|
Really agree with his points.
It is easy to spot a good gank (terrible terrible damage for casual, nicely set up for more experienced moba player), or close escape with moba, but not so easy with a RTS because there are millions other things to take in consideration.
last time I was watching a tournament with my fds, people go crazy at ganks, even if it was horribly executed etc.
Starcraft 2? You only get more excited when more actions are going on and even then, not all actions are flashy.
another point is that I have always felt there is some very artificial skill differencing factors in RTS,
supply upkeep for example.
No one look at a game and focus on whether a player has missed a depot or missed one round of production.
It is what units that are getting made, how the units are used, when the new base is set up, how it is defended etc that is more interesting for viewers.
unless you are bomber who somehow can squeeze out so much unit with the same resources, there isn't much differentiating a player from another.
|
I don't think you need heroes for exciting moments at all. IMO the most important part for a success as a viewersport is that there is constant action going on. In sc2 this isn't really the case.
Whether you achieve this with heroes or with other stuff isn't really the point i think, as long as there is stuff happening and the unit interactions are somewhat interesting (nice animation, not binary) there will be excitement and viewers.
So i kinda have to agree with BigJ here, the next rts should maybe cut the macro parts to a minimum and try to force action instead. Are heroes needed for this? NO
|
On February 16 2014 00:15 UmberBane wrote:
I remember some years ago the concensus was actually the complete opposite, that WC3 was very confusing for a casual viewer to watch while a lot of people without any understanding loved watching BW, because it was said to be easier to relate to and get excited about on the very surface.
A consensus will never be reached IMHO, because the people who entered the RTS genre through WC2, BW and now SC2 will think that a game like WC3 is incredibly slow, even sluggish in its battles while on the other hand the people who enjoyed WC3 will obviously think that the main old school RTS games are too macro focused and/or too fast in their battles; if you guys were around in brood war you will remember that when wc3 got released most of the bw crowd considered wc3 a different game rather than bw's successor, and for good reasons, it basically exists in its own sub-genre.
This is also the real problem with balance suggestion and especially design suggestions, the community is somewhat split between ex-bw players, new sc2 players and ex-wc3 players, with the latter category being the most distant from the first.
Imho, the StarCraft franchise has a much better chance as an esport due to its clutch moments, which while somewhat rarer than a MOBA's, have usually a much more epic feeling (compare a gank, which is arguably somewhat predictable an will happen often in a game against what a truly epic baneling/widow landmine, or a clutch fight down to the last few units is in a sc2 game)
In the end, viewer count is almost solely dependent from the playerbase, and that's the reason why LoL has a bigger viewerbase than Dota2 even tho most of the starcraft players seem to agree that Dota2 is the better esports between them; Hell, a properly advertised Flappy Bird stream/tournament (does that even make sense?) would SURELY make more viewers than any game except the big 3 on Twitch (LoL,Dota2,Sc2)
|
On February 16 2014 00:04 Big J wrote:
Imo to get excited about MOBAs you have to know all the Heroes and spells involved. Like, when I tried to watch LoL, it was just random stuff and effects going off and people randomly dying, since I had no clue what possibilities were there.
In my opinion the main problem of RTS is that it is mechanically and attententionwise too hard. You have to focus on too many places all over the map and you have to grind out all those mechanical training sessions (which is extremely boring)
I agree with you on both points. For me it was much easier to get into watching BW back in the day than it is now to try and watch some Dota2, half the time I dont even know which hero is producing which of the million confusing little lights on the screen that cause some other heroes to die. I don't see how I could possibly enjoy watching it before playing or reading up on it a lot to know what all the heroes do.
|
The only reasons they are more popular is because 1) they are free, 2) they are mucch more accessible to begin with, 3) you can't report the fault on your mate when it's 1v1.
|
In my opinion, Starcraft 2 (or 3) will not grow unless the non-player aspects of e-sports (casting, observing, production, etc.) also grows.
I'm seriously not a big fan of how SC2 in foreign scene only have two casters. Casters doing analysis while some interesting action (but not necessarily a huge battle) is taking place is a huge peeve of mine. And pathetic camera-work (observer work) cuts the quality of entertainment down by a lot.
There's seriously a lot of room for SC2 scene to grow as a whole. I think I went a bit off topic. But before we think of changing the game itself, let's first look at what we can do better outside of the game itself.
|
Back when WC3 was popular, it was rather common for a shoutcaster to say that the game could be confusing if you were not introduced to it at all. It is true, to a certain extent. Mostly because you have to have at least a little sense of what the units and heroes do in order to know what is happening. It's really true with all RTS games, and pretty much any game that is not very straightforward the way FPS games are. Their popularity largely comes from that as well, there is nothing much to understand to play the game: you just shoot stuff. Yet there was more strategy to it, at least in CS 1.6. The important thing was it was very, very easy to introduce someone to it.
Also, the broadcasting technology was nowhere near as developed as it is now, and WC3 didn't benefit from televised events the way BW did (at least in South Korea). I personally think streams have made it much easier to immerse yourself in the game play of a particular game, because watching someone else play is a good way to learn. Just look at Hearthstone: many people watched the popular streamers during the beginning of the closed beta, and I think it would be accurate to say that a lot of viewers learned a few things from that.
The same applies to DotA. I think having a media which gives you the option to actually show someone playing the game makes for a better understanding, as it is easier to see what is going on when you are not playing the game yourself but only watching it, which means you don't have to both control your actions and try to see what is going on. In the end, I find pure action to be more enjoyable to watch than pure strategy and mind games, as the latter doesn't... jump at you, so to speak.
|
A free well promoted game from riot brings in a lot more casual players and therefore viewers who spread the game themselves to their friends and family. While Starcraft which is buy to play , a lot more harder to get a hand of the basic builds , macro and micro and blizzard's not perfect promoting and unfriendly battle net interface is what makes it a not so popular game .
I doubt it has anything to do with heroes or whatnot . It's about preference and accessibility .
|
On February 16 2014 00:51 raga4ka wrote:
A free well promoted game from riot brings in a lot more casual players and therefore viewers who spread the game themselves to their friends and family. While Starcraft which is buy to play , a lot more harder to get a hand of the basic builds , macro and micro and blizzard's not perfect promoting and unfriendly battle net interface is what makes it a not so popular game .
I doubt it has anything to do with heroes or whatnot . It's about preference and accessibility .
Yeah I'm behind this train all the way. That's why I played LoL instead of HoN back in the day and transferred into DotA II now (because DotA II is free while DotA I needed WC3). I can learn DotA II from friends that are a lot better than me while still playing a good enjoyable game.
Also the ingame DotA II guides and builds are typically considered to be pretty decent/playable, which adds to accessibility.
|
Ive said this before and I still hope PTZ vs PTZ team games can become legitimized, making Starcraft more exciting and accessible to casuals.
Yes I know the meta game is non existent
Yes I know the balance of SC2 is around 1v1s
Yes I know the current 3v3 map pool is not conducive to good games
But whose to say that if we try, we won't breath a completely new life into Starcraft and RTS in general?
It keeps everything beautiful about Starcraft, how impressive pros can macro and micro, how they can manage entire armies, how the better player(s) will always win.
It will be more action packed, flashy and exciting for new viewers.
It will push the skill ceiling even higher. Instead of army positioning, its armIES positioning and team coordination.
It will open up a completely new frontier of mapmaking, casting, strategies and tactics for us to explore.
I know its gonna be hard, requiring teams of players devoting their time to 3v3s instead of 1v1s which is their main source of income, requiring map makers to completely redefine everything we know about 'quality maps', requiring everyone to throw away old meta game ideas and explore new ones. But I do believe if someone is willing to take this step and commit Im sure it can be big.
|
The things he said are valid only if SC2 is succeeding in retaining its players and the problem is with attracting new ones. But, SC2 cant even retain existing players. So, why are people blaming the game's ability to attract new players?
|
On February 16 2014 01:05 Luppy1 wrote:
The things he said are valid only if SC2 is succeeding in retaining its players and the problem is with attracting new ones. But, SC2 cant even retain existing players. So, why are people blaming the game's ability to attract new players?
without new players and viewers, tournaments will make less and less money, stream revenue will drop, sponsors will pull out, teams will disband and the scene will dwindle as players leave because they cant make a living out of SC2
|
SC2 is just really weird in that it seems as though it was designed by a group of people who had little to no awareness of WC3 or any of the advancements made in RTS design after SC1.
SC2 is at the far end of the RTS spectrum in terms of the emphasis placed on macro vs. micro. The game is mostly about rigidly copying standard build orders and making small timing adjustments based on replay study. This is hardly something that has casual appeal. I believe that the game only got as popular as it did because people fundamentally misunderstood what the game was really about.
I think this is the last time we will see an SC2-style macro-heavy RTS of any prominence. I believe that if the genre is going to have a future, it will take WC3's design as a launching point, and will use SC2 as an example of what not to do.
I also believe that 4v4 will be the way the genre goes in the future. The reason is that 1v1 RTS play, with all the replay and VOD analysis, quickly generates a stale meta and overemphasizes differences in mechanical ability over strategy and tactics. 4v4 and a more micro-oriented design will open the genre up to western players and audiences.
|
On February 16 2014 00:51 raga4ka wrote:
A free well promoted game from riot brings in a lot more casual players and therefore viewers who spread the game themselves to their friends and family. While Starcraft which is buy to play , a lot more harder to get a hand of the basic builds , macro and micro and blizzard's not perfect promoting and unfriendly battle net interface is what makes it a not so popular game .
I doubt it has anything to do with heroes or whatnot . It's about preference and accessibility .
Yeah, that is true. As much as it pains me to say it, the free to play model has become somewhat of the industry standard. I personally have no problem with buying a game, but it seems a lot of people do, which is understandable. The F2P model can sometimes go horribly wrong though, but still.
In a RTS game, I see little that could go wrong. So long as you don't sell items that could directly affect the outcome of a game, it is fine. A shop in a F2P RTS game could stick to vanity items and account related stuff exclusively and still generate good income. I'm sure a ton of people would be willing to invest real money to have that special-looking armor on their units or heroes (HoN proved that it works).
Blizzard isn't big on F2P though, even though they are getting into it now with Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm. BNet 2.0 is also probably to blame for SC2's loss of popularity. BNet 2.0 just feels so lonely, whereas the older version was much more lively and promoted social interactions between players. I really do hope that if they ever release WC4, it will come with a massive overhaul of BNet 2.0.
On February 16 2014 01:14 jdsowa wrote:
SC2 is just really weird in that it seems as though it was designed by a group of people who had little to no awareness of WC3 or any of the advancements made in RTS design after SC1.
SC2 is at the far end of the RTS spectrum in terms of the emphasis placed on macro vs. micro. The game is mostly about rigidly copying standard build orders and making small timing adjustments based on replay study. This is hardly something that has casual appeal. I believe that the game only got as popular as it did because people fundamentally misunderstood what the game was really about.
I think this is the last time we will see an SC2-style macro-heavy RTS of any prominence. I believe that if the genre is going to have a future, it will take WC3's design as a launching point, and will use SC2 as an example of what not to do.
I also believe that 4v4 will be the way the genre goes in the future. The reason is that 1v1 RTS play, with all the replay and VOD analysis, quickly generates a stale meta and overemphasizes differences in mechanical ability over strategy and tactics. 4v4 and a more micro-oriented design will open the genre up to western players and audiences.
I see your point. 4v4 seems a little extreme though, too close to DotA, and much too messy with actual units on top of heroes.
2v2 is definitely viable though. 2v2 matches were very compelling and interesting to watch in WC3. It was a real thing, every league included 4 solos and 1 duo match (see WC3L), and there were even a few 2v2 tournaments held by ESL and other organizations. I could see myself being involved and interested by a team-oriented RTS if it were 2v2, though I see no reason not to stick to 1v1 as the primary format if the game itself is developed enough to offer various strategies. I believe action-packed games can largely make up for stagnant meta game, at least until a new trend is found.
|
On February 16 2014 01:07 uh-oh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2014 01:05 Luppy1 wrote:
The things he said are valid only if SC2 is succeeding in retaining its players and the problem is with attracting new ones. But, SC2 cant even retain existing players. So, why are people blaming the game's ability to attract new players? without new players and viewers, tournaments will make less and less money, stream revenue will drop, sponsors will pull out, teams will disband and the scene will dwindle as players leave because they cant make a living out of SC2
Why are you explaining to me about the importance of the game to attract new players?
My point was that the problem with the game is not about its inability to attract new players. It can't even retain its existing ones!
|
I don't think it gets the real point. Of course, a hero kill is much more exciting. But people like games for playing. Just watching doesn't make you chose the game.
My opinion is that Starcraft is just more serious and most people find it too "uncasual". They like controlling one unit only. They like superspells. And they like being able to blame everyone but themselves.
You see this even in Starcraft. Quite a few players feel really uncomfortable losing 1v1s, so they switch to mundane Arcade games where you always can feel like a winner.
So, I'd say the main reason (next to the pricing model) is the difficulty. It takes some knowledge, but very little skill to start the game and "play like everyone else". And you can feel great about yourself with all the shiny spells.
To fix this in Starcraft would mean to force slower game rate, force team play and add flashy spells. The game would be highly random and boring for serious players, but it would have many more gamers (and thus viewers).
|
I don`t think WC3 was easier to follow with all ist spells. Slow, Blizzard, Lightning Shields, Stomp, Chainligthning, Dispell etc. all taking place in one fight is too much for a casual to handle imo.
|
i never thought i would say this, but most of the comments in this thread don't really touch his points at all, this is mostly the same stuff we see in any other thread, even reddit did a better job..
This isn't about the business model, khaldor already did a video about this kind of stuff, why can't people ONE time argue about the topic and don't just feel the need to completely change it?
Khaldor's main points i feel are:
- Mobas generate more exciting moments
- Mobas are easier to appreciate and understand from a casual point of view (heroes and stuff)
Now he concludes that the next rts should have heroes aswell if it wants to be successful.
That is pretty much the basic you should argue about, not if sc2 isn't free to play or lol "is easier to play" .
I think BigJ has an interesting point of view and adds something to the table, the rest of the posts (ok not all of them, but most) are just mindblowing ignorant and i really doubt you guys even watched the video...
|
On February 15 2014 23:31 Saumure wrote:
Chess does not provide flashy visual stuff. Neither do old movies, yet they are better most of the time.
There is no other point you 'developped' to give thoughts on ...
Yet there is no one watching chess on TV or on the internet. It's a small population. Also old movies are good for people that where there at the time.
Take a 15yo kid and make him watch predator or alien... or conan. He will say to you that you have shitty taste in movie.
Also those bashing comments without making point is a pain to read 
|
Canada1637 Posts
Starcraft 3 would be expected out in.... 2025? o_o
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
