EPTBlizzard wanted feedback and suggestions, now it is impossible to browse sc2 related sites without getting that. I'm getting all excited about the future of this game! Wooh~
[Poll] What do you want changed in SC2 the MOST? - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
blae000
Norway1640 Posts
Blizzard wanted feedback and suggestions, now it is impossible to browse sc2 related sites without getting that. I'm getting all excited about the future of this game! Wooh~ | ||
|
Yttrasil
Sweden651 Posts
On October 24 2012 19:24 Lorch wrote: I'm not saying casuals don't help, just that this is not something our scene needs to stay healthy. Of course these are things that would help and no one can argue that a higher player base would harm the game, but tbh I would much rather have them focus on issues that actually affect pro gamers before they worry about casuals. I'm sure that's personally true for you and alot of other people, especially here. However for the vast majority who don't play 1v1 ladder or such, there is huge problem with this argument. The question that then comes to mind, what is healthy. A small community with people just playing to be as competitive as possible. Or a larger one, where the same amount or more play competitively and an even larger base play the game to have fun, play around and basically play a game. While the first one indeed can be healthy, it's rather difficult to imagine it being sustainable in the long run, if we count this moment as it being healthy. Just imagine how much bigger grander and healthier it would be in the second situation. While many of the mentioned changes would help sustain the current viewership to a large extent, it would eventually fall off. The second case does not exclude that, especially as the die hard competitive fans will still be in the game as there are no alternatives to begin with and even more would flock to the game as there actually is the option to have fun with the game without being competitive. | ||
|
Paladia
802 Posts
| ||
|
byluiz
Chile1 Post
I actually just make and account to write my idea. Sorry for my english. Some people just don't play all the day SC2 or they are doing other things like doing homework or working in something... when this happen, some people would like to stay conected in Sc2 just for talk with friends, In thats perspective i dont have a really powerfull computer that can't just have the SC2 program open and use other programas in the same time, but would use sc2 like a launcher windows that can have all my friends, chats, replays, watch other pros playing... its like "this is going on right now, in this moment". and could give the oportunity to stay close for news, online events, the possibility to make like a global (and i mean global, no just na or eu..) network for all the people that we love this game. i hope if i write right and clear. | ||
|
iAmiAnC
United Kingdom317 Posts
 I voted for the spectating option, but I'm not so sure considering how lacklustre stream viewership numbers have been recently. viOLet had ~900 viewers with a 1080p stream + webcam and amazing play. Would people really be interested in this? Its cool certainly but will it bring in new players and encourage people to log in to SCII? Perhaps the free multiplayer option might allow the game to become massive in China or something... | ||
|
PepperoniPiZZa
Sierra Leone1660 Posts
I don't care about name changing and I don't know why I should pay for a name change, it seems like a trivial process. I don't care about tournament promotion, it's not gonna make my personal playing experience any more exciting. I don't care about LAN. I don't care about ladder. I'm way too bad for balance to have a serious effect on my game. I'm not interested in watching replays with my friends. Global play would be great I guess. I don't need the game to be free but the features that come with a free 2 play game might be fun, for example, collecting points by playing and spending them in a skin shop might be a good incentive for people to play. I can watch streams and chat with other people all day. [x] Simplified Custom games area with individually named games. All day everyday. Also, for me, there is way too much emphasis on managing a very shallow economy. It's what made me stop playing and it's the reason I will not be playing hots. A real incentive for me to actually play would be to completely revamp the economy managment portion of this game. So many activities in this game are trivial and the only reason they're remotely difficult is because of the quantity of other trivial things I have to take care of at the same time. I'd much prefer for these activities to be qualitatively difficult than quantitatively difficult. | ||
|
anatem
Romania1369 Posts
| ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
I don't think any of your proposition will help the situation. Games do not succeed based on features, they succeed because of gameplay. Features are built on successful game. For example: - A game attracts plenty of players and viewers, implement an ingame stream. - Many people play the game competitively, implement a shared replay-watching thing. - People spend a lot of time searching/discussing games, implement a better chatting system. etc... If no one plays the game, its not because of poor features, its because the actual game sucks. | ||
|
hefa
Finland22 Posts
A part of the problem with sc2/battlenet 2.0 is the feeling you are alone. Small change that would make the battle.net feel more alive would be a post game lobby instead of the score screen. Scores and stats should still be there, but the main focus should be with a simple chat window where all the players/spectators would be after the game. I know I could just chat with the opponent, but that is an extra step that many people are just not willing to take. Additional options like "remake with same players" would be nice. This would make the experience of playing much more social. | ||
|
DrHiggins
United States26 Posts
| ||
|
Fuzer
Finland266 Posts
| ||
|
lovedoctor
Germany115 Posts
For example:
There might be much more... Just make it easy to interact with friends and others, so I like being in battle.net and not close it immediately after losing three games in a row because there is nothing else to do besides starting a game. | ||
|
roym899
Germany426 Posts
On October 24 2012 19:49 bokeevboke wrote: Sheth, I don't think any of your proposition will help the situation. Games do not succeed based on features, they succeed because of gameplay. Features are built on successful game. For example: - A game attracts plenty of players and viewers, implement an ingame stream. - Many people play the game competitively, implement a shared replay-watching thing. - People spend a lot of time searching/discussing games, implement a better chatting system. etc... If no one plays the game, its not because of poor features, its because the actual game sucks. No? How the fuck can LoL be successful then? oO It's more about how much it costs actually. | ||
|
Pwnographics
New Zealand1097 Posts
| ||
|
lovedoctor
Germany115 Posts
On October 24 2012 20:03 Pwnographics wrote: Why the fuck can't we have all those options? Because there are limited resources | ||
|
Pwnographics
New Zealand1097 Posts
I hope that was sarcasm. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
I'm reluctant to post all my ideas on that because the issue itself is probably deserving of a thread of its own. If there was one idea alone I had to pick though, I say I'd want proper high ground mechanics. High ground advantage is nearly non existent in the practical sense, it is just vision that becomes nullified due to air units and detectors becoming available by the mid game. This is a huge shame because proper high ground advantage was the one thing that worked against deathballs. What proper high ground advantage does is allow a smaller sized army to fight against a larger sized army, and free up supply for harass and multi-task. Just the mere fact that you risk losing your whole army in one huge engagement to a lesser force, while you are also getting harassed, should be enough incentive for people to split up their army. Instead of having huge army vs army engagements that decide the game in one moment, we could have small, medium or large skirmishes all across the maps. Focus shifts to out maneuvering your opponent, not brute forcing him, small incremental successes become larger and stronger benefits over time, but since fights are smaller its easier to come back since you don't lose all your army at once. I know that people will argue however that this leads to boring gameplay and stalemates, I disagree, though it depends on map design. Take a map like Shakuras Plateau or MetroPolis, those maps, due to the ease of taking 5-6 bases a securing them via one or two narrow chokes, naturally encourage a turtly split map situation, this happens even now in SC2 and has nothing to do with high ground, just with maps. What proper high ground advantage does though, is force you to attack in a different area. You can't just brute force your way trough a siege line setup on the high ground, so you instead try to walk around it, or drop, or both. In the grand scheme of things the best way to handle such a game will always be to fight for the superior position, and that will always be done by moving around, both for attacker and for defender, its only the slower the less mechanically proficient players that won't be able to keep up and prefer to turtle, but if they do so they give up map awareness and position in the late mid and late game. However, for this to work, not only would we need new maps with the new high ground mechanic in mind, we would also need proper zone control units. Everyone will instantly think of the siege tank now, but the siege tanks have been heavily nerfed, they no longer fulfil the role of zone control as well as they did, especially against Protoss. But at least terrans have zone control units, zergs don't have any proper zone control units that will synergize with high ground mechanics, and protoss don't have a proper unit either, the colossus is too mobile, has too little range and is much more vulnerable to air for it to count. Also other races would need to be redesigned for this to fit, but I believe it would be worth it. The reward of redesigning high ground mechanic would be that deathball vs deathball games finally die out for good, and you have only proper games, games where the better player was the one that managed to pull his opponent apart by running circles around him, games where the better player managed to harass on multiple fronts for 15 minutes while also defending his own bases. | ||
|
Clawfinger
Canada221 Posts
1) Revamp the Arcade so when you click on it you are taken the the "open games" section, except people can make their own titles (kind of like UMS games in BW/WC3). This is important to make Starcraft have a bigger replay factor for people that aren't into 1v1 games. It also gives map makers a reason to make maps because people will actually play them. SC2 has an amazing map editor, and it needs to be put to proper use. 2) Make Starcraft social. There should be a huge chat window with people looking for anything from clan recruitment to general discussion. I feel like this would also encourage more people to continue laddering rather than alt+f4ing out of frustration. I know after a bad loss I'd like to talk to people about it or join a custom with randoms. 3) Make non-ranked ladder free to play (and include 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4), and charge people to upgrade to ranked ladder, arcade, campaign, or package them together (maybe $10 each or $25 for all three). People have also mentioned skins as a possibility. This might not be the best free-to-play model mentioned, but it at least makes it so you aren't bombarded with map-hackers when dealing with the ranked ladder. 4) LAN Support for Tournaments. This is huge, and I know that it is worthwhile for Blizzard to do just so their fans say "They listened!!!" It's very self explanatory, and fixes most technical problems that occur at offline events. 5) Revamp some of the HotS units. I haven't played the beta yet, so I can't talk about balance, but as far as game design goes the new units are pretty boring (besides the viper/potentially the oracle). The new units that came in Brood War were fucking badass, and made people want to buy the game for them alone. If you notice, the competitive changes are at the bottom of the list and this is because we don't have a Starcraft e-sports scene without the fans. TL DR: Bring back UMS from BW, Make the game social with chat/clan support, some sort of F2P model, make HotS units badass so people are interested in the expansion. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9110 Posts
Chat channels, for the love of god... Floating around in empty space is desolate and lonely which Blizz refuses to address properly. After that I'd say screw their terrible custom game system and have people just host games normally like they did in bw. Basically.... make bnet 2.0 like bnet 1.0 but keep the automated match making ladder system. | ||
|
weeA
India442 Posts
The game can be free for the 3 games a day 10 games a day one time pay 10 $ 20 + games a day 25 $ or something like this The database of players will improve and make starcraft 2 the biggest E - Sports in ever | ||
| ||
