|
On August 14 2013 11:40 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 11:36 DDie wrote:
The problem is that the game is too slow paced compared to others, it's kinda of niche.
Dota, lol, CoD, etc, any time you tune in there is something happening, there is someone getting killed.
If someone who never played SC2 before decides to watch WCS finals he will be there stuck with 10 minutes of scv's collecting minerals/very passive gameplay, and most people don't have the patience for it.
That's a weak argument. In Dota and lol, (coming from a new TI3 watcher as well as a person who watches part of the korean lol scene), there are plenty of times where they are just creep killing. There's more downtime in Moba's than Starcraft in my opinion. I see your point, I just respectfully disagree.
I don't see how moba's have more downtime than SC2, it's not even close in my opinion. But again, I've stopped following the scene at the end of WoL where almost every game was a build up to that 200/200 engagement, usually with brood lords on one side..
|
On August 14 2013 10:19 FrogsAreDogs wrote:
It seems like posts like this have been cropping up everywhere recently. HOWEVER, you guys are all forgetting that the business model for SC2 is COMPLETELY different from LoL/Dota 2. A game of SC2 is PAID UPFRONT versus LoL/Dota 2 which is FREE. Everyone wants the SC2 competitive scene to improve by leaps and bounds, but no one is considering whether this will MAKE BLIZZARD MORE MONEY.
WOL during release cost $60, and HOTS during release cost $40. If you are an eager SC2 gamer, you would have paid $100 to play this game. Would you pay LoL or Dota 2 $100 upfront just to play the game? Would ANYONE do so?
No matter how amazing all you guy's ideas are, there is always the MONEY BARRIER. Your ideas have to be so incredible that it will get people to pay up to $100 upfront for it.
The differing business model between Blizzard and LoL/Dota 2 results in different business strategies. Consider where ESPORTS stand in their respective business strategies:
Blizzard: loyal fanbase from previous games + strong promotion prior to game release -> people buying SC2 -> ESPORTS "community-building platform" increase loyalty of SC2 gamers -> more willing to buy other/future Blizzard games
LoL/Dota2 : ESPORTS -> attract viewers to try out FREE game -> limited gameplay entices player to spend money to expand their gameplay
As far as my limited knowledge goes, that how I see their business model in the most BASIC form. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyways, all you TL posters have really interesting ideas, but the key is how these ideas can be implemented into Blizzard's business model in order to generate a profit. In my SINCERE opinion, they cannot be implemented. Blizzard would have to completely change their business model and completely change their approach to utilizing esports.
Would that happen? Meh Idk :\
Well writtend
I also want to note that Legacy of the Void is coming out and which will be another 40$. So buy the time Legacy of the Void is out, a new person tryning to play sc2 will have to play a whopping 140$ just to play Legacy of the Void which I find obsurd. I will never buy a never buy an alternate account because of how expensive it is.
|
On August 14 2013 12:08 DDie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 11:40 Pandain wrote:On August 14 2013 11:36 DDie wrote:
The problem is that the game is too slow paced compared to others, it's kinda of niche.
Dota, lol, CoD, etc, any time you tune in there is something happening, there is someone getting killed.
If someone who never played SC2 before decides to watch WCS finals he will be there stuck with 10 minutes of scv's collecting minerals/very passive gameplay, and most people don't have the patience for it.
That's a weak argument. In Dota and lol, (coming from a new TI3 watcher as well as a person who watches part of the korean lol scene), there are plenty of times where they are just creep killing. There's more downtime in Moba's than Starcraft in my opinion. I see your point, I just respectfully disagree. I don't see how moba's have more downtime than SC2, it's not even close in my opinion. But again, I've stopped following the scene at the end of WoL where almost every game was a build up to that 200/200 engagement, usually with brood lords on one side..
In Hots aggression hits earlier(normally around 7 minutes as a general rule.)
You rarely even see Broodlords anymore, instead they're the coveted hard to use late game unit which they were intended to be.
I really can't think of a pure downtime match-up besides PvP, and even that is getting more diverse by the day. See Hasuobs v. Grubby for instance, or any of the Proleague matches.
20% of PvP matches are just awful, 20% are really really good, and the rest are just positional wars which are in fact pretty bland.
However with players straying from colossus nowadays it's getting more action packed and dare I say interesting?
|
As a former player of all the current major RTS/Moba games at a high level (not professional, a step below it) and currently playing LoL at Diamond level, I'll offer some views as a generally Moba player.
When I played SC2 for a little over a year from the day it came out, I watched all the tournaments. It was very volatile back then since people were still figuring out the game, and it was a lot of fun to watch all the crazy strategies although a whole ton of it was "cheesy".
Then I hit a wall in improving my playskill, stopped playing, and the games got boring to watch.
To me, the fundamental "problem" with the game is that there's only two things to do --- 1) get better, or 2)lose. The game is unforgiving in that there's really nothing for lower level players to do, or even decent players once they stop feeling the desire to improve. It just doesn't have room for casual players, and in that sense I don't think it'll ever match the FtP games. Skill is everything.
On the flipside, that's what makes the game desirable for the people that actually still play the game. It's a 1v1 game, and there isn't much room for luck compared to other games. I love volatility, and I love how every game is vastly different just from the heroes/champs chosen in MOBA games. This feeling is not shared by the SC2 community, as can be clearly seen by the overwhelming hate for 'cheesy' strategies. You guys like to see a "clean good fight" in a fairly controlled environment, and I think you guys are already a minority in this sense.
I don't really know a solution to this dilemma. The most popular games out there right now appeal to casual gamers(starting by being Free to Play), but the most basic appeal of SC2 doesn't allow that.
As for the WCS, it also doesn't help that that Korean players are just better. If I'm going to watch a game where skill is everything, I'd rather be watching the best of the best. Comparatively, I love watching NA tournaments the most for League of Legends because every game is just chaos.
|
On August 14 2013 10:19 FrogsAreDogs wrote:
It seems like posts like this have been cropping up everywhere recently. HOWEVER, you guys are all forgetting that the business model for SC2 is COMPLETELY different from LoL/Dota 2. A game of SC2 is PAID UPFRONT versus LoL/Dota 2 which is FREE. Everyone wants the SC2 competitive scene to improve by leaps and bounds, but no one is considering whether this will MAKE BLIZZARD MORE MONEY.
WOL during release cost $60, and HOTS during release cost $40. If you are an eager SC2 gamer, you would have paid $100 to play this game. Would you pay LoL or Dota 2 $100 upfront just to play the game? Would ANYONE do so?
No matter how amazing all you guy's ideas are, there is always the MONEY BARRIER. Your ideas have to be so incredible that it will get people to pay up to $100 upfront for it.
Considering the amount of time I spent playing Dota 2 (+1600 hours), 100 Dollars is really nothing. Now ofcourse, if you don't know anything about the game and not sure whether to buy it or not, then the price can be a barrier.
But SC2's problem is just more than an entry barrier. As others have said, the game is better designed for smaller maps and lots of small skirmishes, not blobs of 200 supplies crashing into each other.
|
Is anyone else tired of part time comedian casters? I feel like the casters in TI3 blew away what we usually get from SC2 largely because they always took every minute of the game seriously and sounded genuinely interested. It's like everyone viewed Tastosis as the best so every caster took the make jokes during so called downtime and ran with it, there are some exceptions of course.
1) it makes the casters sound like they are bored of the game they are watching, they are supposed to be keeping people interested
2) downtime would be better filled with more detailed talk of the builds the players are using, and why the builds fit into the meta game, what came before it, etc. If you are watching SC2, you are probably more interested in this stuff, as people will scour through vods to find build timings that casters have decided is too boring to talk about
3) more often than not joke time stretches much longer than it should and important details are missed - on GOMTV the observer will often do a better job casting the game if you watch what he circles with the mouse as they talk about meaningless crap
I think better casting would help get more views
|
On August 14 2013 16:35 Treemonkeys wrote:
Is anyone else tired of part time comedian casters? I feel like the casters in TI3 blew away what we usually get from SC2 largely because they always took every minute of the game seriously and sounded genuinely interested. It's like everyone viewed Tastosis as the best so every caster took the make jokes during so called downtime and ran with it, there are some exceptions of course.
1) it makes the casters sound like they are bored of the game they are watching, they are supposed to be keeping people interested
2) downtime would be better filled with more detailed talk of the builds the players are using, and why the builds fit into the meta game, what came before it, etc. If you are watching SC2, you are probably more interested in this stuff, as people will scour through vods to find build timings that casters have decided is too boring to talk about
3) more often than not joke time stretches much longer than it should and important details are missed - on GOMTV the observer will often do a better job casting the game if you watch what he circles with the mouse as they talk about meaningless crap
I think better casting would help get more views
i think the exact opposite what you have written down.
I love the fact they are silly as hell and this is why they are the best they dont only talk about build orders and tactics cause then you will hear the same stuff for a week. They keep me watching because there's good game to watch and alot of the times im laughing my ass off. about 3) there you have a point sometimes they miss detailed stuff or important actions but next to that i have to totally disagree this is why they are populair and why i did not like the casters in TI3 at dota
|
I was wondering, considering all the varied discussion this thread has recieved, what would you rate SC2 now as a game?
I'd give it 7.4/10.
|
On August 14 2013 12:13 Rickyvalle21 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 10:19 FrogsAreDogs wrote:
It seems like posts like this have been cropping up everywhere recently. HOWEVER, you guys are all forgetting that the business model for SC2 is COMPLETELY different from LoL/Dota 2. A game of SC2 is PAID UPFRONT versus LoL/Dota 2 which is FREE. Everyone wants the SC2 competitive scene to improve by leaps and bounds, but no one is considering whether this will MAKE BLIZZARD MORE MONEY.
WOL during release cost $60, and HOTS during release cost $40. If you are an eager SC2 gamer, you would have paid $100 to play this game. Would you pay LoL or Dota 2 $100 upfront just to play the game? Would ANYONE do so?
No matter how amazing all you guy's ideas are, there is always the MONEY BARRIER. Your ideas have to be so incredible that it will get people to pay up to $100 upfront for it.
The differing business model between Blizzard and LoL/Dota 2 results in different business strategies. Consider where ESPORTS stand in their respective business strategies:
Blizzard: loyal fanbase from previous games + strong promotion prior to game release -> people buying SC2 -> ESPORTS "community-building platform" increase loyalty of SC2 gamers -> more willing to buy other/future Blizzard games
LoL/Dota2 : ESPORTS -> attract viewers to try out FREE game -> limited gameplay entices player to spend money to expand their gameplay
As far as my limited knowledge goes, that how I see their business model in the most BASIC form. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyways, all you TL posters have really interesting ideas, but the key is how these ideas can be implemented into Blizzard's business model in order to generate a profit. In my SINCERE opinion, they cannot be implemented. Blizzard would have to completely change their business model and completely change their approach to utilizing esports.
Would that happen? Meh Idk :\ Well writtend I also want to note that Legacy of the Void is coming out and which will be another 40$. So buy the time Legacy of the Void is out, a new person tryning to play sc2 will have to play a whopping 140$ just to play Legacy of the Void which I find obsurd. I will never buy a never buy an alternate account because of how expensive it is.
Hmm that seems silly indeed, 140$ realy?
If lotv will cost 40$ you should be able to play online with it without needing the earlier releases.
Can you even still get wol in shops? maybe some have it on discount but manny shops probably dont have it annymore.
Seems like a huge drawback for someone getting interested in the game but then not beeing able to easily buy all the disks needed to play it.
The expansions should be completely playable with all features needed for online play, the only thing missing should be the campaign.Better make expansions 60$ then 40$ and having to buy all the previous disks, this realy is a HUGE drawback for new players.
|
On August 13 2013 23:30 KaiserKieran wrote:
The entire WCS should be offline. As in a designated city in America has challenger league, and premier league offline as well as qualifiers. That way only people in that city will be able to try out and if it is to expensive to fly back and forth from Korea than it will make Koreans more wary to try out. Same for Europe as well.
In addition, prize money should be taken from the 17th through 32 (like 250$ each) and evenly distributed in the challenger league. This will do 3 things,
1. Make it so that falling out of Premier league is not a huge deal.
2. allow more of a motivation for new players to try and break in to the challenger league since there is at least some money there.
3. Give more money to lower level players as motivation to try and get more in premier.
I mean who wants to work hard and spend hours practicing and making it through the qualifiers just to end up getting 25 WCS points that won't even count for anything since they are not good enough to get enough points to qualify for the season finals. It is stuipid and a BS way to give out something.
I would much rather see this than what they have now.
I kind of agree with this. It's hard to be able to afford it all but maybe Blizzard can do it. Perhaps crowd funding would be a good way of supporting this idea. Maybe post this on the reddit to see how people like it?
Edit: Paying to join might be a cool idea, even if it's online. That would support the funding very well imo.
As for the first bit with the korean thing, they're not going to fly across the world constantly just to win $250 anyway. If they do end up losing early, well whatever. Shitty luck and turns off international support. I think KeSPA would rage at it as well, boycotting WCS. I don't think region locking is going to help anyone until na and eu are as popularized as the korean sc2 is.
|
About prices: WoL+HotS was being sold by Blizzard for $60. There was even a hube outcry in BNet Forums of WoL players feeling they had lost their money (...). So LotV will likely be sold to new players with better prices, not to mention the Starter/Spawning will be probably be improved until there.
I think the Blizzard is already making almost everything they can do to help SCII grow. They're:
1) Supporting e-sports (which keeps the community close/brings few more people).
2) Incentiving people to play Arcade games (which are essential to keep people playing SCII, and potentially bring in more players like DotA did to WC3).
Of course both things could be improved. Specially incentives to play Arcade games.
Next things to do would be:
3) Improve the map editor and pretty much listen more to the mod community. The editor isn't only hard, it's also very limited in many ways.
4) Support a casual approach to melee. I mean incentiving people to play team games and also the idea of "casual melee maps" (maps with unique features).
5) Improve BN's social aspect with Clans Wars, daily tournaments and other ideas.
|
On August 13 2013 23:05 KOtical wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 22:04 evaniss wrote:
1vs1 based game can NOT be surpass the number of users than Teamplay based games even if SC2 change to free to play
Quite a lot of people seems to think that why BW did success in korea is no need purchase to play at the PC cafe so it's free to play
and you might to think most koreans have been play BW for 1vs1 mostly since BW was hugely popular in the e-sports
BUT you totally wrong, as i posted before koreans have been play for teamplay with friends mostly at the PC cafe
also quite many of koreans have been play BW for teamplay at home
that's why most koreans understand and familiar to accept BW friendly. u can make teamgames in sc2 also... so i think especially for the youth in korea wich doesnt want to pay for all the games the f2p model would give us some more players... sure sc2´s main base is 1v1 but i met in EU and US servers alot of those low level players wich seems to not care about 1v1 and play alot of teamgames (2v2,3v3,4v4, ffa...)
SC2 is messed Balance for teamplay and it's not fun to play and watch
it could just personal Opinion but i know teamplay is Minority of play in SC2
|
The makers of the game have decided its fate already. It is not meant for casual players. The only objective of this game is adapting to/exploiting meta play styles and superior mechanics that are adopted through countless playing hours.
SC2 will reach the same grandness of BW, but it will only be when Blizzard stops patching and all of the expansions are finished. Then the meta will be more solidified and the game will have a smaller learning curve for casual players. This is the greatest opportunity for the "growth" of SC2, but that competes with Blizzard Entertainment as a corporation, because the makers of the game are dependent on profit, which requires more expansions/games, which requires changes to the meta if people choose to adopt the new games.
|
On August 14 2013 12:08 DDie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 11:40 Pandain wrote:On August 14 2013 11:36 DDie wrote:
The problem is that the game is too slow paced compared to others, it's kinda of niche.
Dota, lol, CoD, etc, any time you tune in there is something happening, there is someone getting killed.
If someone who never played SC2 before decides to watch WCS finals he will be there stuck with 10 minutes of scv's collecting minerals/very passive gameplay, and most people don't have the patience for it.
That's a weak argument. In Dota and lol, (coming from a new TI3 watcher as well as a person who watches part of the korean lol scene), there are plenty of times where they are just creep killing. There's more downtime in Moba's than Starcraft in my opinion. I see your point, I just respectfully disagree. I don't see how moba's have more downtime than SC2, it's not even close in my opinion. But again, I've stopped following the scene at the end of WoL where almost every game was a build up to that 200/200 engagement, usually with brood lords on one side..
Do you prefer the bitbybit era of sc2? I think SC2 is currently in the best shape it has ever been.
|
On August 14 2013 10:18 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 05:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Warp Gates are fine as a mechanic. But they're bad for not having a drawback.
Much like medivac boosters, there is no reason NOT to boost/warpgate. When you attach a drawback to an ability, you can afford to make it "broken" so long as the drawback is appropriate.
Stim, for example, is a great spell. Big drawback for HIGH gains.
Storm is a terrible example, Big drawback for medium gains.
Snipe *was* a great example. Big drawback for HIGH gains.
Fungal Growth was a terrible example. Low Drawback, Medium gains
etc...
Without either a tactical cost or a HIGH resource cost, a spell won't have the back and forth WOW feeling.
Reavers was less supply and as long a range as Colossus. They also had better splash and higher damage. They also had less weaknesses.
But reaver shots were painfully slow, cost minerals, and required physical actions to keep up. So the advantages were weighed down by the tactical and resource cost of the unit.
SC2 units need more drawbacks for bigger advantages. The drawback thing is a very decent approach to improve quality of sc2. Spells don't need drawbacks though. The only purpose of templars is to do a storm, of infestors to do fungals etc. Its like saying there should be a drawback for a hydra shooting. But one big point of you is the warpgate mechanic. As already discussed and widely agreed on it should be part of the decision making of protoss how many warpgates he wants to use and how many usual gateways he needs. Right now warpgate only is just boring and unfair at all. E.g. warpprism + 7gate warpin + sentry drop forcefield ramp is just a big bullshit. This kind of stuff should not be able to end games, it is boring to watch and feels very undeserved. In general it would be much more exciting to see protoss vary between strategies that rely only on usual gateways, those that use a mixture and some that rely on pure warpgates. It would also require the opponents to identify what they are playing against and allow changes in unit production speed of usual gateways and warpgates. Warpgates should either be more costy in mins/gas or in time consumption, so macro style builds would go for gateways and later on use some warpgates to harrass expansions with e.g. dt warpins, zealot warpins. Early agression builds could go for earlier warpgates and so on.
The drawback doesn't have to be so direct 
For example, the 200/200 cost + research time of Storm is a BIG weakness, but when you need 2 storms to kill workers and you can't cast more than 2-3 storms a templar, what's the point of it?
Fungal Growth doesn't deal a lot of damage. About as much as a Siege tank shot, but has a "longer cooldown" of 4 seconds per 35 damage. But it's such a low risk unit because of its root ability that you don't mind waiting 4 seconds to cast the 2nd, 3rd, 4rth, nth fungal in a row.
If fungal was a root, but did no damage, or it had higher damage, but was a slow instead, then you can get dynamic game play.
As a point of comparison, let's look at the Lurker. Can't shoot while moving, long attack cool down, and costs 125 gas to make after you spend 300 gas on lair/upgrade. It comes with splash+cloak. Its easy to "counter" but it can also be abused. The Infestor on the other hand is hard to counter, and easy to abuse. Infestors are 10x stronger than Lurkers which are pretty much just Blueflame Hellions with cloak instead of speed. Lurkers are able to destroy an enemy base better, but a proper timed scan kills them all.
The drawbacks are always needed in game design. Without drawbacks, there is no sense of choice. Why make Hydralisks when Infestors fight air better? Why make roaches when Infestors hold the front lines better? etc...
i'm not asking for nerfs; I'm asking for massive buffs across the board. Buffs that carry with them trojan horses of tactical or resource weaknesses.
|
On August 15 2013 02:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 12:08 DDie wrote:On August 14 2013 11:40 Pandain wrote:On August 14 2013 11:36 DDie wrote:
The problem is that the game is too slow paced compared to others, it's kinda of niche.
Dota, lol, CoD, etc, any time you tune in there is something happening, there is someone getting killed.
If someone who never played SC2 before decides to watch WCS finals he will be there stuck with 10 minutes of scv's collecting minerals/very passive gameplay, and most people don't have the patience for it.
That's a weak argument. In Dota and lol, (coming from a new TI3 watcher as well as a person who watches part of the korean lol scene), there are plenty of times where they are just creep killing. There's more downtime in Moba's than Starcraft in my opinion. I see your point, I just respectfully disagree. I don't see how moba's have more downtime than SC2, it's not even close in my opinion. But again, I've stopped following the scene at the end of WoL where almost every game was a build up to that 200/200 engagement, usually with brood lords on one side.. Do you prefer the bitbybit era of sc2? I think SC2 is currently in the best shape it has ever been.
We have much better early games and mid games now, but the late game fights of 2010 were marvels to behold.
|
Really in my opinion, what made me lose interest as a player and viewer of sc2, it all comes down to the following:
too many boring attack move units(collossus roach marauder hellion corrupter immortal ... etc) and too many too gimmicky units( like forcefield one forcefield can change everything.. ,on the other hand a lot of spells were barely any useful in normal multiplayer gameplay at least in the countless games i played most abilitys were used almost never!)
Some units abilitys can be either super effective or useless, like a widow mine shot can be useless hitting a single zergling but if it hits in a clusterd junk of units one good shot can decide the game, or hellionharras can be useless but if for some reason the drones are lined up a few attacks from one unit makes it gg, or when an engagement gets decided because of one single forcefield and all that other jazz, well at least thats what i think, peace.
|
WCS mistakes, balance, and unit design really have little to do with growing SC2 or SC2 tournament viewership. It's really:
1) SC2 is far less casual-friendly than dota2 or LoL.
2) SC2 is not free to play.
3) SC2 is completely dominated by 1 country of 60 million people.
I doubt SC2 player-base or viewership will grow in a significant way if you aren't addressing one of those 3.
However, I don't think that means the sky is falling. Its ok if the mobas are bigger. I'm optimistic that there's enough interest to sustain an esports scene for SC2. And as far as us mortals go, we can still have fun laddering and such.
|
On August 14 2013 16:46 Zaxon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 16:35 Treemonkeys wrote:
Is anyone else tired of part time comedian casters? I feel like the casters in TI3 blew away what we usually get from SC2 largely because they always took every minute of the game seriously and sounded genuinely interested. It's like everyone viewed Tastosis as the best so every caster took the make jokes during so called downtime and ran with it, there are some exceptions of course.
1) it makes the casters sound like they are bored of the game they are watching, they are supposed to be keeping people interested
2) downtime would be better filled with more detailed talk of the builds the players are using, and why the builds fit into the meta game, what came before it, etc. If you are watching SC2, you are probably more interested in this stuff, as people will scour through vods to find build timings that casters have decided is too boring to talk about
3) more often than not joke time stretches much longer than it should and important details are missed - on GOMTV the observer will often do a better job casting the game if you watch what he circles with the mouse as they talk about meaningless crap
I think better casting would help get more views i think the exact opposite what you have written down. I love the fact they are silly as hell and this is why they are the best they dont only talk about build orders and tactics cause then you will hear the same stuff for a week. They keep me watching because there's good game to watch and alot of the times im laughing my ass off. about 3) there you have a point sometimes they miss detailed stuff or important actions but next to that i have to totally disagree this is why they are populair and why i did not like the casters in TI3 at dota
It's ok on smaller scale tournaments to be silly and tell jokes. But keep it out at least from WCS. WCS AM was simply horrible to watch with Bitterdam telling their internal jokes and being completely unprofessional.
|
Right now I think SC2 as a game is at best form, most exciting games and most skillful.
Only insanely good players can actually win tournaments now.
It's just too bad that when the game's at it's peak, the community is at a low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
