EPTPopularity of LOL, SC2 and BW in Korea - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
cocosoft
Sweden1068 Posts
| ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On May 28 2013 03:21 cocosoft wrote: Yes, they have improved balance on some units for 2vs2 balance, that did not affect the 1v1 balance significantly. I'm sorry that I can't remember any examples at the moment. Reaper? | ||
|
cocosoft
Sweden1068 Posts
Yeah I was thinking about that, but I couldn't remember what got changed. | ||
|
Special Endrey
Germany1929 Posts
| ||
|
Bahajinbo
Germany488 Posts
| ||
|
eScaper-tsunami
Canada313 Posts
On May 28 2013 03:21 cocosoft wrote: Yes, they have improved balance on some units for 2vs2 balance, that did not affect the 1v1 balance significantly. I'm sorry that I can't remember any examples at the moment. I think the point is Blizzard could've promoted 2v2, 3v3 and so on. And you really can't say much about balance unless there are people really heavily investing their time and money in it... like GSL OPEN but they never attempted and now it feels like the opportunity is lost. As to whether SC2 can be balanced in all forms of competition (ie. 1v1 2v2 3v3) blizzard hasn't tried, we don't know. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
 | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On May 28 2013 04:01 eScaper-tsunami wrote: I think the point is Blizzard could've promoted 2v2, 3v3 and so on. And you really can't say much about balance unless there are people really heavily investing their time and money in it... like GSL OPEN but they never attempted and now it feels like the opportunity is lost. As to whether SC2 can be balanced in all forms of competition (ie. 1v1 2v2 3v3) blizzard hasn't tried, we don't know. They really couldn't have promoted team games any more than they did, because team games were never their focus. In fact, it would almost actively hurt to do so, since team games are so boring and predictable in terms of the builds and strategies employed. It would be like the GSL Open Seasons all over again, perhaps with a little bit better macro and micro. Beyond the aspect of boring the viewers with one base all-ins over and over and over again, it would also be harder to follow, what with there being 4 players and whatnot. Finally, the team game map pool overall has always been dreadful, and we know Blizzard have been adamant about keeping their own sub-par maps in the ladder pool even for 1v1, which is supposed to be SC2's main focus, despite the community producing far better efforts. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On May 28 2013 03:21 cocosoft wrote: Yes, they have improved balance on some units for 2vs2 balance, that did not affect the 1v1 balance significantly. I'm sorry that I can't remember any examples at the moment. 2v2 balance is actually pretty alright, but I still think that the "feeding" mechanics are lame and boring as fuck. Way too many feeding builds at high level 2v2. Feeding should be for a point in the game where you can't make use of a certain resource and you want to at least make your ally use it a bit, like if Terran has too much gas lategame and wants to dump a bit to Protoss or something. Imo there should be a tax on the amount you feed your ally. Like 15 to 25% of what you're giving him. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10165 Posts
On May 28 2013 02:33 ACrow wrote: Do you guys, as customers, really want microtransactions in your games? It always leaves me with the feeling that you either do not get all features you need to succeed (= risk of p2w) or in the case of cosmetic or 'social' features it leads to the game acting like a dealer, trying to peer pressure you into stuff you don't need or making addicts out of certain persons. Despite this, RTS traditionally have a big problem with microtransactions (AOE online, C&C etc) because there just isn't as much identification with your units/armies as there is with the hero in MMOs and Mobas. So even if they introduced a microtransaction based business model, I doubt it would be profitable for them. As you might have guessed, I dislike f2p, and I personally hope it doesn't actually become the standard for big studios. I want high quality games for which I'm willing to pay one time an amount worth of the work put into creating the game and then get a complete package, without having the feeling of incompleteness or the game behaving like an annoying peddler, constantly trying to talk me into buying its stuff. No i really don't. The games with different gaming experiences depending on the size of your wallet makes me feel like a second class gamer, or third class in some cases, just because i don't want to spend fuckloads of money. | ||
|
eScaper-tsunami
Canada313 Posts
On May 28 2013 04:06 MasterOfPuppets wrote: They really couldn't have promoted team games any more than they did, because team games were never their focus. In fact, it would almost actively hurt to do so, since team games are so boring and predictable in terms of the builds and strategies employed. It would be like the GSL Open Seasons all over again, perhaps with a little bit better macro and micro. Beyond the aspect of boring the viewers with one base all-ins over and over and over again, it would also be harder to follow, what with there being 4 players and whatnot. Finally, the team game map pool overall has always been dreadful, and we know Blizzard have been adamant about keeping their own sub-par maps in the ladder pool even for 1v1, which is supposed to be SC2's main focus, despite the community producing far better efforts. 1.) Why wasn't it their focus right from the bat? When open GSL came out, why didn't they have 1v1 and 2v2 and 3v3 tournaments running in parallel? 2.) How do you know team matches would be boring and have predictable builds when it has never been done at a professional level? Isn't 1v1 mostly in the same situation right now? 3.) LoL and Dota2 have their success despite having 10 players not just 4. With so much information displayed on their observer UI such as researches, upgrades and production, the information is there and easy to follow. Most of the production in SC2 is followed through production tab. The monitor is mostly used exclusively for engagements. 4.) Why would it only be 1 base all-ins? And if it comes to that, changes can be made. 5.) Map pool can be changed, not even an issue. | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote: 1.) Why wasn't it their focus right from the bat? When open GSL came out, why didn't they have 1v1 and 2v2 and 3v3 tournaments running in parallel? Go ask Blizzard. I'm guessing it's because they set out to make StarCraft 2 a 1v1 competitive game, balancing it strictly for 1v1 play. (whether or not the game could be balanced for both 1v1 and team games, that's another matter entirely) On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote: 2.) How do you know team matches would be boring and have predictable builds when it has never been done at a professional level? Isn't 1v1 mostly in the same situation right now? There have, as a matter of fact, been online tournaments with prize pools for 2v2 games. The EG Master's Cup Team League has in fact featured 2v2s in one of their editions. I'm guessing you haven't watched any of said tournaments, and that you haven't watched very many team games in general. Otherwise you would know that rushes and cheese have always been the status quo. I will go a bit more into detail down below. On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote: 3.) LoL and Dota2 have their success despite having 10 players not just 4. With so much information displayed on their observer UI such as researches, upgrades and production, the information is there and easy to follow. Most of the production in SC2 is followed through production tab. The monitor is mostly used exclusively for engagements. LoL and DotA2 have infinitely less action going on in them than in SC2. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to say they're bad games, clearly they're not, but they're far farrr easier to follow and understand up to a reasonable degree of depth, from a spectator standpoint. (which is also part of why they're so successful) On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote: 4.) Why would it only be 1 base all-ins? And if it comes to that, changes can be made. Cheese and all-ins is all you ever see. Why? Because of fundamental game design flaws, such as negligible defender's advantage coupled with bad map design in that players are often at considerable distance apart. This makes it so that strategies involving both players rushing and attacking only one of the opponents are simply too viable not to exploit, just like many other strategies which were simply too good not to use back in early WoL beta/release. On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote: 5.) Map pool can be changed, not even an issue. Yeah, just like they always add the standard GSL maps that every tournament uses into the ladder map pool... Oh wait! | ||
|
rift
1819 Posts
| ||
|
MooMooMugi
United States10531 Posts
| ||
|
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
It still happens. Just goes to show you that some people are incapable of admitting their mistakes. *caugh* Naniwa *caugh* | ||
|
eScaper-tsunami
Canada313 Posts
On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Go ask Blizzard. I'm guessing it's because they set out to make StarCraft 2 a 1v1 competitive game, balancing it strictly for 1v1 play. (whether or not the game could be balanced for both 1v1 and team games, that's another matter entirely) There's really not much discuss here, on the surface it seems like Blizzard was short-sighted. On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote: There have, as a matter of fact, been online tournaments with prize pools for 2v2 games. The EG Master's Cup Team League has in fact featured 2v2s in one of their editions. I'm guessing you haven't watched any of said tournaments, and that you haven't watched very many team games in general. Otherwise you would know that rushes and cheese have always been the status quo. I will go a bit more into detail down below. I admit, I didn't watch them because I really only follow GSL. However, if we looked at Open GSL, most of the games ended up in cheeses and rushes. That has drastically changed over the span of 3 years. On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote: LoL and DotA2 have infinitely less action going on in them than in SC2. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to say they're bad games, clearly they're not, but they're far farrr easier to follow and understand up to a reasonable degree of depth, from a spectator standpoint. (which is also part of why they're so successful) I wouldn't say LoL and Dota2 have less action. Passive play usually contains less information, ie. farm or macro. Active play contains more information ie harassments and map control. From the audience perspective, the information can be simplified and still be enjoyable. It's achievable. It's really hard to say anyone really can get inside the head of a professional gamer, but doesn't mean the audience can't admire the effort and the evident skill from the players. Plus, 2v2 hasn't been explored enough for anyone to fully understand its depth. On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Cheese and all-ins is all you ever see. Why? Because of fundamental game design flaws, such as negligible defender's advantage coupled with bad map design in that players are often at considerable distance apart. This makes it so that strategies involving both players rushing and attacking only one of the opponents are simply too viable not to exploit, just like many other strategies which were simply too good not to use back in early WoL beta/release. I think you misunderstood my point. Why would it only be 1 base all-ins? And if it comes to that, changes can be made. Just like how bad maps like kulas ravine and steppes of war was removed. And map changes ultimately doesn't effect the overall balance through 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3. On May 28 2013 04:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Yeah, just like they always add the standard GSL maps that every tournament uses into the ladder map pool... Oh wait! Ladder != Tournament. Although blizzard has been making more effort as of lately. Ultimately, Blizzard hasn't explored 2v2 or 3v3. They ventured into 1v1 but completely forgotten the other aspect which they could really milk. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
neat video and neat cafe! | ||
|
Philozovic
France1677 Posts
On May 28 2013 01:52 Targe wrote: I would say the majority of those who blame their team for their loss (if they played sc2) would be those that blame imbalance for their loss. I disagree with that, I played a lot of LoL before SC2 came out (during LoL open beta so like October 2009-September 2010) and not only it's way harder to understand a loss (well except like there is a DQ or 0/0/17 guy i'm talking about on the edge game) but it, most of the time, comes down to synergy and teamplay (or that was at least what I felt) and therefore the fault is spread and you don't feel as bad as when losing a 1v1 game. Edit : And they nerfed nitro pack which was not used in 1v1 if I remember correctly to nerfed Speedling reaper+nitro in 2v2 | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
thumbs up. | ||
|
edlover420
349 Posts
On May 28 2013 04:19 eScaper-tsunami wrote: 3.) LoL and DotA2 have infinitely less action going on in them than in SC2. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to say they're bad games, clearly they're not, but they're far farrr easier to follow and understand up to a reasonable degree of depth, from a spectator standpoint. (which is also part of why they're so successful) Nope. Every race in sc2 has about 6 units that they actively use in different compositions. Everyone knows which units counters which and what composition is going to come ahead in a fight (unlike in BW and WC3 where micro actually mattered and games were good). But in Dota2 you have about 100 heroes that fight each other in 1v1 lanes, duo lanes, trilanes, offlanes and in teamfights. And this 100 heroes uses more than 100 items. There is so many possibilities. So many surprises. So many builds, so many undiscovered lane combos and counters. And the throw potential is huge. But when a team comes back in a Dota2 match it is actually really cool for viewers, unlike in SC2 where it is almost frustrating to watch players lose when they are ahead due to imbalances and hellbats rofl. | ||
| ||
