|
Chile5 Posts
Hello.
I think more "online persistent progression" features would be very nice to keep people playing.
More portraits and unlockable cosmetic stuff.
Maybe you could have a parallel ladder (of casual nature), where you unlock units or tech as you progress (like in singleplayer) and then you get matched with people of the same progression level. It could even have a lot more units than the official multiplayer SC2 (like singleplayer, again).
Or just put a "vs AI" ladder, where you (alone or with your friends) tackle lots of Blizzard (or approved by Blizzard) custom maps against AI, where you collect points to unlock tech and units. Kinda replicating MMO concept of grinding against AI. I know I would play a LOT of that.
Good day to everyone.
|
I voted "other", because the one thing which annoys me most about SC2 is the inconsistency between BW and SC2. Both are connected through a story and somehow Protoss forgot to make Arbiters and Dark Archons, Terrans forgot all about Goliaths, Medics and their air units and Zerg forgot all about the Lurker. For Zerg you could postulate an "evolution" to explain these changes, but how about Terrans and Protoss? Sudden stupidity and loss of memory? Nope.
The reason why I want the game to be more like BW is simple: As a casual gamer I am overwhelmed by the amount of attention I need to pay to making units and gathering resources. And if I slack in one of them I get overrun easily by a horde of units from another player who doesnt have these problems. Kinda like one of the "Chill 101 challenges" where you were tasked to only gather resources, produce units and then "a-move" them towards the opponent without actually watching.
To make a long story short: production speed boosts and economic boosts are a terrible idea for SC2 for the simple reason that both kick in differently for each race and this gives players of different races an advantage over other races at different times. Thus it is very important to remove these mechanisms for ALL races and to adjust to a slower pacing of the game through less unit production capability.
As a second measure I would like to see tactical defensive play to be possible in SC2, but due to the perfectly tight balls of units with perfectly synched unit movement and the ability to select unlimited numbers of units in one group any defensive structure or unit will fall MUCH faster than it did in BW. Currently the only viable strategy is offensive and that is boring for me as a viewer, because nothing is as challenging as a very secure blockade with bunkers and tanks and turrets and trying to break out of such a siege. The current "max army vs. max army" battles last about 30 seconds and then its over, which is too short to keep my interest. I am not a goldfish!
|
Would really like them to change the GFX back so i could actually play the game ^.^ sucks not having money to spend on a good laptop/desktop to play the game 
|
None of the options in the poll will save this game. What's a deal breaker for casual players is:
1) the fact that the army they built up for 15 minutes dissolves in 6 seconds in ball vs. ball battles
2) early cheese is overly powerful and excessively frustrating to people just trying to play for fun or learn
You have to fundamentally change how the game plays by at least doubling the HP of all units and tweaking the power of early all-ins. Then you have to release an expansion with SIGNIFICANT additions to get people to give this game a second look. Barring that, I think the scene will continue to shrink.
|
I think most of all I'd like Blizzard to put some more work into promoting eSports through and around the game. An in game stream showing pro-games and automated tournaments for each league would be awesome.
|
I want units to clump less. However that can be accomplished, I don't care - change in AI, make unit collision larger, whatever... AoE is too strong, so aoe spells have to be nerfed unto blandness. Battles end too quick because of how concentrated ranged dps is. The deathball makes this game worse to play and far worse to spectate.
|
Honestly all of this, beside f2p. I just don't like how f2p works. When I buy a game I want to have full content. Not deblocking it by paying weeks after weeks, and then realize I've spent 200€ on the game. And mostly there is always the risk of pay to win.
Anyway all of those feature are bnet 1.0 (wc3 bnet) and with few more features like in game observing, embedded streams, this will be bnet 2.0.
|
Other.
Aka harder gameplay.
|
I would like some incentive to log in everyday like how LOL has a first win of the day bonus. At the moment I have no obligation to play everyday because of the bonus pool.
|
I'd hate to see multiplayer free to play, dealing with commercials and paying for additionnal stuff.
|
Sorry folks, SC2 by its nature is not friendly to casuals. The only way to make this game widely appealing is to make it easier and less complex, which none of us want. Prettying up the UI and adding in-game spectating will only help at the margins. And I'm fine with that, because I'm a hardcore gamer and I'm in love with the difficulty and depth of this game  . If that means the pro scene has to contract, it's unfortunate and inevitable but not the end of the world.
|
Honestly I just want the game to allow for more micro and allow more skilled players to utilize their advantage. PvZ in particular is shit in this regard I believe.
|
The main thing I miss from previous blizzard games that I think bnet 2.0 in general is lacking is a sense of community and a long lasting group oriented game.
I feel like WarCraft III did a amazing job with a lot of UI features on battle.net such as being able to make a clan (which had its own designated channel with admin) because it actually created lobbies which does a lot of things for the game but the main one is probably the fact that it creates a relaxed environment to meet people in as opposed to meeting someone as you're beating them or losing to them on the ladder. Literally a lot of my memories of Warcraft III are just from bullshitting and talking with people in those channels. When I used to play Warcraft I would log into the game feeling like a part of a community as I would always talk to people and then play some games. You compare that to what SC2 is today and I log in to the game and I feel like I'm playing single player because I literally am. The community aspect of SC2 actually within battle.net is pretty much non existent. The chat channels blizzard implemented for Bnet 2.0 were a step back in the right direction but definitely lacking in what they had accomplished before.
Now on to the new custom game layout. I don't know if the majority of you feel this way as well but I for one miss the way custom games worked in sc1 and Wc3. A list that refreshes itself every 5-10 seconds with newly created games always coming up to the top of the list. I feel like this system is a great way to get every single custom game exposure because every single game has the same chance as the next to be seen and played. The new system has about 10-15 custom games that make the front of the list that get a lot of traffic and are played a lot. If you try to explore and find new games you find yourself usually joining an empty lobby and just giving up because you're hoping someone else is sifting around page 9 and randomly clicks on the same game you picked. Variety is a good thing and the new custom game layout hardly offers it.
There are tons of cool new ideas other games have implemented into their products that blizzard could feed off of so I won't go into that, but all I'll say is I am never against a new interesting idea. The more cool features the better but I'll end my post here because I feel like the 2 topics I covered above are 2 of the main reasons you could see a decline in the SC2 fan base.
Sorry if my post sucked I kind of just rambled on as I thought about stuff lol
|
Wanting the community to grow -> UI fix.
Wanting to see more better games (Less Infestor Broodlord or an awesome skill based way to kill Infestor Broodlord decisively) -> Balance.
WHICH ONE TO CHOOSE T.T
I guess UI then... In the end, I have faith in the President to pull us through these hard times!
|
It is really all about community. Facilitate ways to make friends and be in contact online - whether it's watching replays together, or a total revamping of channel structure... Making the UMS scene as great as it once was...
A game is a game until you make friends playing it. Then it becomes something greater.
|
On October 24 2012 22:58 Doodsmack wrote:Sorry folks, SC2 by its nature is not friendly to casuals. The only way to make this game widely appealing is to make it easier and less complex, which none of us want. Prettying up the UI and adding in-game spectating will only help at the margins. And I'm fine with that, because I'm a hardcore gamer and I'm in love with the difficulty and depth of this game . If that means the pro scene has to contract, it's unfortunate and inevitable but not the end of the world.
I think it's possible that you could rework the gameplay in a manner that makes it more friendly to casuals without ruining the depth and complexity. If you doubled or tripled the HP of all units, it would make it a bit more like WC3. It would mean the army you've built up wouldn't evaporate in an instant, and you could retreat and salvage what you've got, and it would also allow more time for micro. For casuals, it's very frustrating to engage and see your ball wiped out instantly. Casuals don't know why they lose battles--positioning, upgrades, macro, composition. But right now they're punished excessively because in SC2, you have to commit 100% to an engagement and by the time you've assessed which way it's going, you've already lost the game.
|
People get too wrapped up in balance and oversee the fact that sc2 has much bigger problems right now. making the game more casual friendly balance wise is a terrible idea over just fixing the currently terrible ui in the game. make the game actually "fun" and not "less challenging"
|
On October 24 2012 22:58 Doodsmack wrote:Sorry folks, SC2 by its nature is not friendly to casuals. The only way to make this game widely appealing is to make it easier and less complex, which none of us want. Prettying up the UI and adding in-game spectating will only help at the margins. And I'm fine with that, because I'm a hardcore gamer and I'm in love with the difficulty and depth of this game . If that means the pro scene has to contract, it's unfortunate and inevitable but not the end of the world.
By your logic only the most extreme gamers ever played BW.
|
On October 24 2012 23:18 ROOTViBE wrote:
People get too wrapped up in balance and oversee the fact that sc2 has much bigger problems right now. making the game more casual friendly balance wise is a terrible idea over just fixing the currently terrible ui in the game. make the game actually "fun" and not "less challenging"
Even if you have "fun" chat channels, clans and all that, you still encounter maddening gameplay--armies evaporating instantly, powerful early game cheese. I think those things turn off casuals to a far greater degree. And certainly, at this point, those casuals from 2010 and 2011 aren't going to readopt the game because of some UI changes. They've already dismissed the game from their mind.
|
It's not something I personally want for myself, but I voted for free to play multiplayer. I feel like starcraft 2 is easily one of the best games out there, and the free to play model seems like one of the best possible ways to attract a large audience to try it out and just see how awesome it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
