Keep in mind that from classic SC1 to BW, Terran gained 3 abilities through medic, Protoss gained 4 abilities through Dark Archon and Corsair. I honestly don't see why there is such a negative backlash. Miss a single dark swarm in ZvP/T over the course of a whole game? You just lost your third / fourth and lost. Bad siege / unsiege in TvP or mine laying? Dead. Botch 1 storm vs 3-5 hatch hydra push? Dead.
Honestly people's expectations are way different than it was years ago. 10 years ago "having fun" in BW included making a spawning pool at any time between 6-9 workers and making some lings, or trying to get a tank sieged up in time vs Protoss. Now everybody EXPECTS people to have build orders and timings and know the unit compositions to even play 1v1 "properly". Truth is you CAN just go into 1v1 with out know anything about the game, but you would be a bronze noob just like a E/D- noob on iccup. It's not just a case of Blizzard wanting to structure how players have fun, it's the community as well. Nobody even wants to talk to the Bronze - Gold noobie, referring them instead to "just learn to macro" or "learn a build order".
Now people whine when they miss a forcefield, or fail to notice a harassing unit on their minimap, or lost to an extremely specific build order counter. In BW you forget to sim city your natural on any number of specific maps properly as terran or protoss and just die to 6 lings. People are just more keen to blame it on the active abilities rather than the passive because it's much more visual and they attribute their loses to it, when nothing fundamentally changed about RTS's for decades. Call me a weirdo but I actually found the active abilities in BW more rewarding than SC2 because they are arguably MORE DIFFICULT to use due to lack of smart casting.
"the goal of StarCraft II is not necessarily about making the most widely played game out there, but it is to make the best game that we can."
As long as they have this goal, I am happy. A good game is not necessarily the game I like the most. But a good game might offers greater rewards for getting better at it.
The more I read of these updates, the less convinced I am they'll be able to do any major changes with the expansion. They're so locked in on the mentality that they're right with everything they do, that any changes where they give in to community pressure is a badly shoehorned in compromise. I think this quote summarise it quite nicely:
As many of us on the team expected, this proved to be a tough topic. We knew going in there would be clear disagreements, as we’ve been seeing in many places—including individual pro feedback—that the majority of the Korean community disagrees with our goals for Void, while many outside of Korea strongly agree with our direction.
I really haven't seen any people strongly agree with the direction they're taking. At most I see people going "stop complaining, there's still lots of time left of beta". When pros disagree with their design goals, that are essentially created for the esport-crowd, you'd better listen instead of dismissing the people that has the deepest knowledge and most playtime; if even they dislike artificially making the game harder, it sure as hell won't bring in new players. They really need to be more flexible with their design goals, because this rigidity and pride has been a problem since WoL.
@Caihead: I honestly don't see why you expect players that probably do not play BW (anymore) to want things to be like BW. These "justify things by showing how they were in broodwar and noone complaint there"-arguments are getting so tiring. I couldn't give any fuck about how others liked what was in broodwar. What I give a fuck about is how my game plays right now and what conclusion I can draw for the future developments of this game. And excessive amounts of active abilities is something I don't like in STARCRAFT 2. I already don't enjoy playing with 2 different active caster units (e.g. Infestor+Viper, or ghost+raven) in one army, even less 3 (infestor+viper+queen) and I can't see my fun in STARCRAFT 2 increase by also having to implement active skills on more non-caster units into my play.
I don't mind their goals with LoTV but having a faster pace due to econ and more active abilities just removes the small strategy that existed in bronze to plat. The S part from RTS is being phased out I feel and will be exclusively for pros. I won't watch pros play a video game I don't play myself. E-sport isn't at the level of physical sports in that way.
big different between a spell such as forcefield to, which are used in atleast two matchups which the race relies upon 100% versus medic restoration which are only used vs ensnare for example
I do not want to sound like a jerkass, but there was some clear reason why BW was a way more acclaimed and played game than WC3, and i find difficoult how anyone could think that moving the micro vs macro bar toward the micro, like WC3 did,
There is a reason MOBA's are more popular and that's because people prefer micro. The people who like building supply depots are by far in the minority. And BW had required more APM than sc2, so your example doens't make a whole lot of sense.
Reason because MOBA are more populare it's because of the sense of immersion and personification that comes from playing a single strong dude ala classic RPG, fused togheter with a sense of progression from levelling up and buying equips/unlocking skills ecc. Basically, it's the charm of RPGs, witch are way more popular than RTSs. On top of that you have the "even playfield" of having a fresh start in each game in stark contrast with pvp in most other RPGs where the one with more hour of play has better equip and it's going to wipe your ass. Micro has absolutely no relevance in MOBAs popularity.
And APM =/= micro, actually mostly the opposite since the vast majority of the APMs are used to keep up in production or exanding behind the push. Actual combat does not require all that much APMs, unless you start packing each and every unit with actives, like the way SC2 did. In fact, average APM was higher in BW than WC3. Witch is one other point to the similaritys between SC2 and WC3, contrasted with the different approach of BW.
TL,DR: most of the APM goes to macro, of witch SC2 in lacking compared to BW. And it is my opinion that is one of reason why it's success is dwindling.
Even when the changes are something I don't like, I do like that Blizzard has a backbone when it comes to decisiveness, and it makes me feel everything will work out in the end.
2007scape fell apart because everything was done by community vote, so now it has broken minigames and implemented splashing (where you cast spells for 0 damage and farm xp while AFK) while other cool features like quests and other content are pushed aside since a lot of people just want enhanced PvP with more experience gain. I'd rather just go with Blizzard's vision for the game, offer feedback on the updates, and hope they take the advice, but ultimately leave the fate of the game to the people responsible for making it.
Things that seem OP right now, people will figure out builds to beat them. And there's only been 3 balance updates so far - there'll definitely be more as Blizzard puts more people into the beta. Everything is going to be ok.
Interesting read. I wouldt still love it if they at least confirmed they had a somewhat unified game design goal as far as units and skills go. They still keep contradicting which way they want to go on a unit to unit basis. If they want to do it that way its fine, but its a little annoying when they will/wont make a change and declare that the reasoning is that its good or bad for the game. Then days later they change something that directly contradicts that.
It leaves me feeling confused and a little put off since they cant seem to figure out which way they want things. Just be clear its on a unit and skill basis and I think most people would understand, but I truly am tired of reading about how they dont want to remove player agency one week while implementing a change that does exactly that the next.
"I'll believe it when I see it." I seent it.. We all seent it. A benefit of flying us out there under NDA is they can show the community members, people you hopefully trust, what they are working on. Then we can come back and say "things are looking awesome" without Blizzard having to put out unfinished information. THEY DIDN'T ASK US TO DO/SAY NICE THINGS. I'm doing it of my own volition because I think it's a benefit to our community if you guys know that good things are happening. As I said the other day, Blizzard doesn't like to announce things without them being all but ready to launch. It does more harm than good when there are delays and it is a mistake they hate making. TL;DR: We weren't just told about good things happening. We saw tangible evidence.
A call to action for players:
The last thing I would like to say, ALL OF YOU, including PROS - if you have Beta access you need to start playing Legacy of the Void. WCS is over for 2015 and there are very few big events left. Participate in the online cups that run Legacy of the Void (full transparency: I run one and I'm not saying this just to get more participation). David Kim and his fellow developers watch those events to gather data. They need you to make a meta, break the meta, and build a new one. So do the team and our community a favor and start grinding ladder games, playing in tournaments, using the new units and helping to make LotV the game we all want it to be.
The dev team for SC2 is huge (not including the even bigger support the game receives from other Blizzard divisions).
That's actually a relief. I remember WoL at one point had like 40 people working on it, I thought since SC2 isn't the most profitable Blizzard game it would have a few dozen people maintaining it. Combined with:
The dev team will remain 100% SC2 after LotV launches
I have high hopes for the future of the beta. And of course the game.
You will all shit your fucking pants before the end of 2015
Hopefully the season ending around Blizzcon has something to do with this. The announcement of LotV was earthshattering. If they can build half that hype I'll preorder on the spot (assuming they don't do some sort of flash release).
And:
Blizzard has heard your feedback and is doing a FUCK TON more than "hearing you and considering it."
I guess NDA's make sense there. We're not the most positive bunch, but if this is true, then I'll take back anything I spoke ill of Blizz when it comes to this beta.
EDIT:
On July 19 2015 03:08 TiberiusAk wrote: A call to action for players:
The last thing I would like to say, ALL OF YOU, including PROS - if you have Beta access you need to start playing Legacy of the Void. WCS is over for 2015 and there are very few big events left. Participate in the online cups that run Legacy of the Void (full transparency: I run one and I'm not saying this just to get more participation). David Kim and his fellow developers watch those events to gather data. They need you to make a meta, break the meta, and build a new one. So do the team and our community a favor and start grinding ladder games, playing in tournaments, using the new units and helping to make LotV the game we all want it to be.
This is also very true. And it's not limited to pros. Joe Q. Protoss in Silver can contribute to the meta if he's so inclined.
All you have to do is ask yourself, "how can I stop X from happening?" or "how can I make Y happen?". If it's bad, it's beta, nobody gives a shit. If it's good, well now you're winning games. 10 second auto-turrets with higher damage? Use backdoor harassment with Ravens! Cyclone no longer shoots up? Sounds like a job for double proxy stargate. There's not really any builds set in stone because of how much the game changes from patch to patch, so this is the perfect time to go back to the roots of "strategy" and start thinking on your feet instead of following a build.
On July 18 2015 17:42 Dekalinder wrote: Am i the only one who is a bit disappointed in Blizz still having this archaic approach of wanting more micro and simplier macro in a game that is supposed to be about strategy and not APM? I do not want to sound like a jerkass, but there was some clear reason why BW was a way more acclaimed and played game than WC3, and i find difficoult how anyone could think that moving the micro vs macro bar toward the micro, like WC3 did, is going to benefit the game. We need less fancy explosion and more strategic depth in our goddamn strategy game. I'm thinking that people, including blizz, focus exclusively on units, forgetting that there is supposed to be an entire other half about the game, named structures. I know it's too late for this but how about adding 1 less unit to each race and instead coming up with a new interesting building that adds depth to the macro/base defense/positional warfare? Someone already inconsciusly come to that exact conclusion seeing how much support had pseudo-structure units like the combat barricade et similia. Unfortunatly it too late to hope for this kind of shift in mentality, since they already committed to this unit bloat we have but it would have been awesome to see it.
You do sound like a jerkass though. Warcraft 3 was a success and fairly popular in Europe, China and South Korea. It died off because of League of Legends and Dota 2 being released and becoming popular. Ergo: even more micro intensive games, that are even 10x MORE popular than Starcraft and Starcraft BW. So you can even safely assume, that by focussing on unit interactions more than macro, makes the game more popular. I mean there is a clear reason why LoL is more popular than Sc2.
On July 18 2015 17:42 Dekalinder wrote: Am i the only one who is a bit disappointed in Blizz still having this archaic approach of wanting more micro and simplier macro in a game that is supposed to be about strategy and not APM? I do not want to sound like a jerkass, but there was some clear reason why BW was a way more acclaimed and played game than WC3, and i find difficoult how anyone could think that moving the micro vs macro bar toward the micro, like WC3 did, is going to benefit the game. We need less fancy explosion and more strategic depth in our goddamn strategy game. I'm thinking that people, including blizz, focus exclusively on units, forgetting that there is supposed to be an entire other half about the game, named structures. I know it's too late for this but how about adding 1 less unit to each race and instead coming up with a new interesting building that adds depth to the macro/base defense/positional warfare? Someone already inconsciusly come to that exact conclusion seeing how much support had pseudo-structure units like the combat barricade et similia. Unfortunatly it too late to hope for this kind of shift in mentality, since they already committed to this unit bloat we have but it would have been awesome to see it.
You do sound like a jerkass though. Warcraft 3 was a success and fairly popular in Europe, China and South Korea. It died off because of League of Legends and Dota 2 being released and becoming popular. Ergo: even more micro intensive games, that are even 10x MORE popular than Starcraft and Starcraft BW. So you can even safely assume, that by focussing on unit interactions more than macro, makes the game more popular. I mean there is a clear reason why LoL is more popular than Sc2.
I'm pretty sure the reason why LoL is more popular than SC2 has more dimensions than "there's more micro involved".
On July 18 2015 17:42 Dekalinder wrote: Am i the only one who is a bit disappointed in Blizz still having this archaic approach of wanting more micro and simplier macro in a game that is supposed to be about strategy and not APM? I do not want to sound like a jerkass, but there was some clear reason why BW was a way more acclaimed and played game than WC3, and i find difficoult how anyone could think that moving the micro vs macro bar toward the micro, like WC3 did, is going to benefit the game. We need less fancy explosion and more strategic depth in our goddamn strategy game. I'm thinking that people, including blizz, focus exclusively on units, forgetting that there is supposed to be an entire other half about the game, named structures. I know it's too late for this but how about adding 1 less unit to each race and instead coming up with a new interesting building that adds depth to the macro/base defense/positional warfare? Someone already inconsciusly come to that exact conclusion seeing how much support had pseudo-structure units like the combat barricade et similia. Unfortunatly it too late to hope for this kind of shift in mentality, since they already committed to this unit bloat we have but it would have been awesome to see it.
You do sound like a jerkass though. Warcraft 3 was a success and fairly popular in Europe, China and South Korea. It died off because of League of Legends and Dota 2 being released and becoming popular. Ergo: even more micro intensive games, that are even 10x MORE popular than Starcraft and Starcraft BW. So you can even safely assume, that by focussing on unit interactions more than macro, makes the game more popular. I mean there is a clear reason why LoL is more popular than Sc2.
I'm pretty sure the reason why LoL is more popular than SC2 has more dimensions than "there's more micro involved".
it was sarcasm. I just wanted to show how simplified reasoning leads to wrong conclusions.
On July 18 2015 17:42 Dekalinder wrote: Am i the only one who is a bit disappointed in Blizz still having this archaic approach of wanting more micro and simplier macro in a game that is supposed to be about strategy and not APM? I do not want to sound like a jerkass, but there was some clear reason why BW was a way more acclaimed and played game than WC3, and i find difficoult how anyone could think that moving the micro vs macro bar toward the micro, like WC3 did, is going to benefit the game. We need less fancy explosion and more strategic depth in our goddamn strategy game. I'm thinking that people, including blizz, focus exclusively on units, forgetting that there is supposed to be an entire other half about the game, named structures. I know it's too late for this but how about adding 1 less unit to each race and instead coming up with a new interesting building that adds depth to the macro/base defense/positional warfare? Someone already inconsciusly come to that exact conclusion seeing how much support had pseudo-structure units like the combat barricade et similia. Unfortunatly it too late to hope for this kind of shift in mentality, since they already committed to this unit bloat we have but it would have been awesome to see it.
You do sound like a jerkass though. Warcraft 3 was a success and fairly popular in Europe, China and South Korea. It died off because of League of Legends and Dota 2 being released and becoming popular. Ergo: even more micro intensive games, that are even 10x MORE popular than Starcraft and Starcraft BW. So you can even safely assume, that by focussing on unit interactions more than macro, makes the game more popular. I mean there is a clear reason why LoL is more popular than Sc2.
Meh, I think the two main differences why Mobas are so popular in comparison to RTS games are that first you don't have to switch screens and all that stuff. You have one guy and you watch that guy and micro that guy. And second that like 50% of what you theoretically have to do in current RTS games is selecting units/buldings - and the most efficient way for that seems to be to cycle and spam selections 24/7, so it is probably like 90% or so. 90% actions that don't even change anything and which aren't inherently fun.
By only making one guy to control and only some few menues Moba get around all of that stuff. That is the brilliance of them. They took the RTS gernre and stripped it of everything that was clunky and taxing to control by letting automazation and NPCs take over those parts. What's left is you playing the fun parts of RTS - battling - with minimal control-requirements.
Competing with that is not going to happen for SC2. You'd need a completely new approach to control and the game design would have to become much more linear, so that you couldn't be attacked where you aren't looking.
Micro has absolutely no relevance in MOBAs popularity.
If that theory was correct then you would find a strong correlation between the most played LOL champs and the ones that "looks" the coolest.
However, that's not what you find. Instead, if you look at the data you'll discover that all of the most played champions in League are the biggest playmakers (aka the champs with outplay potential - we would call that micro in an RTS).
This strongly indicates that people enjoy the outplay-part (otherwise they wouldn't play those types of champs).
EDIT: On Heroes of the Storm reddit, the biggest (and perhaps only) playmaker in the game was also voted as the most fun assasin to play. http://strawpoll.me/4957391/r
If we look at Sc2, what type of playstyle is the most well-loved and enjoyed? Bio play and preferably against Muta/bling. That playstyle is extremely microintensive with a high skillcap. This also indicates that it's not the mere act of building suply depots of other buildings that people enjoy.
Meh, I think the two main differences why Mobas are so popular in comparison to RTS games are that first you don't have to switch screens and all that stuff. You have one guy and you watch that guy and micro that guy. And second that like 50% of what you theoretically have to do in current RTS games is selecting units/buldings - and the most efficient way for that seems to be to cycle and spam selections 24/7, so it is probably like 90% or so. 90% actions that don't even change anything and which aren't inherently fun.
I agree, but I also think the learning barrier matters too. It's not like MOBAs do not have a high learning barrier either, but it's more forgiving than of that in Sc2. If you don't know a correct build in a MOBA, you just get behind while you frequently will instadie in Sc2.
At the end of the day, MOBA's allow players to focus on the part of the game they find fun (the control/micro)-element.
Meh, I think the two main differences why Mobas are so popular in comparison to RTS games are that first you don't have to switch screens and all that stuff. You have one guy and you watch that guy and micro that guy. And second that like 50% of what you theoretically have to do in current RTS games is selecting units/buldings - and the most efficient way for that seems to be to cycle and spam selections 24/7, so it is probably like 90% or so. 90% actions that don't even change anything and which aren't inherently fun.
I agree, but I also think the learning barrier matters too. It's not like MOBAs do not have a high learning barrier either, but it's more forgiving than of that in Sc2. If you don't know a correct build in a MOBA, you just get behind while you frequently will instadie in Sc2.
At the end of the day, MOBA's allow players to focus on the part of the game they find fun (the control/micro)-element.
Of course, the games still need to be very good designed to be as popular as they are. Especially to compete with other mobas. But I think regardless how well you would design SC2 with the current point as start, you couldn't really start to compete with the top-Mobas. You'd maybe even have to innovate a completely new way how to select, how to give orders and so on.
EPT
