|
Idra:
"Blizzard isn't doing anything so WE'RE gonna do something"...
Lol its easy for the EG guys to sit in their game house, getting at least 30k a year to drink Monster, whilst talking this nonsense. The real people doing something for the game consistently break their backs to stream, fly to events in order to get good results for their fans. Noone in EG besides Stephano does this. And for DjWheat to even act as an authority on a game he hasn't got a clue about is disturbing. I already think that the concept of E-Sports is a joke, but these guys took it toooo far.
I can't help feel that after watching that terrible episode of Inside The Game, Idra, Incontrol and DjWheat performed reacharounds on each other before Destiny came on air so that it looked like a horrible set up.
|
Germany35 Posts
Blizzard is like: Take this game we dont want it anymore.
Riot is like: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there.
|
On October 29 2012 19:25 Meega wrote:
Blizzard is like: Take this game we dont want it anymore.
Riot is like: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there.
More like...
Blizzard: We have a brand, shit'll sort itselves.
Riot: Shut up and take our money.
Valve: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there.
|
How about we stop arguing a bit and try to find solutions:
I think one of the problems of poor gameplay is sc2 has too many hard counters.
Rock-paper-scissors philosophy in nutshell. it forces us to use one composition.
Usual scenario:
-what if I build unit A,
-NO, they will build unit B and you'll die, you better stick with the Colossi/gateway army,
- ok 
Instead of making hardcounters, why won't we diversify units, make them interactable, microable, soft counters.
I would start from lowering damage of most units that do too much specified damage. Like, why marauder does +10 vs armored? Instead make it 8 base damage and +6 vs armored. Upgrades (+1/0). Increase their speed so that they could be microed better but don't do absurd damage. Cut in half damage of banelings, but increase explosion radius, so that opponent has more incentives to micro and spread his army. Make phoenixes do 7+7 base damage and no additional damage to light. And vuala, you can use them in fights, not only for scouting and killing workers, not utterly devastating but micro dependant. And many many more stuff should be tweaked. We're not asking to redesign units. Some tweaks would've make huge differences.
Thoughts?
|
On October 29 2012 19:29 Labil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 19:25 Meega wrote:
Blizzard is like: Take this game we dont want it anymore.
Riot is like: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there. More like... Blizzard: We have a brand, shit'll sort itselves. Riot: Shut up and take our money. Valve: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there.
Personally, I think it is more like:
Blizzard: We are making two other games that will sell more that SC2, so we are focusing on that. Our parent company demands we do that. We will get to you when we are done with those.
Riot: Don't tell anyone we didn't have replays for like 2.5 years. Also, take our money.
Valve: We are making a great off the backs of our amazing steam sales. We are also working on insane VR tech, because we have way to much money. Hate battle.net 2.0, we have the same thing, but you won't get mad about it. Also, we are never making half life 3.
The grass is always greener when your game is 2 years old and not supported by micro transactions.
|
Ha ha, thanks noobskills,
That was a verry insightfull post and i learned alot about blizzard activision wich i didnt knew.
Think you are right pretty much, guess we dont have to expect annything great from activision/blizzard in the near future.
|
They need to stop listening to Browder, he's a fcking disaster.
Much of the game development world has been lost for years, under the lead of bogus game gurus, who spurt out pseudo game development science. Quasi concepts like, 'depth' and 'quality' and the need to fulfill a 20 hour experience, have them chasing ideas that lose the point. When all they really need is to focus on the player and the PLAYER EXPERIENCE, and ask themselves, these kinds of things.
What types of players are out there?
What types of things appeal to these players, and why?
And most important...
How do we create a system that reflects how COOL a player is, even when he is not the greatest?
Each of us is different, and we all prioritize different things, for different reasons. The games that are able to cater to MORE of these reasons do better, they get a broader audience.
Broodwar actually catered to a broader player base than all the others, and most important, it left you feeling good about yourself, once you got above average.
SC2 however, leaves you feeling like crap unless you are Grand Master.
The biggest problem is probably that the Starcraft ranking system, actually hurts it. It is a poorly implemented idea that insults and degrades average players. It does not feel good to hang with your friends and destroy them as a Goldie, when they're all Silvers. They just look at you like you're a big headed lamer, who actually sucks because you're not a GrandMaster. There is just something really unrewarding about that. Out of a billion players only 200 of us can say we dont suck. Yeah, real smart Blizzard.
But Broodwar didnt have that feeling, we didnt have to be elites, none of us were going to win a world tournament but we could appreciate each others differences as average as we were, and would actually look up to the Platinum level play as something special. Vs purely random skilled opponents, even the Gold becomes a force to be reckoned with.
Really to put it simply, it doesnt feel good to be Gold or Platinum or Diamond, and as snobby as you bastards are around here, those levels of play are actually above average. But you wont feel above average when you get there, you'll totally feel like a lame ass loser. And you wont start winning more either as you get better, you'll actually not experience what feels like an increase in skill, instead you'll feel like you are exactly the same, winning and losing exactly the same amount of games as you did when you were a bronzie. That means you are spitting pissed off the exact same amount of times a day, whether you are bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, and ALL the way you are aware that you are not Master and you do not count for crap.
And whats more, if you vary your play system at all, just to have fun, you lose and fall backwards.
A focus on Competitive play, in a system that reflects your rankings and automatically pits you against players of estimated equal strength, has an alienating effect on the average player. You can't help but feel like a loser in Starcraft 2, as a bronze, gold or platinum player, you will lose a lot more games than you would have on Broodwar. There was something different about the game selection process, you actually had more control over how you were able to select your opponents, it had the effect of making you feel better about wins and losses. Most of us didn't ladder anyway, we just played mellee and UMS with friends or we newbie bashed in public multi-player games, and it was mad fun, even when the fast money madness came along.
Blizzard, back to the basics.. THE PLAYERS - THE PLAYERS - THE PLAYERS!
Get yourself into the head of THE PLAYERS.
NOT THE MASTERS ... THE PROFITS ... THE ESPORT ... THE QUALITY ... THE DEPTH .. THE BLA BLA .. THE CELEBRITY OPINION
THE PLAYERS!!!!
Its simple.. if you get better, you should win more! And in SC2 you dont. After 4 weeks of that crap you're like.. WTF? Lets play something else. You need a broader base, so dump the auto ranking system and you will have a better feeling game for THE PLAYER! Let the players decide who is good and who is not and who they should and shouldn't be playing.
OR give us the option to just play purely random opponents we might get Master level, or we might get Bronze, its just a crap shoot, we can get ranked when we are done. I know it's almost newbie bashing once you get above Gold, but heck, it's how it should be, you get better then your win ratio improves, and you will have teams that are having a blast beating the crap out of everyone , until every now and then they run into better teams. But as you get better that will happen less often.
As a platinum level player on BW you could expect to have a record that was something like 5000 wins and 500 loses. That is a very different experience though on SC2 you will lose a good many of your games. You lose a sense of progress.
What's more, when you are matched, your variety is reduced, because you are not able to deviate and be more flexible, or you will just lose instantly. Unlike in a random system, you can opt to do really silly things, like a mass queen rush, or a burrow rush, and you can actually have a lot of fun. We had a blast on Broodwar doing really stupid things and weird rushes like Ghost / Dark Archon combo's. The ranking system hinders variety, and the players are forced to slog it out, with very tight build orders, and very tight counter play, that is the same crap over and over and over again.
Blizzard is suffering from the Bozo bit = on syndrome, they have 2 opposing conceptual ideas that are clashing.
1. Competition is king
2. Everyone should be equal.
They need to get with reality. Newbies are Newbies, they should lose more, because they suck, and they can practice and get better. And then, they dont lose as much. If they want to protect newbies, then chain them up until out of bronze, and then let them loose in the real world, where they will lose a lot, but win a lot more as they improve, then let them rank themselves based upon a win/loss ratio instead of the skill ranking system. Then let the players decide if they want to play against a high ratio'd player or not.
What this will do, is allow platinum level players and above to appear as if they are in the top 10%, and it is a much more attainable status, than the current system allows, a lot more fun, with a lot more variety, giving them a. larger community and audience.
Losing half your games no matter what your skill level, is DUMB!! It feels painful Blizzard.. get with it.
Fix your ranking system,
End result...
Blizzard creates a fun to play system that reflects how COOL a player is, even when he is not the greatest!
|
On October 29 2012 17:35 NarAliya wrote:
Idra:
"Blizzard isn't doing anything so WE'RE gonna do something"...
Lol its easy for the EG guys to sit in their game house, getting at least 30k a year to drink Monster, whilst talking this nonsense. The real people doing something for the game consistently break their backs to stream, fly to events in order to get good results for their fans. Noone in EG besides Stephano does this. And for DjWheat to even act as an authority on a game he hasn't got a clue about is disturbing. I already think that the concept of E-Sports is a joke, but these guys took it toooo far.
I can't help feel that after watching that terrible episode of Inside The Game, Idra, Incontrol and DjWheat performed reacharounds on each other before Destiny came on air so that it looked like a horrible set up.
Just to be clear, you are joking right?
-EG flies everywhere, just as much as any other team.
-They certainly stream just as much as other teams (more than most too).
-They provide far more e-sports related content than any other team.
-They have a practice house designed so that they can hone their talents.
-Wheat isn't an authority on SC2 or e-sports? LOL. How many famous shows does he have to host and tournaments does he have to cast before he becomes an authority in your eyes? And you realize Destiny was fabricating numbers and viewership fluctuations when Wheat literally works for Twitch, right?
Everyone elaborating on their own responses to Destiny's fully written argument was just making things even, and the fact that there was agreement among the good points means nothing more than consistency. Just because people agree with each other doesn't mean they weren't also bringing up good points lol.
|
On October 29 2012 19:46 bokeevboke wrote:How about we stop arguing a bit and try to find solutions: I think one of the problems of poor gameplay is sc2 has too many hard counters. Rock-paper-scissors philosophy in nutshell. it forces us to use one composition. Usual scenario: -what if I build unit A,
-NO, they will build unit B and you'll die, you better stick with the Colossi/gateway army,
- ok Instead of making hardcounters, why won't we diversify units, make them interactable, microable, soft counters. I would start from lowering damage of most units that do too much specified damage. Like, why marauder does +10 vs armored? Instead make it 8 base damage and +6 vs armored. Upgrades (+1/0). Increase their speed so that they could be microed better but don't do absurd damage. Cut in half damage of banelings, but increase explosion radius, so that opponent has more incentives to micro and spread his army. Make phoenixes do 7+7 base damage and no additional damage to light. And vuala, you can use them in fights, not only for scouting and killing workers, not utterly devastating but micro dependant. And many many more stuff should be tweaked. We're not asking to redesign units. Some tweaks would've make huge differences. Thoughts?
That is a great idea. I think you are right about the hard counters. They force such a boring and undynamic way to play.
I have nothing to add gameplay wise, especially as I hardly play anymore. I will say as a spectator there are only a couple of ways a game funnels into, and once it slides into one of those paths it's beyond me why they bother to cast the rest. Not that it's an autowin for any one race, but the counter that an opponent has to do is predictable as is the counter to that counter. I don't care who is going to win on the massive ball engagement, I know it is going to be b.lords and infestors vs a mothership, etc.
All in all it has gotten damn tedius to watch.
|
On October 29 2012 22:26 echobong wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 19:46 bokeevboke wrote:How about we stop arguing a bit and try to find solutions: I think one of the problems of poor gameplay is sc2 has too many hard counters. Rock-paper-scissors philosophy in nutshell. it forces us to use one composition. Usual scenario: -what if I build unit A,
-NO, they will build unit B and you'll die, you better stick with the Colossi/gateway army,
- ok Instead of making hardcounters, why won't we diversify units, make them interactable, microable, soft counters. I would start from lowering damage of most units that do too much specified damage. Like, why marauder does +10 vs armored? Instead make it 8 base damage and +6 vs armored. Upgrades (+1/0). Increase their speed so that they could be microed better but don't do absurd damage. Cut in half damage of banelings, but increase explosion radius, so that opponent has more incentives to micro and spread his army. Make phoenixes do 7+7 base damage and no additional damage to light. And vuala, you can use them in fights, not only for scouting and killing workers, not utterly devastating but micro dependant. And many many more stuff should be tweaked. We're not asking to redesign units. Some tweaks would've make huge differences. Thoughts? That is a great idea. I think you are right about the hard counters. They force such a boring and undynamic way to play. I have nothing to add gameplay wise, especially as I hardly play anymore. I will say as a spectator there are only a couple of ways a game funnels into, and once it slides into one of those paths it's beyond me why they bother to cast the rest. Not that it's an autowin for any one race, but the counter that an opponent has to do is predictable as is the counter to that counter. I don't care who is going to win on the massive ball engagement, I know it is going to be b.lords and infestors vs a mothership, etc. All in all it has gotten damn tedius to watch.
Hard counters can be done well. ala BW.
Problem might more be 'un-microability' or the ai A-move being super effective.
|
All in all it has gotten damn tedius to watch.
Pretty much this.
I stopped playing SC2 in favor of LoL a few Months ago but still watched GSL, Player Streams, Tournaments,...
Recently I also stopped watching SC2.
If I turn in I can see "aha its MMM against Mass Zealot/Colossi/HT" like every time. In the meanwhile I would say: If you have seen 5 PvT you have seen them all.
The Game ist stale to watch and has become increasingly boring to play. Macro up 10 Minutes, watch Ball vs Ball, queue up for the next game.
|
now im just playing custom games for fun and watch tournaments like wcs europe and homestory other than that its pretty boring hoping hots will bring some fresh air
|
On October 29 2012 19:29 Labil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 19:25 Meega wrote:
Blizzard is like: Take this game we dont want it anymore.
Riot is like: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there. More like... Blizzard: We have a brand, shit'll sort itselves. Riot: Shut up and take our money. Valve: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there.
lol no Riot is actually very good about supporting its game unlike blizzard
|
On October 29 2012 23:10 GizmoPT wrote:
now im just playing custom games for fun and watch tournaments like wcs europe and homestory other than that its pretty boring hoping hots will bring some fresh air
I would settle for new maps to spice things up. The current maps have been around for to long. I have see so many games on daybreak and I never want to see any more. People say the game got stale because of the game play, but its mostly because everyone figured out a lot of the maps and we have been on them for months after they were figured out.
|
On October 29 2012 23:12 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 19:29 Labil wrote:On October 29 2012 19:25 Meega wrote:
Blizzard is like: Take this game we dont want it anymore.
Riot is like: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there. More like... Blizzard: We have a brand, shit'll sort itselves. Riot: Shut up and take our money. Valve: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there. lol no Riot is actually very good about supporting its game unlike blizzard
With not having replays or any spectator mode for nearly 3 years. And couple of years with no way to deal with abusive players in a team based game. How quickly people forget.
|
On October 29 2012 23:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 23:12 Incognoto wrote:On October 29 2012 19:29 Labil wrote:On October 29 2012 19:25 Meega wrote:
Blizzard is like: Take this game we dont want it anymore.
Riot is like: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there. More like... Blizzard: We have a brand, shit'll sort itselves. Riot: Shut up and take our money. Valve: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there. lol no Riot is actually very good about supporting its game unlike blizzard With not having replays or any spectator mode for nearly 3 years. And couple of years with no way to deal with abusive players in a team based game. How quickly people forget.
They fucked up the beginning, no one is gonna deny that. But they are learning from their mistakes and slowly making their game a lot better. In fact, they did almost everything right for quite some time now, as is evidenced by the player base.
|
On October 29 2012 23:12 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 19:29 Labil wrote:On October 29 2012 19:25 Meega wrote:
Blizzard is like: Take this game we dont want it anymore.
Riot is like: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there. More like... Blizzard: We have a brand, shit'll sort itselves. Riot: Shut up and take our money. Valve: Lets work together to make the best possible game out there. lol no Riot is actually very good about supporting its game unlike blizzard
Yeah, takes a lot of support to make a beta client, support it for 2 years, code the largest update in the history of the game for that client, and then drop it with a week's notice and never tell the players why or help the people that subsequently made a more functional client.
|
Quick everyone, forget that Riot patches the game every ~3 weeks with balance and new content!
|
On October 29 2012 19:46 bokeevboke wrote:How about we stop arguing a bit and try to find solutions: I think one of the problems of poor gameplay is sc2 has too many hard counters. Rock-paper-scissors philosophy in nutshell. it forces us to use one composition. Usual scenario: -what if I build unit A,
-NO, they will build unit B and you'll die, you better stick with the Colossi/gateway army,
- ok Instead of making hardcounters, why won't we diversify units, make them interactable, microable, soft counters. I would start from lowering damage of most units that do too much specified damage. Like, why marauder does +10 vs armored? Instead make it 8 base damage and +6 vs armored. Upgrades (+1/0). Increase their speed so that they could be microed better but don't do absurd damage. Cut in half damage of banelings, but increase explosion radius, so that opponent has more incentives to micro and spread his army. Make phoenixes do 7+7 base damage and no additional damage to light. And vuala, you can use them in fights, not only for scouting and killing workers, not utterly devastating but micro dependant. And many many more stuff should be tweaked. We're not asking to redesign units. Some tweaks would've make huge differences. Thoughts?
I don't think the problem is finding solutions, it's getting them implemented. We can't implement any of the solutions that would require changing the game, because it's not our game.
At the end of the day, the game is inseparable from its developer, and like most games, its fate rests almost entirely on the decisions developer makes. The community's role in this context is a very passive one - no amount of well thought of posts or elaborate ideas is going to go anywhere if it conflicts with the developers' own vision of the game.
The units are the way they are because the dev team thinks that's what they should be like, they have been designed to conform to their design patterns and principles. It doesn't really matter how subtle the changes we ask for are if they essentially change the nature of units and gameplay as a whole.
Blizzard has made it pretty clear over the last couple of years as to what they're willing to change and what they won't change. They're happy to play around with balance tweaks all the time, but none of these tweaks has ever really changed how a race plays and feels like, only the optimal timings and compositions have changed.
|
On October 29 2012 23:59 ToT)OjKa( wrote:
Quick everyone, forget that Riot patches the game every ~3 weeks with balance and new content!
I am pretty sure they update their game every three weeks due to adding new champions and new skins, as that is how they make money.
The issue is not binary. Riot supports their games, no one will argue with that. They have improved it. Do they support their games far better than Blizzard? Well that is a questionable argument. I would say currently, they have better features. However, for the majority of the last 2.5 years, SC2 has had much better features that LoL. It is only recently that Riot has caught up and passed SC2 in features.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
