|
On September 14 2015 10:29 BillGates wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
This is so much alpha-male grade-A bullshit right here. Are you trying to impress somebody?
Any competitive game can rise to the level of E-Sport, but it takes a certain something. Accessibility, strategic possibilities, challenge and skill ceiling, it's probably a mixture of all of them. If SC2 declines where BW succeeded, it's because it's missing something, and it isn't this uber-macho image of impossible difficulty. SC2's problem stems from how much work you have to do for games that often culminate in sub-60-second fights. Too many chores, not enough ways to posit yourself strategically and set yourself apart through unit control and tactics. You don't make a competitive game into an E-Sport by raising the barrier of entry to impossible levels, that's how you kill your game in the most efficient manner possible. If a new players tries out a game and finds out they have no chance of doing even halfway decent, odds are they move onto a game that doesn't treat them like shit for existing. They move onto something more accessible.
The best E-Sport isn't a game that's impossible to break into, it's the game with the most room for players to distinguish themselves. But it's also so much more than that. Pardon us for trying to figure out how SC2 might solve the problem.
|
Wonder how many of these elite RTS masters that are crying about SC2 becoming more like a MOBA have gone up to GM from plat/dia/masters suddenly due to the extra ease of the game  . The sad truth is MOBA games require a lot more utilisation of information. SC2 is way more physically demanding and always will be, that is the difference. I have played up to high masters EU in SC2 as Terran, and up to platinum in LoL, there is no danger of SC2 becoming more like a moba. The people claiming as much cannot be any higher than diamond because they aren't even aware what a blatant lack of understanding they are showing through these inane posts.
|
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..
Very well said. LotV could of continued to build upon HotS, but now we get basically a new RTS that has hardly any time to develop let alone balance. At least there will be HotS, a game that had 5 years to get where it is. And that aint a perfect game either, very disappointed DK favoured Terran (again) to effectively take-away a tech path from Toss (HT opening). Im loving DOW 1 again tbh.
|
i personally think mobas are fucking horrible and hate playing them
that said, the dick waggling over trying to define RTS vs MOBA is hilarious and juvenile. SC2 players have overgrown egos about starcraft and have to rationalize their own failures in the game by claiming starcraft is the hardest/most demanding game in existence and that people play more popular games (read: MOBAs) because they're bad and casual
there is no right definition of a game genre, and yes, as others have stated RTS and MOBA are very closely related. to someone who plays neither they could look like almost the same type of game. the fact that you spam APM macroing 3 bases of production doesn't make you a hot shit elite gamer. you like RTS, cool, so do i, we all play starcraft. there's literally no need to redirect your insecurity about the game to MOBAs and people who like those games. it's irrelevant and makes you look like a child
if SC gets more MOBAlike it's because, guess what, people like that kind of gameplay and game developers follow trends because the point of releasing a video game is to entertain people. but until blizzard removes minerals and gas and production, no, we are not "becoming a MOBA", please shut up
|
SC2 is not really becoming like a MOBA, but it's straying more towards being WC3-like, where micro is king and macro is an afterthought. Problem is, SC2 wasn't really built for that type of gameplay - battles are over in seconds, and they've focused on harass units over and over. The game they designed doesn't match the direction they're going; if they want to go for more or less only micro and "cool" battles, they still need to rebalance the game from the bottom up if they hope to make micro look even a tiny bit as interesting or impressive as in WC3.
Just automating macro will do nothing but emphasize the problems the game already has with battles as it'll be the only thing left to focus on, they'd need to slow things down and diminish the effect of splash to make it more micro-focused, and I'm not even sure that would be sensible considering how WC3 lost out to DOTA.
Removing all macro mechanics would be the best thing they could do to make the game go back more towards its roots. Currently there's no hard decisions in regards to macro; zerg can spam more drones in the first 10 minutes of a game than most zergs had in a long game in BW, mules diminishes the value of SCVs so much pulling them is almost a no-brainer, and protoss can boost their economy back in a jiffy. In short, there's very little impact in making decisions about your economy since the macro mechanics will provide a band-aid if you make a bad one. If instead players knew that building an expansion, cutting workers or losing them had much more of an impact, good macro would be more highly regarded and interesting to watch. It's much too forgiving now, and they're making it even more so.
|
On September 14 2015 12:25 Roblin wrote:
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.
Well the rts crowd always was a bit elitist about what a rts is and if it you didn't build a base, managed resources and units, then it needed to find a new genre name for itself. You could see that in action when they announced that Warcraft 3 would have rpg elements.
And thats why the currently most popular esports genre is now called moba and not rts.
But I can't complain I was upset about the hero leveling as well, because i liked to zerg, wish I would have known about last hitting.
|
On September 15 2015 08:54 brickrd wrote:
i personally think mobas are fucking horrible and hate playing them
that said, the dick waggling over trying to define RTS vs MOBA is hilarious and juvenile. SC2 players have overgrown egos about starcraft and have to rationalize their own failures in the game by claiming starcraft is the hardest/most demanding game in existence and that people play more popular games (read: MOBAs) because they're bad and casual
there is no right definition of a game genre, and yes, as others have stated RTS and MOBA are very closely related. to someone who plays neither they could look like almost the same type of game. the fact that you spam APM macroing 3 bases of production doesn't make you a hot shit elite gamer. you like RTS, cool, so do i, we all play starcraft. there's literally no need to redirect your insecurity about the game to MOBAs and people who like those games. it's irrelevant and makes you look like a child
if SC gets more MOBAlike it's because, guess what, people like that kind of gameplay and game developers follow trends because the point of releasing a video game is to entertain people. but until blizzard removes minerals and gas and production, no, we are not "becoming a MOBA", please shut up
I think if there isn't a deifintion for RTS already then there SHOULD be one, because with how loose the definition is as people keep using it, Smite, CSGO, Call of Duty, Etc. would all be RTS games.
people confuse Isometric perspective with RTS, which is silly, IMO.
|
On September 17 2015 01:14 Arbiter Matiego wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2015 08:54 brickrd wrote:
i personally think mobas are fucking horrible and hate playing them
that said, the dick waggling over trying to define RTS vs MOBA is hilarious and juvenile. SC2 players have overgrown egos about starcraft and have to rationalize their own failures in the game by claiming starcraft is the hardest/most demanding game in existence and that people play more popular games (read: MOBAs) because they're bad and casual
there is no right definition of a game genre, and yes, as others have stated RTS and MOBA are very closely related. to someone who plays neither they could look like almost the same type of game. the fact that you spam APM macroing 3 bases of production doesn't make you a hot shit elite gamer. you like RTS, cool, so do i, we all play starcraft. there's literally no need to redirect your insecurity about the game to MOBAs and people who like those games. it's irrelevant and makes you look like a child
if SC gets more MOBAlike it's because, guess what, people like that kind of gameplay and game developers follow trends because the point of releasing a video game is to entertain people. but until blizzard removes minerals and gas and production, no, we are not "becoming a MOBA", please shut up I think if there isn't a deifintion for RTS already then there SHOULD be one, because with how loose the definition is as people keep using it, Smite, CSGO, Call of Duty, Etc. would all be RTS games. people confuse Isometric perspective with RTS, which is silly, IMO.
I think there will never be one, the genre is too wide to do so, I mean the name means Real Time Strategy, a lot of games have strategy and are played in real time, so what defines an RTS? I don't think there is anything really, its just a convention, but I guess thats because games never really are only one genre, an FPS can also be an RPG (like fallout) for example, just like WC3 had RPG element while also being an RTS.
As other have said saying that RTS is a "pure" genre is just stupid and elitist, games (specially modern ones) take inspiration from very different genres and very different games, thats what makes them good, it makes them Deep instead of flat an 1-dimensional. Starcraft can't be a "pure" RTS, you would have to take away all micro (wich aparently makes the game MOBA-like) and have SC2 be only about making buildings and units but not controlling them, and EVEN THEN I wouldn't be suprised if there where elements of other games genres in the game.
|
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..
I don't understand why streamlining the game to attract new players is a bad thing. Unless you want to form some SC2 cult you dedicate yourself to for years... Korean pro gamers actually play all kinds of games. Do you want to see RTS succeed or fizzle out? Blizzard is the only company that makes good RTS, and they need to profit from that. They need new blood playing their games. How can you expect a company to not go for profits? To not go for new players? You know whatever Blizzard does there's still gona be room to master the game and dominate other players. If blizzard can get new players playing RTS this is a very good thing, I do not see the problem.
|
I agree with OP. Macro Mechanics and Macro are separate. The difference is BW had so many more little things you had to baby sit. No Rally points, no MBS, Only 12 per units per control group, and just constant fighting the pathing of most every unit was inherently more difficult.
That said i do disagree that SC2 with out macro mechanics becomes a Moba purely micro. I've played a decent amount of Moba Hots, and i have to say my micro has probably improved because of it. I feel as thought i click more accurately, and precisely now.
However I feel that my unit micro in Starcraft will be mostly just as horrid as its always been. Sure i may be able to control a single infestor better. Controlling 3 or 4 control groups of units effectively in an even game, forget about it.
MOBA micro does not equal Starcraft Micro, Moba micro at least to me seems far easier.
|
People need to see the difference between fun and just winning. This game has always been about winning. But fun? ehh... not really. The macro mechanics - they're not fun. They help you get ahead if you master them. But the game itself, for new players - who are not complete egomaniacs over winning, they don't see the appeal of playing these worthless mechanics.
I had a friend playing this game, I was trying to teach him. He kept saying to me: "An RTS should be about strategy, not about how fast you can click.". Well he quit the game. Blizzard had a chance, they failed because of these worthless mechanics leftover from an old interface. I don't think it has a place in modern RTS. All this excessive clickyness does is drive people off. If the clicking is fun - such as you're doing interactive things like harass, attack, ... build units. Well okay then. But a rote click like creep spread or... inject or... MULE. This should be automated, there is no excuse for why, in this day, it's still not automated. So many new players just don't like it, and I don't think old players actually like it I think they're lost in this dreamworld of wanting to dominate the enemy and forgot what it means to have fun.
|
On September 14 2015 10:29 BillGates wrote:
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.
What are you talking about? Are you saying pro's don't have better mechanics than you? Or that there have never been dominating players due to their mechanics? You're calling sc easy first and then saying people won't play it because it's to hard. I don't get what you are trying to say.
But thanks I never knew I had GM mechanics. I only need to work on my strats. Thanks!
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On September 17 2015 01:25 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2015 01:14 Arbiter Matiego wrote:On September 15 2015 08:54 brickrd wrote:
i personally think mobas are fucking horrible and hate playing them
that said, the dick waggling over trying to define RTS vs MOBA is hilarious and juvenile. SC2 players have overgrown egos about starcraft and have to rationalize their own failures in the game by claiming starcraft is the hardest/most demanding game in existence and that people play more popular games (read: MOBAs) because they're bad and casual
there is no right definition of a game genre, and yes, as others have stated RTS and MOBA are very closely related. to someone who plays neither they could look like almost the same type of game. the fact that you spam APM macroing 3 bases of production doesn't make you a hot shit elite gamer. you like RTS, cool, so do i, we all play starcraft. there's literally no need to redirect your insecurity about the game to MOBAs and people who like those games. it's irrelevant and makes you look like a child
if SC gets more MOBAlike it's because, guess what, people like that kind of gameplay and game developers follow trends because the point of releasing a video game is to entertain people. but until blizzard removes minerals and gas and production, no, we are not "becoming a MOBA", please shut up I think if there isn't a deifintion for RTS already then there SHOULD be one, because with how loose the definition is as people keep using it, Smite, CSGO, Call of Duty, Etc. would all be RTS games. people confuse Isometric perspective with RTS, which is silly, IMO. I think there will never be one, the genre is too wide to do so, I mean the name means Real Time Strategy, a lot of games have strategy and are played in real time, so what defines an RTS? I don't think there is anything really, its just a convention, but I guess thats because games never really are only one genre, an FPS can also be an RPG (like fallout) for example, just like WC3 had RPG element while also being an RTS. As other have said saying that RTS is a "pure" genre is just stupid and elitist, games (specially modern ones) take inspiration from very different genres and very different games, thats what makes them good, it makes them Deep instead of flat an 1-dimensional. Starcraft can't be a "pure" RTS, you would have to take away all micro (wich aparently makes the game MOBA-like) and have SC2 be only about making buildings and units but not controlling them, and EVEN THEN I wouldn't be suprised if there where elements of other games genres in the game.
The RTS genre is really narrow. It's a game where you have to build bases, manage resources and control multiple units to archive victory. Play Duna, Age of Empires, Warcraft, Starcraft, Rise of Nations, Command & Conquer series, Warhammer DoW, Company of Heroes or any other RTS you like for reference. Yes, there are nuances like hero units of WC3 or control point resources of Relic games but you can find the similarities.
Dota or LoL is not a RTS - it's a MOBA. Some people call games like Warhammer DoW2, World in Conflict or Total War series "RTS games", but Real Time Tactics is a better term (so one can expect to have next to no base management and resource gathering beforehand).
There is also real-time 4X games and many others that have strategy in real time but they are not RTS games either. Many games allow hitting a ball with your foot but only one is called football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
