|
On October 12 2013 22:30 StarStruck wrote:If you want to send a strong message to Blizzard. You'd have more people retiring and possibly coming back for LotV. Actions always speak louder than words and Luppy1 made one of the best posts I've seen and that's one of the only reasons I'm coming back to post in this dreadful thread because he gets it other than the personality quip because there is a little evidence against it, but it doesn't skew the figures dramatically. You guys have to understand that this community will not get much bigger for the game. We live in a very streamlined (no pun intended) industry. At the end of the day we can bitch and moan about the formats all we want, the game design, the price points, etc. At the end of the day you have no control over it and if all you want is more viewers. Goes back to what I just said, the numbers aren't going to dramatically increase. There's already enough turmoil over in Korea. I don't think they want anymore, lol. Show nested quote +On October 12 2013 22:19 Kheve wrote:On October 12 2013 21:54 Luppy1 wrote:
I can't help but feel that it's a fundamental problem with the game, with nothing to do with personalities, tournament formats, etc. My reason for thinking why it's so is that even brand new streamers for hearthstone are getting more views than actual SC2 pros. Throughout the day, hearthstone is also getting more views on twitch although SC2 was designed from ground up as an e-sport.
Why would you blame the non f2p model when SC2 can't even retain players who have already bought the game?
Why would you blame tournament formats when the game itself can't even attract more players to watch on twitch stream than hearthstone? ughhh very well said. Esp the part about retaining players who have already bought the game. RTS is truly a dying genre. Mainstream > niche > dying. Sad but perhaps inevitable. Let me get one thing straight: RTS was never a dying genre. It was always a small piece of the pie in the bigger picture.
Thou did not liveth in ze golden age of PC games when rpg was mainly from Japan, rts was the mainstream along with fps with adventure games and turn based strategy called dying. There was new big rts every month. Starcraft was but one of the many rts coming out in succession.
|
I agree with all the points made by the OP. My problem with SC2 is that it feels boring and uninteresting compared to BW and I'm not sure why.
|
On October 12 2013 22:41 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2013 04:18 lolfail9001 wrote:
Speed isn't everything though, I think it's a good example by Radiator. Racing through a city with a regular car is more interesting (though illegal) than doing so with a formula one car, because the latter is too fast and uncontrollable. In the end you'd have to remove obstacles and simplify the course in order to avoid a situation where you'll always crash your car. (Which of course is why formula one circuits are very simple. ) Why a city would consent to doing this to enable your racing games is another question of course, let's just attribute it to a yugioh-like world where everyone has a singular obsession with one specific thing, in this case car races.
Speed is not everything, true that. Speed, however is one of the best kinds of buffs, as it rewards control without making unit outright more powerful. Speed isnt a good buff! There was a TV ad some decades back (either tyres or cars) which had the slogan "power is NOTHING without control" ... and more speed loses that control element, because BOTH PLAYERS need to be able to control their destiny and not just the attacker. With the "unit density design" of SC2 you CANT make units more powerful because they would become far too powerful in such an automatically maxed unit density system. With BW you only achieved maximized density through a lot of micro and that made it far easier to add power to the units, because they were only LOCALLY overpowered and didnt kill off the whole enemy army with one easy "less than five seconds maneuver" as it would be possible in SC2. Another allegory I have given for the games is that SC2 is a gunfight on an open plain with no way to defend against shots other than a) moving very fast OR b) ineptitude of your opponent. BW however is a swordfight WITH a shield (defenders advantage) and you can force him to try and get past that shield. Thus SC2 has a lack of playstyles IMO because it only focuses on adding benefits for attackers ... which ultimately ends with a coinflip game where the guy who pulls his revolver first (and hits) will win. No skill of overcoming defenses is needed for many of the games and it is only the size of the maps which masks this a bit. Just think about Steppes of War and the other tiny garbage which Blizzard cooked up for us because they are too stupid to think about consequences of going full offensive design.
The problem though is, if your shield is to strong we'd just go back to the snorefest that was the latter part of WoL with NR15. There was a very good reason why Blizzard did focus more on aggression(and I was one of the people that was very glad that they did), but I don't really feel it fixed much. As you say, the game just became more coinflippy(when either/both player decides to play aggressive), but it's quite frequently(when both players play greedy/defensive) still a NR15 snorefest.
I don't really know what Blizzard can do. I loved SC2 when it came out, I'm not really sure what has changed that, it's probably a combination of many things. I think as SC2 developed and players have been able to take more bases safely, it has just shown a flaw with SC2. I think SC2 is and always has been a lot more fun on low econ, since that's when you can actually micro and when the game isn't quite so hard counter centric. I also think the terrible race design of protoss has just become more evident on more bases. The power unit design of protoss just doesn't fit with SC2.
I'm not really a huge BW fanboy, or I should say I never really watched BW much until after SC2 was out. If I were to say from my noob perspective, what I loved watching from BW was just that each side was constantly fighting for objectives, normally with very low unit counts, so you had multiple skirmishes going on, player 1 took this objective, meanwhile player 2 redeemed his loss by taking another objective. In SC2 it's just a lot more one dimensional, I'd argue its rare to see people fight over objectives to that extend. There's normally only 1 fight that determines how the game will go and any encounter before that has a limited effect on the outcome, it's rather the build order that determines how the big fight will end up, 15 minutes later. Ofcourse that's simplifying it a bit, but speaking generally that's how I feel SC2 gameplay is.
Those are issues I have with gameplay. I'm not really sure what Blizzard could've done better outside of that, if they could've set up/influenced formats that are more interesting or other such things.
|
honestly do people still find SC2 gameplay is bad when we have some of the best ZvZ and ZvP this season?
Life is seriously pushing the limit of zerg and hero showcase some of the best toss tactics and micro (other than being too greedy for the third)
the only problem is more or less just ZvT.
|
On October 13 2013 12:47 ETisME wrote:
honestly do people still find SC2 gameplay is bad when we have some of the best ZvZ and ZvP this season?
Life is seriously pushing the limit of zerg and hero showcase some of the best toss tactics and micro (other than being too greedy for the third)
the only problem is more or less just ZvT.
- There is only aggression on the menu and defensive play isnt allowed to exist.
- Engagements are over in a few seconds and you "screw up" if you react slower than within a millisecond.
Sure enough PROFESSIONAL players can give us exciting games (just like professional race car drivers can use their race cars to the max), but thats not what a computer game should be reduced to ... passively consuming its use. People should have FUN PLAYING and there are still the same usual crapton of reasons why playing SC2 as a non-professional is not-so-satisfying.
|
On October 13 2013 15:36 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 12:47 ETisME wrote:
honestly do people still find SC2 gameplay is bad when we have some of the best ZvZ and ZvP this season?
Life is seriously pushing the limit of zerg and hero showcase some of the best toss tactics and micro (other than being too greedy for the third)
the only problem is more or less just ZvT. - There is only aggression on the menu and defensive play isnt allowed to exist. - Engagements are over in a few seconds and you "screw up" if you react slower than within a millisecond. Sure enough PROFESSIONAL players can give us exciting games (just like professional race car drivers can use their race cars to the max), but thats not what a computer game should be reduced to ... passively consuming its use. People should have FUN PLAYING and there are still the same usual crapton of reasons why playing SC2 as a non-professional is not-so-satisfying.
what do you mean defensive play isn't allowed to exist?
Yesterday Life won a game back against hero is because hero attacked into a nice defensive position of Life. How horrible was life position before? Hero was confident enough to expand towards him.
Engagements are over in a few seconds. not agreeing with that on ZvP where we just saw Life constantly repositioning his roach hydra while using corruptor to snipe mothership core, bait void ray charge etc.
whether you can have fun playing the game doesn't have to be a problem with the game, it can be the problem of the player taste not suited for sc2
|
On October 13 2013 15:56 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 15:36 Rabiator wrote:On October 13 2013 12:47 ETisME wrote:
honestly do people still find SC2 gameplay is bad when we have some of the best ZvZ and ZvP this season?
Life is seriously pushing the limit of zerg and hero showcase some of the best toss tactics and micro (other than being too greedy for the third)
the only problem is more or less just ZvT. - There is only aggression on the menu and defensive play isnt allowed to exist. - Engagements are over in a few seconds and you "screw up" if you react slower than within a millisecond. Sure enough PROFESSIONAL players can give us exciting games (just like professional race car drivers can use their race cars to the max), but thats not what a computer game should be reduced to ... passively consuming its use. People should have FUN PLAYING and there are still the same usual crapton of reasons why playing SC2 as a non-professional is not-so-satisfying. what do you mean defensive play isn't allowed to exist? Yesterday Life won a game back against hero is because hero attacked into a nice defensive position of Life. How horrible was life position before? Hero was confident enough to expand towards him. Engagements are over in a few seconds. not agreeing with that on ZvP where we just saw Life constantly repositioning his roach hydra while using corruptor to snipe mothership core, bait void ray charge etc. whether you can have fun playing the game doesn't have to be a problem with the game, it can be the problem of the player taste not suited for sc2
Back and forths now happen in TvT, PvP, ZvZ, ZvP, and TvZ. The problem is not that back and forth fights don't happen, the problem is that they only happen when certain unit compositions are used.
ZvT, for example, is VERY back and forth so long as its MMMM vs MutaLingBling. The problem is that since there is no UI limitation, executing this strat gets boring and viewers get upset why there is only one composition being used by both sides.
Its not that SC2 has no back and forth, its that what people expect is that all unit compositions against any other unit composition should always achieve back and forth play.
|
On October 13 2013 16:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 15:56 ETisME wrote:On October 13 2013 15:36 Rabiator wrote:On October 13 2013 12:47 ETisME wrote:
honestly do people still find SC2 gameplay is bad when we have some of the best ZvZ and ZvP this season?
Life is seriously pushing the limit of zerg and hero showcase some of the best toss tactics and micro (other than being too greedy for the third)
the only problem is more or less just ZvT. - There is only aggression on the menu and defensive play isnt allowed to exist. - Engagements are over in a few seconds and you "screw up" if you react slower than within a millisecond. Sure enough PROFESSIONAL players can give us exciting games (just like professional race car drivers can use their race cars to the max), but thats not what a computer game should be reduced to ... passively consuming its use. People should have FUN PLAYING and there are still the same usual crapton of reasons why playing SC2 as a non-professional is not-so-satisfying. what do you mean defensive play isn't allowed to exist? Yesterday Life won a game back against hero is because hero attacked into a nice defensive position of Life. How horrible was life position before? Hero was confident enough to expand towards him. Engagements are over in a few seconds. not agreeing with that on ZvP where we just saw Life constantly repositioning his roach hydra while using corruptor to snipe mothership core, bait void ray charge etc. whether you can have fun playing the game doesn't have to be a problem with the game, it can be the problem of the player taste not suited for sc2 Back and forths now happen in TvT, PvP, ZvZ, ZvP, and TvZ. The problem is not that back and forth fights don't happen, the problem is that they only happen when certain unit compositions are used. ZvT, for example, is VERY back and forth so long as its MMMM vs MutaLingBling. The problem is that since there is no UI limitation, executing this strat gets boring and viewers get upset why there is only one composition being used by both sides. Its not that SC2 has no back and forth, its that what people expect is that all unit compositions against any other unit composition should always achieve back and forth play.
I am not understanding this, why does UI limitation only limit TvZ and not all those other matchups?
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 13 2013 15:36 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 12:47 ETisME wrote:
honestly do people still find SC2 gameplay is bad when we have some of the best ZvZ and ZvP this season?
Life is seriously pushing the limit of zerg and hero showcase some of the best toss tactics and micro (other than being too greedy for the third)
the only problem is more or less just ZvT. - There is only aggression on the menu and defensive play isnt allowed to exist. .
Complete failure.
|
On October 13 2013 18:18 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 16:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2013 15:56 ETisME wrote:On October 13 2013 15:36 Rabiator wrote:On October 13 2013 12:47 ETisME wrote:
honestly do people still find SC2 gameplay is bad when we have some of the best ZvZ and ZvP this season?
Life is seriously pushing the limit of zerg and hero showcase some of the best toss tactics and micro (other than being too greedy for the third)
the only problem is more or less just ZvT. - There is only aggression on the menu and defensive play isnt allowed to exist. - Engagements are over in a few seconds and you "screw up" if you react slower than within a millisecond. Sure enough PROFESSIONAL players can give us exciting games (just like professional race car drivers can use their race cars to the max), but thats not what a computer game should be reduced to ... passively consuming its use. People should have FUN PLAYING and there are still the same usual crapton of reasons why playing SC2 as a non-professional is not-so-satisfying. what do you mean defensive play isn't allowed to exist? Yesterday Life won a game back against hero is because hero attacked into a nice defensive position of Life. How horrible was life position before? Hero was confident enough to expand towards him. Engagements are over in a few seconds. not agreeing with that on ZvP where we just saw Life constantly repositioning his roach hydra while using corruptor to snipe mothership core, bait void ray charge etc. whether you can have fun playing the game doesn't have to be a problem with the game, it can be the problem of the player taste not suited for sc2 Back and forths now happen in TvT, PvP, ZvZ, ZvP, and TvZ. The problem is not that back and forth fights don't happen, the problem is that they only happen when certain unit compositions are used. ZvT, for example, is VERY back and forth so long as its MMMM vs MutaLingBling. The problem is that since there is no UI limitation, executing this strat gets boring and viewers get upset why there is only one composition being used by both sides. Its not that SC2 has no back and forth, its that what people expect is that all unit compositions against any other unit composition should always achieve back and forth play. I am not understanding this, why does UI limitation only limit TvZ and not all those other matchups?
Where do I say it only limits TvZ?
I use the words "for example" in order to present an example, not a proof.
|
The problem is the game. BW was an accident and nobody can recreate it willfully. The idea that you can sit down with a group of people and "fix" a game to have the magic of the greatest game is absurd. I wish you good luck but I hope nobody holds their breath.
|
On October 13 2013 19:03 Dental Floss wrote:
The problem is the game. BW was an accident and nobody can recreate it willfully. The idea that you can sit down with a group of people and "fix" a game to have the magic of the greatest game is absurd. I wish you good luck but I hope nobody holds their breath.
Look at this chronology of real time strategy games from wikipedia.
You'll notice that the rts genre has nearly collapsed, with only a few titles remaining. If you contrast it with the few years around Brood War's release: most of these games are now forgotten, but many all-time classics date to this period. It was a completely different environment, one with more competition and no guaranteed success, compared to recent years where established franchises with ready-made audiences are expected to deliver a product of certain quality.
You can look at Brood War and see that the designers had very good quality standards and made sound development decisions. In retrospect it is not a surprise that their game came out on top. But in any such environment there is an element of luck, or fate rather, to it: you have to take risks and you have to be ambitious, and only if these pay off are you rewarded.
I think it should be obvious that better games would come out of this period than ten years later. There was no pressure on the developers of Starcraft II to create a groundbreaking, amazing game, they were content with something "well-produced". It could have worked out had they not deviated from Brood War at all, (or had they deviated a lot more), but instead they decided to update the game to the (more awful) modern standards and as a result the game simply does not live up to its predecessor.
|
On October 13 2013 19:03 Dental Floss wrote:
The problem is the game. BW was an accident and nobody can recreate it willfully. The idea that you can sit down with a group of people and "fix" a game to have the magic of the greatest game is absurd. I wish you good luck but I hope nobody holds their breath.
so hang on are you saying good games only blink into existence by pure chance and that not even the best game devs have any control over the game they make? Or are you saying that bw is the only game that exists and ever will exist that is "good"?
Yes things like bad ai / pathing and limited units in control groups lead to a very high degree of micro to be good at bw which made matches more impressive to watch but that is frustrating to play and is bad design.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 13 2013 20:00 Meatex wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 19:03 Dental Floss wrote:
The problem is the game. BW was an accident and nobody can recreate it willfully. The idea that you can sit down with a group of people and "fix" a game to have the magic of the greatest game is absurd. I wish you good luck but I hope nobody holds their breath. so hang on are you saying good games only blink into existence by pure chance and that not even the best game devs have any control over the game they make? Or are you saying that bw is the only game that exists and ever will exist that is "good"? Yes things like bad ai / pathing and limited units in control groups lead to a very high degree of micro to be good at bw which made matches more impressive to watch but that is frustrating to play and is bad design.
I suppose he means that the greatness that BW ended up being was a result of an accident.
|
On October 13 2013 18:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 18:18 ETisME wrote:On October 13 2013 16:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2013 15:56 ETisME wrote:On October 13 2013 15:36 Rabiator wrote:On October 13 2013 12:47 ETisME wrote:
honestly do people still find SC2 gameplay is bad when we have some of the best ZvZ and ZvP this season?
Life is seriously pushing the limit of zerg and hero showcase some of the best toss tactics and micro (other than being too greedy for the third)
the only problem is more or less just ZvT. - There is only aggression on the menu and defensive play isnt allowed to exist. - Engagements are over in a few seconds and you "screw up" if you react slower than within a millisecond. Sure enough PROFESSIONAL players can give us exciting games (just like professional race car drivers can use their race cars to the max), but thats not what a computer game should be reduced to ... passively consuming its use. People should have FUN PLAYING and there are still the same usual crapton of reasons why playing SC2 as a non-professional is not-so-satisfying. what do you mean defensive play isn't allowed to exist? Yesterday Life won a game back against hero is because hero attacked into a nice defensive position of Life. How horrible was life position before? Hero was confident enough to expand towards him. Engagements are over in a few seconds. not agreeing with that on ZvP where we just saw Life constantly repositioning his roach hydra while using corruptor to snipe mothership core, bait void ray charge etc. whether you can have fun playing the game doesn't have to be a problem with the game, it can be the problem of the player taste not suited for sc2 Back and forths now happen in TvT, PvP, ZvZ, ZvP, and TvZ. The problem is not that back and forth fights don't happen, the problem is that they only happen when certain unit compositions are used. ZvT, for example, is VERY back and forth so long as its MMMM vs MutaLingBling. The problem is that since there is no UI limitation, executing this strat gets boring and viewers get upset why there is only one composition being used by both sides. Its not that SC2 has no back and forth, its that what people expect is that all unit compositions against any other unit composition should always achieve back and forth play. I am not understanding this, why does UI limitation only limit TvZ and not all those other matchups? Where do I say it only limits TvZ? I use the words "for example" in order to present an example, not a proof.
Not sure why you brought up UI limitation at all then @@
the problem like you said is not having diversity in unit composition in the matchup, not the execution when other matchup is fine without UI limitation
|
On October 13 2013 19:54 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 19:03 Dental Floss wrote:
The problem is the game. BW was an accident and nobody can recreate it willfully. The idea that you can sit down with a group of people and "fix" a game to have the magic of the greatest game is absurd. I wish you good luck but I hope nobody holds their breath. Look at this chronology of real time strategy games from wikipedia. You'll notice that the rts genre has nearly collapsed, with only a few titles remaining. If you contrast it with the few years around Brood War's release: most of these games are now forgotten, but many all-time classics date to this period. It was a completely different environment, one with more competition and no guaranteed success, compared to recent years where established franchises with ready-made audiences are expected to deliver a product of certain quality. You can look at Brood War and see that the designers had very good quality standards and made sound development decisions. In retrospect it is not a surprise that their game came out on top. But in any such environment there is an element of luck, or fate rather, to it: you have to take risks and you have to be ambitious, and only if these pay off are you rewarded. I think it should be obvious that better games would come out of this period than ten years later. There was no pressure on the developers of Starcraft II to create a groundbreaking, amazing game, they were content with something "well-produced". It could have worked out had they not deviated from Brood War at all, (or had they deviated a lot more), but instead they decided to update the game to the (more awful) modern standards and as a result the game simply does not live up to its predecessor.
So many good games from that era, Total Annihilation, Dark Reign(personal favorite), Ground Control, sequels that didn't suck.
Perhaps as an interesting side note, pertaining to the earlier discussion about BW and AOE, Age of Empires 3 turned out to be complete shit. It really does seem like resting on one's laurels has become an MO in making RTS games these days. It's like before BW came out, Blizzard was Rocky from the Rocky I, hungry, on the rise, with the eye of the tiger. In 2010 and onwards, Blizzard is like Rocky from Rocky III, complacent, comfortable and lackadaisical.
|
I have to ask how old were you when you played Brood war? It was new and exciting there was not experience of playing anything like it a decade before it. I was not even aware of professional level competitions when i played it and for those who were, I am curious how often did you get to watch professional tournament games? There is a fairly large amount of nostalgia going on.
Now you could fill every waking hour with starcraft 2 content it is entirely natural if you become oversaturated and burnt out on it. How many of us have watched and/or played hundreds of hours of starcraft 2, expectations are ludicrously high in thinking starcraft 2 should always be fresh and entertaining as if it was new for every waking hour.
In your own games I would guess that many try to copy and memorise build orders and then repeat them endlessly in trying to improve, you may move up the ladder with that but is it really surprising that that way of playing stops being fun? There are plenty of ways to play there is no need to feel you have to copy or play like the professionals.
Play it as a game for fun.
There are plenty of other strategy games, maybe they are dismissed because they are not like blizzard rts but then games like those do not exist because of the success of starcraft 2. Any competitive strategy game with professional level competition will inevitably be compared with and in direct competition with starcraft 2.
I would suggest playing Brood war or Warcraft 3 again and try the other strategy games you may not have played,
Have a look at planetary annhilation or artillery games, there is still plenty of innovation and fun to be had in rts.
Even Blizzard would struggle making a warcraft 4 if they ever do as the bar is set so incredibly high. That of course raises the question of where does esports head? After Legacy of the void do starcraft 2 tournaments continue for over a decade?
if there is a warcraft 4 or another company makes something similar how much would that split the player and viewer base, is there space for multiple different rts esports to exist or will they continuously be replaced?
|
Starcraft 2 has three main problems:
-) It tries to be an esport title, while not being f2p. It is therefore inherently hard for Starcraft to attract new viewers, while being an old game. (and in the gaming industy, Starcraft 2 is an old game)
-) It is not greatly innovative and in essence resembles most other RTS games. So why try Starcraft, when for the beginner there is no huge difference whether he boxes marines in Starcraft or boxes some infantry or archers in a game he/she already purchased?
-) It is very hard to play for beginners. And so many of the tasks you have to do in Starcraft are not exciting. If you can choose between killing a creep, shooting a zombie or building your next drone/marine/gateway as your "standard task", guess which is more exciting.
I guess in essence what I'm saying is, that until the RTS genre greatly evolves, its titles will not make it back to the top of the esport mountain. A business that has gotten seriously competitive in the last years.
|
On October 13 2013 20:12 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 18:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2013 18:18 ETisME wrote:On October 13 2013 16:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2013 15:56 ETisME wrote:On October 13 2013 15:36 Rabiator wrote:On October 13 2013 12:47 ETisME wrote:
honestly do people still find SC2 gameplay is bad when we have some of the best ZvZ and ZvP this season?
Life is seriously pushing the limit of zerg and hero showcase some of the best toss tactics and micro (other than being too greedy for the third)
the only problem is more or less just ZvT. - There is only aggression on the menu and defensive play isnt allowed to exist. - Engagements are over in a few seconds and you "screw up" if you react slower than within a millisecond. Sure enough PROFESSIONAL players can give us exciting games (just like professional race car drivers can use their race cars to the max), but thats not what a computer game should be reduced to ... passively consuming its use. People should have FUN PLAYING and there are still the same usual crapton of reasons why playing SC2 as a non-professional is not-so-satisfying. what do you mean defensive play isn't allowed to exist? Yesterday Life won a game back against hero is because hero attacked into a nice defensive position of Life. How horrible was life position before? Hero was confident enough to expand towards him. Engagements are over in a few seconds. not agreeing with that on ZvP where we just saw Life constantly repositioning his roach hydra while using corruptor to snipe mothership core, bait void ray charge etc. whether you can have fun playing the game doesn't have to be a problem with the game, it can be the problem of the player taste not suited for sc2 Back and forths now happen in TvT, PvP, ZvZ, ZvP, and TvZ. The problem is not that back and forth fights don't happen, the problem is that they only happen when certain unit compositions are used. ZvT, for example, is VERY back and forth so long as its MMMM vs MutaLingBling. The problem is that since there is no UI limitation, executing this strat gets boring and viewers get upset why there is only one composition being used by both sides. Its not that SC2 has no back and forth, its that what people expect is that all unit compositions against any other unit composition should always achieve back and forth play. I am not understanding this, why does UI limitation only limit TvZ and not all those other matchups? Where do I say it only limits TvZ? I use the words "for example" in order to present an example, not a proof. Not sure why you brought up UI limitation at all then @@ the problem like you said is not having diversity in unit composition in the matchup, not the execution when other matchup is fine without UI limitation
Mech play was the *only* play in BW TvP for about ten years. No one complained that the composition was boring because the focus of the game was the difficult UI and so they didn't complain that they only saw 1 unit comp.
SC2 is different, people complain when there is only 1 unit comp because the unit comp choices *is* the strategic element of the game. If you played MMMM every game for 10 years would you get bored? Because that didn't really happen in BW.
Its about focus of game experience. Notice how I didn't talk about game balance or even if the matchup was boring.
I said that viewers don't like only 1 comp match ups (Broodfestor play for example) and that when players are forced into just 1 unit comp that the gameplay gets boring.
With difficult UI, it doesn't matter how repetitive the strategy is, the fun is in fighting the UI (Take Tetris, or Sonic, or Mario for example).
|
On October 14 2013 00:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 20:12 ETisME wrote:On October 13 2013 18:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2013 18:18 ETisME wrote:On October 13 2013 16:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2013 15:56 ETisME wrote:On October 13 2013 15:36 Rabiator wrote:On October 13 2013 12:47 ETisME wrote:
honestly do people still find SC2 gameplay is bad when we have some of the best ZvZ and ZvP this season?
Life is seriously pushing the limit of zerg and hero showcase some of the best toss tactics and micro (other than being too greedy for the third)
the only problem is more or less just ZvT. - There is only aggression on the menu and defensive play isnt allowed to exist. - Engagements are over in a few seconds and you "screw up" if you react slower than within a millisecond. Sure enough PROFESSIONAL players can give us exciting games (just like professional race car drivers can use their race cars to the max), but thats not what a computer game should be reduced to ... passively consuming its use. People should have FUN PLAYING and there are still the same usual crapton of reasons why playing SC2 as a non-professional is not-so-satisfying. what do you mean defensive play isn't allowed to exist? Yesterday Life won a game back against hero is because hero attacked into a nice defensive position of Life. How horrible was life position before? Hero was confident enough to expand towards him. Engagements are over in a few seconds. not agreeing with that on ZvP where we just saw Life constantly repositioning his roach hydra while using corruptor to snipe mothership core, bait void ray charge etc. whether you can have fun playing the game doesn't have to be a problem with the game, it can be the problem of the player taste not suited for sc2 Back and forths now happen in TvT, PvP, ZvZ, ZvP, and TvZ. The problem is not that back and forth fights don't happen, the problem is that they only happen when certain unit compositions are used. ZvT, for example, is VERY back and forth so long as its MMMM vs MutaLingBling. The problem is that since there is no UI limitation, executing this strat gets boring and viewers get upset why there is only one composition being used by both sides. Its not that SC2 has no back and forth, its that what people expect is that all unit compositions against any other unit composition should always achieve back and forth play. I am not understanding this, why does UI limitation only limit TvZ and not all those other matchups? Where do I say it only limits TvZ? I use the words "for example" in order to present an example, not a proof. Not sure why you brought up UI limitation at all then @@ the problem like you said is not having diversity in unit composition in the matchup, not the execution when other matchup is fine without UI limitation Mech play was the *only* play in BW TvP for about ten years. No one complained that the composition was boring because the focus of the game was the difficult UI and so they didn't complain that they only saw 1 unit comp.
LOL indeed, that is the mtachup i always play when i go back to BW. Either T or P is fun. Come think of it, I might have played over a thousand of this match up yet im still not bored of it hahaha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
