|
I dont get all the shitting on sc2. LoL is obv a whole different model. In LoL you dont start at equal footing at the start of the game and this is for me a big part of any competitive game.
I just started playing a little LoL, cause I wanted to see what all the buzz is about. So I started some games with some friends who already played LoL. Now the point is with all the talent/rune stuff, that you are from the get go already at a pretty big disadvantage when playing against more experienced players.
The heros right from the start are at least 20-30 % stronger than their newer player counterparts. Imagine you are playing a tvt, where your opponent starts with 1-1 marines. Is that really the model you guys are praising here so much ? That you have to play around 300 games just to start equal ? Imo that counteracts the competetive spirit, although it is obv a good business model.
|
On October 18 2012 01:44 Apolo wrote:
From the comments i've been reading, if we made a poll i would say about more than 90% of people here (mostly) agree with the OP, which is very bad for Blizzard. I would love to see Blizzard / Activision firing Dustin Browder and co. who have proven they don't know what they're doing. Either that or just give Valve or Riot the game. I'm sure they would rock it.
Yes because the people posting on TL threads are known for getting things right. I almost feel that it would be bad if 90% of people here did NOT agree with the op because if Blizzard had followed the suggestions of most random tl posters the game would be long dead already.
If anything I keep getting my belief reinforced that the one thing that is wrong with sc2 is the poisonous community.
|
I feel like it's a bit of a knee jerk reaction to the Moba season of esports. WCS Europe final's just before the Moba season was one of most successful events to date for SC2 sure its not like big increase in viewers we had in past but was very successful.
I feel like this topic needs to be revisted again after december when we had the all the tournaments of november and it has settled down abit we can have a proper review of the situation then.
|
The only thing that really pisses me off: NO LAN.
It makes no sense, would've got so many people into sc2 during lans. It is just pure sadness!
|
I agree that something needs to be done to draw in the casual players, something that give more viewers and bigger playerbase, but it is not the ONLY thing that needs to be done. There is still room for improvement in more places. However this would bring in more money and if THAT money is then spent right, we'd definatly get somewhere.
But man, in my eyes, the sc community is one of the communities that does the most just to improve the game for both themselves and others (just look at how many suggestions, from both pros and noobs come out of this community), but are at the same time pretty powerless because, well, its still blizzard that has to do something here, and thats just a damn shame. I wish we could have something similar to the BW legacy for the next 10 years...
|
On October 18 2012 01:55 []Phase[] wrote:
I agree that something needs to be done to draw in the casual players, something that give more viewers and bigger playerbase, but it is not the ONLY thing that needs to be done. There is still room for improvement in more places. However this would bring in more money and if THAT money is then spent right, we'd definatly get somewhere.
But man, in my eyes, the sc community is one of the communities that does the most just to improve the game for both themselves and others (just look at how many suggestions, from both pros and noobs come out of this community), but are at the same time pretty powerless because, well, its still blizzard that has to do something here, and thats just a damn shame. I wish we could have something similar to the BW legacy for the next 10 years...
See this is the problem though you can't both have the cake and eat it. Starcraft is a game with a following that wants a mechanically challenging game. Broodwar was successful for that reason. You can't keep the game that way while also pandering too much to the "casual" gamer. You know what you get then? World of warcraft arena.
Esports is not a one game scene and no game should try to have the entire market. Rather, the games that try to be too broad and attract all players and viewers are the ones who will water down their product so much that they eventually lose it all. To survive in esports games need to have an identity, a clear niché and starcraft has that. Trying to please everyone is not going to be a good business plan for this game.
|
On October 18 2012 01:10 VanGarde wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 01:09 Basique wrote:On October 18 2012 01:02 VanGarde wrote:
It is kind of interesting to see that there are so many people here who hold complete opposite visions of sc2 agree with each other without realizing that their visions are mutually exclusive. There is one group of people who feel that sc2 needs to be more mechanically demanding, allow for more early aggression and that hots is just dumbing it down too much. Most pro-gamers fall into this category. These people think that the failure of sc2 in Korea is because it is not as hard as Broodwar. Then there is the group of people who think that the problem is the opposite that sc2 is not tuned enough to the casual market and that it in fact should be MORE dumbed down. Both of these groups are writing in this thread about how they agree with Destiny, each seemingly thinking that he is talking about their method of reviving sc2.
The dilemma here is that a lot of the people who think Broodwar was a great game, would never play sc2 if it tried to be more like LoL. I belong to this group, in fact in my experience most people in this category feels that the problem with hots is in fact that it is trying to be more like LoL.
Either sc2 tries to be like LoL and Dota and take that market share, in which case we get hots, but then don't complain about how hots is dumbing the game down to attract more casual gamers. You didn't understand anything at all, and you are not the only one. NOWHERE it was state that there was a need for a casualized gameplay. Destiny talked about what is outside the game, so the lobby, the UI, the interface. Nor did you seem to understand my post. I was not saying that Destiny suggests the game should be easier. I am saying that a whole bunch of the people who are going "oooh aaaah! He is right!" Think that is what he is saying and that THEY see the solution as the game being more appealing to casuals. Quite sure even most pro gamers want the game to be more appealing to casuals, who wants to be the best at a game almost no one cares about? And it's hard to be a pro gamer without something that generates money, like the game being popular for example.
Also, to be honest I don't think things like displaying worker saturation really matters for the pro scene, if they added 10 more things like that the best players will probably be same people as if they didn't change anything etc. Sure, everything matters to a degree but almost irrelevant changes will gets blown out of proportions by some people that will claim that, usually for unclear reasons, change X will be really bad for the game because something might be easier.
But let's not assume "being more appealing to casuals" is same thing as making the game easier(whatever easier might mean). Sometimes it could equal to that but the only thing that should really matter is how fun the game is.
|
On October 18 2012 01:52 Kenpark wrote:
I dont get all the shitting on sc2. LoL is obv a whole different model. In LoL you dont start at equal footing at the start of the game and this is for me a big part of any competitive game.
I just started playing a little LoL, cause I wanted to see what all the buzz is about. So I started some games with some friends who already played LoL. Now the point is with all the talent/rune stuff, that you are from the get go already at a pretty big disadvantage when playing against more experienced players.
The heros right from the start are at least 20-30 % stronger than their newer player counterparts. Imagine you are playing a tvt, where your opponent starts with 1-1 marines. Is that really the model you guys are praising here so much ? That you have to play around 300 games just to start equal ? Imo that counteracts the competetive spirit, although it is obv a good business model.
I think what he is trying to say is that blizzard needs to introduce something that attracts the casual gamer, but that competitive 1v1 still needs to be kept seperate so that the casual gamer that got attracted to the game will start watching pro games or even try the 1v1 himself later on.
|
On October 18 2012 01:25 nunez wrote:
i love wings of liberty, i can't enjoy other games anymore. nothing can rival the experience.
the surge of remorse as i spawn horizontal to a terran on entombed, cursing the hybris that left it unvetoed. my manner left unanswered as i start to drone, tanks already sieging my third mentally.
tears in my eyes as i 'gg' one last time to another pre hive protoss before i turn silent like the rest...
the way it makes me loathe myself after losing so much that i just won a game.
next day, mending time... my apm slowly rising sc2gears reports, injects are tighter than before, my winrate is creeping towards 50% again. watch some daily for a few minutes to leech some positivity. watch tassadar fail to all in one of my favourites in the korean weekly. reminisce about that time you lost handily to a semipro. focus on mechanics and scouting nunez, remove map-veto's, don't worry about losing, worry about learning. 'hello. glhf.'
if the competetive sc2 scene was half the size it is now i'd still be satisfied. i don't want to make it bigger if it means that i'd have to make sacrifices on my sc2 experience, but i don't think i have to. there are a lot of good points in destinys post on how to enhance sc2, but i don't necessarily agree with the sudden urgency of it all.
I can almost feel poetic tone to this.
|
My experience- I played 1v1s, found it fun but stressful, so started mainly playing 4v4s and 3v3s. That was fun and not too so stressful but no real motivation to keep playing so now I'm playing D3. Still watch SC2 quite a lot but not quite as much as before. Hard to know what to do about it really. RTSes are just hard compared to other games. Destiny's totally right though in that Blizzard could do so much more to promote UMSes for casual players and just general player interaction. BW interface felt a lot more sociable.
|
On October 18 2012 01:58 VanGarde wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 01:55 []Phase[] wrote:
I agree that something needs to be done to draw in the casual players, something that give more viewers and bigger playerbase, but it is not the ONLY thing that needs to be done. There is still room for improvement in more places. However this would bring in more money and if THAT money is then spent right, we'd definatly get somewhere.
But man, in my eyes, the sc community is one of the communities that does the most just to improve the game for both themselves and others (just look at how many suggestions, from both pros and noobs come out of this community), but are at the same time pretty powerless because, well, its still blizzard that has to do something here, and thats just a damn shame. I wish we could have something similar to the BW legacy for the next 10 years... See this is the problem though you can't both have the cake and eat it. Starcraft is a game with a following that wants a mechanically challenging game. Broodwar was successful for that reason. You can't keep the game that way while also pandering too much to the "casual" gamer. You know what you get then? World of warcraft arena. Esports is not a one game scene and no game should try to have the entire market. Rather, the games that try to be too broad and attract all players and viewers are the ones who will water down their product so much that they eventually lose it all. To survive in esports games need to have an identity, a clear niché and starcraft has that. Trying to please everyone is not going to be a good business plan for this game.
I was thinking something along the lines of : introduce an element that attracts a big player base, but keep that element separate from the competitive 1v1. With the casual player base youve attracted, you can turn all that interest into the game into interest into the competitive model. Get a bunch of players playing your casual part of the game, and at the same time advertise competitive play on the same platform. You improve 1v1 for the competitive gamer, and you improve custom games / team games for the casual gamer, as a means to attract many people. Nothing keeps blizzard from introducing a reward based system in custom, and not affecting 1v1 at the same time. Those casual gamers will play the game plenty, and at the same time admire the skills of the 1v1 pros.
I dont know, just thinking out loud here.
EDIT : from my experience, all my nooby friends still play teamgames / custom regularly. they clearly are still interested in the game, and it shows that there is potential there. The replay value of starcraft is ENORMOUS, unlike D3 or WoW. DO SOMETHING WITH THAT. Make them play the game alot, and in the meantime slowly introduce them to the competitive scene.
|
SC2 also failed in China.
When Bisu, Stork and Jaedong came to China for WCG in 2009 there were tens of thousands of crazy fans, and it was in 2009, way after BW's peak in China. It was almost a riot when they arrived.
I went to WCS Asia last week end, and although there could have been some hype because after all WCS Asia was Korean stars fighting China stars and played in China, there were barely a few hundred people attending...
|
I really want to hear Day9's thoughts about this. I also have been wanting to see Blizzard do something for the past few years. Ultimately, though, I get one reaction from this article:
|
Agree.
The Arcarde mode is still fucked up, the editor is completly userunfriendly and the social features are basically nonexistend or userunfriendly.
If you don't play ladder in SC2, you are doing something wrong.
|
I agree with destiny that it is up to blizzard to help grow their game but blizzard must have come to the conclusion that no matter what they put out, people will not like it. But in SC2 case, as the successor to BW, people will try their very best to make it successful, regardless of all the problems it has. So blizzard can put out something of lack luster value, but people will still play it and try to make it work.
Honestly blizzard won't do anything drastic until the 'last expansion' because they know that HOTS will bring a crop of new/returning players that will leave but then return again for LOTV.
|
lol @ the schizophrenic reasoning of every TL "AHHH SC2 is DYZING" post.
SC2 is suffering because of lack of appeal to casuals / SC2 is suffering because it's too easy.
It's like 1984 up in here.
|
On October 18 2012 01:52 Kenpark wrote:
I dont get all the shitting on sc2. LoL is obv a whole different model. In LoL you dont start at equal footing at the start of the game and this is for me a big part of any competitive game.
I just started playing a little LoL, cause I wanted to see what all the buzz is about. So I started some games with some friends who already played LoL. Now the point is with all the talent/rune stuff, that you are from the get go already at a pretty big disadvantage when playing against more experienced players.
The heros right from the start are at least 20-30 % stronger than their newer player counterparts. Imagine you are playing a tvt, where your opponent starts with 1-1 marines. Is that really the model you guys are praising here so much ? That you have to play around 300 games just to start equal ? Imo that counteracts the competetive spirit, although it is obv a good business model.
While this is true, you don't even unlock ranked matchmaking until lvl 30 at which point you'll probably have a decent setup of runes and masteries. I think the system is complete shit and one of the reasons Dota 2 is so much better, but I don't think it's fair to say it's bad for the competitiveness of the game since anyone who is playing it competitively should already have the basics set up.
|
On October 18 2012 01:12 DrowSwordsman wrote:
Also anyone that played BW seriously thought WC3 was a joke. And I like WC3 as much as the next guy (I think it's far from a joke), but if you think BW and WC3 are on the same level as an RTS, yet SC2 is in every way inferior, you don't know what you're talking about.
StarCraft succeeded because it was able to successfully subvert the rock-paper-scissors formula within the Command and Conquer and Warcraft style of real-time strategy game, where flashing paper against rock merely put you at a disadvantage that could be overcome with exceptional tactics. Warcraft III succeeded because its extended health counts and the utility of well-designed individual units (along with the value and utility of hero units) allowed for exceptionally deep and intense tactics that more than admirably covered for the simplified economic model and reduced unit counts. Pathing and tactics are so thoroughly simplified in StarCraft II that you're better off comparing them to the Command and Conquer games, and even if nearly every game of Red Alert 2 plays out in the exact same manner (scouting Dogs leading into Tank/Dogs and the occasional Paratrooper drop), Red Alert 2 multiplayer was at least thoroughly to the point, games rarely lasted longer than ten minutes, and it was aesthetically delightful to engage with. What does StarCraft II do well? The deathball is so well-thoroughly-documented that I'm surprised people try to defend the tactical depth of the game, because outside of specific unit interactions (Marine vs. Baneling, Tank vs. Tank), there really isn't any.
I'll ask a simple question: As a game of tactics, why would I choose StarCraft II over Blizzard's better real-time strategy games? As a game of strategy, why would I choose StarCraft II over Rise of Nations, Total Annihilation, Empire Earth, or Supreme Commander? The game is average across the board, and the fact that there have only been about one or two posts in this forty-page thread pointing this out speaks volumes to the problem. (Although I will concede that Destiny is absolutely correct in pointing out that the game barely does anything to appeal to those who aren't interested in the melee gametypes, and that is part of the problem.)
Remember kids: Warcraft III was a totally awful spectator sport. That's because the game lacked transparency, so outsiders had no idea what was going on. But the DotA clones, games based on a stunted and crippled (i.e. inferior) version of Warcraft III, games with even less transparency than Warcraft III (thanks to their gigantic array of heroes and their selection of unintuitive spells, talents, and items) are super-awesome and we here at TeamLiquid are proud to provide coverage of professional DotA 2!
|
I agree with Destiny, whenever I watch live tournaments I only see conference rooms that are only filled for 50% and stuff like that, its simply not as big as it should be and people expect it to be.
|
On October 18 2012 01:35 SupLilSon wrote:
A wiki search of Browder also shows that he was an English Literature major at UCLA? No wonder he has less than no idea what to do with SC2...
Nothing wrong with English Lit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
