|
Canata, one of SPL commentator, had an interview with xportsnews and was asked to make a statement about LotV.
FYI, I translated it - wondering if you agree with his opinion.
Here`s what he said:
"Still it needs much improvement. The point is, compared with HotS, it becomes more harder to control your units due to additional active skills. This is quite retrograde, considering games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm, which has recently risen for its 'easy to learn, hard to master' strategy.
LotV is, as I said, going against this current. For instance, entry barrier has been raised; every unit has its active skill and base resources deplete so quickly. Though I`m quite sure that Blizz has its own plan, I must say that a loved the game is the game that ordinary people can easily enjoy.
'LotV is too difficult now, even for me, a former pro-gamer.' "
http://game.xportsnews.com/?ac=article_view&entry_id=604805
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Koreans complain about its 'too-fast-pace' and shoddiness.
Here`s the summary: "they`re doing cursory treatment by attaching active everywhere"
Furthermore, IMO, this topic is not only for novice; even some progamers made a statement that it requires too much physical, cause its too fast, saying "there`s no room for strategy. So far we`ve been doing hard and fast enough, even in WoL and HotS."
we definetely need a change, otherwise it`ll be a APM showcase, not a strategy game.
|
kind of ironic that this is a common attitude nowadays given so many people's initial complaints that sc2 was too dumbed down compared to bw...
|
Perfectly sums up the direction of LOTV.
|
On July 08 2015 13:43 -NegativeZero- wrote:
kind of ironic that this is a common attitude nowadays given so many people's initial complaints that sc2 was too dumbed down compared to bw...
There were plenty of idiots complaining that, yes, but the main legitimate complaint was that it greatly flattened the skill curve, by making the difference between different points near the skill ceiling harder to differentiate.
I agree with his point. The whole game feels too fast in general. Not just with active abilities and bases running out, but those make the game speed itself feel much less tolerable. They make the basic pace of the game feel more obviously out of line with what I feel most comfortable with. I wish it were bumped down slightly. BW was roughly 7 to 9 percent slower, depending on your metric for determining that. A "normal" game speed that was calibrated to be about halfway between the old "fast" and "faster" would be much more friendly for casuals.
|
imo the LOTV developers are making the game with eSport spectators in mind more so than any of their other games. As someone who hasn't played Starcraft (or any game) what so ever and still enjoys watching Starcraft, I can appreciate what they are doing. From a players perspective... well... let's just say I'm happy I'm not playing. I can see Canata's point. Makes perfect sense. I don't think about the casual gamer much I suppose and never really thought about it like that.
|
P is just very bad designed on LOTV active everywhere, developpers need to work really hard on redesigning/balancing protoss on LOTV, the actual direction of the race is really bad (around disruptor +wp or mass adept).
|
On July 08 2015 15:27 G5 wrote:
I don't think about the casual gamer much I suppose and never really thought about it like that.
Without the casual gamer, the game will die. People have to start somewhere.
People fall in love with sports when they play it, not by watching other people on TV. And if the sport isn't fun to play, then people won't play it, won't fall in love with it, and won't want to do it as a profession.
Basketball, football, ect are all easy to play, but incredibly difficult to master. SC2 needs to follow that lead.
|
Casual gamers aren't the market for 1v1 ranked ladder is the thing. Blizzard is not -- and should not -- design 1v1 ladder around the casual gamer. The 1v1 ladder is for the competitive folk. For casual gamers, there's archon mode and the arcade (which I hope gets revamped).
|
On July 08 2015 16:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 15:27 G5 wrote:
I don't think about the casual gamer much I suppose and never really thought about it like that. Without the casual gamer, the game will die. People have to start somewhere. People fall in love with sports when they play it, not by watching other people on TV. And if the sport isn't fun to play, then people won't play it, won't fall in love with it, and won't want to do it as a profession. Basketball, football, ect are all easy to play, but incredibly difficult to master. SC2 needs to follow that lead.
Yes, this is true. LotV is supposed to bring in more (casual) players to increase the playerbase, and through that the overall popularity of SC2. I fear what is really going to happen is very few new players actually pick up the game, and old players stop playing because they somehow don't like it.
|
Canata is an intelligent man, it seems. I think we need more opinions from Koreans on LotV because right now they are pretty much only negative if I'm not mistaken?
|
On July 08 2015 16:21 mrjpark wrote:
Casual gamers aren't the market for 1v1 ranked ladder is the thing. Blizzard is not -- and should not -- design 1v1 ladder around the casual gamer. The 1v1 ladder is for the competitive folk. For casual gamers, there's archon mode and the arcade (which I hope gets revamped).
This is a steaming pile of bullshit and I really hope that Blizzard is not adopting this attitude. 1v1 is perfectly fine for any level of play and the only thing deterring casuals from laddering are the endless stupid comments about how it is so competitive and about the idiotic concept of ladder anxiety. Just stop.
|
My two cents:
The effect of these changes - moving towards a more micro-heavy, fast-paced type of Starcraft, ultimately serve to raise the skill cap of the game.
- For pros, there are a plethora of new and exciting skills that are fun to watch and hard to learn to play well.
- For lower levels though, I don't believe the effect is inherently negative. Two main reasons:
1. MOBAs are VERY micro-intensive. While the types of active abilities in LotV are not necessarily exactly the same as MOBAs (no skillshots, etc), they both appeal to a similar kind of playstyle relying heavily on mouse accuracy.
2. In HotS overall, Macro is more important than Micro. This isn't necessarily something that I have hard data on, but in my opinion and observation, the majority of lower level games are determined by who builds more stuff faster, and who builds the stuff which counters the other stuff. Now this isn't universally true - marine splits vs banelings in tvz is a nice counter example - but I feel confident saying that as a whole, HotS prioritizes macro. This means that it is much harder for good micro to turn around a game; not that it is impossible, but that the game has to be very close in order to be determined by control.
BW had a very different prioritization. There was a much higher difficulty and ceiling of control in that game thanks to things like the control group mechanics, and this means that compared to WoL/HotS, BW had a much higher emphasis on micro. The point of this is not BW worship, but rather to explain a potential line of thought that Blizzard may be following.
I think what we will see in lower LotV ladder, is that players with bad macro, but very good micro, are more able to be successful. Good control allows you to get a lot more value out of your units and counterbalance a macro deficit.
I think comments like Canata's are based on a misconception that has developed over the course of WoL/HotS - that professionals should be able to play sc2 with near-perfect control. This was never the case in BW. Jaedong, Bisu: a rare handful of players reached levels of micro and control skill unequaled by even other professionals, and this is a part of why the idea of a "bonjwa" was possible in BW but never in SC2. Canata could probably still wreck 99% of the players out there, but the fact that the control ceiling is so much higher than even him just means that we will see more exciting games. It means more upsets of "better" players in exciting games where control really matters. It sets the stage for incredibly powerful strategies that are unimaginably difficult to execute, and it creates the opportunity for a kind of strategic tradeoff that pros didn't have to deal with in sc2: Ease of execution vs. Strength of strat. When was the last time you heard a commentator of a pro game wonder whether a player could actually execute a strategy effectively? Fewer build order wins; more asymmetrical but close games.
Lastly, the effect of this on viewers:
Control is Visible. Strangely, raising the control ceiling for players actually lowers the challenge and threshold for viewer understanding. MOBAs are so watchable for exactly this reason. When a player pulls off a difficult skillshot or combo in a MOBA, audiences can see it, and it is far more immediate and rewarding than watching a player with perfect macro building a lot of units, never getting supply-blocked, and just winning.
An example: Proxy Adepts. The ceiling on a strategy like this is unimaginably high. It isn't necessarily OP or unbalanced, but there exists the potential for a player with BW levels of micro to attack with five control groups of adepts and absolutely destroy an opponent. Isn't that so much interesting, so much less "coin-flippy", and so much more fun than proxy zealot?
|
1. MOBAs are VERY micro-intensive. While the types of active abilities in LotV are not necessarily exactly the same as MOBAs (no skillshots, etc), they both appeal to a similar kind of playstyle relying heavily on mouse accuracy.
I don't really agree here. I think the type of micro that appeals to both players are stuff like
- Casting impactful abilities (e.g. Psy Storm)
- Skillshots and dodging them
- Splitting units
- Focus fire and move back focus fired' units when they have low HP
To sum up, I think the interactions MOBA players will enjoy in an RTS are those where player X does an action and player Y can respond with movement-based micro.
On the other hand, I think spam-based abilities such as Immortal Shield and too a large extent Reaper bombs, fit better into those who want mechanics for the sake of mechanics.
LOTV is kinda in the middle here. It has added some micro interactions that MOBA players will enjoy, and also some mechanical-based abilities, which I unfortunately think will make the game less enjoyable for the former target group.
Further, the extreme reliance on build orders (if you have the wrong build order you die) is also not something that is liked by the MOBA-segment.
|
As an aging gamer (31) I'm inclined to agree with him. I was master in WOL, and I'm master in HOTS, but if this game becomes more intense \ demanding than it already is I might just start looking for another game to play competitively. I've played different RTS games since I was 16 and always been pretty good, but I'm not sure if I can actually be bothered if the game gets alot harder which it seems it will. The major part of what makes SC2 fun to me is the competitiveness \ skills required, but there can be too much of a good thing.
If it feels like me and the pros play a totally different game, then I feel that Blizzard has lost me as a demographic and I'm pretty hardcore when it comes to games. I can only imagine how it would feel for a newbie\casual to enter SC2 at this stage, or the LOTV stage. It would be like me picking up gymnastics @ age 31.
I understand the direction (fun to watch), I appreciate the solution to it being harder (Archaon-mode), but it's starting to feel borderline sadistic to maintain "high" level in 1v1 without resorting to cheeses.
|
Finally someone meamingful has said it.
|
On July 08 2015 16:49 Vexon wrote:
My two cents:
The effect of these changes - moving towards a more micro-heavy, fast-paced type of Starcraft, ultimately serve to raise the skill cap of the game.
- For pros, there are a plethora of new and exciting skills that are fun to watch and hard to learn to play well.
- For lower levels though, I don't believe the effect is inherently negative. Two main reasons:
1. MOBAs are VERY micro-intensive. While the types of active abilities in LotV are not necessarily exactly the same as MOBAs (no skillshots, etc), they both appeal to a similar kind of playstyle relying heavily on mouse accuracy.
2. In HotS overall, Macro is more important than Micro. This isn't necessarily something that I have hard data on, but in my opinion and observation, the majority of lower level games are determined by who builds more stuff faster, and who builds the stuff which counters the other stuff. Now this isn't universally true - marine splits vs banelings in tvz is a nice counter example - but I feel confident saying that as a whole, HotS prioritizes macro. This means that it is much harder for good micro to turn around a game; not that it is impossible, but that the game has to be very close in order to be determined by control.
BW had a very different prioritization. There was a much higher difficulty and ceiling of control in that game thanks to things like the control group mechanics, and this means that compared to WoL/HotS, BW had a much higher emphasis on micro. The point of this is not BW worship, but rather to explain a potential line of thought that Blizzard may be following.
I think what we will see in lower LotV ladder, is that players with bad macro, but very good micro, are more able to be successful. Good control allows you to get a lot more value out of your units and counterbalance a macro deficit.
I think comments like Canata's are based on a misconception that has developed over the course of WoL/HotS - that professionals should be able to play sc2 with near-perfect control. This was never the case in BW. Jaedong, Bisu: a rare handful of players reached levels of micro and control skill unequaled by even other professionals, and this is a part of why the idea of a "bonjwa" was possible in BW but never in SC2. Canata could probably still wreck 99% of the players out there, but the fact that the control ceiling is so much higher than even him just means that we will see more exciting games. It means more upsets of "better" players in exciting games where control really matters. It sets the stage for incredibly powerful strategies that are unimaginably difficult to execute, and it creates the opportunity for a kind of strategic tradeoff that pros didn't have to deal with in sc2: Ease of execution vs. Strength of strat. When was the last time you heard a commentator of a pro game wonder whether a player could actually execute a strategy effectively? Fewer build order wins; more asymmetrical but close games.
Lastly, the effect of this on viewers:
Control is Visible. Strangely, raising the control ceiling for players actually lowers the challenge and threshold for viewer understanding. MOBAs are so watchable for exactly this reason. When a player pulls off a difficult skillshot or combo in a MOBA, audiences can see it, and it is far more immediate and rewarding than watching a player with perfect macro building a lot of units, never getting supply-blocked, and just winning.
An example: Proxy Adepts. The ceiling on a strategy like this is unimaginably high. It isn't necessarily OP or unbalanced, but there exists the potential for a player with BW levels of micro to attack with five control groups of adepts and absolutely destroy an opponent. Isn't that so much interesting, so much less "coin-flippy", and so much more fun than proxy zealot?
I had the opposite view before reading your post, but you actually have a really solid point IMO. Maybe once the game has been practiced at the highest level for a while we can judge - I think it will be very entertaining, if nothing else.
Although I don't think it'll be nice for the people in Masters/GM who aren't pro to suddenly feel like their play is far sloppier. Comes with the territory of a "new game" though.
|
david kims reponse: thats why we have archon mode for casual players like Canata to play, the future of starcraft is that in order to play a 1v1 you need to players to spam click abilities!
|
lolll
'LotV is too difficult now, even for me, a former pro-gamer.'
|
This is my opinion, posted it on reddit a few weeks back. Got 252upvotes, so I think Canata doesn't stand alone with his opinion:
Blizzard is making the game overly complicated to the point that even a seasoned player like myself doesn't really want to play it anymore.
The game needs clear counterrelations between a-moveable units and then there needs to be micro-possibilities to turn those relations around. That makes for an easy to understand, easy to utilize, hard to master and deep playing experience.
Currently, we are getting too much of hard to understand, hard to utilize unit interactions. Even if they end up deep, they are not ending up fun or implementable into weaker players' gameplans.
This is not a big problem for a top5% veteran like me, or a real professional. But it makes for a tedious playing experience and it is a huge problem for the lower 50% of the playerbase who cannot really utilize the game's content. Not to mention the 1000% potential playerbase, who turned back on starcraft's frustrating, overly fast and complex playing experience.
Blizzard is wildly guessing around in the beta about what to do with the game, instead of trying robust suggestions from the community. I fear, it's beyond broken at this point with blizzard not willing to reconsider their own ideas.
|
Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
