EPTOn December 22 2014 03:37 JokerAi wrote:
The future of esports is sad then the COMPANYS want make money and nothing other.
The future of esports is sad then the COMPANYS want make money and nothing other.
Root of all evil right there.
Steven 'Destiny' Bonnell II's Blog Article - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
fruity.
England1711 Posts
Root of all evil right there. | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
On December 21 2014 01:30 big_aug wrote: Micro transactions would do very little for SC2. Starcraft 2 is at the bottom of the viewer list and number of players because it isn't accessible. At its core, it is a complex, unforgiving 1v1 game. That isn't appealing to most people. SC2 is more comparable to the fighting game genre. The same types of people play these games. They require hours of *practice* to just be decent. Any type of FPS cannot be compared. Even terrible players will do decent once in a while in an FPS. In SC2 (and fighting games), a player might never win a game. I know when I stated playing, I lost something like 25 in a row (never played an RTS online ever and never played Starcraft at all) before I got my first win. These games no longer have a large audience, and they are unlikely to ever have one again. There will be some large tournaments that draw crowds and spark people to play ( just like EVO). However, it is unlikely that there would ever be an influx of truly new players. The game is simply too hard and too time consuming. The best it can hope for is a strong, dedicated community much like that seen in the FGC. I think you're half right, Rts won't ever be the most played genre. But I don't think sc2's problems specifically stem from how hard or unforgiving it is. That idea gets thrown out a lot, but if we're honest we've never seen an sc2 with adequate support from blizzard. The fact that it is so hard and unforgiving didn't stop millions of people from playing it for years, and getting shitty responses on quality of life issues had people pissed off well before the player base started to shrink. If you had never touched an FPS before a game like csgo or quake would be brutally unforgiving, we've all seen someone try to play for the first time and get stuck twirling in circles and shooting at the sky. It's just that by now, practically everyone in esports' target audience has had exposure to that ui, and it doesn't feel unintuitive because it's so common. Rts or fighting game ui take time to learn because a lot of people have never done it before. If you were a wc3 player and switched to sc2, you'd have a learning curve to contend with but your ability to control the basic moving parts would set you miles ahead of someone who'd never played an Rts before. I'm not saying the Rts ui isn't arguably the hardest to manage, but I do think it's exaggerated because of how comparitively few people have ever used it. I think with the right developer support and better accessibility , sc2 could get a lot more players online that it has right now. | ||
|
Schakal111
20 Posts
On December 22 2014 03:23 craz3d wrote: One factor that people are forgetting is that custom maps (or UMS) in SC1 were much more diverse and played more often, giving everyone something else to enjoy and be good at that wasn't the official game mode. It could be a unique melee map like BGH, Zero clutter, Fastest money, or micro maps; or UMS like V-Tec paintball, micro maps, snipers, evolves, art of defense, period based maps (Civilization, WW2:DIE, Rise/Fall of Rome, Republique 1800), and god knows how many other categories of UMS maps there were that were played. How fucking awesome would it have been if Blizzard had made a 10-player Hunters style map for racewars and FFA's? Streaming has also lessened the amount of games people play because before, casual players would still be playing something (above game "modes") or hanging around in bnet channels chatting and running clans, while now we watch the pros play and offer armchair strategical advice in the twitch chat. The social experience is also missing even with the implementation of chat channels. I'm forced to find clans using the internet while before I could hop into Clan Recruitment and within 5-10 minutes be in a tryout game or already tagged up. I guess there were a lot more ways to play and experience the game because of the way the game and battle.net 1.0 were designed. Some people will tell me that blizzard is coming up with innovative new game modes like Archon mode, but this mode was shipped with SC1 (Team Melee or w/e it was called) or was developed later as the Micro/Macro UMS map. missing the old bnet ;/ | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10115 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16637 Posts
On December 22 2014 07:40 Godwrath wrote: There are many factors, but game speed always comes to my mind as one of the biggest deterrent for Starcraft franchise to ever become a casual friendly game. It's just too fast and mechanically demanding for your average fellow to enjoy the game as a strategy game. and they'll lose RTS veterans who currently play the game if they slow it down. its a catch-22. | ||
|
EngrishTeacher
Canada1109 Posts
On December 22 2014 09:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: and they'll lose RTS veterans who currently play the game if they slow it down. its a catch-22. You guys realize that spectating vs. playing are 2 different worlds right? Regardless, I also hope you guys realize that even right now you CAN slow the game down easily, it's just NO ONE plays on anything other than faster speed due to how easy it is to overlook that tiny game speed section in the UI. TL;DR: it probably has nothing to do with how fast the game is. Just look at the amount of casual players in Korea for BW during its golden days. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
TL;DR: it probably has nothing to do with how fast the game is. Just look at the amount of casual players in Korea for BW during its golden days. Yeah when they released SC1 it was meant to be played on Normal speed, but people just put it on faster and it became the norm. | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
I think the real question to Blizzard is: Can you make SC2 a game that is easy to pick up, but difficult to master? At the moment, many of us would say SC2 is hard to pick up, and incredibly difficult to master. Making SC2 easier to pick up doesn't require a change to balance or mechanics, but they could, and instead could be incorporated into the UI. They've done this with the worker count, and auto mining from the start. Someone mentioned more granular color code for supply. As well, better tutorials that prepare casuals for the brutal 1v1 ladder would be very helpful. With regards to changing LotV's pricing model, it could bring in more casuals, but that is still up for debate. If they lower the price and incorporate a micro transaction model, but still achieve good profits, that would be great. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On December 22 2014 09:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: and they'll lose RTS veterans who currently play the game if they slow it down. its a catch-22. I don't think this problem is as difficult as it seems at first, or at least doesn't necessarily lead to that catch-22, albeit there is certainly truth to the catch-22, but SC2 is really NOT pleasing a lot of RTS veterans right now either. Starcraft1 did not originally have this problem when it first came out because no one was very fast. It's a matter of perspective and expectations for new players. Imo BGH and similar game-types were largely responsible for Starcraft 1's casual appeal, even before pro play took it's 250-450 APM form. Most low money players I knew in 2007, started on BGH w/ their friends. The game needs to just be fun/more forgiving while you fail at it. I don't think a blanket slow-down is necessary, but the feeling that "I could have done more" is really important and SC2 unit interactions often lack in this regard. For every marine split type interaction, you have the corresponding baneling micro. During one of those, average players know they could have always done more, the other leads only to frustration, or "i needed more units". There should instead be an equilibrium there. (just a shitty example). Most people I know that have stopped playing SC2 have stopped because of frustration. That feeling of "what is possible" is often missing from SC2. I think this is the root of all of the pathing/economic/hard counter/more micro type discussions. Hard counters and faster games, closer grouping leading to strong AoE, etc all lead to this. BW didn't have many of these issues, but it was still too intense on low money maps for a real casual player, but infinite money and a team game made it a whole lot of fun, even for those not set on improving. I actually think 3v3/4v4 should just be BGH in LoTV. I'm probably a minority here. I think you can make SC2 F2P, and do everything in destiny's blog and it will still be a "ded gaem" in a couple years if you don't actually make the learning process fun. On December 22 2014 11:09 ejozl wrote: Yeah when they released SC1 it was meant to be played on Normal speed, but people just put it on faster and it became the norm. Well ladder was forced to play on "Faster" speed, but everyone played on "Fastest", but to say that it "became" the norm would imply that it was ever not the norm aside from perhaps internal testing. I think it's important to remember that people were super serious about WC2, this blizzard style competitive RTS didn't start with Starcraft, the idea that anyone would play on anything but the fastest setting is pretty foreign. (given the selectable speeds obviously) | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
- Accessibility (attracting casual gamers) - Monetization after the game was sold. I think the second issue becomes a nonissue if the money Blizzard makes is right. Why milk a game over time when you can get the money right after launch? If executed right, the game will be supported anyway to gain the gamer's trust in the company and sell more copies of the next game. If SC2 would be more accessible for casual gamers, the game could be sold for years to come to these new players. Being accessible for new gamers is in my opinion very important to get new players at the top-end as well. A handful of visible players (progamers competing in tournaments, streamer) generate the content which can be shared by the entire community. This is extremely important to keep the game alive: If you meet someone who also plays SC2, you don't need to talk about the optimal scouting timing on Nimbus, you can have a discussion about Taeja, or Destiny. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On December 22 2014 03:41 fruity. wrote: Have to agree. There's not much too like about the whole UI! Seems very dull and unimaginative. Rarely updated. The chat / channels thing seems to be a constant grip since roughly 800BC. There's opensource, stable software out there which would solve these problems, would be a monumental (I assume!) Task to shoehorn something like qwebirc onto starcraft. How cool would it be though to have IRC features available for starcrafts chat channels. I'd would love to of been a fly on the wall at bliztards HQ when the UI features were decided upon. When it comes to chat Blizzard is like the passive aggressive flat share you had when you first moved out of your parents. All you want is for them to do the washing up once in a while and when you talk to them about it, they say "Yea, of course I'll do it, no problem" and maybe you catch them waving a brillo at a dish the next day then ... nothing, so you bring it up again ... and again ... and again. Eventually you just stop bringing it up because somehow now you're the asshole. | ||
|
fruity.
England1711 Posts
On December 22 2014 21:27 Dapper_Cad wrote: When it comes to chat Blizzard is like the passive aggressive flat share you had when you first moved out of your parents. All you want is for them to do the washing up once in a while and when you talk to them about it, they say "Yea, of course I'll do it, no problem" and maybe you catch them waving a brillo at a dish the next day then ... nothing, so you bring it up again ... and again ... and again. Eventually you just stop bringing it up because somehow now you're the asshole. This. This analogy is spot on. As Destiny himself said; at least we can hear it and go from there, instead of constantly being dragged around by the dick with these answers of "well, the dev team will look at it, guys!" And it's this aspect of how bliztard deal with community interactions that irks me the most. In the recent arcade marathon cast there was a dev on at one point called Tim (don't recall his surname). Spontaneously some questions about Arcade bugs were asked, it was interesting to hear Tim's thoughts, yet this scrap of interaction was hidden away in the 7th odd hour of a 12 hour cast, and missed by 99.9% of the community. Why cant Kim Phan (bliztards Senior Manager of eSports) Have a fortnightly or monthly video blog and address issues the community have been raising (or get one of her underpaid and overworked minions to do it). How about David Kim doing the same? The number of people who would be interested in this - especially as we approach LotV - would be very very high. At blizcon, he had a all too brief interview and even though it was short, it was still interesting. | ||
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
On December 22 2014 09:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: and they'll lose RTS veterans who currently play the game if they slow it down. its a catch-22. Not really. The game will still have high skill ceiling. Make the game 50% slower and pros will be doing 50% more shit. As if they're playing with 800APM right now. It might make the game boring/slow in the beginning, but its fixable with more starting workers and resources. The only real problem is very long long matches, but its kinda ok (like LoL/Dota). And we can have bo1's instead of bo3's. | ||
|
Mistakes
United States1102 Posts
On December 23 2014 16:22 saddaromma wrote: Not really. The game will still have high skill ceiling. Make the game 50% slower and pros will be doing 50% more shit. As if they're playing with 800APM right now. It might make the game boring/slow in the beginning, but its fixable with more starting workers and resources. The only real problem is very long long matches, but its kinda ok (like LoL/Dota). And we can have bo1's instead of bo3's. Just wait for WC4 if you want a slow RTS. | ||
|
Vaporized
United States1471 Posts
over time i started to realize how much more engaged with their audience (what their audience wants, and in tune with how people are playing the game) and just smart with their decisions Riot was compared to blizzard. fast forward a couple years and i have ~3000 LoL games played and havent played a sc2 game or watched a tournament match in probably a year and a half or more. i would like to come back to sc2 (playing zerg is one of the most engaging video game activities there is imo), but i long ago gave up any hope that blizzard had the faintest fucking idea how to listen to their players or give them what they want. Riot has patches EVERY 2-3 WEEKS that address balance issues (in generally smart, cohesive fashion) and once a year, when the season ends, they do a preseason where they significantly change how the game plays. i dont get the sense that blizzard gives a shit about sc2 or its players. whereas riot clearly loves their game, and has respect for their customers. destiny is right. there is a way out of this hole for blizzard/sc2. will blizzard take the steps they need to take? i doubt it. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On December 23 2014 02:16 fruity. wrote: This. This analogy is spot on. As Destiny himself said; at least we can hear it and go from there, instead of constantly being dragged around by the dick with these answers of "well, the dev team will look at it, guys!" And it's this aspect of how bliztard deal with community interactions that irks me the most. In the recent arcade marathon cast there was a dev on at one point called Tim (don't recall his surname). Spontaneously some questions about Arcade bugs were asked, it was interesting to hear Tim's thoughts, yet this scrap of interaction was hidden away in the 7th odd hour of a 12 hour cast, and missed by 99.9% of the community. Why cant Kim Phan (bliztards Senior Manager of eSports) Have a fortnightly or monthly video blog and address issues the community have been raising (or get one of her underpaid and overworked minions to do it). How about David Kim doing the same? The number of people who would be interested in this - especially as we approach LotV - would be very very high. At blizcon, he had a all too brief interview and even though it was short, it was still interesting. Because, Kim could only address so many questions, leaving enough unanswered to have many guys still complaining. Because Kim would have to have discussion with the right developers, which takes much more time than the video itself. Because if Blizzard would explain all the little steps and considerations, they would get a lot of random input which is not helpful. | ||
|
Jornada
United States223 Posts
Thank you Destiny for being you. I honestly dont know what the future holds for SC2 but i do hope it gets better. | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 22 2014 03:41 fruity. wrote: Have to agree. There's not much too like about the whole UI! Seems very dull and unimaginative. Rarely updated. The chat / channels thing seems to be a constant grip since roughly 800BC. There's opensource, stable software out there which would solve these problems, would be a monumental (I assume!) Task to shoehorn something like qwebirc onto starcraft. How cool would it be though to have IRC features available for starcrafts chat channels. I'd would love to of been a fly on the wall at bliztards HQ when the UI features were decided upon. You can make your opinions on Blizzard clear without constantly referring to the company as "Bliztard", so please do so. | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On December 24 2014 00:08 [F_]aths wrote: Because, Kim could only address so many questions, leaving enough unanswered to have many guys still complaining. Because Kim would have to have discussion with the right developers, which takes much more time than the video itself. Because if Blizzard would explain all the little steps and considerations, they would get a lot of random input which is not helpful. Because it would cost more in time and money to develop a monthly video or state of the game blog; which could take away from developing more/better games. Because there would be only a small beneficial gain, but the problems would still persist. Because it doesn't provide real solutions to the problems. Here is the thing, I have complete confidence that Blizzard can turn everything around. I know a lot of people here have been bashing or doubting Blizzard. It seems like they aren't reading this thread; Destiny's blog; Battlenet forum; or even reddit. However, they have proven time and time they read a lot of stuff published on the Internet about SC2. I am sure Blizzard read Destiny's blog. It was no coincidence they posted their blog shortly afterwards. Psione has consistenly been on reddit and TL. Guys, Blizzard is communicating with us. Lets please stop bashing them by saying "Blizzard doesn't listen to the community." They do read a lot of the stuff here and everywhere around the web. Can they respond to all of it? Hell no, there are way too many of us out there for them to respond to. What I want from them is just a little bit more communication. Not a whole lot, but a bit more smaller updates. We are getting into LotV, and I really want to see where the game is heading. I am sure all of us is eager to hear about any balance updates on Hots and LotV. I feel like Blizzard has a bigger opportunity to develop some content that we will eat up like pancakes at IHOP. Instead they give us meagre scraps to leave us starving for more. | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On December 24 2014 00:18 Jornada wrote: Its so sad.... how BAD blizzard has developed this game! I would work for blizzard for free to help change these peoples ideas as to what the community wants. Thank you Destiny for being you. I honestly dont know what the future holds for SC2 but i do hope it gets better. Please don't take this reply as snide. It's not my intent. You are not the voice of the community. You couldn't tell Blizzard what we all want. There are hundreds of thousands of us, and you are only one person. Don't get me wrong, your opinions are probably reflected by many others, but for you to tell Blizzard what the community wants, you would need to be in constant communication with every smaller community within Starcraft 2. Are you reading every /r/starcraft thread? Do you have a stream where you talk to Starcraft players and interact with them? Did you build your own community of players? Are you creating threads on TL about balance/Blizzard/Starcraft 2 and constantly replying to everyone's comments? It takes a lot of effort to be the voice of the community, and Destiny isn't even close. | ||
| ||
