|
I really hope Blizzard would implement some kind of build tool into ladder.
I had really long break from SCII but few weeks ago i got intrested again, mostly from watching vods of Forgg's and Flash's games. Some of the games had really cool builds/styles and i wanted to try them out myself, 1st step was to open notepad and copy the builds from vods. Some of the builds though were very situational and i had to watch quite a few more games to find more suitable builds.
Eventually i had 1 build for each matchup, i had them open on my 2ndary monitor while i was laddering.
What im trying to say is that it shouldn't be this difficult, if you look at dota2 you can easily load dendi invoker guide and suddenly you have easy goals to achieve instead of going "wtf im supposed to do"
Since launch of SCII they've made arcade and unranked que, more stuff for casual players but those things haven't made the game anymore easier to approach.
|
The SC2's social interface is really bad. Groups pops not good..
|
On December 17 2014 22:56 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 22:27 AbouSV wrote:
While I kinda agree with most part and I wouldn't really mind most of those changes happening (skins, gameplay adaptations regarding the level etc...), by reading the comment it looks more like the core problem is not perceived as the same for everyone.
In my point you should not compare so much SCII to SC:GO, DotA2 or LoL in terms of readability, but more to chess actually.
SCII sure is a video game, but it tends to be more of an active and virtual version of chess than what is usually called a "casual game" (which depends on where the given casualty stops for everyone).
So:
Are chess "fun" to watch?
Not really, no.
Is chess a "ded game" (it's only been about six centuries)?
Not even close.
How many time chess has been patched in the last 50 years? Do people ask for a different shirt colour, or a bishop with fancy horns for when they win 50 game in a month?
Wait... What?!
Why do you care so much weather there are few millions people watching the game or "just" several tens of thousands?
As long as there are great tournaments (DH won't stop SCII (yet), it will just no be on the "big scene", no big deal really), excellent players to admire/look up to/pray for/be a fan of, and as long as when you connect to the game and look for a game you don't wait more that a few tenth of seconds whatever your level, well everything is just perfectly fine!
I know this is actually way too optimistic, but I deliberately wrote to sound this way, to contrast with the general mood of this topic. The problem with the chess comparison is that SC2 is exactly the other way around for many people: it's exhilirating to watch but not fun to play because even the slightest mistake can cost you the game. There's very little in terms of second chances in Starcraft 2. Look away for a second and lose you army to four or five banelings? Tap out. Didn't see those four medivacs fly towards you base because you were busy watching another part of the map? Tap out. Left one small gap in your queen-and-evolution-chamber wall allowing for a few blue flame hellions to roast all your drones? Tap out. I am all for learning to get better at a game (I love Dark Souls and the feeling of reward it gives you when you manage to tackle a seeminly impossible situation), but SC2 honestly takes things a bit too far. Even the aforementioned dark souls gave room for mistakes, to heal between boss attacks. Starcraft 2 does not.
I disagree. The issues you're describing only kick in at a level of play well above what casual players would reach.
Before you say that's wrong because it happens in Gold, hear me out.
For me, the big difference between SC2 and LoL/CS is that in the latter games there is little or no ambiguity as to what you should be doing. A total novice LoL player can run out, whack mobs, fight other players, and the game will play out around him. In terms of decision making, it boils down to 'fish or cut bait'.
Same with CS: you put bullets into other people while dodging theirs. Yes, there are layers and layers of tactics and strategies to learn, but none of that prevents you having fun to begin with. In both cases, the learning feedback loop is also direct and intuitive. You are, by and large, guided by the game mechanics.
SC2 is nothing like that. It's hugely front-loaded with complexity, and learning from experience is very difficult. You only have to look at how obstinately and consistently low level players maintain that macro isn't why they lost to see what a bad job SC2 does of providing useful learning feedback.
When you hear that Blizzard capped deck slots in Hearthstone because the feedback from casual players was "Woah, woah, I'm never going to even build a deck; that all looks too complicated for me", you can appreciate how monumentally inaccessible SC2 really is. The audience for CS and LoL is MOSTLY that level of player - just as it is for most games.
So when you say that casual players are struggling because of hellion run-bys, that's simply not true. Casual players aren't even playing SC2, and that's why they aren't watching it either.
|
On December 17 2014 23:22 TheoMikkelsen wrote:
I think playing SC2 1v1 and matchmaking should bring rewards and mounts etc to other blizzard games as well, such as special items, mounts or aesthetics to heroes of the storm and world of warcraft. Also more "rare" bundle rewards when completing stuff multiple blizzard games as well.
This is a cool idea, and would bring people into SC2 who might only play diablo to get that super rare skin or whatever.
Me Likes. Have a cookie!
So many good ideas from so many people in this thread. If only......
|
i like Destiny's ideas for incentivizing ladder play.
On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:
I sure have. And 2 years ago 40% of the community was telling me that I was wrong, and that SC2 was healthy, and that everything was "fine" and that my doom and gloom posts were just there to cause drama...and look where we're at now. SC2 is dropped as DH's main game and no one knows how much SC2 is even going to be at DH anymore. WCS EU and NA regions have been combined. WCS finals viewership is like 144k. Other major tournaments are getting 40-60k viewership, which is about what a high League streamer will get on any given night.
yes, you correctly forecast a slow decline in SC2's popularity.( slow relative to the average AAA PC title)
however, i don't think a change in monetization scheme would reverse this trend though.
Starcraft2 is a really good, but not great game. This level of game quality results in the kind of slow decline (again relative to other AAA PC titles) we're seeing regardless of monetization scheme.
this is pretty much nails it.
On December 17 2014 23:41 Swift118 wrote:
This one again where people think sc2 should be doing better than what it currently is. The game is not great (although a good game and still has a healthy following) and RTS is just not as popular a genre in PC gaming as it once was. Add all the fluff you want like skins (who the hell cares about this in RTS games anyway) and other micro transactions that could make sc2 go f2p, I doubt it will make a noticeable difference in popularity or profit for Blizz.
|
On December 18 2014 00:21 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 22:56 maartendq wrote:On December 17 2014 22:27 AbouSV wrote:
While I kinda agree with most part and I wouldn't really mind most of those changes happening (skins, gameplay adaptations regarding the level etc...), by reading the comment it looks more like the core problem is not perceived as the same for everyone.
In my point you should not compare so much SCII to SC:GO, DotA2 or LoL in terms of readability, but more to chess actually.
SCII sure is a video game, but it tends to be more of an active and virtual version of chess than what is usually called a "casual game" (which depends on where the given casualty stops for everyone).
So:
Are chess "fun" to watch?
Not really, no.
Is chess a "ded game" (it's only been about six centuries)?
Not even close.
How many time chess has been patched in the last 50 years? Do people ask for a different shirt colour, or a bishop with fancy horns for when they win 50 game in a month?
Wait... What?!
Why do you care so much weather there are few millions people watching the game or "just" several tens of thousands?
As long as there are great tournaments (DH won't stop SCII (yet), it will just no be on the "big scene", no big deal really), excellent players to admire/look up to/pray for/be a fan of, and as long as when you connect to the game and look for a game you don't wait more that a few tenth of seconds whatever your level, well everything is just perfectly fine!
I know this is actually way too optimistic, but I deliberately wrote to sound this way, to contrast with the general mood of this topic. The problem with the chess comparison is that SC2 is exactly the other way around for many people: it's exhilirating to watch but not fun to play because even the slightest mistake can cost you the game. There's very little in terms of second chances in Starcraft 2. Look away for a second and lose you army to four or five banelings? Tap out. Didn't see those four medivacs fly towards you base because you were busy watching another part of the map? Tap out. Left one small gap in your queen-and-evolution-chamber wall allowing for a few blue flame hellions to roast all your drones? Tap out. I am all for learning to get better at a game (I love Dark Souls and the feeling of reward it gives you when you manage to tackle a seeminly impossible situation), but SC2 honestly takes things a bit too far. Even the aforementioned dark souls gave room for mistakes, to heal between boss attacks. Starcraft 2 does not. I disagree. The issues you're describing only kick in at a level of play well above what casual players would reach. Before you say that's wrong because it happens in Gold, hear me out. For me, the big difference between SC2 and LoL/CS is that in the latter games there is little or no ambiguity as to what you should be doing. A total novice LoL player can run out, whack mobs, fight other players, and the game will play out around him. In terms of decision making, it boils down to 'fish or cut bait'. Same with CS: you put bullets into other people while dodging theirs. Yes, there are layers and layers of tactics and strategies to learn, but none of that prevents you having fun to begin with. In both cases, the learning feedback loop is also direct and intuitive. You are, by and large, guided by the game mechanics. SC2 is nothing like that. It's hugely front-loaded with complexity, and learning from experience is very difficult. You only have to look at how obstinately and consistently low level players maintain that macro isn't why they lost to see what a bad job SC2 does of providing useful learning feedback. When you hear that Blizzard capped deck slots in Hearthstone because the feedback from casual players was "Woah, woah, I'm never going to even build a deck; that all looks too complicated for me", you can appreciate how monumentally inaccessible SC2 really is. The audience for CS and LoL is MOSTLY that level of player - just as it is for most games. So when you say that casual players are struggling because of hellion run-bys, that's simply not true. Casual players aren't even playing SC2, and that's why they aren't watching it either.
I been on plenty of different forums and when people there don't like sc2 it is always the same: Sc2 has too much micro. Average gamers want to turtle, build armies and a move to victory. And this was what we did in BW at start. We never expanded, we just turtled until battlecruisers and carriers and sent those to battle.
It was similar to how C&C was played before that but C&C had engineers that could take over enemy buildings at 2 minutes into the game and were obvious to use even for newbs. After you failed with those you turtled until you got to best units.
Sc2 at lower level needs to be a different game than at diamond or master level. It needs two ladders and other casual content like Destiny said.
Or it needs to focus on teamplay and leave 1v1 for the hardcore crowd
|
IMO Focus on Customs and Team Games as the main game modes. If you look at the way BW and WC3 has gained success, that's traditionally the game modes that are the most popular. Hell, I used to play a lot of team games in BW just 2-3 years ago with some coworkers in Korea. When I asked them if they played 1v1 or Fish server at all, they just laughed at me and told me they weren't serious gamers.
|
As far as I know it was possible to have voice packs before, although they were not supported by Blizzard. There was a patch that dismantled some capability that allowed certain mods like the stronger team color mod and one that replaced all the sounds with their BW equivalents.
Few people used this, although it's not really fair to expect otherwise given that you were standing on shady ground in terms of respecting the eula. I'm positive it shouldn't be that difficult for Blizzard to allow you to upload your own voice packs. If all of you want Day[9] voice packs so badly then ask Blizzard to enable this functionality and Day[9] can make one. Not that he will, because he's not going to do it without compensation. I'll agree that there would be a higher incentive for him to create one if you could buy one in-game with a share of sales reserved for Sean, he could even advertise for it and suggest that it's a good way to support him.
However, if you're going to create all this bureaucracy around it by making it part of one's business model you're exponentially increasing the cost of implementing it. Also, just my personal opinion, but this sounds like a total waste of money.
|
While the activity is low, a lot of players has tried starcraft 2 in one way or the other, either the arcade or a few games of 1v1. The problem is not trying the game, the problem is motivation to play more as a casual gamer. Destiny´s point is that the only reason to play sc2 is to go for grandmaster league and being professional. The "fun" and "excitement" beyond that simply does not exist. If you ask me, 250.000 or 400.000 (more or less) active players going for professional play is actually A LOT of players, considering that the vast majority of for example lol players only play for fun and the excitement of the longevity in the gmae.
I kinda agree here, and I actually agree with most of your post. My point is more that you cannot simply change this, and then expect alot of new players to give it a new chance. Rather, once a game is considered a has-been, it's very difficult to position it in a different way. It will definitely require a lot of investments, and from Blizzard's perspective, it makes more sense to invest those ressources in Heroes of the Storm or Overwatch.
If you ask me, 250.000 or 400.000 (more or less) active players going for professional play is actually A LOT of players
That's not true though. Currently you have had 250,000 players playing the ladder in this seasons. It's tough to say how many of those are actually really dedicated.
|
On December 18 2014 00:42 Hider wrote:
It will definitely require a lot of investments, and from Blizzard's perspective, it makes more sense to invest those ressources in Heroes of the Storm or Overwatch.
I read this and think you are right.
I also read that and think I wont be playing Blizzard titles in future, if they can't better support the game I love now.
|
On December 18 2014 00:49 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 00:42 Hider wrote:
It will definitely require a lot of investments, and from Blizzard's perspective, it makes more sense to invest those ressources in Heroes of the Storm or Overwatch. I read this and think you are right. I also read that and think I wont be playing Blizzard titles in future, if they can't better support the game I love now.
I am sure they give zero fucks. WoW has what 8-9 million subs? I mean i go way back with Blizz to wc2 days and they have lost me really in the last 10 years. Thing is they do not need to worry about losing a few old schoolers when they have an army of casuals supporting them.
I also believe sc2 could be a better online game, not just the main 1v1 part of the game but the the arcade, UI etc (honestly who ever designed the arcade section should be sacked, I prefer custom lobbies from 10+ years ago over that crap). Minor improvements, changing the business model to make ladder free, could work, but thinking there will be drastic changes in popularity... just can't see it.
|
On December 18 2014 01:08 Swift118 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 00:49 fruity. wrote:On December 18 2014 00:42 Hider wrote:
It will definitely require a lot of investments, and from Blizzard's perspective, it makes more sense to invest those ressources in Heroes of the Storm or Overwatch. I read this and think you are right. I also read that and think I wont be playing Blizzard titles in future, if they can't better support the game I love now. I am sure they give zero fucks. WoW has what 8-9 million subs? I mean i go way back with Blizz to wc2 days and they have lost me really in the last 10 years. Thing is they do not need to worry about losing a few old schoolers when they have an army of casuals supporting them. I also believe sc2 could be a better online game, not just the main 1v1 part of the game but the the arcade, UI etc (honestly who ever designed the arcade section should be sacked, I prefer custom lobbies from 10+ years ago over that crap). Minor improvements, changing the business model to make ladder free, could work, but thinking there will be drastic changes in popularity... just can't see it.
Just imagine if they invested some money / time / dev into custom games, make it easy to navigate, and then launch an advertising campaign that focuses on SC2's new marketplace for custom games / skins / team games
That'd get a lot of people interested imo
|
Again I think you are 100% correct. For them it's just a numbers game.
The bigger a company gets the worse customer service you seem to get, the more aloof and elitist they become.
Aloof. This word describes blizzard perfectly.
|
All these new ideas and micro transactions are great ideas, but how about just fixing all the little annoying issues with the game which nitpick/nag everyone away from a relationship/gaming experience that they enjoy overall.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/471497-huge-list-of-fixes-sc2-needs-in-order-to-be-great Reading through this thread, there is scarecly a person there who disagrees with any of this stuff, and there are 100s of bullet points.
Most of this shit is easy to do and does a GREAT DEAL as a whole on improvement and enjoyment of the game.
|
I'm a consultant by trade, and what I would give to have Blizzard as a client just to see their numbers and see if I could make this work
|
Those are a great list of changes that should be made, but would changing that really bring people back / bring in new players? That's the big issue with SC2 now is that the audience has shrunk, the future is bleak cause no one trusts Blizzard to do the right thing, we're getting PR talk from them in spades, and all we can do is sit on TL and brainstorm ideas that will never be used with no indication of why.
|
On December 18 2014 01:23 Chaggi wrote:Those are a great list of changes that should be made, but would changing that really bring people back / bring in new players? That's the big issue with SC2 now is that the audience has shrunk, the future is bleak cause no one trusts Blizzard to do the right thing, we're getting PR talk from them in spades, and all we can do is sit on TL and brainstorm ideas that will never be used with no indication of why.
I'm guessing for a lot of people, myself included, we log on to our old games and have a session every now and then. If the game has been changed a lot or done some improvements, it hooks me, I tell my friends, they get hooked again, and so on. It's a cascade effect.
The major part of Destiny's argument is that the game devs were constantly taking feedback and improving little gripes here and there. This includes GUI stuff. People really tend to overlook or put the UI stuff on the bottom of the list, I feel like most people underestimate how much value this actually has.
For example look at the cell phone industry. A lot of the key features are advertised, but there may be a specific thing, or specific way of a couple of things that the old model used to do and that is why people sort of secretly/quietly loved it without voicing it. So even though the new iphone has better cpu, better graphics, better tactile response etc, the basic way to operate the phone and navigate through that is shit, or just not what you loved the original for. Same concept here.
|
On December 18 2014 00:32 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 00:21 Umpteen wrote:On December 17 2014 22:56 maartendq wrote:On December 17 2014 22:27 AbouSV wrote:
While I kinda agree with most part and I wouldn't really mind most of those changes happening (skins, gameplay adaptations regarding the level etc...), by reading the comment it looks more like the core problem is not perceived as the same for everyone.
In my point you should not compare so much SCII to SC:GO, DotA2 or LoL in terms of readability, but more to chess actually.
SCII sure is a video game, but it tends to be more of an active and virtual version of chess than what is usually called a "casual game" (which depends on where the given casualty stops for everyone).
So:
Are chess "fun" to watch?
Not really, no.
Is chess a "ded game" (it's only been about six centuries)?
Not even close.
How many time chess has been patched in the last 50 years? Do people ask for a different shirt colour, or a bishop with fancy horns for when they win 50 game in a month?
Wait... What?!
Why do you care so much weather there are few millions people watching the game or "just" several tens of thousands?
As long as there are great tournaments (DH won't stop SCII (yet), it will just no be on the "big scene", no big deal really), excellent players to admire/look up to/pray for/be a fan of, and as long as when you connect to the game and look for a game you don't wait more that a few tenth of seconds whatever your level, well everything is just perfectly fine!
I know this is actually way too optimistic, but I deliberately wrote to sound this way, to contrast with the general mood of this topic. The problem with the chess comparison is that SC2 is exactly the other way around for many people: it's exhilirating to watch but not fun to play because even the slightest mistake can cost you the game. There's very little in terms of second chances in Starcraft 2. Look away for a second and lose you army to four or five banelings? Tap out. Didn't see those four medivacs fly towards you base because you were busy watching another part of the map? Tap out. Left one small gap in your queen-and-evolution-chamber wall allowing for a few blue flame hellions to roast all your drones? Tap out. I am all for learning to get better at a game (I love Dark Souls and the feeling of reward it gives you when you manage to tackle a seeminly impossible situation), but SC2 honestly takes things a bit too far. Even the aforementioned dark souls gave room for mistakes, to heal between boss attacks. Starcraft 2 does not. I disagree. The issues you're describing only kick in at a level of play well above what casual players would reach. Before you say that's wrong because it happens in Gold, hear me out. For me, the big difference between SC2 and LoL/CS is that in the latter games there is little or no ambiguity as to what you should be doing. A total novice LoL player can run out, whack mobs, fight other players, and the game will play out around him. In terms of decision making, it boils down to 'fish or cut bait'. Same with CS: you put bullets into other people while dodging theirs. Yes, there are layers and layers of tactics and strategies to learn, but none of that prevents you having fun to begin with. In both cases, the learning feedback loop is also direct and intuitive. You are, by and large, guided by the game mechanics. SC2 is nothing like that. It's hugely front-loaded with complexity, and learning from experience is very difficult. You only have to look at how obstinately and consistently low level players maintain that macro isn't why they lost to see what a bad job SC2 does of providing useful learning feedback. When you hear that Blizzard capped deck slots in Hearthstone because the feedback from casual players was "Woah, woah, I'm never going to even build a deck; that all looks too complicated for me", you can appreciate how monumentally inaccessible SC2 really is. The audience for CS and LoL is MOSTLY that level of player - just as it is for most games. So when you say that casual players are struggling because of hellion run-bys, that's simply not true. Casual players aren't even playing SC2, and that's why they aren't watching it either. I been on plenty of different forums and when people there don't like sc2 it is always the same: Sc2 has too much micro. Average gamers want to turtle, build armies and a move to victory. And this was what we did in BW at start. We never expanded, we just turtled until battlecruisers and carriers and sent those to battle. It was similar to how C&C was played before that but C&C had engineers that could take over enemy buildings at 2 minutes into the game and were obvious to use even for newbs. After you failed with those you turtled until you got to best units. Sc2 at lower level needs to be a different game than at diamond or master level. It needs two ladders and other casual content like Destiny said. Or it needs to focus on teamplay and leave 1v1 for the hardcore crowd
Still kinda suprising how BW, despite having much much harsher mechanics than SCII, turned out to be enjoyable even for casual players, if they were matched against other casual player.
I guess the custom maps did help attract casual players a lot, but sure as hell there were lots of casual players playing the game for fun. Playing on 1 base for 20 minutes, attacking with only 12 units at each time, etc etc. But if you were matched against another casual player, that shit was still damn fun. You could limit yourself and play the game easily, like by staying on one base and stuff. And playing like this made you appreciate pro gamers even more, because you knew how difficult it was to pull off all the stuff the pros were doing.
In casual games you could just a-move, or ignore your macro and try to follow all the cool micros you see in pro games. Sitting in a psionic storm, or getting hit by a plague didn't mean that you instantly lost.
Starcraft II on the other hand, doesn't have the same distinction that existed in pro games and casual games in BW. Engagements end within 10 seconds, instead of having constant skirmishes you have both players just macroing up/turtling and not engaging for 20 minute. Turtling tier 3 unit doesn't work that well anymore because of how shit they are (carriers and cattlebruisers used to be much better back in BW), and you are forced to go for the same composition you usually see in pro levels.
As for engagements, just take a look at how brutal protoss vs terran is at casual level, where people barely bother to micro. Protoss player just have to get 1-2 templars, and press t and click on the terran army. The terran will usually leave their bio ball and don't really move out of the storm, causing all their units to die. Or getting chained fungalled to death in ZvX. Not splitting vs banelings and losing your entire bioball to it. Single mistakes that can cost you the game. How would you feel if you took 30 minute to mass up an army of battlecruisers and lost all of them in an instant because you just got chain fungalled to death?
Back in BW not microing didn't necessarily killed you. It also required your opponent to micro efficiently to be able to kill you. You couldn't just select 4 high templars and storm, it would make all 4 of them storm the same area. You had to cycle through each one of them, and storm each area - which was what jangbi was famous for doing very efficiently. Having 1 good storm didn't spell disaster for your opponent, you had to get 3-4 good storms to be able to turn the tide of battle to you (notice : not instantly win game), in large scale engagements.
In casual games you might see a storm or two go down in large engagements (if there were any), and the terrans could lose some of their units in the storm by not moving out, but considering the units weren't so clumped up back then the damage wasn't as large as it is now and didn't instantly kill the opponent. Plague was not a straight-up kill ability, it was meant to force engagements, unlike fungals which can straight up kill your opponent if he was not careful.
I just feel that starcraft II is just not as fun to play as the BW counterpart, both for casual and maybe even for pro levels.
|
On December 18 2014 01:23 Chaggi wrote:Those are a great list of changes that should be made, but would changing that really bring people back / bring in new players? That's the big issue with SC2 now is that the audience has shrunk, the future is bleak cause no one trusts Blizzard to do the right thing, we're getting PR talk from them in spades, and all we can do is sit on TL and brainstorm ideas that will never be used with no indication of why.
Well, but all those talks about skins and custom maps marketplace and Interface improvements are nothing but marketing gags either. They don't change the reason why people don't play SC2, which is that the game itself.
|
On December 18 2014 01:31 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 01:23 Chaggi wrote:Those are a great list of changes that should be made, but would changing that really bring people back / bring in new players? That's the big issue with SC2 now is that the audience has shrunk, the future is bleak cause no one trusts Blizzard to do the right thing, we're getting PR talk from them in spades, and all we can do is sit on TL and brainstorm ideas that will never be used with no indication of why. Well, but all those talks about skins and custom maps marketplace and Interface improvements are nothing but marketing gags either. They don't change the reason why people don't play SC2, which is that the game itself.
Not necessarily. The focus SC2 has had the last few years has been 1v1
I can get pretty passionate about 1v1 but I'm in the vast minority. If they improve the UI, custom games, and introduce a market place as another source for revenue - aka, take the focus off of the 1v1 mode, it's not that hard to see SC2 gain a greater audience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
