|
On October 17 2012 14:59 phodacbiet wrote:
Well.. one of the problem would be make this game not suck. Seriously the people with "broodwar had 10 years blah blah give sc2 time to grow" or "blizzard knows what they are doing blah blah".. those people are in denial. The metagame is sc2 is slowing down, most game turns into a 15 minutes turtle fest into one big fight into over. There are some game where actions do happen but its usually just a 1a into 1 player getting so ahead that its just playing out. Blizzard currently probably dont even care about sc2, the blizzard that used to be able to make good game is gone, dead, eaten by the cookie monster. Look at blizzard recent releases, wotlk.. d3... panda express.. Seriously, most of these games will have people playing for 1-2 months due to the earlier games but other than that they suck (dont lie to yourself, d3 was the biggest dissapointment since starship troopers 2). My korean friend said he really likes starcraft, but when he go to pc bangs in korea, most/everyone plays LoL. Not because koreans are cheap and can't afford sc2, but because sc2 sucks compared to sc1. If blizzard didnt sue Kespa, BW would still be alive. For everyone that is going to say "well... hots/lotv hasnt come out yet blah blah give blizzard time". Well... did you see the beta? We get the Lurker retard cousin, spider mines are now split off from vultures and are built from factories, firebats got a name change and now come out of factories.. dont even get me started with protoss lol. Seriously, at this point, updating BW graphics to sc2 and then just leave it alone would be blizzard best move, stop trying to make this game any worst (entomb lol).
Yeah, BW games were so quick! Never any long games there.... Are we complaining about long games now? I didn't get that memo...
|
On October 17 2012 23:59 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:50 Barrin wrote:Having all your units die extremely rapidly in battles is probably very stressful to casual players IMO. Indeed, even competitive gamers have a hard time squeezing out the true potential of their units (there's a slew of youtube videos showing AI that can outperform any human by enormous margins in various situations). There is a sort of human limit, and SC2 actually asks for too much too quickly in a way that removes the slow, methodical, strategic feel to battle scenarios. With low durability, units can be quickly picked off which makes it extra punishing to spread them out. A lack of a strong high ground mechanic truly removes the most interesting aspects of a map. Vying for positioning in order to secure/deny expansions/scouting is where the real beauty and skill in RTS games lies, and a strong high ground mechanic [is] a mapmaker's favorite tool for keeping this part of the game fresh and interesting. It can also make a small group of units much stronger than they would be otherwise, potentially promoting a more spread out army and a higher skill cap. When we can mine so many resources so rapidly from each base, we aren't even encouraged to spread out to begin with. With so many resources from each base, the holes are bigger (more delicate and restricted actually) but they are also fewer; this more than anything is what drives the current "inevitable ideal-ish metagame" (lol) of SC2 into being somewhat turtley. Lower income per base/worker might make action less rapid at first, but it will do the opposite as the game goes on. The fact that zerg has no proper tech to deal with cliffs in the midgame the way terran and protoss does (siege tanks, collosus) makes balancing interesting mid-game cliff features extremely restrictive for mapmakers. What I'm getting at here is that it's okay if the races do things in a different way, but they do need to have the option/potential of doing something similar (at least for something as important as cliffs). "Arcade" games actually filled up quickly in BW/WC3 because there was a scrolling list of current active lobbies; creating or joining a lobby put it at the top of the list. This gave plenty of room for mapmakers to create a lobby for their new unheard of map and after 2 or 3 people joined then it would fill up very quickly; innovation and variety in arcade games isn't even close to what it was in the BW/WC3 days because new entrepreneur-type mapmakers can almost never get a full lobby of people to test their game in SC2. And do unit attack speeds really need to be randomized? felt like redditing this post as reply to destiny THIS!!!!! Terrible terrible damage is just so ridiculous from both a casual perspective and a veteran perspective. There's just so much less to appreciate in a player's skill in SC2. Everything is just so.. clumped. We need bigger maps. Weaker units. More high ground advantages. More micro oriented approaches (go suggest the idea of a colossus to an RTS gamer that hasn't played SC and watch them laugh).
For the record, that's completely the anti-point of Destiny's post. His proposal is that the skill ceiling is not where the changes should be made because casuals don't play the competitive game.
|
Blizzard lost all their good devs years ago, news at 11. ~~
Look at Diablo 3 (a joke)
Look at WoW (MoP is decent but go figure, it's like the 100000th iteration)
Look at HotS (a joke)
|
On October 17 2012 23:59 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:50 Barrin wrote:Having all your units die extremely rapidly in battles is probably very stressful to casual players IMO. Indeed, even competitive gamers have a hard time squeezing out the true potential of their units (there's a slew of youtube videos showing AI that can outperform any human by enormous margins in various situations). There is a sort of human limit, and SC2 actually asks for too much too quickly in a way that removes the slow, methodical, strategic feel to battle scenarios. With low durability, units can be quickly picked off which makes it extra punishing to spread them out. A lack of a strong high ground mechanic truly removes the most interesting aspects of a map. Vying for positioning in order to secure/deny expansions/scouting is where the real beauty and skill in RTS games lies, and a strong high ground mechanic [is] a mapmaker's favorite tool for keeping this part of the game fresh and interesting. It can also make a small group of units much stronger than they would be otherwise, potentially promoting a more spread out army and a higher skill cap. When we can mine so many resources so rapidly from each base, we aren't even encouraged to spread out to begin with. With so many resources from each base, the holes are bigger (more delicate and restricted actually) but they are also fewer; this more than anything is what drives the current "inevitable ideal-ish metagame" (lol) of SC2 into being somewhat turtley. Lower income per base/worker might make action less rapid at first, but it will do the opposite as the game goes on. The fact that zerg has no proper tech to deal with cliffs in the midgame the way terran and protoss does (siege tanks, collosus) makes balancing interesting mid-game cliff features extremely restrictive for mapmakers. What I'm getting at here is that it's okay if the races do things in a different way, but they do need to have the option/potential of doing something similar (at least for something as important as cliffs). "Arcade" games actually filled up quickly in BW/WC3 because there was a scrolling list of current active lobbies; creating or joining a lobby put it at the top of the list. This gave plenty of room for mapmakers to create a lobby for their new unheard of map and after 2 or 3 people joined then it would fill up very quickly; innovation and variety in arcade games isn't even close to what it was in the BW/WC3 days because new entrepreneur-type mapmakers can almost never get a full lobby of people to test their game in SC2. And do unit attack speeds really need to be randomized? felt like redditing this post as reply to destiny THIS!!!!! Terrible terrible damage is just so ridiculous from both a casual perspective and a veteran perspective. There's just so much less to appreciate in a player's skill in SC2. Everything is just so.. clumped. We need bigger maps. Weaker units. More high ground advantages. More micro oriented approaches (go suggest the idea of a colossus to an RTS gamer that hasn't played SC and watch them laugh).
Little 15-year old fat loser kids won't play hardcore rts, cuz it's too difficult. They prefer WOW NICE LASERS BLUBALABUM EVERYTHING DIED so they don't have to learn anything and can still role over better players, who have micro and multitask just can't really use it. And of course Blizzard is too large company, so they can't rely on hardcore gamers, it's too few people. And they like money.
|
On October 17 2012 23:56 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:44 Hammer442 wrote:On October 17 2012 23:40 wcr.4fun wrote:On October 17 2012 22:28 theniceninja wrote:
I'm new to Esports and the whole scene. I only became interested when SC2 released, even then it took me a while to get really into it. I've watched some Dota 2 and I have a beta key, but I'm only half interested. LoL is just painful to watch, and I can't believe so many people want to watch it, let alone play it. These games exploded really fast and I think lots of people like Destiny are just mad that their favorite game (sc2) isn't as popular. Remember with most things in life, "the bigger they are the harder they fall". You say Brood War was popular for 10 years in South Korea? Brood War is an expansion to sc1. How long was that game out before it started gaining popularity? SC2 has just been out for 2 years! It has no expansion, apparently HOTS is still in "experimental beta mode". I think we all need to have a little patience and faith. LoL is not going to last, and SC2 has two planned expansions still to come. I have this problem in my personal life where you just want to be able to DO SOMETHING to change what is going on around you, but I've learned sometimes you can't do anything and you just have to wait and do little things that you can hope will have an impact later. I'm just gonna keep playing and loving SC2 for a long time I think. all I ever do is 1v1s and I find custom maps and games pretty boring, so I like the system in place. The custom maps and games of SC2 are shit ass boring. If you've ever played wc3 (or bw) you should know how many fun games it had... I never played WC3, so didn't try the custom maps there and have very limited knowledge of the custom games in sc2 because i just don't hear much about them so i don't try any. Why is it though that noone has been able to make really good maps in the Sc2 engine, all the tools are there right? Sorry for my ignorance on the matter, i just don't understand how people couldn't just copy the popular maps from other games at the least. The engine is indeed extremely versatile and capable of putting out maps even beyond what the War3 editor could. Good maps are most definitely being made, as well as "ports" of other famous custom maps from BW and War3, as well as "ports" of other old games. (like Bomberman) The problem is that the Battle.net 2.0 custom map area has for the longest time been an utter trainwreck where some cookie cutter tower defense / nexus wars game would stay at the top forever and a day while the real gems rotted deep in the underground. Only now has Blizzard started showing the smallest sign of improvement in that regard and I think it's far too little, as well as too late. It's quite sad that they made the engine so customizable for the people who are actually hardcore into modding/game developement and know what they're doing, but then the part of the system designed to provide those custom maps to the players is atrocious. As a map maker, you get almost no exposure whatsoever, wether you do UMS maps or Melee maps. I'm sure far less than half of the viewerbase has any clue who IronManSC or ESV monitor or JackylPrime are. Blizzard refuses to accept superior maps in their map pool and so do most non-GSL tournaments. There's very little interest in mapping and modding because despite a pretty fucking good tool that has a big playerbase as it is, there is barely any way to get your mapped played by more than a dozen people, let alone getting your name out there.
Yeah. Plus the map editor support (not the editor itself) is kind of bad. I remember posting a ton of times on what they could do to make customs + the editor better (even with Sixen telling them all my suggestions) but they never came.
Simple suggestions like:
1. Adding the option for "Unit takes damage" to ignore behaviors (or behaviors to ignore unit takes damage). (I used to use it this a lot before they patched it and made it so "unit takes damage" accounts for damaging modifying behaviors. It was mainly used to be able to easily modify and make damage systems like replicating the WC3 armor system.)
2. Option for icons and passives to be shown to all players rather than only to the owner (a UI thing to make things more intuitive). (Take note, this was in before a patch removed it.)
And those are just two examples of simple suggestions.
Also, yes, the custom lobby is bad.
One way to get around it (at least, assuming they haven't patched it), is to sit in the lobby by yourself (it adds time/popularity to the map and move sit higher on the list) or to add bots and just play with them (make sure game is public).
I like bots in any game. I was working a Dark Deeds remake (from WC3) that had bot support (in fact, the map is like 80% done and I try to replicate everything from the WC3 dark deeds as much as I can). Despite it being 80% done, I lack the motivation to finish it. (Also yes, I know there is already another Dark Deeds on SC2. I just want to make my own version, most importantly with bot support which went along well.)
On October 18 2012 00:04 phanto wrote:
Blizzard lost all their good devs years ago, news at 11. ~~
Look at Diablo 3 (a joke)
Look at WoW (MoP is decent but go figure, it's like the 100000th iteration)
Look at HotS (a joke)
The bright side for HotS is that Dustin Browder and David Kim regularly read, post, and interact with people on the forums. Sadly though, I think HotS doesn't actually do or change too much to make the game feel free fresh or new again.
Now, HotS isn't supposed to actually change too much with the game but I think for the health and for "hype" for the game, they need to go "The Frozen Throne" route (TFT changed a lot with WC3).
(I think the problem is besides a couple of new units and the campaign, there isn't anything else in HotS.)
|
TLDR;Warcraft 3 tournament system is a great feature that should be in SC2. Follow that with a simple reward system with tournament only pictures/decals/achievements/wins and some type of badge and that would get me and some friends to think about playing it again. I'm casual and I need to look forward to some reward other that getting to a higher league.
Personally I like Warcraft 3 over SC2 for a lot of reasons. I'm casual ( as much as I would like to think I'm not I am ) I play games in my free time when I'm not working. Warcraft 3 is still fun for me because of a few things like tournaments. Even though they are automated they are fun. Why does SC2 not have this? I'm in silver and having something like that to look forward to every week/month would be great! Something where I can win special tournament pictures/decals or hell even achievements. I'm willing to bet that Blizzard has thought of stuff like this but choose not to implement it into the game because they need an advertising feature to sell their future expansion. So it kinda sucks. Simple reward system. That's all i need to get back into and play sc2 for a long time. They could even add something to the profile tab saying tournament wins/games played or even give a little medal something like this that you can show off. But hey why would Blizzard do that? Its not like they care about a silver player who quit playing. They only care about the LODS EMONE they will get from HOTS and if it fails scrap the 2nd expansion and make a (gonna spoil this so Blizzard does not see this and get ideas) + Show Spoiler + or something else equally as dumb.
|
On October 18 2012 00:01 lorestarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 14:59 phodacbiet wrote:
Well.. one of the problem would be make this game not suck. Seriously the people with "broodwar had 10 years blah blah give sc2 time to grow" or "blizzard knows what they are doing blah blah".. those people are in denial. The metagame is sc2 is slowing down, most game turns into a 15 minutes turtle fest into one big fight into over. There are some game where actions do happen but its usually just a 1a into 1 player getting so ahead that its just playing out. Blizzard currently probably dont even care about sc2, the blizzard that used to be able to make good game is gone, dead, eaten by the cookie monster. Look at blizzard recent releases, wotlk.. d3... panda express.. Seriously, most of these games will have people playing for 1-2 months due to the earlier games but other than that they suck (dont lie to yourself, d3 was the biggest dissapointment since starship troopers 2). My korean friend said he really likes starcraft, but when he go to pc bangs in korea, most/everyone plays LoL. Not because koreans are cheap and can't afford sc2, but because sc2 sucks compared to sc1. If blizzard didnt sue Kespa, BW would still be alive. For everyone that is going to say "well... hots/lotv hasnt come out yet blah blah give blizzard time". Well... did you see the beta? We get the Lurker retard cousin, spider mines are now split off from vultures and are built from factories, firebats got a name change and now come out of factories.. dont even get me started with protoss lol. Seriously, at this point, updating BW graphics to sc2 and then just leave it alone would be blizzard best move, stop trying to make this game any worst (entomb lol). Yeah, BW games were so quick! Never any long games there.... Are we complaining about long games now? I didn't get that memo...
I'm fine with long macro games. What I'm not fine with is "3 base before 5 minutes, NR 15, one 200 vs 200 spam AoE battle into win". Which is what most of SC2 games boil down to right now.
I've said it before, most games bar mirrors I can skip to the 10 minute mark and watch the game from there, because nothing interesting really happens before then.
And it so happens that PvP late-game turns into "Who has more collosi", ZvZ (as shown in last night's Scarlett' vs Dark EGMC matches) turns into mass IT broodling battles.
|
On October 18 2012 00:04 Kambing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:59 Flonomenalz wrote:On October 17 2012 23:50 Barrin wrote:Having all your units die extremely rapidly in battles is probably very stressful to casual players IMO. Indeed, even competitive gamers have a hard time squeezing out the true potential of their units (there's a slew of youtube videos showing AI that can outperform any human by enormous margins in various situations). There is a sort of human limit, and SC2 actually asks for too much too quickly in a way that removes the slow, methodical, strategic feel to battle scenarios. With low durability, units can be quickly picked off which makes it extra punishing to spread them out. A lack of a strong high ground mechanic truly removes the most interesting aspects of a map. Vying for positioning in order to secure/deny expansions/scouting is where the real beauty and skill in RTS games lies, and a strong high ground mechanic [is] a mapmaker's favorite tool for keeping this part of the game fresh and interesting. It can also make a small group of units much stronger than they would be otherwise, potentially promoting a more spread out army and a higher skill cap. When we can mine so many resources so rapidly from each base, we aren't even encouraged to spread out to begin with. With so many resources from each base, the holes are bigger (more delicate and restricted actually) but they are also fewer; this more than anything is what drives the current "inevitable ideal-ish metagame" (lol) of SC2 into being somewhat turtley. Lower income per base/worker might make action less rapid at first, but it will do the opposite as the game goes on. The fact that zerg has no proper tech to deal with cliffs in the midgame the way terran and protoss does (siege tanks, collosus) makes balancing interesting mid-game cliff features extremely restrictive for mapmakers. What I'm getting at here is that it's okay if the races do things in a different way, but they do need to have the option/potential of doing something similar (at least for something as important as cliffs). "Arcade" games actually filled up quickly in BW/WC3 because there was a scrolling list of current active lobbies; creating or joining a lobby put it at the top of the list. This gave plenty of room for mapmakers to create a lobby for their new unheard of map and after 2 or 3 people joined then it would fill up very quickly; innovation and variety in arcade games isn't even close to what it was in the BW/WC3 days because new entrepreneur-type mapmakers can almost never get a full lobby of people to test their game in SC2. And do unit attack speeds really need to be randomized? felt like redditing this post as reply to destiny THIS!!!!! Terrible terrible damage is just so ridiculous from both a casual perspective and a veteran perspective. There's just so much less to appreciate in a player's skill in SC2. Everything is just so.. clumped. We need bigger maps. Weaker units. More high ground advantages. More micro oriented approaches (go suggest the idea of a colossus to an RTS gamer that hasn't played SC and watch them laugh). For the record, that's completely the anti-point of Destiny's post. His proposal is that the skill ceiling is not where the changes should be made because casuals don't play the competitive game.
There aren't a lot of casual hockey players and yet it's a competitive sport. When it comes to esports, the casual players shouldn't really matter. Naturally it's good if a game is easy accessible as opposed to the opposite but it's not a requirement.
|
On October 18 2012 00:04 Kambing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:59 Flonomenalz wrote:On October 17 2012 23:50 Barrin wrote:Having all your units die extremely rapidly in battles is probably very stressful to casual players IMO. Indeed, even competitive gamers have a hard time squeezing out the true potential of their units (there's a slew of youtube videos showing AI that can outperform any human by enormous margins in various situations). There is a sort of human limit, and SC2 actually asks for too much too quickly in a way that removes the slow, methodical, strategic feel to battle scenarios. With low durability, units can be quickly picked off which makes it extra punishing to spread them out. A lack of a strong high ground mechanic truly removes the most interesting aspects of a map. Vying for positioning in order to secure/deny expansions/scouting is where the real beauty and skill in RTS games lies, and a strong high ground mechanic [is] a mapmaker's favorite tool for keeping this part of the game fresh and interesting. It can also make a small group of units much stronger than they would be otherwise, potentially promoting a more spread out army and a higher skill cap. When we can mine so many resources so rapidly from each base, we aren't even encouraged to spread out to begin with. With so many resources from each base, the holes are bigger (more delicate and restricted actually) but they are also fewer; this more than anything is what drives the current "inevitable ideal-ish metagame" (lol) of SC2 into being somewhat turtley. Lower income per base/worker might make action less rapid at first, but it will do the opposite as the game goes on. The fact that zerg has no proper tech to deal with cliffs in the midgame the way terran and protoss does (siege tanks, collosus) makes balancing interesting mid-game cliff features extremely restrictive for mapmakers. What I'm getting at here is that it's okay if the races do things in a different way, but they do need to have the option/potential of doing something similar (at least for something as important as cliffs). "Arcade" games actually filled up quickly in BW/WC3 because there was a scrolling list of current active lobbies; creating or joining a lobby put it at the top of the list. This gave plenty of room for mapmakers to create a lobby for their new unheard of map and after 2 or 3 people joined then it would fill up very quickly; innovation and variety in arcade games isn't even close to what it was in the BW/WC3 days because new entrepreneur-type mapmakers can almost never get a full lobby of people to test their game in SC2. And do unit attack speeds really need to be randomized? felt like redditing this post as reply to destiny THIS!!!!! Terrible terrible damage is just so ridiculous from both a casual perspective and a veteran perspective. There's just so much less to appreciate in a player's skill in SC2. Everything is just so.. clumped. We need bigger maps. Weaker units. More high ground advantages. More micro oriented approaches (go suggest the idea of a colossus to an RTS gamer that hasn't played SC and watch them laugh). For the record, that's completely the anti-point of Destiny's post. His proposal is that the skill ceiling is not where the changes should be made because casuals don't play the competitive game.
For the record, I was just talking about terrible terrible damage, not in relation to Destiny's point.
|
Bisutopia19234 Posts
On October 17 2012 23:47 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:15 RoarMan wrote:
Best thread on Team Liquid. So. Far. To. Date. Thank you. there have been many posters and threads saying the exact same thing since sc2's original beta was launched. its more like some in the community had nothing but blind faith in blizzard and would ostracize any naysayers. you know, those "FUCK YOU this is SC2 not BW"/"are YOU a game developer?!" people. now that we're two years down the road, and the game has become incredibly stale and stagnated, and they are not impressed by HOTS, you're seeing what is essentially a mass exodus from the scene from both players and viewers alike.
I have to agree with this. I was even confident blizzard would turn this around. But I think it did take this long to see the potential of SC2. And while watching the top GSL players is fun, watching anything less is horrifyingly boring.
Things I hate:
1. I rely on the casters to entertain me.
2. I always skip the first 7-10 minutes of the game depending on match up and game length. The early game is just boring to me. In BW it was very entertaining to see how the early game builds looked.
3. Things die so quickly in PvP it makes me sad. In a giant reaver+goon+storm battle you had time to focus on how many hits go off on the shuttle, did the reavers drop in time, did zealots tank the storm damage. And storm lasted a lot longer so it created a more suspenseful moment. Like oh shit are they going to move or just sit there taking it form the storm. And you can see the reaver scarab search its way around the battle field. In SC2 its like laser beam, blink pew pew, charge lots done.
/Sigh. I'm just sad because I'm always going to be part of this scene until it dies. I just want to believe it can change and meet my BW expectations of fun. I guess I'll be an SC2 hermit with whoever else out there is sticking with me.
|
On October 18 2012 00:07 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 00:04 Kambing wrote:On October 17 2012 23:59 Flonomenalz wrote:On October 17 2012 23:50 Barrin wrote:Having all your units die extremely rapidly in battles is probably very stressful to casual players IMO. Indeed, even competitive gamers have a hard time squeezing out the true potential of their units (there's a slew of youtube videos showing AI that can outperform any human by enormous margins in various situations). There is a sort of human limit, and SC2 actually asks for too much too quickly in a way that removes the slow, methodical, strategic feel to battle scenarios. With low durability, units can be quickly picked off which makes it extra punishing to spread them out. A lack of a strong high ground mechanic truly removes the most interesting aspects of a map. Vying for positioning in order to secure/deny expansions/scouting is where the real beauty and skill in RTS games lies, and a strong high ground mechanic [is] a mapmaker's favorite tool for keeping this part of the game fresh and interesting. It can also make a small group of units much stronger than they would be otherwise, potentially promoting a more spread out army and a higher skill cap. When we can mine so many resources so rapidly from each base, we aren't even encouraged to spread out to begin with. With so many resources from each base, the holes are bigger (more delicate and restricted actually) but they are also fewer; this more than anything is what drives the current "inevitable ideal-ish metagame" (lol) of SC2 into being somewhat turtley. Lower income per base/worker might make action less rapid at first, but it will do the opposite as the game goes on. The fact that zerg has no proper tech to deal with cliffs in the midgame the way terran and protoss does (siege tanks, collosus) makes balancing interesting mid-game cliff features extremely restrictive for mapmakers. What I'm getting at here is that it's okay if the races do things in a different way, but they do need to have the option/potential of doing something similar (at least for something as important as cliffs). "Arcade" games actually filled up quickly in BW/WC3 because there was a scrolling list of current active lobbies; creating or joining a lobby put it at the top of the list. This gave plenty of room for mapmakers to create a lobby for their new unheard of map and after 2 or 3 people joined then it would fill up very quickly; innovation and variety in arcade games isn't even close to what it was in the BW/WC3 days because new entrepreneur-type mapmakers can almost never get a full lobby of people to test their game in SC2. And do unit attack speeds really need to be randomized? felt like redditing this post as reply to destiny THIS!!!!! Terrible terrible damage is just so ridiculous from both a casual perspective and a veteran perspective. There's just so much less to appreciate in a player's skill in SC2. Everything is just so.. clumped. We need bigger maps. Weaker units. More high ground advantages. More micro oriented approaches (go suggest the idea of a colossus to an RTS gamer that hasn't played SC and watch them laugh). For the record, that's completely the anti-point of Destiny's post. His proposal is that the skill ceiling is not where the changes should be made because casuals don't play the competitive game. There aren't a lot of casual hockey players and yet it's a competitive sport. When it comes to esports, the casual players shouldn't really matter. Naturally it's good if a game is easy accessible as opposed to the opposite but it's not a requirement.
I'm not saying I necessarily disagree. I'm just noting the silliness that the content of the OP has been eclipsed by everyone's personal rants on what they dislike about SC2. All of which are completely contradictory when taken as a whole.
(Subsequently this is why the tweet campaign that people are trying to start up won't get anywhere.)
|
why does destiny still stream sc2 if it's going to die according to him?
|
there is a lot of stuff that can be improved in sc2, especially the ladder experience. there is so múch QQ about the "Death of Starcraft" and it seem slike people dont think about it enough and just agree with it. but every game has its downtime, so has sc2. Imo Blizzard should focus ALOT more in the Map - pool, more maps, more vetos. also, why not a button for some online tournaments like in warcraft 3? that was so fun to play! alot of what destiny says makes playing ladder more rewarding, alot of people get frustrated when they lose, close the game and play something easier. sure u want to improve, but getting some points because u play alot and lets u customize ur race abit more, I would be okay with that tbh. even simple things like colors, UI backrounds, UI style, improved Player profiles, better chat channels, daily or weekly tournaments would improve our experience with Battle.net 2.0 a lot more.
|
I still dont understand why the changed the mechanic of highground advantage from BW. This is my most hated change in SC2. They changed the game too much for my liking and ignored almost everything that made BW so great.
One of the reason why SC2 is losing popularity its because of the oversaturating of tournaments. There are way too much tourneys going on everyday. Just click on the calendar and you will realise that there is too much and watching SC2 is nothing special anymore.
|
On October 18 2012 00:10 Awatsu wrote:
why does destiny still stream sc2 if it's going to die according to him?
When you have like 3k viewers regularly...
|
Good read. Glad this was moved over to TL off reddit as I dont usually go on reddit.
Anyway I do agree with most of what was said. I have nothing to say argument wise against this and really wont suggest anything as I will probably play HotS when it releases regardless.
Long story short, good read, looking forward to a Blizzard response. Also to lazy and not enough time to read 36 pages of posts, but has this been posted on the Bnet forums? Possible higher chance of being seen by the devs?
|
On October 18 2012 00:11 SkelA wrote:
I still dont understand why the changed the mechanic of highground advantage from BW. This is my most hated change in SC2. They changed the game too much for my liking and ignored almost everything that made BW so great.
One of the reason why SC2 is losing popularity its because of the oversaturating of tournaments. There are way too much tourneys going on everyday. Just click on the calendar and you will realise that there is too much and watching SC2 is nothing special anymore.
"nobody goes there anymore, its too crowded."
|
On October 17 2012 23:44 Hammer442 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 23:40 wcr.4fun wrote:On October 17 2012 22:28 theniceninja wrote:
I'm new to Esports and the whole scene. I only became interested when SC2 released, even then it took me a while to get really into it. I've watched some Dota 2 and I have a beta key, but I'm only half interested. LoL is just painful to watch, and I can't believe so many people want to watch it, let alone play it. These games exploded really fast and I think lots of people like Destiny are just mad that their favorite game (sc2) isn't as popular. Remember with most things in life, "the bigger they are the harder they fall". You say Brood War was popular for 10 years in South Korea? Brood War is an expansion to sc1. How long was that game out before it started gaining popularity? SC2 has just been out for 2 years! It has no expansion, apparently HOTS is still in "experimental beta mode". I think we all need to have a little patience and faith. LoL is not going to last, and SC2 has two planned expansions still to come. I have this problem in my personal life where you just want to be able to DO SOMETHING to change what is going on around you, but I've learned sometimes you can't do anything and you just have to wait and do little things that you can hope will have an impact later. I'm just gonna keep playing and loving SC2 for a long time I think. all I ever do is 1v1s and I find custom maps and games pretty boring, so I like the system in place. The custom maps and games of SC2 are shit ass boring. If you've ever played wc3 (or bw) you should know how many fun games it had... I never played WC3, so didn't try the custom maps there and have very limited knowledge of the custom games in sc2 because i just don't hear much about them so i don't try any. Why is it though that noone has been able to make really good maps in the Sc2 engine, all the tools are there right? Sorry for my ignorance on the matter, i just don't understand how people couldn't just copy the popular maps from other games at the least.
All these games exist, and are even more awesome than his WC3, BW counterparts, the problem is that the UMS system sucks so bad that none of all of these UMS are burred under tons of others UMS, and can´t be find with easy (because of the lack of the posibility to name your game in custom games, and the popularity thing)
So yeah, no matter how powerfull the editor is, if the system in which the games are delivered sucks there´s not much a mapmaker can do.
If you want to search for kickass UMS maps go to sc2mapster.com there are lots and lots, and lots of epic UMS maps, but the place is a little bit dead, because there´s no reason to keep making maps since no one is playing on them (just the same reason a considerable amount of Mele mapmakers are quiting, because there is no posibility for your maps to be played besides the people you tell to)
|
On October 18 2012 00:07 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 00:04 Kambing wrote:On October 17 2012 23:59 Flonomenalz wrote:On October 17 2012 23:50 Barrin wrote:Having all your units die extremely rapidly in battles is probably very stressful to casual players IMO. Indeed, even competitive gamers have a hard time squeezing out the true potential of their units (there's a slew of youtube videos showing AI that can outperform any human by enormous margins in various situations). There is a sort of human limit, and SC2 actually asks for too much too quickly in a way that removes the slow, methodical, strategic feel to battle scenarios. With low durability, units can be quickly picked off which makes it extra punishing to spread them out. A lack of a strong high ground mechanic truly removes the most interesting aspects of a map. Vying for positioning in order to secure/deny expansions/scouting is where the real beauty and skill in RTS games lies, and a strong high ground mechanic [is] a mapmaker's favorite tool for keeping this part of the game fresh and interesting. It can also make a small group of units much stronger than they would be otherwise, potentially promoting a more spread out army and a higher skill cap. When we can mine so many resources so rapidly from each base, we aren't even encouraged to spread out to begin with. With so many resources from each base, the holes are bigger (more delicate and restricted actually) but they are also fewer; this more than anything is what drives the current "inevitable ideal-ish metagame" (lol) of SC2 into being somewhat turtley. Lower income per base/worker might make action less rapid at first, but it will do the opposite as the game goes on. The fact that zerg has no proper tech to deal with cliffs in the midgame the way terran and protoss does (siege tanks, collosus) makes balancing interesting mid-game cliff features extremely restrictive for mapmakers. What I'm getting at here is that it's okay if the races do things in a different way, but they do need to have the option/potential of doing something similar (at least for something as important as cliffs). "Arcade" games actually filled up quickly in BW/WC3 because there was a scrolling list of current active lobbies; creating or joining a lobby put it at the top of the list. This gave plenty of room for mapmakers to create a lobby for their new unheard of map and after 2 or 3 people joined then it would fill up very quickly; innovation and variety in arcade games isn't even close to what it was in the BW/WC3 days because new entrepreneur-type mapmakers can almost never get a full lobby of people to test their game in SC2. And do unit attack speeds really need to be randomized? felt like redditing this post as reply to destiny THIS!!!!! Terrible terrible damage is just so ridiculous from both a casual perspective and a veteran perspective. There's just so much less to appreciate in a player's skill in SC2. Everything is just so.. clumped. We need bigger maps. Weaker units. More high ground advantages. More micro oriented approaches (go suggest the idea of a colossus to an RTS gamer that hasn't played SC and watch them laugh). For the record, that's completely the anti-point of Destiny's post. His proposal is that the skill ceiling is not where the changes should be made because casuals don't play the competitive game. There aren't a lot of casual hockey players and yet it's a competitive sport. When it comes to esports, the casual players shouldn't really matter. Naturally it's good if a game is easy accessible as opposed to the opposite but it's not a requirement.
This is a terrible chain of logic... Didn't hockey make changes to it's rules in the past decade to increase it's appeal to the "casual" viewer? And being a casual hockey player is nothing like a casual gamer. Hockey is a particularly expensive sport for many reasons and that probably contributes to there being less casual gamers than anything.
|
I agree with everything, especially that it's Blizzard's fault. Although I don't watch much SC2 nowadays, except for a few big tournaments here and there, I still watched a lot of SC2 back then, however it never moved me as much as BW. So sorry if this offends anyone and the reason I'm saying this because I'm angry at Blizzard for a whole bounch or reasons, whatever it takes to awake Blizzard, it's worth it. Yes, even if SC2 needs to go as a competitive game. Sadly, I'm not a kid anymore, so I know, they don't care about things like this, only about sales, but something needs to be done to bring back Blizzard to their senses. The chances are for you guys to evaluate, considering what D3 has become, and how Blizzard listened to the community over the years regarding improving SC2. In short, the probability of Blizzard, the old Blizzard returning and being the most awesome devs (as they were till the merge with Activision) are pretty slim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
