EPTAlso, watch SPL, game does not need hordes of kiddies who are playing for skins.
User was temp banned for this post.
Steven 'Destiny' Bonnell II's Blog Article - Page 22
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
Also, watch SPL, game does not need hordes of kiddies who are playing for skins. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Omega Pirate
1 Post
Wonder why...maybe because using one mouse click to defeat your opponent is easier to "learn" and less frustrating then become Master in SC2... But I'm just "guessing"  People...people... play more. write less. asap :D | ||
|
sabas123
Netherlands3122 Posts
On December 29 2014 20:20 plgElwood wrote: Off Topic: is the "2nd of his name" or "... Bonnel II" just cool with white Trash ? Also, watch SPL, game does not need hordes of kiddies who are playing for skins. His name indeed Bonnel the second/ second of his name ect. but it would be SO MUCH BETTER if it did, besides, your starting to metion a region where bw never became less populair then sc2 and is now even gets a spot on OGN + some other channel if im not mistaken. which considering the context of how much support sc2 has extra is pretty self explantory. | ||
|
Noobity
United States871 Posts
On December 27 2014 09:02 DemigodcelpH wrote: BW comparisons to criticize SC2 are not a "meme". It's because SC2's game design pales in comparison to BW (if Blizzard listened to the community terribly designed things like Colossi and warpgates and the SC2 economy system would've been changed 3 years ago) and lacks a lot of the things that made BW a decade long king. I honestly think people who got into the SC scene with SC2 need to stop dismissing BW-related criticism. I hate this attitude so much. They're different games with different strengths. Absolutely make your BW related suggestions, but I don't want another BW. I would hate it, and I don't think I'm alone. We've got better technology and we're more advanced as a gaming culture, there is 0 reason not to evolve past BW. If you just rereleased BW with better graphics and new units the game would have been exactly as popular as SC2 was, because that is how the landscape of competitive video gaming has changed. Has nothing to do with how different SC2 is from BW. Such a garbage elitist ideal. | ||
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
On December 29 2014 22:26 Noobity wrote: I hate this attitude so much. They're different games with different strengths. Absolutely make your BW related suggestions, but I don't want another BW. I would hate it, and I don't think I'm alone. We've got better technology and we're more advanced as a gaming culture, there is 0 reason not to evolve past BW. If you just rereleased BW with better graphics and new units the game would have been exactly as popular as SC2 was, because that is how the landscape of competitive video gaming has changed. Has nothing to do with how different SC2 is from BW. Such a garbage elitist ideal. You have to be one damn competitive video game expert if you can claim such things. Talk about garbage elitist ideal... | ||
|
plgElwood
Germany518 Posts
SC2 will have Dreamhacks, IEMs, HomestoryCup, ProLeague and WCS euro/na and GSL and in the end Blizzcon. At least for 2015, and that mostly will be HotS tournaments, waiting for LotV. Also there will be a number of small Tournaments, like FragBite or Eizo-Things or Zotac. Sucks for the streamers though to not have 50 million potential twitch Viewers or subs. People are not getting hyped for EVERY match in Starcraft2 or any MasterandAbove player streaming his laddersessions. You got to be more entertaining. Like Demuslim, he talkes about his builds explains stuff and overall has a good attitude and good music :D. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
And unfortunately, seeing how the game has progressed over the last few years, and how unwilling to repeal game decisions Blizzard seems, I don't think much more is going to happen. I don't know what Blizzard could possibly add to the game to make up for the fact that there still exists a lot of boring units which result in clumpy, attack-movey, and one-fight-decides-the-game gameplay. I stopped playing SC2 because it just felt boring to me. Losses felt more frustrating than deserved, and wins weren't satisfying or fulfilling. All the skins, treats, and gimmicks in the world wouldn't bring me back if the game itself wasn't fun to play/watch. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
| ||
|
johnbongham
451 Posts
On December 29 2014 21:15 Omega Pirate wrote: SC2 should learn something from CS GO? Because more people playing shooter than a RTS game -_- Wonder why...maybe because using one mouse click to defeat your opponent is easier to "learn" and less frustrating then become Master in SC2... But I'm just "guessing" People...people... play more. write less. asap :D LOL at csgo being easier to learn and less frustrating than sc2. You can get masters in sc2 by practicing a single build over and over and over again for a single race. In CS the only way you are gonna reach high ranks is if you learn the game from just about every single angle possible. | ||
|
KrOmander
United Kingdom78 Posts
On December 30 2014 02:07 johnbongham wrote: LOL at csgo being easier to learn and less frustrating than sc2. You can get masters in sc2 by practicing a single build over and over and over again for a single race. In CS the only way you are gonna reach high ranks is if you learn the game from just about every single angle possible. Well in all fairness there are less angles there possibly? If you know what I mean. Really though I have not played a FPS online since CS1.6, but I should imagine fast reactions and decent mouse accuracy will see a player move up quite fast. Just like in Sc2 someone with decent mechanics will move up in ranks fast. | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On December 29 2014 21:15 Omega Pirate wrote: SC2 should learn something from CS GO? Because more people playing shooter than a RTS game -_- Wonder why...maybe because using one mouse click to defeat your opponent is easier to "learn" and less frustrating then become Master in SC2... But I'm just "guessing" People...people... play more. write less. asap :D Omega Pirate, you clearly have not read the entire thread, nor have you read Destiny's entire blog post. No one has stated which game is 'easier'. We are discussing how Valve supported CS:GO with constant communication between them and their community. So please quit guessing and maybe read a bit more. read more. write less. slowly :D On December 30 2014 02:07 johnbongham wrote: LOL at csgo being easier to learn and less frustrating than sc2. You can get masters in sc2 by practicing a single build over and over and over again for a single race. In CS the only way you are gonna reach high ranks is if you learn the game from just about every single angle possible. His comparison is clearly misguided. You can ignore the trolls. I don't play CS:GO. What comparisons can you make between that and other fps (Halo, CoD, etc..)? ------ On December 30 2014 02:43 KrOmander wrote: Well in all fairness there are less angles there possibly? If you know what I mean. Really though I have not played a FPS online since CS1.6, but I should imagine fast reactions and decent mouse accuracy will see a player move up quite fast. Just like in Sc2 someone with decent mechanics will move up in ranks fast. This is a good comparison between SC2 and CS:GO. Thanks for your imput KrOmander! | ||
|
Ouija
United States129 Posts
On December 30 2014 03:13 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Omega Pirate, you clearly have not read the entire thread, nor have you read Destiny's entire blog post. No one has stated which game is 'easier'. We are discussing how Valve supported CS:GO with constant communication between them and their community. So please quit guessing and maybe read a bit more. read more. write less. slowly :D You tell him! Let's all act like Destiny and tell anyone from blizzard who is willing to respond to any post that we wish they never posted at all! Sounds like communication is going well... | ||
|
sabas123
Netherlands3122 Posts
On December 30 2014 03:39 Ouija wrote: You tell him! Let's all act like Destiny and tell anyone from blizzard who is willing to respond to any post that we wish they never posted at all! Sounds like communication is going well... wait and how is this comment in any shape or form related to what the guy you quoted just said? anyway Destiny didn't post that they never should respond, just not the same thing a million times in a row | ||
|
Garemie
United States248 Posts
On December 29 2014 20:20 plgElwood wrote: Off Topic: is the "2nd of his name" or "... Bonnel II" just cool with white Trash ? Also, watch SPL, game does not need hordes of kiddies who are playing for skins. You're thinking of it entirely from one perspective. From an "aliev gaem" standpoint it means so much to have magnitudes more players, not only in more $$$$$ for Bliz to spend on tourneys, but for them to spend more time on SC2 in general. Not only that, but it means so much for viewer base as well, especially in stuff like SPL. | ||
|
NInoff
Bulgaria1105 Posts
I don't know about LOL but the system in Dota2 Is perfect - If you play free you will not get any disadvantages against players that pay for the game, but you will not get any of the cool sound packs, loading screens etc. Also you can directly support your favourite team by buying tickets for tournaments they attend, buying their banners and so on... It like buying a shirt from your favorite football team merchandise store... This allows the game to grow constantly... I mean $10+ milion dollar prize pool for TI4 is no joke, every player from the winning team became a MILLIONAIRE by playing games... I really hope that blizzard will change something with the last expansion, but i doubt it. I will buy it ofcourse, starcraft gave me a lot of things in the past almost 20 years, so i think they deserve it. | ||
|
Asjo
Denmark664 Posts
If you make a game with good gameplay, you won't need silly schemes that reward people for playing more, like the ones described in the article. You also won't need constant patching. I disagree with the idea that all games have to be made into money-making machines, mainly focusing on developing content to sell. While I like watching competitive SC2, I doubt I'd do it if it wasn't for my love of SC:BW. I just haven't been able to leave the scene, and no other scene has really offered an alternative to combination action and strategy I see in SC2 VODs. SC2 has never appealed to me as a game. I found it really fun to play SC:BW with UMS maps or BGH with players against AI online. Still, I'm wondering if the reason I enjoyed it so much was that there wasn't a lot of competition from other games at the time. SC:BW seemed a much more fascinating game, with an interesting game sense and atmosphere. However, I'm not sure if it's the role model for SC2 in its current situation. I just know that despite my love of Starcraft, playing SC2 seems more like a tiresome task than an adventure or exploration of any kind. More often than not, it ends in frustration rather than fun. I don't feel the game offers any proper alternatives to competitive 1vs1 for the casual gamer, while I've actually been able to enjoy DotA2 versus bots for a few years now (have ventured into playing online against players a bit, but my best friend only wants to play against bots). Even as a spectator sport, SC2 has had a rough time. Sometimes, interesting variety within the game has been scarce and many match-ups have seen stale. We have been plagued with things that were horrible to watch like bloodlord/infestor and turtle swarm host play. Such things are killing off my love for the game little by little, until one day I will lose patience with it altogether. In SC:BW, every match I saw seemed fresh and brimming with possibilities, while I sometimes watch SC2 matches with dread, fearing they will turn into boring, static games or long, sloppy macro games with constant mistakes in micro and multi-tasking. Zerg was the race that I loved cheering for in SC:BW, in particular when the poor zergs had to overcome the always dominant siege tanks, and would often do so in a beautiful fashion. However, in SC2, it has felt terrible to watch zergs play, and I have more often than not found myself rooting against them. It's good that the game has produced a bit of magic like blink stalkers, force fields, burrowed banelings and drop-ship micro, so there's certainly still positives to draw on in that respect. | ||
|
nottapro
202 Posts
I am a casual player and the game suffers from different problems than what bothers a pro. 1) The gameplay is too fast - there's almost no time to think or time to recover, you have to rely purely on mechanical skill and having solid knee jerk reactions 2) 200 supply is too big of an army to get any degree of control over unless you are a pro 3) Hard counters are way too harsh. If you play match Gold level or above, the metagame locks you into a blind precise build order timings then punishes you for blindly picking the wrong one. 4) 3 levels of attack / armor upgrades, widen the statistical advantage of the winning player without them doing any micro or strategic maneuver. It's frustrating to play against, its frustrating to watch anyone's mechanics and strategy absolutely fail them because their unit becomes temporarily or permanently worthless in a fight. 1 upgrade attack/armor is enough to differentiate late game and early game. There are better ways to do upgrades, like stim, roach burrowing, blink which add both visually interesting and strategic elements. If you discuss CS:GO the main reason these games work competitively is that the winning team doesn't get to buy long lasting statistical upgrades over the player they are beating, if they could buy 3+ armour 3+ attack the game would snowball out of control in the first 12 minutes of the game just like SC2. | ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On December 30 2014 22:40 Asjo wrote: Without knowing for sure, I would guess that the growth of CS:GO is due to a lack of good alternatives for team-based FPS-games of this specific kind. I do remember people laughing up CS:GO, but I also remember the very same people eventually resigning themselves to play it since they had nowhere else to turn with no Counter-Strike scene around anymore. Sure, maybe the fixed the game so its gameplay was less of a joke, but I doubt many people are playing it for the skins. The growth of CSGO is primarily due to the fact that Valve addressed a LOT of the problems people had with the game initially. What you have to understand is that Valve did not initially develop CSGO. Instead, Hidden Path Entertainment did and they produced a turd. This is why so many people dismissed it when the beta came out. It took some time for Valve to fix it but they managed to do it. Adding skins was a great way to add another fun side to the game and obviously it worked great, but the main reason why people are playing CSGO in the first place is because the gameplay is great and because Valve listen to the community (even if they never actually say anything). As a proof of this, the CSGO playerbase is much greater than what it was during 1.6 (or source). For example, I never really played a FPS (except BF3) before CSGO and now I've been playing it for one and a half year and im loving it. So, while skins are not the main reason people will play a game, it is definitly a great way to keep their interest in the game, along with solid gameplay. | ||
|
Asjo
Denmark664 Posts
On December 31 2014 02:54 Roggay wrote: The growth of CSGO is primarily due to the fact that Valve addressed a LOT of the problems people had with the game initially. What you have to understand is that Valve did not initially develop CSGO. Instead, Hidden Path Entertainment did and they produced a turd. This is why so many people dismissed it when the beta came out. It took some time for Valve to fix it but they managed to do it. Adding skins was a great way to add another fun side to the game and obviously it worked great, but the main reason why people are playing CSGO in the first place is because the gameplay is great and because Valve listen to the community (even if they never actually say anything). As a proof of this, the CSGO playerbase is much greater than what it was during 1.6 (or source). For example, I never really played a FPS (except BF3) before CSGO and now I've been playing it for one and a half year and im loving it. So, while skins are not the main reason people will play a game, it is definitly a great way to keep their interest in the game, along with solid gameplay. Since I haven't played CS:GO a lot, I will have to assume you're right in saying that they fixed a lot of the problems. Yet, what you say hardly relates to the release of SC2:LotV since Blizzard are likely planning to release a "complete game" not a "turd", thus wanting a great gameplay from the release rather than having to fix the broken gameplay afterwards. I was very surprised when I read that you said that CS:GO had surpassed Counter-Strike. I still consider the CS:GO community quite small. Looking at the numbers, 365.000 players online at the same time for CS:GO also sounds like considerably less that Counter-Strike had, but I haven't been able to find any exact numbers anywhere. I'd be curious to see your sources in this regard. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On December 29 2014 03:26 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I don't think you understand the problem with your development model. Starcraft 2's development model is not to make drastic changes over and over. The goal for it's development is to make as few changes as possible, until you don't have to make any more changes. Once the game gets to a state where changes aren't necessary, Blizzard will have successfully balanced Starcraft 2. Following MtG's development model, Starcraft 2 will never be balanced. It will be forever in a flux of chaos and randomness. As I said before, MtG keeps making changes because each change brings in more revenue. For Starcraft 2, each change means more cost. Blizzard will go broke if they tried your approach. I understand you like the idea of constantly shaking up the meta, and maybe for another RTS game that model could work, but it would absolutely destroy Starcraft 2. You're saying that my model won't work for Starcraft 2 because of Starcraft 2's model which is different from mine. That's practically a tautology. The whole point is that I'm suggesting a different model. Plenty of games in plenty of genres work by constantly changing and updating to keep the game fresh and innovative. There's no reason why Starcraft 2 is somehow exceptional to this. The whole point of Destiny's post is that Starcraft needs to keep development up to rejuvenate their game. That is fundamentally about changing models. You act as if "forever in a flux of chaos" is somehow a bad thing, when that's usually what keeps games going. Hell, a 'calm metagame' is basically a broken one, most of the time. If there's no flux, then something is usually very wrong. That's precisely what they should be going for. You can still maintain balance and metagame in a changing landscape. In fact, with a more active development cycle, it's far easier to learn from your mistakes and introduce new and cool ideas that don't break the game. Also, the idea would be that such things are planned out. Heart of the Swarm came out March 2013, approximately three years after Wings of Liberty July 2010. Legacy of the Void is coming out sometime in 2015. Were people whining about balance and chaos and randomness, or were they so excited about playing the new expansion that they didn't care? You're acting like Starcraft 2 doesn't even have expansions, when it does. Do you really think that if more expansions were planned, and the expansions came out sooner, people would be annoyed? No, they would get excited. They would want to try out the new stuff. They want to see what kind of fun stuff is available in the new game. | ||
| ||
