|
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.
|
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
