On September 24 2013 02:05 Plansix wrote: Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
I would even go further. If BW's pathing was used today by a indie company. Said company would NEVER EVER get any public no matter how good the rest of the gameplay is.
On September 24 2013 04:12 Wertheron wrote: Love the current "solutions for sc2" era. 90% of these threads is "BW is better, make SC2 like BW and you'll have a super-mega esport scene". Weird, because i can't remember to have seen a big esport scene on BW outisde Korea. And BW is no more play today outside Korea than a Age of Empires II or other classic. I know that SC2 have some problems, but we can't say that BW was always in a perfect situation outside Korea, and that SC1 is the solution.
Then again, BW didn't have Blizzard paying majority of the tournament prices.
OR the streaming luxury.
BW had its backing companies brainwashed kids on TV with short skirts and promises of glory. Emphasis on : TV.
And the backing of the largest companies in all of Korea pushing the game. When you have a bunch of companies larger than Blizzard dumping money into BW, its easier to make it big.
It's about the battles and it's about the harrassment. The micro portion of it really doesn't impress me if they're not doing any macro, and macro isn't exciting and very difficult to watch... Exclaiming like.. "oh wow look how he never forgets an overlord" is about as exciting as "wow look at that creep denial" in dota...
Anyway harrassment is basically required for terran and the game's balanced around them doing a shit ton of drops to keep Z & P in check. Which is annoying if you ever want to play terran. Someone has to tell new players "hey as zerg you need to be a base up on your opponent, as terran you need to do a lot of drop harrass."
So terran drops become boring. They're too easy to pull off. Protoss we never see templar drops anymore... I guess because killing 7 workers doesn't mean much, and you probably won't even kill them if the guy has good reaction, because storm is weaksauce.
No vulture harrass.. Some helion harass but the only thing helions are good for is harrassment so it's not that impressive... The impressive part of BW was always using units that are apart of your core army for harrassment.
Wow it's definitely good to see people talking about these issues. Honestly I quit playing SC2 like 2 years ago, stopped watching tournaments around then as well. I was paying attention when Blizz was developing Hots in hopes they fixed the game but then saw the new units will add nothing to an already monotonous game and I saw no reason to either buy or watch any more SC2. Blizzard has definitely done a terrible job with this game, it just isn't fun to watch AT ALL.
Where is the fun in watching 2 guys macro like crazy on 3-4 bases without almost never attacking or harassing each other because blizz nerfed every harassment option so new players don't get pwnd then when they finally fight, where is the fun in seeing 2 blobs of units clash against each other? it's not fun at all. SC2 is a macro game and macro is not exciting to watch, if it was like BW where micro came together with macro then it would be far more interesting.
All the other issues Xeris mentioned also come into play, I honestly don't follow LoL at all so I don't know how they became so popular and pretty much is the #1 esport around but if I were blizz I would fix my game and imitate whatever Riot is doing. Right around the time I stopped watching SC2 I needed my esport fix so I started watching Dota 2 and I find this game so much fun, I hope Valve makes good decisions to increase its popularity and maybe match Riot's popularity. I know the SC2 crowd loves to hate on Dota and the like but Dota is such a fun game to play and watch once you know wtf is going on, it reminds me of the old days of BW, because well Valve is actually doing a good job promoting their relatively new game like Kespa did with BW and they didn't dumb down their game to attract new players, they stuck to the easy to play hard to master mantra of old Blizzard.
Its hard, sc2 is different than LoL; a lot of what makes LoL really popular and profitable won't work for a game like sc. League's pro scene directly helps generate sales. People want to buy the champion and skin their favorite players use, they want the rune pages, etc... and many many users won't wait for the ip, they'll buy rp. League works as a f2p game bwcause of this, there are tangible things you can buy to customize and improve your playing experience.
Sc2 doesn't work the same way. If the game was f2p it would be a lot more popular, but you cant sell things that are game changing in a 1v1 rts game because that severely imbalances the game in favor of people who can afford to give themselvss advantages. Unit design is so small there is very minimal 'skinnage' that one could buy... profile avatars are probably the only customizable part of your game experience.
In order to so.ehow make sc2 f2p, blizzard would need to torally rethink the game.
Yeah I get that part, I mean I knew that they sold heroes and skins for heroes kind of like Dota2 does but I didn't know it was so lead by the pro players themselves, never crossed my mind a fan would only buy their favorite player's skin or hero etc. In Dota2 they seem very unimportant, but it's how they make money.
I didn't only mean in how they make money, but how they managed the esport side of things, sure they could be making money but that doesn't mean they would have a big esport scene. Blizz has tons of money and see how they fuck stuff up with WCS and all their plans, seems they only make things worse when they try to micromanage the scene. The LoL league seems to be very well run and structured to let the scene breath and grow, not be so restrictive the way WCS is.
I think Blizzard could sell small cosmetic changes for the in game units and buildings, maybe different color schemes, or slightly different designs, like all those different units you see in the single player campaign but without those weird skills. But that isn't the problem here and it wouldn't fix the core issue, the game isn't fun to watch or play. While it would be very very hard for Blizzard to change the core issues with the game unless they went in a totally different direction with Legacy of the void, I hope they at least fix their poor management of the esport scene and WCS so the community has more room to breathe and grow on its own.
On September 24 2013 14:08 Xeris wrote: Its hard, sc2 is different than LoL; a lot of what makes LoL really popular and profitable won't work for a game like sc. League's pro scene directly helps generate sales. People want to buy the champion and skin their favorite players use, they want the rune pages, etc... and many many users won't wait for the ip, they'll buy rp. League works as a f2p game bwcause of this, there are tangible things you can buy to customize and improve your playing experience.
Sc2 doesn't work the same way. If the game was f2p it would be a lot more popular, but you cant sell things that are game changing in a 1v1 rts game because that severely imbalances the game in favor of people who can afford to give themselvss advantages. Unit design is so small there is very minimal 'skinnage' that one could buy... profile avatars are probably the only customizable part of your game experience.
In order to so.ehow make sc2 f2p, blizzard would need to torally rethink the game.
The question is not about f2p model, the question is what makes LOL more fun to watch and to play? On my opinion in LOL there is much more micro and more battles than in sc2 which is what most viewers want. It’s really boring to watch two players macroing until 200/200 and then two deathballs clashing in one short final battle.
On September 24 2013 14:08 Xeris wrote: Its hard, sc2 is different than LoL; a lot of what makes LoL really popular and profitable won't work for a game like sc. League's pro scene directly helps generate sales. People want to buy the champion and skin their favorite players use, they want the rune pages, etc... and many many users won't wait for the ip, they'll buy rp. League works as a f2p game bwcause of this, there are tangible things you can buy to customize and improve your playing experience.
Sc2 doesn't work the same way. If the game was f2p it would be a lot more popular, but you cant sell things that are game changing in a 1v1 rts game because that severely imbalances the game in favor of people who can afford to give themselvss advantages. Unit design is so small there is very minimal 'skinnage' that one could buy... profile avatars are probably the only customizable part of your game experience.
In order to so.ehow make sc2 f2p, blizzard would need to torally rethink the game.
The question is not about f2p model, the question is what makes LOL more fun to watch and to play? On my opinion in LOL there is much more micro and more battles than in sc2 which is what most viewers want. It’s really boring to watch two players macroing until 200/200 and then two deathballs clashing in one short final battle.
A lower percentage of LoL players is watching the game than is the case for SC2.
On September 24 2013 14:08 Xeris wrote: Its hard, sc2 is different than LoL; a lot of what makes LoL really popular and profitable won't work for a game like sc. League's pro scene directly helps generate sales. People want to buy the champion and skin their favorite players use, they want the rune pages, etc... and many many users won't wait for the ip, they'll buy rp. League works as a f2p game bwcause of this, there are tangible things you can buy to customize and improve your playing experience.
Sc2 doesn't work the same way. If the game was f2p it would be a lot more popular, but you cant sell things that are game changing in a 1v1 rts game because that severely imbalances the game in favor of people who can afford to give themselvss advantages. Unit design is so small there is very minimal 'skinnage' that one could buy... profile avatars are probably the only customizable part of your game experience.
In order to so.ehow make sc2 f2p, blizzard would need to torally rethink the game.
The question is not about f2p model, the question is what makes LOL more fun to watch and to play? On my opinion in LOL there is much more micro and more battles than in sc2 which is what most viewers want. It’s really boring to watch two players macroing until 200/200 and then two deathballs clashing in one short final battle.
A lower percentage of LoL players is watching the game than is the case for SC2.
Probably because playing LoL can be equally fun AND that game isnt all about "the ladder". You can be a scrub and play in a scrub team and still win against a team of "better individuals" just because your team plays as a TEAM. Thus matching people with different skill levels isnt *that bad* as it is in SC2, where the better player will have a clear advantage. The gameplay design [the full focus on aggression and the ez-mode unit control and maximized unit density] of SC2 multiplies the "difference in skill" while LoL doesnt really do that.
As a consequence it is far easier to play LoL than it is to play SC2, because you lose with ONE mistake in SC2 while you can make several in LoL and still win in the end. Because of this people watch SC2 because it is constantly available and looks interesting but they dont really play it themselves.
On September 24 2013 17:47 Rabiator wrote: Because of this people watch SC2 because it is constantly available and looks interesting but they dont really play it themselves.
Excellent point. I played BGH on BW with my friends until SC2 beta. There's no fun playing SC2 after novelty wears off. Sure, I'm buying LOTV for the campaign and to try the new units but barring some huge DESIGN changes the novelty wears off in around 3 months. Sadly this DB+DK team has too big of an ego to fix things. Perhaps a miracle will happen and they'll b "promoted" somewhere else, as Jay did.
On September 24 2013 17:47 Rabiator wrote: Because of this people watch SC2 because it is constantly available and looks interesting but they dont really play it themselves.
Excellent point. I played BGH on BW with my friends until SC2 beta. There's no fun playing SC2 after novelty wears off. Sure, I'm buying LOTV for the campaign and to try the new units but barring some huge DESIGN changes the novelty wears off in around 3 months. Sadly this DB+DK team has too big of an ego to fix things. Perhaps a miracle will happen and they'll b "promoted" somewhere else, as Jay did.
You could even skip buying LotV and just watch a let's play for the campaign. How the new units are going to play will be best demonstrated by the pros anyways and casuals wont really have a good chance of doing that due to the game being focused on mass army battles.
On September 24 2013 14:08 Xeris wrote: Its hard, sc2 is different than LoL; a lot of what makes LoL really popular and profitable won't work for a game like sc. League's pro scene directly helps generate sales. People want to buy the champion and skin their favorite players use, they want the rune pages, etc... and many many users won't wait for the ip, they'll buy rp. League works as a f2p game bwcause of this, there are tangible things you can buy to customize and improve your playing experience.
Sc2 doesn't work the same way. If the game was f2p it would be a lot more popular, but you cant sell things that are game changing in a 1v1 rts game because that severely imbalances the game in favor of people who can afford to give themselvss advantages. Unit design is so small there is very minimal 'skinnage' that one could buy... profile avatars are probably the only customizable part of your game experience.
In order to so.ehow make sc2 f2p, blizzard would need to torally rethink the game.
The question is not about f2p model, the question is what makes LOL more fun to watch and to play? On my opinion in LOL there is much more micro and more battles than in sc2 which is what most viewers want. It’s really boring to watch two players macroing until 200/200 and then two deathballs clashing in one short final battle.
A lower percentage of LoL players is watching the game than is the case for SC2.
Probably because playing LoL can be equally fun AND that game isnt all about "the ladder". You can be a scrub and play in a scrub team and still win against a team of "better individuals" just because your team plays as a TEAM. Thus matching people with different skill levels isnt *that bad* as it is in SC2, where the better player will have a clear advantage. The gameplay design [the full focus on aggression and the ez-mode unit control and maximized unit density] of SC2 multiplies the "difference in skill" while LoL doesnt really do that.
As a consequence it is far easier to play LoL than it is to play SC2, because you lose with ONE mistake in SC2 while you can make several in LoL and still win in the end. Because of this people watch SC2 because it is constantly available and looks interesting but they dont really play it themselves.
On some level I feel like saying something is fun to watch is pretty shallow praise and that creating a game that is fun to play is more meaningful, it's more psychologically healthy for one. I know this is extreme, especially on this site, but my opinion is that e-sports should be an afterthought, and the developers should primarily cater to the players. I think it's more valuable (obviously not from a financial perspective) to have a core audience of 10k players that are content with the gameplay than to have a million spectators that watch for the explosions. This is also why I consider Warcraft 3 a better game than Starcraft 2, since it's more satisfying to play if not to watch.
I spend so much time on this site and I'm literally embarrassed to admit to being an SC2 fan, I would never try to convert people, and the reason is that ultimately I don't think the gameplay is good enough to be worth it to start proselyting.
"x throw the game" happens if x had an advantage in sc2, nobody said that "y did an excellent move after disadvantage to win". In other games (especially in wc3 and sc:bw) you talk more about how good y did than how bad x did.
Ofc "throw the game" looks a lot more boring than how fighting back. Another huge Blizzard failure.
On September 24 2013 02:05 Plansix wrote: Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
I would even go further. If BW's pathing was used today by a indie company. Said company would NEVER EVER get any public no matter how good the rest of the gameplay is.
On September 24 2013 04:35 Xiphos wrote:
On September 24 2013 04:12 Wertheron wrote: Love the current "solutions for sc2" era. 90% of these threads is "BW is better, make SC2 like BW and you'll have a super-mega esport scene". Weird, because i can't remember to have seen a big esport scene on BW outisde Korea. And BW is no more play today outside Korea than a Age of Empires II or other classic. I know that SC2 have some problems, but we can't say that BW was always in a perfect situation outside Korea, and that SC1 is the solution.
Then again, BW didn't have Blizzard paying majority of the tournament prices.
OR the streaming luxury.
BW had its backing companies brainwashed kids on TV with short skirts and promises of glory. Emphasis on : TV.
And the backing of the largest companies in all of Korea pushing the game. When you have a bunch of companies larger than Blizzard dumping money into BW, its easier to make it big.
So we can assume that "When you invest money on a certain specific geographic location, that aforementioned place will be more flourished than others!" Shocking.,..
Please learn logic and history. None of the BW sponsors have any business in non-domestic lands other than Samsung Khan. And Sasmung have been really active in connecting with their global fans via all of the WCGs (not cheap price).
Problem being that now even with " bunch of companies larger than Blizzard" dumping money into SC2 in S.korea, the game still haven't captivated the heart of Korean fans and this thread examine the flaws of the game in attempting to improve the situation.
Before those big conglomerates started supporting BW, the scene looked like west early Esport scene, but it drove because of extreme casual interest in BW. Just like the LoL. The spread of that specific "culture" was extreme in Korea. PC bangs and TV station contributed to this greatly.
On September 24 2013 02:05 Plansix wrote: Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
I would even go further. If BW's pathing was used today by a indie company. Said company would NEVER EVER get any public no matter how good the rest of the gameplay is.
On September 24 2013 04:35 Xiphos wrote:
On September 24 2013 04:12 Wertheron wrote: Love the current "solutions for sc2" era. 90% of these threads is "BW is better, make SC2 like BW and you'll have a super-mega esport scene". Weird, because i can't remember to have seen a big esport scene on BW outisde Korea. And BW is no more play today outside Korea than a Age of Empires II or other classic. I know that SC2 have some problems, but we can't say that BW was always in a perfect situation outside Korea, and that SC1 is the solution.
Then again, BW didn't have Blizzard paying majority of the tournament prices.
OR the streaming luxury.
BW had its backing companies brainwashed kids on TV with short skirts and promises of glory. Emphasis on : TV.
And the backing of the largest companies in all of Korea pushing the game. When you have a bunch of companies larger than Blizzard dumping money into BW, its easier to make it big.
It was the other way around for BW. People loved the game -> big companies dumped lots of money into it.
Not to be "that guy", but most of these points were already discussed, also in featured articles. We (or you) can know and discuss these points all we want, it won't change anything unless Blizzard listens. And we all should know in our head or in our heart that Blizzard at some point stopped believing what members of the community say.
The question is whether the community can work around Blizz, and with gameplay being a pretty important point, I dare to doubt that.
On September 24 2013 02:05 Plansix wrote: Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
I would even go further. If BW's pathing was used today by a indie company. Said company would NEVER EVER get any public no matter how good the rest of the gameplay is.
On September 24 2013 04:35 Xiphos wrote:
On September 24 2013 04:12 Wertheron wrote: Love the current "solutions for sc2" era. 90% of these threads is "BW is better, make SC2 like BW and you'll have a super-mega esport scene". Weird, because i can't remember to have seen a big esport scene on BW outisde Korea. And BW is no more play today outside Korea than a Age of Empires II or other classic. I know that SC2 have some problems, but we can't say that BW was always in a perfect situation outside Korea, and that SC1 is the solution.
Then again, BW didn't have Blizzard paying majority of the tournament prices.
OR the streaming luxury.
BW had its backing companies brainwashed kids on TV with short skirts and promises of glory. Emphasis on : TV.
And the backing of the largest companies in all of Korea pushing the game. When you have a bunch of companies larger than Blizzard dumping money into BW, its easier to make it big.
It was the other way around for BW. People loved the game -> big companies dumped lots of money into it.
Yes, but more importantly, because it was fun to do and/or others did it.
It is the same connection as we like to kick the ball in Europe and every kid born probably did that once, they didnt do it because Zidane, Pele or whoever was playing Football(Am. Soccer), yes they may have heard of it because it was in news or whatever. But most importantly everyone did it (at least once) because it was either fun or his/her peer did it.
Being part of society, is an urge of everyone.
To understand this we need to put a thick line between ESPORTS and Fun/Activity
Some people here took the roundabout way of explaining the BW/Esports phenomena thinking (exatcly like Blizzard...) that ESPORTS ---> Im so gonna watch it / do it.
I can understand that hindsight because, it would somehow work if the transition from BW Esports ---> SC2 Esports was seemless. The fundaments were already layed down several years ago, and it is "simply" (note:not) a matter of taking away previous carrot and giving *seemingly* the same/better/similar carrot.
The problem is that we and Blizzard didn't understand Korean society, you take away their freedom they don't care. It was only Korea who somehow made a mostly 1/1 game, a socializing activity.
On September 24 2013 02:05 Plansix wrote: Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
I would even go further. If BW's pathing was used today by a indie company. Said company would NEVER EVER get any public no matter how good the rest of the gameplay is.
On September 24 2013 04:35 Xiphos wrote:
On September 24 2013 04:12 Wertheron wrote: Love the current "solutions for sc2" era. 90% of these threads is "BW is better, make SC2 like BW and you'll have a super-mega esport scene". Weird, because i can't remember to have seen a big esport scene on BW outisde Korea. And BW is no more play today outside Korea than a Age of Empires II or other classic. I know that SC2 have some problems, but we can't say that BW was always in a perfect situation outside Korea, and that SC1 is the solution.
Then again, BW didn't have Blizzard paying majority of the tournament prices.
OR the streaming luxury.
BW had its backing companies brainwashed kids on TV with short skirts and promises of glory. Emphasis on : TV.
And the backing of the largest companies in all of Korea pushing the game. When you have a bunch of companies larger than Blizzard dumping money into BW, its easier to make it big.
It was the other way around for BW. People loved the game -> big companies dumped lots of money into it.
It was a little of both. Everyone jumped on it and got involved. Even the government. It is nothing like what is going on right now. Comparing the two is almost silly if you look at the parties that were involved in BW and how large the companies were.
A way to make SC2 exciting again is to give all units micro effectiveness. This means that any unit that you micro maximizes it's effectiveness when microed than not. On his tread (TM)He gave an example about the vultures being able to effectively deal "more" damage when microed compared to units left to attack mode. Same for dragoons more effective being babysitted than leave them being retarded wandering around.
This is like in DOTA, where animation cancelling can really make a difference. I really think if blizzard starts to implement these micro effectiveness change, everything will be exciting. Players can now have identities from the units they mastered micro with. Talk about the jaedong mutas? jangbi storms? maybe goody tanks? marines of MKP to that extent players will have unique styles.
I agree with the OP its just really sad..... I have played BW since 98 when I was 9 Years old and played about 8-14 hours a day pretty much every day I was allowed..... Until 2010 when sc2 came out. I was so upset of the product that was made vses BW that I just quit video games all-together for 2 years! I don't think I have ever been so disappointed more than that over a video game before...... I just feel that Sc2 just Erases individuality and forces everyone to conform to DK thought of a "Fun Game". Well its simply not ..... its fun to have freedom to involve and evolve your game around a certain play that defines you as a gamer and is always effective even if your opponent knows it is your style..... ( Much LIke BW) Now it has taken me 2 years to get over this hump but i started playing sc2 again since the "Dark Ages" Which I like to call the winfestor days..... ( more evidence of poor design ) I stopped playing then because of it even though I was a semi zerg player at the time I felt that the Idea that one unit was sooooo good that it controlled every game that it was toxic and should have been fixed earlier...... ( IE made the game not fun) Now we have problems again with design because of the IDEA of DKs is I want this game to go in this direction.... he is effectively micro managing all of us the way he sees fit like Caesar ..... and we are all puppets and have to dance to his music instead of having micro effectiveness allow us to grow and make our Own style to how each sees fit .....
I do apologize about this rant but I have been holding it in for 3 years and i felt like this was the right section to post seeing how we are on the subject......
EPT
