|
On September 15 2013 17:36 Ushi wrote:
Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt. The game gets very boring to watch when every player can use strategies dating back since WoL because the game really hasn't changed much since then. I personally think the metagame only changed because of the maps. A lot of the old balance changes like tank nerfs don't make as much sense today but it's still in the game because smaller maps made them imba.
Pros should be forced to learn and innovate every once in a while to keep up with the metagame. I would hope starcraft is a game where at least one new thing is uncovered every tournament that makes the game more interesting to watch and play. It's depressing sometimes to watch a figured out game to the point where only the mechanically strong survive. There should be more emphasis on players like TLO who are capable of surprising their opponents into a victory. Changes should be introduced slowly but deliberately to make the game more fun to play, learn, and watch. SC2 should not follow the footsteps of brood war. That is my opinion at least.
Blizzard had a chance to replace units in HotS, pretty much your best bet for the concept of introducing new units frequently. (since if you keep introducing new units there will be too many overlapping and useless units eventually) They initially decided on doing just that, but then declined. I don't know why...
|
On September 15 2013 17:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 17:14 ETisME wrote:On September 15 2013 17:05 Beakyboo wrote:
I don't think SC2 really suffers from underused units the same way mobas have underused heroes. It's a much different dynamic. Each race in SC2 doesn't have a million options. The units all have their roles. Buffing random ones to mix up the meta doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. well they did buff infestors in wol and we saw a lot of usage eventually. if they buff'd hydra, we might see more dynamic unit composition in zvt too Those are not good examples because the unit was completely changed before they were being used. Warp Prism saw zero use, but after being given 10 shield became standard play.
yea that's what I mean, I just forgot about warp prism :p
|
On September 15 2013 18:16 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 17:36 Ushi wrote:
Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt. The game gets very boring to watch when every player can use strategies dating back since WoL because the game really hasn't changed much since then. I personally think the metagame only changed because of the maps. A lot of the old balance changes like tank nerfs don't make as much sense today but it's still in the game because smaller maps made them imba.
Pros should be forced to learn and innovate every once in a while to keep up with the metagame. I would hope starcraft is a game where at least one new thing is uncovered every tournament that makes the game more interesting to watch and play. It's depressing sometimes to watch a figured out game to the point where only the mechanically strong survive. There should be more emphasis on players like TLO who are capable of surprising their opponents into a victory. Changes should be introduced slowly but deliberately to make the game more fun to play, learn, and watch. SC2 should not follow the footsteps of brood war. That is my opinion at least. Blizzard had a chance to replace units in HotS, pretty much your best bet for the concept of introducing new units frequently. (since if you keep introducing new units there will be too many overlapping and useless units eventually) They initially decided on doing just that, but then declined. I don't know why...
Well, the units they were talking about were:
Overseer (not an interesting concept for a spellcaster)
Corruptor (boring unit)
Carrier (underused; new capital ship for Protoss incoming)
What happened was that the Corruptor and Overseer just were filling too important roles for them to risk fucking over zerg by changing them
And then DB said that they are not going to remove the Carrier alone, because it would be weird. Not to mention that DK said somewhere that they simply like the concept of the Carrier, used or not.
For the constant introduction of units I agree, that's not really doable with Starcraft. But yeah, a few extra upgrades/reworks of upgrades or units wouldn't really hurt. I mean, a "rework" of a unit does not mean you change all the stats etc., but can also mean to change how a spell works (the old fungal patch), add an ability to a unit (medivac boost), or a lategame upgrade to change unit interactions (phoenix range).
Blizzard has done that before and it has generally worked out very well. Simply because it's much easier to get wanted relations right after you already know how the game plays out. Something you don't get right in most cases if you only betapatch.
|
Well, they said that they could never buff the overseer because you could build an infinite number of them. That's why originally vipers were given a clumsy form of detection and oracles were given contaminate. And they did promise to rework the corruptor, but I think that given the focus on introducing protoss air units they were hesitant to change zerg anti-air.
The thor was also supposed to become the new super unit, with the mothership removed, and with warhounds taking up the anti-air role for terran. I think that once they had decided against the concept of replacing units (and maybe this was a higher up decision!) they were forced to put the thor back in place, but who knows.
I think that Blizzard should be able to just constantly come up with new unit concepts. They had two years, if they were to come up with one good concept per month they would have had 8 potential new units per race, they don't have to put all of them into the game, but I think it's a bit more interesting than getting 7 new units in total. That's one of the reasons I dislike e-sports sometimes, I primarily care about having a game that's fun to play for me, and I think those sort of changes are exciting. If this can't be done because of the risks of destabilizing e-sports, I think that maybe Blizzard first should have made sure that the game was in the best possible shape before trying to create an industry around it. Dota wasn't an e-sports in 2005, it took until 2011, when the game was in much better shape.
|
On September 15 2013 20:46 Grumbels wrote:
Dota wasn't an e-sports in 2005, it took until 2011, when the game was in much better shape.
That's not true. DotA was an eSport back in 2005 too but not as large as the current DotA2. There were many tournaments back there, especially in Asia scene. I can count like 3-4 big tournaments in SE Asia alone, and many more in China would not surprise me.
EDIT: I forgot to add that there was no major force with sufficient promoting DotA esport scene back when it was a War 3 mod (Blizz focused on the Warcraft 3 but not on DotA). When Valve picked up DotA makers team (well not the original maker but still...), the scene also get a major driving force for making the scene big too.
|
On September 15 2013 17:36 Ushi wrote:
Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt. The game gets very boring to watch when every player can use strategies dating back since WoL because the game really hasn't changed much since then. I personally think the metagame only changed because of the maps. A lot of the old balance changes like tank nerfs don't make as much sense today but it's still in the game because smaller maps made them imba.
Pros should be forced to learn and innovate every once in a while to keep up with the metagame. I would hope starcraft is a game where at least one new thing is uncovered every tournament that makes the game more interesting to watch and play. It's depressing sometimes to watch a figured out game to the point where only the mechanically strong survive. There should be more emphasis on players like TLO who are capable of surprising their opponents into a victory. Changes should be introduced slowly but deliberately to make the game more fun to play, learn, and watch. SC2 should not follow the footsteps of brood war. That is my opinion at least.
Adding new units every 6 months without taking any others out is a stupid idea, because you will end up with a huge number of units in the end and one of the attractions of BW was the "simplicity" through not having so many different units. The way to do it is to have X number of slots for each category for a race (infantry, mechanical/tougher ground units, spellcasters, flyers) and then add units for these categories but force a player to choose which ones he wants to use before the game starts. That way you wont even know if you are facing a Terran with Thors or Goliaths until you see which one it is for example and it would keep everyone guessing. Balancing those "sidegrades" should be far easier than balancing a new unit to add to the game in 10 years time after there have already been 20 new units to each race. Such a "sidegrade system" is possibly open ended AND it could be themed to certain eras (like BW) and thus create tournaments of a certain style.
Not every unit is equally viable under the current "design philosophy" and this is the major issue to fix. Large units for Terrans simply dont make much sense atm because the high dps of a Zerg/Protoss army clump AND their spells prevent them from becoming useful. The really simple way of fixing that is to reduce the "clump dps" to about 1/10th (or less) the current amount by reducing the unit density accordingly. Since it makes no sense to keep the total army size the same the economy and production needs to be reduced to accomplish that reduction in unit density AND the ground units need forced unit spreading as well.
Since economic and production speed boosts would be removed I feel it could be a good thing to switch back to the "BW design" for base building and "restart" from that design point and evolve onwards. Example: Without the MULE the OC isnt a necessary thing and consequently the Comsat station addon for the CC could be a better design AND the nuke silo would be as well ... and then the damage of the nuke could be changed back to its BW state of "hey you can actually destroy stuff with it".
|
On September 14 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +Now, as far as getting back to the OP. To inspire the variety of gameplay you desire Blizzard would have to seriously rework the game. The expensive gas units in this game are a big issue in my opinion. These units most of the time are countered too easily or simply don't do enough and sometimes some do too much (ghost). The Ultra, Broodlord, Infestor, Thor, Tank, BC, Raven, Immortal, Carrier, Templar, Archon, Void Ray are all great units, but they don't function well and are rarely worth their cost. That list seems long to some, but in many cases these units resources allocated to tier 1 units would be a better investment unless you're in the limited scenario where they work.
I also never liked armored vs light issues. Stuff should kill stuff regardless.
I also never liked the anti air and early splash options T has when compared to the other races. Simply put they can defend against air and put out splash damage much better than the other races in the early game. Hydras are expensive, individual queens are weak, banes have to die to attack. Meanwhile stalkers do alright against air, but aren't shit when compared to marines, and protoss has no early game splash that is cheap. Storm takes a while, and colossi aren't cheap. This by no means fucks either race, I just don't like that imbalance. What you are noticing is what happens when unit drawbacks are replaced by unit strengths. As an example, in TvT, when bio plays versus mech and the mech player gets his siege tanks at your cliff and your bio army can't do anything but watch your main die--you as a player are okay with that because tanks are immobile units that have blind spots and long attack cooldowns. You, as a player, feel it was your fault for letting them get in that position. If instead of tanks those were colossus, then most players would bitch and moan about easy a-move units. We, as gamers, understand the concept of give and take when it comes to interaction dynamics. Rogues should deal more damage than tanks, mages should have longer range thank rogues, etc... We feel that there is a fairness to our gaming experience that comes from this inherent yin and yang of the tools at our disposal. It creates a tension for us to play with. Siege tanks are better sieged up, but can't move. So we have them move to the right spots, and siege them. A whole game comes about where you babysit tanks, and your opponents attempt to hit them while they aren't sieged. It's a great game with lots of tension. When you remove that tension, that's when rock papers scissors happens. Colossus, for example, have the weakness of being both an air and ground unit. The only way to interact with that is unit composition--which is boring. Let's go back to the tank. Whether you have a ground army or an air army, you're interaction with it is the same. Hit them while they're moving, run when they're entrenched. You can make your army, the opponent can make his, and you both play with your armies. Colossus is different. Since its weakness is based on its unit type, there is no way to interact with it except through unit compositions. Without an air army, colossus will rape you--period. So though your opponent can make any unit composition he wants (and lets say he like building colossus), because he built colossus, you HAVE to make vikings/corruptors because if you don't you die. You can't simply make your army and then have your army interact with his army. People keep bringing up the Reaver, here's why they do. The reaver would ride inside a shuttle, hop out of the shuttle, shoot, and then be picked back up by the shuttle to run away. When the reaver is mobile in the shuttle, he can't attack. When the reaver hops out of the shuttle to attack, he can't move. So you chase it when it moves, and you run from it when it can't--just like the siege tank. This means you can play against the reaver with almost ANY unit composition of your liking since its weakness is something tactical and not something compositional. The colossus will always be mobile and it will always be attacking. It doesn't have a "weak point" outside of forcing unit compositions. What people want are tactical weaknesses, not compositional weaknesses. It's what you want.
To say that the interaction of the colossus relies solely on the unit type mechanic is exaggerating. (Were you?) There are other part of the design like the transverse AoE that allow tactical depth. Moreover, even the unit type mechanic creates tactical depth and not just unit composition calculus. If zerg or terran "needs" to get air units to fight colossus (because that is their mechanic), it creates positioning situations where the stalkers or other protoss anti air have to maneuver to fend off the anti-colossus air fleets. And counter maneuvers and so on. I'm not trying to say this is a deep or enjoyable dynamic necessarily, but it is just not true that unit type mechanics provide no tactical interaction.
In general, every attribute of the game elements in RTS interact at least on some level directly or indirectly with all the others. Any given mechanic has a bleeding effect that can augment dynamics in "unrelated" areas. For a striking example, consider the "high armor morphing egg" mechanic for zerg which allows you to create a temporary walloff in a chokepoint.
On September 13 2013 02:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:19 Grumbels wrote:
you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere WC3 clumped just like in SC2, their clumps were square and rectangles, but they clumped. They even moved at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group. WC3 actually forces clumping and you have to manually pull them apart in order for their clumps to work. The reason they don't have the same problems as SC2 is that the AOE hit less units and damage to health ratio was different.. The reason units spread out in BW was because the collisions would force units to reroute, if they forced to reroute too much the initial route they needed to take gets bumped off their memory and suddenly they're just standing in the middle of the map. Without blocky collisions that causes units to not be able to get up a ramp, we also would not have the self spreading movement of BW. This is what I'm talking about when I say that what you're asking for is not really "possible" to recreate because the "spreading out" nature in BW came about for the exact same reasons that all the bugs came about. You remove the bugs and you also remove the spreading out.
You can create whatever behavior you want. There's no reason that "removing the bugs" would preclude spread out unit movement.
|
Northern Ireland26533 Posts
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
|
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. 
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
|
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
yea it's weird.
I am browsing around the chatrooms now and other than the featured (max is 71) there is hardly anyone in any of the group.
and to above.
I really won't consider this a progress if everyone is not even using the function.
having a good heart trying to improve the game is good, but it doesn't mean they are doing it right
|
On September 19 2013 13:05 Sotoshi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3 So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
|
On September 19 2013 13:40 VManOfMana wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 13:05 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3 So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire. If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough. And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else. Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
|
On September 19 2013 14:08 Sotoshi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 13:40 VManOfMana wrote:On September 19 2013 13:05 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3 So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire. If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough. And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else. Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
Is this real life?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 19 2013 14:08 Sotoshi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 13:40 VManOfMana wrote:On September 19 2013 13:05 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3 So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire. If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough. And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else. Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
no chat channels? you must be joking. Battle.net would feel dead without them >.> Obviously Blizzard didn't know how to do the right thing since when SCII was released, a lot of features that should be included because they are standard weren't. Maybe I don't understand because I'm not a game developer but it doesn't take a genius imo to see just what SCII was missing when it was first released
|
Northern Ireland26533 Posts
Ridiculous posts, you mention progress and indeed reminded me of the year, it had totally slipped my mind. Meanwhile you don't actually name anything that has improved for the user with Bnet2.0?
|
On September 19 2013 14:29 YyapSsap wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 14:08 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 13:40 VManOfMana wrote:On September 19 2013 13:05 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3 So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire. If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough. And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else. Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them. Is this real life?
This isn't US where "freedom of speech" allows you to hide behind when you want to be a jackass. Not following old norms isn't a bad thing. The type of people who complain about this sort of thing have a negative attitude, it does nothing to help the situation. I find it sad when people can't follow simple innovations, instead they complain about the system like some 2 year old that didn't get their candy. Nobody is forcing you to play the game if you think the features are bad. Only you did because you lack self-control.
Blizzard is a special company because they have decided to step forward and tell their players "No. We won't allow old features to stagnate today's games"
Please tell me how SC:2 is the worst offender in regards of "new types and levels of toxicity".
|
On September 19 2013 14:08 Sotoshi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 13:40 VManOfMana wrote:On September 19 2013 13:05 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3 So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire. If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough. And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else. Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
An "innovation" that is a disservice to the user has no reason to be implemented.
Chat rooms is one of those things that allowed Starcraft become more of a social game, together with UMS maps. This is the kind of thing needed to grow a healthy community, which allowed Starcraft to outlive any other game of its time. So yes, they have a purpose. And no, removing them without having something better on its place is not an "innovation".
It's being out of touch and not able to understand that it takes more than a name to make a game successful on its own merit.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 19 2013 14:50 VManOfMana wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 14:08 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 13:40 VManOfMana wrote:On September 19 2013 13:05 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3 So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire. If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough. And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else. Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them. An "innovation" that is a disservice to the user has no reason to be implemented. Chat rooms is one of those things that allowed Starcraft become more of a social game, together with UMS maps. This is the kind of thing needed to grow a healthy community, which allowed Starcraft to outlive any other game of its time. So yes, they have a purpose. And no, removing them without having something better on its place is not an "innovation". It's being out of touch and not able to understand that it takes more than a name to make a game successful on its own merit.
didn't want to state the obvious but I think he's trolling you guys lol:
On September 19 2013 14:44 Sotoshi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 14:29 YyapSsap wrote:On September 19 2013 14:08 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 13:40 VManOfMana wrote:On September 19 2013 13:05 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3 So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire. If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough. And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else. Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them. Is this real life? This isn't US where "freedom of speech" allows you to hide behind when you want to be a jackass. Not following old norms isn't a bad thing. The type of people who complain about this sort of thing have a negative attitude, it does nothing to help the situation. I find it sad when people can't follow simple innovations, instead they complain about the system like some 2 year old that didn't get their candy. Nobody is forcing you to play the game if you think the features are bad. Only you did because you lack self-control. Blizzard is a special company because they have decided to step forward and tell their players "No. We won't allow old features to stagnate today's games" Please tell me how SC:2 is the worst offender in regards of "new types and levels of toxicity".
|
On September 19 2013 14:50 VManOfMana wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 14:08 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 13:40 VManOfMana wrote:On September 19 2013 13:05 Sotoshi wrote:On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3 So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire. If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough. And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else. Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them. An "innovation" that is a disservice to the user has no reason to be implemented. Chat rooms is one of those things that allowed Starcraft become more of a social game, together with UMS maps. This is the kind of thing needed to grow a healthy community, which allowed Starcraft to outlive any other game of its time. So yes, they have a purpose. And no, removing them without having something better on its place is not an "innovation". It's being out of touch and not able to understand that it takes more than a name to make a game successful on its own merit.
You're crying about the past, see the irony here? Blizzard reviews ALL features, and some others too.
Blizzard don't review the low-end complaints because they believe the decisions for those cases are valid.
You just made your self look stupid by disagreeing with the most successful game company ever. Quit bringing down blizzard's morale and post something positive for once, will ya? If you're even capable of it
|
Northern Ireland26533 Posts
You're posting moronically, you're just parroting 'Blizzard knows best' without even attempting to address the VERY clear points being made.
The alternative is that you're trolling. Speaking of nostalgia I remember the 'good old days' where trolling wasn't just a synonym for being a tool and generally denoted some wit/flair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
