through youtube vods (klazart, diggity, moletrap, cholera etc) played sc2 since WoL beta and have been high masters since masters was a thing.
First- More drastic changes need to be tested especially for a prolonged beta. Like most everyone else I was estatic about the new economy changes they unveiled at blizzcon, 12 workers to skip the boring first 3 mins of a game? Bases that mined out faster? Awesome! But upon further digging the econ changes were pretty hollow, its just less resources per base so you mine out faster. the "3 base cap" is still a thing.
Teamliquid came forth with a possible solution to this with Double Harvest, a much more broodwar type economy. Simply put you're not punished for not expanding but you're rewarded for expanding, effectively getting rid of the 3 base cap while still allowing defensive play to still exist in the game.
From blizzards response to the Double Harvest it seems like they don't really understand it and we haven't heard anything about it since... which brings me to point two-
Secondly- In addition to more radical changes being tested we really need to strengthen the communication between the developers and the community, Psione- you're awesome mate but ultimately you're a middle man relaying messages. Blizzard please just talk to us and let us know whats going on as to why you're doing or not doing things. For example skins, design decisions etc. which brings me to my third point...
Thirdly- The units for Lotv feel pretty underwhelming on the whole. With the exception in my eyes being the lurker and Disruptor. The cyclone actually annoys me because its basically just letting Terran players micro a unit like protoss micro Phoenix (just moving around and clicking while the unit attacks while moving. Mech didn't need another strong ground to ground unit, it really didn't. So the cyclone when first released was the new "micro goliath" well now it doesn't shoot up until fusion core so its just a ground phoenix... Honestly, you gave us back the lurker just give us back the goliath at this point.
The Liberator is also a funky unit that doesn't sit well with me. Its a sky tank that its also a valkyrie for some reason. If blizzard wants to make a new version of starcraft they should make new units with new concepts not half assed rehashes which just about all of the new units are, even the disruptor. We want our units to have more microbility this does not mean every unit needs abilities, this means units need to be more responsive like the Depth of micro video Lalush made some time ago suggests.
I'm on the fence about the Ravager it was cool until they overnerfed it, it was too strong for sure but now its too weak... like a middle ground can't be that difficult to find.
Overall I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said before by people way more popular with a lot more pull in the scene, people like catz and incontrol for example.
To me, if blizzard is hell bent on controlling the scene and not letting the community run the game they really need to step up their game and be more open about wtf is going on in their offices, with broodwar making a comeback in Korea and Starbow being released Its getting to the point where vanilla sc2 is not that appealing anymore, seriously the one thing it has on starbow, broodwar, and sc2broodwar is easy and effective match making.
I've been writing this over the course of several hours while I'm at work so let me just reiterate the main point of my post because reading this back to myself its kind of jumbled and all over the place:
I'm frustrated and disappointed with the direction Lotv is taking and Blizzards lack of communication. The new units feel weird and out of place especially the Terran units.The new economy doesn't solve the core issue of the current hots economy it just puts a timer on turtles which is a good thing but more could be done, just test the damn double harvest already. I've been playing starbow and Iccup recently and been having more fun with those than either hots or lotv and if things continue this way I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Lol, your post is so far away from everything that is going on its just outright ridiculous and borderline reportable. You claimed the economic system sucks and the double harvest mod is better and blizzard ignored it. Blizzard looked at the double harvest mod. Its a huge nerf to zerg. (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/484962-double-harvesting-replay-analysis). That's why its dumb. I really just don't get your opinion of how its better in any way. Secondly, Blizzard is very active on the blizzard forums. Another point where its just a lie they don't listen to the community. You can talk to several people of the balance team. Psione is not the only member of the balance team, and they have very open communication with the pro players. They have a chat channel that they communicate with pro players to get their opinions. There is a recent vod for the late game where this was discussed. Go watch their last 2 or 3 vods. if you don't believe me. It is true blizzard puts much more emphasis on communication with people who make a living playing the game rather than more amateur players. Thirdly, the focus of Legacy of the void has been always on more active armies and more specialization than has been previously available. Terran has a hard time getting into and committing to different tech paths. LOTV now has 2 major tech paths with 3 different transitions. Before, there was almost no transition its either bio and try to end it, or mech into skyterran. Cyclones fulfill a different role than goliaths. The ravagers make it so zerg does have a counter to high sentry counts, but are not useful in large numbers. They are still used as a counter to sentries and static defense. They are still really good units. Just the early game pushes with zerg were nerfed with the idea that playing vs zerg you can expand more safely, which is more consistent with the trend of the game. More specialization, more engagements, higher economy, more tech options. I like the new units. You say it feels wierd, but it actually feels much more about being mobile and is much more fast paced to me. The goliath reduces specialization which again is not the current focus of the game, and the liberator keeps muta numbers lower with the ability to control ultras with bio. The economic system in legacy of the void is better than the double harvest mod. I like the direction the game is going, other than warpgate recall, warpgate recall cycle so protoss barely is on the map still seems a bit retarded. Particularly, I think the lotv beta is funner than starbow. The most baffling thing to me is, I don't really see why you feel the need to make this post here, where its unlikely to get as much attention from blizzard as it would on the forums where a direct reply from blizzard would be possible. I can hardly disagree more with this reasoning. Good point, I just posted it to the LotV beta forums as well. I say the units feel weird because they (terran units) honestly do not feel like starcraft units. The liberator reminds me of the prism tank from CnC RA 2 or the beam cannon from CnC TW 3. Starcraft isn't about having every unit have special abilities its about controlling large armies well and managing large (barring cheese of course) economies. Its not about making 4 cyclones and clicking them away from units while they destroy shit...its just not fun. You say they're active on their own forums and on the first page of the LotV forum i see no blue posts save for the stickies of news announcements... I've been watching the Late Game and Remax and I've heard them say psione is taking feedback but thats not enough, hes a community manager. We want an open line of communication straight to the developers! Considering other games have this I don't think its too much to ask really. I mean Starcraft (broodwar) blew up into the biggest esport and then blizzard comes around with sc2 trying to control the scene and for a long while killing off starcraft in korea. If they want this big daddy position they need to accept responsibility for it and listen to the community that pours their souls into the game. Having psione collect feedback that they ultimately ignore is not enough. At this point I'd rather they just give up on WCS and let the community decide which version of starcraft we want to play whether it be broodwar or starbow or sc2bw or whatever. "Starcraft isn't about having every unit have special abilities its about controlling large armies well and managing large (barring cheese of course) economies." , lol did you even play brood war, never heard of plaguuuuuuuuu or irradiate, storm. brood war you could only put 12 units to a hotkey. Starcraft has always been about controlling armies, being active, and creative. (Hence the name RTS.) It wasn't until the turtle crap from hots that it the game became a lot more macro based and less about individual units. As far as saying there isn't an open line between players and developers. THE OPEN LINE TO THE DEVELOPERS IS THE BATTLENET FORUMS. Also, There is a direct open line between the pro players and the developers stop saying there isn't. That is just a lie. The fact you mentioned psione, and not Zoevia simply means you have no clue about how the forums work. You say- "Having psione collect feedback that they ultimately ignore is not enough." As far as blizzard not looking for community feedback. What?!! They don't ignore feedback they often ask for it. They regularly adjust based off of it. Let me cite some examples. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/17779094/call-to-action-january-29-balance-testing-1-29-2015http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18184815/call-to-action-march-5-balance-testing-3-5-2015http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18483058/call-to-action-march-26-balance-testing-3-26-2015 The liberator was included for diversity in play. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/19451932/introducing-the-liberator-5-27-2015What is the purpose of the beta if not for feedback...lol? Saying that blizzard never reads or replies to posts. Here let me help you. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/search?f=post&a=Zoevia&sort=time Hes replying every single business day to posts. It is painfully obvious you do not know how to use the forums on battlenet. And to say that blizzard killed starcraft 2. Lol. They listened to people like you who just want a clash between big armies and nothing happens until 12 to 20 minutes in a game. Its boring to watch, its boring to play. LOTV is a lot funner than starbow, brood war, and sc2bw. See this is the thing, nearly everything you want I hate. You want double economy to break zerg? You want more deathball play? You don't like active units and abilities because its less a-moving. Go play brood war if you want to play brood war. (You're going to lose a lot to players that use the abilities). You keep complaining that you cannot sit for 20 minutes in a game then a-move your mech army and that you have abilities. That feels not like starcraft because abilities are new according to you. I think the reason sc2 dies, is because you want something that is not part of RTS, and you do not look at forums and listen to what blizzard has to say. I enjoy legacy of the void and i enjoy the diversity and strategies that are being introduced to the game. I can see how a better player has a higher tendency to win. I love cyclone micro. Sorry you don't enjoy microing the cyclones. I think its a lot funner than goliaths were. Starcraft was never designed that way to deathball until hots, sorry man. All these claims that blizzard isn't listening to you. Maybe because you do not like what the majority of us do and you have ignored the forums.
okay man if you're gonna disregard what i have to say and just make stuff up and put words in my mouth i won't bother replying to you anymore, i didn't even mention mech...at all in any post so far. I said defensive play. I never said amove deathball and again you're putting words in my mouth so take your anger elsewhere because I frankly don't care for it.
|
Yap agree completely, won´t change a damn thing though. Sadly.
edit: I also agree about the new units. Disruptor and ravager are fun, the cyclone is terrible as is the liberator and i mean
the pure design.
|
On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.)
Why does that matter? If a company has 10 games and a staff of 100 people, why should we expect less support than a company with 1 game and 10 staff?
And if the company with 10 games only has 50 staff, maybe they need more staff if they can't support their games?
In the end the company making the game is responsibly solely for supporting the game they make. It doesn't matter how many employees they have, how much money they make, how many games they make and what genre the games they make are in. Companies are responsible for supporting their products and we as consumers should hold them to it, not make excuses for why they can't support their games.
Imagine if car companies could escape responsibly for honoring warranties by stating they make too many models, don't have enough staff, or that that they make trucks not cars and because those are different genres they don't need to honor the warranty.
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company.
|
On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.) Why does that matter? If a company has 10 games and a staff of 100 people, why should we expect less support than a company with 1 game and 10 staff? And if the company with 10 games only has 50 staff, maybe they need more staff if they can't support their games? In the end the company making the game is responsibly solely for supporting the game they make. It doesn't matter how many employees they have, how much money they make, how many games they make and what genre the games they make are in. Companies are responsible for supporting their products and we as consumers should hold them to it, not make excuses for why they can't support their games. Imagine if you car companies could escape responsibly for honoring warranties by stating they make too many models, don't have enough staff, or that that they make trucks not cars and because those are different genres they don't need to honor the warranty. None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company.
thank you...you have a way with words mate.
|
Russian Federation1607 Posts
I only want to say again that i want to give Blizzard money to make SC2 multiplayer better, somehow, someway. And i believe i'm not only one.
You can call it multiplayer 2.0 or anyway. Just some way to pay the money for Blizzard to make multiplayer better.
|
On June 09 2015 05:55 Jenia6109 wrote:
I only want to say again that i want to give Blizzard money to make SC2 multiplater better, somehow, someway. And i believe i'm not only one.
You can call it multiplayer 2.0 or anyway. Just some way to pay the money for Blizzard to make multiplayer better.
Well fuck yea dude... I'm with you on this.
Well said.
|
I believe in Miracles, but if one doesn't happen, I will just go back to the Miracle I grew up with, Brood War.
|
sort of still off discussion. but the ultra is now a pretty stupid unit. all that armor makes it impossible to soft counter
|
On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company.
when Valve and Riot make a game for the genre that is shrivelling faster than the dot-eating-maze game genre did in the mid 1980s... lemme know.
there is no money in the RTS genre any longer. which is why C&C and AoE are long gone... despite being big money makers in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
relative to what other RTS games are being made today .. SC2 is a good product.
in October of 2013 EA promised to start working on a new C&C game on the heels of shuttering Victory Games. 
how's that goin' ?
http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/29/5043244/ea-cancels-free-to-play-command-and-conquer
"We believe that Command & Conquer is a powerful franchise with huge potential and a great history, and we are determined to get the best game made as soon as possible. To that end, we have already begun looking at a number of alternatives to get the game back on track."
lol. what a bunch of liars. say whatever it takes to calm the storm and then fade into nothing.
http://steamcharts.com/app/244160
280 people
http://steamcharts.com/app/290790
60 people
http://steamcharts.com/app/231430
2816 people
http://steamcharts.com/app/214950
5,600 people.
ATVI is a $14 billion dollar company. even adding 1 zero onto all these #s here will not be enough to capture ATVIs future interest.
Currently, the #2 RTS game (not made by Blizzard) measured by active online multiplayer community is RA2. Run on chinese servers sort of equivalent to GameRanger.
Guess who the lead designer of RA2 is?
if your defense is that every RTS game made by every one other than Blizzard is not good enough then you basically do not have a genre if its relying on 1 company. what you have is an anomaly, not a genre.
my prediction is in 5 years that new incarnations of Pacman Championship Edition generate more revenue than every RTS game combined in 2020.
if Blizzard stops making RTS games after LotV I do not blame them one bit. I'll just keep playing the old RTS games as i play NHL '94 hockey.
Relative to all the other guys making RTS games . and relative to the potential revenue an RTS game can produce.. Blizzard is doing a great job giving us really cool stuff to play.
|
On June 09 2015 09:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. when Valve and Riot make a game for the genre that is shrivelling faster than the dot-eating-maze game genre did in the mid 1980s... lemme know. there is no money in the RTS genre any longer. which is why C&C and AoE are long gone... despite being big money makers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. relative to what other RTS games are being made today .. SC2 is a good product. in October of 2013 EA promised to start working on a new C&C game on the heels of shuttering Victory Games. how's that goin' ? http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/29/5043244/ea-cancels-free-to-play-command-and-conquer" We believe that Command & Conquer is a powerful franchise with huge potential and a great history, and we are determined to get the best game made as soon as possible. To that end, we have already begun looking at a number of alternatives to get the game back on track." lol. what a bunch of liars. say whatever it takes to calm the storm and then fade into nothing. http://steamcharts.com/app/244160280 people http://steamcharts.com/app/29079060 people http://steamcharts.com/app/2314302816 people http://steamcharts.com/app/2149505,600 people. ATVI is a $14 billion dollar company. even adding 1 zero onto all these #s here will not be enough to capture ATVIs future interest. Currently, the #2 RTS game (not made by Blizzard) measured by active online multiplayer community is RA2. Run on chinese servers sort of equivalent to GameRanger. Guess who the lead designer of RA2 is? if your defense is that every RTS game made by every one other than Blizzard is not good enough then you basically do not have a genre if its relying on 1 company. what you have is an anomaly, not a genre. my prediction is in 5 years that new incarnations of Pacman Championship Edition generate more revenue than every RTS game combined in 2020. if Blizzard stops making RTS games after LotV I do not blame them one bit. I'll just keep playing the old RTS games as i play NHL '94 hockey. Relative to all the other guys making RTS games . and relative to the potential revenue an RTS game can produce.. Blizzard is doing a great job giving us really cool stuff to play.
You make a very good point, Blizzard is giving us a sequel to one of their best games they ever made and I will say about the community that I think the way we act some time is pretty fucking sad and horrible, myself included. Just bitching and whining about the majority of things Blizzard is doing wrong, never THANK YOU for this fucking awesome game that you never had to make. At least that is what the majority of TL threads had devolved into, my fucking self included, I've been a major troll at times. So yes, you are making a very valid point and what is probably a good reminder for us all to be grateful there is any sc2 and potentially and amazing 3rd installment.
I even think maybe you should just post this and create another thread to jog peoples memories, that we are entitled to NOTHING.
AND also understand that everyone here is passionate about sc2 becoming something really big and amazing to play and in the esport scene. I imagine 100% of comments are directed toward trying to make that goal happen, and the frustration with whatever else people perceive to be occurring. I imagine you want to the game to be amazing as well. <3
|
On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.)
That is just freaking asinine and you don't know what you're talking about. In a large company, software developers, engineers, managers work in separate teams and on different projects. The manpower doesn't matter as long as there's enough and well-organized.
|
If you are seriously going to shit on Blizzard because of the success of companies making bobas... Valve and Riot just took something that was made possible by Blizzard and capitalized on it. At best you can argue that Blizzard lost on marketing and business decisions, not as games developers. I don't think anyone can even argue that Blizzard is to RTS / MMO / ARPG as Valve is to FPS. Blizzard just so happened to pick two genres (RTS and ARPG) with the most upkeep and the least profitable long term business models, I fucking love Warcraft 3 and Broodwar, but that experience would probably be tainted if you shoehorned in the same level of free-to-play micro-transaction pay-to-win optional-aesthetic bull shit that every god damn genre is infested with nowadays. Blizzard's made a bunch of questionable decisions in the last decade but nothing as egregious as what's happening to the gaming industry as a whole.
Also every post complaining about Blizzard is "I played hundreds if not thousands of hours of this game, it sucks, 0/10, irresponsible, worst company ever". If only you could apply the same criticism to other game developers.
|
On June 09 2015 09:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. when Valve and Riot make a game for the genre that is shrivelling faster than the dot-eating-maze game genre did in the mid 1980s... lemme know. there is no money in the RTS genre any longer. which is why C&C and AoE are long gone... despite being big money makers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. relative to what other RTS games are being made today .. SC2 is a good product. ...if Blizzard stops making RTS games after LotV I do not blame them one bit. I'll just keep playing the old RTS games as i play NHL '94 hockey.
Using relative logic, Empire Total War is both the best and worst game of it's genre, since it is the only game that represents that time period in it's genre.
So what does that tell us? Absolutely nothing. But you can compare games to each other, even if they are in different genres because the point of a game is to have fun. The more fun you have, the more likely you'll play a game. How does SC2 stack up to LoL and CS? Not very well then, according to what games gets played.
SC2 had a chance to re-invigorate the RTS scene and draw people into it. In turn, that would have spawned more games in the genre. Do you remember the MLG events? The excitement and passion? SC2 was #1 and growing, every other game was second fiddle in E-Sports. That was because SC2 was really fun to play at the time.
Yeah it passed us by, but that is because the game started to suck. The beautiful gameplay and asymmetrical balance of Ling/Bling/Muta versus Marine/Tank/Medivac was destroyed by Infestors, and then by Swarm Hosts and Widow Mines. Blizzard had a pot of gold in their lap but they totally mismanaged it. But we should have expected it. Like the universe, BW's success was not due to intelligent design. BW simply happened to be balanced when things like Muta-stacking that Blizzard never intended to happen, happened and balanced the game.
So Blizzard never really knew exactly how to make SC2 into a great game. And they never wanted to listen to the community. And that's too bad, because community ideas have saved other games, and in this case, spawned the very games that Blizzard is competing with at the top of E-Sports, DOTA (and it's clones) and Counter-Strike.
Blizzard can get better at communicating with the community and designing their games. Simply saying "well no one else is making any other good RTS" isn't an excuse for them not to get better.
The saddest part about this whole argument is that I am the one carrying the positive message here. I'm the one saying that Blizzard could do something great, something amazing, and that an RTS game could be the premier E-Sport that everyone wants to play.
You're saying the genre is dead and no one wants to make an RTS, therefore we should be happy with SC2.
You see what you have, I see what is possible.
|
On June 09 2015 14:18 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 09:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. when Valve and Riot make a game for the genre that is shrivelling faster than the dot-eating-maze game genre did in the mid 1980s... lemme know. there is no money in the RTS genre any longer. which is why C&C and AoE are long gone... despite being big money makers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. relative to what other RTS games are being made today .. SC2 is a good product. ...if Blizzard stops making RTS games after LotV I do not blame them one bit. I'll just keep playing the old RTS games as i play NHL '94 hockey. You see what you have, I see what is possible.
Unfortunately it seems like (to millions of prospecting game developers, entrepreneurs and gamers) what's possible is a vast expansion of the currently popular gaming genres into even more dominant forces. I would like to see you find anyone who honestly thinks that RTS can beat mobile cow clickers in revenue generation. People never consider that Blizzard could have just pulled the plug on the whole RTS enterprise after seeing the muted responses to Heart of the Swarm, what's possible isn't just all positive sunshine and rainbows you know.
|
I really hope Blizzard continues to ignore the community.
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
The reason why the dichotomy feels real to a lot of people is because in the current LotV build lower base play has been weakened relative to HotS. This is a GOOD thing, you shouldn't be able to do two "all ins" off two base and then win from a compositional advantage STILL on two base (see whichever Myungsik game that was on expedition lost).
Also, guess what, if neither player expands nobody becomes disadvantaged (ignoring any racial imbalances). That is still true.
The new units (mostly) feel awesome to control, the 12 worker start is about a million times better. I've tried playing HotS since I got beta and only managed when friends wanted to play team games. I was there for the skype conversation.
|
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
The issue with Double Harvest isn't that its a bad economy, but rather that its been "advertised" as the big savior. For some reason people think that its the economy that magically made it possible to split your army around the map while still having lots of actions in BW. In reality though, the main reason was how units and abiliites were designed.
my prediction is in 5 years that new incarnations of Pacman Championship Edition generate more revenue than every RTS game combined in 2020.
I disagree. I think the RTS genere has lots of potential, but developers are just making the complete wrong type of games. For some reason they all think that an RTS either should contain on of two elements:
(1) Lots of base-building/repetitive actions
(2) Very slow-paced (unresponsive units, slow movement).
I believe that when developers realize that there is no target group for that type of design, but that alot of people actually enjoy some of the "high skilled" moments of Sc2 (such as bio vs Muta/bling) that the genre can grow again.
My theory is the majority of the (competetive and casual) target group simply wants to control units and have fun with that. Microing the units should feel simple and should have almost an infinitely high skillcap while containing lots of counterplay. Riot for example does a good job of allowing players to focus on the champion vs champion interactions without having to worry too much about "macro", "timings" or "hardcounters" (at least not if your a "casual player").
Stuff like I didn't look at my army for 2 seconds cus I was building a supply depot and therefore lost my whole army and thus the game should get removed in a future RTS. Also scenarios like I build X 10 seconds to late and therefore instalost to my opponents timing attack/cheese is not a great thing for an esport and is terrible for the casual experience.
In my opinion, the MOBA genre is a lot closer to its "maximum potential" than the RTS genre. The developers working on Riot and Dota (Icefrog I guess) have been more competent than the RTS-developers which has improved the genre faster. I guess that and the F2P-business model which has created a proper incentive structure for developers to make enjoyable multiplayer games (rather than singleplayer games).
Just the fact that Starcraft 2 is by far the best RTS despite all of the obvious flaws should indicate how good a proper RTS game with competent developers could be.
|
On June 09 2015 18:31 Para199x wrote:
I really hope Blizzard continues to ignore the community.
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
This is just in. 100 games are enough to both balance a game and let people adjust to it. There are literally 100 games of LOTV or more being played every hour. And sometimes it takes weeks before new strategies are made up and new play styles are adopted.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On June 09 2015 19:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
The issue with Double Harvest isn't that its a bad economy, but rather that its been "advertised" as the big savior. For some reason people think that its the economy that magically made it possible to split your army around the map while still having lots of actions in BW. In reality though, the main reason was how units and abiliites were designed. Show nested quote +
my prediction is in 5 years that new incarnations of Pacman Championship Edition generate more revenue than every RTS game combined in 2020.
I disagree. I think the RTS genere has lots of potential, but developers are just making the complete wrong type of games. For some reason they all think that an RTS either should contain on of two elements: (1) Lots of base-building/repetitive actions (2) Very slow-paced (unresponsive units, slow movement). I believe that when developers realize that there is no target group for that type of design, but that alot of people actually enjoy some of the "high skilled" moments of Sc2 (such as bio vs Muta/bling) that the genre can grow again. My theory is the majority of the (competetive and casual) target group simply wants to control units and have fun with that. Microing the units should feel simple and should have almost an infinitely high skillcap while containing lots of counterplay. Riot for example does a good job of allowing players to focus on the champion vs champion interactions without having to worry too much about "macro", "timings" or "hardcounters" (at least not if your a "casual player"). Stuff like I didn't look at my army for 2 seconds cus I was building a supply depot and therefore lost my whole army and thus the game should get removed in a future RTS. Also scenarios like I build X 10 seconds to late and therefore instalost to my opponents timing attack/cheese is not a great thing for an esport and is terrible for the casual experience. In my opinion, the MOBA genre is a lot closer to its "maximum potential" than the RTS genre. The developers working on Riot and Dota (Icefrog I guess) have been more competent than the RTS-developers which has improved the genre faster. I guess that and the F2P-business model which has created a proper incentive structure for developers to make enjoyable multiplayer games (rather than singleplayer games). Just the fact that Starcraft 2 is by far the best RTS despite all of the obvious flaws should indicate how good a proper RTS game with competent developers could be.
Every single word is true. Nothing really matters if the game is fun to play and constantly evolving and supported by developers. This "casual" thing must be bringed into starcraft or we will die as a competitive game due to the lack of casual players who watch streams, visit tournaments and buy some skins from time to time.
Blizzard can do 24 workers start and 5 minerals per base if they want to, noone will care.
But right now it fills like a job. Mutas accidentally flied into 3 Thors while you were injecting for 1,5 seconds -> lose. Bio was stormed while you were queuing new unints for 1 second -> lose. Games must be easier to play and harder to master nowadays. But new Distruptor, Lurker and Liberator design are just saying: "We will fucking destroy your anus if you allow yourself being only 99% concentrated on the game for 0.5 seconds. And you can't do anything after that due to the lack of comeback mechanics! We want you to SUFFER for every single mistake you make!" While DotA is just "Make yourself comfortable in this massage chair while we are serving this cool beer for you"
|
On June 09 2015 14:18 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 09:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. when Valve and Riot make a game for the genre that is shrivelling faster than the dot-eating-maze game genre did in the mid 1980s... lemme know. there is no money in the RTS genre any longer. which is why C&C and AoE are long gone... despite being big money makers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. relative to what other RTS games are being made today .. SC2 is a good product. ...if Blizzard stops making RTS games after LotV I do not blame them one bit. I'll just keep playing the old RTS games as i play NHL '94 hockey. Using relative logic, Empire Total War is both the best and worst game of it's genre, since it is the only game that represents that time period in it's genre. So what does that tell us? Absolutely nothing. But you can compare games to each other, even if they are in different genres because the point of a game is to have fun. The more fun you have, the more likely you'll play a game. How does SC2 stack up to LoL and CS? Not very well then, according to what games gets played. SC2 had a chance to re-invigorate the RTS scene and draw people into it. In turn, that would have spawned more games in the genre. Do you remember the MLG events? The excitement and passion? SC2 was #1 and growing, every other game was second fiddle in E-Sports. That was because SC2 was really fun to play at the time. Yeah it passed us by, but that is because the game started to suck. The beautiful gameplay and asymmetrical balance of Ling/Bling/Muta versus Marine/Tank/Medivac was destroyed by Infestors, and then by Swarm Hosts and Widow Mines. Blizzard had a pot of gold in their lap but they totally mismanaged it. But we should have expected it. Like the universe, BW's success was not due to intelligent design. BW simply happened to be balanced when things like Muta-stacking that Blizzard never intended to happen, happened and balanced the game. So Blizzard never really knew exactly how to make SC2 into a great game. And they never wanted to listen to the community. And that's too bad, because community ideas have saved other games, and in this case, spawned the very games that Blizzard is competing with at the top of E-Sports, DOTA (and it's clones) and Counter-Strike. Blizzard can get better at communicating with the community and designing their games. Simply saying "well no one else is making any other good RTS" isn't an excuse for them not to get better. The saddest part about this whole argument is that I am the one carrying the positive message here. I'm the one saying that Blizzard could do something great, something amazing, and that an RTS game could be the premier E-Sport that everyone wants to play. You're saying the genre is dead and no one wants to make an RTS, therefore we should be happy with SC2. You see what you have, I see what is possible.
Geez, you honestly believe that SC2 is not the top dog in esports industry due to infestors, swarm hosts and widow mines. You need to get out of your room.
|
On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.) Why does that matter? If a company has 10 games and a staff of 100 people, why should we expect less support than a company with 1 game and 10 staff? And if the company with 10 games only has 50 staff, maybe they need more staff if they can't support their games? In the end the company making the game is responsibly solely for supporting the game they make. It doesn't matter how many employees they have, how much money they make, how many games they make and what genre the games they make are in. Companies are responsible for supporting their products and we as consumers should hold them to it, not make excuses for why they can't support their games. Imagine if car companies could escape responsibly for honoring warranties by stating they make too many models, don't have enough staff, or that that they make trucks not cars and because those are different genres they don't need to honor the warranty. None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company.
You misunderstood my point. I can see a comparison between Valve and Blizzard. Because they are actually at the same spot. Dealing with a lot of different games and aspect in gaming community (Platforms / Sell / Games / Even now hardware for valve). But Riot do have one game to deal with.
And of course, if you want to talk about utopia, all companies should have the same interest and investement in every aspect of their market at everytime (And I'm pretty sure they do want to). The fact is, they can't. Blizzard and Valve doesn't have 1 billion people working in their companies. Money is not unlimited. So when you have more franchise it gets harder to have them all always on top. Because market changes, community expect new things in every game, people inside leaving/coming or just changing projects. If you can't understand that there is to much factors to take account of, to run perfectly all those games. Well, you underestimate the amount of work they have to deal with.
I'm not a Blizzard blind fanboy. I'm just tired of seeing people try to compare things that can't be compare. Riot is not a new company anymore. This is a HUGE thing now. So they can easily focus all of the team on THE ONLY ONE project. Easier to coordonate and to make it evolving.
I don't say either that Riot don't have good ideas. Of course, they have. Just stop thinking that everything is at the same level.
Riot 1 game 1000 employees.
Blizzard 6 games 4.700 employees
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
