|
It seems to me that an alarming amount of people are confusing macro mechanics with macro.
Broodwar: Had no macro mechanics like Inject/MULE/Chrono. Yet nobody is calling it a MOBA.
Defining Characteristics of RTS:
-- Centered around army control. A single hero without an army is a ridiculous concept in an RTS. A hero may or may not exist, but there is always an army.
-- Production is usually controlled. In StarCraft, you have nothing without expansions, workers, and production structures. Harassment has a huge impact on the outcome of the game.
-- Real-time.
Defining Characteristics of a MOBA:
-- Centered around controlling a single hero per player.
-- X NPC mobs usually spawned over Y seconds. Production is typically not controlled.
-- Real-time.
So can we please stop saying that StarCraft will suddenly be a MOBA if it loses macro mechanics or they become automated?
User was warned for this post
EDIT: Sorry for forgetting the no memes rule. It was an attempt at humor to lighten up the atmosphere in what could be a heated topic. Image removed.
|
LotV as it is right now lost all Starcraft identity and is trying to melt with the MOBA crowd to get the E-sports scene at least 400% bigger by focusing on the perspective of the viewers (LoL guys and newcomers that had never played Age of Empires, old C&C nor Brood war, or know anything about what made strategy games interesting since they were not even born when they were ¨a big hit¨) AKA constant fights determined by spells and unit control, it doesn't really matter if your army consists of 1 hero or a segmentation of units that work as 1, do you see this concept?
This is the wrong choice by blizzard and i'm really happy because they deserve to learn it the hard way, this League of legends blind hypnosis and stereotype of E-sports and online gaming as whole needs to stop and it will, because it's nothing but a symptom from our society and how dumbed down, submissive, hero worshipper and overall obsessed with consuming, materialism and therefore hedonist it's become,
I don't blame them for trying to capitalize on it though, but i thought HotS was made for that purpose, i know my post seems quit out there but everyone smart enough knows this, it's a real shame..
|
On September 13 2015 16:45 Herecomestrouble wrote:
LotV as it is right now lost all Starcraft identity and is trying to melt with the MOBA crowd to get the E-sports scene at least 400% bigger by focusing on the perspective of the viewers (LoL guys and newcomers that had never played Age of Empires, old C&C nor Brood war, or know anything about what made strategy games interesting since they were not even born when they were ¨a big hit¨) AKA constant fights determined by spells and unit control, it doesn't really matter if your army consists of 1 hero or a segmentation of units that work as 1, do you see this concept?
This is the wrong choice by blizzard and i'm really happy because they deserve to learn it the hard way, this League of legends blind hypnosis and stereotype of E-sports and online gaming as whole needs to stop and it will, because it's nothing but a symptom from our society and how dumbed down, submissive, hero worshipper and overall obsessed with consuming, materialism and therefore hedonist it's become,
I don't blame them for trying to capitalize on it though, but i thought HotS was made for that purpose, i know my post seems quit out there but everyone smart enough knows this, it's a real shame..
No one is saying starcraft will become a moba. It is being made to appeal to moba players be becoming easier
|
I think at least part of the problem is that with the "improved" game engine and pathing, Starcraft II has to have more "moba" like element (unit with active skills for example) to give the game more micro potential.
It is kinda unavoidable imo. If we don't want the game to end with just marco up then F2+A, then that's something we need to accept.
|
On September 13 2015 17:14 Yiome wrote:
I think at least part of the problem is that with the "improved" game engine and pathing, Starcraft II has to have more "moba" like element (unit with active skills for example) to give the game more micro potential.
It is kinda unavoidable imo. If we don't want the game to end with just marco up then F2+A, then that's something we need to accept.
except we already have that...
|
On September 13 2015 16:45 Herecomestrouble wrote:
LotV as it is right now lost all Starcraft identity and is trying to melt with the MOBA crowd to get the E-sports scene at least 400% bigger by focusing on the perspective of the viewers (LoL guys and newcomers that had never played Age of Empires, old C&C nor Brood war, or know anything about what made strategy games interesting since they were not even born when they were ¨a big hit¨) AKA constant fights determined by spells and unit control, it doesn't really matter if your army consists of 1 hero or a segmentation of units that work as 1, do you see this concept?
This is the wrong choice by blizzard and i'm really happy because they deserve to learn it the hard way, this League of legends blind hypnosis and stereotype of E-sports and online gaming as whole needs to stop and it will, because it's nothing but a symptom from our society and how dumbed down, submissive, hero worshipper and overall obsessed with consuming, materialism and therefore hedonist it's become,
I don't blame them for trying to capitalize on it though, but i thought HotS was made for that purpose, i know my post seems quit out there but everyone smart enough knows this, it's a real shame..
By your logic, BW was catered to the MOBA crowd. Spells and unit control had a huge effect on the game, perhaps even more so than in SC2 as you could get much more out of your units with good control compared to SC2 where usually the person who masses more units wins until you get to the highest levels. In BW, you could potentially defeat a player who had a significantly larger army (because he focused on macro a bit more) with superior enough unit control. This is because BW had much more powerful spells and efficiency cap per unit than SC2 between Plague, stacked Storms, Lockdown, Scarabs, etc, and versatile core units that scaled with micro and positional skill.
|
Legacy of the Legends
When SC2 becomes LoL
=P
|
On September 13 2015 17:17 LongShot27 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2015 17:14 Yiome wrote:
I think at least part of the problem is that with the "improved" game engine and pathing, Starcraft II has to have more "moba" like element (unit with active skills for example) to give the game more micro potential.
It is kinda unavoidable imo. If we don't want the game to end with just marco up then F2+A, then that's something we need to accept. except we already have that...
It's only like that if you want it to be...You can choose to play in the way that you want to play and is most fun for you. I don't know why people say "I am forced to do x and y boring rote thing to improve" when that's the case in any competitive activity. People should just play how they want to and accept that they won't be GM.
|
On September 14 2015 09:17 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2015 17:17 LongShot27 wrote:On September 13 2015 17:14 Yiome wrote:
I think at least part of the problem is that with the "improved" game engine and pathing, Starcraft II has to have more "moba" like element (unit with active skills for example) to give the game more micro potential.
It is kinda unavoidable imo. If we don't want the game to end with just marco up then F2+A, then that's something we need to accept. except we already have that... It's only like that if you want it to be...You can choose to play in the way that you want to play and is most fun for you. I don't know why people say "I am forced to do x and y boring rote thing to improve" when that's the case in any competitive activity. People should just play how they want to and accept that they won't be GM.
If you don't mind losing, i guess it works. But i'm pretty sure people want to win when they play games.
|
The sentiment of the people saying sc2 is getting easier is fascinating. Have you actually played yet? The new units more than make up for the macro mechanics simplification.
|
By the logic of those saying that more action in SC2 would make it a Moba, I should say that the game is currently a city building then.
|
On September 14 2015 09:56 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 09:17 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:On September 13 2015 17:17 LongShot27 wrote:On September 13 2015 17:14 Yiome wrote:
I think at least part of the problem is that with the "improved" game engine and pathing, Starcraft II has to have more "moba" like element (unit with active skills for example) to give the game more micro potential.
It is kinda unavoidable imo. If we don't want the game to end with just marco up then F2+A, then that's something we need to accept. except we already have that... It's only like that if you want it to be...You can choose to play in the way that you want to play and is most fun for you. I don't know why people say "I am forced to do x and y boring rote thing to improve" when that's the case in any competitive activity. People should just play how they want to and accept that they won't be GM. If you don't mind losing, i guess it works. But i'm pretty sure people want to win when they play games.
No, you can win, you just won't improve. You can focus on winning because of your micro, for instance, which isn't an efficient way to improve but is fun. People are reluctant to do something like this for some reason.
|
Oh man, the threads are going down and down in quality every time.
I'm not talking about the OP tho, a lot of people talk abot how LotV is more MOBA this and more MOBA that.
Thats bullshit in so many levels.
First of all, they are going to be alike, get over it, they are built in very similar engines, the tipe of view, the way units are controled, the way the maps are layout, I mean for fucks sake MOBAs come from RTS custom maps, so THEY ARE GOING TO BE VERY ALIKE.
However just become they remove or add things doesn't make thins more or less MOBA, unit control has been a part of RTS since ever, unit abilities too, the way both macro and micro are adressed are differently each game but that has nothing to do with a game being more or less MOBA-ish.
As an example in AoE, units had very low micro potential and except for catapults and cannons (wich were capable of targeting ground) and monks (that could heal and convert units) units didn't had any skills at all they could only move and attack.
On the other end of the spectrum you have a game like WC3, where pretty much every unit has an ability, wheter they were passive or activated, they required mana or not, units had a lot of skills, abilities and spells.
They are both RTS as much as any RTS out there.
As far as macro goes is the same, every game had its own way of tackling things, from the very interface-flawed attention-requiring SC:BW, to the semi automated games like CC, to middle ground like AoE games, there where games where macro came in very different form. All of them were RTS on their own.
ALL. OF. THEM.
So please stop saying all this shit about mobas, a few less macro boosters and a few more activated skills on units don't turn SC2 into more or less of MOBA, it doesn't.
And for those who think these changes are to catter to casuals and shit, stop being so delusional please, a few changes in where the attention is needed is not going to make the game more interesting for people who play MOBAs, the two styles will still be heaps and leaps different from each other, so do a favor to yourselves and to others and stop spewing that toxic bullshit.
Please
Thank you.
|
The sissy type individuals they are trying to get won't jump on to the SC2 e-sports wagon, they'll still stick with their easy games.
SC2 needs to become harder, in fact it needs to be harder than BW was, so people will watch it because they know what the pros are doing is not possible to do even remotely by them, they know you need 8+ hours a day practice to be that good.
With SC2 NO ONE IS WATCHING because they can do everything the pros can do. PRO's don't win on mechanics, they win with experience, they know the better build order for the certain situation.
SC2 has already had 15% marco and 85% micro, so everyone can do macro, some can't do micro and usually people who don't play 20+ hours a week don't keep up with the meta and build orders and stuff to be able to win and perform great.
Otherwise in terms of mechanics, SC2 is absurdly easy, everyone can cast 6-7 storms, everyone can cast 6-7 force fields, everyone can press the stim button for marines, its a very easy game already!
Now Blizzard are trying to dumb it down to like 10yo level and lower, they are trying to reach to the sissy crowd and 10yo crowd. But the sissy crowd will stick to their easy games that rely 70% on luck, 20% build order and 10% tactic with ZERO skill, they won't switch to a RTS like SC2.
10yo kids still won't buy SC2, because they will be too busy playing COD.
|
execept that no one is saying SC2 will be MOBA lol. For me automated macro mechanics is a bit alright. What pisses me off is other people asking for more automation like that one ridiculous thread wanting an Auto Queue. Like..seriously..
|
On September 14 2015 10:11 Lexender wrote:
Oh man, the threads are going down and down in quality every time.
I'm not talking about the OP tho, a lot of people talk abot how LotV is more MOBA this and more MOBA that.
Thats bullshit in so many levels.
First of all, they are going to be alike, get over it, they are built in very similar engines, the tipe of view, the way units are controled, the way the maps are layout, I mean for fucks sake MOBAs come from RTS custom maps, so THEY ARE GOING TO BE VERY ALIKE.
Thank you.
Thank you sir, I have stated this in multiple threads and I'm glad to hear someone else say it.
Moba came from rts, makes sense that sc2 would be moba like... or more accurately moba is rts like.
Done.
Nice thread btw. Not that peoples opinions about whether or not sc2 is turning into a moba should annoy me... but they do.
|
|
|
fun fact: the original Dota was described (at least to me when I first heard of it) as an RTS with a twist. the moba genre did not yet exist.
what is an RTS?
when I think of RTS I think: "a turn-based strategy game where the duration of any given turn is so short that the human mind cannot process it in its entirety"
i.e. any game that can be described as being a strategy game and progresses sequentally in extremely tiny increments (say, 60 times per second).
the question then is: "what is a strategy game?"
how much strategy must a game have to be considered a strategy game?
mobas have elements of strategy, they are not completely tactical (although that depends on how big a tactical maneouver can be considered to be) so are they strategy games? if they are then they most certainly are RTS's since they most certainly are real-time.
is tic-tac-toe a strategy game? no? why not? because it is a solved game? because there is a very limited number of moves?
othello is also a solved game with a fairly limited number of moves, does that mean the layman player does not use strategical thinking to win an othello game? so is it a strategy game or not?
if tic-tac-toe and othello are strategy games, then they can be turned into real-time strategy games (RTS) by only allowing turns to take an extremely small amount of time and forcing players to pass their turn if they didn't make a move in time, effectively making it so that 99.999% of all moves will be passed but to the players it will feel like they are allowed to play however many moves they want in a row, but the opponent can play at the same time. (i.e. both players are simoultaneously making as many moves as they can in real time).
does the game need to focus on strategy to be a strategy game? what if a game has extremely deep strategical elements but focus on something completely different?
I think trying to pigeonhole RTS's as some specific type of game is not only bound to fail but for all practical purposes completely irrelevant for arguing anything other than semantics.
|
Reminder that difficulty doesn't equate to depth.
BW was great because it had amazing depth, not because it was difficult.
Sometimes the two are necessarily combined in a mechanic, sometimes they're mutually exclusive, yes, but there's no causal relation between the two other than what they necessarily share with the mechanic in question.
Optimal game design is maximum depth with minimal difficulty. The variety of games optimally come about when a designer chooses between things that have more of both, less of both, or an ambiguous amount of either.
|
But macro mechanics got not really simplified. The auto mechanics were simpler for bronce but more difficult for gold and upwards because you could miss timings.
Also the changes they want to make are good except the mule change. Mules in lategame are still too strong even if mules block each other while gathering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
