In team games you can suck and still have your team carry you to victory. Also you can always blame your team for losses. This is a much more noob-friendly dynamic than 1v1.
Harder and deeper is not always better, although I like it like that.
On October 04 2013 03:29 Goldfish wrote: Traditional RTS just aren't as competitive (in terms of popularity and time investment) anymore nowadays.
Anyway, as for whether appealing to casuals helps or not.
First, an important thing is, it doesn't matter how casual friendly the game is if it's not as fun or doesn't have as much depth as other games. Second of all, BW is actually more casual friendly in gameplay (I'm not talking about battle.net 1.0 or so, yes those help but the actual game itself is also more casual friendly). In BW, (for example) it's easier to know what you need to improve on than in SC2 (yes, that includes the so called "fighting the interface" we had in BW. Yes it was fighting the interface but doing it successfully was rewarding but yet also very doable by anyone. When someone remembered to put their workers on minerals, they sure felt really good >.>).
Not only that, in terms of pro level play, it's easier to replicate things that pros do (microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers are the #1 examples). In SC2, the higher level things pros do is either mostly just strategy/game knowledge (what BOs to use, what to do when you see x or y unit at x or y time, what it means when opponent takes 2 gas, etc) which isn't exactly exciting or appealing to casuals. The other thing higher level pros do is simply "how fast you can do it" which (unlike in the case of microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers) aren't as easy replicable or easy to get into since it's simply a "speed thing" compared to BW where it wasn't purely just speed (and I'll get onto what makes microing more deep in BW compared to SC2 a little later).
BW was seen doing #6th in PC bangs. SC2 (this was after HotS release) was seen doing at #11.
Also I said this before but BW was actually more casual friendly.
In BW, there was more depth in everything but yet everything was much easier to learn and practice.
In SC2, the game is hard but how is it hard? Microing in SC2 is hard but it's hard only because most microing is just how fast you micro (splitting up marines against banelings, splitting up zerglings against widow mines, etc).
In BW, microing Mutalisk was not purely about speed but about so many other things.
You had to pay attention to the direction the Mutalisk were facing before attacking (if you were attack moving) or else the Mutalisk will lose acceleration. You had to know which situations to use attack move, attack directly, patrol, hold position, etc and when doing that, you also had to pay attention to the distance between targets.
Also the micro depended on what you wanted your mutalisk to do. If you wanted you only had six Mutalisk (against Marines) it was best to use attack directly (you can take out one marine per attack volley). However, if you had more Mutalisk against a bunch of marines (twelve for example), then using hold position was better.
Against Scourge, when using patrol micro, you had to pay attention to the distance between Mutalisk and the scourge before using patrol micro.
Overall, from the Mutalisk example alone, micro has much more depth than in SC2.
SC2 has the speed thing but it has none of the depth in micro and depth helps makes the game more fun and interesting.
A deep game is probably also a difficulty game to master. However a difficult game is not nessarily a deep game (it may be difficulty simply because of a few things). An example is splitting up marines against banelings. It's difficulty but it's not as deep as Mutalisk micro (for example). I know it's not the same thing but the majority of micro in SC2 is simply just that - how fast you do it.
In BW, this reached greater heights.
Also, those type of things is what helps casual players more interested into the game (and what potentially makes a causal into a more hardcore player).
When you see something like this:
Epic Drone micro video (6 minutes and 7 seconds if the video doesn't take you there automatically): + Show Spoiler +
Another example with Wraiths (3 minutes and 10 seconds if the video doesn't take you there automatically): + Show Spoiler +
Don't you want to try it yourself and replicate it and potentially impress others with it? Then you start copying and trying it.
SC2 doesn't have nearly as much things. Again, most of it just all goes down to "how fast you split marines against banelings" (to be fair - I did link the video with Jaedong splitting Mutalisk "but" the video didn't just showcase splitting, it had Mutalisk micro in general which is beyond simply splitting or speed).
Also it's not just air units in general, even things that weren't exactly the same (Reavers being the prime example) had a ton more depth. Reavers for example - the more things that get in the way of the scarab's pathing (and any ground unit or structure that isn't the target of the scarab can block or mess with the scarab's pathing), the more likely the scarab will be a dud and won't deal damage.
Also Reavers are one of the few units that encourage micro and attention from both sides. The Protoss player has to move and protect their Reaver (with shuttles) and when attacking, they need to pay attention and attack the unit that may be lead to potentially the most AoE damage (as well as the one that's less likely to move away). The opposing player can try to move the targeted unit out of the way of others (this also involves running behind structures or anything so that the scarab gets blocked by the ground unit or structure).
Reavers are deep units. As for how to replicate scarab to be similar to BW? Well, BW had eight directional movement but one way to replicate something similar is to make it so that Scarabs can only turn (towards their target) once every 0.5 seconds or so. Additionally, Scarabs could be made so that they don't home in on the target directly but they could be limited to make only 45 angle turns towards the target (and no more than that) once every 0.5 seconds. (This could potentially mean a stim marine could run directly behind the scarab and the scarab would have to do a curve to hit the marine instead of being able to turn around directly.)
While I'm not sure about the data editor, something like this can easily be done in the trigger editor (and Blizzard can add it in easily to the data editor).
Anyway, that's one example of how to add the Reaver back into SC2 environment (scarabs function similarly by being limited to making a turn once every 0.5 seconds or so, and being limited to making a max of a 45 angle turn once every 0.5 seconds, so that means a stim marine could potentially just run behind a scarab and cause it to make a curve).
It's different compared to BW but what wouldn't be different is how the Reaver would add fun and engaging micro for both sides of the battle.
(In SC2, the only closest example is probably the seeker missile but seeker missiles are too slow compared to Scarabs and don't have that fun "try to get the scarab to get blocked by pathing to dud" element + Ravens are no where near as fun to control as shuttle + Reaver. As for Widow mines - they are way too fast and too volatile, and they can't be microed against or controlled with as easily compared to Reavers.)
As for the accidental things in BW? Well, lots of competitive games (like fighting games and FPS) have a lot of accidental things that were used by players. It became mainstream and supported by the developers.
While a lot of stuff like how units with no attack animation (or for SC2's case, they could pick a unit to have a passive that could function the same way) could attack and move at the same time and how turning also affected it were probably accidentally, that doesn't mean it something else (whether similar or the same) shouldn't be in SC2.
tl;dr - Bring back Reavers. Make Scarabs turn once every 0.5 seconds (this is just an example) or so to try to be similar to the eight directional BW pathing. Also make Scarabs only able to turn 45 degrees (or so) once per 0.5 second turn (so if a marine was targeted, stim and runs directly behind the scarab before it makes a turn, the Scarab would have to make a curve back to hit the marine). Yes it may sound silly but Reavers are awesome and need to find a way back into the game (and those 2 limitations to Scarab would make it so they're not overpowered in SC2's environment).
Again, BW is doing sixth in PC bangs while SC2 (after HotS release) is doing eleventh in PC bangs in South Korea. Why? Reavers. That's why. (But in all seriously, I think I explained my post well. BW is just more of a deep game than in SC2. Both are challenging but one still lacks a bit of depth compared to the other.)
I dont disagree w/ any points but BW is mostly active and only compete at pro lvl in KR, I'm sure that Blizzard wont want this for SC2. I remember watching JD play a protoss (from Chile?) at WCG Final - Group round and after the easy win, he said that he feel like he play w/ computers. SC2 maybe seem problematic and less fun to many compared to BW but it absolutely reduce the big gap between the foreigners and Koreans, here and there u see and have hope for a foreigner beat top player from KR. So can SC2 turn back to a more micro depth like BW, I think Blizz can do that, in the end they create both, but for the sake of the popularity of SC2 they wont.
Dont you think that the reason for BW only being an eSport in Korea lies in the culture of that one country? Without Korea there would be no eSport at all, because no one else would have invented it.
You also completely forget that 12+ years back the technology simply wasnt there to stream to a massive audience and thus TV would have been the only way to "distribute" such a competition. That would never have happened in germany and due to the spread out nature of the population and the cost to broadcast to the whole country I would doubt it would have happened in the USA either.
The big gap between Koreans and non-Koreans isnt reduced by SC2 ... I would say that it is rather increased due to the fact that you have far less time to react to threats AND that the korean style of training is far more intense than the "western relaxed" style to which most non-Koreans are used to. The whole point is that there is no "fighting the UI" in SC2 anymore AND there is no defenders advantage. This doesnt "bridge the gap" but rather increases it by letting the guys with the most intensive training regime have every advantage over the ones who train less ... because they are allowed fewer mistakes.
On October 04 2013 03:29 Goldfish wrote: Traditional RTS just aren't as competitive (in terms of popularity and time investment) anymore nowadays.
Anyway, as for whether appealing to casuals helps or not.
First, an important thing is, it doesn't matter how casual friendly the game is if it's not as fun or doesn't have as much depth as other games. Second of all, BW is actually more casual friendly in gameplay (I'm not talking about battle.net 1.0 or so, yes those help but the actual game itself is also more casual friendly). In BW, (for example) it's easier to know what you need to improve on than in SC2 (yes, that includes the so called "fighting the interface" we had in BW. Yes it was fighting the interface but doing it successfully was rewarding but yet also very doable by anyone. When someone remembered to put their workers on minerals, they sure felt really good >.>).
Not only that, in terms of pro level play, it's easier to replicate things that pros do (microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers are the #1 examples). In SC2, the higher level things pros do is either mostly just strategy/game knowledge (what BOs to use, what to do when you see x or y unit at x or y time, what it means when opponent takes 2 gas, etc) which isn't exactly exciting or appealing to casuals. The other thing higher level pros do is simply "how fast you can do it" which (unlike in the case of microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers) aren't as easy replicable or easy to get into since it's simply a "speed thing" compared to BW where it wasn't purely just speed (and I'll get onto what makes microing more deep in BW compared to SC2 a little later).
BW was seen doing #6th in PC bangs. SC2 (this was after HotS release) was seen doing at #11.
Also I said this before but BW was actually more casual friendly.
In BW, there was more depth in everything but yet everything was much easier to learn and practice.
In SC2, the game is hard but how is it hard? Microing in SC2 is hard but it's hard only because most microing is just how fast you micro (splitting up marines against banelings, splitting up zerglings against widow mines, etc).
In BW, microing Mutalisk was not purely about speed but about so many other things.
You had to pay attention to the direction the Mutalisk were facing before attacking (if you were attack moving) or else the Mutalisk will lose acceleration. You had to know which situations to use attack move, attack directly, patrol, hold position, etc and when doing that, you also had to pay attention to the distance between targets.
Also the micro depended on what you wanted your mutalisk to do. If you wanted you only had six Mutalisk (against Marines) it was best to use attack directly (you can take out one marine per attack volley). However, if you had more Mutalisk against a bunch of marines (twelve for example), then using hold position was better.
Against Scourge, when using patrol micro, you had to pay attention to the distance between Mutalisk and the scourge before using patrol micro.
Overall, from the Mutalisk example alone, micro has much more depth than in SC2.
SC2 has the speed thing but it has none of the depth in micro and depth helps makes the game more fun and interesting.
A deep game is probably also a difficulty game to master. However a difficult game is not nessarily a deep game (it may be difficulty simply because of a few things). An example is splitting up marines against banelings. It's difficulty but it's not as deep as Mutalisk micro (for example). I know it's not the same thing but the majority of micro in SC2 is simply just that - how fast you do it.
In BW, this reached greater heights.
Also, those type of things is what helps casual players more interested into the game (and what potentially makes a causal into a more hardcore player).
Don't you want to try it yourself and replicate it and potentially impress others with it? Then you start copying and trying it.
SC2 doesn't have nearly as much things. Again, most of it just all goes down to "how fast you split marines against banelings" (to be fair - I did link the video with Jaedong splitting Mutalisk "but" the video didn't just showcase splitting, it had Mutalisk micro in general which is beyond simply splitting or speed).
Also it's not just air units in general, even things that weren't exactly the same (Reavers being the prime example) had a ton more depth. Reavers for example - the more things that get in the way of the scarab's pathing (and any ground unit or structure that isn't the target of the scarab can block or mess with the scarab's pathing), the more likely the scarab will be a dud and won't deal damage.
Also Reavers are one of the few units that encourage micro and attention from both sides. The Protoss player has to move and protect their Reaver (with shuttles) and when attacking, they need to pay attention and attack the unit that may be lead to potentially the most AoE damage (as well as the one that's less likely to move away). The opposing player can try to move the targeted unit out of the way of others (this also involves running behind structures or anything so that the scarab gets blocked by the ground unit or structure).
Reavers are deep units. As for how to replicate scarab to be similar to BW? Well, BW had eight directional movement but one way to replicate something similar is to make it so that Scarabs can only turn (towards their target) once every 0.5 seconds or so. Additionally, Scarabs could be made so that they don't home in on the target directly but they could be limited to make only 45 angle turns towards the target (and no more than that) once every 0.5 seconds. (This could potentially mean a stim marine could run directly behind the scarab and the scarab would have to do a curve to hit the marine instead of being able to turn around directly.)
While I'm not sure about the data editor, something like this can easily be done in the trigger editor (and Blizzard can add it in easily to the data editor).
Anyway, that's one example of how to add the Reaver back into SC2 environment (scarabs function similarly by being limited to making a turn once every 0.5 seconds or so, and being limited to making a max of a 45 angle turn once every 0.5 seconds, so that means a stim marine could potentially just run behind a scarab and cause it to make a curve).
It's different compared to BW but what wouldn't be different is how the Reaver would add fun and engaging micro for both sides of the battle.
(In SC2, the only closest example is probably the seeker missile but seeker missiles are too slow compared to Scarabs and don't have that fun "try to get the scarab to get blocked by pathing to dud" element + Ravens are no where near as fun to control as shuttle + Reaver. As for Widow mines - they are way too fast and too volatile, and they can't be microed against or controlled with as easily compared to Reavers.)
As for the accidental things in BW? Well, lots of competitive games (like fighting games and FPS) have a lot of accidental things that were used by players. It became mainstream and supported by the developers.
While a lot of stuff like how units with no attack animation (or for SC2's case, they could pick a unit to have a passive that could function the same way) could attack and move at the same time and how turning also affected it were probably accidentally, that doesn't mean it something else (whether similar or the same) shouldn't be in SC2.
tl;dr - Bring back Reavers. Make Scarabs turn once every 0.5 seconds (this is just an example) or so to try to be similar to the eight directional BW pathing. Also make Scarabs only able to turn 45 degrees (or so) once per 0.5 second turn (so if a marine was targeted, stim and runs directly behind the scarab before it makes a turn, the Scarab would have to make a curve back to hit the marine). Yes it may sound silly but Reavers are awesome and need to find a way back into the game (and those 2 limitations to Scarab would make it so they're not overpowered in SC2's environment).
Again, BW is doing sixth in PC bangs while SC2 (after HotS release) is doing eleventh in PC bangs in South Korea. Why? Reavers. That's why. (But in all seriously, I think I explained my post well. BW is just more of a deep game than in SC2. Both are challenging but one still lacks a bit of depth compared to the other.)
Pretty brilliant post. I never played Brood War seriously (no time to try) however this post is a very good explanation about part of what made Brood War a better game than SC2.
The argument is stated countless times in this thread, so I didn't repeat it. Since you didn't bother reading the thread, the point is that there are no storylines, no infrastructure for growing local players, leading to viewers and progamers losing interest in WCS regions like NA. This is something Blizzard can learn from Riot.
Then put an effort and show how your post is related to current discussion. If LoL was mentioned in previous pages then you should provide some context. Either by quoting someone, or describing whole matter.
btw, People are not obliged to read whole thread to participate in it. Neither they have to go and look up previous posts if you're too lazy to provide proper information.
I think you are too harsh on him. WCS system was mentioned in OP.
His original post didn't mention any WCS and the first time I read it I thought he was posting some news related to LoL, I pointed out that he may have posted it in a wrong thread. But he went a little harsh on me by saying "Since you didn't bother reading the thread", which I actually do everyday. Therefore I replied in the same way.
I thought you were being intentionally blunt and not justifying why you think it doesn't belong in this thread. It was just a misunderstanding. Cheers!
On October 04 2013 21:31 Spectreman wrote: With today hardware and software engines is not possible the SC2 teams make a new game, f2p and more in line with SC1?
It is totally possible. Question is: is it worth it?
Traditional RTS just aren't as competitive (in terms of popularity and time investment) anymore nowadays.
Anyway, as for whether appealing to casuals helps or not.
First, an important thing is, it doesn't matter how casual friendly the game is if it's not as fun or doesn't have as much depth as other games. Second of all, BW is actually more casual friendly in gameplay (I'm not talking about battle.net 1.0 or so, yes those help but the actual game itself is also more casual friendly). In BW, (for example) it's easier to know what you need to improve on than in SC2 (yes, that includes the so called "fighting the interface" we had in BW. Yes it was fighting the interface but doing it successfully was rewarding but yet also very doable by anyone. When someone remembered to put their workers on minerals, they sure felt really good >.>). Not only that, in terms of pro level play, it's easier to replicate things that pros do (microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers are the #1 examples). In SC2, the higher level things pros do is either mostly just strategy/game knowledge (what BOs to use, what to do when you see x or y unit at x or y time, what it means when opponent takes 2 gas, etc) which isn't exactly exciting or appealing to casuals. The other thing higher level pros do is simply "how fast you can do it" which (unlike in the case of microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers) aren't as easy replicable or easy to get into since it's simply a "speed thing" compared to BW where it wasn't purely just speed (and I'll get onto what makes microing more deep in BW compared to SC2 a little later).
BW was seen doing #6th in PC bangs. SC2 (this was after HotS release) was seen doing at #11.
Also I said this before but BW was actually more casual friendly.
In BW, there was more depth in everything but yet everything was much easier to learn and practice.
In SC2, the game is hard but how is it hard? Microing in SC2 is hard but it's hard only because most microing is just how fast you micro (splitting up marines against banelings, splitting up zerglings against widow mines, etc).
In BW, microing Mutalisk was not purely about speed but about so many other things.
You had to pay attention to the direction the Mutalisk were facing before attacking (if you were attack moving) or else the Mutalisk will lose acceleration. You had to know which situations to use attack move, attack directly, patrol, hold position, etc and when doing that, you also had to pay attention to the distance between targets.
Also the micro depended on what you wanted your mutalisk to do. If you wanted you only had six Mutalisk (against Marines) it was best to use attack directly (you can take out one marine per attack volley). However, if you had more Mutalisk against a bunch of marines (twelve for example), then using hold position was better.
Against Scourge, when using patrol micro, you had to pay attention to the distance between Mutalisk and the scourge before using patrol micro.
Overall, from the Mutalisk example alone, micro has much more depth than in SC2.
SC2 has the speed thing but it has none of the depth in micro and depth helps makes the game more fun and interesting.
A deep game is probably also a difficulty game to master. However a difficult game is not nessarily a deep game (it may be difficulty simply because of a few things). An example is splitting up marines against banelings. It's difficulty but it's not as deep as Mutalisk micro (for example). I know it's not the same thing but the majority of micro in SC2 is simply just that - how fast you do it.
In BW, this reached greater heights.
Also, those type of things is what helps casual players more interested into the game (and what potentially makes a causal into a more hardcore player).
Don't you want to try it yourself and replicate it and potentially impress others with it? Then you start copying and trying it.
SC2 doesn't have nearly as much things. Again, most of it just all goes down to "how fast you split marines against banelings" (to be fair - I did link the video with Jaedong splitting Mutalisk "but" the video didn't just showcase splitting, it had Mutalisk micro in general which is beyond simply splitting or speed).
Also it's not just air units in general, even things that weren't exactly the same (Reavers being the prime example) had a ton more depth. Reavers for example - the more things that get in the way of the scarab's pathing (and any ground unit or structure that isn't the target of the scarab can block or mess with the scarab's pathing), the more likely the scarab will be a dud and won't deal damage.
Also Reavers are one of the few units that encourage micro and attention from both sides. The Protoss player has to move and protect their Reaver (with shuttles) and when attacking, they need to pay attention and attack the unit that may be lead to potentially the most AoE damage (as well as the one that's less likely to move away). The opposing player can try to move the targeted unit out of the way of others (this also involves running behind structures or anything so that the scarab gets blocked by the ground unit or structure).
Reavers are deep units. As for how to replicate scarab to be similar to BW? Well, BW had eight directional movement but one way to replicate something similar is to make it so that Scarabs can only turn (towards their target) once every 0.5 seconds or so. Additionally, Scarabs could be made so that they don't home in on the target directly but they could be limited to make only 45 angle turns towards the target (and no more than that) once every 0.5 seconds. (This could potentially mean a stim marine could run directly behind the scarab and the scarab would have to do a curve to hit the marine instead of being able to turn around directly.)
While I'm not sure about the data editor, something like this can easily be done in the trigger editor (and Blizzard can add it in easily to the data editor).
Anyway, that's one example of how to add the Reaver back into SC2 environment (scarabs function similarly by being limited to making a turn once every 0.5 seconds or so, and being limited to making a max of a 45 angle turn once every 0.5 seconds, so that means a stim marine could potentially just run behind a scarab and cause it to make a curve).
It's different compared to BW but what wouldn't be different is how the Reaver would add fun and engaging micro for both sides of the battle.
(In SC2, the only closest example is probably the seeker missile but seeker missiles are too slow compared to Scarabs and don't have that fun "try to get the scarab to get blocked by pathing to dud" element + Ravens are no where near as fun to control as shuttle + Reaver. As for Widow mines - they are way too fast and too volatile, and they can't be microed against or controlled with as easily compared to Reavers.)
As for the accidental things in BW? Well, lots of competitive games (like fighting games and FPS) have a lot of accidental things that were used by players. It became mainstream and supported by the developers.
While a lot of stuff like how units with no attack animation (or for SC2's case, they could pick a unit to have a passive that could function the same way) could attack and move at the same time and how turning also affected it were probably accidentally, that doesn't mean it something else (whether similar or the same) shouldn't be in SC2.
tl;dr - Bring back Reavers. Make Scarabs turn once every 0.5 seconds (this is just an example) or so to try to be similar to the eight directional BW pathing. Also make Scarabs only able to turn 45 degrees (or so) once per 0.5 second turn (so if a marine was targeted, stim and runs directly behind the scarab before it makes a turn, the Scarab would have to make a curve back to hit the marine). Yes it may sound silly but Reavers are awesome and need to find a way back into the game (and those 2 limitations to Scarab would make it so they're not overpowered in SC2's environment).
Again, BW is doing sixth in PC bangs while SC2 (after HotS release) is doing eleventh in PC bangs in South Korea. Why? Reavers. That's why. (But in all seriously, I think I explained my post well. BW is just more of a deep game than in SC2. Both are challenging but one still lacks a bit of depth compared to the other.)
BW isn't doing better because of reavers. they grew up playing starcraft, it's a part of their culture. They played BW and understand BW and BW has already developed for years with stars that they are familiar with. this is why BW is ONLY played in KR pretty much right now. Why only look at S.Korea? Why don't you compare BW vs SC2 all across the globe? Why did SC2 become more successful than BW in everywhere in the world EXCEPT S.Korea and China?
casual viewers don't care about those micro if they don't understand how 'deep' is it. this is why BW was on decline and why BW is now on 6th in netcafe. Only core fans are left and casuals etc all went to watch League. Why SC2 is doing worse is because most of them don't like what they are seeing because they, like you, are comparing it to BW, both core and casuals. Why SC2 is doing well in other areas is because new casuals are fine with these 'flaws', old fans appreciate SC2 even if it is not as 'deep'.
What do you mean more successful? BW was released 15 years ago, do you know any other game of 20th century that is doing as well as BW right now? SC2 is more popular right now just because it is NEW game. Casuals mostly dont care about game mechanics and depth they just want to play game which is easy and new.
But since SC2 doesnt have such depth that BW has, SC2 wont last as esport as long as BW lasted. Since SC2 is more popular right now among casual players these casual players wont be playing and watching this game for long.
as for the BW 15 years ago comment, sour that we don't live in 15 years ago anymore. Players don't invest so much time into a game anymore, they want an easier to pick up but hard to master game.
No one wants to play a game that controls don't feel fluid. Don't think so? Check out the change in resident evil and FF. SC2 isn't NEW by any mean for a modern gaming standard, games like GTA V, BF4 are new. unless you would also consider final fantasy 13 to be new. (which already received several DLCs and sequels)
SC2 will last however long until it faces another big competitor. Just like how BW was pretty safe from any competitions in S.Korea for years until League took over, a game that is easier, simplier, more international, and arguably a lot less depth than bw.
I am not so sure about MOBA games being simpler and easier than BW. Yes for one player it’s easier to control one unit. But as a whole the game is more complicated since five players are needed to control all the heroes. What game is more complicated in SC2 5x5 or 1x1? Definitely 5x5. Team games are more complicated than single games I think it’s quite obvious.
ok. so you are saying league is more complicated than bw. i have to disagree on that and leave the argument here
Anyone with management experience knows just how insanely difficult it is to get people to work as a group.
On October 04 2013 21:31 Spectreman wrote: With today hardware and software engines is not possible the SC2 teams make a new game, f2p and more in line with SC1?
It is, however that is where you start getting micro-transactions because of the costs of servers/development. Anyone could make a game that is similar to sc1 but it comes down to costs and also it would take them many years to create a game with a story and balancing that a rts like sc1/2 needs. If they did make the game they would either have to have micro-transactions or make it a subscription based game or one time purchase The subscription would be most profitable but then not many people would play it because of that. People hate micro-transactions and wouldn't be very profitable and most likely they would have a large loss. That only leaves one time purchase, which still could make them have a massive loss in money because of all the costs of development.
On October 04 2013 17:25 Slydie wrote: In team games you can suck and still have your team carry you to victory. Also you can always blame your team for losses. This is a much more noob-friendly dynamic than 1v1.
Harder and deeper is not always better, although I like it like that.
Team games also have a worse community in general, which is odd since they have to work with each other yet they are determined to make the community as toxic as possible. Then these same people complain about the bad community. This is why I prefer single player games such as sc since you cannot blame anyone and the community is often alot nicer, with few trolls and those who do troll cant troll peoples games very effectively unless going into a 2v2 or something with random players on your team.
Acutal ingame playerbase wise outside korea? It's 1 v 1 and really hard, but that has been true for all rts. I guess the difference is that in wc3/bw there were more ums maps for all the noobs. Though blizzard is working on that with arcade. Also it seems to be that you need skins or some shit to attract casuals nowadays, there is very litte of that in star 2. Also no microtransactions which people also seem to enjoy. Outside of korea as a spectator sport? We don't have a problem besides the meta being somewhat stagnant atm and people not enjoying that. Inside korea player base wise? not f2p, very little rewards for playing in pc bangs (i think only colelctor portraits and more exp) Inside korea viewership wise? Not bw hd
Traditional RTS just aren't as competitive (in terms of popularity and time investment) anymore nowadays.
Anyway, as for whether appealing to casuals helps or not.
First, an important thing is, it doesn't matter how casual friendly the game is if it's not as fun or doesn't have as much depth as other games. Second of all, BW is actually more casual friendly in gameplay (I'm not talking about battle.net 1.0 or so, yes those help but the actual game itself is also more casual friendly). In BW, (for example) it's easier to know what you need to improve on than in SC2 (yes, that includes the so called "fighting the interface" we had in BW. Yes it was fighting the interface but doing it successfully was rewarding but yet also very doable by anyone. When someone remembered to put their workers on minerals, they sure felt really good >.>). Not only that, in terms of pro level play, it's easier to replicate things that pros do (microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers are the #1 examples). In SC2, the higher level things pros do is either mostly just strategy/game knowledge (what BOs to use, what to do when you see x or y unit at x or y time, what it means when opponent takes 2 gas, etc) which isn't exactly exciting or appealing to casuals. The other thing higher level pros do is simply "how fast you can do it" which (unlike in the case of microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers) aren't as easy replicable or easy to get into since it's simply a "speed thing" compared to BW where it wasn't purely just speed (and I'll get onto what makes microing more deep in BW compared to SC2 a little later).
BW was seen doing #6th in PC bangs. SC2 (this was after HotS release) was seen doing at #11.
Also I said this before but BW was actually more casual friendly.
In BW, there was more depth in everything but yet everything was much easier to learn and practice.
In SC2, the game is hard but how is it hard? Microing in SC2 is hard but it's hard only because most microing is just how fast you micro (splitting up marines against banelings, splitting up zerglings against widow mines, etc).
In BW, microing Mutalisk was not purely about speed but about so many other things.
You had to pay attention to the direction the Mutalisk were facing before attacking (if you were attack moving) or else the Mutalisk will lose acceleration. You had to know which situations to use attack move, attack directly, patrol, hold position, etc and when doing that, you also had to pay attention to the distance between targets.
Also the micro depended on what you wanted your mutalisk to do. If you wanted you only had six Mutalisk (against Marines) it was best to use attack directly (you can take out one marine per attack volley). However, if you had more Mutalisk against a bunch of marines (twelve for example), then using hold position was better.
Against Scourge, when using patrol micro, you had to pay attention to the distance between Mutalisk and the scourge before using patrol micro.
Overall, from the Mutalisk example alone, micro has much more depth than in SC2.
SC2 has the speed thing but it has none of the depth in micro and depth helps makes the game more fun and interesting.
A deep game is probably also a difficulty game to master. However a difficult game is not nessarily a deep game (it may be difficulty simply because of a few things). An example is splitting up marines against banelings. It's difficulty but it's not as deep as Mutalisk micro (for example). I know it's not the same thing but the majority of micro in SC2 is simply just that - how fast you do it.
In BW, this reached greater heights.
Also, those type of things is what helps casual players more interested into the game (and what potentially makes a causal into a more hardcore player).
Don't you want to try it yourself and replicate it and potentially impress others with it? Then you start copying and trying it.
SC2 doesn't have nearly as much things. Again, most of it just all goes down to "how fast you split marines against banelings" (to be fair - I did link the video with Jaedong splitting Mutalisk "but" the video didn't just showcase splitting, it had Mutalisk micro in general which is beyond simply splitting or speed).
Also it's not just air units in general, even things that weren't exactly the same (Reavers being the prime example) had a ton more depth. Reavers for example - the more things that get in the way of the scarab's pathing (and any ground unit or structure that isn't the target of the scarab can block or mess with the scarab's pathing), the more likely the scarab will be a dud and won't deal damage.
Also Reavers are one of the few units that encourage micro and attention from both sides. The Protoss player has to move and protect their Reaver (with shuttles) and when attacking, they need to pay attention and attack the unit that may be lead to potentially the most AoE damage (as well as the one that's less likely to move away). The opposing player can try to move the targeted unit out of the way of others (this also involves running behind structures or anything so that the scarab gets blocked by the ground unit or structure).
Reavers are deep units. As for how to replicate scarab to be similar to BW? Well, BW had eight directional movement but one way to replicate something similar is to make it so that Scarabs can only turn (towards their target) once every 0.5 seconds or so. Additionally, Scarabs could be made so that they don't home in on the target directly but they could be limited to make only 45 angle turns towards the target (and no more than that) once every 0.5 seconds. (This could potentially mean a stim marine could run directly behind the scarab and the scarab would have to do a curve to hit the marine instead of being able to turn around directly.)
While I'm not sure about the data editor, something like this can easily be done in the trigger editor (and Blizzard can add it in easily to the data editor).
Anyway, that's one example of how to add the Reaver back into SC2 environment (scarabs function similarly by being limited to making a turn once every 0.5 seconds or so, and being limited to making a max of a 45 angle turn once every 0.5 seconds, so that means a stim marine could potentially just run behind a scarab and cause it to make a curve).
It's different compared to BW but what wouldn't be different is how the Reaver would add fun and engaging micro for both sides of the battle.
(In SC2, the only closest example is probably the seeker missile but seeker missiles are too slow compared to Scarabs and don't have that fun "try to get the scarab to get blocked by pathing to dud" element + Ravens are no where near as fun to control as shuttle + Reaver. As for Widow mines - they are way too fast and too volatile, and they can't be microed against or controlled with as easily compared to Reavers.)
As for the accidental things in BW? Well, lots of competitive games (like fighting games and FPS) have a lot of accidental things that were used by players. It became mainstream and supported by the developers.
While a lot of stuff like how units with no attack animation (or for SC2's case, they could pick a unit to have a passive that could function the same way) could attack and move at the same time and how turning also affected it were probably accidentally, that doesn't mean it something else (whether similar or the same) shouldn't be in SC2.
tl;dr - Bring back Reavers. Make Scarabs turn once every 0.5 seconds (this is just an example) or so to try to be similar to the eight directional BW pathing. Also make Scarabs only able to turn 45 degrees (or so) once per 0.5 second turn (so if a marine was targeted, stim and runs directly behind the scarab before it makes a turn, the Scarab would have to make a curve back to hit the marine). Yes it may sound silly but Reavers are awesome and need to find a way back into the game (and those 2 limitations to Scarab would make it so they're not overpowered in SC2's environment).
Again, BW is doing sixth in PC bangs while SC2 (after HotS release) is doing eleventh in PC bangs in South Korea. Why? Reavers. That's why. (But in all seriously, I think I explained my post well. BW is just more of a deep game than in SC2. Both are challenging but one still lacks a bit of depth compared to the other.)
BW isn't doing better because of reavers. they grew up playing starcraft, it's a part of their culture. They played BW and understand BW and BW has already developed for years with stars that they are familiar with. this is why BW is ONLY played in KR pretty much right now. Why only look at S.Korea? Why don't you compare BW vs SC2 all across the globe? Why did SC2 become more successful than BW in everywhere in the world EXCEPT S.Korea and China?
casual viewers don't care about those micro if they don't understand how 'deep' is it. this is why BW was on decline and why BW is now on 6th in netcafe. Only core fans are left and casuals etc all went to watch League. Why SC2 is doing worse is because most of them don't like what they are seeing because they, like you, are comparing it to BW, both core and casuals. Why SC2 is doing well in other areas is because new casuals are fine with these 'flaws', old fans appreciate SC2 even if it is not as 'deep'.
What do you mean more successful? BW was released 15 years ago, do you know any other game of 20th century that is doing as well as BW right now? SC2 is more popular right now just because it is NEW game. Casuals mostly dont care about game mechanics and depth they just want to play game which is easy and new.
But since SC2 doesnt have such depth that BW has, SC2 wont last as esport as long as BW lasted. Since SC2 is more popular right now among casual players these casual players wont be playing and watching this game for long.
as for the BW 15 years ago comment, sour that we don't live in 15 years ago anymore. Players don't invest so much time into a game anymore, they want an easier to pick up but hard to master game.
No one wants to play a game that controls don't feel fluid. Don't think so? Check out the change in resident evil and FF. SC2 isn't NEW by any mean for a modern gaming standard, games like GTA V, BF4 are new. unless you would also consider final fantasy 13 to be new. (which already received several DLCs and sequels)
SC2 will last however long until it faces another big competitor. Just like how BW was pretty safe from any competitions in S.Korea for years until League took over, a game that is easier, simplier, more international, and arguably a lot less depth than bw.
I am not so sure about MOBA games being simpler and easier than BW. Yes for one player it’s easier to control one unit. But as a whole the game is more complicated since five players are needed to control all the heroes. What game is more complicated in SC2 5x5 or 1x1? Definitely 5x5. Team games are more complicated than single games I think it’s quite obvious.
ok. so you are saying league is more complicated than bw. i have to disagree on that and leave the argument here
Anyone with management experience knows just how insanely difficult it is to get people to work as a group.
anyone who have read history would know how insanely rare it is to have a great strategist
On October 04 2013 17:25 Slydie wrote: In team games you can suck and still have your team carry you to victory. Also you can always blame your team for losses. This is a much more noob-friendly dynamic than 1v1.
Harder and deeper is not always better, although I like it like that.
The difficulty of a team game is getting players to work together. If you're not getting players to work together then you're not playing a team game and is what separates top teams from the sub-par teams.
In lower levels people don't work together for much the same reason that low levels of an RTS people don't even build workers and whine about how OP Voidrays and Dark Templar are. There is no difference between saying "my teammates caused the loss" and "Voidrays need nerfs"
Pretending that the team aspect is not an important aspect of a team game is literally ignoring the point of the game.
I'm not a big fan of LoL or Dota2; but don't shit on other games please.
Traditional RTS just aren't as competitive (in terms of popularity and time investment) anymore nowadays.
Anyway, as for whether appealing to casuals helps or not.
First, an important thing is, it doesn't matter how casual friendly the game is if it's not as fun or doesn't have as much depth as other games. Second of all, BW is actually more casual friendly in gameplay (I'm not talking about battle.net 1.0 or so, yes those help but the actual game itself is also more casual friendly). In BW, (for example) it's easier to know what you need to improve on than in SC2 (yes, that includes the so called "fighting the interface" we had in BW. Yes it was fighting the interface but doing it successfully was rewarding but yet also very doable by anyone. When someone remembered to put their workers on minerals, they sure felt really good >.>). Not only that, in terms of pro level play, it's easier to replicate things that pros do (microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers are the #1 examples). In SC2, the higher level things pros do is either mostly just strategy/game knowledge (what BOs to use, what to do when you see x or y unit at x or y time, what it means when opponent takes 2 gas, etc) which isn't exactly exciting or appealing to casuals. The other thing higher level pros do is simply "how fast you can do it" which (unlike in the case of microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers) aren't as easy replicable or easy to get into since it's simply a "speed thing" compared to BW where it wasn't purely just speed (and I'll get onto what makes microing more deep in BW compared to SC2 a little later).
BW was seen doing #6th in PC bangs. SC2 (this was after HotS release) was seen doing at #11.
Also I said this before but BW was actually more casual friendly.
In BW, there was more depth in everything but yet everything was much easier to learn and practice.
In SC2, the game is hard but how is it hard? Microing in SC2 is hard but it's hard only because most microing is just how fast you micro (splitting up marines against banelings, splitting up zerglings against widow mines, etc).
In BW, microing Mutalisk was not purely about speed but about so many other things.
You had to pay attention to the direction the Mutalisk were facing before attacking (if you were attack moving) or else the Mutalisk will lose acceleration. You had to know which situations to use attack move, attack directly, patrol, hold position, etc and when doing that, you also had to pay attention to the distance between targets.
Also the micro depended on what you wanted your mutalisk to do. If you wanted you only had six Mutalisk (against Marines) it was best to use attack directly (you can take out one marine per attack volley). However, if you had more Mutalisk against a bunch of marines (twelve for example), then using hold position was better.
Against Scourge, when using patrol micro, you had to pay attention to the distance between Mutalisk and the scourge before using patrol micro.
Overall, from the Mutalisk example alone, micro has much more depth than in SC2.
SC2 has the speed thing but it has none of the depth in micro and depth helps makes the game more fun and interesting.
A deep game is probably also a difficulty game to master. However a difficult game is not nessarily a deep game (it may be difficulty simply because of a few things). An example is splitting up marines against banelings. It's difficulty but it's not as deep as Mutalisk micro (for example). I know it's not the same thing but the majority of micro in SC2 is simply just that - how fast you do it.
In BW, this reached greater heights.
Also, those type of things is what helps casual players more interested into the game (and what potentially makes a causal into a more hardcore player).
Don't you want to try it yourself and replicate it and potentially impress others with it? Then you start copying and trying it.
SC2 doesn't have nearly as much things. Again, most of it just all goes down to "how fast you split marines against banelings" (to be fair - I did link the video with Jaedong splitting Mutalisk "but" the video didn't just showcase splitting, it had Mutalisk micro in general which is beyond simply splitting or speed).
Also it's not just air units in general, even things that weren't exactly the same (Reavers being the prime example) had a ton more depth. Reavers for example - the more things that get in the way of the scarab's pathing (and any ground unit or structure that isn't the target of the scarab can block or mess with the scarab's pathing), the more likely the scarab will be a dud and won't deal damage.
Also Reavers are one of the few units that encourage micro and attention from both sides. The Protoss player has to move and protect their Reaver (with shuttles) and when attacking, they need to pay attention and attack the unit that may be lead to potentially the most AoE damage (as well as the one that's less likely to move away). The opposing player can try to move the targeted unit out of the way of others (this also involves running behind structures or anything so that the scarab gets blocked by the ground unit or structure).
Reavers are deep units. As for how to replicate scarab to be similar to BW? Well, BW had eight directional movement but one way to replicate something similar is to make it so that Scarabs can only turn (towards their target) once every 0.5 seconds or so. Additionally, Scarabs could be made so that they don't home in on the target directly but they could be limited to make only 45 angle turns towards the target (and no more than that) once every 0.5 seconds. (This could potentially mean a stim marine could run directly behind the scarab and the scarab would have to do a curve to hit the marine instead of being able to turn around directly.)
While I'm not sure about the data editor, something like this can easily be done in the trigger editor (and Blizzard can add it in easily to the data editor).
Anyway, that's one example of how to add the Reaver back into SC2 environment (scarabs function similarly by being limited to making a turn once every 0.5 seconds or so, and being limited to making a max of a 45 angle turn once every 0.5 seconds, so that means a stim marine could potentially just run behind a scarab and cause it to make a curve).
It's different compared to BW but what wouldn't be different is how the Reaver would add fun and engaging micro for both sides of the battle.
(In SC2, the only closest example is probably the seeker missile but seeker missiles are too slow compared to Scarabs and don't have that fun "try to get the scarab to get blocked by pathing to dud" element + Ravens are no where near as fun to control as shuttle + Reaver. As for Widow mines - they are way too fast and too volatile, and they can't be microed against or controlled with as easily compared to Reavers.)
As for the accidental things in BW? Well, lots of competitive games (like fighting games and FPS) have a lot of accidental things that were used by players. It became mainstream and supported by the developers.
While a lot of stuff like how units with no attack animation (or for SC2's case, they could pick a unit to have a passive that could function the same way) could attack and move at the same time and how turning also affected it were probably accidentally, that doesn't mean it something else (whether similar or the same) shouldn't be in SC2.
tl;dr - Bring back Reavers. Make Scarabs turn once every 0.5 seconds (this is just an example) or so to try to be similar to the eight directional BW pathing. Also make Scarabs only able to turn 45 degrees (or so) once per 0.5 second turn (so if a marine was targeted, stim and runs directly behind the scarab before it makes a turn, the Scarab would have to make a curve back to hit the marine). Yes it may sound silly but Reavers are awesome and need to find a way back into the game (and those 2 limitations to Scarab would make it so they're not overpowered in SC2's environment).
Again, BW is doing sixth in PC bangs while SC2 (after HotS release) is doing eleventh in PC bangs in South Korea. Why? Reavers. That's why. (But in all seriously, I think I explained my post well. BW is just more of a deep game than in SC2. Both are challenging but one still lacks a bit of depth compared to the other.)
BW isn't doing better because of reavers. they grew up playing starcraft, it's a part of their culture. They played BW and understand BW and BW has already developed for years with stars that they are familiar with. this is why BW is ONLY played in KR pretty much right now. Why only look at S.Korea? Why don't you compare BW vs SC2 all across the globe? Why did SC2 become more successful than BW in everywhere in the world EXCEPT S.Korea and China?
casual viewers don't care about those micro if they don't understand how 'deep' is it. this is why BW was on decline and why BW is now on 6th in netcafe. Only core fans are left and casuals etc all went to watch League. Why SC2 is doing worse is because most of them don't like what they are seeing because they, like you, are comparing it to BW, both core and casuals. Why SC2 is doing well in other areas is because new casuals are fine with these 'flaws', old fans appreciate SC2 even if it is not as 'deep'.
What do you mean more successful? BW was released 15 years ago, do you know any other game of 20th century that is doing as well as BW right now? SC2 is more popular right now just because it is NEW game. Casuals mostly dont care about game mechanics and depth they just want to play game which is easy and new.
But since SC2 doesnt have such depth that BW has, SC2 wont last as esport as long as BW lasted. Since SC2 is more popular right now among casual players these casual players wont be playing and watching this game for long.
as for the BW 15 years ago comment, sour that we don't live in 15 years ago anymore. Players don't invest so much time into a game anymore, they want an easier to pick up but hard to master game.
No one wants to play a game that controls don't feel fluid. Don't think so? Check out the change in resident evil and FF. SC2 isn't NEW by any mean for a modern gaming standard, games like GTA V, BF4 are new. unless you would also consider final fantasy 13 to be new. (which already received several DLCs and sequels)
SC2 will last however long until it faces another big competitor. Just like how BW was pretty safe from any competitions in S.Korea for years until League took over, a game that is easier, simplier, more international, and arguably a lot less depth than bw.
I am not so sure about MOBA games being simpler and easier than BW. Yes for one player it’s easier to control one unit. But as a whole the game is more complicated since five players are needed to control all the heroes. What game is more complicated in SC2 5x5 or 1x1? Definitely 5x5. Team games are more complicated than single games I think it’s quite obvious.
ok. so you are saying league is more complicated than bw. i have to disagree on that and leave the argument here
Anyone with management experience knows just how insanely difficult it is to get people to work as a group.
anyone who have read history would know how insanely rare it is to have a great strategist
And anyone who read *actual* history knows that what made those strategists great was how they got hundreds and thousands of people to work together for a common goal. And how those "strategists" were just the leads of a team or even teams of strategists working together and leaning on the "leader" to make the final decision after his "subordinates" gives him the options that *they* come up together as a team.
Traditional RTS just aren't as competitive (in terms of popularity and time investment) anymore nowadays.
Anyway, as for whether appealing to casuals helps or not.
First, an important thing is, it doesn't matter how casual friendly the game is if it's not as fun or doesn't have as much depth as other games. Second of all, BW is actually more casual friendly in gameplay (I'm not talking about battle.net 1.0 or so, yes those help but the actual game itself is also more casual friendly). In BW, (for example) it's easier to know what you need to improve on than in SC2 (yes, that includes the so called "fighting the interface" we had in BW. Yes it was fighting the interface but doing it successfully was rewarding but yet also very doable by anyone. When someone remembered to put their workers on minerals, they sure felt really good >.>). Not only that, in terms of pro level play, it's easier to replicate things that pros do (microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers are the #1 examples). In SC2, the higher level things pros do is either mostly just strategy/game knowledge (what BOs to use, what to do when you see x or y unit at x or y time, what it means when opponent takes 2 gas, etc) which isn't exactly exciting or appealing to casuals. The other thing higher level pros do is simply "how fast you can do it" which (unlike in the case of microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers) aren't as easy replicable or easy to get into since it's simply a "speed thing" compared to BW where it wasn't purely just speed (and I'll get onto what makes microing more deep in BW compared to SC2 a little later).
BW was seen doing #6th in PC bangs. SC2 (this was after HotS release) was seen doing at #11.
Also I said this before but BW was actually more casual friendly.
In BW, there was more depth in everything but yet everything was much easier to learn and practice.
In SC2, the game is hard but how is it hard? Microing in SC2 is hard but it's hard only because most microing is just how fast you micro (splitting up marines against banelings, splitting up zerglings against widow mines, etc).
In BW, microing Mutalisk was not purely about speed but about so many other things.
You had to pay attention to the direction the Mutalisk were facing before attacking (if you were attack moving) or else the Mutalisk will lose acceleration. You had to know which situations to use attack move, attack directly, patrol, hold position, etc and when doing that, you also had to pay attention to the distance between targets.
Also the micro depended on what you wanted your mutalisk to do. If you wanted you only had six Mutalisk (against Marines) it was best to use attack directly (you can take out one marine per attack volley). However, if you had more Mutalisk against a bunch of marines (twelve for example), then using hold position was better.
Against Scourge, when using patrol micro, you had to pay attention to the distance between Mutalisk and the scourge before using patrol micro.
Overall, from the Mutalisk example alone, micro has much more depth than in SC2.
SC2 has the speed thing but it has none of the depth in micro and depth helps makes the game more fun and interesting.
A deep game is probably also a difficulty game to master. However a difficult game is not nessarily a deep game (it may be difficulty simply because of a few things). An example is splitting up marines against banelings. It's difficulty but it's not as deep as Mutalisk micro (for example). I know it's not the same thing but the majority of micro in SC2 is simply just that - how fast you do it.
In BW, this reached greater heights.
Also, those type of things is what helps casual players more interested into the game (and what potentially makes a causal into a more hardcore player).
Don't you want to try it yourself and replicate it and potentially impress others with it? Then you start copying and trying it.
SC2 doesn't have nearly as much things. Again, most of it just all goes down to "how fast you split marines against banelings" (to be fair - I did link the video with Jaedong splitting Mutalisk "but" the video didn't just showcase splitting, it had Mutalisk micro in general which is beyond simply splitting or speed).
Also it's not just air units in general, even things that weren't exactly the same (Reavers being the prime example) had a ton more depth. Reavers for example - the more things that get in the way of the scarab's pathing (and any ground unit or structure that isn't the target of the scarab can block or mess with the scarab's pathing), the more likely the scarab will be a dud and won't deal damage.
Also Reavers are one of the few units that encourage micro and attention from both sides. The Protoss player has to move and protect their Reaver (with shuttles) and when attacking, they need to pay attention and attack the unit that may be lead to potentially the most AoE damage (as well as the one that's less likely to move away). The opposing player can try to move the targeted unit out of the way of others (this also involves running behind structures or anything so that the scarab gets blocked by the ground unit or structure).
Reavers are deep units. As for how to replicate scarab to be similar to BW? Well, BW had eight directional movement but one way to replicate something similar is to make it so that Scarabs can only turn (towards their target) once every 0.5 seconds or so. Additionally, Scarabs could be made so that they don't home in on the target directly but they could be limited to make only 45 angle turns towards the target (and no more than that) once every 0.5 seconds. (This could potentially mean a stim marine could run directly behind the scarab and the scarab would have to do a curve to hit the marine instead of being able to turn around directly.)
While I'm not sure about the data editor, something like this can easily be done in the trigger editor (and Blizzard can add it in easily to the data editor).
Anyway, that's one example of how to add the Reaver back into SC2 environment (scarabs function similarly by being limited to making a turn once every 0.5 seconds or so, and being limited to making a max of a 45 angle turn once every 0.5 seconds, so that means a stim marine could potentially just run behind a scarab and cause it to make a curve).
It's different compared to BW but what wouldn't be different is how the Reaver would add fun and engaging micro for both sides of the battle.
(In SC2, the only closest example is probably the seeker missile but seeker missiles are too slow compared to Scarabs and don't have that fun "try to get the scarab to get blocked by pathing to dud" element + Ravens are no where near as fun to control as shuttle + Reaver. As for Widow mines - they are way too fast and too volatile, and they can't be microed against or controlled with as easily compared to Reavers.)
As for the accidental things in BW? Well, lots of competitive games (like fighting games and FPS) have a lot of accidental things that were used by players. It became mainstream and supported by the developers.
While a lot of stuff like how units with no attack animation (or for SC2's case, they could pick a unit to have a passive that could function the same way) could attack and move at the same time and how turning also affected it were probably accidentally, that doesn't mean it something else (whether similar or the same) shouldn't be in SC2.
tl;dr - Bring back Reavers. Make Scarabs turn once every 0.5 seconds (this is just an example) or so to try to be similar to the eight directional BW pathing. Also make Scarabs only able to turn 45 degrees (or so) once per 0.5 second turn (so if a marine was targeted, stim and runs directly behind the scarab before it makes a turn, the Scarab would have to make a curve back to hit the marine). Yes it may sound silly but Reavers are awesome and need to find a way back into the game (and those 2 limitations to Scarab would make it so they're not overpowered in SC2's environment).
Again, BW is doing sixth in PC bangs while SC2 (after HotS release) is doing eleventh in PC bangs in South Korea. Why? Reavers. That's why. (But in all seriously, I think I explained my post well. BW is just more of a deep game than in SC2. Both are challenging but one still lacks a bit of depth compared to the other.)
BW isn't doing better because of reavers. they grew up playing starcraft, it's a part of their culture. They played BW and understand BW and BW has already developed for years with stars that they are familiar with. this is why BW is ONLY played in KR pretty much right now. Why only look at S.Korea? Why don't you compare BW vs SC2 all across the globe? Why did SC2 become more successful than BW in everywhere in the world EXCEPT S.Korea and China?
casual viewers don't care about those micro if they don't understand how 'deep' is it. this is why BW was on decline and why BW is now on 6th in netcafe. Only core fans are left and casuals etc all went to watch League. Why SC2 is doing worse is because most of them don't like what they are seeing because they, like you, are comparing it to BW, both core and casuals. Why SC2 is doing well in other areas is because new casuals are fine with these 'flaws', old fans appreciate SC2 even if it is not as 'deep'.
What do you mean more successful? BW was released 15 years ago, do you know any other game of 20th century that is doing as well as BW right now? SC2 is more popular right now just because it is NEW game. Casuals mostly dont care about game mechanics and depth they just want to play game which is easy and new.
But since SC2 doesnt have such depth that BW has, SC2 wont last as esport as long as BW lasted. Since SC2 is more popular right now among casual players these casual players wont be playing and watching this game for long.
as for the BW 15 years ago comment, sour that we don't live in 15 years ago anymore. Players don't invest so much time into a game anymore, they want an easier to pick up but hard to master game.
No one wants to play a game that controls don't feel fluid. Don't think so? Check out the change in resident evil and FF. SC2 isn't NEW by any mean for a modern gaming standard, games like GTA V, BF4 are new. unless you would also consider final fantasy 13 to be new. (which already received several DLCs and sequels)
SC2 will last however long until it faces another big competitor. Just like how BW was pretty safe from any competitions in S.Korea for years until League took over, a game that is easier, simplier, more international, and arguably a lot less depth than bw.
I am not so sure about MOBA games being simpler and easier than BW. Yes for one player it’s easier to control one unit. But as a whole the game is more complicated since five players are needed to control all the heroes. What game is more complicated in SC2 5x5 or 1x1? Definitely 5x5. Team games are more complicated than single games I think it’s quite obvious.
ok. so you are saying league is more complicated than bw. i have to disagree on that and leave the argument here
Anyone with management experience knows just how insanely difficult it is to get people to work as a group.
anyone who have read history would know how insanely rare it is to have a great strategist
And anyone who read *actual* history knows that what made those strategists great was how they got hundreds and thousands of people to work together for a common goal. And how those "strategists" were just the leads of a team or even teams of strategists working together and leaning on the "leader" to make the final decision after his "subordinates" gives him the options that *they* come up together as a team.
not really. that is the role of the emperor or the general/captain, not sure how it works in Western but in China, strategist are famous for famous strategies against another strategist read red cliff for example
MOBA and SC are different - you can't really compare them and say which is 'harder' or more difficult than the other. LoL for example isn't nearly as taxing mechanically. There isn't much that separates a pro player from plat/diamond players in terms of physical ability whereas in BW the mechanical skill gap between a low grade Korean pro gamer and the best foreigner in the world was monumental. In terms of physical ability and requirement, LoL is much less demanding.
SC2 however is an individual game, you live and die by your own choices. In LoL you have to sync and coordinate with four other people, increasing the amount of difficulty of winning a game. Even if you play well and make no mistakes, it could be that your four teammates are not playing well and cause you to lose. In that respect LoL is more difficult because the outcome of a game doesn't always hinge on how you perform individually. Communication is a really important skill to have which isn't important in SC and can't be discounted.
Point being: don't compare the games.
It is possible to compare games of the same genre: I.E. BW and SC2, or LoL and Dota...
I for one think LoL is an incredibly complex game. I don't think it is 'harder' than SC, but the challenges are different. It takes a lot more learning because you have to learn what every champion does, cooldown times, abilities, and everything. Once you learn all that, it comes down to game sense, mechanics, and communicating with your team. SC doesn't have as much learning.
On October 05 2013 01:33 Xeris wrote: MOBA and SC are different - you can't really compare them and say which is 'harder' or more difficult than the other. LoL for example isn't nearly as taxing mechanically. There isn't much that separates a pro player from plat/diamond players in terms of physical ability whereas in BW the mechanical skill gap between a low grade Korean pro gamer and the best foreigner in the world was monumental. In terms of physical ability and requirement, LoL is much less demanding.
SC2 however is an individual game, you live and die by your own choices. In LoL you have to sync and coordinate with four other people, increasing the amount of difficulty of winning a game. Even if you play well and make no mistakes, it could be that your four teammates are not playing well and cause you to lose. In that respect LoL is more difficult because the outcome of a game doesn't always hinge on how you perform individually. Communication is a really important skill to have which isn't important in SC and can't be discounted.
Point being: don't compare the games.
It is possible to compare games of the same genre: I.E. BW and SC2, or LoL and Dota...
I for one think LoL is an incredibly complex game. I don't think it is 'harder' than SC, but the challenges are different. It takes a lot more learning because you have to learn what every champion does, cooldown times, abilities, and everything. Once you learn all that, it comes down to game sense, mechanics, and communicating with your team. SC doesn't have as much learning.
true, but the one "harder" depends on your skills, i played dota and fps, so lol is way ez for me than sc2, but someone that played bw, ofc its gonna be harder to play LoL.
On October 05 2013 01:33 Xeris wrote: MOBA and SC are different - you can't really compare them and say which is 'harder' or more difficult than the other. LoL for example isn't nearly as taxing mechanically. There isn't much that separates a pro player from plat/diamond players in terms of physical ability whereas in BW the mechanical skill gap between a low grade Korean pro gamer and the best foreigner in the world was monumental. In terms of physical ability and requirement, LoL is much less demanding.
SC2 however is an individual game, you live and die by your own choices. In LoL you have to sync and coordinate with four other people, increasing the amount of difficulty of winning a game. Even if you play well and make no mistakes, it could be that your four teammates are not playing well and cause you to lose. In that respect LoL is more difficult because the outcome of a game doesn't always hinge on how you perform individually. Communication is a really important skill to have which isn't important in SC and can't be discounted.
Point being: don't compare the games.
It is possible to compare games of the same genre: I.E. BW and SC2, or LoL and Dota...
I for one think LoL is an incredibly complex game. I don't think it is 'harder' than SC, but the challenges are different. It takes a lot more learning because you have to learn what every champion does, cooldown times, abilities, and everything. Once you learn all that, it comes down to game sense, mechanics, and communicating with your team. SC doesn't have as much learning.
true, but the one "harder" depends on your skills, i played dota and fps, so lol is way ez for me than sc2, but someone that played bw, ofc its gonna be harder to play LoL.
Which is why he said that it isn't taxing mechanically, but that the hard part is learning to convince 4 other people to follow your lead, or to learn to follow someone else's lead.
When you played LoL, did you get 4 people to follow your every whim or did you just do your thing and if you lost it was the other 4 people's fault?
It's a team game, no matter how perfect you individually perform, if you don't get your team to work together then you suck as a LoL player.
Traditional RTS just aren't as competitive (in terms of popularity and time investment) anymore nowadays.
Anyway, as for whether appealing to casuals helps or not.
First, an important thing is, it doesn't matter how casual friendly the game is if it's not as fun or doesn't have as much depth as other games. Second of all, BW is actually more casual friendly in gameplay (I'm not talking about battle.net 1.0 or so, yes those help but the actual game itself is also more casual friendly). In BW, (for example) it's easier to know what you need to improve on than in SC2 (yes, that includes the so called "fighting the interface" we had in BW. Yes it was fighting the interface but doing it successfully was rewarding but yet also very doable by anyone. When someone remembered to put their workers on minerals, they sure felt really good >.>). Not only that, in terms of pro level play, it's easier to replicate things that pros do (microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers are the #1 examples). In SC2, the higher level things pros do is either mostly just strategy/game knowledge (what BOs to use, what to do when you see x or y unit at x or y time, what it means when opponent takes 2 gas, etc) which isn't exactly exciting or appealing to casuals. The other thing higher level pros do is simply "how fast you can do it" which (unlike in the case of microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers) aren't as easy replicable or easy to get into since it's simply a "speed thing" compared to BW where it wasn't purely just speed (and I'll get onto what makes microing more deep in BW compared to SC2 a little later).
BW was seen doing #6th in PC bangs. SC2 (this was after HotS release) was seen doing at #11.
Also I said this before but BW was actually more casual friendly.
In BW, there was more depth in everything but yet everything was much easier to learn and practice.
In SC2, the game is hard but how is it hard? Microing in SC2 is hard but it's hard only because most microing is just how fast you micro (splitting up marines against banelings, splitting up zerglings against widow mines, etc).
In BW, microing Mutalisk was not purely about speed but about so many other things.
You had to pay attention to the direction the Mutalisk were facing before attacking (if you were attack moving) or else the Mutalisk will lose acceleration. You had to know which situations to use attack move, attack directly, patrol, hold position, etc and when doing that, you also had to pay attention to the distance between targets.
Also the micro depended on what you wanted your mutalisk to do. If you wanted you only had six Mutalisk (against Marines) it was best to use attack directly (you can take out one marine per attack volley). However, if you had more Mutalisk against a bunch of marines (twelve for example), then using hold position was better.
Against Scourge, when using patrol micro, you had to pay attention to the distance between Mutalisk and the scourge before using patrol micro.
Overall, from the Mutalisk example alone, micro has much more depth than in SC2.
SC2 has the speed thing but it has none of the depth in micro and depth helps makes the game more fun and interesting.
A deep game is probably also a difficulty game to master. However a difficult game is not nessarily a deep game (it may be difficulty simply because of a few things). An example is splitting up marines against banelings. It's difficulty but it's not as deep as Mutalisk micro (for example). I know it's not the same thing but the majority of micro in SC2 is simply just that - how fast you do it.
In BW, this reached greater heights.
Also, those type of things is what helps casual players more interested into the game (and what potentially makes a causal into a more hardcore player).
Don't you want to try it yourself and replicate it and potentially impress others with it? Then you start copying and trying it.
SC2 doesn't have nearly as much things. Again, most of it just all goes down to "how fast you split marines against banelings" (to be fair - I did link the video with Jaedong splitting Mutalisk "but" the video didn't just showcase splitting, it had Mutalisk micro in general which is beyond simply splitting or speed).
Also it's not just air units in general, even things that weren't exactly the same (Reavers being the prime example) had a ton more depth. Reavers for example - the more things that get in the way of the scarab's pathing (and any ground unit or structure that isn't the target of the scarab can block or mess with the scarab's pathing), the more likely the scarab will be a dud and won't deal damage.
Also Reavers are one of the few units that encourage micro and attention from both sides. The Protoss player has to move and protect their Reaver (with shuttles) and when attacking, they need to pay attention and attack the unit that may be lead to potentially the most AoE damage (as well as the one that's less likely to move away). The opposing player can try to move the targeted unit out of the way of others (this also involves running behind structures or anything so that the scarab gets blocked by the ground unit or structure).
Reavers are deep units. As for how to replicate scarab to be similar to BW? Well, BW had eight directional movement but one way to replicate something similar is to make it so that Scarabs can only turn (towards their target) once every 0.5 seconds or so. Additionally, Scarabs could be made so that they don't home in on the target directly but they could be limited to make only 45 angle turns towards the target (and no more than that) once every 0.5 seconds. (This could potentially mean a stim marine could run directly behind the scarab and the scarab would have to do a curve to hit the marine instead of being able to turn around directly.)
While I'm not sure about the data editor, something like this can easily be done in the trigger editor (and Blizzard can add it in easily to the data editor).
Anyway, that's one example of how to add the Reaver back into SC2 environment (scarabs function similarly by being limited to making a turn once every 0.5 seconds or so, and being limited to making a max of a 45 angle turn once every 0.5 seconds, so that means a stim marine could potentially just run behind a scarab and cause it to make a curve).
It's different compared to BW but what wouldn't be different is how the Reaver would add fun and engaging micro for both sides of the battle.
(In SC2, the only closest example is probably the seeker missile but seeker missiles are too slow compared to Scarabs and don't have that fun "try to get the scarab to get blocked by pathing to dud" element + Ravens are no where near as fun to control as shuttle + Reaver. As for Widow mines - they are way too fast and too volatile, and they can't be microed against or controlled with as easily compared to Reavers.)
As for the accidental things in BW? Well, lots of competitive games (like fighting games and FPS) have a lot of accidental things that were used by players. It became mainstream and supported by the developers.
While a lot of stuff like how units with no attack animation (or for SC2's case, they could pick a unit to have a passive that could function the same way) could attack and move at the same time and how turning also affected it were probably accidentally, that doesn't mean it something else (whether similar or the same) shouldn't be in SC2.
tl;dr - Bring back Reavers. Make Scarabs turn once every 0.5 seconds (this is just an example) or so to try to be similar to the eight directional BW pathing. Also make Scarabs only able to turn 45 degrees (or so) once per 0.5 second turn (so if a marine was targeted, stim and runs directly behind the scarab before it makes a turn, the Scarab would have to make a curve back to hit the marine). Yes it may sound silly but Reavers are awesome and need to find a way back into the game (and those 2 limitations to Scarab would make it so they're not overpowered in SC2's environment).
Again, BW is doing sixth in PC bangs while SC2 (after HotS release) is doing eleventh in PC bangs in South Korea. Why? Reavers. That's why. (But in all seriously, I think I explained my post well. BW is just more of a deep game than in SC2. Both are challenging but one still lacks a bit of depth compared to the other.)
BW isn't doing better because of reavers. they grew up playing starcraft, it's a part of their culture. They played BW and understand BW and BW has already developed for years with stars that they are familiar with. this is why BW is ONLY played in KR pretty much right now. Why only look at S.Korea? Why don't you compare BW vs SC2 all across the globe? Why did SC2 become more successful than BW in everywhere in the world EXCEPT S.Korea and China?
casual viewers don't care about those micro if they don't understand how 'deep' is it. this is why BW was on decline and why BW is now on 6th in netcafe. Only core fans are left and casuals etc all went to watch League. Why SC2 is doing worse is because most of them don't like what they are seeing because they, like you, are comparing it to BW, both core and casuals. Why SC2 is doing well in other areas is because new casuals are fine with these 'flaws', old fans appreciate SC2 even if it is not as 'deep'.
What do you mean more successful? BW was released 15 years ago, do you know any other game of 20th century that is doing as well as BW right now? SC2 is more popular right now just because it is NEW game. Casuals mostly dont care about game mechanics and depth they just want to play game which is easy and new.
But since SC2 doesnt have such depth that BW has, SC2 wont last as esport as long as BW lasted. Since SC2 is more popular right now among casual players these casual players wont be playing and watching this game for long.
as for the BW 15 years ago comment, sour that we don't live in 15 years ago anymore. Players don't invest so much time into a game anymore, they want an easier to pick up but hard to master game.
No one wants to play a game that controls don't feel fluid. Don't think so? Check out the change in resident evil and FF. SC2 isn't NEW by any mean for a modern gaming standard, games like GTA V, BF4 are new. unless you would also consider final fantasy 13 to be new. (which already received several DLCs and sequels)
SC2 will last however long until it faces another big competitor. Just like how BW was pretty safe from any competitions in S.Korea for years until League took over, a game that is easier, simplier, more international, and arguably a lot less depth than bw.
I am not so sure about MOBA games being simpler and easier than BW. Yes for one player it’s easier to control one unit. But as a whole the game is more complicated since five players are needed to control all the heroes. What game is more complicated in SC2 5x5 or 1x1? Definitely 5x5. Team games are more complicated than single games I think it’s quite obvious.
ok. so you are saying league is more complicated than bw. i have to disagree on that and leave the argument here
Anyone with management experience knows just how insanely difficult it is to get people to work as a group.
anyone who have read history would know how insanely rare it is to have a great strategist
And anyone who read *actual* history knows that what made those strategists great was how they got hundreds and thousands of people to work together for a common goal. And how those "strategists" were just the leads of a team or even teams of strategists working together and leaning on the "leader" to make the final decision after his "subordinates" gives him the options that *they* come up together as a team.
not really. that is the role of the emperor or the general/captain, not sure how it works in Western but in China, strategist are famous for famous strategies against another strategist read red cliff for example
In western culture, everyone is allowed to give tactical decisions to their immediate superior and if they like your strategy it gets moved up the chain of command.
At some point the general/captain gets dozens upon dozens of suggestions and plans, parses them, and take the best bits out of all of them and uses and incorporates them into the overall strategy.
Sometimes he follows the ideas that started from the low echelons, sometimes he discards all of the ideas and just follows his. The goal is teamwork. Each general has several advisers to help him on strategy. each of them are in contact with several field commanders to inform them of the current state as well as to suggest strategies as well. Those field commanders have troop commanders who does the same for them. Those troop commanders have their own hierarchies and so on and so forth.
So, after updating wine to 1.7.3 i did play SC2 some again (had constant freezes before #linuxuserproblems). Damn, it really gives a panic-ish feeling in 1v1 play (and i do not even play fast, 100 EAPM at most). On comparison, playing SC1 1v1 gave me a rather relaxed feeling, granted still not something i would love. #TheRootOfAllEvil
On October 04 2013 13:39 ETisME wrote: [quote] BW isn't doing better because of reavers. they grew up playing starcraft, it's a part of their culture. They played BW and understand BW and BW has already developed for years with stars that they are familiar with. this is why BW is ONLY played in KR pretty much right now. Why only look at S.Korea? Why don't you compare BW vs SC2 all across the globe? Why did SC2 become more successful than BW in everywhere in the world EXCEPT S.Korea and China?
casual viewers don't care about those micro if they don't understand how 'deep' is it. this is why BW was on decline and why BW is now on 6th in netcafe. Only core fans are left and casuals etc all went to watch League. Why SC2 is doing worse is because most of them don't like what they are seeing because they, like you, are comparing it to BW, both core and casuals. Why SC2 is doing well in other areas is because new casuals are fine with these 'flaws', old fans appreciate SC2 even if it is not as 'deep'.
What do you mean more successful? BW was released 15 years ago, do you know any other game of 20th century that is doing as well as BW right now? SC2 is more popular right now just because it is NEW game. Casuals mostly dont care about game mechanics and depth they just want to play game which is easy and new.
But since SC2 doesnt have such depth that BW has, SC2 wont last as esport as long as BW lasted. Since SC2 is more popular right now among casual players these casual players wont be playing and watching this game for long.
as for the BW 15 years ago comment, sour that we don't live in 15 years ago anymore. Players don't invest so much time into a game anymore, they want an easier to pick up but hard to master game.
No one wants to play a game that controls don't feel fluid. Don't think so? Check out the change in resident evil and FF. SC2 isn't NEW by any mean for a modern gaming standard, games like GTA V, BF4 are new. unless you would also consider final fantasy 13 to be new. (which already received several DLCs and sequels)
SC2 will last however long until it faces another big competitor. Just like how BW was pretty safe from any competitions in S.Korea for years until League took over, a game that is easier, simplier, more international, and arguably a lot less depth than bw.
I am not so sure about MOBA games being simpler and easier than BW. Yes for one player it’s easier to control one unit. But as a whole the game is more complicated since five players are needed to control all the heroes. What game is more complicated in SC2 5x5 or 1x1? Definitely 5x5. Team games are more complicated than single games I think it’s quite obvious.
ok. so you are saying league is more complicated than bw. i have to disagree on that and leave the argument here
Anyone with management experience knows just how insanely difficult it is to get people to work as a group.
anyone who have read history would know how insanely rare it is to have a great strategist
And anyone who read *actual* history knows that what made those strategists great was how they got hundreds and thousands of people to work together for a common goal. And how those "strategists" were just the leads of a team or even teams of strategists working together and leaning on the "leader" to make the final decision after his "subordinates" gives him the options that *they* come up together as a team.
not really. that is the role of the emperor or the general/captain, not sure how it works in Western but in China, strategist are famous for famous strategies against another strategist read red cliff for example
In western culture, everyone is allowed to give tactical decisions to their immediate superior and if they like your strategy it gets moved up the chain of command.
At some point the general/captain gets dozens upon dozens of suggestions and plans, parses them, and take the best bits out of all of them and uses and incorporates them into the overall strategy.
Sometimes he follows the ideas that started from the low echelons, sometimes he discards all of the ideas and just follows his. The goal is teamwork. Each general has several advisers to help him on strategy. each of them are in contact with several field commanders to inform them of the current state as well as to suggest strategies as well. Those field commanders have troop commanders who does the same for them. Those troop commanders have their own hierarchies and so on and so forth.
that is completely different to chinese then teamwork is almost a given in China. Armies are always very organised, anyone tries to escape will be killed, and in some dynasty, even kill the whole family. The level of tactics used in China is not achievable for any low level officers because the famous ones are literally a genius: Sun Tzu - the art of war Zhuge Liang
Psychological warfare against the opponent's strategist is often seen in Chinese warfare. This is also why art of war has become more studied in all around the world, even in the finance field because it is applied game theory.
honestly it is sad that most westerns won't be reading them. The amount of depth in Art of war is crazy. especially one that is called the empty castle technique: you are down in army size by a large margin, you are going to get sieged. what do you do? Open the city gate. Empty the guards. Using small forces to act as if there is an ambush awaiting. Annoy them every night and insert rumors, causing complete confusion in the enemy army.
just to add, the reason why that succeeded is because he knew the opposing tactican/commander was a suspicious person
EPT
