|
Destiny just released an article on his BLOG. It's a very good read which looks back at the past, the success of CS:GO and MOBA, and his thoughts on the future of Starcraft II as we approach LotV.
His Twitter
His website
I sincerely believe that Legacy of the Void is capable of bringing not only a resurgence to the StarCraft 2 scene, but also long-lasting interest in the game. This will only be true if Blizzard takes the correct steps. Blizzard is fully capable of dedicating the resources necessary to ensure StarCraft 2′s success, and they can do it while turning a profit. I don’t think they’ve shown that they’re willing to do it yet, but I hope they change their mind with the coming of their final expansion to the StarCraft 2 universe.
[....]
So what happened? What gave CS:GO the “push” it needed to see the explosive growth it’s had over the past few years? It wasn’t community support, it wasn’t large community members, it wasn’t a vibrant tournament scene and it wasn’t positive posts on a subreddit.
Valve supported their game. Valve’s released 45 patches in 2014 alone! They’re constantly working with players to keep the game fresh via new maps and balance tweaking. The Steam market place and skinning system make the game feel alive and fresh. They added a new queuing system that allowed people to find matches easier (ever hear complaints about SC2 matchmaking/MMR decay..?). They reworked their ranking system. They reworked a TON of weapon balance in early 2013 based on player feedback (ever hear people calling for a redesign of Protoss..?, or SC2 movement/”grouping” mechanics?). And on top of all of this, they found a way to finance their development teams – by using the Steam market to sell skins and keys.
You need to read the full article. I hope I haven't overstepped a mark here, and that the mods and Destiny himself are OK with this. I feel it's important, and very relevant, and deserves to be here to be discussed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sabas123 posted developments from reddit (I avoid that place like the plague!) Here they are. psione is a PR guy for blizzard.You should read the original article before proceeding.
+ Show Spoiler [ On December 16 2014 03:00 psione wrote] +
We absolutely do. I think many people severely underestimate how much content we read. We always appreciate when people put in the time and effort to write out detailed thoughts or opinions.
While this is a new blog, we've seen many of these points brought up before and have discussed them with development. We know these requests are important to the community and we're always looking to make sure that hot topics such as these are given the appropriate amount of attention internally.
With development ongoing for Legacy of the Void, there are still a lot of discussions taking place. As such, we may not be able to jump into topics with definitive answers on feature requests, but we still want to let you know that the request is heard and will be discussed.
+ Show Spoiler [ On December 16 2014 04:00 Destiny wrote] +
I love SC2 very much and my entire career is staked into this game at the moment, so this might come off as a little rough, but I'm absolutely not the kind of person to "play ball" with shoddy PR answers. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but your post has absolutely zero content in it and I kind of wish it wasn't posted in here at all.
I think many people severely underestimate how much content we read.
This kind of burden always falls on the person making the PR statements. As someone that manages PR for Blizzard on reddit, I'm absolutely sure you know this. In CSGO when patches are made, Valve is constantly addressing concerns from the community in their patches. The recent CZ nerfs reflect that, and there are a huge variety of other patches that are great examples of Valve directly responding to community criticism.
To look at parallels in SC2, some things just refuse to get addressed and even more bizarre patches are made. Buffing the widow mine for Terran, giving them medivac speed boosts, giving the hellbat upgrade immediately...The community has clamored for some kind of buff to the Terran late game but there's been no response at all from Blizzard about these kinds of things. The "perception" that the balance team/Dayvie doesn't listen to the community is well earned, imo, when strange/random changes come out of left field and leave everyone with a "...huh?" kind of feeling after reading some patch notes.
While this is a new blog, we've seen many of these points brought up before and have discussed them with development.
This statement is completely meaningless. One time I told my mom I was going to kill myself in real life if she didn't buy me some lego toy from the store because I was 12 years old and I thought it was funny.
A passing reference to a development team or a development lead is far, far different than a serious, engaging discussion on what kind of capital would need to be raised or what kind of revenue would have been available in the future to justify certain projects. One of the big problems, and I understand this, is that your PR team has never been willing to give the "hard" answer that we need to hear so we can stop bugging you about it.
Instead of, "We're just not sure we can implement these changes at the moment," or "our development doesn't believe these are the right choices for now, maybe we'll consider them down the line", why not just say "We don't believe SC2 generates enough income to warrant assigning x number of engineers to work on these projects", or "We believe our time would be better spent on higher revenue-generating projects." Those kinds of answers, again, would probably never come out of a major company because they're PR suicide, but hinting at them more would be so much better than the endless "OH WELL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT WITH OUR DEV TEAM I PROMISZE GUYS LOL xDDDDD!!!"
We know these requests are important to the community and we're always looking to make sure that hot topics such as these are given the appropriate amount of attention internally.
What does this even mean?
With development ongoing for Legacy of the Void, there are still a lot of discussions taking place.
I'm sure people are still having discussions about 1.6 and Quake.
As such, we may not be able to jump into topics with definitive answers on feature requests
But you can definitely give a realistic probability to certain things being discussed. Is your entire SC2 team except for one or two lonely devs focusing 100% of their effort on getting Heroes of the Storm ready for the beta and then launch? If so, there's close to no chance that any of these features are going to show up in LotV. That's fine, 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!"
Sorry if I come off as jaded in my post, but every Q/A or interview I see with Blizzard PR people are always filled with the non-sensical gobbledyguk. Nothing in any of the posts you've made in here have given any person any amount of insight or news at all regarding the future of LotV as you've said absolutely nothing of substance, just general "PR-speak" with no real meaning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Destiny has replied to some comments on Team Liquid HERE and HERE.
|
It's incredibly important. It's also probably not going to change anything. Cause everything he's said is pretty much common sense if you've followed the scene at all, and Blizzard should've done something about it a long time ago. If they haven't, and I'm assuming they're not completely retarded, I just don't have the faith in them to do anything now.
|
Thanks fruity! I would probably not have read it if you hadn't mentioned it here. Great article!
|
well, at least it's better than what he wrote a few years ago.
|
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame.
|
It is the gameplay that is SC2's biggest issue. Everything else is just icing.
LotV? Last chance, Blizzard.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame.
I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
|
well, looking at how his last blog had such an impact, i hope that this blog can make things better...
|
On December 16 2014 15:49 purakushi wrote:
It is the gameplay that is SC2's biggest issue. Everything else is just icing
Hm yes and no. The gameplay is the most important factor I agree, but it's a fact that people want to spend money on their favourite game/hobby. Hell I spent money on Hearthstone and I don't even like the game that much. Microtransactions would motivate Blizzard to work harder on the game, since they would actually keep making money with sc2. That would in return result in better gameplay, since they would spent more money on sc2 and would hire more people to work on it, to make more money with microtransactions.
|
On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
I fully agree, I was really hyped at BlizzCon and hoped they would announce just that, but then they announced it as a standalone game. It's better than nothing I guess, but I was still very disappointed.
|
I'd say it's worthy of a reference post. I agree with a lot of his points, too. I definitely think Blizzard has the capability to make the game a great success, but I really don't see them committing much more to SC2, which really is a bummer.
Though, the comparisons to CS:GO are not totally valid. CS:GO is a team-based FPS, like TF2 is, where small little dinky additions to the game (skins, hats, whatever) are much more... appropriate... If you had this WICKED pink knife, and were running around with that, people on your team would think "Holy shit, what a badass motherfucker." But with SC2, team matches just aren't popular enough (-cough- horrible balance -cough-). That isn't to say that it isn't possible. I think it'd actually be pretty damn cool if there were more unique skins for units and stuff. It'd be interesting to see if Korean leagues would even allow them, since it might "interfere with competitive play" (which I think is a legit reason), but LoL tournaments do allow for skins in-game, so who knows.
I definitely agree that there needs to be some sort of "objective" to laddering. I mean, getting master league is awesome and all, and getting grandmaster is pretty cool too. But like, for all of those silver-leaguers and platinum players, I just don't see the point. You sort of know you suck, and just playing SC2 in-game isn't reallllly that much fun in itself, so there should be some rad unlockables that you can WORK towards, so people keep playing the game. Of course, having "people keep playing the game" is way more significant when you have a way to get more money from them...
But it's clear that Blizzard does not (want to) put a huge amount of effort into keeping SC2 fresh and modern. At most, they do a few half-assed balance patches here and there, just to keep the Korean scene alive. But just think how cool it'd be if Blizzard gathered a bunch of Korean pros and just, you know, asked for help?
@Jinro / Musicus
They would need another way of monetizing the game for that to be viable. I did not buy HotS to play the shit-tier campaign with shit-tier writing. Admittedly, I did like the WoL campaign, though. I just think they'd be missing out on a HUGE amount of their purchases if they did that.
Edit: I just noticed you mentioning this Musicus -- sorry.
I do think it's worth noting, however, that many MMO's that are one-time-purchases, like Guild Wars 2, have a ton of microtransactions available (many of which are absolutely retarded RNG bullshit). Of course, that's an MMO, but I don't know why people find an online, multiplayer game so different from an MMO.
|
But mind you guys, too much balance tweaking and map changes are bad for pro-level players. However, anything else such as a large variety of skins would be cool.
However, I think starcraft should not deviate from being a serious competitive game. I think most of the gamers out there now prefer casual games and that is why starcraft isn't very popular relative to other AAA games (that and starcraft is not released every year). Starcraft should prob stand to its tradition and be a serious game, not a spineless game that changes unit balance only due to popular opinion that might change the next month.
We should never get so frustrated by the lack of "popularity" of starcraft. Some is prob Blizzard's fault, but some is just because starcraft is not so kid-friendly because a lot of gamers are young or casual (correct me if I'm wrong). We should take a deep breath and change only what we need. When the gamers interests shift back to a serious and strategy-intensive gaming, starcraft will shine again.
|
On December 16 2014 16:04 Blargh wrote:
@Jinro / Musicus
They would need another way of monetizing the game for that to be viable (perhaps you are implying this?). I did not buy HotS to play the shit-tier campaign with shit-tier writing. Admittedly, I did like the WoL campaign, though. I just think they'd be missing out on a HUGE amount of their purchases if they did that.
Yes, we were thinking that if the MP was free to play, they could monetize on all kinds of things. Like skins, soundpacks, potraits etc. and one of those would be the campaign.
|
It's the same point about making SC2 multiplayer F2P with micro-transactions.
Blizzard could do that but why would they bother?
SC2 is a old game by now.
Any effort spent on it would make much more money when applied to heartstone or heroes.
There simply is no financial rationale to attempting a SC2 revival.
|
Wow such a great article, with so many good ideas. An entire reskinned army, now that would be awesome 
|
On December 16 2014 16:10 swissman777 wrote:
But mind you guys, too much balance tweaking and map changes are bad for pro-level players.
Can't comment for pro players, but I feel more regular but smaller tweaks to balance would be the way forward. Perhaps in a similar way to how windoze gets monthly patches. Rather than having a buff to widow mines, then a nerf, just give a unit a small nudge, see how things work out (let's not forget that maps factor in a big way with balance) Going forward and how the change has effected meta etc.
|
It's funny because Blizzard is focusing so much on Heroes, when the hype and popularity I have gauged from the MOBA and gaming community has been close to non-existent for that game. They are taking WAYYYY too long to release it in open beta, and they are not giving any timetables on when it will arrive, so there is no way for people to get excited for it. It frustrates the shit out of me when a company like Blizzard that 5 years ago was a giant and one of the trailblazers of multiplayer PC gaming is now taking a backseat and riding on its competitive card game and generic MOBA.
Starcraft is one of the reasons Blizzard is so popular. It is one of their big three franchises, and it just seems like they don't even like it anymore. They are holding one of the only unique and uncharted genres in all of gaming (especially esports and competitive gaming), and are completely squandering it with a ton of other projects that are all just speculative and mysterious at this point (i.e. Overwatch, which isn't even that unique or innovative of a game).
It really pains me to see Starcraft 2 just dragging its feet along until LotV and that stagnation has become standard with the game. One patch in like 2 months on the freaking widow mine is not enough change or dynamics to keep people coming back to try it out. It's not hard for Blizzard to release an experimental patch, see how it pans out, gauge criticism and response, and react accordingly in short time. Even if changes to the game ended up being game-breaking, Blizzard could make it possible for tournaments currently happening to just run an earlier patch of the game, which completely avoids broken competition.
Jeez, if some people in this community had the opportunity to work directly over Blizzard's shoulder with Starcraft 2, then we would probably see huge improvements to the game and subsequently the fanbase and esports scene. But alas, "the resources are just not there".
|
In theory a nice read but i don't agree with him in the end.
I don't see how these things would change anything, you first need a game which is easy accesable if you wanna have high player numbers, micro transactions are only there to keep the people playing.
sc2 lacks this easy enjoyable mode, archond mode is a step in the right direction, but not enough.
I also don't buy that a better arcade would change anything, maybe custom games were a big part of games 10 years ago, but today you get completely new games (professional ones) for a few bucks, there simply is no need to play arcade games (let's be real, even the best arcade games are not anywhere near the quality of "real games")
So yeah, in theory destiny's blog makes sense, but i still think the people which work for blizzard are smarter than most people who bitch about their decisions, it isn't always as easy as it looks 
|
Maybe one of our benevolent overlords could start a poll asking if we'd be willing to pay for ingame goodies like skins (LotV one is old  ).
I'd be happy too myself. Though I know Blizzard have said in the past that skins are an issue due to the extra graphical load.. Just add a toggle to turn these paid-for-addons on or off blizz.. doh.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kXMSRav.png)
Give more please.
EDIT: You know, they do this in WoW and apparently doing so there isn't an issue. So what's the real reason? CBA?
|
Good read but doubt Blizzard will do anything. They have already milked the game enough and after LotV they will probably move on to other things. Unless Blizzard finds a new way to make a profit (ie microtransactions if they want to implement it), they most likely will just release LotV, patch it a few times, and finish with sc2. We should just accept SC2 for it is and shouldn't get our hopes too high up for LotV.
|
Bisutopia19203 Posts
On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
If SC1 required a yearly subscription I'd still be paying it. Free to play may make sc2 more accessible, but after a while it's popularity would plateau again without changes to the game.
|
Valve supported their game. Valve’s released 45 patches in 2014 alone! They’re constantly working with players to keep the game fresh via new maps and balance tweaking. The Steam market place and skinning system make the game feel alive and fresh. They added a new queuing system that allowed people to find matches easier (ever hear complaints about SC2 matchmaking/MMR decay..?). They reworked their ranking system. They reworked a TON of weapon balance in early 2013 based on player feedback (ever hear people calling for a redesign of Protoss..?, or SC2 movement/”grouping” mechanics?). And on top of all of this, they found a way to finance their development teams – by using the Steam market to sell skins and keys."
Outside of MMR decay and better auto matching generally, all of this are either things blizzard has done (constant patches, actually destructive to an rts' meta game as it causes meta game instability) or things that blizzard will never do (anti blob mechanics) as it uproots the fundamentals of the game, itself destabilizing, but more importantly its an admission of total and abject failure. They're never going to admit to that.
tldr; destiny said nothing new nor gave any advice actually applicable to reality.
|
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun.
|
Reading that made me feel like it was actually happening. Jesus Blizzard, what if....what if.
|
On December 16 2014 17:09 fruity. wrote:
I'd be happy too myself. Though I know Blizzard have said in the past that skins are an issue due to the extra graphical load.. Just add a toggle to turn these paid-for-addons on or off blizz.. doh.
I dont get this. So many games are able to scale down textures during heavy load times, especially in MMO's where theres tons of players.
Just scale down the graphics and it's fine.
I mean it only happens at 200/200 vs 200/200 right? Seems like a good idea to implement.
|
In my opinion, skins are a predatory business model and many people that champion it have no actual intention to buy skins, while seeking to profit from those who will.
Can we please keep our old and fair model of: 'buy a game = access a game' ?
|
Just give everyone the option to not see any skins at all during matches. Then you can go crazy with skins, people who are annoyed by hugh flying lings will have better lifes.
|
On December 16 2014 19:04 Grumbels wrote:
In my opinion, skins are a predatory business model and many people that champion it have no actual intention to buy skins, while seeking to profit from those who will.
Can we please keep our old and fair model of: 'buy a game = access a game' ?
The thing with skins is that they aren't necessary to buy if you dont want them. Your lings will still be the same whether they look like lings or flying bugs. Since the skins will serve as nothing more than a nice aesthetic look, there's no reason to not have them in the game. Sure itll be weird to look at for the first few games, but people will get used to it. It wouldnt hurt to add it, i mean it's not like sc2 is going to get anymore dead with skins.
|
On December 16 2014 19:04 Grumbels wrote:
Can we please keep our old and fair model of: 'buy a game = access a game' ?
This isn't year 2000 anymore. There are other "fair" and more lucrative ways to have revenue for games, just have a look at the non-pay to win games out there.
|
in the reddit comment section you had a destiny responding with a well worked out post to a pr guy from blzizard
On December 16 2014 03:00 psione wrote:
We absolutely do. I think many people severely underestimate how much content we read. We always appreciate when people put in the time and effort to write out detailed thoughts or opinions.
While this is a new blog, we've seen many of these points brought up before and have discussed them with development. We know these requests are important to the community and we're always looking to make sure that hot topics such as these are given the appropriate amount of attention internally.
With development ongoing for Legacy of the Void, there are still a lot of discussions taking place. As such, we may not be able to jump into topics with definitive answers on feature requests, but we still want to let you know that the request is heard and will be discussed.
On December 16 2014 04:00 Destiny wrote:
I love SC2 very much and my entire career is staked into this game at the moment, so this might come off as a little rough, but I'm absolutely not the kind of person to "play ball" with shoddy PR answers. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but your post has absolutely zero content in it and I kind of wish it wasn't posted in here at all.
I think many people severely underestimate how much content we read.
This kind of burden always falls on the person making the PR statements. As someone that manages PR for Blizzard on reddit, I'm absolutely sure you know this. In CSGO when patches are made, Valve is constantly addressing concerns from the community in their patches. The recent CZ nerfs reflect that, and there are a huge variety of other patches that are great examples of Valve directly responding to community criticism.
To look at parallels in SC2, some things just refuse to get addressed and even more bizarre patches are made. Buffing the widow mine for Terran, giving them medivac speed boosts, giving the hellbat upgrade immediately...The community has clamored for some kind of buff to the Terran late game but there's been no response at all from Blizzard about these kinds of things. The "perception" that the balance team/Dayvie doesn't listen to the community is well earned, imo, when strange/random changes come out of left field and leave everyone with a "...huh?" kind of feeling after reading some patch notes.
While this is a new blog, we've seen many of these points brought up before and have discussed them with development.
This statement is completely meaningless. One time I told my mom I was going to kill myself in real life if she didn't buy me some lego toy from the store because I was 12 years old and I thought it was funny.
A passing reference to a development team or a development lead is far, far different than a serious, engaging discussion on what kind of capital would need to be raised or what kind of revenue would have been available in the future to justify certain projects. One of the big problems, and I understand this, is that your PR team has never been willing to give the "hard" answer that we need to hear so we can stop bugging you about it.
Instead of, "We're just not sure we can implement these changes at the moment," or "our development doesn't believe these are the right choices for now, maybe we'll consider them down the line", why not just say "We don't believe SC2 generates enough income to warrant assigning x number of engineers to work on these projects", or "We believe our time would be better spent on higher revenue-generating projects." Those kinds of answers, again, would probably never come out of a major company because they're PR suicide, but hinting at them more would be so much better than the endless "OH WELL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT WITH OUR DEV TEAM I PROMISZE GUYS LOL xDDDDD!!!"
We know these requests are important to the community and we're always looking to make sure that hot topics such as these are given the appropriate amount of attention internally.
What does this even mean?
With development ongoing for Legacy of the Void, there are still a lot of discussions taking place.
I'm sure people are still having discussions about 1.6 and Quake.
As such, we may not be able to jump into topics with definitive answers on feature requests
But you can definitely give a realistic probability to certain things being discussed. Is your entire SC2 team except for one or two lonely devs focusing 100% of their effort on getting Heroes of the Storm ready for the beta and then launch? If so, there's close to no chance that any of these features are going to show up in LotV. That's fine, 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!"
Sorry if I come off as jaded in my post, but every Q/A or interview I see with Blizzard PR people are always filled with the non-sensical gobbledyguk. Nothing in any of the posts you've made in here have given any person any amount of insight or news at all regarding the future of LotV as you've said absolutely nothing of substance, just general "PR-speak" with no real meaning.
I love you. ♥
|
Destiny making friends again...
|
On December 16 2014 19:31 Clonester wrote:
Destiny making friends again...
To be fair, he has a point…
|
I definitely agree that there needs to be some sort of "objective" to laddering. I mean, getting master league is awesome and all, and getting grandmaster is pretty cool too. But like, for all of those silver-leaguers and platinum players, I just don't see the point. You sort of know you suck, and just playing SC2 in-game isn't reallllly that much fun in itself, so there should be some rad unlockables that you can WORK towards, so people keep playing the game. Of course, having "people keep playing the game" is way more significant when you have a way to get more money from them...
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one around who doesn't care at all about skins and bullcrap like that. I think the bolded part is what's the longterm problem for most players. Starcraft has a reputation as Elite-Game. The LotV changes cement that further (like wtf should a newcomer think of mining his one and only base out at 10mins?). That's what needs to change. Yet I fear it is too late for that with SC2. Fundamental control and gameplay mechanics just take too much effort to learn for your average scrub who decides after 3games whether he likes the game or not.
Also if the vital content (MP, SP campaign etc.) costs more with a "f2p"or DLC-model I'm one of those guys who won't even think about playing it. In such games I miss the option to just buy everything for 40€ upfront and everyone who wants to "save" money and rather play a Demo for half a year until he decides to still unlock everything should do that.
|
On December 16 2014 19:43 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +I definitely agree that there needs to be some sort of "objective" to laddering. I mean, getting master league is awesome and all, and getting grandmaster is pretty cool too. But like, for all of those silver-leaguers and platinum players, I just don't see the point. You sort of know you suck, and just playing SC2 in-game isn't reallllly that much fun in itself, so there should be some rad unlockables that you can WORK towards, so people keep playing the game. Of course, having "people keep playing the game" is way more significant when you have a way to get more money from them... I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one around who doesn't care at all about skins and bullcrap like that. I think the bolded part is what's the longterm problem for most players. Starcraft has a reputation as Elite-Game. The LotV changes cement that further (like wtf should a newcomer think of mining his one and only base out at 10mins?). That's what needs to change. Yet I fear it is too late for that with SC2. Fundamental control and gameplay mechanics just take too much effort to learn for your average scrub who decides after 3games whether he likes the game or not.
"macro rts games" are unfun, i don't think you can change that without changing the core concept of these games.
I think most people (not all of them ) wouldn't want to play a starcraft game with automated macro for example.
Nah i would even say multitasking is what puts people off, as soon as you have to do some things "at once" you will lose the average gamer who likes to play these other esports games.
So yeah, you either cater to rts gamers, or you cater to the masses, i know what i prefer
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 16 2014 19:43 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +I definitely agree that there needs to be some sort of "objective" to laddering. I mean, getting master league is awesome and all, and getting grandmaster is pretty cool too. But like, for all of those silver-leaguers and platinum players, I just don't see the point. You sort of know you suck, and just playing SC2 in-game isn't reallllly that much fun in itself, so there should be some rad unlockables that you can WORK towards, so people keep playing the game. Of course, having "people keep playing the game" is way more significant when you have a way to get more money from them... I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one around who doesn't care at all about skins and bullcrap like that. I think the bolded part is what's the longterm problem for most players. Starcraft has a reputation as Elite-Game. The LotV changes cement that further (like wtf should a newcomer think of mining his one and only base out at 10mins?). That's what needs to change. Yet I fear it is too late for that with SC2. Fundamental control and gameplay mechanics just take too much effort to learn for your average scrub who decides after 3games whether he likes the game or not.
It always reminds me the picture where is drawn the difference between casual and hardcore SC2 player. Casual has 1 base, plays with some marines, has 8 SCVs and is thinking about building a planetary on his natural at about 12th minute. When a hardcore gamer stomp his base with 10 tanks, 3 ravens, 5 medevacs, 2 banshees and 50 marines :D
I really love playing SC2 but I loved SC2 more in WoL. Maybe the matchmaking was working better, maybe the game was slower, maybe I was less rusty back then. I don't know why, but all HotS I feel that this is not right.
You know the feeling for sure, it's the feeling that something is wrong and you don't know what it is.
|
I'd be more than happy to dump some of those paypal riches into the game I have loved for the past 4+ years.
The article is a pretty good read and brings up some interesting points.
|
I am glad Destiny does this, I'm hoping it will matter, but I am so afraid it will not. Regarding gameplay I think LotV is going in a good direction in general, it shows a lot of potential and with some more tweaking to some of the fundamentals I really believe it can be so much more fun than HotS. The mod actually already is.
But then indeed, how to attract more people to enjoy the glorious thing that is SC? I agree with Destiny, please throw it open Blizzard. Free to play with microtransactions is THE way to go. I don't fucking give a shit that I already own 3 accounts with HotS on it. I won't feel bad if LotV will be free, because I will enjoy it either way. Then add some skins, customizability, a more social battle.net and I don't see how SCII can not grow again.
Blizzard is going in an ok direction with their announcements, but they really need to amp it UP. Throw it open, make it free. In the end you will make more money by doing so. There will be chaos, and the chaos will be delightful, and eventually from chaos will rise a better game.
/inspirational mode off
I can probably dream on forever.
|
To be honest I'm really tired of the 500th discussion about "better don't screw up Blizzard". It's kinda easy, if they screw up, I may or may not play StarCraft more often. If they fail to make it interesting, I'll stop buying Blizzard's products. Gosh, I'm a fucking consumer, I don't want to put work in making sc2 better, I want to give money to receive some great stuff to enjoy. These days, sc2 makes me much more worry instead of providing fun.
|
Lorning
Belgica34432 Posts
|
Wouldn't free multiplayer have plagged the game with cheaters/hackers/leavers/what-have-you though?
That's the problem when you can't tie an account to a single player.
|
He is completely right. The scene and the game is almost neglected by the devs, and they aren't doing the game accessible for the general public, neither balanced. Also SC2 devs ignored the community.
And also pricing is a huge factor there.
CS:GO, with a base price of 10€/$, has gone in very aggressive sales of even an 80% that made the player base really huge. Starcraft 2 started at 40€/$ per expansion (so 120 in total), now it costs the 40$ with both expansions, and they will need to reduce it even more if they want players. That's basic.
They should go very heavy on skins and shit like that (see dota) and cut the price drastically, being aggressive. It's always the same: game is cheap, accessible, people knows the gameplay style a lot, people jumps in. See Heroes of the storm alpha numbers, see Hearthstone.
|
On December 16 2014 19:15 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 19:04 Grumbels wrote:
In my opinion, skins are a predatory business model and many people that champion it have no actual intention to buy skins, while seeking to profit from those who will.
Can we please keep our old and fair model of: 'buy a game = access a game' ? The thing with skins is that they aren't necessary to buy if you dont want them. Your lings will still be the same whether they look like lings or flying bugs. Since the skins will serve as nothing more than a nice aesthetic look, there's no reason to not have them in the game. Sure itll be weird to look at for the first few games, but people will get used to it. It wouldnt hurt to add it, i mean it's not like sc2 is going to get anymore dead with skins.
The community is very fetishistic about these monetizing schemes. Buying pointless content like skins and voice packs is framed as an altruistic act to support the (giant, faceless, corporate) game developer. In DOTA2 you are peer pressured into buying compendiums to "support the scene" (i.e. advertisement for Valve's tournament and enriching a handful of top players). Many people cheer at such models while happily profiting by being able to play the game for free because most people will make only a few purchases at best. The community cheers at game companies creating new ways to exploit the playerbase. I don't get it to be honest.
None of the problems that SC2 has will be fixed by on-going development. Blizzard just needs to be competent in designing the game.
|
On December 16 2014 15:49 purakushi wrote:
It is the gameplay that is SC2's biggest issue. Everything else is just icing.
LotV? Last chance, Blizzard.
And how would they have to change it? Reading your signature it seems like you simply don't like sc2 in general, in that case you should consider moving on to another game, blizzard doesn't have to change it just for you.
|
On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
They could even make the whole game free. I mean, what is 40 euros (price of lotv) compared to ton of skins, etc. sold? F2P with skins/voice packs/etc will earn you more in the end, than paying 40 for the game straight up. Some people pay hundreds of dollars just for the skins in LoL, At least IMO.
It would be a wise move by Blizzard, just like what they did with Heroes.
|
On December 16 2014 21:26 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 19:15 phodacbiet wrote:On December 16 2014 19:04 Grumbels wrote:
In my opinion, skins are a predatory business model and many people that champion it have no actual intention to buy skins, while seeking to profit from those who will.
Can we please keep our old and fair model of: 'buy a game = access a game' ? The thing with skins is that they aren't necessary to buy if you dont want them. Your lings will still be the same whether they look like lings or flying bugs. Since the skins will serve as nothing more than a nice aesthetic look, there's no reason to not have them in the game. Sure itll be weird to look at for the first few games, but people will get used to it. It wouldnt hurt to add it, i mean it's not like sc2 is going to get anymore dead with skins. The community is very fetishistic about these monetizing schemes. Offering pointless content like skins and voice packs is framed as an altruistic act to support the (giant, faceless, corporate) game developer. In DOTA2 you are peer pressured into buying compendiums to "support the scene" (i.e. advertisement for Valve's tournament and enriching a handful of top players). Many people cheer at such models while happily profiting by being able to play the game for free because most people will make only a few purchases at best. The community cheers at game companies creating new ways to exploit the playerbase. I don't get it to be honest. None of the problems that SC2 has will be fixed by on-going development. Blizzard just needs to be competent in designing the game.
People cheers that economic models because they demand less money at the first moment than the classsical model. We have to think in the dynamics of the economy today, as this is a marketing question. Starting for free is a big advantage, and then we move on pricing. How much do you pay for Dota, HS, CS? Very little. 40$ is a lot of money today to pay all at a time. With 40 € I buy basic food (rice, pasta, eggs, milk, vegs) for a month as I'm a poor student. What do my friends play? Dota and Lol, and other F2P or cheap steam stuff.
Lol is not the best exemple of this, but how much do you need to pay in LoL to have lots of content? with 25$ and hitting level 30 you can get a lot of the champs, which are usually enought to have fun for loooots of time.
Micropayments are interesting solutions, and they can be fair, because you can pay whatever you want. If I were in Blizz, I would unify MP with a base pricing (Cheap) in LotV, and sell campaigns as extra content with campaign skins. So we could have something 20€ base game, 10 per campaign (givving you access to lots of skins). What's more, selling skins (that are already in the game) and promoting Custom creations like Dota2 does would be a nice way to motivate interest for it.
For getting public, friend referals and a sysstem to get content discouts as you get friends in the game.
|
It is a shame that valve is not making any RTS.
Dota 2 has patches very often, some of them to improve the performance.
I have not seen any patch in sc2 that improves the fps of the game.
|
On December 16 2014 21:49 xuanzue wrote:
It is a shame that valve is not making any RTS.
Dota 2 has patches very often, some of them to improve the performance.
I have not seen any patch in sc2 that improves the fps of the game.
Because Valve devs said they have no idea how to make rts game.. regardless to fact that their servers rts games like AoE2HD sucks ass :D...
|
On December 16 2014 21:49 xuanzue wrote:
It is a shame that valve is not making any RTS.
Dota 2 has patches very often, some of them to improve the performance.
I have not seen any patch in sc2 that improves the fps of the game.
If they wanted to do it, they would have involved personally in the remakes of Rise of Nations and Age of Mythologies. Specially the last one has an interesting proximity to Starcraft because it is race-based, with each of the 4 races being clearly different.
Both were fun RTS games in their time.
I think that the servers they were using for RTS titles are from Microsoft Games, because they own the rights of the games. So shame on them.
|
On December 16 2014 16:17 pmp10 wrote:
It's the same point about making SC2 multiplayer F2P with micro-transactions.
Blizzard could do that but why would they bother?
SC2 is a old game by now.
Any effort spent on it would make much more money when applied to heartstone or heroes.
There simply is no financial rationale to attempting a SC2 revival.
Because it is not as if every penny earned with Sc2 means a penny earned less with Hearthstone or Heroes.
Sc2 sits in a different genre and I don't think it is comparable.
|
Depends on what level of success you are talking about. It's not just specifically about SC2. RTS as whole is a dying genre. No matter how good the gameplay is, it will never be as successful as more accessible games like FPS and MOBA. That's just nature of the genre. People who point at specific gameplay issue entirely miss the point. It's no coincidence that SC2 is the sole RTS that is active enough to have relevant competitive scene.
From business perspective, Blizzard has absolutely no reason to keep making RTS games. The genre is one of the least profitable you could think of. Don't get me wrong,SC2 sold extremely well for an RTS game but it's still nothing compared to what Blizz got from WoW and D3 or even what they are getting from HS.
I love StarCraft and I enjoy niche community we have for the niche genre like this. I have my opinions about lots of things that should be improved in SC2 but make no mistake, it's not to make the game super popular like WoW or HS but it's for my enjoyment of the game.
|
On December 16 2014 22:08 Wildmoon wrote:
Depends on what level of success you are talking about. It's not just specifically about SC2. RTS as whole is a dying genre. No matter how good the gameplay is, it will never be as successful as more accessible games like FPS and MOBA. That's just nature of the genre. People who point at specific gameplay issue entirely miss the point.
Genres are pure trending. Give out something fun and accessible and no matter what type of game it is, it'll have some success. The trending train will dictate a lot, but fun and pricing are the final decisive points. Some things have to go upstream, like salmons, but they should be more realistic.
WoW, beign as old as it is, is very active, and MMOs aren't completely in the current trending train. Why? Because it was a huge success by its days and now is an active "classic".
Card games weren't very fashionable but they existed, and Hearthstone has hit very hard.
CS:GO is indeed almost an upgrade/remake of an old and simple multiplayer shooter, and is growing like crazy, while the "big shooters" like CoD or BF are declining.
However, it is true that "Classic" Macro RTS are something with more refined public because they are demanding and complex games. But I don't think that this is the point of it. It's only a part of the question. Don't forget that "MOBAs" are indeed pretty much Hero-based RTS, with simplified economic models (5-way linear) and farming, too. And they also demand a big game knowledge.
|
On December 16 2014 22:08 Wildmoon wrote:
Depends on what level of success you are talking about. It's not just specifically about SC2. RTS as whole is a dying genre. No matter how good the gameplay is, it will never be as successful as more accessible games like FPS and MOBA. That's just nature of the genre. People who point at specific gameplay issue entirely miss the point.
No matter how good the gameplay is? So, in essence, no matter how fun a game will be, nobody will ever play it? That does not really make sense to me. I think there are just not that many top tier RTS games out there. I agree that the RTS scene is going through a rough time, but the only problem I see is that no company dares to do something about it just because MOBA is more popular atm.
RTS has not found its place within the current free-to-play casual market yet. A lot of the accessibility has got to do with price, the amount of friends you can get with you to explore, learn and have fun, etc. With that I think it's the involuntary task of the only semi-popular RTS around to find a way to survive and prosper. After that, I surely see RTS growing again.
|
On December 16 2014 22:19 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 22:08 Wildmoon wrote:
Depends on what level of success you are talking about. It's not just specifically about SC2. RTS as whole is a dying genre. No matter how good the gameplay is, it will never be as successful as more accessible games like FPS and MOBA. That's just nature of the genre. People who point at specific gameplay issue entirely miss the point. Genres are pure trending. Give out something fun and accessible and no matter what type of game it is, it'll have some success. The trending train will dictate a lot, but fun is the final decisive point. WoW, beign as old as it is, is very active, and MMOs aren't completely in the current trending train. Card games weren't very fashionable but they existed, and Hearthstone has hit very hard. However, it is true that "Classic" Macro RTS are something with more refined public because they are demanding games. But I don't think that this is the point of it. It's only a part of the question. Don't forget that "MOBAs" are indeed pretty much Hero-based RTS, with simplified economic models (5-way linear) and farming, too.
When I talk about RTS, I mean traditional RTS. If in order to make StarCraft popular, you have to get rid of fundamental aspects of the game then hell no. Moba got rid of all aspects of RTS that are supposed to be "hard and boring" by some people standard.
|
They should just take the Hearthstone/Heroes of the Storm model of daily quests (daily missions to make it more SC-y) that reward money (credits/minerals/whatever). Credits can be put toward new skins, graphics, overlays, sounds, everything. Blizzard can keep releasing new ones over time like in Heroes. Skins in Heroes are like $9.99 yet people still buy them. Add in "master" type skins like in Heroes, with prerequisites like earn the 500 1v1 win achievement with that race, then give you the option to purchase a more unique skin, etc.
I really enjoy playing SC2 but I was surprised at how "addicting" and easier it was to play a few games of HS/Heroes every day to finish the daily. Keep credit income pretty low; add in some credits per win/loss (40 per win, 10 per loss) like in the other games so people don't feel like they're always wasting their time with losses. Add in some skins or whatever that can only be bought with money if you want.
Some dailies could be simple like... build 40 zealots (mirroring play 20 2 mana or less cards in HS). Or win 2 games with terran. Win 3 team games. Win 7 games in any mode. Use your imagination. Tons of possibilities out there.
The model really works IMO in both games. It seems like a no brainer to add it in to SC2...
|
On December 16 2014 22:20 Anacreor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 22:08 Wildmoon wrote:
Depends on what level of success you are talking about. It's not just specifically about SC2. RTS as whole is a dying genre. No matter how good the gameplay is, it will never be as successful as more accessible games like FPS and MOBA. That's just nature of the genre. People who point at specific gameplay issue entirely miss the point. No matter how good the gameplay is? So, in essence, no matter how fun a game will be, nobody will ever play it? That does not really make sense to me. I think there are just not that many top tier RTS games out there. I agree that the RTS scene is going through a rough time, but the only problem I see is that no company dares to do something about it just because MOBA is more popular atm. RTS has not found its place within the current free-to-play casual market yet. A lot of the accessibility has got to do with price, the amount of friends you can get with you to explore, learn and have fun, etc. With that I think it's the involuntary task of the only semi-popular RTS around to find a way to survive and prosper. After that, I surely see RTS growing again.
It may become popular again but not in the form of traditional RTS we know and love for sure. If RTS is going to survive this, it needs to adapt itself to not be fundamentally demanding as it is now. Are you ok with that? Also, a game can be really fun when you can actually play it at decent level but it won't be popular because of its inaccessible nature.
|
Price has to be lowered, anyways. At half the price, 4 times the sales.
|
SC2 gets really good viewer ratio considering its amount of playerbase. This means that the game can be really fun when you look really high level play but why bother if you can't dream of playing even close to that level?
|
|
|
Destiny forgot that adding skins for SC2 units is not as easy. These skins would influence FPS of players. Sure you could make skins that would not, but you need a way to test it for weaker computers.
So it takes time and effort to make a skin, you cannot just mass produce it like in CS:GO. Letting community do some will present same problems.
For voice packs, I don't see a reason why not.
|
On December 17 2014 00:16 -Archangel- wrote:
Destiny forgot that adding skins for SC2 units is not as easy. These skins would influence FPS of players. Sure you could make skins that would not, but you need a way to test it for weaker computers.
So it takes time and effort to make a skin, you cannot just mass produce it like in CS:GO. Letting community do some will present same problems.
For voice packs, I don't see a reason why not.
We are talking a 4 year old game :/
|
On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
hacking is getting worse as the game falls in price because the cost of getting caught falls.
the hacking problem gets 10,000 times worse when someone can just create a new free multiplayer account while hiding behind a VPN.
i wish Blizzard would make it so that i can see my own fancy skins on my units but my opponent just sees standard unit models/skins on his/her screen. until that happens Blizzard can't get too creative with skins.
|
On December 17 2014 00:16 -Archangel- wrote:
Destiny forgot that adding skins for SC2 units is not as easy. These skins would influence FPS of players. Sure you could make skins that would not, but you need a way to test it for weaker computers.
So it takes time and effort to make a skin, you cannot just mass produce it like in CS:GO. Letting community do some will present same problems.
For voice packs, I don't see a reason why not.
I think is not that hard to make simple skins, just like Dota does. Polygon count doesn't need to increase, neither texture size. It's all about optimizing. If they want, they can. They are doing it anyways for Heroes of the storm, though.
|
On December 17 2014 00:22 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 00:16 -Archangel- wrote:
Destiny forgot that adding skins for SC2 units is not as easy. These skins would influence FPS of players. Sure you could make skins that would not, but you need a way to test it for weaker computers.
So it takes time and effort to make a skin, you cannot just mass produce it like in CS:GO. Letting community do some will present same problems.
For voice packs, I don't see a reason why not. We are talking a 4 year old game :/
And the game still struggles even on super high-end PCs in massive 4v4 fights. Now let each player have totally unique skins and things get even harder.
|
In theory a nice read but i don't agree with him in the end.
I don't see how these things would change anything, you first need a game which is easy accesable if you wanna have high player numbers, micro transactions are only there to keep the people playing.
sc2 lacks this easy enjoyable mode, archond mode is a step in the right direction, but not enough.
I mostly agree with this. In addition to that, I think that skins fits a lot worse into an RTS for two reasons: (1) You feel less attached to your units in Sc2 than to your hero in a MOBA and (2) Skins fits worse into a game where there are lots of units as it easily can make it more confusing.
Destiny keeps believing that you can just turn around Sc2 by making it F2P and adding in microtransactions. But what he imo doesn't get is that you just can't turn around this type of game. Lots of people have tried it and quitted it. It has super high learning barriers and if the RTS genre is going to be popular in the future, it needs to reform it self. The underlying issue here isn't as much the business model, but rather the easiness of learning the game as a new player.
don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
Free multiplayer would be pretty bad as a big part of the target audience is paying $40 for the multiplayer only (probably around 500k). If you gave them multiplayer for free, Blizzard would lose a big chunk of money without any monetization to back it up.
|
One aspect I think alot of people are overlooking when they are begging for Blizzard to add all sorts of micro-transactions to SC2 is this: Both Dota 2 and CS:GO are just as good, or better, gameplay-wize than their predecessors. The mechanics that made Dota awesome are still there in Dota2, and CS:GO has the same kind of magic that 1.6 had.
The same cannot be said for SC2. SC2 is still outshined by it's predecessor in so many ways, and I think most people would agree that BW was still a better game than SC2 is. This is for me the biggest downfall for SC2, and if Blizzard cannot make SC2 to be just as good of a game as BW was, I don't think adding a bunch of micro-transactions will fix much tbh.
SC2 just isn't fun to watch. That's the main problem for the SC2 esports scene IMO. If LOTV can be just a really awesome game at it's core, and produce sick pro games, I bet the viewer numbers would go up significantly. I know I would start watching again.
|
On December 16 2014 19:01 Jarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 17:09 fruity. wrote:
I'd be happy too myself. Though I know Blizzard have said in the past that skins are an issue due to the extra graphical load.. Just add a toggle to turn these paid-for-addons on or off blizz.. doh.
I dont get this. So many games are able to scale down textures during heavy load times, especially in MMO's where theres tons of players. Just scale down the graphics and it's fine. I mean it only happens at 200/200 vs 200/200 right? Seems like a good idea to implement.
1. scaling down textures impacts "readability".
2. if the MMO were being played for $20,000 between 2 guys who spent the last 5 years of their life perfecting their skills and then 1 couldn't tell for certain what a unit on the screen was then you'd have giant protest.
3. WoL and HotS is playable on 32 Bit systems which can only instantly access 2 GB (2^32) of memory at one time.
with WoL and HotS Blizzard struck the correct balance between readability, fancy/flashy graphics, and keeping FPS high.
|
On December 17 2014 00:22 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 00:16 -Archangel- wrote:
Destiny forgot that adding skins for SC2 units is not as easy. These skins would influence FPS of players. Sure you could make skins that would not, but you need a way to test it for weaker computers.
So it takes time and effort to make a skin, you cannot just mass produce it like in CS:GO. Letting community do some will present same problems.
For voice packs, I don't see a reason why not. We are talking a 4 year old game :/
That has always tried to work on old computers as well. Also with LoL being tried by 67 000 000 people you can be sure many of those have more than 4 year old computers.
For big numbers SC2 has to appeal to gamers in all parts of the world with any computers. And most gamers are not rich enough to buy new computers often. USA and some richer parts of EU are not only gamers in the world, they are not even the bigger group, they are just the richest one.
|
I used to play at least 10 games of SC2 per day back in 2010-2013. I have been in Masters league for 15 seasons.
I barely play SC2 any more and have dropped out of Master league as a result. My reasons:
1. No reason for me to rank up. I know I cant reach Grandmasters, I have been in Masters multiple times.
2. MMR decay. This absolutely killed it for me. I have 2 accounts and I play on both EU and NA, both ranked and unranked. I also do not play more than maybe 5 games of SC2 a week. The result is that because of the MMR decay and the small amount of games I play per week, it would actually place me at the beginning of a season vs platinum/ sometimes gold players and I would have grind like 50+ games just to get back into Master league. I found this very discouraging. It's not like I suddenly lost my skill and deserve to be placed in Platinum league. And it's not fair for my opponents either.
3. No real community within Battle.net
|
I give credit to Destiny for thinking Blizzard will actually read and consider, seems like he spent some time writing that up. Sadly I have 0 faith in Blizzard. They have never shown any signs of wanting to make SC2 And Bnet 2.0 a great place.
|
On December 17 2014 00:30 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +In theory a nice read but i don't agree with him in the end.
I don't see how these things would change anything, you first need a game which is easy accesable if you wanna have high player numbers, micro transactions are only there to keep the people playing.
sc2 lacks this easy enjoyable mode, archond mode is a step in the right direction, but not enough. I mostly agree with this. In addition to that, I think that skins fits a lot worse into an RTS for two reasons: (1) You feel less attached to your units in Sc2 than to your hero in a MOBA and (2) Skins fits worse into a game where there are lots of units as it easily can make it more confusing. Destiny keeps believing that you can just turn around Sc2 by making it F2P and adding in microtransactions. But what he imo doesn't get is that you just can't turn around this type of game. Lots of people have tried it and quitted it. It has super high learning barriers and if the RTS genre is going to be popular in the future, it needs to reform it self. The underlying issue here isn't as much the business model, but rather the easiness of learning the game as a new player. Show nested quote +
don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
Free multiplayer would be pretty bad as a big part of the target audience is paying $40 for the multiplayer only (probably around 500k). If you gave them multiplayer for free, Blizzard would lose a big chunk of money without any monetization to back it up.
but that's the point. If they give free multiplayer but make it a microtransaction system, it might actually get more people interested in the RTS genre, more people might give it a chance, Archon mode might be something actually pretty cool. There's so many ways to turn SC into something profitable, but they're not willing to do it. Every single sign points to this investment by Blizzard as something of a good thing. eSports has grown tremendously in the last few years. SC has always been one of the leaders in that aspect, despite being a hard game to play.
|
On December 17 2014 01:15 Psychobabas wrote:
I used to play at least 10 games of SC2 per day back in 2010-2013. I have been in Masters league for 15 seasons.
I barely play SC2 any more and have dropped out of Master league as a result. My reasons:
1. No reason for me to rank up. I know I cant reach Grandmasters, I have been in Masters multiple times.
2. MMR decay. This absolutely killed it for me. I have 2 accounts and I play on both EU and NA, both ranked and unranked. I also do not play more than maybe 5 games of SC2 a week. The result is that because of the MMR decay and the small amount of games I play per week, it would actually place me at the beginning of a season vs platinum/ sometimes gold players and I would have grind like 50+ games just to get back into Master league. I found this very discouraging. It's not like I suddenly lost my skill and deserve to be placed in Platinum league. And it's not fair for my opponents either.
3. No real community within Battle.net
Also this.
#3 especially. I would not be playing SC2 right now if not for this group of people on Skype that I play with on a regular basis. 1v1 is lonely as hell, but it becomes so much better when you actually have a support system and friends to play with (or watch your stream, or chat about strats with, or complain about protoss with)
Otherwise it just becomes bar code vs bar code and who the hell wants that as a casual player.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 17 2014 01:16 DwD wrote:
I give credit to Destiny for thinking Blizzard will actually read and consider, seems like he spent some time writing that up. Sadly I have 0 faith in Blizzard. They have never shown any signs of wanting to make SC2 And Bnet 2.0 a great place.
I think they have, they just have somewhat inflated confidence in their own direction and ability to make SC2 the best it can be. I absolutely don't think Blizzard have made only bad calls with SC2, it's just that they're bad at knowing when to listen and learn and when to not.
|
Blizzard is literally a shadow of its former self, or maybe they just haven't evolved and their business model is outdated and expired. They seem so clueless about how to develop games their fans want in a timely manner. What are their most recent offerings? A card game? YEAH no. Not going to bother with that. A moba? Um yeah ok a little late for that. More WoW? You would think that they would have realized after having success with WoW that they would find a way to monetize all the games that came afterwards but instead they didnt and then the game suffers because blizzard didnt find a way to make it profitable for them to continue diligent work on it. Diablo 3? Wow was that game terrible upon release. The most promising thing blizz has goin for it is overwatch which to be honest could crash and burn miserably. My only thought is that blizz is going to monetize overwatch the way valve did with csgo and then make it f2p. They just dont have the leadership they need AKA someone to put their foot down, present the issues, and have them addressed promptly and completely.
|
Well if this is all true and if the issues lie with ActiBlizz mostly and not RTS popularity decline in general then we should see another rival company introduce a new RTS that can rival the big boys in MOBA and FPS. With the corporate types involved in gaming these days they will not miss that big a trick.
|
On December 17 2014 01:33 johnbongham wrote:
Blizzard is literally a shadow of its former self, or maybe they just haven't evolved and their business model is outdated and expired. They seem so clueless about how to develop games their fans want in a timely manner. What are their most recent offerings? A card game? YEAH no. Not going to bother with that. A moba? Um yeah ok a little late for that. More WoW? You would think that they would have realized after having success with WoW that they would find a way to monetize all the games that came afterwards but instead they didnt and then the game suffers because blizzard didnt find a way to make it profitable for them to continue diligent work on it. Diablo 3? Wow was that game terrible upon release. The most promising thing blizz has goin for it is overwatch which to be honest could crash and burn miserably. My only thought is that blizz is going to monetize overwatch the way valve did with csgo and then make it f2p. They just dont have the leadership they need AKA someone to put their foot down, present the issues, and have them addressed promptly and completely.
Hearthstone seems to be doing pretty well for a side project, wow still has like 7 million subscribers, d3 sold 20 million copies. Yep, Sounds like blizzard is doing terribly and need to change asap 
|
On December 17 2014 01:47 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 01:33 johnbongham wrote:
Blizzard is literally a shadow of its former self, or maybe they just haven't evolved and their business model is outdated and expired. They seem so clueless about how to develop games their fans want in a timely manner. What are their most recent offerings? A card game? YEAH no. Not going to bother with that. A moba? Um yeah ok a little late for that. More WoW? You would think that they would have realized after having success with WoW that they would find a way to monetize all the games that came afterwards but instead they didnt and then the game suffers because blizzard didnt find a way to make it profitable for them to continue diligent work on it. Diablo 3? Wow was that game terrible upon release. The most promising thing blizz has goin for it is overwatch which to be honest could crash and burn miserably. My only thought is that blizz is going to monetize overwatch the way valve did with csgo and then make it f2p. They just dont have the leadership they need AKA someone to put their foot down, present the issues, and have them addressed promptly and completely. Hearthstone seems to be doing pretty well for a side project, wow still has like 7 million subscribers, d3 sold 20 million copies. Yep, Sounds like blizzard is doing terribly and need to change asap
the latest word is WoW is at 10 million subscribers again.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/11/19/7250737/world-of-warcraft-warlords-draenor-10-million-subscribers
Blizzard hit a home run with the latest WoW expansion.
|
good read . I agree with most of the points .
I fell in love with starcraft starting with starcraft 1 .
I like starcraft 2 very much but I loved starcraft 1 .
Due to time constrictions stacraft 2 is the only game i follow and sometimes play.
I check teamliquid at least 4 times/day
but even for me , who only follows starcraft 2 is clear they can/should improve things to make it great .
I have no problem with them needing to make money to keep the game fresh.
I want to give them money because I love starcraft and it gave me some awesome moments, like when EG-TL in proleague was announced , idra when he loved the game , day9 etc.
we'll see what happens but it does not look good.
|
How's is Blizzard not supporting SC2 with setting up WCS and putting $1.6 million out there in prize pool money? In addition, SC2 is free when using the Arcade, Customs and Spawning. As much as I love SC2 and want it to be the big fish in eSports, people have to realize it's a niche game and no amount of money is going to make it 'bigger.' Looking at the numbers SC2 is not a 'ded game.' With the rise of Twitch and eSports events, SC2 was simply the big fish in the pond. Now we're in the Ocean and SC2 is not the big fish. Accept that SC2 is niche and has a vibrant community to support it.
|
On December 16 2014 19:43 Big J wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one around who doesn't care at all about skins and bullcrap like that.
Skins don't matter you're 100% correct. But (and using the CS:GO as model) It would be a way for blizzard to get additional revenue, which would justify some pen-pusher-higher-up-the-chain to have dev's working on other features.
So from this angle alone I think it would be an excelent step forward. They do this in WoW so why not SC2? No one would be forced into buying them.
|
The real key to making SC2 more (enduringly) popular is to make team games more fun. There were thousands of people who played BW pretty much solely for team maps like BGH and money maps it just seemed to be more fun than SC2 has managed so far. If they could crack that nut they could keep so many more players than currently.
|
Great read, but at this point it feels like we've seen these complaints over and over again, and people are so defensive of Blizzard at times that even constructive criticism gets dismissed by the community as nonsense. Not only is blizzard incredibly bad at listening to the community, it's even worse that we don't have a unified voice. Why would they change their shit if half the community acts blind?
I don't play starcraft 2 anymore, I have about 8 friends who used to watch SC2, hell, a few of us went to 2 barcraft events, we'd meet up at my place and watch MLG, but fuck, literally every single person I played with got bored with it, and I'm one of them. Some are old time BW fans like me and they won't buy the expansion - I know I will, but I'm not hyped at all... and it absolutely sucks. I hope Blizzard will listen to these ideas, because I miss my Starcrafts, man.
|
I think most of the objections to the micro transactions are either totally speculative to the point of being silly (like skins wouldn't work because you're not as attached to your units) or really solvable. The bottom line is, as long as you have the option to turn opponent skins off, nothing has to change for the competitive player while the newer/more casual player can have fun tinkering with them. And the idea that sc2 is neither fun to play or fails to attract new players is ridiculous. It has over 200k ranked 1v1 accounts this season, which doesn't account for unranked players or those players who only play team games and custom games, and still would be considered a thriving player base for any title that wasn't less than six months old. I think LoL has blinded people to what success is.
And there are new players on the ladder all the time. I see a player with less than 100 career wins almost every time I ladder.
Monotizing this shit would make blizzard money, hands down. But I'm not sure the development team can get past the red tape. Blizzard is really, really behind the times.
|
Regardless of what blizzard PR reps say, the signs have been clear for a long time what blizzard intends to do with their money & with regards to esports. heroes of the storm so far looks like it will be their real push into "big" contemporary esports, as they have completely shaken up the monetization scheme from their traditional games.
It's nice to think that they'll give LOTV all the support it deserves but I don't see any reason to expect legitimate effort going into revitalizing that game's long term competitive sustainability. It would be nice if Blizzard surprises us (and I'm sure LOTV will be a fun expo at the very least) but after years of relative passivity I don't think there is any logical foundation to believe that SC2 will be redesigned as a modern esport with a modern business model.
|
|
|
On December 17 2014 00:16 -Archangel- wrote:
Destiny forgot that adding skins for SC2 units is not as easy. These skins would influence FPS of players.
In game option:
ENABLE ADDITIONAL SKINS?
Enabling this may cause FPS issues on older hardware.
|
On December 17 2014 02:32 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 00:16 -Archangel- wrote:
Destiny forgot that adding skins for SC2 units is not as easy. These skins would influence FPS of players. In game option: ENABLE ADDITIONAL SKINS? Enabling this may cause FPS issues on older hardware.
We don't have the technology for that yet.
|
On December 17 2014 02:23 Erik.TheRed wrote:
Regardless of what blizzard PR reps say, the signs have been clear for a long time what blizzard intends to do with their money & with regards to esports. heroes of the storm so far looks like it will be their real push into "big" contemporary esports, as they have completely shaken up the monetization scheme from their traditional games.
It's nice to think that they'll give LOTV all the support it deserves but I don't see any reason to expect legitimate effort going into revitalizing that game's long term competitive sustainability. It would be nice if Blizzard surprises us (and I'm sure LOTV will be a fun expo at the very least) but after years of relative passivity I don't think there is any logical foundation to believe that SC2 will be redesigned as a modern esport with a modern business model.
And you really gotta wonder why they're doing this. LoL and Dota 2 make up the vast majority of the MOBA games, while SC2 is basically the only competitive RTS game that's being played. I guess they're going by the strategy that 5% of a 40million+ player base is better than 500k-1million players of a genre they basically created. Just depressing for us RTS fans.
|
Nobody is buying Blizz's "we listen to feedback" -jargon when broodlord-infestor etc. ruined the game for god knows how long and the main sc2 site (tl obviously) is trying to downplay the horrible balance/design issues by banning whiners, who actually, even though shitposting, could have saved the game by making enough noise to change the game for better.
That's also one of the main reasons cs:go has been patched so many times, while sc2 not. Good job guys, you kept your higher moral ground. Unfortunately it didn't help the game.
|
On December 16 2014 21:54 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote:
It is a shame that valve is not making any RTS.
Dota 2 has patches very often, some of them to improve the performance.
I have not seen any patch in sc2 that improves the fps of the game.
On December 16 2014 21:49 xuanzue wrote:
Because Valve devs said they have no idea how to make rts game.. regardless to fact that their servers rts games like AoE2HD sucks ass :D...
My sarcastic side says well valve couldn't make it any worse.
Broodwar was left unpatched by Blizzard for like 6-7 odd years, entirely up to the community with map design to try and balance.
When you view things from this angle, how they seem to wait too long to patch - terran dominance in wol, broodwar/infestor in early hots, buffing widow mines and nerfing blink, then nerfing widow mines.. I'm begin to wonder if blizzard know what they're doing too.
|
There is something about this whole campaign for F2P which confuses me, I can't quite place it.
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old. So it's really too much for Destiny to start ranting at Blizzard and accusing them of ignorance.
|
On December 16 2014 22:25 Wildmoon wrote:
It may become popular again but not in the form of traditional RTS we know and love for sure. If RTS is going to survive this, it needs to adapt itself to not be fundamentally demanding as it is now. Are you ok with that? Also, a game can be really fun when you can actually play it at decent level but it won't be popular because of its inaccessible nature.
I see your point here. But the answer lies in match ups. New players and those of less skill playing only against (guess what!) New players and those of less skill. Having diamond players playing against bronze to gold levels (either because they are douche bags or the MMR system isn't promoting them fast enough) Is a big part of this issue.
The skilled / Hardcore gamers get match ups vs. skilled / hardcore. Problem solved (maybe).
|
On December 16 2014 19:31 Clonester wrote:
Destiny making friends again...
Thank god he is.
Although it's bizare, back in WOL the whole community was saying "give it time; pro gamers will figure it out", "balanced fixed with maps" or "small changes please, blizzard!". It's like a 180 today. Of course, it was years ago and things change.
|
On December 17 2014 02:48 Grumbels wrote:
There is something about this whole campaign for F2P which confuses me, I can't quite place it.
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old. So it's really too much for Destiny to start ranting at Blizzard and accusing them of ignorance.
While I would love to have capes for my banelings I don't see the lack of micro transactions to be SC2s main problem. The main problem is that it emphasizes the 1v1 ladder which is is perceived as being too difficult or intimidating for your average gamer.
|
I think that Blizzard should patch the game more, but not really according to a "community feedback" or whatever. I don't believe that most of the coveted "public opinion" is more than bullshit. They should have a general vision of how the game will look like and then just play around with ideas around it. What would the feedback even be? Most "hardcore TL fans" want the game mechanically more like BW, which would mean instant loss of basically everyone else - there is really no general consensus even on the very basics. And many percieved "imbalancess" are just whining: yes, I hated BL-inf, but if you listen to Joe Battlenet, he will tell you that the pylong is overpowered ...
Honestly, all the glorious HoTS (and now LoTV) stuff and "radical redesigns" are changes that could be just one in a series of monthly patches, it's not really such a rocket science as everyone wants it to seem and it's exactly what dota has - steering stuff constantly, now and then.
PS: And when it comes to monetizing, I had recently a groundbreaking idea: Who doesn't love winning right? So let's make it pay2win (oh.....), but in a different sense - keep the game fair, but allow people to pay for easier opponents in matchmaking. Hardcore competitive players won't do it (and won't really be affected much by it), while the low leagueres will end up overbidding each other unless they want to lose 75% of games to people who paid more than them )
|
Canada11316 Posts
On December 17 2014 00:30 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +In theory a nice read but i don't agree with him in the end.
I don't see how these things would change anything, you first need a game which is easy accesable if you wanna have high player numbers, micro transactions are only there to keep the people playing.
sc2 lacks this easy enjoyable mode, archond mode is a step in the right direction, but not enough. I mostly agree with this. In addition to that, I think that skins fits a lot worse into an RTS for two reasons: (1) You feel less attached to your units in Sc2 than to your hero in a MOBA and (2) Skins fits worse into a game where there are lots of units as it easily can make it more confusing.Destiny keeps believing that you can just turn around Sc2 by making it F2P and adding in microtransactions. But what he imo doesn't get is that you just can't turn around this type of game. Lots of people have tried it and quitted it. It has super high learning barriers and if the RTS genre is going to be popular in the future, it needs to reform it self. The underlying issue here isn't as much the business model, but rather the easiness of learning the game as a new player. Show nested quote +
don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
Free multiplayer would be pretty bad as a big part of the target audience is paying $40 for the multiplayer only (probably around 500k). If you gave them multiplayer for free, Blizzard would lose a big chunk of money without any monetization to back it up.
Definitely agree with #2. If the skins are anything but really conservative changes, you will likely increase the learning curve a multiple times over if skins are accessible to low level players. Starcraft is successful in that it has fewer units with fairly unique looks (compared to Supcom that has three tiers of factories each with four vaguely similar looking units.) A massive amount of skin changes affects rapid identification and interupts learning the game- perhaps causing even issues at higher levels. On the micro level, there are some skins in LoL that I have to think really hard what some of the heroes are because I don't play quite enough to immediately some of the crazier skins- especially ones that change the predominant colours.
I'm not saying monetizing skins is necessarily a bad idea in Starcraft, but I do think it has a greater impact on learning the game because you are dealing with entire armies that can be changed in different ways rather than just at most 10 heroes having different skins.
|
Here's a list of things that causal players actually care about
And by casual players i don't mean the one who linger around hc forums like teamliquid and watch every tournament they can. We are a bit of a special demographic in that regard. We will allways be big fans of this game.
- skins and other visual customization
- having alot of ways to play the game or parts of it with friends such as archon mode and 2v2
- achievable goals such as the league colors
- less mechanically demanding ways to play the game
Alot of causal players do not appreciate the fact that sc2 is mechanically demanding. Yes the game would be much less complex if it wasn't because there are alot of little things and decisions that set apart the great from the good. But from a casual players perspective they don't even think of sc2 as a strategy game because they don't actually strategize. The only and biggest ways for them to improve is to train mechanics and other fundamentals.
Things that casual players don't like (some even think these shouldn't be in an RTS!):
- mechanically demanding micro, especially with multiple units
- multitasking
- macro management
Things they like:
- being rewarded regularly and obviously
- having visual things to stand apart and feel unique
- humor
- making big decisions
- simple / dumbed down strategy (this shouldn't sound like an insult but it's true in its core)
This is why "UMS" / "funmaps" / "arcade" was allways the thing ppl played alot and loved. Those often feature dumbed down strategy, a clear focus on the main screen without switching it around alot and less mechanically demanding control.
The subgenres of RTS like Moba, TD, Thug wars emerged because of exactly this reason. They all extracted one of the fun parts of RTS (esp blizzard RTS) and made it the main focus while simplifying control and the strategic aspect.
To be honest I think skins and voice packs can be very successful for sc2 and the players will love it but the game itself has to offer more playable modes and maps.
Another list: Things that causal players like/love about sc2 and lotv so far from what I hear and read:
- archon mode!
- achievements, portaits and the few unit models sc2 allready has. they love this shit. really.
- in WoL there where these micro training challenges. I have alot of friends who would play things like these on and on. Its a cool and rewarding way to improve parts of the game and getting better at them. The achievement rewards are also crucial to this. Look at skillvideos / speedruns from other games. This is similar.
Also what they like about other blizzard games are periodic events! WoW's server events and daily quests where a huge fun factor and kept the player base fresh and active for a long time. Same goes for Wc3 weekly tournaments, the Hearthstone challenges etc etc. Those periodic events and challenges keep the game fresh and intersting.
How about a weekly micro challenge? or Multitask challenge? Hosted by blizzard and rewarded with cool visual stuff so you can show off. These are the kinds of things that make the hearts of the dirty casual masses pumping!
And these are the features that sc2 needs more of. Hell blizzard thought of them since WoL. They made the control easier, they made all those little fun maps and challenges, they made the skins and the portraits, the levels and so on but we laughed at them for doing so. Now finnaly everyone realizes how important and successful these things are. They only need to do more of those!
On December 17 2014 02:57 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 02:48 Grumbels wrote:
There is something about this whole campaign for F2P which confuses me, I can't quite place it.
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old. So it's really too much for Destiny to start ranting at Blizzard and accusing them of ignorance. While I would love to have capes for my banelings I don't see the lack of micro transactions to be SC2s main problem. The main problem is that it emphasizes the 1v1 ladder which is is perceived as being too difficult or intimidating for your average gamer.
This is very true! 1on1 is super intimidating for them. My flatmate for example really likes to watch sc2 with me and also watches me play. But when I ask him for 1on1 practices he declines. But he's a guy who plays the shit out of every single player challenge and he really loves well made arcade games and stuff like that.
|
On December 17 2014 03:05 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 00:30 Hider wrote:In theory a nice read but i don't agree with him in the end.
I don't see how these things would change anything, you first need a game which is easy accesable if you wanna have high player numbers, micro transactions are only there to keep the people playing.
sc2 lacks this easy enjoyable mode, archond mode is a step in the right direction, but not enough. I mostly agree with this. In addition to that, I think that skins fits a lot worse into an RTS for two reasons: (1) You feel less attached to your units in Sc2 than to your hero in a MOBA and (2) Skins fits worse into a game where there are lots of units as it easily can make it more confusing.Destiny keeps believing that you can just turn around Sc2 by making it F2P and adding in microtransactions. But what he imo doesn't get is that you just can't turn around this type of game. Lots of people have tried it and quitted it. It has super high learning barriers and if the RTS genre is going to be popular in the future, it needs to reform it self. The underlying issue here isn't as much the business model, but rather the easiness of learning the game as a new player.
don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
Free multiplayer would be pretty bad as a big part of the target audience is paying $40 for the multiplayer only (probably around 500k). If you gave them multiplayer for free, Blizzard would lose a big chunk of money without any monetization to back it up. Definitely agree with #2. If the skins are anything but really conservative changes, you will likely increase the learning curve a multiple times over if skins are accessible to low level players. Starcraft is successful in that it has fewer units with fairly unique looks (compared to Supcom that has three tiers of factories each with four vaguely similar looking units.) A massive amount of skin changes affects rapid identification and interupts learning the game- perhaps causing even issues at higher levels. On the micro level, there are some skins in LoL that I have to think really hard what some of the heroes are because I don't play quite enough to immediately some of the crazier skins- especially ones that change the predominant colours. I'm not saying monetizing skins is necessarily a bad idea in Starcraft, but I do think it has a greater impact on learning the game because you are dealing with entire armies that can be changed in different ways rather than just at most 10 heroes having different skins.
Yeah, I like the fact that Starcraft 2 multiplayer is very clean: only three races, with a small set of units per race. If the game was better and more accessible everyone would be happy.
People are so influenced by the examples around them that they can no longer think for themselves. Five years ago everyone was being lyrical about how SC2 would be the new chess(simple, focus on gameplay), but now that MOBA games are popular all of a sudden there is this demand for a cluttered game with constant updates and incessant advertisements for all sorts of obnoxious skins and party hats. It will change nothing, the core game is still the same, you'll just have a few more distractions.
Btw, case in point: four years ago I made a post along the lines of that Blizzard should add a secondary female ghost model to the game, just like the two versions of the dark templar, and the response was overwhelmingly negative because supposedly it would only add clutter. I'm sure the same idea would receive better response today.
|
yeah thats why there has to be more stuff like the WoL challenges. Casual players really like focussing on 1 thing and doing it right. Challenges like that would not only be fun for alot of ppl but would also improve parts of their gameplay and make the core game more accessible.
I can think of alot of different kinds that ppl would play the shit out of.
- any kind of micro challenge with increasignly harder to pull of combos (tons of possiblities)
- defense challenge with periodic attacks you have to survive, possible with stages where you have to expand as well
- they even like and heavily appreciate spreading creep such as in the campaign
- "make the right composition vs this"-challenge
etc.
It would be even better if those things would be periodic, like monthly / weekly or w/e to keep it fresh and exciting. They could also make them compare the scores and whatnot with friends and pros which is super fun as well. They just have to appear important and the rewards and points have to be visible and prominent.
|
What he says is so so true and yet nothing will change. SC2 will truly be the ded gaem everyone talks about in no time. It already kind of is.
|
On December 17 2014 01:33 johnbongham wrote:
Blizzard is literally a shadow of its former self, or maybe they just haven't evolved and their business model is outdated and expired. They seem so clueless about how to develop games their fans want in a timely manner. What are their most recent offerings? A card game? YEAH no. Not going to bother with that. A moba? Um yeah ok a little late for that. More WoW? You would think that they would have realized after having success with WoW that they would find a way to monetize all the games that came afterwards but instead they didnt and then the game suffers because blizzard didnt find a way to make it profitable for them to continue diligent work on it. Diablo 3? Wow was that game terrible upon release. The most promising thing blizz has goin for it is overwatch which to be honest could crash and burn miserably. My only thought is that blizz is going to monetize overwatch the way valve did with csgo and then make it f2p. They just dont have the leadership they need AKA someone to put their foot down, present the issues, and have them addressed promptly and completely.
Hearthstone was/is a massive hit they really hit the nail on the head with it and probably made a shit ton of money doing so.
Blizzard are doing lots of things right, main things are more micro to be input in the game (lotv doing this) so it's easy for newer players to see that the pro players are really good. A better community system, they need people to be put into groups based on language have one main community section a part where you can voice chat amongst a group (getting rid of the skype need) like the guy said a couple posts up, 1vs1 can be/is lonely, it's fun but you can get cut off and when something makes you tilt you don't have a good medium for venting it (unless it's going at the other player which makes the community seem "toxic")
Automated tournaments (blizzard doing this)
Decrease the price for the game, make it like £10 and input things like different HUDs and mainly different voices ingame no skins or capital building only skins, just small things that aren't units and are easy to distinguish.
|
I agree with almost any point Destiny is making.
The point that SC2 needs to be enjoyable for casual players is valid and imo often overlooked in the TL forums because most of us are long-time players who don't think about the needs of casual gamers.
However, to motivate a player to play for skins like Destiny proposes, will only work if the player plans to play it for a long time anyway (to show off the skins later.)
Meaning, just introducing unlockable stuff will probably not motivate many to play unless they have a desire to invest much time in that game anyway.
Imagine I want to play something with my friends who are not starcraft players. Everyone has a bit of fun in Quake or Unreal, even in Counter-Strike. But no-one of them likes to play SC because they know they will lose badly.
It is just not feasible to say "Okay, watch all Day[9] and Jakattack videos, practice for three months and then we can have a fair game."
|
On December 16 2014 19:04 Grumbels wrote:
In my opinion, skins are a predatory business model and many people that champion it have no actual intention to buy skins, while seeking to profit from those who will.
Can we please keep our old and fair model of: 'buy a game = access a game' ?
This has always been my opinion about so-called Free to Play business models. The idea behind the model is that you only take little bits of money at a time, so people don't really notice how much money they're spending. That's absolutely great news for the company, but it sucks for the customer who winds up spending >$300 on a game like LoL that would cost maybe $30 at release if it were sold as a box title.
Obviously it helps if the micro-transactions are for aesthetics instead of gaining benefits that actually improve your winrate, but in either case the model preys on human psychology ("Only 1$? That's practically nothing!") to get more money without having to make a better product. The same principle of human psychology affects me during Steam sales – I see a game, and think, "if it's only $.79, how much can I really regret the purchase?" And soon enough I have hundreds of dollars of Steam library – but at least at the end of the day I own things that actually took time and effort of a company to make, not just a few hours of a graphic artist's time to create a 3D model.
Day[9] recently said some stuff about how he likes the Free to Play model because it aligns everyone's incentives. Customers give their money over time, instead of all at once, so the company still has incentive to keep the game good so people will still play and spend money. This is only sort of true. Certainly the company has the incentive to keep the game good to keep people playing and/or attract more players. But didn't they anyway in the old release followed by expansions model? Blizzard wants to keep Starcraft good, because it will keep people playing or attract more players, which in turn will bring them more money when they release the next expansion.
And does the Free to Play model align incentives, anyway? Suppose Blizzard puts out a free to play game, for which they have to make an engine, characters, environments, game rules, menus – the whole shebang. But when it releases, they put all that out for free and only charge money for skins. What part do they have the incentive to improve? Well, the skins, of course! Don't get me wrong, they'd like to improve the game in other ways, too, because it might have some more vague effect on player counts, which could influence skin purchases. But much more directly influential on their profits will be to just focus on putting out more and better skins so people spend more money. So if they can spend time either: a) create a new map which will revitalize gameplay, or b) toss out a fresh skin for some character, in terms of incentives, they'll do the latter.
I don't follow either Dota 2 or LoL much, but this has been my impression of their development. The only thing that expands much over time is the thing that they charge money for. So LoL will periodically put out new champions and skins, and Dota will mostly put out new skins, and everything else is on a back burner. There's the occasional balance patch or quality of life patch; they probably have at least a few programmers in charge of tracking down and killing weird bugs; but mostly there's no work put in where there's no profit. Heroes of the Storm started getting publicity and one of its big selling points was that they're making new and interesting maps – but why hadn't MOBAs done that before if not because there's no money in it?
|
He has a point when he says there is a demand that isn't being satisfied right now.
If a developper would release tomorow an accessible, fun to play F2P RTS it would be the nail in the coffin for SC2.
I know I would play the hell out of it because it would be something new and fresh. Something that LotV, just like its predecessor, isn't meant to be for Blizzard.
Also, it's easy to say that a big casual player base is healthier. To attract casual players you make your game free ( or cheap, or even easy to pirate, ermBWhum ) and to keep them playing you make your game good. I'm not sure that SC2 at its core can keep their players, because of reason already discussed at lenghts.
|
Reading that article made me remember DJ wheat, I totally forgot him :O where did he go?
|
On December 17 2014 03:51 SoSexy wrote:
Reading that article made me remember DJ wheat, I totally forgot him :O where did he go?
He became a Twitch millionaire.
|
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. On the other hand, I actually believed he was right 2 years ago, and just felt the whole concept of "if they can monetize it, they have an incentive to continue to develop it + more players if F2P" was so brilliant. There was some logic to it, and it was something that could benefit everybody, so you really wanted to believe the thesis was correct.
But the more I critically thought about the underlying assumptions, the less lucrative it seemed, and thus I gradaully changed my mind.
An example of a claim he makes - with no support at all - is that the F2P-model is tested and it works! But not in an RTS, from my experience C&C tried to do it, but didn't see a market for it and therefore the game wasn't released. Age of Empires Online tried and failed. Then we can discuss the various reasons for them failing, but the fact of the matter is that this is not a tested model in the RTS genre at all. The idea that because it works in MOBA/CS --> Also works in SC2 is a logical error.
Moreover, at no point in time has he actually attempted to use numbers to estimate the financial viability of this model. A real analysis would contain estimates of how the playerbase would change under a free-to-play scenario. ARPU (average revenue per user) and how much it would cost to develop.
But unless you end up with a really high revenue estimates (and you need really good arguments to back up why you believe the ARPU will be XX and why the playerbase will go up so much), you probably just need to let the benefit of the doubt go in favor of Blizzard. We have no idea how much it costs to develop this. But Blizzard has, they can even come up with more reliable estimates on revenue than we can as they have more expertise and more data.
For some mysterial reason, Destiny and a big part of the community think that these arguments Destiny brings up needs to be repeated because otherwise Blizzard would have no idea that you could monetize stuff.... Please give Blizzard some credit on areas where they know a ton more than we do.
At last, his big thesis is that you can revaliatze a "dying" game with a change in business model. What is he basing this of? How often in the gaming history has a game that was sucesful for a couple of years, suddenly become popular once again? And if this has happened previously, was it related to a change in the business model?
Let's look at HON. They were doing decently a couple of years ago. Then DOTA 2 came, and they reacted by changing the business model..... Didn't work. Anyone have an example here? Obviously CS GO could revializate counterstrike, but that was postioned as a new game. LOTV isn't comparable to CS GO here. And making it F2P and add skins won't change anything in peoples minds. It will still be seen as this super-hard-to learn/un-fun for casuals game.
Destiny are making the same arguments over and over and it's been 2 years. Perhaps it's time for him to actually back it up with relevant empirical arguments and numbers, instead of repeating the same unnaunced stuff over and over.
|
On December 17 2014 03:58 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 03:51 SoSexy wrote:
Reading that article made me remember DJ wheat, I totally forgot him :O where did he go? He became a Twitch millionaire.
I miss him too. I watched nearly all his shows. Same goes for SotG and Day9. Really miss all of those. At least Day9 is still putting up some sc2 content. Man... SotG was so much fun, especially with the regulars. There was alot of interesting stuff happening between the guys during the show and they had alot of interesting things to say.
|
but that's the point. If they give free multiplayer but make it a microtransaction system, it might actually get more people interested in the RTS genre, more people might give it a chance,
But the flaw with this argument is that you can say this to every single "unpopular" game right now. Just make it free and then more people will play it and the gaming-company will earn more money. So why doesn't every single gaming-company do that, and why isn't every single game really popular?
This is backwards-logic, becasue if a game really was popular, it would still be highly played by its existing playerbase. Sc2 has sold 7M copies, if the game was so superfun it wouldn't just have 50K active multiplayer-players (or w/e the actual number is).
A lot of people already see Sc2 as this super-hard game. That's what it is positioned as in the mainstream-gaming media. If you are going to change peoples perception you will need a complete repositioning of the game. Just adding in Archon-mode isn't enough. You still have all these timings you need to learn, which means you need to seek external information on builds etc to do well. Hearthstone works because it has an inbuild tutorial and you can just play a bit here and there and learn the game and have fun.
Sc2 is way too far away from that. I know every Sc2 fan wants to belief that if just "X happened", then Sc2 would be superpopular again, but unfortunately it's just wish-thinking.
From a monetary perspective, it doesn't make sense for Blizzard to invest a lot of ressources into Sc2 just so they can make the game F2P and thereby have no up-front earnings, but instead cross-finger that people will buy lots of skins to their units, which they - unlike in a MOBA - do not feel attached to + also hope that the skins won't be too confusing when you have lots of them in the battlefield.
|
On December 17 2014 04:25 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +but that's the point. If they give free multiplayer but make it a microtransaction system, it might actually get more people interested in the RTS genre, more people might give it a chance, But the flaw with this argument is that you can say this to every single "unpopular" game right now. Just make it free and then more people will play it and the gaming-company will earn more money. This is backwards-logic, becasue if a game really was popular, it would still be highly played by its existing playerbase. Sc2 has sold 7M copies, if the game was so superfun it wouldn't just have 50K active multiplayer-players (or w/e the actual number is). A lot of people already see Sc2 as this super-hard game. That's what it is positioned as in the mainstream-gaming media. If you are going to change peoples perception you will need a complete repositioning of the game. Just adding in Archon-mode isn't enough. You still have all these timings you need to learn, which means you need to seek external information on builds etc to do well. Hearthstone works because it has an inbuild tutorial and you can just play a bit here and there and learn the game and have fun. Sc2 is way too far away from that. I know every Sc2 fan wants to belief that if just "X happened", then Sc2 would be superpopular again, but unfortunately it's just wish-thinking.
Nios.kr has it around 400k per season. (end of season) this season it's 250k.
|
On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject.
This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted.
As an example, he claims that the F2P-model is tested and it works! Not in an RTS, from my experience C&C tried to do it, but didn't see a market for it and therefore the game wasn't released. Age of Empires Online tried and failed. Then we can discuss the various reasons for them failing, but the fact of the matter is that this is not a tested model in the RTS genre at all. The idea that because it works in MOBA/CS --> Also works in SC2 is a logical error.
The F2P model with micro-transactions is tested and works in FPS and MOBA games. TF2, Dota 2, LoL, etc..Why wouldn't it work with an RTS game? Even BW was pretty much F2P later on in its life if you used the ICCup launcher, though there were no microtransactions there.
Moreover, at no point in time has he actually attempted to use numbers to estimate the financial viability of this model. A real analysis would contain estimates of how the playerbase would change under a free-to-play scenario. ARPU (average revenue per user) and how much it would cost to develop.
Because we don't have access to the playerbase. Want real numbers? All Blizzard has to do is poll their audience. Or they can demo release ONE skin, look at the reception, and try to gauge reaction from there. It's not really possible for us to do as a community.
For some mysterial reason, Destiny and a big part of the community think that these arguments Destiny brings up needs to be repeated because otherwise Blizzard would have no idea that you could monetize stuff.... Please give Blizzard some credit on areas where they know a ton more than we do.
If Blizzard didn't luck into Hearthstone (which even they admit was completely luck), where would they be right now? SC2 is in a sad state, D3 was fucked on launch, even though it's gotten tremendously better (via support from the developer, gasp!) WoW has gotten better as of the recent patch (again, more dev support!), and then there's Heroes of the Storm...I think it's okay to be a little critical of Blizzard.
At last, his big thesis is that you can revaliatze a "dying" game with a change in business model. What is he basing this of? How often in the gaming history has a game that was sucesful for a couple of years, suddenly become popular once again?
I don't know if you're just trolling here or acting intentionally retarded, but the entire section on CS:GO addresses this.
Let's look at HON. They were doing decently a couple of years ago. Then DOTA 2 came, and they reacted by changing the business model..... Didn't work. Anyone have an example here? Obviously CS GO could revializate counterstrike, but that was postioned as a new game. LOTV isn't comparable to CS GO here. And making it F2P and add skins won't change anything in peoples minds. It will still be seen as this super-hard-to learn/un-fun for casuals game.
HoN adapted their business model WHEN THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD, lol. They charged for their game for way way way too long. It's entirely possible HoN would still be around if they adopted a newer business model quicker. CS:GO was also not "positioned as a new game", it was out for a full year before it finally got its act together and it was dead as fuck for a long time after it was released.
Destiny are making the same arguments over and over and it's been 2 years. Perhaps it's time for him to actually back it up with relevant empirical arguments and numbers, instead of repeating the same unnaunced stuff over and over.
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.
|
On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. As an example, he claims that the F2P-model is tested and it works! Not in an RTS, from my experience C&C tried to do it, but didn't see a market for it and therefore the game wasn't released. Age of Empires Online tried and failed. Then we can discuss the various reasons for them failing, but the fact of the matter is that this is not a tested model in the RTS genre at all. The idea that because it works in MOBA/CS --> Also works in SC2 is a logical error. Moreover, at no point in time has he actually attempted to use numbers to estimate the financial viability of this model. A real analysis would contain estimates of how the playerbase would change under a free-to-play scenario. ARPU (average revenue per user) and how much it would cost to develop. But unless you end up with a really high revenue estimates, you probably just need to let the benefit of the doubt go in favor of Blizzard. We have no idea how much it costs to develop this. But Blizzard has, they can even come up with more reliable estimates on revenue than we can as they have more expertise and more data. For some mysterial reason, Destiny and a big part of the community think that these arguments Destiny brings up needs to be repeated because otherwise Blizzard would have no idea that you could monetize stuff.... Please give Blizzard some credit on areas where they know a ton more than we do. At last, his big thesis is that you can revaliatze a "dying" game with a change in business model. What is he basing this of? How often in the gaming history has a game that was sucesful for a couple of years, suddenly become popular once again? Let's look at HON. They were doing decently a couple of years ago. Then DOTA 2 came, and they reacted by changing the business model..... Didn't work. Anyone have an example here? Obviously CS GO could revializate counterstrike, but that was postioned as a new game. LOTV isn't comparable to CS GO here. And making it F2P and add skins won't change anything in peoples minds. It will still be seen as this super-hard-to learn/un-fun for casuals game. Destiny are making the same arguments over and over and it's been 2 years. Perhaps it's time for him to actually back it up with relevant empirical arguments and numbers, instead of repeating the same unnaunced stuff over and over.
The issue is you can't really do that because there's not enough businesses cases or even something we can relevantly compare it with. You are correct in that changing SC2 from Paid to F2P might not work at all, and that Blizzard might be smarter than what we give them credit for... I beg think the opposite. They've made countless decisions, both financial and balance (read: changing the game) wise that makes absolutely no sense. The way that every change seems to happen with SC is they get caught off guard by what was said was going to happen, and then they make seemingly hasty changes with shoddy logic that's given to the community.
I want the F2P model because the current model isn't working. Archon mode, new units, variations of that shit have been done before and it didn't revitalize SC, why would doing the same types of things help? Yes, we've seen F2P fail, but we've also seen F2P be wildy successful. Why not take some serious time, and thought and try it?
Blizzard is playing like how NA pros play. They're not playing to win, they're playing not to lose.
|
has any rts tested microtransactions and been successful?
dont really like the assumption that sc2 is not doing well because its not a f2p game. its more likely that it doesnt attract as many players/viewers because of the type of game.
|
On December 17 2014 04:28 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:25 Hider wrote:but that's the point. If they give free multiplayer but make it a microtransaction system, it might actually get more people interested in the RTS genre, more people might give it a chance, But the flaw with this argument is that you can say this to every single "unpopular" game right now. Just make it free and then more people will play it and the gaming-company will earn more money. This is backwards-logic, becasue if a game really was popular, it would still be highly played by its existing playerbase. Sc2 has sold 7M copies, if the game was so superfun it wouldn't just have 50K active multiplayer-players (or w/e the actual number is). A lot of people already see Sc2 as this super-hard game. That's what it is positioned as in the mainstream-gaming media. If you are going to change peoples perception you will need a complete repositioning of the game. Just adding in Archon-mode isn't enough. You still have all these timings you need to learn, which means you need to seek external information on builds etc to do well. Hearthstone works because it has an inbuild tutorial and you can just play a bit here and there and learn the game and have fun. Sc2 is way too far away from that. I know every Sc2 fan wants to belief that if just "X happened", then Sc2 would be superpopular again, but unfortunately it's just wish-thinking. Nios.kr has it around 400k per season. (end of season) this season it's 250k.
Depends on the definition of activity. Is playing one game a season the criteria for being active? In this scenario I would rather use a weekly metric (those who play at least one game every week) as thus are the people that are most likely to purchase skins.
Also please don't misunderstand me. I believe that Sc2 should initially have been designed and developed around a F2P-business model. But the idea that you can just suddenly change your mind by making it F2P and end up in a win/win-scenario is just very naiive and/or wish-thinking.
|
On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. As an example, he claims that the F2P-model is tested and it works! Not in an RTS, from my experience C&C tried to do it, but didn't see a market for it and therefore the game wasn't released. Age of Empires Online tried and failed. Then we can discuss the various reasons for them failing, but the fact of the matter is that this is not a tested model in the RTS genre at all. The idea that because it works in MOBA/CS --> Also works in SC2 is a logical error. Moreover, at no point in time has he actually attempted to use numbers to estimate the financial viability of this model. A real analysis would contain estimates of how the playerbase would change under a free-to-play scenario. ARPU (average revenue per user) and how much it would cost to develop. But unless you end up with a really high revenue estimates, you probably just need to let the benefit of the doubt go in favor of Blizzard. We have no idea how much it costs to develop this. But Blizzard has, they can even come up with more reliable estimates on revenue than we can as they have more expertise and more data. For some mysterial reason, Destiny and a big part of the community think that these arguments Destiny brings up needs to be repeated because otherwise Blizzard would have no idea that you could monetize stuff.... Please give Blizzard some credit on areas where they know a ton more than we do. At last, his big thesis is that you can revaliatze a "dying" game with a change in business model. What is he basing this of? How often in the gaming history has a game that was sucesful for a couple of years, suddenly become popular once again? Let's look at HON. They were doing decently a couple of years ago. Then DOTA 2 came, and they reacted by changing the business model..... Didn't work. Anyone have an example here? Obviously CS GO could revializate counterstrike, but that was postioned as a new game. LOTV isn't comparable to CS GO here. And making it F2P and add skins won't change anything in peoples minds. It will still be seen as this super-hard-to learn/un-fun for casuals game. Destiny are making the same arguments over and over and it's been 2 years. Perhaps it's time for him to actually back it up with relevant empirical arguments and numbers, instead of repeating the same unnaunced stuff over and over.
LoL was basically dead for a year before its resurgence in 2011. It was the joke game we dicked around with in the downtime between WOL beta and release.
A good number of people are talking like these things are linear and irreversible, like what goes down can never come up. 2 of the three esports bigger than sc2 laid on a death bed before they enjoyed success.
Gamers are fickle and love to spend money on superfluous shit. You don't need to be a marketing expert to see that.
|
On December 17 2014 04:34 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:28 Ovid wrote:On December 17 2014 04:25 Hider wrote:but that's the point. If they give free multiplayer but make it a microtransaction system, it might actually get more people interested in the RTS genre, more people might give it a chance, But the flaw with this argument is that you can say this to every single "unpopular" game right now. Just make it free and then more people will play it and the gaming-company will earn more money. This is backwards-logic, becasue if a game really was popular, it would still be highly played by its existing playerbase. Sc2 has sold 7M copies, if the game was so superfun it wouldn't just have 50K active multiplayer-players (or w/e the actual number is). A lot of people already see Sc2 as this super-hard game. That's what it is positioned as in the mainstream-gaming media. If you are going to change peoples perception you will need a complete repositioning of the game. Just adding in Archon-mode isn't enough. You still have all these timings you need to learn, which means you need to seek external information on builds etc to do well. Hearthstone works because it has an inbuild tutorial and you can just play a bit here and there and learn the game and have fun. Sc2 is way too far away from that. I know every Sc2 fan wants to belief that if just "X happened", then Sc2 would be superpopular again, but unfortunately it's just wish-thinking. Nios.kr has it around 400k per season. (end of season) this season it's 250k. Depends on the definition of activity. Is playing one game a season the criteria for being active? In this scenario I would rather use a weekly metric (those who play at least one game every week) as thus are the people that are most likely to purchase skins. Also please don't misunderstand me. I believe that Sc2 should initially have been designed and developed around a F2P-business model. But the idea that you can just suddenly change your mind by making it F2P and end up in a win/win-scenario is just very naiive and/or wish-thinking.
The alternative is to let it wither and die a slow death. There hasn't been any tests to see if SC2 is failing because it's not F2P or if it's just not a very popular game, but these can be put in on a smaller scale. We already have the ability to have skins through a marketplace (buying Ultra skin with collector's edition), is it really that hard to start adding some holiday ones? Adding custom decals? Mods can do it already. I know I'd love to have a KT Rolster decal and I would pay a good amount for one.
|
On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted.
But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy".
Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay)
Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2?
I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough?
TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet
|
On December 17 2014 04:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted. But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy". Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay) Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2? I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough? TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet
The difference between custom games and things like steam games is that if I have an idea, and some basic skills in the map editor, I can make what games I want to play. I used to spend hours in the custom games in BW and WC3, and I know after being in Asia for the last 5 years, WC3 and BW is being held up by custom and the team portions of the games.
|
On December 17 2014 04:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted. But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy". Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay) Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2? I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough? TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet
What about making it so that from bronze to gold, your main building automatically produces workers until you're at 16 on each base? Maybe you can set up a file before-hand to automatically create gasses at x number of workers? Then new players can simply focus on making units and attacking? Maybe up until silver league you can right click on a unit in a building and the building will automatically produce that unit, assuming you have the resources/supply to do so?
Maybe in bronze/silver/gold leagues there are rocks outside of your natural expansion every game that have to be brought down to prevent people from early rushing you? Maybe through platinum league EVERY CC/hatchery/nexus has some sort of built-in defense system that lasts until 8 minutes have passed?
There are ways to make the game more "casual friendly" at lower levels while still keeping the higher levels in tact.
|
On December 17 2014 04:49 Destiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted. But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy". Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay) Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2? I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough? TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet What about making it so that from bronze to gold, your main building automatically produces workers until you're at 16 on each base? Maybe you can set up a file before-hand to automatically create gasses at x number of workers? Then new players can simply focus on making units and attacking? Maybe up until silver league you can right click on a unit in a building and the building will automatically produce that unit, assuming you have the resources/supply to do so? Maybe in bronze/silver/gold leagues there are rocks outside of your natural expansion every game that have to be brought down to prevent people from early rushing you? Maybe through platinum league EVERY CC/hatchery/nexus has some sort of built-in defense system that lasts until 8 minutes have passed? There are ways to make the game more "casual friendly" at lower levels while still keeping the higher levels in tact.
I've had the thought before that maybe lower levels (bronze and silver) could play on medium and fast speed, instead of faster which is the default for everything. Those lower speeds are not used for anything else ever anyway.
|
On December 17 2014 04:49 Destiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted. But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy". Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay) Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2? I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough? TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet What about making it so that from bronze to gold, your main building automatically produces workers until you're at 16 on each base? Maybe you can set up a file before-hand to automatically create gasses at x number of workers? Then new players can simply focus on making units and attacking? Maybe up until silver league you can right click on a unit in a building and the building will automatically produce that unit, assuming you have the resources/supply to do so? Maybe in bronze/silver/gold leagues there are rocks outside of your natural expansion every game that have to be brought down to prevent people from early rushing you? Maybe through platinum league EVERY CC/hatchery/nexus has some sort of built-in defense system that lasts until 8 minutes have passed? There are ways to make the game more "casual friendly" at lower levels while still keeping the higher levels in tact.
How does any of that change the fact that SC is just fucking boring to play for a casual, once the hype wears off?
All popular esports are team games, with the exception of fighting games (which start with action from the first second.)
You can dick around with friends or blame the 4 other noobs on your team - both are more entertaining.
|
On December 17 2014 04:33 dAPhREAk wrote:
has any rts tested microtransactions and been successful?
dont really like the assumption that sc2 is not doing well because its not a f2p game. its more likely that it doesnt attract as many players/viewers because of the type of game.
Your right but it's not just that. I think if sc2 had alot more fluffy things like skins etc then ppl would be more motivated to play it.
casual players want achievable goals. I said this in my earlier posts. The casual player is overwhelmed with sc2. I mean look at bw and even wc3. The 1vs1 ladder players where a small part of the active playerbase while most players played dumbed down or to put it into a positive way: "focussed" UMS/funmaps. And boom Tower defense happened, and boom Moba happened. Those and other genres evolved from the fact that classic RTS is overwhelmingly hard and its even hard to improve in them.
So aside from the fluff like skins, LotV should bring more stuff like Archon mode and weekly tournaments. I really think micro challenges and things like that would be a very good addition to ladder play. Archon mode and weekly tournaments are going into the right direction. But Blizzard needs to learn from the past and extract interesting parts about their game into periodic challenges you can play with your friends or even alone and the brag about them. This would keep the game fresh and improve different areas of a casual gamers skillset so he improves faster and has more fun with the game in general.
|
On December 17 2014 04:49 Destiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted. But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy". Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay) Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2? I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough? TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet What about making it so that from bronze to gold, your main building automatically produces workers until you're at 16 on each base? Maybe you can set up a file before-hand to automatically create gasses at x number of workers? Then new players can simply focus on making units and attacking? Maybe up until silver league you can right click on a unit in a building and the building will automatically produce that unit, assuming you have the resources/supply to do so? Maybe in bronze/silver/gold leagues there are rocks outside of your natural expansion every game that have to be brought down to prevent people from early rushing you? Maybe through platinum league EVERY CC/hatchery/nexus has some sort of built-in defense system that lasts until 8 minutes have passed? There are ways to make the game more "casual friendly" at lower levels while still keeping the higher levels in tact.
Sure, that makes it mechanically less demanding, i am not sure if people would enjoy a clicking into each other though :D
The great thing about mobas is that every single hero is MUCH more interesting than a basic rts unit.
Maybe even more enjoyable to controll than a whole rts army. This is imo the basic problem, controlling rts armies isn't that exciting most of the time, could blizzard change that? Sure, but would it be starcraft after the change?
Some people might say adding interesting micro would already be enough, maybe they are even right about that, i don't know (if we assume your changes are in there as well, you have to eliminate as much multitaskin as possible to make it enjoyable for the masses imo)
|
On December 16 2014 04:00 Destiny wrote:
To look at parallels in SC2, some things just refuse to get addressed and even more bizarre patches are made. Buffing the widow mine for Terran, giving them medivac speed boosts, giving the hellbat upgrade immediately...The community has clamored for some kind of buff to the Terran late game but there's been no response at all from Blizzard about these kinds of things. The "perception" that the balance team/Dayvie doesn't listen to the community is well earned, imo, when strange/random changes come out of left field and leave everyone with a "...huh?" kind of feeling after reading some patch notes.
Incidentally, not that this is really the point, but these were some bizarre complaints to choose. There have been patches before that raised a lot of eyebrows (and many more maps introduced on ladder which raised some eyebrows) but these were an odd collection to complain about at this juncture. WM buff wasn't even that controversial as balance patches go – more so now that Terran is performing a bit better, but still not particularly whined about. The hellbat one hasn't been that controversial either – Zergs complained for a bit that early hellbat pushes were unstoppable but for the most part people don't think that anymore. And medivac speed boosts? I've scarcely heard someone complain about those since shortly after HotS released. Most people agreed they were cool, skill-based, etc. but were worried they'd be overpowered. When it became clear they were not game-breaking everyone moved on.
Compare that to the ghost snipe nerf, or the queen range buff, where huge portions of the community were talking about these changes and how problematic they were and Blizzard simply went ahead with them, with little to no explanation of their actions, and I'd say we've come a long way. I guess Destiny wanted to keep his examples current by using HotS patches, but none of those changes feel that bizarre and if there was significant discontentment about them, it was mostly along the lines of "patching RTS games too frequently breaks the meta" concerns which would exactly oppose Destiny's line of thinking. He is, after all, measuring the quality of their continuing support by how frequently they patch the game.
|
On December 17 2014 04:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted. But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy". Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay) Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2? I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough? TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet
This is where I think BW offers some excellent insight. The majority of people played game modes that were watered down versions of the real thing... close enough to make us feel like we were participating, distant enough to keep us from being overwhelmed until you get cozy enough with the game to take the plunge into actual laddering.
Archon mode is an example of institutionalizing that kind of attraction, but there needs to be more. Have a Money Map ladder/ weekly tournament (since we're getting automated tournaments anyway). That way lower level players have an opportunity to participate in the game in a way that won't give them carpel tunnel or ptsd, and eventually might lure them towards the competitive side. Or not, but as long as they;re having fun playing and watching, and spending a little cash here and there on skins or some shit, everyone wins.
|
On December 17 2014 04:54 clickrush wrote:
So aside from the fluff like skins, LotV should bring more stuff like Archon mode and weekly tournaments. I really think micro challenges and things like that would be a very good addition to ladder play. Archon mode and weekly tournaments are going into the right direction. But Blizzard needs to learn from the past and extract interesting parts about their game into periodic challenges you can play with your friends or even alone and the brag about them. This would keep the game fresh and improve different areas of a casual gamers skillset so he improves faster and has more fun with the game in general.
I'm hoping this feature will be just that:
ALLIED COMMANDERS Objective Based Co-Op Join the battle with a friend in an open-ended cooperative experience. Choose a powerful commander from your favorite race and fight in diverse scenarios with dynamic, campaign-style objectives. Level up your commander to gain access to new units, abilities, and customization options for your army. The time is now. The theater of war awaits, commander. Source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/legacy-of-the-void/#multiplayer
It sounds to me like a mix of StarCraft 2 and Diablo (bringing in persistent character progression, dynamically generated content, and primarily co-op multiplayer). I agree with Destiny's article that StarCraft needs a focused, Blizzard supported, casual experience--and I think this could be it. Hopefully this week's news drop Psione tweeted about will tells us more...
|
BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful.
First of all, I really don't like to use games that are 10-20 years old in order to support your thesis that RTS games can be casualf-friendly. The industry was very different back then. Rather, it makes sense to look at how the overall popularity of the genre has developed with Blizzard almost being the only active game-developer.
Secondly, were these games ever that popular in the west as you make them out to be? I believe that sales-numbers of Wc3 was lower than sales of SC2, and I am not sure that Wc3 ladder numbers were that big.
Custom games is ofc a different story, but today you have steam and lots of F2P-games that makes it easy for a lot of casual gamers to find accessible free games. The demand for custom-games/arcade is much lower today. If your argument is that Blizzard failed when they designed Bnet 2.0/the arcade, I agree. But I actually don't believe the mistake was to not make it similar to how it was in BW/Wc3. Instead, they messed up by not properly understanding how the industry would develop over the next couple of years.
The F2P model with micro-transactions is tested and works in FPS and MOBA games. TF2, Dota 2, LoL, etc..Why wouldn't it work with an RTS game? Even BW was pretty much F2P later on in its life if you used the ICCup launcher, though there were no microtransactions there.
3 potential reasons:
(1) As a general of thumb, a business model should be designed to fit with the target audience. The learning barrier to Sc2 is quite high, which makes it not very casual-friendly. An upfront fee cost is more likely to target the segment who are very dedicated. On the other hand - a game that is very accessible (e.g. Heatstone) fits perfectly with the F2P model.
(2) You feel less attached to your units in an RTS than heroes in a MOBA.
(3) You will need an enable-off skins button for the RTS which probably everyone will use since it can be too confusing to look at skins for lots of units. I believe that will take the point away from investing into the skins in the first place.
This doesn't mean that Blizzard can't make money out of skins. Instead, it implies that they are less likely to earn the same amout of money as in MOBA's.
Because we don't have access to the playerbase. Want real numbers? All Blizzard has to do is poll their audience. Or they can demo release ONE skin, look at the reception, and try to gauge reaction from there. It's not really possible for us to do as a community.
When analysts - in the stock indsutry - claim that "X company makes Y amount of money", they do not have all the data either. But they still make estimates by looking at comparable data. E.g. ARPU from comparable games. Perhaps one could look at case-studies to see what happens to playernumbers when a business-model changes. Then you make an argument for why the data you use are valid. Based on that you can make some type of argument for whether a certain decision would be finanically viable or not.
Now obviously this is a lot to demand from an Sc2-streamer (I don't mean this in a demaning way to be clear), but you make a strong claim that you are convinced Blizzard could make more money, right? You don't just say, "I think it could work".
If you said, the latter, I would be less demanding of the amount of research you put in, but when you make this out to be Blizzard being ignorant, you need to back it up with much more research.
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.
So a couple of things:
(1) I actually thought you were right back then. And while I changed my mind, you were probably also more right 2 years ago than you are today. The reason for that is that the potential earnings Blizzard could generate back then (when playerbase was larger) was much higher while the development costs likely would be the same. As I don't believe that making Sc2 F2P + selling skins will have a super big effect on the playerbase, (it won't increase it by 10 times for instance), this makes the financial incentive worse today.
.
(2) I think everyone knew back then that LOL was starting to take over the popularity of Sc2. The numbers we are having today are (probably) roughly in line with what a big part of the community expected in 2012.
(3) F2P will indeed increase playerbase --> higher viewership (ceteris paribus). Would be good for Sc2 in terms of esport. But that doesn't mean it's financial viable for Blizzard, and that's what's matters in the end.
|
My problem with Starcraft: fun to watch, godawful to play.
F2P or micro transactions won't change that.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Please, do not talk about arcade and F2P in the same sentence. Arcade is AFAIK accessible with starter edition. Therefore please do not mention custom maps, modes and this stuff since this is already free to play.
If we want to talk about FTP the nwe have to talk about ladder experience exclusively. Single player will not ever be free and the only thing which is not FTP is ladder.
Edit> I mean if arcade, USMS or w/e fun maps you think could save the SC2, it actually would. Because reasons ^
|
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring.
|
On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring.
That's pretty ignorant, if you think that.
|
On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring.
Less than half of the people who buy the game play multiplayer. The majority of sales are from the singleplayer
|
On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring.
Hots single was really easy, simplified and bad, but I enjoyed WOL single and played it maybe 4-5 times over.
|
On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring.
Actually, a lot of people, probably a majority, buys the game for the campaign, plays some multiplayer games and then never touches the game again. I'm one of those people.
|
On December 17 2014 05:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Less than half of the people who buy the game play multiplayer. The majority of sales are from the singleplayer
Ok, then charge for single player and make ladder free. Seems easy enough.
|
On December 17 2014 05:59 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Actually, a lot of people, probably a majority, buys the game for the campaign, plays some multiplayer games and then never touches the game again. I'm one of those people.
Yet you come to teamliquid, an esports website heavily immersed in multiplayer sc2, and post in threads discussing the merits of blizzard's strategy involving the growth of the sc2 multiplayer fanbase?
|
On December 17 2014 06:05 johnbongham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Less than half of the people who buy the game play multiplayer. The majority of sales are from the singleplayer Ok, then charge for single player and make ladder free. Seems easy enough.
Yeah I mean when you put it like that... disregarding the fact that your little solution is obviously a net loss for Blizzard so you'd have to give it some thought. Maybe try that instead of just flapping your hands all over your keyboard and declaring that you've spoken the truth.
On December 17 2014 05:59 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Actually, a lot of people, probably a majority, buys the game for the campaign, plays some multiplayer games and then never touches the game again. I'm one of those people.
That sucks for them considering how the antagonists are now completely boring.
|
On December 17 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 06:05 johnbongham wrote:On December 17 2014 05:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Less than half of the people who buy the game play multiplayer. The majority of sales are from the singleplayer Ok, then charge for single player and make ladder free. Seems easy enough. Yeah I mean when you put it like that... disregarding the fact that your little solution is obviously a net loss for Blizzard so you'd have to give it some thought. Maybe try that instead of just flapping your hands all over your keyboard and declaring that you've spoken the truth. Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:59 maartendq wrote:On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Actually, a lot of people, probably a majority, buys the game for the campaign, plays some multiplayer games and then never touches the game again. I'm one of those people. That sucks for them considering how the antagonists are now completely boring.
Did I say I spoke the truth? Why are sc2 fans on this website so stubborn and boring? If the singleplayer is why most people buy the game, then sell the single player. They already do a free 'starter edition,' so what is the point of forbidding those players from accessing the 1v1 ladder? Sell the single player, make the multiplayer F2P, and then sell things like skins or singleplayer expansion maps. Pretending that blizzard has tried every possible option and the way they do it now is best is pretty ignorant. There is nothing different between an rts, an fps, and a moba.They are all just games. People play games for lots of reasons. A big reason people play other games than sc2 is because they are f2p, because they are social, and because they can customize their characters visually much in the same way people do in blizzards most succesful game of all time: WoW.
|
On December 17 2014 06:13 johnbongham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:On December 17 2014 06:05 johnbongham wrote:On December 17 2014 05:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Less than half of the people who buy the game play multiplayer. The majority of sales are from the singleplayer Ok, then charge for single player and make ladder free. Seems easy enough. Yeah I mean when you put it like that... disregarding the fact that your little solution is obviously a net loss for Blizzard so you'd have to give it some thought. Maybe try that instead of just flapping your hands all over your keyboard and declaring that you've spoken the truth. On December 17 2014 05:59 maartendq wrote:On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Actually, a lot of people, probably a majority, buys the game for the campaign, plays some multiplayer games and then never touches the game again. I'm one of those people. That sucks for them considering how the antagonists are now completely boring. Did I say I spoke the truth? Why are sc2 fans on this website so stubborn and boring? If the singleplayer is why most people buy the game, then sell the single player. They already do a free 'starter edition,' so what is the point of forbidding those players from accessing the 1v1 ladder? Sell the single player, make the multiplayer F2P, and then sell things like skins or singleplayer expansion maps. Pretending that blizzard has tried every possible option and the way they do it now is best is pretty ignorant. There is nothing different between an rts, an fps, and a moba.They are all just games. People play games for lots of reasons. A big reason people play other games than sc2 is because they are f2p, because they are social, and because they can customize their characters visually much in the same way people do in blizzards most succesful game of all time: WoW.
Then yeah sure. Still it's not exactly simple, especially since there are arguments against skins in RTS. Voice packs like Destiny mentioned are definitely a great idea but would you really finance the game as much as you would with a normal pay to play business model? Hard to say... and Blizzard isn't going to take that gamble (even though I think we both believe that it would be good for them and for us as well)
|
I have to be honest here, if it wasn't for TeamLiquid.net, I would have stopped caring about SC2 long ago. I have 0 faith in the direction Blizz has gone in recent years, especially when compared to other companies that have emerged.
For me, it's this site and community that has retained by interest in SC2 for so long,along with the pro-personalities, not even the game itself. And while that is a mjor high-five to such a wonderful site, it doesn't say much to me for the game as a stand-alone. How many of us would be so involved or interested in SC2 if this site had never existed?
|
It's funny when you think about it. People spend hundreds on dollars on gaming peripherals (i.e. overpriced mice, keyboards and headsets) but don't want to pay for their games anymore.
Honestly, what is €40 for a game you'll get to enjoy for years to come?
|
On December 17 2014 06:37 maartendq wrote:
It's funny when you think about it. People spend hundreds on dollars on gaming peripherals (i.e. overpriced mice, keyboards and headsets) but don't want to pay for their games anymore.
Honestly, what is €40 for a game you'll get to enjoy for years to come?
Honestly, what is $40 for a game that turns out to be bad and never gets updated?
Honestly, what is $40 for additional content for a free to play game that you already know you enjoy and have no problems supporting the developers?
|
Did they ever actually fix the custom game system?
|
Destiny does bring up some very good points, but his tone and word choice are questionable.
I feel like he is trying to tell Blizzard "Hey I can do your job better than you can" or "Hey this is a good idea, and if you don't implement it you are all idiots"
Offering skins, voicepacks, and other options for micro transactions sounds like a good idea, but it might not be viable for LotV. That is something we don't know yet.
Destiny says other developers have managed to make micro transactions work, why can't Blizzard do this for LotV, and continues about "re-inventing the wheel". Perhaps the "wheel" he is referring to does not fit into SC2's model?
I mean a lot of vehicles use a wheel to help move forward, but not every vehicle uses wheels. The tank uses long tracks that are rotated along gears and motors.
What I am trying to say is, sometimes the success of one game/model will not scale/translate well to another game.
I agree, Blizzard needs to make SC2 more accessible so the casual player base grows. I don't know if the proposed solution would work though.
|
Thought I would highlight an example of Blizzards seeming lacklustre community interaction. Along with those already mentioned in Destiny's article.
XMG made a post at the end of November about their future plans for the coming year. It's here. This is how good public relations look blizzard, it doesn't take much effort.
Another example. TotalBiscuit (the second most popular santa) Reviewed a game called Bombing Bastards, it's a bomberman clone. The review wasn't overly favorable. Did the developer hide in the ice palace? Or just let these concerns slip by without comment? No. The developer for the game took the time to reply to TotalBiscuits criticisms and posted it on YouTube.
The result?
+ Show Spoiler [ This] +
It doesn't take much effort blizzard.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Meh, I was expecting more. Voice packs and skins are a good idea, but I doubt they will save sc2.
A ladder redesign, a clan ladder, more social features. That might.
People who whine about balance will never be happy. While patching the game is important, I don't think it has anything to do with the player base.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Good blog offering many interesting talking points. I for one think perception is incredibly important, and Blizzard still have the perception that they're living in a world of their own when it comes to sc2. For instance, look at how the economy change in LotV was perceived - it was largely hailed as a success not because the change is particularly good (I think there are better solutions) but because Blizzard looked like it was listening and prepared to make radical changes to the economy system to make the game better. I maintain that removing forcefield/colossus from protoss would do so much positive to the game purely because of the negative connotations those units/abilities invoke when players hear about them/see them. This is completely independent of the quality of the change, mind you.
It's also depressing when you look out to other popular games and you see their staff regularly interacting with the community regarding balance issues, even asking for opinions and advice on where they should take future developments. There are many people at Blizzard who do a great job (psione is more of a hero than anyone here would ever know or realise) but until the culture of the company shifts from it's early 00's mindset and adopts some of the changes that Valve has made (or Riot for that matter) in terms of responding to the community the game is doomed to continue slipping further down the popularity chart.
|
imo, Blizzard has become a shadow of its former self. They just don't make great games anymore. Their action pretty says "yeah we listen to your feedback, but we don't agree with it because ego." While it may not be true, a lot of the times it looks that way.
When sc2 and D3 launched, i played them a lot, but my interest faded because not only was it not fun to play anymore, but both games have their fair share of problems that weren't addressed quickly, such as bnet 0.2, custom games, auction house, and the broken loot system.
I don't think adding microtransactions such as skin packs is a long term solution since it still doesn't fix the game's core problems.
Well at least Blizzard makes awesome cinematics. Maybe they should make feature films instead.
|
On December 17 2014 06:24 OveRtheStarS wrote:
I have to be honest here, if it wasn't for TeamLiquid.net, I would have stopped caring about SC2 long ago. I have 0 faith in the direction Blizz has gone in recent years, especially when compared to other companies that have emerged.
For me, it's this site and community that has retained by interest in SC2 for so long,along with the pro-personalities, not even the game itself. And while that is a mjor high-five to such a wonderful site, it doesn't say much to me for the game as a stand-alone. How many of us would be so involved or interested in SC2 if this site had never existed?
Pretty much this. The sheer passion of community leaders and this site have done far more than Blizzard deserves for their shoddy support of this game. Still convinced the influx of money from its cashwow ruined Blizzard and turned its focus from making great games to making great profits.
|
I still try to watch some of the big SC2 tournaments but I haven't even bothered to install Heart of The Swarm. Bought it around a year ago just to show some support for a great game but enough is enough for me. Not going to buy another Blizzard game for a while including LotV expansion.
I love SC and SC2 and think they are the greatest RTS games ever made. The expansions are still fun to watch. I still enjoy the tournament streams.
But getting my friends to play SC2 would be like pulling teeth. The game isn't fun for most people these days because the ladder just isn't fun for most people.
Destiny's ideas would help a lot by getting more people to play - but the root of the problem is that given the choice between League of Legends, Counterstrike, or even Candy Crush Saga - most people these days would play ANYTHING ELSE over SC2. Why? Not because everything else is a better game. It's because everything else is likely more fun.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On December 17 2014 11:50 ilikeredheads wrote:
imo, Blizzard has become a shadow of its former self. They just don't make great games anymore. Their action pretty says "yeah we listen to your feedback, but we don't agree with it because ego." While it may not be true, a lot of the times it looks that way.
When sc2 and D3 launched, i played them a lot, but my interest faded because not only was it not fun to play anymore, but both games have their fair share of problems that weren't addressed quickly, such as bnet 0.2, custom games, auction house, and the broken loot system.
I don't think adding microtransactions such as skin packs is a long term solution since it still doesn't fix the game's core problems.
Well at least Blizzard makes awesome cinematics. Maybe they should make feature films instead.
Well I'd contest that they don't make great games. SC2 is easily the best modern RTS and D3 was fun to play (and apparently is even better after the first expansion and the (RM)AH was removed). The issue is they are competing against games are continually evolving and adding content while they themselves are slow to address issues (as you've noted). The outdated expansion model for games is also not doing them any favours - they're stuck making major changes a fixed number of times while other games can freely overhaul the entire game whenever they feel things are stagnant.
|
unit skins are an obvious thing they could add in - face it who would love to do a 6 pool with the starcrafts zerglings skin?
Now afaik they would need to rework the engine as from my understanding its extremely inefficient - loading everything that may appear instead of what will appear (ie protoss units are loaded in ZvT) as that is one issue that has been brought up against having skins.
Then there is the players who don't like skins as it will potentially make it too hard to figure out what a unit actually is - imo this is solved by good design and/or option to disable the display of certain and/or all skins if you so choose.
They could steal the dota and cs:go system with crates and keys that hold upgrades.
Voice packs, taunts, music add ons etc
If they had 3D animated avatars during loading or start of match which you could customize that would be more potential to have custom items and it would also be cool to have your customised version of queen of blades taunt your opponent prior to the start of the match and upon your victory - similar to the old obs maps if anyone remembers them ^^
I have currently spent about $30 on CS:GO after the initial purchase and I am awful at the game (silver 3) just because its awesome running around with a skin I unlocked. Because any match I play I can be getting mission progress towards an eventual reward or I could get a random drop.
In SC2 I just feel like unit dances and portraits aren't really enough motivation
|
Nothing new as per usual. Really up to Blizzard to step it up so their games dont fall behind in the popularity scale.
|
On December 16 2014 17:09 fruity. wrote:Maybe one of our benevolent overlords could start a poll asking if we'd be willing to pay for ingame goodies like skins (LotV one is old ). I'd be happy too myself. Though I know Blizzard have said in the past that skins are an issue due to the extra graphical load.. Just add a toggle to turn these paid-for-addons on or off blizz.. doh. Give more please. EDIT: You know, they do this in WoW and apparently doing so there isn't an issue. So what's the real reason? CBA?
Seriously though
|
Actually, the timing to request features and criticize things for the change cannot be later than now. It is the last time we are getting attention for sc2. Cause when LotV "project" is finished, blizzard will move on for next things in line; that's how resource allocation works. And unless LotV is HUGELY successful, even more so than anything before in stacraft, Blizz wont be coming back to add significant features in.
So being loud now, either in a good or in a bad way, is actually the best thing we can do for SC2.
|
I would probably pay for a Day9 or smix voice pack.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 17 2014 15:30 NightOfTheDead wrote:
Actually, the timing to request features and criticize things for the change cannot be later than now. It is the last time we are getting attention for sc2. Cause when LotV "project" is finished, blizzard will move on for next things in line; that's how resource allocation works. And unless LotV is HUGELY successful, even more so than anything before in stacraft, Blizz wont be coming back to add significant features in.
So being loud now, either in a good or in a bad way, is actually the best thing we can do for SC2.
It is too late, they have planned beta already and they have a playable version now. Unless they have the support of microtransactions already done they are not going to listen. THey would have to rewrite the whole thing. I do not think they are willing to take back the alpha to rewrite the whole thing and test micro transaction.
Also you are all talking about skins and voice packs. How many skins per person do you expect? Or how many voice packs? I mean - seriously you all think this will be better model than selling whole game for 40 €?
|
Achievements, trophies, collectibles... these are the things that keep casual gamers playing. Destiny is definitely on the right track!
|
On December 17 2014 15:43 deacon.frost wrote:
Also you are all talking about skins and voice packs. How many skins per person do you expect? Or how many voice packs? I mean - seriously you all think this will be better model than selling whole game for 40 €?
Oh come on did you read the article? There's clear evidence that a F2P model can be way more lucrative than boxed sales.
|
Yes, it feels like they are working on all those things. Just not for starcraft but for their 2 new games. Let's hope they add them sometime.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 17 2014 16:19 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 15:43 deacon.frost wrote:
Also you are all talking about skins and voice packs. How many skins per person do you expect? Or how many voice packs? I mean - seriously you all think this will be better model than selling whole game for 40 €? Oh come on did you read the article? There's clear evidence that a F2P model can be way more lucrative than boxed sales.
I have read it and I want numbers. How many skins per unit, what is the estimated skin per player average, how many voice packs can you imagine, again, how many voice packs per player on average, because this is how you create a business model, you estimate the income. And wihtout any proper numbers this is just screaming at Blizzard "We want skins, because reasons!". Which simply doesn't work.
Also portion of players demands the "Skin off/on" option in details menu. Now, why am I supposed to invest in my skins when no other person will see them because they have skins turned off? Hm? And can you imagine completely redesigned Protoss deathball with skins where you cannot see what units are there exactly, because there are 20 skins per unit and some of the are ridiculous and change unit too much?
As much as I agree, I want to see numbers, not just wishes without any proof.
Edit> I also want to see a solution to the problem of too many skins in one army changing it to chaos.
And still - we are late. Ignoring the 1st part of the post doesn't change it. The game is done, now starts testing phase. Unless they built in the support for this, we cannot get this at launch and anything later is way too late(because money invested into supporting the current version & changing it to allow this)
I simply think, that if Destiny(or anyone other) provided proper numbers with this some time ago, maybe there was a chance. Now is too late. Unless we want to push the release date in the future(meaning staying on HotS longer)
|
meh
|
On December 17 2014 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:
And still - we are late. Ignoring the 1st part of the post doesn't change it. The game is done, now starts testing phase. Unless they built in the support for this, we cannot get this at launch and anything later is way too late(because money invested into supporting the current version & changing it to allow this)
First of, it's not our job to do the numbers. At all. Thats Blizzard's job. You're focusing too much on the "guys think of a way if you want it!". People aren't saying "Do it our way", but they're saying "figure out a way to do X so that we can have Y". People are just poinitng out ideas and concepts, to show Blizzard WHY they want it. (We want skin systems so we can throw money at you, here's how other companies do it.)
About the quoted part: LotV has not even been in Alpha. They specifically said that at best, it's a technical alpha. So how is it done?
We've seen features like extension mods being added post-development, or the GameHeart stuff, so it's definitely possible to see such things added right now.
|
please Blizzard, LotV needs tradeable skins like CSGO/dota2 !!!!!!!!
|
On December 17 2014 02:32 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 00:16 -Archangel- wrote:
Destiny forgot that adding skins for SC2 units is not as easy. These skins would influence FPS of players. In game option: ENABLE ADDITIONAL SKINS? Enabling this may cause FPS issues on older hardware.
How does this help? It still makes a big part of the audience not use these features and as such not give money to get them.
|
On December 17 2014 04:33 dAPhREAk wrote:
has any rts tested microtransactions and been successful?
dont really like the assumption that sc2 is not doing well because its not a f2p game. its more likely that it doesnt attract as many players/viewers because of the type of game.
None that we know of. C&C Generals 2 was planning to but by selling access to units or something like that but it was shut down by EA way before (while still in Alpha). Exact reasons were not given, I read some people say that the gameplay was crap and others that the dev team was not good enough for EA standards.
|
On December 17 2014 21:15 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 02:32 fruity. wrote:On December 17 2014 00:16 -Archangel- wrote:
Destiny forgot that adding skins for SC2 units is not as easy. These skins would influence FPS of players. In game option: ENABLE ADDITIONAL SKINS? Enabling this may cause FPS issues on older hardware. How does this help? It still makes a big part of the audience not use these features and as such not give money to get them.
Mobas prove that this is not true.
And I've said it before, skins don't need to have an impact on performance. Models can have the same exact level of detail. They only need to adjust it to quality levels as they are in-game (we have different models for lower quality).
Creativity is the key here.
|
On December 17 2014 06:37 maartendq wrote:
It's funny when you think about it. People spend hundreds on dollars on gaming peripherals (i.e. overpriced mice, keyboards and headsets) but don't want to pay for their games anymore.
Honestly, what is €40 for a game you'll get to enjoy for years to come?
Depends on what part of the world you are. I cannot afford 40$ games or new computer components. Rich EU countries, USA, Japan and South Korea are a small part of the whole world. Many more gamers live in other parts.
|
On December 17 2014 21:38 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 06:37 maartendq wrote:
It's funny when you think about it. People spend hundreds on dollars on gaming peripherals (i.e. overpriced mice, keyboards and headsets) but don't want to pay for their games anymore.
Honestly, what is €40 for a game you'll get to enjoy for years to come? Depends on what part of the world you are. I cannot afford 40$ games or new computer components. Rich EU countries, USA, Japan and South Korea are a small part of the whole world. Many more gamers live in other parts.
Yet the bigger consummers of DotA2 skins are in CIS.
|
Also if you just could think about protoss overhaul again, it would be nice.
Protoss fucks maps with warpgate, Forcefield and Blink.
Idea: Warpgate only allows to warp in Zealots. Or Gateway has 1 Minute + Cooldown.
Or make the warp in duration 15 seconds + 40 secs cooldown.
Gateway works as usual.
Why?
If you lose a fight as Terran in TvP, and even if it is close, you get overrun by the warp in. All Protoss units are expensive and strong, but they are also able to SPAWN at the right place right time, no travel distance.
A Protoss Army of 150 Supply can deal with any Zerg and Terran army of higher Supply, and even with better upgrades, thanks to the cost efficient units, no need to have 10-20 Gateways (doubling at Chronoboost lol) with ability to instant replace 40 Supply.
Fix that pls.
I dont want to have a terrans see 1A Deathball swing in and get no 2nd chance as the protoss does.
For terran it is Moms Spaghetti....
Mothershipcore:
Can "recall" to every owned nexus on cooldown (doesn't teleport units)
Sticks to Nexi until becoming the mothership (with all ability), uses his base attack at a higher range, can "overcharge" for energy cost.
Maybe you can have Mothership Core (recall and overcharge) and a second unit Mothership Hull (nexi made, with fleet bacon)
(timewarp/vortex and Cloak) the 2nd could move freely, combined they make the mothership
Why: Kills the blink shit thats not even all in, and carefree Protoss recall adventures.
|
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.
|
Destiny nailed it with that sole phrase:
This is why monetization schemes are so absolutely crucial for StarCraft 2, and it is beyond frustrating that Blizzard refuses to implement any of these into the game. There are so many people who want to spend more money on StarCraft 2 but simply can’t because there’s nothing to buy.
I play Dota 2 and SC2 now , I played LoL for a few years and bought stuff to support games I like. In SC2 the lack of shop has only one positive thing is that we throw money at crowfunded tournament like the big success of Nation Wars 2. If SC2 would release skins or anything fun related to SC2 that you want to use in the game like mules that are doing cool animation to "manner mule" or whatever shit like that I would support that 100%.
The idea of personalized advisors is amazing. It has a huge support of the community. Why not even making it personalized. You can plug your custom advisor setting and enjoy voices you like. The "dicey" Nathanias or Day9 , Abathur or even GladOS possibility are infinite.
The dreampool was one of a cool idea to respond to casual gaming issues but was really insufficient and was misguided, leading to angry pros or veterans.
SC2 need to have moving things that motivates people. The fact that the only interesting news about Starcraft is one time in 2-3 month we have a new set of maps (hell only 3-4 maps released) that makes the game feel alive for a week but that's it.
And also the teamgame is for me essential. Lotv archon mode should have been done in Hots ! It's the last chance to do something funny that revitalize the game. Promote Archon mode , make it fun ! It's seems to be the last trick they have out their sleeves make it damn good.
|
On December 17 2014 21:31 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 21:15 -Archangel- wrote:On December 17 2014 02:32 fruity. wrote:On December 17 2014 00:16 -Archangel- wrote:
Destiny forgot that adding skins for SC2 units is not as easy. These skins would influence FPS of players. In game option: ENABLE ADDITIONAL SKINS? Enabling this may cause FPS issues on older hardware. How does this help? It still makes a big part of the audience not use these features and as such not give money to get them. Mobas prove that this is not true. And I've said it before, skins don't need to have an impact on performance. Models can have the same exact level of detail. They only need to adjust it to quality levels as they are in-game (we have different models for lower quality). Creativity is the key here.
I agree that you can make skins that will not change much but as I said earlier that will take more time that slapping some weapons skins for CS:GO that only one player ever sees on one weapon.
Can you imagine ZvZ with lots of lings and stuff where both sides have all kinds of unoptimized skins for most of the units. It would kill any games. And then 2v2 or 4v4.... any skins made for Sc2 would need to go through some quality QA before being released to everyone.
|
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 shamefully admit that I would buy a Smix voice pack....
|
On December 17 2014 23:12 Kronen wrote:
I shamefully admit that I would buy a Smix voice pack....
doyoubelieveinathingcalledroach whenever a certain unit hatches.
|
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. Of course this would have to mostly be for pleasurement rather than give actual advantages, just like skins and sound packs in other games does as well. I just think encouraging players in other blizzard games to get rewards for their efforts in say sc2 could work too. With that being said, Blizzard still deserves credit for the work.
I agree with most of destinys points if not all, and I definitely think, mostly, that longevity features will provide with the most as well as "computer assistance" to newer players just as you would see on console games or FIFA games etc.
I definitely think the release of LOTV alongisde these features could jumpstart the game.
First of all, I really don't like to use games that are 10-20 years old in order to support your thesis that RTS games can be casualf-friendly. The industry was very different back then. Rather, it makes sense to look at how the overall popularity of the genre has developed with Blizzard almost being the only active game-developer.
Secondly, were these games ever that popular in the west as you make them out to be? I believe that sales-numbers of Wc3 was lower than sales of SC2, and I am not sure that Wc3 ladder numbers were that big.
Custom games is ofc a different story, but today you have steam and lots of F2P-games that makes it easy for a lot of casual gamers to find accessible free games. The demand for custom-games/arcade is much lower today. If your argument is that Blizzard failed when they designed Bnet 2.0/the arcade, I agree. But I actually don't believe the mistake was to not make it similar to how it was in BW/Wc3. Instead, they messed up by not properly understanding how the industry would develop over the next couple of years.
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.
Since Starcraft is in the top tiers of esports representation - alongside the fact that it is a blizzard game - people would always try it and experience these features naturally as they will be implemented, and if they suit the things Destiny has mentioned, it´s almost inevitable a profitable scenario for the game, even if it does not make it relaticely more popular than other games.
3 potential reasons:
(1) As a general of thumb, a business model should be designed to fit with the target audience. The learning barrier to Sc2 is quite high, which makes it not very casual-friendly. An upfront fee cost is more likely to target the segment who are very dedicated. On the other hand - a game that is very accessible (e.g. Heatstone) fits perfectly with the F2P model.
(2) You feel less attached to your units in an RTS than heroes in a MOBA.
(3) You will need an enable-off skins button for the RTS which probably everyone will use since it can be too confusing to look at skins for lots of units. I believe that will take the point away from investing into the skins in the first place.
This doesn't mean that Blizzard can't make money out of skins. Instead, it implies that they are less likely to earn the same amout of money as in MOBA's.
While you say good things in point 1, the two others are simply untrue.
I believe especially point two is your subjective opinion. Who are you to judge that heroes are more prestigious or personal than units in RTS? Also, I think the ABSOLUTE ONLY reason there are casuals playing sc2 casually today is because of the "war-commander" aspect of the game. I believe the Ultralisk collector´s edition design with various effects and themes would be very interesting to most players.
As long as skins and models are enabled per default, most players will not care. I don´t even think jaedong will care. Those would takes aesthethics seriously when it comes to their game should obviously be granted the ability to use default models only, but when these models are used in tournaments that´s when it becomes interesting, since you can STILL have the models and skins you use to play in tournaments for example, but only you can not see them whereas all the specators can. If you can design your whole army aesthethically and display it at WCS, would that not be a fun thing for both a casual and a professional gamer to strive for?
So yes, hearthstone is a more easily accessible game than starcraft, but there aren´t any goals of generating 20.000 viewer user streams here. SC2 lives on it´s viewership from tournaments and not from personal streams, and if we count the tournament viewers for starters, your first point becomes rather irrelevant as the improvement to the game would please the viewers without necessarily cuasing any confusion. Both MOBA and FPS viewers from other esports genres would understand the game and "skins" enough to not be confused.
When analysts - in the stock indsutry - claim that "X company makes Y amount of money", they do not have all the data either. But they still make estimates by looking at comparable data. E.g. ARPU from comparable games. Perhaps one could look at case-studies to see what happens to playernumbers when a business-model changes. Then you make an argument for why the data you use are valid. Based on that you can make some type of argument for whether a certain decision would be finanically viable or not.
Now obviously this is a lot to demand from an Sc2-streamer (I don't mean this in a demaning way to be clear), but you make a strong claim that you are convinced Blizzard could make more money, right? You don't just say, "I think it could work".
If you said, the latter, I would be less demanding of the amount of research you put in, but when you make this out to be Blizzard being ignorant, you need to back it up with much more research.
Now I don´t want to claim I know anything about stockmarketing or w/e but to me it´s extremely obvious that longevity features such as models and especially skins which can be purchaed similarily as to how we see in CSGO (especially if we allow for example carriers and battle cruisers or broodlords to have their own, user-designed logos for a fee - (such as JIN AIR or KT ROLSTER logo) this would generate CASH, it´s not even close. To make it a step further, people could make their own skins for units using specific themes and geometrics similar to battlefield 4 to further improve creativity and interest to pay for these features.
Lastly, I think there are other ways to make the game F2P rather than just make it definitively free. For example, you could get the campaigns for the three games by paying but still play arcade and 1v1-2v2-3v3-4v4 thrugh F2P. Buying the games or various deals could give you skins or other features such as infinite name changing or w/e. There are so many things people are willing to pay for that honestly is just indeniably weird that blizzard has not implemented yet.
|
I agree with Destiny in nearly all his points, he's been right. Something needs to happen for Sc2 to be revitalized and the first step is having Blizz actually listening to the community.
That Blizz post pisses me off so bad, with listening I don't mean "reading" what we are writing but actually bloody take action based on it. I can read anything I can discuss it with anyone, that does not mean I listened to what was really being said.
Destiny is doing a very good job at bringing up a discussion that needs to be highlighted in the interest of SC2, this is the last chance Blizz. Don't fuck it up this time, please.
|
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.
|
I'd love to have a day9 voice pack
|
Or temp0 saying "day9 made me do it" whenever i build a carrier
|
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.
|
On December 18 2014 01:29 Estancia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 00:32 -Archangel- wrote: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.
I agree in a sense. SC2 has really unforgiving engagements, but even for BW, 1v1 wasn't the most played mode at all. Having lived in Asia, and in Korea for the last 5 years, no one plays BW 1v1 - it's still team games or customs.
That's why I don't think the focus should be on 1v1. While it'd be great of engagements lasted longer, I think those are easier gameplay tweaks to make - when I think we should be overhauling teams and custom games.
|
On December 18 2014 01:29 Estancia wrote:
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?
I heard this odd creaking sound as I read this, and realised it was the rarley used cogs in my brain trying to turn.
Would having units do differing levels of damage on the low ladders be a viable option?
If a storm didn't destroy bio instantly.. And less skilled had a chance to come back in the game.. It'd have more casual appeal?
In the same way that at a pro level in snooker the pockets are very tight and narrow - little to no margin for error - but the pockets in snooker clubs for the mere mortals are a lot wider and more forgiving.
So the damage units do could scale with your skill as you go up the ladder ranking system. The pro's would still have the same damage as units do now, it'd just be a lot more forgiving for new players etc.
|
with the "new" game lotv to come out, stand alone that is, they may be able to add the extra things we talked about 2 years ago, just like dotas client and lol, in game browsing, tournies, ranks, campaigns after the campaign . . .the lot. if this is going to be their last effort for another 10 years then it has to last and stand the test of time
|
On December 18 2014 00:40 Chaggi wrote:
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.
Yup for sure. Was the same when I had small LANs with buddies. They all had a copy of WC3 and we would play 3-4 hours custom maps but I think none of them played more then 10 1v1 games in their whole life.
|
On December 18 2014 01:39 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 01:29 Estancia wrote:
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?
I heard this odd creaking sound as I read this, and realised it was the rarley used cogs in my brain trying to turn. Would having units do differing levels of damage on the low ladders be a viable option? If a storm didn't destroy bio instantly.. And less skilled had a chance to come back in the game.. It'd have more casual appeal? In the same way that at a pro level in snooker the pockets are very tight and narrow - little to no margin for error - but the pockets in snooker clubs for the mere mortals are a lot wider and more forgiving. So the damage units do could scale with your skill as you go up the ladder ranking system. The pro's would still have the same damage as units do now, it'd just be a lot more forgiving for new players etc.
The issue is that a lot of this stuff is balanced around the damage. If storms didn't instantly do X amount of damage, it's possible that bio could just steam roll the protoss, and that means a balance team for the casual ladders, and a balance team for the pro ladders, which I can't really see working out when we have half a balance team now.
|
On December 18 2014 01:44 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 00:40 Chaggi wrote:
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. Yup for sure. Was the same when I had small LANs with buddies. They all had a copy of WC3 and we would play 3-4 hours custom maps but I think none of them played more then 10 1v1 games in their whole life.
Exactly. I think we're all on TL and have stuck around here for a reason, and I think that's cause we play this game cause we're naturally competitive, and the most competitive mode is the 1v1 mode. If the people on here are the only ones we talk to about SC2, we're gonna think that 1's is the mode that everyone wants to play and fix. But I really just don't think that's true.
|
Couldnt you just blanket every thing though? In bronze unit damage is 40% less across the board, or whatever. Couldnt you just have a nice straight line graph of unit damage increasing (but still being relative) The higher to the top you got, or only in bronze - gold.
If all units were to get the same damage nerf hammer, wouldnt it still be balanced? Just more forgiving.
|
On December 18 2014 01:49 fruity. wrote:
Couldnt you just blanket every thing though? In bronze unit damage is 40% less across the board, or whatever. Couldnt you just have a nice straight line graph of unit damage increasing (but still being relative) The higher to the top you got, or only in bronze - gold.
If all units were to get the same damage nerf hammer, wouldnt it still be balanced? Just more forgiving.
It could work, and I think there's been some fun leagues in the past where they've tried increasing the HP and it played out fine. I think that's more of a game design discussion though and that could easily turn into a balance whine or bw vs sc2 type of talk.
|
Basicly if everyone bought all three expansions Blizzard has no longer interest in the game, from a financial perspective.
Sc2 must die soon after LotV to get people to buy HotS heroes and skins, and Cardpacks in HotS and PowerUps for Overwatch.
|
Two completely different genres. I can't see how killing off RTS means people will goto FPS.
|
On December 18 2014 01:47 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 01:44 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On December 18 2014 00:40 Chaggi wrote:
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. Yup for sure. Was the same when I had small LANs with buddies. They all had a copy of WC3 and we would play 3-4 hours custom maps but I think none of them played more then 10 1v1 games in their whole life. Exactly. I think we're all on TL and have stuck around here for a reason, and I think that's cause we play this game cause we're naturally competitive, and the most competitive mode is the 1v1 mode. If the people on here are the only ones we talk to about SC2, we're gonna think that 1's is the mode that everyone wants to play and fix. But I really just don't think that's true.
Yeah and I think there are conflicting interest as well.
Most here on TL like that SC is fast and stressful and hectic and we love it when we see we have broken 250 APM in the last game etc.
Most of my gamer friends really don't like stressful games, they play after work/university to relax with a beer or some weed on the side.
I think it is impossible to balance this. You slow the gameplay down and maybe more casual people would play 1v1 but the esports fans will hate it.
|
On December 18 2014 01:36 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 01:31 Big J wrote: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.
Well, but marketing mods/arcade/Custom Games has little impact on Stracraft itself. That's just other games on the same client.
|
On December 18 2014 01:53 Chaggi wrote:
It could work, and I think there's been some fun leagues in the past where they've tried increasing the HP and it played out fine. I think that's more of a game design discussion though and that could easily turn into a balance whine or bw vs sc2 type of talk.
Husky had a fun as hell series on his youtube, let me go dig it up. One of the matches in there had all units did 50% less damage, was silly, but so fun to watch!
Anyway, balance whine is for the top tiers in SC2, it has to be balanced for the pro level. I agree. But this doesn't mean it can't be unbalanced in the low leagues.
Casual players want fun, as so many have said in many threads. If that storm or fungal, or rolling doom of banelings didn't instantly mean a casual would have to tap out. They could still fight on, it's not over yet! It's better right? More causal friendly.
|
A "subtle" difference I can spot between Blizzard and Valve is that Valve is relying HEAVILY on the community workshops to create new content! I mean, I've been playing CS:GO for about a year now and I really despise the case/key (microtransaction) model for skins and even maps, because it's technically NOT a f2p game, but charges you for every bit of extra content (operation passes are a fkn joke if you ask me) they find in community workshops, so essentially they aren't even developing this stuff all by themselves and just take the money from all those people who get entangled in this shit because it's literally gambling!
What's really detrimental here is that even throughout my (gaming) environment the focus is becoming less and less about being good/getting better at the game but instead more about showing off your cool skins... And those are people around their mid twenties, so just imagine how appealing these things can be to teenagers/younger folks and CS:GO just brought that to perfection with this gambling approach.
I really feel the video game industry is heading in a wrong direction with those micro transaction models and it really bothers me to see so many people supporting it. I've been into gaming for about 20 years now which might make me sound like a grandpa and I clearly see that it all has changed A LOT, but not only for the better... I actually liked the days games were released when they were finished (yes, 1.0!!!), I paid 50-60 bucks for the cartridge (something physical) and had a game I still can play today without having to be logged in etc. ...
Well, I guess, I'm just a grandpa, after all.
|
Creager, sign of the times I guess, it would seem to be a more viable option to release games free than expect a one off of 50€ or whatever. I'm sure pirating is a big factor.
I dont play CS:GO, what do you mean by this gambling approach?
|
On December 18 2014 01:58 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 01:47 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 01:44 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On December 18 2014 00:40 Chaggi wrote:
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. Yup for sure. Was the same when I had small LANs with buddies. They all had a copy of WC3 and we would play 3-4 hours custom maps but I think none of them played more then 10 1v1 games in their whole life. Exactly. I think we're all on TL and have stuck around here for a reason, and I think that's cause we play this game cause we're naturally competitive, and the most competitive mode is the 1v1 mode. If the people on here are the only ones we talk to about SC2, we're gonna think that 1's is the mode that everyone wants to play and fix. But I really just don't think that's true. Yeah and I think there are conflicting interest as well. Most here on TL like that SC is fast and stressful and hectic and we love it when we see we have broken 250 APM in the last game etc. Most of my gamer friends really don't like stressful games, they play after work/university to relax with a beer or some weed on the side. I think it is impossible to balance this. You slow the gameplay down and maybe more casual people would play 1v1 but the esports fans will hate it.
I think its possible to have both. Sc2 is designed in mind that if you look 3 sec away from your armee, that whole armee could be dead.
Compare to broodwar, fights last longer there. Not as penalised for looking away. More micro overall involved in battles.
Not saying broodwar is the best example, its possible to do even better obviously but iam pretty sure its possible to have it fun as hell for pros/hardcore and for casuals.
|
On December 18 2014 02:00 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 01:36 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 01:31 Big J wrote: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. Well, but marketing mods/arcade/Custom Games has little impact on Stracraft itself. That's just other games on the same client.
The more people we have using the client, the more we can expand on "Starcraft", because my definition of SC is probably different than yours. I personally don't give a rats ass if more people are playing 1's, I personally want to see a more vibrant casual community that focuses on custom and team games, and 1's are left to pros and more competitive players. To me, that's what Starcraft is.
My thought is
If we can start off with a strong arcade/marketplace/team games, it provides Blizzard with the incentive of developing improvements for the client and possibly the 1v1 mode.
If there are developments that are made, we can probably begin to cross off that giant list of problems that was just posted.
From there, depending if you have a sustainable economy (aka is this game starting to get popular and what's the growth of it?), we can look at how can we contribute this to an overall eSports. BW used to have 2v2 tournaments, is that something we could bring back?
If so, then how about making it so that we can contribute money to an overall prize pool, with 2v2/3v3/4v4 players? Could we do Arcade game tournaments? Once Blizzard can get people hooked on "Starcraft" as a whole again, they can start promoting the 1v1 side, from either a viewer or player PoV. If you've stuck around watching these team games and arcade games, why not watch the guys that are playing 1v1? Why not watch how the game in it's simplest form is played?
I'm all for the one of, if you're playing the game, no matter what form it's in, you can have a respect and idea for other forms. If I'm just watching say LoL (and I've never played it before) and I see someone pull off a really hard move, I have no understanding of it, no idea that it's actually difficult or why people are getting excited and cheering. But if I'm actually in the game itself, I know how the inputs work and how the units naturally move, I suddenly can have a respect for what they're doing and that would get me excited to watch more.
ofc all of this is incredible conjecture but I think it's not that unreasonable of a path for Blizzard to think about.
|
On December 18 2014 02:13 Chaggi wrote:
BW used to have 2v2 tournaments, is that something we could bring back?
I wonder if this was blizzards intentions with archon mode in lotv. Enabling (a sort of) 2v2 without having to address potential balance issues that might arise from a pure format 2v2.
EDIT: Isn't this mode blizzards thoughts on trying to get casuals into sc2? You could play with your friend who might not understand SC2.. But still get them involved. The vertical learning curve wont be there. Maybe they'd end up sticking about.
|
On December 18 2014 02:13 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 01:58 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On December 18 2014 01:47 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 01:44 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On December 18 2014 00:40 Chaggi wrote:
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. Yup for sure. Was the same when I had small LANs with buddies. They all had a copy of WC3 and we would play 3-4 hours custom maps but I think none of them played more then 10 1v1 games in their whole life. Exactly. I think we're all on TL and have stuck around here for a reason, and I think that's cause we play this game cause we're naturally competitive, and the most competitive mode is the 1v1 mode. If the people on here are the only ones we talk to about SC2, we're gonna think that 1's is the mode that everyone wants to play and fix. But I really just don't think that's true. Yeah and I think there are conflicting interest as well. Most here on TL like that SC is fast and stressful and hectic and we love it when we see we have broken 250 APM in the last game etc. Most of my gamer friends really don't like stressful games, they play after work/university to relax with a beer or some weed on the side. I think it is impossible to balance this. You slow the gameplay down and maybe more casual people would play 1v1 but the esports fans will hate it. I think its possible to have both. Sc2 is designed in mind that if you look 3 sec away from your armee, that whole armee could be dead. Compare to broodwar, fights last longer there. Not as penalised for looking away. More micro overall involved in battles. Not saying broodwar is the best example, its possible to do even better obviously but iam pretty sure its possible to have it fun as hell for pros/hardcore and for casuals.
Actually, your armee can still die in three seconds in StarCraft: Brood War if you aren't paying attention. I don't know if you knew that or not, so I thought I'd just let you know.
|
I don't really like Destiny but this was an excellent article.
|
On December 18 2014 01:39 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 01:29 Estancia wrote:
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?
I heard this odd creaking sound as I read this, and realised it was the rarley used cogs in my brain trying to turn. Would having units do differing levels of damage on the low ladders be a viable option? If a storm didn't destroy bio instantly.. And less skilled had a chance to come back in the game.. It'd have more casual appeal? In the same way that at a pro level in snooker the pockets are very tight and narrow - little to no margin for error - but the pockets in snooker clubs for the mere mortals are a lot wider and more forgiving. So the damage units do could scale with your skill as you go up the ladder ranking system. The pro's would still have the same damage as units do now, it'd just be a lot more forgiving for new players etc.
Alternatively, or additionally, you could slow the game time down (as someone else suggested) but increase mining speed and production so the overall macro pace of the game remains the same (or even faster) while still giving new players a lot more time and space to manage their units in battles and respond to attacks on multiple fronts and whatnot.
This way you don't slow down macro so much that the early game becomes extremely boring and tedious and games should be more forgiving.
To be honest I would probably prefer this over the current pace of the game, as I have the most fun in Starcraft trying to get the most out of microing my units, but I'm not good enough to do this once armies get larger/it feels more effective to focus on macro early when I struggle to keep it up when trying to use micro intensive harassment units.
On December 18 2014 01:58 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 01:47 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 01:44 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On December 18 2014 00:40 Chaggi wrote:
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. Yup for sure. Was the same when I had small LANs with buddies. They all had a copy of WC3 and we would play 3-4 hours custom maps but I think none of them played more then 10 1v1 games in their whole life. Exactly. I think we're all on TL and have stuck around here for a reason, and I think that's cause we play this game cause we're naturally competitive, and the most competitive mode is the 1v1 mode. If the people on here are the only ones we talk to about SC2, we're gonna think that 1's is the mode that everyone wants to play and fix. But I really just don't think that's true. Yeah and I think there are conflicting interest as well. Most here on TL like that SC is fast and stressful and hectic and we love it when we see we have broken 250 APM in the last game etc. Most of my gamer friends really don't like stressful games, they play after work/university to relax with a beer or some weed on the side. I think it is impossible to balance this. You slow the gameplay down and maybe more casual people would play 1v1 but the esports fans will hate it.
In one of Destiny's posts he suggested different gameplay or mechanics for different leagues and I think this is actually a really interesting idea. It would also mean that your rank has additional meaning and it could really help ease newer players into laddering, while giving them something to aspire to that is more than a number (for example the privilege of being able to play ranked with less or no handicaps).
|
On December 18 2014 02:11 fruity. wrote:
Creager, sign of the times I guess, it would seem to be a more viable option to release games free than expect a one off of 50€ or whatever. I'm sure pirating is a big factor.
I dont play CS:GO, what do you mean by this gambling approach? In CS GO, at the end a game you get may recieve a "box". There is a list of items ordered by a nominal rarity which can be received by "opening" the box with a $1.5 "key" which has to be brought for from valve. When using the key on a box, a roulette or gambling wheel is animated and which item is given depends on the animation. Certain items can only be placed into the market by these boxes as they are not available otherwise, though you can buy them from the market, where they are cheaper if brought directly. Some people clearly enjoy the thrill of gambling by opening their boxes with keys, which is what valve is exploiting.
Honestly speaking though, Valve has managed to give CS GO far more support and extra content for free than Blizzard has given SC2, and most people don't give a flying shit what skins compared to winning the game really except as something to say.
|
On December 18 2014 02:20 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 02:13 Chaggi wrote:
BW used to have 2v2 tournaments, is that something we could bring back?
I wonder if this was blizzards intentions with archon mode in lotv. Enabling (a sort of) 2v2 without having to address potential balance issues that might arise from a pure format 2v2. EDIT: Isn't this mode blizzards thoughts on trying to get casuals into sc2? You could play with your friend who might not understand SC2.. But still get them involved. The vertical learning curve wont be there. Maybe they'd end up sticking about.
Could be. I could see that being really fun.
|
On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
I heard this odd creaking sound as I read this, and realised it was the rarley used cogs in my brain trying to turn.
Would having units do differing levels of damage on the low ladders be a viable option?
If a storm didn't destroy bio instantly.. And less skilled had a chance to come back in the game.. It'd have more casual appeal?
In the same way that at a pro level in snooker the pockets are very tight and narrow - little to no margin for error - but the pockets in snooker clubs for the mere mortals are a lot wider and more forgiving.
So the damage units do could scale with your skill as you go up the ladder ranking system. The pro's would still have the same damage as units do now, it'd just be a lot more forgiving for new players etc.
I think this is the future of rts, but it's just a question of funding now.
|
On December 18 2014 00:42 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote + 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.
This is why I think blizzard should make special announcements for all blizzard games for cross-game rewards to force other blizzard-game-players to try starcraft 2 again to get their special ultralisk mount in world of warcraft when playing 100 zerg games or what not. This is an indirect way to make it benefitial for players to play the "has-been" starcraft. Also, many of destinys suggestions including micro-transactions and just longevity in personalization would just infinitely make people at least try for various reasons, and if the game inevitably is improved in the fun because of this, they will continue to play.
I also vouch for user interface customization even for professional play, this will really make people want to experiemtn with different layouts and such and you could perhaps implement the "stream overlays" into the game. I would like to see various minimap positionings and sizes, resource/supply fonts and sizes etc and maybe even allow other info tabs onto the screen but all of theese are just options beyond imagination.
It is tough to say how many of the 250.000 are dedicated, but since the game is in the "harder aspect" on the "hold-on-to-motivation" spectrum, even a 100.000 players is a lot. I mean, if the casual side of starcraft both in skill (helping bronze-plat with various mechanics through computer assisted features as we see in other games) plus the vast majority of longeivity options, I promise not only will the casual count increase, - all those people playing ladder - they will also get the hunger for ladder and using these things for other than just winning - actually have fun with the game.
Also, something I note a lot when I play arcade, people really enjoy this fancy golden grandmaster "frame" around your avatar and they also enjoy seeing level 105 and stuff. Adding more visible stuff ingame in lobbies and stuff, mostly supported through 1v1 ranking - this includes your ladder rank, but let´s also say customizable things to your avatar depending on your activity in the game and other things. People like to display these things, apparently.
Lastly, if 1v1 activity could provide players with features in 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 or things in the arcade, maybe even the ability to customize UI or skins or other things, this would indeed provoke more causal play which alongside assistance leads to the hunger for professional play since these casual plays demands some understanding of the actual seriousness in the game.
If it is true that investments into Heroes or Ocverwatch is more benefital than sc2, why not make those investments lead toward starcraft now that this is a more or less fully developed game? If you buy Heroes or overwatch, you get starcraft 2 too etc. so you can play that for free including the campaign etc.
Or other bundle things.
An very lastly, I think ladder-rank rewards should do something to other games too. Make people "strive" to get diamond and master league on whatever server. This will indeed force skillful research into the game to unluck the "master amulet of swarmhosts" in world of warcraft or the "GSL" mount in heroes of the storm. ^^
|
On December 18 2014 03:08 robopork wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
I heard this odd creaking sound as I read this, and realised it was the rarley used cogs in my brain trying to turn.
Would having units do differing levels of damage on the low ladders be a viable option?
If a storm didn't destroy bio instantly.. And less skilled had a chance to come back in the game.. It'd have more casual appeal?
In the same way that at a pro level in snooker the pockets are very tight and narrow - little to no margin for error - but the pockets in snooker clubs for the mere mortals are a lot wider and more forgiving.
So the damage units do could scale with your skill as you go up the ladder ranking system. The pro's would still have the same damage as units do now, it'd just be a lot more forgiving for new players etc. I think this is the future of rts, but it's just a question of funding now.
It's the past of RTS. In BW most people played less intensive game modes. In WC3 footie wars, battle scenarios and mobas were all very popular and those games are strongly derivative of WC3 melee, but are less intense. Team games were very playable in both BW & WC3. FFA was very fun to play in WC3.
These sort of alternatives to 1v1 are necessary and SC2 is a more punishing game than Blizzard's earlier RTS titles. It's faster-paced, mistakes are punished more, build orders are more decisive, defender's advantage is lower.
|
On December 18 2014 03:48 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 03:08 robopork wrote:On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
I heard this odd creaking sound as I read this, and realised it was the rarley used cogs in my brain trying to turn.
Would having units do differing levels of damage on the low ladders be a viable option?
If a storm didn't destroy bio instantly.. And less skilled had a chance to come back in the game.. It'd have more casual appeal?
In the same way that at a pro level in snooker the pockets are very tight and narrow - little to no margin for error - but the pockets in snooker clubs for the mere mortals are a lot wider and more forgiving.
So the damage units do could scale with your skill as you go up the ladder ranking system. The pro's would still have the same damage as units do now, it'd just be a lot more forgiving for new players etc. I think this is the future of rts, but it's just a question of funding now. It's the past of RTS. In BW most people played less intensive game modes. In WC3 footie wars, battle scenarios and mobas were all very popular and those games are strongly derivative of WC3 melee, but are less intense. Team games were very playable in both BW & WC3. FFA was very fun to play in WC3. These sort of alternatives to 1v1 are necessary and SC2 is a more punishing game than Blizzard's earlier RTS titles. It's faster-paced, mistakes are punished more, build orders are more decisive, defender's advantage is lower.
I don't know. SC2 team games can be insane. They are volatile and incredible cheesy but they have a certain charms to them. It's problem is that massing team games is not rewarding. The 1v1 style league structure sucks for team games especially 3v3 and 4v4.
|
Btw, this is one idea I had:
- automated unit production: you rightclick on the marine portrait and it will constantly build marines for you. There is, say, a two second delay between the queuing of the next marine to encourage manual production. Or alternatively, with automated production it will always seek to have at least a few units in the queue (i.e. it aims to keep like 60 seconds of wasted resources in queue), which is another waste of resources to encourage manual production.
The main problem is that it doesn't translate well to protoss / zerg. And it will force Blizzard to add some UI that gives like "resources drained per second - click to disable [X]" or something.
|
bring back big game hunters!
|
On December 18 2014 02:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 02:11 fruity. wrote:
Creager, sign of the times I guess, it would seem to be a more viable option to release games free than expect a one off of 50€ or whatever. I'm sure pirating is a big factor.
I dont play CS:GO, what do you mean by this gambling approach? In CS GO, at the end a game you get may recieve a "box". There is a list of items ordered by a nominal rarity which can be received by "opening" the box with a $1.5 "key" which has to be brought for from valve. When using the key on a box, a roulette or gambling wheel is animated and which item is given depends on the animation. Certain items can only be placed into the market by these boxes as they are not available otherwise, though you can buy them from the market, where they are cheaper if brought directly. Some people clearly enjoy the thrill of gambling by opening their boxes with keys, which is what valve is exploiting. Honestly speaking though, Valve has managed to give CS GO far more support and extra content for free than Blizzard has given SC2, and most people don't give a flying shit what skins compared to winning the game really except as something to say.
The gambling experience with CS:GO is no different than WoW or any mmo. Many games exploit the gambling experience. That could be a reason for such a large influx of gamers/viewers, along with the massive support and community interaction.
SC2 doesn't seem to fit into the gambling model. What items would be available in a SC2 box? Skins and voicepacks only?
There can't be ingame items, because that would easily throw off the entire balance of the game.
Imagine you won a match against a GM. You played terran, and your opponent was zerg. After the match you got an item from Blizzard. The item gives your stim pack more time or take away less health. It only works in one match, and you can only use one item per match.
Skins and voicepacks could work, but this could lead to complications. I believe Blizzard stated skins and voicepacks could cause complications on user agents, and would force them to raise the minimum requirements to run SC2.
So some guy's piece of shit computer that barely ran SC2 will no longer be able to play it in LotV because of skins and voicepacks. How many guys like the example above do you think are out there? Not everyone has highend $2k computers.
Skins and voicepacks could potentially alienate more than attract. We need to look at the approach from different angles.
Can Blizzard develop the skins and voicepacks efficiently enough that the minimum requirement stays the same? How much would it cost engineers the time and effort to test all the skins? Can some of them cause glitches?
I feel that Starcraft 2 cannot be free to play with micro transactions. It does not fit into this business model very well. However, a cheap to play with micro transactions could definitely work.
The cheapium (I didn't make up that word, google it and you will find it being coined in other websites) approach would probably fit better and buying skins would raise the PC requirements.
This would still turn a large profit on sales, and could still potential generate residual income. And to promote the skins, Blizzard can have skin making contests, and the winner chosen will have his skin rendered and optimized by Blizzard and put into the game. They also win some money, and maybe residual income from any sales of that skin. Slowly, skins are added by the community through contests only, and our purchase could directly put money into the winners pocket. There could be 2 contests per year, and Blizzard chooses the unit/building to be skinned.
If Blizzard really wanted to reduce the barrier to entry, the freemium version should be HotS, but those that purchased it would get something special.
|
Why don't they just fix the custom game/arcade system. BW was very hard and let's be honest, most people didn't play 1v1. The majority played fastest map possible, BGH, and UMS maps. Battle net currently has a terrible arcade system and although blizzard meant well, their idea flopped. If they redesigned the way the arcade works, possibly put heroes of the storm into the arcade itself, and then add like cool skins for playing arcade games. Have these skins be specific to arcade games only so that it won't disturb the 1v1 players. This way, they can add and monetize as much skins as they want without disturbing the ladder as much. There will still be skins for ladders of course, but give the players the options of turning them off, but when youre in the arcade system you cant turn off your skins.
|
On December 18 2014 04:08 phodacbiet wrote:
Why don't they just fix the custom game/arcade system. BW was very hard and let's be honest, most people didn't play 1v1. The majority played fastest map possible, BGH, and UMS maps. Battle net currently has a terrible arcade system and although blizzard meant well, their idea flopped. If they redesigned the way the arcade works, possibly put heroes of the storm into the arcade itself, and then add like cool skins for playing arcade games. Have these skins be specific to arcade games only so that it won't disturb the 1v1 players. This way, they can add and monetize as much skins as they want without disturbing the ladder as much. There will still be skins for ladders of course, but give the players the options of turning them off, but when youre in the arcade system you cant turn off your skins.
I don't think Blizzard wants SC2's focus on the arcade/custom. They don't want it to die, but as well they don't want the same experience as BW. I think its good they focus on the ladder players.
The current arcade isn't too bad though.
BW and WC3 was all about hitting that refresh list button until you found your map, or start your own map and patiently wait for people to come and start when you have the required number.
Now all we need to do is plug in some keywords to find our map.
|
On December 18 2014 04:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:08 phodacbiet wrote:
Why don't they just fix the custom game/arcade system. BW was very hard and let's be honest, most people didn't play 1v1. The majority played fastest map possible, BGH, and UMS maps. Battle net currently has a terrible arcade system and although blizzard meant well, their idea flopped. If they redesigned the way the arcade works, possibly put heroes of the storm into the arcade itself, and then add like cool skins for playing arcade games. Have these skins be specific to arcade games only so that it won't disturb the 1v1 players. This way, they can add and monetize as much skins as they want without disturbing the ladder as much. There will still be skins for ladders of course, but give the players the options of turning them off, but when youre in the arcade system you cant turn off your skins. I don't think Blizzard wants SC2's focus on the arcade/custom. They don't want it to die, but as well they don't want the same experience as BW. I think its good they focus on the ladder players. The current arcade isn't too bad though. BW and WC3 was all about hitting that refresh list button until you found your map, or start your own map and patiently wait for people to come and go until you have the required number. Now all we need to do is plug in some keywords to find our map.
I think there's enough evidence that if they focus on the ladder players, this game will never rise above the steadily smaller niche that we have right now. I love 1v1 but it's simply one of the most stressful competitive games you can play right now. It's not fun.
|
On December 18 2014 04:29 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:08 phodacbiet wrote:
Why don't they just fix the custom game/arcade system. BW was very hard and let's be honest, most people didn't play 1v1. The majority played fastest map possible, BGH, and UMS maps. Battle net currently has a terrible arcade system and although blizzard meant well, their idea flopped. If they redesigned the way the arcade works, possibly put heroes of the storm into the arcade itself, and then add like cool skins for playing arcade games. Have these skins be specific to arcade games only so that it won't disturb the 1v1 players. This way, they can add and monetize as much skins as they want without disturbing the ladder as much. There will still be skins for ladders of course, but give the players the options of turning them off, but when youre in the arcade system you cant turn off your skins. I don't think Blizzard wants SC2's focus on the arcade/custom. They don't want it to die, but as well they don't want the same experience as BW. I think its good they focus on the ladder players. The current arcade isn't too bad though. BW and WC3 was all about hitting that refresh list button until you found your map, or start your own map and patiently wait for people to come and go until you have the required number. Now all we need to do is plug in some keywords to find our map. I think there's enough evidence that if they focus on the ladder players, this game will never rise above the steadily smaller niche that we have right now. I love 1v1 but it's simply one of the most stressful competitive games you can play right now. It's not fun.
Its possible, and to an extent I agree. 1v1 is incredibly stressful, and not for a lot of people, but don't think its going to cannibalize the game if more focus was on ladder. As well, Blizzard doesn't completely ignore the arcade. They frequently promote maps on the SC2's website.
There has to be a balance of what SC2 should be about. Is it the ladder/campaign/tournaments? Or is it about the custom/arcade? They are both intrinsically valuable, but which gives more value.
|
On December 18 2014 04:36 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:29 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 04:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:08 phodacbiet wrote:
Why don't they just fix the custom game/arcade system. BW was very hard and let's be honest, most people didn't play 1v1. The majority played fastest map possible, BGH, and UMS maps. Battle net currently has a terrible arcade system and although blizzard meant well, their idea flopped. If they redesigned the way the arcade works, possibly put heroes of the storm into the arcade itself, and then add like cool skins for playing arcade games. Have these skins be specific to arcade games only so that it won't disturb the 1v1 players. This way, they can add and monetize as much skins as they want without disturbing the ladder as much. There will still be skins for ladders of course, but give the players the options of turning them off, but when youre in the arcade system you cant turn off your skins. I don't think Blizzard wants SC2's focus on the arcade/custom. They don't want it to die, but as well they don't want the same experience as BW. I think its good they focus on the ladder players. The current arcade isn't too bad though. BW and WC3 was all about hitting that refresh list button until you found your map, or start your own map and patiently wait for people to come and go until you have the required number. Now all we need to do is plug in some keywords to find our map. I think there's enough evidence that if they focus on the ladder players, this game will never rise above the steadily smaller niche that we have right now. I love 1v1 but it's simply one of the most stressful competitive games you can play right now. It's not fun. Its possible, and to an extent I agree. 1v1 is incredibly stressful, and not for a lot of people, but don't think its going to cannibalize the game if more focus was on ladder. As well, Blizzard doesn't completely ignore the arcade. They frequently promote maps on the SC2's website. There has to be a balance of what SC2 should be about. Is it the ladder/campaign/tournaments? Or is it about the custom/arcade? They are both intrinsically valuable, but which gives more value.
I agree. I think that's for their internal team to really take a hard look and see what they want out of SC2.
BLIZZARD IF YOU'RE READING I'LL WORK PRO BONO PLS JUST FLY ME TO HQ
|
On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
In one of Destiny's posts he suggested different gameplay or mechanics for different leagues and I think this is actually a really interesting idea. It would also mean that your rank has additional meaning and it could really help ease newer players into laddering, while giving them something to aspire to that is more than a number (for example the privilege of being able to play ranked with less or no handicaps).
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches.
|
On December 18 2014 02:11 fruity. wrote:
Creager, sign of the times I guess, it would seem to be a more viable option to release games free than expect a one off of 50€ or whatever. I'm sure pirating is a big factor.
I dont play CS:GO, what do you mean by this gambling approach?
In CS:GO you get occasional rewards when playing the game (just when the match is finished and everyone gets to see the scoreboard) which can be weapon skins (with a rarity system like in mmo's) and/or crates.
In order to open crates you need to buy a more or less specific key for that type of crate. During the last year the price per key has gone up to 1.99€ (from 1.69€).
But the fun doesn't stop there, each type of crate can contain a rather wide variety of weapons (15-20 or so) which you can only get by opening those crates and the outcome will be random (probability to get garbage that's worth nothing is pretty high, comparable to drop rates in mmo's again), so it encourages you to buy more and more... you get the concept.
Yeah, you can sell all stuff you get on the Steam Market, but money you gained is automatically added to your steam wallet (which essentially means Valve isn't to be held accountable for gambling, because they simply offer you other Steam games instead of paying you real money).
|
On December 18 2014 04:41 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:36 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:29 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 04:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:08 phodacbiet wrote:
Why don't they just fix the custom game/arcade system. BW was very hard and let's be honest, most people didn't play 1v1. The majority played fastest map possible, BGH, and UMS maps. Battle net currently has a terrible arcade system and although blizzard meant well, their idea flopped. If they redesigned the way the arcade works, possibly put heroes of the storm into the arcade itself, and then add like cool skins for playing arcade games. Have these skins be specific to arcade games only so that it won't disturb the 1v1 players. This way, they can add and monetize as much skins as they want without disturbing the ladder as much. There will still be skins for ladders of course, but give the players the options of turning them off, but when youre in the arcade system you cant turn off your skins. I don't think Blizzard wants SC2's focus on the arcade/custom. They don't want it to die, but as well they don't want the same experience as BW. I think its good they focus on the ladder players. The current arcade isn't too bad though. BW and WC3 was all about hitting that refresh list button until you found your map, or start your own map and patiently wait for people to come and go until you have the required number. Now all we need to do is plug in some keywords to find our map. I think there's enough evidence that if they focus on the ladder players, this game will never rise above the steadily smaller niche that we have right now. I love 1v1 but it's simply one of the most stressful competitive games you can play right now. It's not fun. Its possible, and to an extent I agree. 1v1 is incredibly stressful, and not for a lot of people, but don't think its going to cannibalize the game if more focus was on ladder. As well, Blizzard doesn't completely ignore the arcade. They frequently promote maps on the SC2's website. There has to be a balance of what SC2 should be about. Is it the ladder/campaign/tournaments? Or is it about the custom/arcade? They are both intrinsically valuable, but which gives more value. I agree. I think that's for their internal team to really take a hard look and see what they want out of SC2. BLIZZARD IF YOU'RE READING I'LL WORK PRO BONO PLS JUST FLY ME TO HQ
Me too Blizzard. And maybe buy me a meal.
|
On December 18 2014 04:44 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:41 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 04:36 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:29 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 04:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:08 phodacbiet wrote:
Why don't they just fix the custom game/arcade system. BW was very hard and let's be honest, most people didn't play 1v1. The majority played fastest map possible, BGH, and UMS maps. Battle net currently has a terrible arcade system and although blizzard meant well, their idea flopped. If they redesigned the way the arcade works, possibly put heroes of the storm into the arcade itself, and then add like cool skins for playing arcade games. Have these skins be specific to arcade games only so that it won't disturb the 1v1 players. This way, they can add and monetize as much skins as they want without disturbing the ladder as much. There will still be skins for ladders of course, but give the players the options of turning them off, but when youre in the arcade system you cant turn off your skins. I don't think Blizzard wants SC2's focus on the arcade/custom. They don't want it to die, but as well they don't want the same experience as BW. I think its good they focus on the ladder players. The current arcade isn't too bad though. BW and WC3 was all about hitting that refresh list button until you found your map, or start your own map and patiently wait for people to come and go until you have the required number. Now all we need to do is plug in some keywords to find our map. I think there's enough evidence that if they focus on the ladder players, this game will never rise above the steadily smaller niche that we have right now. I love 1v1 but it's simply one of the most stressful competitive games you can play right now. It's not fun. Its possible, and to an extent I agree. 1v1 is incredibly stressful, and not for a lot of people, but don't think its going to cannibalize the game if more focus was on ladder. As well, Blizzard doesn't completely ignore the arcade. They frequently promote maps on the SC2's website. There has to be a balance of what SC2 should be about. Is it the ladder/campaign/tournaments? Or is it about the custom/arcade? They are both intrinsically valuable, but which gives more value. I agree. I think that's for their internal team to really take a hard look and see what they want out of SC2. BLIZZARD IF YOU'RE READING I'LL WORK PRO BONO PLS JUST FLY ME TO HQ Me too Blizzard. And maybe buy me a meal.
I think almost anyone on TL will work for blizz to save SC2 for the price of a ticket to Irvine and a burrito. Good deal
|
On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches.
The more I think on this, the more I feel it's unreasonable to expecxt casual players to play under the same rule set as pro players. Team games are different, before someone heads off down that road).
Also, balance should be the goal for the top x% of the scene. It must be as balanced as reasonably possible for this target. But it doesn't mean it has to be balanced in bronze or silver.
Screw it! 50% less damage to storm and fungals. Seeker missiles too. Just as an example, don't lynch me here. It doesn't matter at these low levels, what's far more important is the player has fun.
|
On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
In one of Destiny's posts he suggested different gameplay or mechanics for different leagues and I think this is actually a really interesting idea. It would also mean that your rank has additional meaning and it could really help ease newer players into laddering, while giving them something to aspire to that is more than a number (for example the privilege of being able to play ranked with less or no handicaps).
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches.
You don't need different balance per league. You need balance which scales well, i.e. if something is easy to execute it should be easy to defend. And there could be game modes designed to attract casual players so that only people truly interested in 1v1 melee would have to play it.
And even there it's not necessary to have different balance. For instance, it could be the case that the game does not comfortably allow FFA gameplay, but let's say this is a goal for Blizzard. Should they separate out the game balance for FFA's? It might not be necessary, perhaps instead they could add some map gimmick which makes the game play out differently (e.g. if you kill enemy units you get tokens which you can spend on mercenaries from neutral mercenary camps located on the map). Or let's say that team games suffer due to lack of defender's advantage, maybe all that's necessary is to have maps with very small entrances so that only one marine at the time can move through. Or if Blizzard would have mono-battles as a separate game mode it's again not necessary to create new balance because it's purely meant to be for fun.
|
On December 18 2014 04:51 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches. The more I think on this, the more I feel it's unreasonable to expecxt casual players to play under the same rule set as pro players. Team games are different, before someone heads off down that road). Also, balance should be the goal for the top x% of the scene. It must be as balanced as reasonably possible for this target. But it doesn't mean it has to be balanced in bronze or silver. Screw it! 50% less damage to storm and fungals. Seeker missiles too. Just as an example, don't lynch me here. It doesn't matter at these low levels, what's far more important is the player has fun.
The problem then becomes which race is op in which league.
Eventually once the numbers get figured out, bronze/silver will be terran heavy, gold to platinum is all protoss, and zergs are so op at diamond (obviously examples pulled from my ass).
That experience is not very pleasurable as well. If they implement league level changes, it will also inhibit people from moving up in leagues.
If I knew protoss was slightly op in silver, but in gold they are weaker, I would be afraid of getting promoted.
|
On December 18 2014 04:55 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
In one of Destiny's posts he suggested different gameplay or mechanics for different leagues and I think this is actually a really interesting idea. It would also mean that your rank has additional meaning and it could really help ease newer players into laddering, while giving them something to aspire to that is more than a number (for example the privilege of being able to play ranked with less or no handicaps).
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches. You don't need different balance per league. You need balance which scales well, i.e. if something is easy to execute it should be easy to defend. And there could be game modes designed to attract casual players so that only people truly interested in 1v1 melee would have to play it. And even there it's not necessary to have different balance. For instance, it could be the case that the game does not comfortably allow FFA gameplay, but let's say this is a goal for Blizzard. Should they separate out the game balance for FFA's? It might not be necessary, perhaps instead they could add some map gimmick which makes the game play out differently (e.g. if you kill enemy units you get tokens which you can spend on mercenaries from neutral mercenary camps located on the map). Or let's say that team games suffer due to lack of defender's advantage, maybe all that's necessary is to have maps with very small entrances so that only one marine at the time can move through. Or if Blizzard would have mono-battles as a separate game mode it's again not necessary to create new balance because it's purely meant to be for fun.
The only way to make something easier to execute is give them more time to execute it. I would actually like to see lower leagues have game time set to normal time, while the masters to pros play on accelerated time.
Your suggestion on maps was kind of used in early WoL. There was a beginner's league, with destructible debris blocking your main entrance.
If you suggest totally different map pools for leagues though, that would take massive manpower to design and test all those maps.
|
Always another person view to make one rethink your original stance. Not easy thats for sure.
After blizzard usurpation of destinys article, I'm calling it now that he'll be writing another one a year or so after lotv, showing why it all went wrong asking why ity was brushed under the carpet.
Maybe the glass will be half full not empty, and lotv might be a turning point!
|
On December 18 2014 05:03 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:55 Grumbels wrote:On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
In one of Destiny's posts he suggested different gameplay or mechanics for different leagues and I think this is actually a really interesting idea. It would also mean that your rank has additional meaning and it could really help ease newer players into laddering, while giving them something to aspire to that is more than a number (for example the privilege of being able to play ranked with less or no handicaps).
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches. You don't need different balance per league. You need balance which scales well, i.e. if something is easy to execute it should be easy to defend. And there could be game modes designed to attract casual players so that only people truly interested in 1v1 melee would have to play it. And even there it's not necessary to have different balance. For instance, it could be the case that the game does not comfortably allow FFA gameplay, but let's say this is a goal for Blizzard. Should they separate out the game balance for FFA's? It might not be necessary, perhaps instead they could add some map gimmick which makes the game play out differently (e.g. if you kill enemy units you get tokens which you can spend on mercenaries from neutral mercenary camps located on the map). Or let's say that team games suffer due to lack of defender's advantage, maybe all that's necessary is to have maps with very small entrances so that only one marine at the time can move through. Or if Blizzard would have mono-battles as a separate game mode it's again not necessary to create new balance because it's purely meant to be for fun. The only way to make something easier to execute is give them more time to execute it. I would actually like to see lower leagues have game time set to normal time, while the masters to pros play on accelerated time. Your suggestion on maps was kind of used in early WoL. There was a beginner's league, with destructible debris blocking your main entrance. If you suggest totally different map pools for leagues though, that would take massive manpower to design and test all those maps.
No, I agree that fast is a better default speed for most players. But the general point is that you can have alternative game modes so that players are no longer forced into laddering. And these alternative modes can have a lower game speed and maybe enable some other options removed from the 'hardcore' 1v1 ladder (for instance the auto-production I mentioned earlier).
And well, creating a viable FFA scene will take a lot of work and it's probably not worth it for Blizzard and I'm not expecting it. I used to enjoy FFA a lot in my WC3 days, but that game is much better suited to FFA to begin with so it didn't require extra work there. I do think that there ought to be some broad and easy to understand adjustments you can make specifically for FFA to make it a lot more viable, so I don't think it should take Blizzard that much effort though (but well, it's a personal desire).
|
On December 18 2014 05:12 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 05:03 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:55 Grumbels wrote:On December 18 2014 04:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 02:27 Myrddraal wrote:
In one of Destiny's posts he suggested different gameplay or mechanics for different leagues and I think this is actually a really interesting idea. It would also mean that your rank has additional meaning and it could really help ease newer players into laddering, while giving them something to aspire to that is more than a number (for example the privilege of being able to play ranked with less or no handicaps).
The problem with that is balance. If we change gameplay for different leagues, then will each league have to be well balanced? Its not possible to adjust all numbers by a certain percent, and expect everything to be well balanced. Does Blizzard support balance at all leagues with this system? Will they decide tweaks need to be made at the silver league? Development time and cost needs to be invested in all these league patches. You don't need different balance per league. You need balance which scales well, i.e. if something is easy to execute it should be easy to defend. And there could be game modes designed to attract casual players so that only people truly interested in 1v1 melee would have to play it. And even there it's not necessary to have different balance. For instance, it could be the case that the game does not comfortably allow FFA gameplay, but let's say this is a goal for Blizzard. Should they separate out the game balance for FFA's? It might not be necessary, perhaps instead they could add some map gimmick which makes the game play out differently (e.g. if you kill enemy units you get tokens which you can spend on mercenaries from neutral mercenary camps located on the map). Or let's say that team games suffer due to lack of defender's advantage, maybe all that's necessary is to have maps with very small entrances so that only one marine at the time can move through. Or if Blizzard would have mono-battles as a separate game mode it's again not necessary to create new balance because it's purely meant to be for fun. The only way to make something easier to execute is give them more time to execute it. I would actually like to see lower leagues have game time set to normal time, while the masters to pros play on accelerated time. Your suggestion on maps was kind of used in early WoL. There was a beginner's league, with destructible debris blocking your main entrance. If you suggest totally different map pools for leagues though, that would take massive manpower to design and test all those maps. No, I agree that fast is a better default speed for most players. But the general point is that you can have alternative game modes so that players are no longer forced into laddering. And these alternative modes can have a lower game speed and maybe enable some other options removed from the 'hardcore' 1v1 ladder (for instance the auto-production I mentioned earlier). And well, creating a viable FFA scene will take a lot of work and it's probably not worth it for Blizzard and I'm not expecting it. I used to enjoy FFA a lot in my WC3 days, but that game is much better suited to FFA to begin with so it didn't require extra work there. I do think that there ought to be some broad and easy to understand adjustments you can make specifically for FFA to make it a lot more viable, so I don't think it should take Blizzard that much effort though (but well, it's a personal desire).
An alternative game mode might be viable, but there would still need to be lots of balance testing on that mode. Any number of adjustments could be detrimental.
Regarding FFA scene, I am not very involved in FFA, but it could be another avenue to increase accessibility. I know I played a lot of FFA BGH games on BW and WC3, but not so much in SC2.
|
I´d like better Profiles with things like favourite unit, playstyle, little replay clips for your showcase (some great engagement ur proud of) etc.
Some analytical replay/observing mode would be great too. By that i mean little indicators to see exactly what the players are doing, for example a little arrow that pops up above a unit, showing what direction the player ordered it to go (disappears after like 1 sec) / a little storm icon above a templar that has been ordered to storm / a target icon above the unit that gets focusfired by one player.
I´d also love to have build orders built in for unranked. So if you´re new you could just get an easy build from blizz and have it appear in your unranked games as a "to do list" (with short notes) or be able to create your own, either by playing it out and saving it, or getting it from other players.
And something like weekly tournaments in your division (only for those with say 100+ games in that division) with ingame prices like portraits, skins or little "championship-title"-esque crowns in bronze-masters color, below your portrait to brag with. So people that are stuck have something to play for and the opportunity to prepare for an opponent.
i´ll stop here before this gets too long..
|
On December 18 2014 04:46 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 04:44 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:41 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 04:36 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:29 Chaggi wrote:On December 18 2014 04:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 18 2014 04:08 phodacbiet wrote:
Why don't they just fix the custom game/arcade system. BW was very hard and let's be honest, most people didn't play 1v1. The majority played fastest map possible, BGH, and UMS maps. Battle net currently has a terrible arcade system and although blizzard meant well, their idea flopped. If they redesigned the way the arcade works, possibly put heroes of the storm into the arcade itself, and then add like cool skins for playing arcade games. Have these skins be specific to arcade games only so that it won't disturb the 1v1 players. This way, they can add and monetize as much skins as they want without disturbing the ladder as much. There will still be skins for ladders of course, but give the players the options of turning them off, but when youre in the arcade system you cant turn off your skins. I don't think Blizzard wants SC2's focus on the arcade/custom. They don't want it to die, but as well they don't want the same experience as BW. I think its good they focus on the ladder players. The current arcade isn't too bad though. BW and WC3 was all about hitting that refresh list button until you found your map, or start your own map and patiently wait for people to come and go until you have the required number. Now all we need to do is plug in some keywords to find our map. I think there's enough evidence that if they focus on the ladder players, this game will never rise above the steadily smaller niche that we have right now. I love 1v1 but it's simply one of the most stressful competitive games you can play right now. It's not fun. Its possible, and to an extent I agree. 1v1 is incredibly stressful, and not for a lot of people, but don't think its going to cannibalize the game if more focus was on ladder. As well, Blizzard doesn't completely ignore the arcade. They frequently promote maps on the SC2's website. There has to be a balance of what SC2 should be about. Is it the ladder/campaign/tournaments? Or is it about the custom/arcade? They are both intrinsically valuable, but which gives more value. I agree. I think that's for their internal team to really take a hard look and see what they want out of SC2. BLIZZARD IF YOU'RE READING I'LL WORK PRO BONO PLS JUST FLY ME TO HQ Me too Blizzard. And maybe buy me a meal. I think almost anyone on TL will work for blizz to save SC2 for the price of a ticket to Irvine and a burrito. Good deal
hell I'm in the area half the time, just put me up from Friday to Monday in a hotel and I'll work through the weekend. Don't even need food.
|
On December 18 2014 05:28 DuckDuckDuck wrote:
I´d like better Profiles with things like favourite unit, playstyle, little replay clips for your showcase (some great engagement ur proud of) etc.
Some analytical replay/observing mode would be great too. By that i mean little indicators to see exactly what the players are doing, for example a little arrow that pops up above a unit, showing what direction the player ordered it to go (disappears after like 1 sec) / a little storm icon above a templar that has been ordered to storm / a target icon above the unit that gets focusfired by one player.
I´d also love to have build orders built in for unranked. So if you´re new you could just get an easy build from blizz and have it appear in your unranked games as a "to do list" (with short notes) or be able to create your own, either by playing it out and saving it, or getting it from other players.
And something like weekly tournaments in your division (only for those with say 100+ games in that division) with ingame prices like portraits, skins or little "championship-title"-esque crowns in bronze-masters color, below your portrait to brag with. So people that are stuck have something to play for and the opportunity to prepare for an opponent.
i´ll stop here before this gets too long..
Your first enhancement is essentially a quality of life change, which isn't too unreasonable. It wouldn't affect the game itself, but let others know a little bit about you. I approve!
Now you want a tool to help you improve. First, there are already tools developed by third party fanboys that do a lot of what you seek. Should Blizzard implement first party tools that are polished and work perfectly? That will take away opportunities for the fanboys to show their talent in programming/modding. It would definitely help the players, but actively hurt the modders.
They mentioned the possibility of tournaments built into battlenet. I don't know how that will work though, but your third wish might already be in the pipelines.
|
Now you want a tool to help you improve. First, there are already tools developed by third party fanboys that do a lot of what you seek. Should Blizzard implement first party tools that are polished and work perfectly? That will take away opportunities for the fanboys to show their talent in programming/modding. It would definitely help the players, but actively hurt the modders.
Didn´t even think of that but have to agree. Maybe they should try implement mods more then (a bit like steam workshop).
|
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole.
|
On December 18 2014 06:48 CCa1ss1e wrote:
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole.
He is an asshole, but a smart one. Every point in his blog post I agree with. Only Blizz can save SC2 and push it to the heights of games like LoL, Dota, and now CSGO.
|
On December 18 2014 06:48 CCa1ss1e wrote:
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole.
I agree he is an asshole, but he makes some valid points.
Blizzard needs more interaction with the community and has to make this game more accessible.
Neither of his points are unreasonable, but he could definitely change his tone and word choice.
|
On December 18 2014 06:34 DuckDuckDuck wrote:Show nested quote +Now you want a tool to help you improve. First, there are already tools developed by third party fanboys that do a lot of what you seek. Should Blizzard implement first party tools that are polished and work perfectly? That will take away opportunities for the fanboys to show their talent in programming/modding. It would definitely help the players, but actively hurt the modders. Didn´t even think of that but have to agree. Maybe they should try implement mods more then (a bit like steam workshop).
There is only one mod that Blizzard took and incorporated into the game, and I think its GameHeart mod. I don't really see them promoting any other mod though.
|
Gotta say I'm impressed with how open this thread is to radical ideas to pull in less hardcore players, compared to the relentless machismo on show when sc2 first came out
|
hi
I posted this on reddit too - Destiny's "active" player numbers are misleading.
So, nios.kr only looks at people that have placed into ranked ladder. A person that places into a ranked ladder isn't necessarily active if they only play "one" game.
"Activity" can be measured in other ways - "bonus pool remaining" or "most recent game played" being two ways to measure more recent activity. Just knowing this, you might think the player base is even smaller than what was posted. But this also applies to the other numbers quoted too - they don't take into account "activity"
Second, Destiny only references 1v1 ladder players in his post.
At the end of last season ~530,000 unique player IDs had placed into some kind of ranked league (1v1 or team type).
This doesn't include players that only play unranked, vs. AI, arcade/custom games.
I imagine the actual "playerbase" of SC2 is much higher than ~200k
|
On December 18 2014 08:14 Umpteen wrote:Gotta say I'm impressed with how open this thread is to radical ideas to pull in less hardcore players, compared to the relentless machismo on show when sc2 first came out
Radical ideas are ok to have, but it all depends on when.
This late in the development, when many of us have formed a decent opinion on the state of the game, then radical ideas are very good to shake it up and try something new.
The early SC2 years were so volatile, and nothing was really figured out, except for the early cheeses. Declaring radical changes in a time of chaos would only add more chaos. Not a great idea.
|
Regardless of those numbers, he still has a point.
Reducing the barrier to entry, coupled with active communication from the devs would help this game go a long way.
|
On December 18 2014 08:19 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Regardless of those numbers, he still has a point.
Reducing the barrier to entry, coupled with active communication from the devs would help this game go a long way.
sure, I'm just pointing out something other people have commented on (perhaps incorrectly).
|
On December 17 2014 04:33 dAPhREAk wrote:
has any rts tested microtransactions and been successful?
dont really like the assumption that sc2 is not doing well because its not a f2p game. its more likely that it doesnt attract as many players/viewers because of the type of game.
great point,
EA/Victory Games attempted to create a F2P C&C game and after 5 years packed it in before the game was ever released.
the only RTS game remotely close to the financial success Blizzard has had with the genre is RA2. It sold 4 million copies. it was the traditional boxed copy model.
if anyone knows how to make money on an RTS game its Blizzard.
On December 18 2014 08:19 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Reducing the barrier to entry, coupled with active communication from the devs would help this game go a long way.
reducing the barrier to entry from July 2010 to today has contributed to the increase in hacking. Buying a WoL/HotS to get back into the game after being banned is a lot less expensive now. therefore, the financial penalty for hacking is lower.
if anything Blizzard is going in the opposite direction by declaring LotV a stand alone expansion.
This allows Blizzard to charge $60 for this game and avoid all the gray market selling/trading of old unused WoL , HotS accounts.
I think Blizzard monetization/revenue model with teh high priced boxed copy is generally the best method to maximize revenue from the game.
I'd probably sprinkle in a couple of the microtransaction suggestions Destiny makes in his blog in order to pay for ongoing patching, hacking prevention/detection and ban waves.
|
AFAIK Destiny started the whole cry about dead-game (which poisoned a lot of people I know) and he's what... a saviour now?
|
|
|
On December 18 2014 18:12 pieroog wrote:
AFAIK Destiny started the whole cry about dead-game (which poisoned a lot of people I know) and he's what... a saviour now?
is destiny solely responsible for the negativity surrounding the game's decline?
you're giving him too much credit there.
|
destiny has been pretty consistent about his thoughts on the game and the tournament scene for years now and has been consistently ignored or written off by several players, figures, band wagoners, "fans who enjoy positivity" for years now.
the post is hardly a turn around for him lol
|
Say what you want about him, but his posts makes sense and if blizzard actually followed some of his suggestions sc2 would have more viewers
|
On December 18 2014 06:48 CCa1ss1e wrote:
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole.
Why is it that so many people seem to think that "you're mean!" is an argument? He made some points about the game, which you are free to dispute. Calling him a poo-poo head does not refute those points in any way. Everything he's saying has been said for more than four years now. He's hardly alone in holding these views. My patience with Blizzards fluffy answers and general intractability is wearing thin too.
|
Northern Ireland174 Posts
Good ole Destiny marmite lol. Either love or hate him!
I for one am glad to read such a blog and by someone notable in the community. Hopefully Blizzard will consider the points you've made and something constructive comes from it. There is no doubt Sc2 will be around a long time but the question of how big it will be in 2 years will be interesting to see.
|
On December 18 2014 19:52 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 06:48 CCa1ss1e wrote:
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole. Why is it that so many people seem to think that "you're mean!" is an argument? He made some points about the game, which you are free to dispute. Calling him a poo-poo head does not refute those points in any way. Everything he's saying has been said for more than four years now. He's hardly alone in holding these views. My patience with Blizzards fluffy answers and general intractability is wearing thin too.
Because quite a lot of people expect others to be polite and modest?
|
On December 18 2014 19:52 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 06:48 CCa1ss1e wrote:
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole. Why is it that so many people seem to think that "you're mean!" is an argument? He made some points about the game, which you are free to dispute. Calling him a poo-poo head does not refute those points in any way. Everything he's saying has been said for more than four years now. He's hardly alone in holding these views. My patience with Blizzards fluffy answers and general intractability is wearing thin too.
There is a difference between stating points calmly and being an ass. He quite a few times sounded like a kid having a tantrum. Being an ass is likely to result in people writing you and your opinions off.
|
Kazahk, Destiny can string swear words together like nobody. It doesn't bother me! So what if he swears? Or as you put it "sounded liked a kid". So what?
How can that in anyway shape or form negate that article? What on earth has it got to do with it? He's vocal, swears: therefore what he says is irrelevant? Huh.
It's presented well, and written well. Sources and links to various items to help back up points.. If people are stupid enough to dismiss someone out of hand without thinking or reading what's being discussed. More the fool them.
|
the problem with frequently using swear words with no precise meaning is it lowers the signal to noise ratio of your message.
in a debate about the deep nuances of entertainment software monetization this can mean the difference between being understood or not being understood.
extracting hundreds of millions of dollars from millions of consumers is a deep, intricate, complex task.
|
Is it financially worthwhile for Blizzard to allocate resources to Starcraft to continually support it in the way Valve and Riot support their games? Destiny says:
"And on top of all of this, they found a way to finance their development teams – by using the Steam market to sell skins and keys."
Can Blizzard monetize Starcaft besides initial sale? It's not the same as a MOBA or FPS, and I doubt it. So you can't blame Blizzard for not supporting an RTS in the same way as those comanies support their games.
And no, Blizzard isn't going to make SC2 more like Brood War. That might be good for the TL superfans, but not for Blizzard's financial interest in attracting casuals.
And let's not forget Blizzard has propped up the GSL with their own money since the very beginning. They do WCS basically as charity to the community.
|
On December 18 2014 19:52 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 06:48 CCa1ss1e wrote:
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole. Why is it that so many people seem to think that "you're mean!" is an argument? He made some points about the game, which you are free to dispute. Calling him a poo-poo head does not refute those points in any way. Everything he's saying has been said for more than four years now. He's hardly alone in holding these views. My patience with Blizzards fluffy answers and general intractability is wearing thin too.
This exactly. I don't like the way the guy treats or talks to people, but he's right.
|
I have not always agreed with destiny in the past, but there was a lot of strong points in his post that Blizzard should seriously take into consideration. Well written.
|
On December 18 2014 22:21 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 19:52 Squat wrote:On December 18 2014 06:48 CCa1ss1e wrote:
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole. Why is it that so many people seem to think that "you're mean!" is an argument? He made some points about the game, which you are free to dispute. Calling him a poo-poo head does not refute those points in any way. Everything he's saying has been said for more than four years now. He's hardly alone in holding these views. My patience with Blizzards fluffy answers and general intractability is wearing thin too. Because quite a lot of people expect others to be polite and modest?
That is still not an argument. It is a whine. The points stand regardless of whether someone had their feelings hurt.
|
hey, since we all agree that something has to be done why don´t we just spam the fuck outta Blizzards Bnetforum?
Everybody just copy paste the OP open a thread on their forum and put your signature under it in!
|
im gonna start now... will probably be doing this for a while. i d like the message to sink in
|
On December 18 2014 18:54 Gamegene wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 18:12 pieroog wrote:
AFAIK Destiny started the whole cry about dead-game (which poisoned a lot of people I know) and he's what... a saviour now? is destiny solely responsible for the negativity surrounding the game's decline? you're giving him too much credit there.
He's genuinely a huge part of it. Perception is so important. Go on Reddit's homepage, click on the top right and search 'StarCraft', look at the first result.
|
On December 19 2014 02:50 robopork wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 19:52 Squat wrote:On December 18 2014 06:48 CCa1ss1e wrote:
Sorry, but the way Destiny acts around other users and even that blizz PR is disgusting. What an a-hole. Why is it that so many people seem to think that "you're mean!" is an argument? He made some points about the game, which you are free to dispute. Calling him a poo-poo head does not refute those points in any way. Everything he's saying has been said for more than four years now. He's hardly alone in holding these views. My patience with Blizzards fluffy answers and general intractability is wearing thin too. This exactly. I don't like the way the guy treats or talks to people, but he's right.
yea destiny is a B***hole but the time for asking pleasantry is gone. we have to hammer it into their lazy ass numb skulls.
|
main problem with sc2 it is that casuals cant play this game becouse they must lrean to much befor they can win games.
It´s frustraiting to lose in sc2 you are working so hard and you need so long time to play better.
|
Dude, seriously, they gave us chat channels. What more do you whiners want? =P
|
I don't really know what could be done to attract a significantly larger playerbase to SC2 for LotV but copying what a different company did for a vastly different genre of game doesn't seem like something a AAA game producing company would blindly do.
I think some official furiously paced team mode that uses the same unit/balance could be a starting point (not archon mode). Mindless fun for minimal effort. It's basically what the BW and WC3 scene were based on yet they still had thriving competitive scenes based around the 'real' game.
|
Starcraft should be learning from Dota 2, in terms of microtransactions, that would keep game alive for much time! If Blizzard wants to make some money, they should add some things like skins and stuff to be bought in game. Everyone knows how attractive Collector Editions are...
|
On December 18 2014 05:28 DuckDuckDuck wrote:
I´d like better Profiles with things like favourite unit, playstyle, little replay clips for your showcase (some great engagement ur proud of) etc.
I would love to customize my In-game Profile page. Currently, it is completely generic. I can imagine having a profile looking like a cockpit with a lot of features to add/modify. Being able to choose different backgrounds, show my favorite units/maps, being able to pin pictures of my favourite players/teams/tournaments/community members, write a message for people who watch my profile, having a news feed/calendar reminding me of the next WCS games my favourite players will play,... (I would even pay for new background, picture/logo of players/teams/community members to add on the profile page) or display a customizable "quest list" (play X number of games as terran, play this new arcade mode,...)
Unlike new unit skins, Profiles customization does not impact the game performance at all. It's an easy way to make the game more attractive for everyone. I feel there are plenty of way to personalise and monetize the game, even without modifying in-game skins of the units.
|
Destiny is so right, I've long thought there should be much more side-content accessible to those who want it.
It would add to the game, not detract from it, and increase the number of players and money for Blizzard which can only be a good thing.
To those dismissing Destiny's argument simply because he is "negative", that is not a valid argument. He is realistic, and moreover correct. You cannot refute someone simply because it doesn't sit well with you without evaluating the points, and nothing he says is questionable. Blizzard would be very wise to (or conversely, stupid not to) think long and hard about this now LotV is their only chance for doing so. This final expansion can direct the rest of SC2's direction forever and it's super important to get it right.
|
As much as I agree with destiny I don't see any incentive for Blizzard to do anything about it. Why would they put anything into sc2 when heroes of the storm is coming? and sc2 already passed its prime.
I wonder if community would've been more vocal about sc2 issues from the very beginning it would've made a difference. But fuck it. TL mods and the likes of Incontrol/DjWheat shut down almost all attempts of community outcry. great job guys.
|
Probably because heroes of the storm sucks.
|
On December 19 2014 11:13 saddaromma wrote:
As much as I agree with destiny I don't see any incentive for Blizzard to do anything about it. Why would they put anything into sc2 when heroes of the storm is coming? and sc2 already passed its prime.
I wonder if community would've been more vocal about sc2 issues from the very beginning it would've made a difference. But fuck it. TL mods and the likes of Incontrol/DjWheat shut down almost all attempts of community outcry. great job guys.
Without tl sc wouldn't be where it is now
|
On December 19 2014 11:13 saddaromma wrote:
As much as I agree with destiny I don't see any incentive for Blizzard to do anything about it. Why would they put anything into sc2 when heroes of the storm is coming? and sc2 already passed its prime.
I wonder if community would've been more vocal about sc2 issues from the very beginning it would've made a difference. But fuck it. TL mods and the likes of Incontrol/DjWheat shut down almost all attempts of community outcry. great job guys.
What the fuck are you talking about? People have been complaining about Battle.net 0.2 since launch, along with a myriad of other problems (some of which have been addressed, some of which haven't).
Also Blizz still makes money off of SC2 through tourneys, they have plenty of incentive to pour time and resources into expanding the game for RTS fans.
|
On December 19 2014 16:21 Defenestrator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2014 11:13 saddaromma wrote:
As much as I agree with destiny I don't see any incentive for Blizzard to do anything about it. Why would they put anything into sc2 when heroes of the storm is coming? and sc2 already passed its prime.
I wonder if community would've been more vocal about sc2 issues from the very beginning it would've made a difference. But fuck it. TL mods and the likes of Incontrol/DjWheat shut down almost all attempts of community outcry. great job guys. What the fuck are you talking about? People have been complaining about Battle.net 0.2 since launch, along with a myriad of other problems (some of which have been addressed, some of which haven't). Also Blizz still makes money off of SC2 through tourneys, they have plenty of incentive to pour time and resources into expanding the game for RTS fans.
Also in Blizzards defense we have to mention that they have done and tried alot of things to cater to the casual player and they are still working on that. The automated tournaments and the archon mode are things (not only) casual players are very excited about. Destiniy is trying to be constructive here and I think we shouldn't confuse that with negativity.
And to adress the attack on wheat and incontrol: I think you are wronging them in that regard. Yes they have sometimes ridiculed some of the criticism regarding sc2 but what they allways where after was the unconstructive / toxic kind of negativity and not the actual discussion of relevant things about sc2 (one could even argue that part of their success was that they didn't) if we could hold anything against them then it's probably that they overhyped the esports scene around sc2 in the early years which in the other hand was very understandable since they have been waiting for this to happen for a long long time, and they worked very hard to be huge and valuable part of it.
For me the bottom line is that sc2 is amazing and it has grew into this game and scene which surpasses every RTS in the gaming history. I think that is an amazing feat and I'am thankful for it. Blizzard has done alot and tried alot to bring sc2 to this stage and they are just as passionate about the game as every other fan, I don't think you can fake that.
|
Calling it now.
Warcraft 4 will be the game with all the features requested in SC2. ♥
|
On December 19 2014 20:00 Rustug wrote:
Calling it now.
Warcraft 4 will be the game with all the features requested in SC2. ♥
And then people will invent new things they'd like to see and start bashing Blizzard all over again.
|
On December 19 2014 20:12 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2014 20:00 Rustug wrote:
Calling it now.
Warcraft 4 will be the game with all the features requested in SC2. ♥ And then people will invent new things they'd like to see and start bashing Blizzard all over again.
Yeah i will cry for sc3 cause i could not care less for warcraft
|
I honestly don't think adding micro transactions to Starcraft 2 will bring players back. I left Starcraft because towards the end of Starcraft 2 the game got stale and boring and hots didn't really bring any new ground breaking play and from blizzcon it looks like lotv hasn't changed much either. I honesty wish they would just delay lotv and break the game down and build it from scratch even if it takes a year or so longer to develop. It's sad that I am more excited for hero's of the storm then lotv.
|
to be honest, lotv isn't going to change sc2 scene much
hopefuls out there think it can suddenly change sc2's popularity but it won't
fundamental things haven't changed since forever, such as taking care of hackers and balancing the game
wishing lotv will fix everything is like wishing you can win a multi-million lottery
|
so i just came across this on reddit, was an interesting read and definetely agree with it.
Full credit of this post goes to redditor JaTidude.
source: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/2pooxd/suggestion_for_lotv_transferable_currency_from/
I know this has been touched on in the comments of this post but I think it deserves its own post.
In game currency can be a major reason why players, especially new ones, will continue to grind and get better. Imagine if you could bet coins (Same coins as from HS) on a game and possibly win.
This could cause penetration into other games that are involved, HS players would be tempted to try SC2 because of the possibility of coins. On the flip side, SC2 players would do the same for HS. The coins would work to buy skins and other cosmetics.
The key would be the total integration between games however. The Idea of being a single person across multiple games will grow the community and increase actual participation in the game itself.
He talks about the fact that if we could earn currency by playing starcraft more people would be motivated to do it and by sharing the currency with other blizzard games you can get people from those games interested in SC2 aswell.
|
On December 19 2014 08:45 Totorosc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 05:28 DuckDuckDuck wrote:
I´d like better Profiles with things like favourite unit, playstyle, little replay clips for your showcase (some great engagement ur proud of) etc.
I would love to customize my In-game Profile page. Currently, it is completely generic. I can imagine having a profile looking like a cockpit with a lot of features to add/modify. Being able to choose different backgrounds, show my favorite units/maps, being able to pin pictures of my favourite players/teams/tournaments/community members, write a message for people who watch my profile, having a news feed/calendar reminding me of the next WCS games my favourite players will play,... (I would even pay for new background, picture/logo of players/teams/community members to add on the profile page) or display a customizable "quest list" (play X number of games as terran, play this new arcade mode,...) Unlike new unit skins, Profiles customization does not impact the game performance at all. It's an easy way to make the game more attractive for everyone. I feel there are plenty of way to personalise and monetize the game, even without modifying in-game skins of the units.
This is really a nice idea. And another good point like many others in this thread. Maybe skins for units wouldn't be viable (but I really don't see how.. So long as options to turn them on or off, have opponents show as default if you wished etc, I can't see the harm it would do).
The thing that really grinds my gears about all this, is how blizzard just wont get off their high horse and just comment. How long would it take for them to take this article and answer specific questions? Or upload a vod, or skype chat with destiny and upload that?
If you don't think it's viable blizzard, OK! No problem.. Just get us involved, expolain why you think this is the case. If you were to explain why X or Y or Z was being done, then all this shit would go away.
I think it's fair to say after reading every post in this thread to date.. That I'm not alone in this thinking.
Just engage us blizzard, tell us why.. Other game developers do it, why can't you?
|
On December 20 2014 00:40 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2014 08:45 Totorosc2 wrote:On December 18 2014 05:28 DuckDuckDuck wrote:
I´d like better Profiles with things like favourite unit, playstyle, little replay clips for your showcase (some great engagement ur proud of) etc.
I would love to customize my In-game Profile page. Currently, it is completely generic. I can imagine having a profile looking like a cockpit with a lot of features to add/modify. Being able to choose different backgrounds, show my favorite units/maps, being able to pin pictures of my favourite players/teams/tournaments/community members, write a message for people who watch my profile, having a news feed/calendar reminding me of the next WCS games my favourite players will play,... (I would even pay for new background, picture/logo of players/teams/community members to add on the profile page) or display a customizable "quest list" (play X number of games as terran, play this new arcade mode,...) Unlike new unit skins, Profiles customization does not impact the game performance at all. It's an easy way to make the game more attractive for everyone. I feel there are plenty of way to personalise and monetize the game, even without modifying in-game skins of the units. This is really a nice idea. And another good point like many others in this thread. Maybe skins for units wouldn't be viable (but I really don't see how.. So long as options to turn them on or off, have opponents show as default if you wished etc, I can't see the harm it would do). The thing that really grinds my gears about all this, is how blizzard just wont get off their high horse and just comment. How long would it take for them to take this article and answer specific questions? Or upload a vod, or skype chat with destiny and upload that? If you don't think it's viable blizzard, OK! No problem.. Just get us involved, expolain why you think this is the case. If you were to explain why X or Y or Z was being done, then all this shit would go away. I think it's fair to say after reading every post in this thread to date.. That I'm not alone in this thinking. Just engage us blizzard, tell us why.. Other game developers do it, why can't you?
They're stubborn. Simple as that.
|
On December 20 2014 00:40 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2014 08:45 Totorosc2 wrote:On December 18 2014 05:28 DuckDuckDuck wrote:
I´d like better Profiles with things like favourite unit, playstyle, little replay clips for your showcase (some great engagement ur proud of) etc.
I would love to customize my In-game Profile page. Currently, it is completely generic. I can imagine having a profile looking like a cockpit with a lot of features to add/modify. Being able to choose different backgrounds, show my favorite units/maps, being able to pin pictures of my favourite players/teams/tournaments/community members, write a message for people who watch my profile, having a news feed/calendar reminding me of the next WCS games my favourite players will play,... (I would even pay for new background, picture/logo of players/teams/community members to add on the profile page) or display a customizable "quest list" (play X number of games as terran, play this new arcade mode,...) Unlike new unit skins, Profiles customization does not impact the game performance at all. It's an easy way to make the game more attractive for everyone. I feel there are plenty of way to personalise and monetize the game, even without modifying in-game skins of the units. This is really a nice idea. And another good point like many others in this thread. Maybe skins for units wouldn't be viable (but I really don't see how.. So long as options to turn them on or off, have opponents show as default if you wished etc, I can't see the harm it would do). The thing that really grinds my gears about all this, is how blizzard just wont get off their high horse and just comment. How long would it take for them to take this article and answer specific questions? Or upload a vod, or skype chat with destiny and upload that? If you don't think it's viable blizzard, OK! No problem.. Just get us involved, expolain why you think this is the case. If you were to explain why X or Y or Z was being done, then all this shit would go away. I think it's fair to say after reading every post in this thread to date.. That I'm not alone in this thinking. Just engage us blizzard, tell us why.. Other game developers do it, why can't you?
Probably because it would only confirm that Blizzard really doesn't have the manpower or willpower to implement the things that people want.
I mean all it takes is a glance at Valve to see how much better Blizzard could be doing. Value has changed and added more to Dota 2 in one year than the entirety of SC2's lifespan. Meanwhile we see Blizzard struggling to add things that were already existent in SC1/Bnet, while keeping the SC2 metagame almost completely static. I honestly don't blame people for getting really bitter about it, because we're in a situation where the grass really IS greener on the Valve side, and all we can do is scratch our heads and wonder why a multi-million dollar company is barely pumping out content for one of its most influential franchises.
|
On December 18 2014 10:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2014 08:19 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Reducing the barrier to entry, coupled with active communication from the devs would help this game go a long way. reducing the barrier to entry from July 2010 to today has contributed to the increase in hacking. Buying a WoL/HotS to get back into the game after being banned is a lot less expensive now. therefore, the financial penalty for hacking is lower. if anything Blizzard is going in the opposite direction by declaring LotV a stand alone expansion. This allows Blizzard to charge $60 for this game and avoid all the gray market selling/trading of old unused WoL , HotS accounts. I think Blizzard monetization/revenue model with teh high priced boxed copy is generally the best method to maximize revenue from the game. I'd probably sprinkle in a couple of the microtransaction suggestions Destiny makes in his blog in order to pay for ongoing patching, hacking prevention/detection and ban waves.
When I say reduce, I don't mean to zero. I think the cost of LotV should be $25 and have micro transactions.
The cost is low enough it would attract a larger number of people. The difference between 25 and 60 isn't much to a hacker, so the hackers are going to hack anyways, just save bit of money.
Perhaps the boxed copy is the best pricing model for LotV. I will still pay $60 when it comes out, but that's only because I am a fan.
You can't deny the free to play garners way more gamers than single price. If Blizzard could reduce the cost of the game but incorporate micro transaction, it would help get new gamers to give SC2 a try.
To be honest, none of us knows what model fits best for SC2, and only Blizzard can decide that. I just have to agree with Destiny. Blizzard needs to do something to encourage new players to buy LotV. SC2 needs fresh blood, and LotV will be the opportunity for it. Questions still remain. How much blood will we get?
How many fresh faces join the community will depend on Blizzard, and we can only speculate and suggest.
|
On December 19 2014 08:17 Bastinian wrote:
Starcraft should be learning from Dota 2, in terms of microtransactions, that would keep game alive for much time! If Blizzard wants to make some money, they should add some things like skins and stuff to be bought in game. Everyone knows how attractive Collector Editions are...
Here is the problem though. We can't assume SC2 would be viable as a micro transaction game. Many of us doubt it could be viable because they are very dissimilar games.
As well, there is no evidence that it would flourish on purely micro transactions.
Plus others believe it wouldn't even help SC2, because they believe it isn't the cost that deters people from playing SC2. They believe its the difficulty of the game that prevents it, and no amount of skins/voicepacks will bring in the crowd.
|
On December 20 2014 00:40 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2014 08:45 Totorosc2 wrote:On December 18 2014 05:28 DuckDuckDuck wrote:
I´d like better Profiles with things like favourite unit, playstyle, little replay clips for your showcase (some great engagement ur proud of) etc.
I would love to customize my In-game Profile page. Currently, it is completely generic. I can imagine having a profile looking like a cockpit with a lot of features to add/modify. Being able to choose different backgrounds, show my favorite units/maps, being able to pin pictures of my favourite players/teams/tournaments/community members, write a message for people who watch my profile, having a news feed/calendar reminding me of the next WCS games my favourite players will play,... (I would even pay for new background, picture/logo of players/teams/community members to add on the profile page) or display a customizable "quest list" (play X number of games as terran, play this new arcade mode,...) Unlike new unit skins, Profiles customization does not impact the game performance at all. It's an easy way to make the game more attractive for everyone. I feel there are plenty of way to personalise and monetize the game, even without modifying in-game skins of the units. This is really a nice idea. And another good point like many others in this thread. Maybe skins for units wouldn't be viable (but I really don't see how.. So long as options to turn them on or off, have opponents show as default if you wished etc, I can't see the harm it would do). The thing that really grinds my gears about all this, is how blizzard just wont get off their high horse and just comment. How long would it take for them to take this article and answer specific questions? Or upload a vod, or skype chat with destiny and upload that?If you don't think it's viable blizzard, OK! No problem.. Just get us involved, expolain why you think this is the case. If you were to explain why X or Y or Z was being done, then all this shit would go away. I think it's fair to say after reading every post in this thread to date.. That I'm not alone in this thinking. Just engage us blizzard, tell us why.. Other game developers do it, why can't you?
What makes you think Destiny is someone that's on Blizzard's radar? What makes you think Blizzard think high enough of Destiny that he's worth directly responding to about a blog post?
|
On December 20 2014 01:23 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
You can't deny the free to play garners way more gamers than single price. If Blizzard could reduce the cost of the game but incorporate micro transaction, it would help get new gamers to give SC2 a try.
To be honest, none of us knows what model fits best for SC2, and only Blizzard can decide that. I just have to agree with Destiny. Blizzard needs to do something to encourage new players to buy LotV. SC2 needs fresh blood, and LotV will be the opportunity for it. Questions still remain. How much blood will we get?
How many fresh faces join the community will depend on Blizzard, and we can only speculate and suggest.
I think archon mode is blizzards (I may have to start referring to them as bliztard from now on..) Way of trying to get more casual gamers involved. Though even in this I'm not sure how successful it'll be as it relies on someone knowing a friend who can play sc2 in the first place, 2 new players in archon mode will still get slapped down hard and fast.
But at least it's something! The real barrier to entry here is just the vertical learning curve and the niche market appeal RTS has in the current gaming climate.
I fired up DOTA2 for the first time last night and played the first 4 trainer missions, it's so much more together than the trainer missions in SC2. Like how interface elements are sparse to begin with and slowly more get added over the course of a mission. It makes it a lot simpler to understand, learn one thing move on to the next etc. A few hours of DOTA2 and I'm already left with the feeling of how everything is much more polished that SC2, and this from a long term sc fan.
|
On December 20 2014 01:52 dabom88 wrote:
What makes you think Destiny is someone that's on Blizzard's radar? What makes you think Blizzard think high enough of Destiny that he's worth directly responding to about a blog post?
They dont engage ANYONE, about ANY of their choices.
Valve do. A tiny developer can when replying to TotalBiscuits review
+ Show Spoiler +
And bliztard can't?
|
As always, Destiny is correct. I 100% agree with him that in order for SC2 to be a top game again, it needs skins so casual players can feel cool.
|
On December 20 2014 01:59 swag_bro wrote:
As always, Destiny is correct. I 100% agree with him that in order for SC2 to be a top game again, it needs skins so casual players can feel cool.
And now go and read the article first, then come back and comment. You've got this part reversed.
|
On December 20 2014 01:45 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2014 08:17 Bastinian wrote:
Starcraft should be learning from Dota 2, in terms of microtransactions, that would keep game alive for much time! If Blizzard wants to make some money, they should add some things like skins and stuff to be bought in game. Everyone knows how attractive Collector Editions are... Here is the problem though. We can't assume SC2 would be viable as a micro transaction game. Many of us doubt it could be viable because they are very dissimilar games. As well, there is no evidence that it would flourish on purely micro transactions. Plus others believe it wouldn't even help SC2, because they believe it isn't the cost that deters people from playing SC2. They believe its the difficulty of the game that prevents it, and no amount of skins/voicepacks will bring in the crowd.
I agree. When SC2 first came out, ALL of my friends bought it and were into it. I now have a single friend who still plays it casually. All the others quit because the game is simply too difficult. But I think it goes beyond that. The demanding nature of the game is not equal to the rewards for perservering. What do you get for grinding ladder games? Or for playing team games? Or for doing Customs? You get - like Destiny said - a portrait that is seen by the other player(s) for about 10 seconds.
My friends have all gone on to other games like D3, WoW, Destiny, CS:GO, League. Why? Because there are clear indicators of progress in all those games that are compelling and rewarding (and above all, atainable without practicing and grinding and honing skills for hours on end). I honestly hate being pessemistic but I think it might be too little too late for SC2. It has already earned itself the reputation as being "too hard," "too time consuming," and without a doubt, too unrewarding for the sheer demanding nature of the game. SC2 had its massive fanbase back in WoL, and lost it to games and companies that better understood effort and reward. Blizzard knows the SC2 bubble popped, and now they'll continue to invest the majority of their resources into more profitable games.
|
On December 20 2014 01:52 fruity. wrote:
I think archon mode is blizzards (I may have to start referring to them as bliztard from now on..) Way of trying to get more casual gamers involved. Though even in this I'm not sure how successful it'll be as it relies on someone knowing a friend who can play sc2 in the first place, 2 new players in archon mode will still get slapped down hard and fast.
But at least it's something! The real barrier to entry here is just the vertical learning curve and the niche market appeal RTS has in the current gaming climate.
I fired up DOTA2 for the first time last night and played the first 4 trainer missions, it's so much more together than the trainer missions in SC2. Like how interface elements are sparse to begin with and slowly more get added over the course of a mission. It makes it a lot simpler to understand, learn one thing move on to the next etc. A few hours of DOTA2 and I'm already left with the feeling of how everything is much more polished that SC2, and this from a long term sc fan.
The learning curve makes this game a niche market, and I think thats because Blizzard never taught casuals about 1v1. The only way to learn 1v1 SC2 is to watch the pros play; google some keywords and find TL or other sites; and find some mods/custom to help practice build orders and micro
Blizzard completely failed when it comes to training casuals to play 1v1 ladder. They relied solely on the community to teach others 1v1 SC2, and that made it even harder. They should have develop a build order tutorial to teach noobs and casuals a simple one base build for each race. This will at least arm them with one weapon to wield.
Nope though, what does Blizzard do? They develop micro training tutorials that gets the noobs and casuals into the fun part, but doesn't prepare them for the painful part. They go into a match eager to lay down storms, perform MarineKing splits, or smash banelings into a wall. What happens? They get killed in 6 minutes because they were horribly underprepared. What an experience!
I really like what you said about Dota2, fruity. I wish Blizzard did something to help ease into the 1v1 ladder experience.
|
On December 20 2014 02:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
The learning curve makes this game a niche market, and I think thats because Blizzard never taught casuals about 1v1. The only way to learn 1v1 SC2 is to watch the pros play; google some keywords and find TL or other sites; and find some mods/custom to help practice build orders and micro
Blizzard completely failed when it comes to training casuals to play 1v1 ladder. They relied solely on the community to teach others 1v1 SC2, and that made it even harder. They should have develop a build order tutorial to teach noobs and casuals a simple one base build for each race. This will at least arm them with one weapon to wield.
Nope though, what does Blizzard do? They develop micro training tutorials that gets the noobs and casuals into the fun part, but doesn't prepare them for the painful part. They go into a match eager to lay down storms, perform MarineKing splits, or smash banelings into a wall. What happens? They get killed in 6 minutes because they were horribly underprepared.
I really like what you said about Dota2, fruity. I wish Blizzard did something to help ease into the 1v1 ladder experience.
This can be done so so so much better though! Like Destiny mentioned earlier.. Why not have workers auto produced for you in bronze? Or gas made auto on X supply.
Or a pop up appears ingame, with Day9 or Smix's voice !!!!
Hey there USER_NAME! We're 10 minutes into the game now! As Zerg you should try and have your expansion down already! Do this by selecting a drone and then.....etc etc
Stuff like this, you know? Make it easy for casuals. Or auto produce lings zealots or marines (within certain preset parameters clearly..). Let new players or casuals focus on the cool elements like trying to blow stuff up
|
On December 20 2014 02:23 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 02:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
The learning curve makes this game a niche market, and I think thats because Blizzard never taught casuals about 1v1. The only way to learn 1v1 SC2 is to watch the pros play; google some keywords and find TL or other sites; and find some mods/custom to help practice build orders and micro
Blizzard completely failed when it comes to training casuals to play 1v1 ladder. They relied solely on the community to teach others 1v1 SC2, and that made it even harder. They should have develop a build order tutorial to teach noobs and casuals a simple one base build for each race. This will at least arm them with one weapon to wield.
Nope though, what does Blizzard do? They develop micro training tutorials that gets the noobs and casuals into the fun part, but doesn't prepare them for the painful part. They go into a match eager to lay down storms, perform MarineKing splits, or smash banelings into a wall. What happens? They get killed in 6 minutes because they were horribly underprepared.
I really like what you said about Dota2, fruity. I wish Blizzard did something to help ease into the 1v1 ladder experience. This can be done so so so much better though! Like Destiny mentioned earlier.. Why not have workers auto produced for you in bronze? Or gas made auto on X supply. Or a pop up appears ingame, with Day9 or Smix's voice !!!! Hey there USER_NAME! We're 10 minutes into the game now! As Zerg you should try and have your expansion down already! Do this by selecting a drone and then.....etc etcStuff like this, you know? Make it easy for casuals. Or auto produce lings zealots or marines (within certain preset parameters clearly..). Let new players or casuals focus on the cool elements like trying to blow stuff up
Here's the problem with making things easier, it doesn't prepare them for the harder stuff. Auto worker production will only harm them when that feature is removed in later leagues.
When you try to train someone, you don't start by making things easier. This hurts later when the difficult stuff happens.
I think just a simple tutorial to teach one build for each race would go farther than making the game easier for lower leagues.
|
On December 20 2014 02:37 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
See here is the problem with making things easier, it doesn't prepare them for the harder stuff. Auto worker production will only harm them when that feature is removed in later leagues.
When you try to train someone, you don't start by making things easier. This hurts later when the difficult stuff happens.
I think just a simple tutorial to teach one build for each race would go farther than making the game easier for lower leagues.
Fair point, and you're right. Solid build orders would be a nice way to go. Smix's cute voice..
Your low on workers, try to balance army and worker production more! Produce more workers! (version 2 of the auto produce idea! ).
Maybe some would find that annoying. But equally some would find it of great benefit I think. And well if you have a toggle to turn the easy-new-player-tips off..
Sections dedicated to Gouda or Parmesan.. What it means to be cheesed, the advantages and disadvantages. The importance of scouting around your base.. etc etc
|
On December 20 2014 02:23 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 02:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
The learning curve makes this game a niche market, and I think thats because Blizzard never taught casuals about 1v1. The only way to learn 1v1 SC2 is to watch the pros play; google some keywords and find TL or other sites; and find some mods/custom to help practice build orders and micro
Blizzard completely failed when it comes to training casuals to play 1v1 ladder. They relied solely on the community to teach others 1v1 SC2, and that made it even harder. They should have develop a build order tutorial to teach noobs and casuals a simple one base build for each race. This will at least arm them with one weapon to wield.
Nope though, what does Blizzard do? They develop micro training tutorials that gets the noobs and casuals into the fun part, but doesn't prepare them for the painful part. They go into a match eager to lay down storms, perform MarineKing splits, or smash banelings into a wall. What happens? They get killed in 6 minutes because they were horribly underprepared.
I really like what you said about Dota2, fruity. I wish Blizzard did something to help ease into the 1v1 ladder experience. This can be done so so so much better though! Like Destiny mentioned earlier.. Why not have workers auto produced for you in bronze? Or gas made auto on X supply. Or a pop up appears ingame, with Day9 or Smix's voice !!!! Hey there USER_NAME! We're 10 minutes into the game now! As Zerg you should try and have your expansion down already! Do this by selecting a drone and then.....etc etcStuff like this, you know? Make it easy for casuals. Or auto produce lings zealots or marines (within certain preset parameters clearly..). Let new players or casuals focus on the cool elements like trying to blow stuff up
But would this really attract new players? I think largely the people who are going to be buying LotV are people who already own the other two games. After that, unless Blizzard plans on doing subsequent expansions (which isn't looking likely) there isn't going to be much incentive for new players to pick up this game.
Don't get me wrong, I think Legacy has some cool features for existing players. But the market has shown that team oriented, goal attianable, and mechanically simplistic games are more desirable for players. Simply adding better tutorials and skins (while this would be exciting for existing players) will not be enough to attract someone who has never played the game before and has only seen godly koreans spamming eight billion APM, especially when they get into the Legacy of the (Social) Void and find out that ladder is the least rewarding game environment ever created.
|
On December 20 2014 02:44 Noro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 02:23 fruity. wrote:On December 20 2014 02:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
The learning curve makes this game a niche market, and I think thats because Blizzard never taught casuals about 1v1. The only way to learn 1v1 SC2 is to watch the pros play; google some keywords and find TL or other sites; and find some mods/custom to help practice build orders and micro
Blizzard completely failed when it comes to training casuals to play 1v1 ladder. They relied solely on the community to teach others 1v1 SC2, and that made it even harder. They should have develop a build order tutorial to teach noobs and casuals a simple one base build for each race. This will at least arm them with one weapon to wield.
Nope though, what does Blizzard do? They develop micro training tutorials that gets the noobs and casuals into the fun part, but doesn't prepare them for the painful part. They go into a match eager to lay down storms, perform MarineKing splits, or smash banelings into a wall. What happens? They get killed in 6 minutes because they were horribly underprepared.
I really like what you said about Dota2, fruity. I wish Blizzard did something to help ease into the 1v1 ladder experience. This can be done so so so much better though! Like Destiny mentioned earlier.. Why not have workers auto produced for you in bronze? Or gas made auto on X supply. Or a pop up appears ingame, with Day9 or Smix's voice !!!! Hey there USER_NAME! We're 10 minutes into the game now! As Zerg you should try and have your expansion down already! Do this by selecting a drone and then.....etc etcStuff like this, you know? Make it easy for casuals. Or auto produce lings zealots or marines (within certain preset parameters clearly..). Let new players or casuals focus on the cool elements like trying to blow stuff up But would this really attract new players? I think largely the people who are going to be buying LotV are people who already own the other two games. After that, unless Blizzard plans on doing subsequent expansions (which isn't looking likely) there isn't going to be much incentive for new players to pick up this game. Don't get me wrong, I think Legacy has some cool features for existing players. But the market has shown that team oriented, goal attianable, and mechanically simplistic games are more desirable for players. Simply adding better tutorials and skins (while this would be exciting for existing players) will not be enough to attract someone who has never played the game before and has only seen godly koreans spamming eight billion APM, especially when they get into the Legacy of the (Social) Void and find out that ladder is the least rewarding game environment ever created.
I don't know about attract new players, but better tutorials might convert casuals into a ladder warrior.
You are right about teams, specific goals, and simple mechanics. Its too bad SC2 is none of that lol.
|
On December 20 2014 02:44 Noro wrote:
But would this really attract new players? I think largely the people who are going to be buying LotV are people who already own the other two games. After that, unless Blizzard plans on doing subsequent expansions (which isn't looking likely) there isn't going to be much incentive for new players to pick up this game.
Don't get me wrong, I think Legacy has some cool features for existing players. But the market has shown that team oriented, goal attianable, and mechanically simplistic games are more desirable for players. Simply adding better tutorials and skins (while this would be exciting for existing players) will not be enough to attract someone who has never played the game before and has only seen godly koreans spamming eight billion APM, especially when they get into the Legacy of the (Social) Void and find out that ladder is the least rewarding game environment ever created.
You're right. I don't feel it would attract new players - after all they're either going to want to try out RTS or their not. But I do feel that bliztard could do a lot more to hold the hand of new players and make it a lot easier for them to understand the mechanics of the game. Make it easier for them to see where they went wrong, or how do do XYZ better.
This part of what you said i think is important But the market has shown that team oriented, goal attianable, 1v1 is hard! When you loose, it's you losing Only you! Clearly.. But in a team game it's a lot easier to not take the loss to heart. We lost.
But so many amazing ideas from people here, goals like you mention, they just aren't there.. A reason to stay beyond the campaign isn't there.
|
How about blizzard trying to actually care about things like teamgames and the arcade. Next season their are going to be no map changes for the teamgame ladder pool. really blizzard? there are 4v4 maps that have less bases then 1v1 maps. If sc2 wants to attract a more casual audience it needs to step back from trying to get casuals into 1v1 and start promoting things like teamgames more. Or even better, start promoting the arcade which has been praised since release for beinig an amazing place where you can basically just play other actual games.
|
On December 20 2014 02:03 Noro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 01:45 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 19 2014 08:17 Bastinian wrote:
Starcraft should be learning from Dota 2, in terms of microtransactions, that would keep game alive for much time! If Blizzard wants to make some money, they should add some things like skins and stuff to be bought in game. Everyone knows how attractive Collector Editions are... Here is the problem though. We can't assume SC2 would be viable as a micro transaction game. Many of us doubt it could be viable because they are very dissimilar games. As well, there is no evidence that it would flourish on purely micro transactions. Plus others believe it wouldn't even help SC2, because they believe it isn't the cost that deters people from playing SC2. They believe its the difficulty of the game that prevents it, and no amount of skins/voicepacks will bring in the crowd. I agree. When SC2 first came out, ALL of my friends bought it and were into it. I now have a single friend who still plays it casually. All the others quit because the game is simply too difficult. But I think it goes beyond that. The demanding nature of the game is not equal to the rewards for perservering. What do you get for grinding ladder games? Or for playing team games? Or for doing Customs? You get - like Destiny said - a portrait that is seen by the other player(s) for about 10 seconds. My friends have all gone on to other games like D3, WoW, Destiny, CS:GO, League. Why? Because there are clear indicators of progress in all those games that are compelling and rewarding (and above all, atainable without practicing and grinding and honing skills for hours on end). I honestly hate being pessemistic but I think it might be too little too late for SC2. It has already earned itself the reputation as being "too hard," "too time consuming," and without a doubt, too unrewarding for the sheer demanding nature of the game. SC2 had its massive fanbase back in WoL, and lost it to games and companies that better understood effort and reward. Blizzard knows the SC2 bubble popped, and now they'll continue to invest the majority of their resources into more profitable games.
This is my opinion as well. I don't think you can just make it F2P, add in skins and then expect the multiplayer-playerbase to increase hugely. Sure, there will be some players who try it out and - ceteris paribus - it will increase. But it's closer to a 100% increase than a 1000% increase in the amount of players.
With the standard upfront-fee model, Blizzard can probably sell 1.5M copies of LOTV at $40 --> $60M in revenue. If the active multiplayer playerbase increases from 400K to - let's say - 800K due to F2P, and each player spends the same amount on skins as the average DOTA 2 player (which I find optimistic- but ok).
That is equal to: $1.6 * 0.8 = $1.36M (roughly) on an annual basis.
Assuming 1M campain copies sold at a price of $30 --> That's an additional $30M to the $1.36M, which - given these assumptions - makes F2P model a lot less attractive. Thus, if the playerbase only doubles under a F2P scenario, it's not anywhere close to being enough.
Therefore my recommendation is to think of Sc2 as a cash-cow. Minimize cost and generate what ever earnings there is left in the franchise. Probably not what the community wants to hear, but from a financial perspective, it makes the most sense.
Source: http://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/mmo-arpu/
|
It's so sad that this thread is filled with great suggestions but you just know 110% Blizzard won't implement any of it.
|
On December 20 2014 03:58 SCguineapig wrote:
How about blizzard trying to actually care about things like teamgames and the arcade. Next season their are going to be no map changes for the teamgame ladder pool. really blizzard? there are 4v4 maps that have less bases then 1v1 maps. If sc2 wants to attract a more casual audience it needs to step back from trying to get casuals into 1v1 and start promoting things like teamgames more. Or even better, start promoting the arcade which has been praised since release for beinig an amazing place where you can basically just play other actual games.
What they should have done was implement Heroes of the Storm as a SC2 arcade game (with full blizzard support and patches of course). Just look at what the original Dota did for WC3. Personally I never would have played anything other than campaign if it weren't for the Dota mod, which eventually led me to play around on ladder. Heroes would have brought in a lot of players. But I think the very fact that they didn't do this, shows that they're losing/have lost faith in SC2, and are putting more stock into F2P games like HS and HotS.
People are wrong in criticizing Blizzard for not being able to emulate and implement F2P/Microtransaction models. They simply don't want to for SC2. They know those models work because they're using them on games that they see actually having a monetary future. Blizzard can put out as many PR statements they want about how much they care about this game but really its just white noise. Actions speak louder than words, and what they're saying is SC2 is not worth the investment of resources because the market favours more simplistic/funsie games like HotS and Hearth Stone. Those are the games they will focus on now, regardless of their promises to continually "improve" SC2.
|
warcraft 4 hype! maybe f2p and microtransaction.
|
On December 20 2014 05:09 JimSocks wrote:
warcraft 4 hype! maybe f2p and microtransaction.
I wouldn't be surprised.
|
On December 20 2014 04:33 Noro wrote:
What they should have done was implement Heroes of the Storm as a SC2 arcade game (with full blizzard support and patches of course). Just look at what the original Dota did for WC3.
<rant>
Oh. My. God. YES! That's such a cool point!
A fair chunk of people here seem to have the same opinion as yourself, in that the boat has already sailed for SC2. I'm currently on the fence with this one. I'm hopeful.. Maybe.. Just maybe the best years are still ahead? I do not feel however that you or anyone else is misguided in having that opinion. Though I too am loosing faith.
There's just such a lack of any sort of cohesive thought going into SC2. Look at how the 2015 season 1 maps are released, and 5 minutes later a bug preventing a proper wall in for Terran is found.. That's just fundamental simple shit to just get right straight off the bat. bliztards desire to promote their own maps over those the community have produced and voted on as best - I just don't get either.
The rant continues: Look at the arcade marathon currently running, this should be highlighted wherever bliztard can, is it mentioned in game? Wouldnt this be great if it was? Point people into other aspects of SC2? They were going to have the first part of the marathon on EU, but due to patching or christ knows what it's now on the US servers. Good forethought there fellas.
What happens when you search "starcraft 2" in google, you land on this page:
+ Show Spoiler +
Enough said.
Following the link to the main SC2 site, and the 12 hr arcade marathon is just an easily missed small scrolling banner near the top, stuffed in among other items. UGH. You aren't promoting yourself bliztard (or more precisely you are, just not SC2).
Let's go in game into SC2 now, any news happening?
+ Show Spoiler +
We've got one article on WCS 2015
Season 4 ladder map pool winners revealed
Season 3 championship week in WCS
Season 4 ladder map pool voting begins...
Community map spotlight: Moonlight madness
Does anyone ever update this? That's the best you can come up with bliztard? I see that and feel like you're trying to give the impression the games dead already.
Then I watch the oh so great latest carbot animation and feel guilty for having that opinion. But what choice are you giving me here bliztard?
+ Show Spoiler +
Lets wonder over to the DOTA2 way:
Look at the scroll bar, so much more info instantly right there.
+ Show Spoiler +
Calenders in game? So much more information here again. Everyone can see tournaments, guild events and so on. Effort has been put in.
+ Show Spoiler +
How about helping the noobs like me out? We have a whole section on the 100 odd heroes, another for items, another for builds.. It's helping people like me get into the game within the game itself.
+ Show Spoiler +
You are shooting yourself in the foot here bliztard. I just don't get it. Or I do.. You just wont put rescources into Starcraft 2 it seems, no unified direction or forethought.
</rant>
MEH.
|
On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
They can charge for more money if they provide for a full product. The deal is "you have the campaign for some hours and then the option of multiplayer for many more hours."
|
On December 20 2014 04:33 Noro wrote:
People are wrong in criticizing Blizzard for not being able to emulate and implement F2P/Microtransaction models. They simply don't want to for SC2. They know those models work because they're using them on games that they see actually having a monetary future. Blizzard can put out as many PR statements they want about how much they care about this game but really its just white noise. Actions speak louder than words, and what they're saying is SC2 is not worth the investment of resources because the market favours more simplistic/funsie games like HotS and Hearth Stone. Those are the games they will focus on now, regardless of their promises to continually "improve" SC2.
I don't think Blizzard is misleading us. They are attempting to improve SC2. However, Blizzard is doing so with a team size and budget that is commensurate with their profit expectations for an RTS game.
no one is dumping big dollars into a RTS games because there is no one thinks big money can be made as you've noted.
there are still low budget/small scale RTS games like Etherium, Grey Goo, and Rise of Nations Extended Edition coming out these days.
i think Destiny's suggestions, properly refined by Blizz, would result in a small increase in revenue and a small increase in playing time. Nothing is going to stop the over all trend away from RTS games though.
|
On December 20 2014 05:38 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 04:33 Noro wrote:
What they should have done was implement Heroes of the Storm as a SC2 arcade game (with full blizzard support and patches of course). Just look at what the original Dota did for WC3.
<rant>Oh. My. God. YES! That's such a cool point! Blizzard Dota, later Blizzard Allstars, now Heroes of the Storm was originally presented as an arcade map.
Now SC2 still has no market place so you cannot sell skins and heroes if it were an arcade map. If they had implemented the market place, the entire community would whine that
a) Blizzard rather invests in an interface to sell stuff than finally fix Protoss, Zerg or Terran (depending on the preferred race)
b) SC2 is officially dead.
Would you REALLY ask someone to install a 10 or 16 GB SC2 client just to be able to play Heroes of the Storm?
|
On December 19 2014 08:17 Bastinian wrote:
Starcraft should be learning from Dota 2, in terms of microtransactions, that would keep game alive for much time! If Blizzard wants to make some money, they should add some things like skins and stuff to be bought in game. Everyone knows how attractive Collector Editions are...
Yeah they should introduce skins which makes it harder to recognize units ...
And I am sure just because one can show off how rich one is, that the casual players will suddenly accept to lose many games. Because the problem with SC2 is not that you have to invest much time but since it is 1v1, no teammate to blame the loss on, instead it is that the game is dead because you cannot purchase cosmetic ingame stuff for real money.
Jeez.
|
Just because you wouldnt want skins doesnt mean others wouldnt too. Rich? A couple of quid or dollars? Rich? OK...
Personally I wouldnt mind being able to have a unique flag on my battle cruiser for example, or voice pack for my ghosts and other units. For a few quid? Maybe.
For the casual gamer this might matter more. Seems to be the case from reading the article.
Would it harm if you could have a different UI in game? How long would it take to set that up - No time considering how many of the community have custom UI skins for xsplit.
It's one option of many great ideas this thread is throwing up on potential ways the give sc2 more casual appeal (which is important in getting larger pro-level tournament exposure). Sure it might not work, or even be viable, but to dismiss it out of hand isn't what this is about.
|
On December 19 2014 05:03 JokerAi wrote:
main problem with sc2 it is that casuals cant play this game becouse they must lrean to much befor they can win games.
It´s frustraiting to lose in sc2 you are working so hard and you need so long time to play better.
Archon mode and the other mode, "Commander", look like more fun to me when I try to bring casual players in.
Not "oh here this game which you don't plan to play for very long anyway offers skins for real money".
|
On December 20 2014 06:06 fruity. wrote:
Just because you wouldnt want skins doesnt mean others wouldnt too. Rich? A couple of quid or dollars? Rich? OK...
Personally I wouldnt mind being able to have a unique flag on my battle cruiser for example, or voice pack for my ghosts and other units. For a few quid? Maybe. Getting the full content only when you pay after the initial purchase? Or making LotV a 'free to play' game which for the casual player I know sound a lot more like Farmville than Dota 2?
Or making multiplayer f2p but charge for the campaign? Which financially responsible person would devote years of development for a campaign if it just sells like normal DLC?
On December 20 2014 06:06 fruity. wrote:
For the casual gamer this might matter more. Seems to be the case from reading the article.
Would it harm if you could have a different UI in game? How long would it take to set that up - No time considering how many of the community have custom UI skins for xsplit.
It's one option of many great ideas this thread is throwing up on potential ways the give sc2 more casual appeal (which is important in getting larger pro-level tournament exposure). Sure it might not work, or even be viable, but to dismiss it out of hand isn't what this is about.
"How long would it take to set that up"
I work as a technical support guy with a company which develops software. Even small changes take a lot of time and testing. Even cosmetic changes costs a lot of manpower and time if you need to provide the quality of a commercial product.
Do you actually propose that Blizzard offers fan-quality UI skins for real money (even if the original Ul maker gets a fair share)? Do you assume, Blizzard is willing to overhaul all sold UI skins when they change the default interface (movement or resizign of buttons, ...)
"How long would it take to set that up" indeed.
|
On December 20 2014 05:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 04:33 Noro wrote:
People are wrong in criticizing Blizzard for not being able to emulate and implement F2P/Microtransaction models. They simply don't want to for SC2. They know those models work because they're using them on games that they see actually having a monetary future. Blizzard can put out as many PR statements they want about how much they care about this game but really its just white noise. Actions speak louder than words, and what they're saying is SC2 is not worth the investment of resources because the market favours more simplistic/funsie games like HotS and Hearth Stone. Those are the games they will focus on now, regardless of their promises to continually "improve" SC2. I don't think Blizzard is misleading us. They are attempting to improve SC2. However, Blizzard is doing so with a team size and budget that is commensurate with their profit expectations for an RTS game. no one is dumping big dollars into a RTS games because there is no one thinks big money can be made as you've noted. there are still low budget/small scale RTS games like Etherium, Grey Goo, and Rise of Nations Extended Edition coming out these days. i think Destiny's suggestions, properly refined by Blizz, would result in a small increase in revenue and a small increase in playing time. Nothing is going to stop the over all trend away from RTS games though.
I think that Destiny's analysis is very good. However I doubt that his more specific suggestions would play out well.
I think, a casual-friendly but esports-viable RTS as f2p can work. If it is designed from the ground-up that way. SC2 is made like a classical full-price title.
In my opinion, SC2 is a bad game to play with your friends who have no (or just bronze-level) SC2 skills. Compare it with Quake: Even if someone wins with 20 frags, casual gamers will every now and then get a lucky shot and finish with lets say 4 frags.
|
On December 20 2014 06:18 [F_]aths wrote:
Do you actually propose that Blizzard offers fan-quality UI skins for real money (even if the original Ul maker gets a fair share)? Do you assume, Blizzard is willing to take care of control element placements with all subsequent overhauls of their default interface?
They do that with maps. So why not with skins?
Sorry that's a tad sarcastic. I'm not looking to start an arguement here. I respect your posistion. As I hope you do mine.
My over riding point is that more could be done to get casuals to stick about in SC2. Ways to generate revenue which is then justification to keep the ball rolling and develop further, for either after market sales with skins, UI's, campaigns, bug fixing, balance, whatever.
As for the whole free to play model etc. That boat has sailed already, it's too late as we both know.
Is it harming for us to think up better ways things could be done? That's all Destiny's article is. He think's he has valid points, perhaps you and other don't. It's still relevant either way though.
|
On December 20 2014 06:29 fruity. wrote:
My over riding point is that more could be done to get casuals to stick about in SC2. Ways to generate revenue which is then justification to keep the ball rolling and develop further, for either after market sales with skins, UI's, campaigns, bug fixing, balance, whatever.
Let me focus on this. I go one by one.
Skinks make the game harder to read. If you allow a player to configure the game to show only default models, if would defy the reasons to buy skins (to show off.)
I don't think you can generate revenue with UI skins in a game like SC2 because
- it does not add any features, you pay for something you don't even play with, just to interact with outside the actual game.
- if you change the default UI, you would need to check and change ALL other UIs. A lot of work.
How epic could a campaign be if you market it as DLC? Would you really be able to cast professional voice actors, compose and record orchestral musik, write, change, polish on the actual story, create new campaign-only models and so on?
If you let the players pay for bugfixes you just ripping them off. Same for balance.
I am not saying that any form of micropayment is automatically couterproductive. BUT you sold SC2 to the classic gamer, not to the f2p player. You would risk to disappoint many who have the first two parts.
|
On December 20 2014 06:38 [F_]aths wrote:
Skins make the game harder to read. If you allow a player to configure the game to show only default models, if would defy the reasons to buy skins (to show off.)
No it wouldn't I could see them, it personalises my stuff.
I don't think you can generate revenue with UI skins in a game like SC2 because
- it does not add any features, you pay for something you don't even play with, just to interact with outside the actual game.
- if you change the default UI, you would need to check and change ALL other UIs. A lot of work.
OK. To be honest I think it would be hard too. Doesnt mean it's not viable though. If it's been looked at already by bliztard and dismissed as unviable. Wouldn it harm if they said that? A nice overlay in game, personally I like the idea of this. Time it would take to develop vs. possible revenue returns.. If it's unviable tell us so bliz.. Would that be THAT hard?
How epic could a campaign be if you market it as DLC? Would you really be able to cast professional voice actors, compose and record orchestral music, write, change, polish on the actual story, create new campaign-only models and so on?
Not so sure about this one, I see your point. People have redone the sc1 campaign in sc2 for example. If there's a will there's a way.
If you let the players pay for bugfixes you just ripping them off. Same for balance.
100% agree. But we don't see bliztard working to fix stuff anyway. This
I am not saying that any form of micropayment is automatically couterproductive. BUT you sold SC2 to the classic gamer, not to the f2p player. You would risk to disappoint many who have the first two parts.
F2P isn't an option for lotv (I said that). However I do feel that some sort of micro transaction could be bolted on to help justify continued development, to the callous pen pusher upstairs - who's only looking at numbers, it might make it justifiable.
|
On December 20 2014 06:57 fruity. wrote:On December 20 2014 06:38 [F_]aths wrote:Skins make the game harder to read. If you allow a player to configure the game to show only default models, if would defy the reasons to buy skins (to show off.)No it wouldn't I could see them, it personalises my stuff. I don't think you can generate revenue with UI skins in a game like SC2 because
- it does not add any features, you pay for something you don't even play with, just to interact with outside the actual game.
- if you change the default UI, you would need to check and change ALL other UIs. A lot of work.OK. To be honest I think it would be hard too. Doesnt mean it's not viable though. If it's been looked at already by bliztard and dismissed as unviable. Wouldn it harm if they said that? A nice overlay in game, personally I like the idea of this. Time it would take to develop vs. possible revenue returns.. If it's unviable tell us so bliz.. Would that be THAT hard?
How epic could a campaign be if you market it as DLC? Would you really be able to cast professional voice actors, compose and record orchestral music, write, change, polish on the actual story, create new campaign-only models and so on?Not so sure about this one, I see your point. People have redone the sc1 campaign in sc2 for example. If there's a will there's a way.
If you let the players pay for bugfixes you just ripping them off. Same for balance.100% agree. But we don't see bliztard working to fix stuff anyway. ThisI am not saying that any form of micropayment is automatically couterproductive. BUT you sold SC2 to the classic gamer, not to the f2p player. You would risk to disappoint many who have the first two parts.F2P isn't an option for lotv (I said that). However I do feel that some sort of micro transaction could be bolted on to help justify continued development, to the callous pen pusher upstairs - who's only looking at numbers, it might make it justifiable.
Skins: Would you implement a system in which both players see different skins?
UI: What seems like only a little bit of work at the beginning, becomes a mess as the software and the UI develop further. I agree in the sense that Blizzard should improve both streaming and casting customization, including ingame-overlay support and other useful stuff, to make it easier for streamers to differentiate not only by play and commentary style.
To keep SC2 relevant, it relies quite heavily on user produced content, like streams, to provide an experience you can share and discuss with others.
The SC1 campaign fan project is no faithful reproduction of the actual SC1 campaign, it is also not really on par with WoL or HotS. The project was possible because some sacrificed a lot of time and no motive to earn money. If a player already lost interest in SC2, would he come back and pay for a SC1 campaign remake by Blizzard? Wouldn't you personally rather pay the full price on release and know you get all of the content, with no future money drain?
The huge list of SC2 (mostly interface) fixes shows that the SC2 development and QA department is not as resourceful as we might think. Adding even more people, working on other stuff, is maybe not feasible from Blizzard's perspective. All really broken things are fixed, we are left with some inconvenient and clumsy stuff. That does not mean Blizzard should only focus on the gameplay. Using the interface is an important part of the game experience. Many things in the current Bnet interface however are not intuitive at all.
If we think about payment in general. You have to consider different laws in different countries. You have to implement a system accepting a range of currencies. You have to implement actual age control. All things you do must be triple-checked and tested because you are handeling with real money now.
Remember how complicated the D3 auctionhouse was? It was cut later anyway, because it was not wanted from core D3 playerbase.
|
This blog hits the nail on the head but reading this commentary you'd think that the SC2 posters here would rather the game just died?
These sentiments are echoed quite a bit throughout the thread:
We can't assume SC2 would be viable as a micro transaction game.
Nobody has qualified this statement beyond "sc2 is very dissimilar to other micro-transaction games". I'm sorry but how is CSGO any less dissimilar from dota2 or LoL?
People seem to bash microtransactions without realising that those pay-systems are currently keeping a huge number of relatively unpopular games floating (look on steam for free games and bask in the glory of a thousand bizarre titles).
FYI, D3 auction house was axed because it incentivised botting and compromised the game in a very significant manner. It would be foolish to extend that idea onto any conceivable implementation of micro-transactions on SC2.
|
I think microtransaction is win/win all around. If they don't sell skins, then they're basically denying free money. I for one would buy a shitload of skins and especially if I know that it will be used to further support and improve the game.
And when the day SC2 becomes F2P, I really hope they enable LAN. That will be the day.
|
I have been lurking for a while and reading a lot of comments and i simply do not understand those people who thinks that skins and voice packs are exclusively micro-transaction related.
Destiny even wrote himself that you could have more of this stuff unlock as you progressed in levels.
Right now we get portraits and rank badges when we should be getting skins and maybe a voice pack as the end all be all achievement for each race, and then on the side you could have additional skins and voice packs you could purchase if you really want something without working for it.
They had huge ambitions for the arcade and it just didnt pan out at all.
The problem i see is that the layout doesnt support playing with other people as much as its just supporting playing a certain map.
People wont try new maps but because so few people are playing them and the wait time is way too long which then in turn makes people not want to do it in the future which grows the problem. They should just have the classic bnet lobby in addition to the system they have in place atm.
What Destiny is talking about are ofc just a few of the things they should do, they should also just increase the damn skill cap of all the individual units by increasing player control like Suppy and Lalush have been preaching for years.
Blizzard are so worried about "you cant see the skill in those micro situations" Which is just bullshit because those are the very things that got us all so excited back in the day.
I was so excited when i found out about the moveshot and watching the pros be effecient with it in games.
If it is hard to notice skill you just have to tell the commentators to be vocal about those things because they are truly things that makes the gameplay experience that more engaging.
Right now the only truly skillful moments i see are when there are 3-4 drops going on at the same time but half the time the camera man never notices. Ironically THAT is in turn hard to see at times, or hard to catch rather.
If they increased general control in the game then the difference in skill would be much more noticable and cookie cutter methods and techniques would have a higher chance of being squashed against a better player even if they got blind countered in their builds.
Zerg has been suffering the most for this i feel. Not that zerg is harder to play than other races, but zerg is pretty much the only race to roll over dead when they face a deathball.
Blizzard is addressing this by giving zerg the roach evolve creature ravager thing, which does increase micro a little bit but its not really that skill related. I have been experimenting with it and all i can say is that its babbys first skillshot.
I am just not sure they are going about this the right way.
|
On December 20 2014 08:13 [F_]aths wrote:
If we think about payment in general. You have to consider different laws in different countries. You have to implement a system accepting a range of currencies. You have to implement actual age control. All things you do must be triple-checked and tested because you are handeling with real money now.
Remember how complicated the D3 auctionhouse was? It was cut later anyway, because it was not wanted from core D3 playerbase.
Thats where you are wrong. They implemented D3 auction house perfectly. It was easy to use and the microtransactions on items was possible across all the major regions i believe.
Do you honestly think that blizzard wouldnt be able to do this when pretty much every other game does this? I mean seriously now.
Not only that they have it in heroes of the storm dude.
|
On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame.
On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
I didnt read the whole thread so maybe this has been suggested before but what IF:
Blizzard just makes Starcraft 2 free to play completely and release LotV for free aswell and put in all the skins, microtransactions etc.
Customers who bought the full priced game and hots (like me) get some kind of premium membership, a skin package or sth similar which gives them some boni at the start for compensation.
Kinda similar to what failed mmos do.
But well Blizzard is a huge company and they have alot of experts so I cant imagine that they havent been considering something like that already. They don't want to. They're going to release LotV for 40 bucks, make some money out of it and leave it be.
Guess we have to face the truth: Blizzard has abandoned Starcraft and similar games and put more effort into their new, simpler games which are free to play from the start like Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm and this new Battle Arena game.
|
Sc2 is not fun at all.. Bnet 2.0 you feel lonley, the arcade system ist very static and boring, the games are very stressfull (larva inject, timewarp, creep spread etc), and the defense ist shit(too many damage from units). If your a casual u want to lean back, putting some defense feel save, dont click every seconds on the timewarp button etc., Bw was the better game, skill but more fun too, if you dont like 1v1 you play big game hunters or hunters FFA, very fun games. Hate this new style.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 20 2014 20:48 Schakal111 wrote:
Sc2 is not fun at all.. Bnet 2.0 you feel lonley, the arcade system ist very static and boring, the games are very stressfull (larva inject, timewarp, creep spread etc), and the defense ist shit(too many damage from units). If your a casual u want to lean back, putting some defense feel save, dont click every seconds on the timewarp button etc., Bw was the better game, skill but more fun too, if you dont like 1v1 you play big game hunters or hunters FFA, very fun games. Hate this new style.
It seems a little strange to say that when BW most certainly required more clicks to maintain baseline macro/production. Lets not fool ourselves by claiming BW wasn't stressful.
|
On December 20 2014 21:11 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 20:48 Schakal111 wrote:
Sc2 is not fun at all.. Bnet 2.0 you feel lonley, the arcade system ist very static and boring, the games are very stressfull (larva inject, timewarp, creep spread etc), and the defense ist shit(too many damage from units). If your a casual u want to lean back, putting some defense feel save, dont click every seconds on the timewarp button etc., Bw was the better game, skill but more fun too, if you dont like 1v1 you play big game hunters or hunters FFA, very fun games. Hate this new style. It seems a little strange to say that when BW most certainly required more clicks to maintain baseline macro/production. Lets not fool ourselves by claiming BW wasn't stressful.
I agree. It's the nature of the beast for 1v1 games. There are so many high profile games on the market now that are team games, and that require very little mechanical skill to succeed at, or to at least have fun with friends.
I think people may need to come to terms with the fact that SC2 became massively popular because these other massive team franchises hadn't really emerged yet. SC2 made esports known to so many people but as soon as other options presented themselves, everyone was quick to jump ship - hence the bubble pop. I don't think SC2 will ever experience the amount of growth it had in the first couple years again. It's up to Blizzard whether or not SC2 maintains the fan base it has now. Any meaningful growth might be wishful thinking.
|
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 really liked Destiny's blog. Their are tons of ways that Blizzard could take advantage and make money.
SC2 should also add soundboard like in Age of Empires. We have a mute function. So it's not game breaking. Some you can unlock others you buy. You can have taunts, and it will also make Team games more fun and easier to chat.
Imagine simply typing GLHF makes Kerrigan say it? Or Raynor? And if skins are too much, what about unit hats. Imagine little party hat marines? And have some skins be random drops, that can be auctioned in the Blizzard store, where Blizzard takes a chunk of the profits?
Blizzard has a huge opportunity being the ONLY RTS game. Give incentives for FFA and make Blizzard made Money Maps. With Official Blizzard Lobby, where only Blizzard maps are found.
The Arcade IMHO is just clutter.
|
On December 20 2014 21:11 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 20:48 Schakal111 wrote:
Sc2 is not fun at all.. Bnet 2.0 you feel lonley, the arcade system ist very static and boring, the games are very stressfull (larva inject, timewarp, creep spread etc), and the defense ist shit(too many damage from units). If your a casual u want to lean back, putting some defense feel save, dont click every seconds on the timewarp button etc., Bw was the better game, skill but more fun too, if you dont like 1v1 you play big game hunters or hunters FFA, very fun games. Hate this new style. It seems a little strange to say that when BW most certainly required more clicks to maintain baseline macro/production. Lets not fool ourselves by claiming BW wasn't stressful.
Its more fun to play without this mechanics, i want to feel free, dont click every time on the mechanics button like larvra, mule etc.. better use this time for fights.
|
On December 21 2014 02:06 Schakal111 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 21:11 Zealously wrote:On December 20 2014 20:48 Schakal111 wrote:
Sc2 is not fun at all.. Bnet 2.0 you feel lonley, the arcade system ist very static and boring, the games are very stressfull (larva inject, timewarp, creep spread etc), and the defense ist shit(too many damage from units). If your a casual u want to lean back, putting some defense feel save, dont click every seconds on the timewarp button etc., Bw was the better game, skill but more fun too, if you dont like 1v1 you play big game hunters or hunters FFA, very fun games. Hate this new style. It seems a little strange to say that when BW most certainly required more clicks to maintain baseline macro/production. Lets not fool ourselves by claiming BW wasn't stressful. Its more fun to play without this mechanics, i want to feel free, dont click every time on the mechanics button like larvra, mule etc.. better use this time for fights.
Those mechanics are a lot more generous and easier to do than production cycles were in BW..
|
On December 20 2014 06:25 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 05:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 20 2014 04:33 Noro wrote:
People are wrong in criticizing Blizzard for not being able to emulate and implement F2P/Microtransaction models. They simply don't want to for SC2. They know those models work because they're using them on games that they see actually having a monetary future. Blizzard can put out as many PR statements they want about how much they care about this game but really its just white noise. Actions speak louder than words, and what they're saying is SC2 is not worth the investment of resources because the market favours more simplistic/funsie games like HotS and Hearth Stone. Those are the games they will focus on now, regardless of their promises to continually "improve" SC2. I don't think Blizzard is misleading us. They are attempting to improve SC2. However, Blizzard is doing so with a team size and budget that is commensurate with their profit expectations for an RTS game. no one is dumping big dollars into a RTS games because there is no one thinks big money can be made as you've noted. there are still low budget/small scale RTS games like Etherium, Grey Goo, and Rise of Nations Extended Edition coming out these days. i think Destiny's suggestions, properly refined by Blizz, would result in a small increase in revenue and a small increase in playing time. Nothing is going to stop the over all trend away from RTS games though. I think that Destiny's analysis is very good. However I doubt that his more specific suggestions would play out well. I think, a casual-friendly but esports-viable RTS as f2p can work. If it is designed from the ground-up that way. SC2 is made like a classical full-price title. In my opinion, SC2 is a bad game to play with your friends who have no (or just bronze-level) SC2 skills. Compare it with Quake: Even if someone wins with 20 frags, casual gamers will every now and then get a lucky shot and finish with lets say 4 frags.
Your quake argument doesn't make sense. Now lets compare FFA starcraft with quake FFA. Even a random low level player who doesn't get attacked can mass up a group of carriers and kill a few players. Also, I don't know how you can get a lucky shot when aim is entirely down to the mechanics of the individual + a bit on the movement of the other player which is also an aspect of SC2.
People overrate how hard SC2 is all the time. Most of my friends quit the game from the poor arcade system. We never got the longevity that brood war provided with its endless source of UMS games which had a proper popularity system.
Also, speaking of quake live for example which doesn't have a great matchmaking system at this point in time. I went to try the game and won about 5 of my first 100 duels. My SC2 win% never went below 40-60% due to matchmaking.
|
I read through his blog post and then skimmed through this thread. I mostly agree with Destiny. The ball is in Blizzard's court and we can only really hope that they act accordingly.
I think that one point that Destiny neglected just a bit when discussing ways to make the game more casual friendly is the re-balance of the game and its design.
Starcraft 2's engagements are over quite quickly and certain units can also end games quite quickly as well. On top of that, the macro in Starcraft 2 can get out of hand really quickly if you're not on top of things since resources gather quite quickly. The game itself is OK but it's incredibly fast paced. There are community concerns about the worker change in LOTV which say that things will get even worse if they accelerate the growth of economy even more. It's anti-casual for sure and I think that Blizzard would do well to read that thread carefully.
Slowing down the economy would be a good start. I don't think that the new player should be playing a different game from the professionals though. There are easy ways to make the game easier to manage without actually changing it. Start with a better UI, which shows you your own production tab. That way you have an idea of whether or not you're missing production cycles: it's a visual aid.
Another visual aid would be for supply: green if you're two depot/pylon/OL ahead of your supply at the moment. Orange if you're only one supply unit ahead of your supply, red if you're capped. Give the orange increment a bigger visual punch than the green one. Fundamentally the game remains the same yet these visual aids help the player anyway.
You might even be able to include a "build order" note-pad, an in-game tool that you can use to craft your own build order.
Professionals might turn off such features as it might clutter their workspace however these should really help a newer player or anyone who wants to reduce their in-game workload.
Team games and FFAs should get better maps. Portraits and such should be awarded for maximum rank attained or something, stuff like that. Should be fun.
Destiny is right in posting this and at very least I think that most people should bounce off what he has to say. Above all, Blizzard needs to be less like Blizzard and more like a gaming company which is flexible about the way it supports its game. Blizzard has been very hit and miss to be perfectly frank.
|
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.
Based on what do you feel micro-transactions wouldn't help? Someone made an excellent point earlier:
On December 20 2014 08:43 magicmUnky wrote:
We can't assume SC2 would be viable as a micro transaction game.
Nobody has qualified this statement beyond "sc2 is very dissimilar to other micro-transaction games". I'm sorry but how is CSGO any less dissimilar from dota2 or LoL?
Clearly you feel it wouldn't work, as I feel it could. And that's OK
The thing about any game across any genre (and why I think eSports is always going to have a limited appeal (not saying it wont continue expanding)) Is that on some level you have to fundamentally understand what you're watching. Personally I think this is easier in a genre like FPS, it has more crowd appeal. You don't really have to play it to understand it. As you say though, this is not the case with SC2.
To appreciate SC2 you have to of played it, or perhaps have your hand held as you watch by someone who has, there's no headshot mechanic going on to make things obvious, it's subtle, very very subtle at times (gas on 11 over 12 for example). So we have a high learning curve game, with less mass market appeal.
From Destinys blog. While the ratio of players-to-viewers is indeed high for Starcraft 2, it is undeniable that the more popular your game is and the more people you have playing it, the greater your viewership will be for your tournaments. This establishes a very important, often-ignored link between the professional and casual gaming scene: more casual gamers means a healthier professional scene.
This for me is at the very core of Destinys blog, the real big point we need to focus on.
One way this will be achieved in LotV is Archon mode, we can bring our friends into SC2, hold their hand and hopefully let them see how cool it is.
However, what's the deal with skins then? Firstly as he says, it's the incentive for casuals (or the hardcore gamer for that matter) To be in Starcraft and laddering. There is currently no reward system in Starcraft to make people keep playing, beyond getting the odd portrait or base icon. There are lots of achievements and rewards to be had from the campaign elements of WoL or HotS, but in multiplayer? Is there really much beyond 1000 matches played as Terran, 500 wins as random?
Now ask yourself why World of Warcraft was a total monster.
- You level up
- You get constant new items, skins
- You're being constantly rewarded for playing
- You can easily interact with your friends, and make new ones
Off the top off my head these sprang to mind, I'm sure there are plenty of other good reasons too. Of course achieving this is all done in a very presentable enjoyable way, but where is all this in Starcraft?
Someone reminded me further up the thread that Destiny himself mentioned that this doesnt have to be a pay-for-skin system. It could be inbuilt as part of the Starcraft experience.
So why pay for skins then? For my mind it's continued development. For bliztard to keep developing the game after LotV, there has to be monetary incentive for them to do so, this shouldn't be the case though! And here is why it should not be the case;
On August 3, 2010, Blizzard announced that StarCraft II sold more than one million units worldwide within one day of its release. After two days, when Blizzard began selling the game as a digital download on its website, approximately 500,000 additional units of the game were sold, bringing the total up to 1.5 million worldwide and making it the fastest-selling strategy game of all time. In its first month on sale, StarCraft II sold a total of three million copies worldwide. As of December 2010, the game has sold nearly 4.5 million units. LINK
Or how in HotS it's;
The game sold approximately 1.1 million copies worldwide in its first two days on sale, and was the top-selling PC game for the first quarter of 2013. LINK
Someone care to do the maths for me, and estimate potential sales and revenue trying to vary in factors like sale prices and collectors edition sales? You'll have to get more accurate and up to date figures first however... TLDR: We've made you stinking rich already blizzard, that's why we shouldnt need micro-transactions. But that level of success wouldn't be the case if you hadn't created such great games as WoL and HotS! Credit where credit is due.
But that's OK. We all want more money don't we. Back to skins.
Why do I personally feel that it's essential for there to be micro-transactions in SC2 in some form?. From this one line by stuchiu in his (or her!) Excellent recent article Battle for the Empty Throne
BW got its last gameplay patch on 4/18/01 on patch 1.08, 2.5 years after launch. After that, it was all up to professional players and mapmakers to create balance, either through innovative strategies or map design.
History.
|
BW got its last gameplay patch on 4/18/01 on patch 1.08, 2.5 years after launch. After that, it was all up to professional players and mapmakers to create balance, either through innovative strategies or map design.
Because ladder and tournaments were always organized OUTSIDE of Battle.net !
With Bnet 2.0 Blizzard is in charge of matchmaking, ranks and maps, and with that overall balance. With WCS being the biggest Tournament, they also set the rules for the general approach to maps.
We want it that way, we want an "authority" in ladder maps, and patching. Someone to blame, someone truly no biased.
We cant have anyone going into the editor and make Maps and Mods to his liking.
We want easy, fast matchmaking, not talk to poeple or clicking in browsers.
Blizzard was willing to fullfill this role to take the Burden of Balance.
I thought WoL felt so much more alive as a game than HotS. There were changes and reverse on changes every few weeks, the map rotation was faster, back in the day without a unified mappool you got diffrent games on the same patch, now it's all freaking overgrowth, MGR, KSJS all the time everywhere.
Also the diffrent maps caused the need of teams. Today you click 1v1-play on ladder, even as a pro. You get a decent opponent. Okay sometimes you need that too, but you can play online.
Back then you could not rely on that, you got to have someone decent who might play THAT MAPS with you, wich you are going to face in a tournament.
The impact of maps can be seen at ProLeague!
The unifiedmappool is the downfall for GSTL !
|
On December 20 2014 08:43 magicmUnky wrote:This blog hits the nail on the head but reading this commentary you'd think that the SC2 posters here would rather the game just died? These sentiments are echoed quite a bit throughout the thread: Nobody has qualified this statement beyond "sc2 is very dissimilar to other micro-transaction games". I'm sorry but how is CSGO any less dissimilar from dota2 or LoL? People seem to bash microtransactions without realising that those pay-systems are currently keeping a huge number of relatively unpopular games floating (look on steam for free games and bask in the glory of a thousand bizarre titles). FYI, D3 auction house was axed because it incentivised botting and compromised the game in a very significant manner. It would be foolish to extend that idea onto any conceivable implementation of micro-transactions on SC2.
No one here wants SC2 dead, I don't think you are reading everyone's reply very carefully.
Many of us agree with Destiny about the problem, but don't necessarily agree with his solution.
We aren't bashing micro transactions, and of course they work for a lot of other games, but you are only assuming it would work for SC2. For one thing, those games don't have the budget and manpower like Blizzard. Games with such a large budget/manpower needs to have a higher cost. Games with such a high cost feel rather greedy with a micro transaction model attached on.
If I pay $60 for a game, I want all features included. It would feel like Blizzard is nickel and diming us. The only way to make SC2 micro transaction work is to make it free or really cheap. Will Blizzard make a profit on SC2 if it was free but relied on micro transactions? How many skins will they have to sell to eventually make a profit? How many of their players would be converted into purchasing a skin or voicepack? How many skins would have to be developed?
Sure a game like Candy Crush can thrive off micro transactions. By my guess, it probably only cost developers $50k to make that game (keep in mind its just a clone of bejewelled). A game with low overhead can adopt the free to play model.
A game like SC2 might not turn a profit with a free to play model. We don't know, and you don't know either.
|
On December 20 2014 12:53 Areaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 08:13 [F_]aths wrote:
If we think about payment in general. You have to consider different laws in different countries. You have to implement a system accepting a range of currencies. You have to implement actual age control. All things you do must be triple-checked and tested because you are handeling with real money now.
Remember how complicated the D3 auctionhouse was? It was cut later anyway, because it was not wanted from core D3 playerbase. Thats where you are wrong. They implemented D3 auction house perfectly. It was easy to use and the microtransactions on items was possible across all the major regions i believe. Do you honestly think that blizzard wouldnt be able to do this when pretty much every other game does this? I mean seriously now. Not only that they have it in heroes of the storm dude.
Heroes of the Storm is a different genre, micro (or not-so-micro) transactions are already established via other games.
SC2 is designed as a game where you have a set of content. Because of the balance, it is not as easy to introduce new units outside of expansion, while it is easier to introduce new units (heroes) into a moba.
SC2 would be left with cosmetic stuff to purchase. But the game is not tailored for that.
The D3 AH sold items found by players. Blizzard did not create content to sell. For SC2, they would have to create content, which costs money and time if it has to uphold a level of quality one expects from Blizzard.
On December 20 2014 20:07 TerransHill wrote:
But well Blizzard is a huge company and they have alot of experts so I cant imagine that they havent been considering something like that already. They don't want to. They're going to release LotV for 40 bucks, make some money out of it and leave it be.
Guess we have to face the truth: Blizzard has abandoned Starcraft and similar games and put more effort into their new, simpler games which are free to play from the start like Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm and this new Battle Arena game.
If they had "abandoned" Starcraft, why would they develop an expansion with a full-blown campaign, polish it to be on par with the existing campaign? Why would they bother to change some fundamental variables of the game?
|
On December 21 2014 08:10 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Sure a game like Candy Crush can thrive off micro transactions. By my guess, it probably only cost developers $50k to make that game (keep in mind its just a clone of bejewelled). A game with low overhead can adopt the free to play model.
A game like SC2 might not turn a profit with a free to play model. We don't know, and you don't know either.
Which was a clone of something else, which was a clone of something else, all the way back to the DOS game Shariki I believe. Not really relevant to the discussion but reading that started some reading of my own and I thought I'd share.
While I'm here, I'll give you my version of "would micro-payments work in SC2".
Short version: Yes. But you have to do it right. And if you're going to do it right you probably need a lot of time and money.
Long version: Turns out smacking buttons for rewards is a thing humans like. If, at some point, you carefully substitute "smack the button" for "pay a buck" you might create a cash cow. You can see this just by looking at video gaming in the past few years, there is no genre which it has been applied to where it hasn't worked. FPSs, RTTs (or MOBAs if you prefer) MMORPGs, space simulations, a hundred thousand different varieties of puzzle game and on and on. It really doesn't matter what activity humans are engaged in, if they get to hit the buttons, pay the bucks and take home a tin cup then they'll do it. This is such a clear state of affairs that at this point I think the onus is on those who think micro transactions wouldn't work to explain what magical property SC2 has that exempt it from this clear rule.
So in principle the micro transaction model (or whatever you want to call it) will clearly work but, just as clearly, how you implement it is incredibly important. What forms do these rewards take? Which ones are accessible through play only and which have to be paid for and which are accessible through either route? What do these things cost in time or money for the player? When do they see the reward appear if they are playing for it? Where is the shop where they pay for rewards? etc. etc.
In my view it would be incredibly easy to kill SC2 stone dead with the wrong implementation of micro transactions. All the player base has to do is get a wiff of "pay to win" or see things as over priced or see that too much is accessible to payers which wasn't accessible to players or any one of a number of other possible mistakes and the audience would be hurt. In general, if the implementation appears exploitative then it will be counter productive. (As a side note that's a good argument for SC2 being different from other games, not because of the game, but because the audience. An audience who feel they have already invested so much in the game -be it the dollars or just a decade of loyalty and love- that they shouldn't have to pay extra for cool things and so would be more likely to cry exploitation.)
Now look at the client. Given that we know that it could work, but we also know that doing it wrong would be counter-productive the very last thing you want to do is to try and spray micro transactions all over a 5 year old client which was made with zero thought to model you're now trying to impose on it. Ultimately you're probably talking about a bigger project than LotV as it now stands. You need to take the whole thing down and start again, you need to redevelop it with a shop in mind from the ground up. You need to place whatever it is you are selling (be it sound packs or unit skins or whatever) central to the play experience from the moment a player logs on, which means at the very least new tutorials and ideally adjustments to the single player campaigns and challenge modes. You need to develop a good amount of content that's given out just for playing. You need to develop a good amount of content that's available exclusively to your current audience so you don't alienate them. And on, and on. And once you've done this it better f**cking not crash or break or be exploitable before you roll it out for millions of people to play with.
Destiny is right -micro tranactions could work- he just doesn't discuss how they would work and agregiously underestimates what it would take to make them work. This thread would be a lot more interesting if it moved from if to how.
|
Hi.
Very interesting OP from Destiny. I deeply respect his argument, but I have nevertheless to disagree with one of its key points. Frankly I am quite surprised that nobody brought that up.
So to sum it up, the first part of Destiny's argument boiled down to the following:
(1) SCII needs a bigger player base to sustain an healthy professional scene
therefore
(2)The game has to become more "casual friendly", ie reward more casual play.
I think this logic is flawed.
It would be right if (1) was: SCII need to be as popular as the biggest game franchises, like LOL for instance, to sustain an healthy professional scene.
But it's simply not true. Take chess as an example. For 99% of people, chess is just too abstrat, complicated, slow, hard (...): theyn will play 0 to 10 games in their life, and quit it forever. That indeed explain why chess is widely less popular that soccer or poker. But does it arm the longevity of the game, or the existence of a strong competitive scene? Of course not. Because the other 1% (the number is obviously made up, not important to my point) of people will really get into the game, and thus invest time and money in it. Chess does not need to be played by a large chunk of the audience, it just has to manage to reproduce throughout time its "hardcore" player base.
Maybe here is the problem with SCII.
SC fans are far too much focused on the numbers of the biggest "casual friendly" franchises. Maybe we abandon far too quickly our legendary "broodwar elitism".
I will point out what is for me the biggest elephant in the room: the major flaw of SCII is its unability too retain a large chunk of a (relatively) small market: hardcore gamers.
The launching of SCII was a huge succes, and 6 millions copies saled by the end of 2012. So let's do the math: if 10% of the buyers had became hardcore fans of the game, it translates to 600k active players at this time. If those fans were willing to pay 10$ per year to watch pro players or streamers, it would amount to 6 millions $ inject yearly into the scene, ie six times the yearly total prize pool of WCS main events.
It's a perfectly fine amount to sustain a very healthy pro scene, and a strong basis for a strategy based on a slow, organic grow, of the community.
But I fear that it's not such great news. Because it would mean that the problem roots itself in the core of the game, not cosmetic issues. That doesn't lead necessarly to something of "gg no re" situation, but it means that Blizzard needs to focus on the "depth of gameplay", and itsmost hardcore aspects.
Let's make sure that the casual gamer has absolutely 0 chance to beat any half-decent player (like chess), that every newcomer feels right from the beginning overwhelmed by the strategic complexity of the game (like chess) and that a whole life time would nearly not be enough to master it (...)!
It's called a niche market, and some of thoses markets are among the most profitable and stable in the entire economy.
|
On December 17 2014 04:49 Destiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted. But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy". Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay) Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2? I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough? TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet What about making it so that from bronze to gold, your main building automatically produces workers until you're at 16 on each base? Maybe you can set up a file before-hand to automatically create gasses at x number of workers? Then new players can simply focus on making units and attacking? Maybe up until silver league you can right click on a unit in a building and the building will automatically produce that unit, assuming you have the resources/supply to do so? Maybe in bronze/silver/gold leagues there are rocks outside of your natural expansion every game that have to be brought down to prevent people from early rushing you? Maybe through platinum league EVERY CC/hatchery/nexus has some sort of built-in defense system that lasts until 8 minutes have passed? There are ways to make the game more "casual friendly" at lower levels while still keeping the higher levels in tact.
That would add complexity, the player would not only have to learn the game, he would also have to learn a different rule set for each league.
Since you are matched with your MMR, not league, you can get an opponent from another league, which would perceived as unfair by the player from the higher league.
|
On December 21 2014 03:39 KingDime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 06:25 [F_]aths wrote:On December 20 2014 05:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 20 2014 04:33 Noro wrote:
People are wrong in criticizing Blizzard for not being able to emulate and implement F2P/Microtransaction models. They simply don't want to for SC2. They know those models work because they're using them on games that they see actually having a monetary future. Blizzard can put out as many PR statements they want about how much they care about this game but really its just white noise. Actions speak louder than words, and what they're saying is SC2 is not worth the investment of resources because the market favours more simplistic/funsie games like HotS and Hearth Stone. Those are the games they will focus on now, regardless of their promises to continually "improve" SC2. I don't think Blizzard is misleading us. They are attempting to improve SC2. However, Blizzard is doing so with a team size and budget that is commensurate with their profit expectations for an RTS game. no one is dumping big dollars into a RTS games because there is no one thinks big money can be made as you've noted. there are still low budget/small scale RTS games like Etherium, Grey Goo, and Rise of Nations Extended Edition coming out these days. i think Destiny's suggestions, properly refined by Blizz, would result in a small increase in revenue and a small increase in playing time. Nothing is going to stop the over all trend away from RTS games though. I think that Destiny's analysis is very good. However I doubt that his more specific suggestions would play out well. I think, a casual-friendly but esports-viable RTS as f2p can work. If it is designed from the ground-up that way. SC2 is made like a classical full-price title. In my opinion, SC2 is a bad game to play with your friends who have no (or just bronze-level) SC2 skills. Compare it with Quake: Even if someone wins with 20 frags, casual gamers will every now and then get a lucky shot and finish with lets say 4 frags. Your quake argument doesn't make sense. Now lets compare FFA starcraft with quake FFA. Even a random low level player who doesn't get attacked can mass up a group of carriers and kill a few players. Also, I don't know how you can get a lucky shot when aim is entirely down to the mechanics of the individual + a bit on the movement of the other player which is also an aspect of SC2. People overrate how hard SC2 is all the time. Most of my friends quit the game from the poor arcade system. We never got the longevity that brood war provided with its endless source of UMS games which had a proper popularity system. Also, speaking of quake live for example which doesn't have a great matchmaking system at this point in time. I went to try the game and won about 5 of my first 100 duels. My SC2 win% never went below 40-60% due to matchmaking. My Quake example was a different one. It is not about to login and play versus random guys.
It is about to pick a game you can play with/versus some of your friends. Even someone who did not play Quake for a long time can get some frags. In Quake, the action begins instantly, eventually you will have some frags on your scoreboard.
|
This is what you get if you search for "play starcraft 2":
Millions of players have experienced the intense strategic combat of StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty and now, it has never been easier to join the action. Take command, and lead your forces into battle against rival Terran factions, deadly Zerg hives and mysterious Protoss tribes. Simply click below to begin downloading and then follow the on-screen instructions to play.
Play the first five missions of the epic single-player campaign, wage unrelenting war on your friends in pulse-pounding multiplayer battles, and try the free StarCraft II Arcade. Get in the fight!
In comparison this is the message for League of Legends:
What is League of Legends?
League of Legends is a fast-paced, competitive online game that blends the speed and intensity of an RTS with RPG elements. Two teams of powerful champions, each with a unique design and playstyle, battle head-to-head across multiple battlefields and game modes. With an ever-expanding roster of champions, frequent updates and a thriving tournament scene, League of Legends offers endless replayability for players of every skill level.
Note that for League there is the use of video game jargon and a direct mention of the game's competitive aspects (gameplay, tournament scene), which I would never expect Blizzard to do. I don't know if this is significant, but I thought it was interesting. SC2 is supposed to be this hardcore competitive game, but Blizzard itself shies away from those descriptions, focusing more on the arcade and the single-player, while League is this supposedly casual game that nevertheless promotes its competitive scene a lot.
|
It's nothing personal on Blizz's part, just business. It's a simple matter of risk vs reward and ROI. While I don't know the inner workings of Blizz at this point but I'd be willing to wager the majority of their workers are currently assigned to their other games that they think have a higher reward and lower risk that SC2. WoW probably has most of their workers since it's still quite the cash cow for them. I'd assume Hearthstone comes next with HotS following up. Overwatch probably takes priority over SC2 as well. D3 and SC2 are probably about the same since so far they haven't found a real practical way to monetize either of those games(though D3 had console releases for some quick cash and an expansion).
Essentially monetization is the problem with with SC2 and D3. D3 had the money AH but that was removed (for the better I might add). Aside from the SC2 expansions and maybe tournament licenses and possibly some ad revenue (I'm not sure if they get a cut of the ad money from tournaments as well) there doesn't seem to be that great of a revenue stream coming from SC2. Compare this with their other games (Wow has subscription and micro transactions, HS has micro transactions, HotS will have micro transactions, too early to tell anything for Overwatch but I'd assume it would be the same). With these games Blizzard knows people will engage in micro transactions since they're a core part of those games. People will buy booster packs in HS and speaking from personal experience people will always be transferring servers, faction changing, and re-customizing in WoW and people buying skins in HotS is also a fairly certain thing. Because of this Blizzard is comfortable with devoting coders/artists to creating content for these games since they have past evidence that the reward is most likely going to be worth it. Which leads us to SC2.
Some ideas for creating a revenue stream have been floated around including micro transactions for arcade maps and skins. The arcade maps idea was scrapped because I think it would be unlikely that people would be willing to shell out $60 for a game then more to be able to play maps and would drive people away. Another would be charging for new units but that's silly for obvious reasons. So that leaves skins. The only past data that they have on whether or not people would buy skins is HotS collectors edition. We don't have the numbers for how many collectors editions were bought but since no new skins were really developed aside from the ones from the ladder rewards it might not have met expectations and thus was not an idea that was continued. But that wasn't the only reason, there were most likely many so lets look at some problems SC2 currently has.
The biggest one is that SC2 (relative to other micro transaction games) has a small player base. Meaning that there aren't that many people to sell the skins to. Second Blizzard has very little information on past skin purchasing. Now of course anytime you add micro transaction to a game it is a risk, but if you put the two aforementioned things together it's a bigger risk than what you would have in a purely micro transaction based game.
Now while they don't directly relate to SC2 there are other outside problems as well. Blizzard already has other successful micro transaction game with plenty of data on past purchasing habits of their users. In addition to this (this is more an assumption on my part) it does not appear that Blizzard is hiring new coders/artists to make skins. This means that in order to create skins for SC2 they would have to pull people off of their more successful games in order to have them work on SC2, and that poses another risk as well as opportunity costs. So from these assumptions (all of these assumptions I've made are derived from the SC2 numbers posted in Destiny's blog) I deduce that at the present time given the uncertainty of the success of SC2 skin cells they don't think there would be enough of a reward to take the risk and pull coders/artists off their other projects and assign them to SC2.
With the upcoming (well sort of, next year anyways) release of LotV it can be assumed that some old players and maybe some new players (it is standalone after all) will come in to check out what changed and if they think it's worth playing again. If the numbers improve (and with it comes the risk to reward ratio) and retention looks good then I would be surprised to not see Blizzard pull a few people over and have them make a few skins to test the waters. Or alternatively if they ever hire new coders/artists they could assign them to SC2 to do this first, and if it doesn't work out they'll move them to other games.
I think I've summed up the current situation pretty well from a business perspective but again a lot of this is assumptions so take it with a grain of salt.
|
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.
|
him if i see the communtiy of this games i realy go to sc2 is realy no point to go in a teamgame base game becouse of massiv flaming kids. Cs, call of duty, lol, Dota 2 all have the same flamer community. Many people look this games becouse is easyer to play and lrean in way faster time. The future of esports is sad then the COMPANYS want make money and nothing other. The game with most viewers will be number 1 and this have nothing to do with skill of the player or the game.
Its the same with chess and football how many people look chess and how many look football?
|
On December 22 2014 03:23 craz3d wrote:
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.
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.
|
On December 22 2014 03:37 JokerAi wrote:
The future of esports is sad then the COMPANYS want make money and nothing other.
Root of all evil right there.
|
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.
|
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 ;/
|
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.
|
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.
|
On December 22 2014 09:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
I really like the discussion going on here, and I really hope Blizzard reads this entire thread. A lot of good ideas and opinions have been brought forth, and it would be a shame if Blizzard decidedly ignored us.
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.
|
On December 22 2014 09:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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:Show nested quote +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.
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)
|
I think that two different issues are somewhat mixed up in this thread.
- 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.
|
On December 22 2014 03:41 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 03:23 craz3d wrote:
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.
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.
|
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.
|
On December 22 2014 09:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On December 23 2014 16:22 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 09:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: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. 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.
|
i loved bw, and thought sc2 had a lot of potential. i played quite a bit and was ranked diamond for most of my time playing. for a break, i would try out this game called league of legends in between sc2 matches.
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.
|
On December 23 2014 02:16 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 22 2014 03:41 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 03:23 craz3d wrote:
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.
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.
|
On December 24 2014 00:08 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 02:16 fruity. wrote: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. 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.
|
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.
|
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. Yeah, so bad that they developed the most popular RTS game yet.
On December 24 2014 00:18 Jornada wrote:Thank you Destiny for being you. I honestly dont know what the future holds for SC2 but i do hope it gets better.
If you would have the necessary skills as a game developer (not just felt by yourself, but provable) they would probably hire and pay you.
On December 24 2014 02:19 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
It takes a lot of effort to be the voice of the community, and Destiny isn't even close.
On the other hand, I think he is more of the serious ones. I think his blog makes a good argument overall. While some of his proposals are in my opinion not as useful, his starting point is in my opinion totally correct: This games needs to be attractive for casual player as well, so that SC2 constantly gets (at least) some new blood.
|
On December 24 2014 03:44 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yeah, so bad that they developed the most popular RTS game yet. Show nested quote +On December 24 2014 00:18 Jornada wrote:Thank you Destiny for being you. I honestly dont know what the future holds for SC2 but i do hope it gets better. If you would have the necessary skills as a game developer (not just felt by yourself, but provable) they would probably hire and pay you.
Everytime I join one of these controversial discussions where ppl try to develop some constructive criticism then I get slowly more and more frustrated by statements like the one you quoted. The categories are mostly:
1. Any pulled out of the ass comparison to BW or a straight up generalisation in that regard which doesn't hold any value or content. This is super meme like especially considering the fact that SC2 allready had more global success and tournaments than BW ever had. And considering that apparently SC2s main "problem" is the "small" playerbase (it's actually freaking huge. The numbers MOBAs are pulling off are a completely new phenomenon) then SC2 is miles ahead of its predecessor.
2. Balance whine. This one incredible since its in 99% of the time based on anectodes, narrow perceiption, lack of understanding and lack of research. SC2 is more balanced than it ever was. Its closer to balance than BW was at any given time in history especially considering the sheer amount of competitive games. But SC2 is not only balanced in terms of races but in terms of options as well. For each race and matchup there are different playstyles and compositions that are all viable and this is still developing and changing within the proscene. If we compare the best players in each race then we see vastly different styles and ways to win games. Think Life or Snute, Zest or sOs, ForGG or INnoVation etc.
3. Attacks directly at Blizzard. The only real issue. And tbh this was the case for more than 15 years in any given Blizzard game, is that they are very / often too careful when it comes to communication. That's really it! Their patching history is incredibly smart when it comes to balance (the result shows this). They have moved from patching races into focussing on Maps. They have toned down the frequency over the years. Those are all proven success receipts they learned from their older games and during sc2 development and also the hardcore community and the progamers have in general appreciated when Blizzard patched slower and more careful, while improving in that regard over time as well.
"The community" doesn't know how to balance and design games neither do progamers. It is very naive to think that your average Joe's random ass ideas and biased ways of thinking about the game are any more or even equally refined and smart than what Blizzard's. If you do "what the community wants" then you wont get a highly complex and beautifuly crafted game. Hell it isn't even clear what that would be because "the community" has wildly different and conflicting opinions about what "should be done" with the game. Have these guys posting shit like this ever checked out the battle.net forums or do they even read some of the posts on this board except OPs? Literally the only consensus we currently have is that we think something like skins and other monetisation models might be something that helps to grow a bigger casual player base. That is really all. The fact that Archon mode and periodic tournaments are way more exciting and creative features that work towards the same goal is beyond their grasp.
|
Canada11316 Posts
1. Any pulled out of the ass comparison to BW or a straight up generalisation in that regard which doesn't hold any value or content. This is super meme like especially considering the fact that SC2 allready had more global success and tournaments than BW ever had. And considering that apparently SC2s main "problem" is the "small" playerbase (it's actually freaking huge. The numbers MOBAs are pulling off are a completely new phenomenon) then SC2 is miles ahead of its predecessor.
Depends where you are looking. You are right that Moba's are blowing other games out of the water, but the playerbase of SC2 is not necessarily bigger than its predecessor- at least in Korea. Both Warcraft III and Starcraft are fairly consistently in the top 10 of games played in the Internet cafes, but you don't really see SC2 in the same lists.
https://www.techinasia.com/koreas-top-10-most-popular-pc-games-september-2014/
https://www.techinasia.com/south-koreas-top-10-most-popular-pc-games-august-2014/
https://www.techinasia.com/koreas-top-10-popular-pc-games-july-2013/
But you are likely correct in countries outside of Korea, but again it depends what you are looking at.
|
That is ofc true. But a large portion of the community up to the casters and pros want more competitive regions outside of korea. I personally couldn't care less from where the top players are comming from. The viewer numbers are apparently the highest when theres a korean vs forgeigner finals at a major tournament. Korea's Esports interests are now closer to the distribution we see globally (while still being the number 1 place for SC2 and now also LoL).
But Korea being more globalized in terms of Esports now (having the best LoL teams and the biggest LoL following) is a good thing because it gives more attention to the teams. They are also investing in more tournaments now such as the SSL and the Proleague, so in terms of competitive content SC2 has benefited from the general growth of the teams (the Proleague is sponsored by SKT and the production style and value as well as the on site fans are very similar to the BW Proleague).
Also the EU scene has a range of very consistent and successful tournaments, teams and organisations. Literally the only scene which is "struggling" and "on decline" is the NA scene but it has allways been the weakest in terms of competitive gameing throughout Esports history. Somehow NA manages to hype up really really fast and then falls off really fast. A weird phenomenon which probably has to be looked at more closely. The strong side of the NA scene is content creation surrounding Esports but less so winning competitions and maintaining a strong competitive scene apparently.
All that said, it is mindboggling for me to hear a couple terms such as "doom and gloom" / "dead game" etc. especially in comparison to BW, because in fact SC2 is a global Esports success. I have no idea where these terms come from but I assume they are NA inventions and as they have the best content creators and the most famous personalities, those terms get kind of broadcasted into the global english speaking scenes.
And in the bottom line is that most BW comparisons to critisize SC2 are just meme like below the belt attacks without any real value, reasoning or even content. Their only purpose is to be negative and come off as hipster because the cool kids like BW more than SC2. These people often don't even followed or played BW because if they would then they had actual things to say. SC2 made alot of very good steps away from BW and over time it also learned some of the things back (such as competitive maps). There are interesting relationships there we can explore though. For example the economy changes Blizzard is working on atm are things ppl on these boards have discussed and analyzed extensively and is largely influenced by what we know and learned from the differences of SC2 and BW, same for the maps. But we don't do that on the basis of saying "BW is generally better in any way so SC2 has to be more like it". The discussion goes way beyond that and I was amazed by the fact how deep and interesting it is. Poeple also seem to forget how many things SC2 has improved design wise. Apart from the better UI and Utility surrounding the game we also have more options as in units, upgrades and army compositions which are viable and competitive in the game which is largely exciting.
|
On December 17 2014 04:49 Destiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted. But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy". Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay) Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2? I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough? TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet What about making it so that from bronze to gold, your main building automatically produces workers until you're at 16 on each base? Maybe you can set up a file before-hand to automatically create gasses at x number of workers? Then new players can simply focus on making units and attacking? Maybe up until silver league you can right click on a unit in a building and the building will automatically produce that unit, assuming you have the resources/supply to do so? Maybe in bronze/silver/gold leagues there are rocks outside of your natural expansion every game that have to be brought down to prevent people from early rushing you? Maybe through platinum league EVERY CC/hatchery/nexus has some sort of built-in defense system that lasts until 8 minutes have passed? There are ways to make the game more "casual friendly" at lower levels while still keeping the higher levels in tact.
I don't think these suggestions are very good, but I like the way you are thinking. Here are some of my ideas:
# In addition to A-move add an E-move that targets workers first.
# In Red Alert 1 there were two hotkeys that I miss, one was X to scatter your troops (they spread out slighty every time you press it) and the other was F to lock the selected units in formation.
# Instead of the totally bullshit and inane bronze/silver/gold/plat/etc.. leagues break it up by region (in an opt in way) to people select say a country or a state or a city and are ranked inside that. They could also compare rank to those on firends list, clan, etc.
# Put up like $500 dollars into a 3 palyer and 4 player make making compition so we can actually get decent maps there.
# I would love to see a 3v3 tournament. The way to make it balanced is to enforce TPZ vs TPZ only.
# I do like the auto-build worker one though, very nice.
The general problem with SC2 is that the multi-tasking is fucking difficult.
|
I agree with Destiny in his praise for how Valve treats its games turning them into very successful and profitable esport games.
SC2 doesnt need to be free to play, however, I agree with destiny that blizzard should attract casual gamers with hats and skins. Skinning and pimping out your Terran army would be absolutely amazing.
I love Dota 2 for having those items to pimp out your favorite heroes. SC2 should have that and will benefit the game tremendously.
Valve's advantage is that they have the market place and the virtual items in place.
Blizzard doesnt have a market place of its own so it will have to sell premade skins just like LoL.
If I had a choice, Blizzard should implement aesthetic customization just like Dota 2.
|
another advantage Valve has it is not a publicly traded company.
if uncle gabe wants to assign 500 employees to a game that has a player base of 5,000 he just does it.
Blizzard answers to ATVI.
so its one thing to "blue sky" these solutions... its a whole other ball game selling these "solutions" to management.
and if u sell a "solution" that you claim will result in 100s of millions of dollars of new income.. .and then it does not happen you are either unemployed or moved to a different assignment.
middle managers generally play it safe because they have their own bills to pay and lives to live.
|
i think the tldr of it all, is that Blizzard doesnt care about SC2 anymore, and just want to make enough money now since they can.
It's been how many years since HOTS and LOTV? And they still have to 'think' of a new protoss unit, or 'realise' that certain units may be crap? Heck if they got any of the TL staff members who work on SC, they could have come up with better stuff for LOTV.
|
On December 24 2014 11:15 worosei wrote:
i think the tldr of it all, is that Blizzard doesnt care about SC2 anymore, and just want to make enough money now since they can.
It's been how many years since HOTS and LOTV? And they still have to 'think' of a new protoss unit, or 'realise' that certain units may be crap? Heck if they got any of the TL staff members who work on SC, they could have come up with better stuff for LOTV.
No thats not the tldr of it all. You clearly didn't read the thread. That is just you being negative and hostile.
|
On December 24 2014 02:08 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2014 00:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 23 2014 02:16 fruity. wrote: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. 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.
I feel like people are talking about something I said that I didn't. "When it comes to chat Blizzard is like the passive aggressive ... " etc. etc. I wasn't making a sweeping attack on Blizzard's fan face. I was specifically responding to this quote
On December 22 2014 03:41 fruity. wrote:
The chat / channels thing seems to be a constant grip since roughly 800BC.
from this post. The social aspect of the SC2 client has always been terrible despite constant complaints and suggestions.
Personally, it wouldn't take much to make me happy, better clan chat support would be great, IRC type commands would also be good, but mainly what I would like to see is the client gently funnelling users into a chat room populated by people from the same rough geographical area just as WC3 did. You log on, first question:
"Enter chat? (blizzard is not responsible for statements, claims, offers of a sexual nature made by the various subhuman animals you might encounter) P.S. never give anyone your password."
If "yes" then /joinchannel #SC2-UserCountryCode-1
else vanilla SC2 frontend
It was such a great and simple way to put a gentle pressure on players towards socialising. At the moment the client seems designed to achieve the opposite. Now I understand why this might be the case -cost of having to deal with user complaints over the actions of other users for one- but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed they've picked this route, nor that I can't be peeved at how they've handled requests for a better social experience.
In more general terms Blizzard is as good at customer service and fan interaction as they always have been. Which is to say great. I think the problem we're facing more than anything is that SC2 is their lowest priority right now and that the corporate plan is ... or... well wait. I'm about to make some huge assumptions, I can't claim to know the truth, all I can really talk about is what I guess is happening and how I feel given what I've seen following SC2 since "Hell, it's about time".
What I think I see is that there are people at Blizzard right this second who have a deep and abiding love of the starcraft 2 universe and RTSs in general and that they want nothing more than to see us grow and flourish. However I also see that from a pure money perspective there are 2 possibilities for LotV
-a very safe win.
-a risky and sudden change which features a million different ways to screw up and a slim chance of a "LoL miracle".
And if this is the case, then there is no choice at all. Not only that, but they have their "LoL miracle" set up and ready to rock in the form of HotS. So what we will see is a high quality single player campaign with a couple new units for each race, because this is essentially expected. We will also see a few other adjustments which are cheap to implement like a rebalancing of the economy and archon mode.
My honest opinion is that this sort of stuff from Destiny is actually counter productive. While it's really great to listen to someone articulate who clearly cares a great deal about SC2, the result will be that a lot of time and energy is spent discussing vague irrelevancy because it's all pie in the sky. If we want change, what we need are suggestions that are clearly stated, cheap to implement and garner popular support "SC2 shop with skins and voice packs" might be popular but it's also both vague and expensive and so pretty much doomed to failure.
So now we get to have another failed mob action which we can point to in future days while wailing, rending our clothes and rolling our eyes "Bliiizzzzaaaarrrddd! Whhhhyyyy!". Which I'm sure will make us all feel like we did our best but they just wouldn't listen.
On the upside... Proleague's started again, so that's at least one more season of the best sporting experience available to a human in the second decade of the 21st century.
|
Hey Dapper_Cad, I agree that Blizzard could have incorporated more social features built into the client.
Instead they relied on current social tools (Facebook), but this left the game client feeling barren and empty.
|
On December 24 2014 06:01 clickrush wrote:+ Show Spoiler +That is ofc true. But a large portion of the community up to the casters and pros want more competitive regions outside of korea. I personally couldn't care less from where the top players are comming from. The viewer numbers are apparently the highest when theres a korean vs forgeigner finals at a major tournament. Korea's Esports interests are now closer to the distribution we see globally (while still being the number 1 place for SC2 and now also LoL). But Korea being more globalized in terms of Esports now (having the best LoL teams and the biggest LoL following) is a good thing because it gives more attention to the teams. They are also investing in more tournaments now such as the SSL and the Proleague, so in terms of competitive content SC2 has benefited from the general growth of the teams (the Proleague is sponsored by SKT and the production style and value as well as the on site fans are very similar to the BW Proleague). Also the EU scene has a range of very consistent and successful tournaments, teams and organisations. Literally the only scene which is "struggling" and "on decline" is the NA scene but it has allways been the weakest in terms of competitive gameing throughout Esports history. Somehow NA manages to hype up really really fast and then falls off really fast. A weird phenomenon which probably has to be looked at more closely. The strong side of the NA scene is content creation surrounding Esports but less so winning competitions and maintaining a strong competitive scene apparently. All that said, it is mindboggling for me to hear a couple terms such as "doom and gloom" / "dead game" etc. especially in comparison to BW, because in fact SC2 is a global Esports success. I have no idea where these terms come from but I assume they are NA inventions and as they have the best content creators and the most famous personalities, those terms get kind of broadcasted into the global english speaking scenes. And in the bottom line is that most BW comparisons to critisize SC2 are just meme like below the belt attacks without any real value, reasoning or even content. Their only purpose is to be negative and come off as hipster because the cool kids like BW more than SC2. These people often don't even followed or played BW because if they would then they had actual things to say. SC2 made alot of very good steps away from BW and over time it also learned some of the things back (such as competitive maps). There are interesting relationships there we can explore though. For example the economy changes Blizzard is working on atm are things ppl on these boards have discussed and analyzed extensively and is largely influenced by what we know and learned from the differences of SC2 and BW, same for the maps. But we don't do that on the basis of saying "BW is generally better in any way so SC2 has to be more like it". The discussion goes way beyond that and I was amazed by the fact how deep and interesting it is. Poeple also seem to forget how many things SC2 has improved design wise. Apart from the better UI and Utility surrounding the game we also have more options as in units, upgrades and army compositions which are viable and competitive in the game which is largely exciting.
Gosh, SC2 was riding on the back of starcraft franchise and blizzard reputation. It would be close to nothing if its name was something random and developed by some unknown company. In fact, community and organizations tried hard to make it succesfull and prolong hype as much as possible. Which resulted in better HoTS sales, but game didn't improve much. Luckily hype is dying off now (thank god), and blizzard won't be getting free marketing for lotv and maybe they'll learn something and do better job next time.
Note that Dota 2 and CS GO were in same exact spot. They were kinda meh in the beginning, but valve worked hard to improve them and now the community is happy as ever.
|
Maybe some individuals never were into BW but like to bring it up because it holds status in the community but a lot of people also did/do play BW a lot and tried to switch to SC2 but simple couldn't get into it because of its shortcomings.
|
SC2 feels hard, harsh and unfair. Like BW, but BW is almost gone in the western world. It is easy to praise BW when you no longer play it.
The thing is, the game feels hard, harsh and unfair for every player. In the end, it is me coming to the wrong conclusion "My all-in worked, am I not a clever player?" "His all-in worked. Why does the game still allows to build marines?"
Or "After this long macro phase, I smartly got to a final, but powerful push to deal critical damage" versus "After I held for 35 minutes, which proves that I am the better player here, that damn guy just needed to drop a single medivac with marines to kill my tech. Why does the game allows for such cheap tactics to win?"
The constant stress on active players takes it toll. "Why accepting that I am not as good as I think when I could live my fantasy with a moba? If I lose, it was of course the team which lost, not me personally."
Even harder is to get into SC. You will get whacked for umpteen games. Even when you finally won a game or two, you will still lose a lot to one quick cheese after another. And when you finally held for 35 minutes, you will get doom-dropped.
|
On December 25 2014 19:49 [F_]aths wrote:
SC2 feels hard, harsh and unfair. Like BW, but BW is almost gone in the western world. It is easy to praise BW when you no longer play it.
The thing is, the game feels hard, harsh and unfair for every player. In the end, it is me coming to the wrong conclusion "My all-in worked, am I not a clever player?" "His all-in worked. Why does the game still allows to build marines?"
Or "After this long macro phase, I smartly got to a final, but powerful push to deal critical damage" versus "After I held for 35 minutes, which proves that I am the better player here, that damn guy just needed to drop a single medivac with marines to kill my tech. Why does the game allows for such cheap tactics to win?"
The constant stress on active players takes it toll. "Why accepting that I am not as good as I think when I could live my fantasy with a moba? If I lose, it was of course the team which lost, not me personally."
Even harder is to get into SC. You will get whacked for umpteen games. Even when you finally won a game or two, you will still lose a lot to one quick cheese after another. And when you finally held for 35 minutes, you will get doom-dropped.
Actually, that's exactly what makes it easier for me. If my team fucks up in a moba game, there is honestly not much to be done. If it happens again, I'll just lose again.
If I mess up in SC2, I can watch the replay and fix my mistake Next time I win.
|
I've got nothing against skins, voice packs and monetization (as long as it comes with the option to disable them for the players who wish to have a "standardized" game) but I highly doubt it would rejuvenate SC2.
MOBAs are labelled as more fun simply because it's easier to blame your team than to blame yourself. LoL is actually pretty hard, but at the end of the game you can just harp on every mistake your partners made while forgetting your owns -which may very well be the ones that actually cost the game. When playing SC2's most polished mode -1v1- you can't do that. You're alone and you're the only one to blame. You lost. Most people are afraid of failure nowadays and they would do anything rather than admit they did something wrong (I lagged, my race is shit and yours is OP, etc).
You won't change that.
I think we should accept the 1v1 RTS genre we're -I think ?- hardcore fans of isn't going to dominate the esports scene like we once hoped it would. And that's fine. Soccer being popular has not kept archery competitions to exist all over the world.
What SC2 lacks in comparison to archery to be more welcoming to new players and remain lively is circles, clubs and teachers. As suggested by some in this thread, training tools that learn good build orders would be great. Official tutorials on Youtube would be great too. Real-life SC2 clubs with actual teachers and courses would be amazing, but I doubt they would be popular.
One thing I read in the thread and sounded amazing : customizable profiles. Yes, one thousand times yes. For the rest, weekly league tournaments + easier teaching resources should really help, far more than the shitty units they will release for LotV and we don't need.
|
On December 24 2014 04:23 clickrush wrote:
Their patching history is incredibly smart when it comes to balance (the result shows this).
I nearly had a heart attack.
Of course the results show this ; when a race is doing well, it gets nerfed, when a race is doing bad, it gets buffed, so that the percentages become balanced again. Smart, huh ? What the 33%-33%-33% obsession forgets is whether those patches are actually good for the game. I don't think the game in its current state has improved a lot over WoL : mothership core, muta regen, speed medivacs... are bad things that happened to the game (for the sake of "more action packed games and abilities based units, hurray"), and the game is being balanced around them today. It's a catastrophe.
|
On December 27 2014 01:09 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2014 04:23 clickrush wrote:
Their patching history is incredibly smart when it comes to balance (the result shows this). I nearly had a heart attack. Of course the results show this ; when a race is doing well, it gets nerfed, when a race is doing bad, it gets buffed, so that the percentages become balanced again. Smart, huh ? What the 33%-33%-33% obsession forgets is whether those patches are actually good for the game. I don't think the game in its current state has improved a lot over WoL : mothership core, muta regen, speed medivacs... are bad things that happened to the game (for the sake of "more action packed games and abilities based units, hurray"), and the game is being balanced around them today. It's a catastrophe.
I cant remember when it was, but earlier this year when terrans were struggling they randomly buffed oracle speed? Might not have been that one particularly but I remember couple of patches which came completely out of the blue.
|
On December 27 2014 01:32 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 01:09 [PkF] Wire wrote:On December 24 2014 04:23 clickrush wrote:
Their patching history is incredibly smart when it comes to balance (the result shows this). I nearly had a heart attack. Of course the results show this ; when a race is doing well, it gets nerfed, when a race is doing bad, it gets buffed, so that the percentages become balanced again. Smart, huh ? What the 33%-33%-33% obsession forgets is whether those patches are actually good for the game. I don't think the game in its current state has improved a lot over WoL : mothership core, muta regen, speed medivacs... are bad things that happened to the game (for the sake of "more action packed games and abilities based units, hurray"), and the game is being balanced around them today. It's a catastrophe. I cant remember when it was, but earlier this year when terrans were struggling they randomly buffed oracle speed? Might not have been that one particularly but I remember couple of patches which came completely out of the blue.
This is true as well. Hence I don't really understand how one can call their patching history "incredibly smart". Their passivity during the broodlord infestor era was also infuriating and HotS additions were unneeded and in the end mostly harmful.
|
I also hope Blizzard would change starcraft II in many ways for it to get hyper popular for a long time. One thing i would like a ton would be a matchmaking system where you would me put against your oponents based on machup specific mmr, not your flat mmr. This is cause sometimes you get like 20 of one race in a row. Then you get good against that, but soon there will be a match against some other race and you feel bad about yourself. I dont know if you think this would be a good idea, but i would like it.
|
On December 16 2014 16:22 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 16:10 swissman777 wrote:
But mind you guys, too much balance tweaking and map changes are bad for pro-level players.
Can't comment for pro players, but I feel more regular but smaller tweaks to balance would be the way forward. Perhaps in a similar way to how windoze gets monthly patches. Rather than having a buff to widow mines, then a nerf, just give a unit a small nudge, see how things work out (let's not forget that maps factor in a big way with balance) Going forward and how the change has effected meta etc.
Having the game constantly changed makes it even more complex. Which is what we not need if the game should be easily understandable for new players or player who don't play every day.
|
On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
Only so many guys would buy the campaign. Then you cannot afford to make such big campaign because the income generated is much less. So the scope or quality of the campaign is not as good, leaving us with standard DLC-like content instead of a fully-fledged campaign.
Starcraft 2 is developed as a traditional, full-price game. It is not an f2p multiplayer game with some DLC single player content.
Many games are still rated by their single player content. To get a good metacritic score, or to be even present in all the media, one should have a game with a strong single player component.
|
On December 27 2014 08:27 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me. Only so many guys would buy the campaign. Then you cannot afford to make such big campaign because the income generated is much less. So the scope or quality of the campaign is not as good, leaving us with standard DLC-like content instead of a fully-fledged campaign. Starcraft 2 is developed as a traditional, full-price game. It is not an f2p multiplayer game with some DLC single player content. Many games are still rated by their single player content. To get a good metacritic score, or to be even present in all the media, one should have a game with a strong single player component.
I dont know, I think a lot of people would pay for the campaign. Also, I don't think sc2 as a traditional full priced game. I mean if you look at hots vs wol, what did they add? 2-3 units per race + skins (although that was pretty half-assed). They could have added that in WoL, so we're essentially paying for the campaign + the extra units dlc.
|
On December 24 2014 06:01 clickrush wrote:That is ofc true. But a large portion of the community up to the casters and pros want more competitive regions outside of korea. I personally couldn't care less from where the top players are comming from. The viewer numbers are apparently the highest when theres a korean vs forgeigner finals at a major tournament. Korea's Esports interests are now closer to the distribution we see globally (while still being the number 1 place for SC2 and now also LoL). But Korea being more globalized in terms of Esports now (having the best LoL teams and the biggest LoL following) is a good thing because it gives more attention to the teams. They are also investing in more tournaments now such as the SSL and the Proleague, so in terms of competitive content SC2 has benefited from the general growth of the teams (the Proleague is sponsored by SKT and the production style and value as well as the on site fans are very similar to the BW Proleague). Also the EU scene has a range of very consistent and successful tournaments, teams and organisations. Literally the only scene which is "struggling" and "on decline" is the NA scene but it has allways been the weakest in terms of competitive gameing throughout Esports history. Somehow NA manages to hype up really really fast and then falls off really fast. A weird phenomenon which probably has to be looked at more closely. The strong side of the NA scene is content creation surrounding Esports but less so winning competitions and maintaining a strong competitive scene apparently. All that said, it is mindboggling for me to hear a couple terms such as "doom and gloom" / "dead game" etc. especially in comparison to BW, because in fact SC2 is a global Esports success. I have no idea where these terms come from but I assume they are NA inventions and as they have the best content creators and the most famous personalities, those terms get kind of broadcasted into the global english speaking scenes. And in the bottom line is that most BW comparisons to critisize SC2 are just meme like below the belt attacks without any real value, reasoning or even content. Their only purpose is to be negative and come off as hipster because the cool kids like BW more than SC2. These people often don't even followed or played BW because if they would then they had actual things to say. SC2 made alot of very good steps away from BW and over time it also learned some of the things back (such as competitive maps). There are interesting relationships there we can explore though. For example the economy changes Blizzard is working on atm are things ppl on these boards have discussed and analyzed extensively and is largely influenced by what we know and learned from the differences of SC2 and BW, same for the maps. But we don't do that on the basis of saying "BW is generally better in any way so SC2 has to be more like it". The discussion goes way beyond that and I was amazed by the fact how deep and interesting it is. Poeple also seem to forget how many things SC2 has improved design wise. Apart from the better UI and Utility surrounding the game we also have more options as in units, upgrades and army compositions which are viable and competitive in the game which is largely exciting.
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.
|
On December 27 2014 01:48 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 01:32 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:On December 27 2014 01:09 [PkF] Wire wrote:On December 24 2014 04:23 clickrush wrote:
Their patching history is incredibly smart when it comes to balance (the result shows this). I nearly had a heart attack. Of course the results show this ; when a race is doing well, it gets nerfed, when a race is doing bad, it gets buffed, so that the percentages become balanced again. Smart, huh ? What the 33%-33%-33% obsession forgets is whether those patches are actually good for the game. I don't think the game in its current state has improved a lot over WoL : mothership core, muta regen, speed medivacs... are bad things that happened to the game (for the sake of "more action packed games and abilities based units, hurray"), and the game is being balanced around them today. It's a catastrophe. I cant remember when it was, but earlier this year when terrans were struggling they randomly buffed oracle speed? Might not have been that one particularly but I remember couple of patches which came completely out of the blue. This is true as well. Hence I don't really understand how one can call their patching history "incredibly smart". Their passivity during the broodlord infestor era was also infuriating and HotS additions were unneeded and in the end mostly harmful.
If anything, I believe that Blizzard's pathing history shows that they do not have any special insight or super decision making. They have a history of making a lot of poor balance changes (the whole Widow Mine thing is a giant mess) and also has delayed certain patches for way too long.
I would also argue that more frequent patches is a more interesting way of keeping the community interested than balancing via maps.
|
The fact that they are changing the economy system in LotV speaks for itself. I would have loved it, if they would have reduced the hard counters, so players could actually micro more with every unit instead of just massing the counterunit.
|
I think you guys need to be reminded that, according to Blizzard, SC1 was a total fluke and it was good not by design, but by chance.
|
I switched from playing and watching SC2 to fully playing and watching CSGO purely because I'm tired of 2 hour ZvPs where nothing happens for 1.5 of those hours and TvP late-game where T has about a 5% chance of actually winning (salty past T player here).
|
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.
DemigodcelpH, I don't think you read all of clickrush's reply. He never said he was 'dismissing BW-related criticism', what he said was that most of the comments about BW vs SC2 did not have any real value, reasoning or even content.
He even stated a good example of Blizzard learning from BW to create SC2
For example the economy changes Blizzard is working on atm are things ppl on these boards have discussed and analyzed extensively and is largely influenced by what we know and learned from the differences of SC2 and BW, same for the maps.
Another thing totally unrelated to this thread, but please don't assume that Blizzard doesn't listen to us. I don't understand where this misconception of Blizzard sprung from, but its completely false. They have stated countless times on the Battlenet forums that they read a lot of the discussions going on across content published on the Internet. They just can't respond to everything. There is way too much stuff on reddit, battlenet, and tl alone.
They are reading this discussion because a lot of other people have provided great insight.
As well, you have no idea how clickrush got into the Starcraft 2. You are only assuming because you are trying to defend BW the moment someone seems like they are dismissing the criticism.
Sorry if I am being over critical, and please don't feel I am trying to be aggressive towards you. I just wanted to point out some fallacy in your statement.
Regarding dlc campaign, I fucking love that idea. I think its great! dlc campaigns work for The Walking Dead video game, I feel like it can easily work for Starcraft lore. Imagine a series of campaigns linked the lore, linked to a UMS map, and then linked to the Starcraft movie (I hope this does happen!). Make the UMS maps free, but to get the story you have to buy campaigns.
|
On December 27 2014 10:26 Hider wrote:
If anything, I believe that Blizzard's pathing history shows that they do not have any special insight or super decision making. They have a history of making a lot of poor balance changes (the whole Widow Mine thing is a giant mess) and also has delayed certain patches for way too long.
I would also argue that more frequent patches is a more interesting way of keeping the community interested than balancing via maps.
You are absolutely right, Blizzard's patch history proves they don't have any insight. They have made bad decisions, sometimes voiced by many within the community, and have tinkered too much with the balance.
I do agree frequent patches will keep the community interested, but it is probably easier to balance the game through maps. And as many others stated before, too many changes fucks with the game and makes it more complicated for some players.
Here is an example, I went to a family Christmas party and spoke to a cousin who played SC2 but hasn't touched it in a long time. I was talking about widow mines, and told him about the changes, and he was confused. He had no idea they did shield damage.
That's why they prefer to balance via maps.
edit: correction on the widowmine change.
|
On December 27 2014 15:18 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 10:26 Hider wrote:
If anything, I believe that Blizzard's pathing history shows that they do not have any special insight or super decision making. They have a history of making a lot of poor balance changes (the whole Widow Mine thing is a giant mess) and also has delayed certain patches for way too long.
I would also argue that more frequent patches is a more interesting way of keeping the community interested than balancing via maps. You are absolutely right, Blizzard's patch history proves they don't have any insight. They have made bad decisions, sometimes voiced by many within the community, and have tinkered too much with the balance. I do agree frequent patches will keep the community interested, but it is probably easier to balance the game through maps. And as many others stated before, too many changes fucks with the game and makes it more complicated for some players. Here is an example, I went to a family Christmas party and spoke to a cousin who played SC2 but hasn't touched it in a long time. I was talking about widow mines, and told him about the changes, and he was confused. He had no idea they could remove shields. That's why they prefer to balance via maps.
They don't remove shields... they do damage... which shields get hit first...
|
On December 27 2014 15:24 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 15:18 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 27 2014 10:26 Hider wrote:
If anything, I believe that Blizzard's pathing history shows that they do not have any special insight or super decision making. They have a history of making a lot of poor balance changes (the whole Widow Mine thing is a giant mess) and also has delayed certain patches for way too long.
I would also argue that more frequent patches is a more interesting way of keeping the community interested than balancing via maps. You are absolutely right, Blizzard's patch history proves they don't have any insight. They have made bad decisions, sometimes voiced by many within the community, and have tinkered too much with the balance. I do agree frequent patches will keep the community interested, but it is probably easier to balance the game through maps. And as many others stated before, too many changes fucks with the game and makes it more complicated for some players. Here is an example, I went to a family Christmas party and spoke to a cousin who played SC2 but hasn't touched it in a long time. I was talking about widow mines, and told him about the changes, and he was confused. He had no idea they could remove shields. That's why they prefer to balance via maps. They don't remove shields... they do damage... which shields get hit first...
Yes I meant they do shield damage. Sorry my bad.
|
On December 20 2014 23:47 Noro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 21:11 Zealously wrote:On December 20 2014 20:48 Schakal111 wrote:
Sc2 is not fun at all.. Bnet 2.0 you feel lonley, the arcade system ist very static and boring, the games are very stressfull (larva inject, timewarp, creep spread etc), and the defense ist shit(too many damage from units). If your a casual u want to lean back, putting some defense feel save, dont click every seconds on the timewarp button etc., Bw was the better game, skill but more fun too, if you dont like 1v1 you play big game hunters or hunters FFA, very fun games. Hate this new style. It seems a little strange to say that when BW most certainly required more clicks to maintain baseline macro/production. Lets not fool ourselves by claiming BW wasn't stressful. I agree. It's the nature of the beast for 1v1 games. There are so many high profile games on the market now that are team games, and that require very little mechanical skill to succeed at, or to at least have fun with friends. I think people may need to come to terms with the fact that SC2 became massively popular because these other massive team franchises hadn't really emerged yet. SC2 made esports known to so many people but as soon as other options presented themselves, everyone was quick to jump ship - hence the bubble pop. I don't think SC2 will ever experience the amount of growth it had in the first couple years again. It's up to Blizzard whether or not SC2 maintains the fan base it has now. Any meaningful growth might be wishful thinking.
If kaitlyn, ms spyte, and maddelisk would agree to personally mentor young male teen players, then you would get a lot of interest, but the problem is you know, Uhm male teen hormones when a good looking girl comes within 100 meters, and all those student teacher scandals. And you know evolutionary biology
|
Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly.
MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system.
Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model.
|
On December 27 2014 08:56 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 08:27 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me. Only so many guys would buy the campaign. Then you cannot afford to make such big campaign because the income generated is much less. So the scope or quality of the campaign is not as good, leaving us with standard DLC-like content instead of a fully-fledged campaign. Starcraft 2 is developed as a traditional, full-price game. It is not an f2p multiplayer game with some DLC single player content. Many games are still rated by their single player content. To get a good metacritic score, or to be even present in all the media, one should have a game with a strong single player component. I dont know, I think a lot of people would pay for the campaign. Also, I don't think sc2 as a traditional full priced game. I mean if you look at hots vs wol, what did they add? 2-3 units per race + skins (although that was pretty half-assed). They could have added that in WoL, so we're essentially paying for the campaign + the extra units dlc.
That is more or less my argument.
They need to have everyone to pay to justify the cost.
|
On December 28 2014 07:27 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 08:56 phodacbiet wrote:On December 27 2014 08:27 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me. Only so many guys would buy the campaign. Then you cannot afford to make such big campaign because the income generated is much less. So the scope or quality of the campaign is not as good, leaving us with standard DLC-like content instead of a fully-fledged campaign. Starcraft 2 is developed as a traditional, full-price game. It is not an f2p multiplayer game with some DLC single player content. Many games are still rated by their single player content. To get a good metacritic score, or to be even present in all the media, one should have a game with a strong single player component. I dont know, I think a lot of people would pay for the campaign. Also, I don't think sc2 as a traditional full priced game. I mean if you look at hots vs wol, what did they add? 2-3 units per race + skins (although that was pretty half-assed). They could have added that in WoL, so we're essentially paying for the campaign + the extra units dlc. That is more or less my argument. They need to have everyone to pay to justify the cost.
Yeah, to me HotS was an expansion released for SC2 solely because they released BW for SC1 and charged people for it. There's really no other reason to have done it and it would've made a lot more sense like you said to have just updated WoL with HotS stuff originally.
|
On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model.
They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval.
What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level.
It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes.
This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data.
I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2.
As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years.
|
On December 28 2014 08:41 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model. They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval. What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level. It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes. This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data. I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2. As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years.
Well MTG also advances the story through each set. I don't think the community would mind patches if they were more planned in advance, or had some sort of story arc to them. Like if everyone knew that every year would have a dramatic patch around the same time of year then it would just become the norm. Then it's more like a mini-expansion. That hypes people up.
But either way, I was not suggesting a direct translation of models.
|
On December 28 2014 13:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 08:41 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model. They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval. What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level. It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes. This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data. I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2. As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years. Well MTG also advances the story through each set. I don't think the community would mind patches if they were more planned in advance, or had some sort of story arc to them. Like if everyone knew that every year would have a dramatic patch around the same time of year then it would just become the norm. Then it's more like a mini-expansion. That hypes people up. But either way, I was not suggesting a direct translation of models.
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.
|
I do like how people here just think getting data is a problem and that if Blizzard had "data" all the problems would be solved (or most). The real problem Blizzard has isn't a lack of feedback from the community or its refusal to listen to the community, its the very simple fact that it has too much feedback and separating quality posts from shit tier posts, then being able to keep the community involved in a productive manner (good luck with that). Basically if the community was actually interested in improving the game, rather than just saying they are (which I see a lot of generic comments here) then the game might actually improve.
Here's the thing though, don't confuse BW nostalgia with quality design, and that's not something I trust people to be able to discern.
And Magic is something completely different, there's a relatively small sandbox for people to test in for that game compared to real time games such as this.
|
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.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
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
|
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.
|
On December 27 2014 09:02 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2014 06:01 clickrush wrote:On December 24 2014 05:09 Falling wrote:1. Any pulled out of the ass comparison to BW or a straight up generalisation in that regard which doesn't hold any value or content. This is super meme like especially considering the fact that SC2 allready had more global success and tournaments than BW ever had. And considering that apparently SC2s main "problem" is the "small" playerbase (it's actually freaking huge. The numbers MOBAs are pulling off are a completely new phenomenon) then SC2 is miles ahead of its predecessor. Depends where you are looking. You are right that Moba's are blowing other games out of the water, but the playerbase of SC2 is not necessarily bigger than its predecessor- at least in Korea. Both Warcraft III and Starcraft are fairly consistently in the top 10 of games played in the Internet cafes, but you don't really see SC2 in the same lists. https://www.techinasia.com/koreas-top-10-most-popular-pc-games-september-2014/https://www.techinasia.com/south-koreas-top-10-most-popular-pc-games-august-2014/https://www.techinasia.com/koreas-top-10-popular-pc-games-july-2013/But you are likely correct in countries outside of Korea, but again it depends what you are looking at. That is ofc true. But a large portion of the community up to the casters and pros want more competitive regions outside of korea. I personally couldn't care less from where the top players are comming from. The viewer numbers are apparently the highest when theres a korean vs forgeigner finals at a major tournament. Korea's Esports interests are now closer to the distribution we see globally (while still being the number 1 place for SC2 and now also LoL). But Korea being more globalized in terms of Esports now (having the best LoL teams and the biggest LoL following) is a good thing because it gives more attention to the teams. They are also investing in more tournaments now such as the SSL and the Proleague, so in terms of competitive content SC2 has benefited from the general growth of the teams (the Proleague is sponsored by SKT and the production style and value as well as the on site fans are very similar to the BW Proleague). Also the EU scene has a range of very consistent and successful tournaments, teams and organisations. Literally the only scene which is "struggling" and "on decline" is the NA scene but it has allways been the weakest in terms of competitive gameing throughout Esports history. Somehow NA manages to hype up really really fast and then falls off really fast. A weird phenomenon which probably has to be looked at more closely. The strong side of the NA scene is content creation surrounding Esports but less so winning competitions and maintaining a strong competitive scene apparently. All that said, it is mindboggling for me to hear a couple terms such as "doom and gloom" / "dead game" etc. especially in comparison to BW, because in fact SC2 is a global Esports success. I have no idea where these terms come from but I assume they are NA inventions and as they have the best content creators and the most famous personalities, those terms get kind of broadcasted into the global english speaking scenes. And in the bottom line is that most BW comparisons to critisize SC2 are just meme like below the belt attacks without any real value, reasoning or even content. Their only purpose is to be negative and come off as hipster because the cool kids like BW more than SC2. These people often don't even followed or played BW because if they would then they had actual things to say. SC2 made alot of very good steps away from BW and over time it also learned some of the things back (such as competitive maps). There are interesting relationships there we can explore though. For example the economy changes Blizzard is working on atm are things ppl on these boards have discussed and analyzed extensively and is largely influenced by what we know and learned from the differences of SC2 and BW, same for the maps. But we don't do that on the basis of saying "BW is generally better in any way so SC2 has to be more like it". The discussion goes way beyond that and I was amazed by the fact how deep and interesting it is. Poeple also seem to forget how many things SC2 has improved design wise. Apart from the better UI and Utility surrounding the game we also have more options as in units, upgrades and army compositions which are viable and competitive in the game which is largely exciting. 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.
|
On December 29 2014 22:26 Noobity wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 09:02 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 24 2014 06:01 clickrush wrote:On December 24 2014 05:09 Falling wrote:1. Any pulled out of the ass comparison to BW or a straight up generalisation in that regard which doesn't hold any value or content. This is super meme like especially considering the fact that SC2 allready had more global success and tournaments than BW ever had. And considering that apparently SC2s main "problem" is the "small" playerbase (it's actually freaking huge. The numbers MOBAs are pulling off are a completely new phenomenon) then SC2 is miles ahead of its predecessor. Depends where you are looking. You are right that Moba's are blowing other games out of the water, but the playerbase of SC2 is not necessarily bigger than its predecessor- at least in Korea. Both Warcraft III and Starcraft are fairly consistently in the top 10 of games played in the Internet cafes, but you don't really see SC2 in the same lists. https://www.techinasia.com/koreas-top-10-most-popular-pc-games-september-2014/https://www.techinasia.com/south-koreas-top-10-most-popular-pc-games-august-2014/https://www.techinasia.com/koreas-top-10-popular-pc-games-july-2013/But you are likely correct in countries outside of Korea, but again it depends what you are looking at. That is ofc true. But a large portion of the community up to the casters and pros want more competitive regions outside of korea. I personally couldn't care less from where the top players are comming from. The viewer numbers are apparently the highest when theres a korean vs forgeigner finals at a major tournament. Korea's Esports interests are now closer to the distribution we see globally (while still being the number 1 place for SC2 and now also LoL). But Korea being more globalized in terms of Esports now (having the best LoL teams and the biggest LoL following) is a good thing because it gives more attention to the teams. They are also investing in more tournaments now such as the SSL and the Proleague, so in terms of competitive content SC2 has benefited from the general growth of the teams (the Proleague is sponsored by SKT and the production style and value as well as the on site fans are very similar to the BW Proleague). Also the EU scene has a range of very consistent and successful tournaments, teams and organisations. Literally the only scene which is "struggling" and "on decline" is the NA scene but it has allways been the weakest in terms of competitive gameing throughout Esports history. Somehow NA manages to hype up really really fast and then falls off really fast. A weird phenomenon which probably has to be looked at more closely. The strong side of the NA scene is content creation surrounding Esports but less so winning competitions and maintaining a strong competitive scene apparently. All that said, it is mindboggling for me to hear a couple terms such as "doom and gloom" / "dead game" etc. especially in comparison to BW, because in fact SC2 is a global Esports success. I have no idea where these terms come from but I assume they are NA inventions and as they have the best content creators and the most famous personalities, those terms get kind of broadcasted into the global english speaking scenes. And in the bottom line is that most BW comparisons to critisize SC2 are just meme like below the belt attacks without any real value, reasoning or even content. Their only purpose is to be negative and come off as hipster because the cool kids like BW more than SC2. These people often don't even followed or played BW because if they would then they had actual things to say. SC2 made alot of very good steps away from BW and over time it also learned some of the things back (such as competitive maps). There are interesting relationships there we can explore though. For example the economy changes Blizzard is working on atm are things ppl on these boards have discussed and analyzed extensively and is largely influenced by what we know and learned from the differences of SC2 and BW, same for the maps. But we don't do that on the basis of saying "BW is generally better in any way so SC2 has to be more like it". The discussion goes way beyond that and I was amazed by the fact how deep and interesting it is. Poeple also seem to forget how many things SC2 has improved design wise. Apart from the better UI and Utility surrounding the game we also have more options as in units, upgrades and army compositions which are viable and competitive in the game which is largely exciting. 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.
You have to be one damn competitive video game expert if you can claim such things.
Talk about garbage elitist ideal...
|
If there is a tournament scene, and be it a tiny one sc2 is doing well.
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.
|
I feel the focus should be more on gameplay than "How is Blizzard going to continue to profit from SC2?" Sure, they need to make money, but none of that will matter if the gameplay of SC2 doesn't improve.
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
On December 30 2014 02:07 johnbongham wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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!
|
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...
|
On December 30 2014 03:39 Ouija wrote:Show nested quote +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...
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
|
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.
|
Blizzard will not change their politics for SC2, very little will change, and unfortunately game will probably die 12 months after the release.
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.
|
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 they fixed the game so its gameplay was less of a joke, but I doubt many people are playing it for the skins.
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.
|
I hear you Asjo, I quit playing because the game is too much chore too little fun.
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.
|
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.
|
On December 31 2014 02:54 Roggay wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On December 29 2014 03:26 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 13:44 DoubleReed wrote:On December 28 2014 08:41 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model. They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval. What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level. It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes. This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data. I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2. As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years. Well MTG also advances the story through each set. I don't think the community would mind patches if they were more planned in advance, or had some sort of story arc to them. Like if everyone knew that every year would have a dramatic patch around the same time of year then it would just become the norm. Then it's more like a mini-expansion. That hypes people up. But either way, I was not suggesting a direct translation of models. 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.
|
On December 30 2014 23:51 nottapro wrote:
I hear you Asjo, I quit playing because the game is too much chore too little fun.
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.
Ahhh I'm gonna disagree with a lot of this. I've played a lot of both games at a decently competitive level, but none of these are really reasons I feel that SC2 stagnates in excitement.
1. Fasted paced gameplay is great. BW had good fast-paced combat. I agree that SC2 might *feel* too quick, but I think that's a result of a few other game issues, not necessarily the speed of the game. I'll touch in this a bit later.
2. 200 supply is a large army, sure, but what really bugs me is how quickly you can reach it. Everyone talks about the SC2 "deathballs", and honestly that's the real problem. A 200/200 army can fit into a small ball in the middle of your screen. Unit collision size and movement mechanics make entire armies pile up into tiny balls.
Yet controlling a 200 army isn't that bad, because you can simply select everything and attack-move, which we see a decent amount with the deathballs. You end up trying to spread your forces out, but engagements still look awkward.
3. Agree. Build-order wins are too prevalent.
4. Totally disagree. Upgrades done the starcraft way add so many wonderful timing windows. You saw this all the time in BW, and it was great. Certain upgrade levels changed the game. Zealots with +1 have a huge advantage over lings until zerg catches up in armor. Air attack and carapace level make a huge difference with corsair/muta/scourge fights. Terran infantry weapons and zerg ground weapons open tons of timing windows. Protoss ground2 upgrades lets zealots 1shot mines, which makes a huge difference in skirmishing. Toss air armor drastically cuts wraith damage if terran doesn't waste armory time on attacks. This is a *great* part of the game, and not at all what's wrong with sc2.
The problems with SC2 that I personally notice are as follows. So again, I'm no pro. I played BW ages ago, C+ level. I played SC2 when it was new, masters level. I am not a professional gamer, but I love starcraft, and feel like I understand the games enough to know what I'm talking about.
-Economy speed: The rate at which workers can be produced, the rate at which they harvest, and the gimmicks for collecting more money mean that players grab bases super quick, saturate them instantly, and just mass units. The game rewards macro far more than micro. This really favors the deathball approach.
-It's hard to disengage. Unit speed, combined with abilities like fungal, marauder-slow shots, blink, time warp, mean that once armies begin fighting, it's almost always at a disadvantage to retreat. You either straight up can't get away due to slows/snares, or you're going to get chased down and destroyed if you try, and so had might as well fight to the death. This leads to...
-Single huge, quick, dull battles ending the game. Watching the latest SSL10 games, I've seen multiple matches with fantastic back-and-forth gameplay, where I was never sure who would win. I rarely see this in SC2. The deathballs clash, and whoever wins quickly annihilates his opponent. This doubles with the unit collision size... 200/200 deathballs are SMALL, and the entire fight happens quickly on one screen. BW lategame battles not old took place on multiple parts of the map, but a toss trying to crush a terran advancement could last minutes and spam 3-4 screens. It was awesome.
-Boring units. I honestly feel that the roach, marauder, and colossus, are horrible for the game. They're boring, spamable, attack-movey units that reward dull playstyles. You build a lot of these things, and attack with them. We've developed a game where ZERGLINGS, the staple unit, are hardly used past the first few minutes. Marauders are incredibly un-terran, and the colossus lacks all the charm of the reaver, which was so fun and exciting to watch!
-And finally, and I know this is unpopular, but autocast is boring. I'm hesitant to advocate a return to a limiting interface to increase skill demands, but autocast spells are dull. When a protoss blanket-storms an enemy army, I know how he did it, and I'm not impressed. He selected all his templars, and spammed T+click over the enemy. Ditto with forcefields, emp, fungal, etc etc. Watching a BW player land crushing storms mid-fight, or chaining beautifully split irradiates, or scourge on vessels, etc, you knew just how much control was taken to do that.
I really really wanted sc2 to be fantastic, but it's just not there yet. And we can discuss a million ways to make the game profitable for Blizzard, but at the end of the day, it's gameplay which is going to get people interested in playing, or watching tournaments.
|
Seems like you agree with a lot of it with really minor digressions. I'm in agreement with your additional points too. I like the marauder though, concussive shells are fun to see good used well.
I do think I could convince you that attack /armour upgrades could be heavily simplified to one, maximum two tiers. The third tier is pointless, too many games decided by the opponent being two upgrades ahead making a comeback impossible and all engagements unfavorable regardless of positioning, micro or strategy. Its an invisible snowball mechanic that people overlook.
|
On December 31 2014 06:25 Haemonculus wrote:
-It's hard to disengage. Unit speed, combined with abilities like fungal, marauder-slow shots, blink, time warp, mean that once armies begin fighting, it's almost always at a disadvantage to retreat. You either straight up can't get away due to slows/snares, or you're going to get chased down and destroyed if you try, and so had might as well fight to the death. This leads to...
I agree with most of the points, I'd just complete about the disengage problem. If you compare with the BW counterparts, almost nothing did modify the movement speed. Look at those spells, like plague, dark swarm, irradiate, EMP, recall,... not a single one of them (except for Stasis Field that is kind of an exception, and can rarely block an entire army, the mechanics that saves the units being frozen is interesting too) have an effect on the fact you can retreat, and I think that was one of the best parts in BW.
If you didn't want to fight, just retreat and try to get a better position, or flee until your back hit your bases. I feel like in SC2, if you want to take a step behind, you have to do it before a fight, if not you're gonna get caught by marauders with their freezing bullets, force field, fungal growth, etc.
And welcome back to TL Haemonculus!
|
On December 31 2014 04:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 03:26 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 13:44 DoubleReed wrote:On December 28 2014 08:41 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model. They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval. What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level. It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes. This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data. I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2. As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years. Well MTG also advances the story through each set. I don't think the community would mind patches if they were more planned in advance, or had some sort of story arc to them. Like if everyone knew that every year would have a dramatic patch around the same time of year then it would just become the norm. Then it's more like a mini-expansion. That hypes people up. But either way, I was not suggesting a direct translation of models. 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.
I do understand your suggestion, I just respectfully disagree with it. Destiny's blog post wasn't about keeping "development up to rejuvenate their game". His post was about the lack of communication between the development team and the community. That is why he compared it to CS:GO, which apparently Valve had a lot of communication with their community.
We obviously have a different opinion on how we want Starcraft 2 to turn out, which is good.
I don't think a calm metagame means its broken, unless the meta has no variety. If every race aimed to get xyz army composition regardless of the opponent's composition, then the meta is broken. We saw this near the end of WoL, when zerg went BL/Infestor against protoss and terran. But as we reach the end of HotS, I think army compositions have gotten a lot more variety, and LotV will add more compositions.
I agree, if there were more expansions, and Blizzard kept changing/adding/removing units, it would keep interest in the game. However, you run into power creeping as more units keep getting added, which ultimately turns into a forever unbalanced game. So I disagree with your statement "You can still maintain balance and metagame in a changing landscape." As well, the game will just become even more complex, and eventually some units will never be used, even if its still in the game. The more complex you make it, the bigger barrier to entry you create, which is counter intuitive to our goal of getting more people interested in Starcraft 2.
I don't know how people would react with more expansions. You assume everyone will be excited, but I don't think the allure of something shiny and new will keep people interested in Starcraft 2 alone. A lot of us here like this game because its highly competitive, but if we keep having to learn new units because Blizzard decided to develop infinite expansions, then some of us will tire of this forever changing game.
|
On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun.
What about professional players?
|
On December 30 2014 22:40 Asjo wrote:
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.
On December 30 2014 23:51 nottapro wrote:
I hear you Asjo, I quit playing because the game is too much chore too little fun.
I am a casual player and the game suffers from different problems than what bothers a pro.
I have recently stopped playing because I am usually miserable after playing the game. What used to be really fun ends up feeling really emotionally bad after each loss :/
I used to not care if I won or lost, cause there was something to learn from each game! Many times, I feel there is nothing to learn from the game, except that I missed the warp prism flying into my main, or I learned that I let the other guy get too close to my base and he is really good with forcefields.
This isn't just a occasional thing with me it happens most games and from what I understand other people are affected by the game in a similar way. For me, I think I might just attach my self-esteem to how I fair in competition.
Another thing I have noticed (and others have commented on), is that each game is won in a matter of seconds. For example, I play zerg, and I play the first 7-8 minutes perfectly I'm ready to build my army and attack. Then I just notice the warp prism full of sentries as it ff's my ramp, GG. Or terran just misclicks and doesn't split in time, GG. Or Im toss and I missed my ff's and a 200/200 roach ling army is on top of me, GG.
Too much rides on too little.
With an army that big there should be a back and forth or struggle that I often don't experience as a player (I'm typically high diamond and have been masters) and don't often see in professional games. For example, a toss gateway expands into 4 gating a zerg third. The third dies, toss barely loses anything and recalls. At this point I just get up and go make a cup of coffee, because 9/10 times there is an immortal follow up and there is no way the casters are going to convince me that the zerg has much of a chance left. I actually feel bad for the casters that they have to try and pump life into games that are clearly over, or ridiculously lopsided by a certain point. It's like watching a politician belabor an untrue talking point, trying to convince himself in the truth of it.
I'm hoping the eco change helps this. If games swing on a couple seconds of action, then I don't want the game to go long at all, make every game shorter. I don't want to play for 15 min, just to have my army smashed in 10 seconds, because of one fumble.
CSGO:
I think we could learn a lot from this game and others games as destiny said.
For example, I think the skin and crate system REALLY supports streamers directly. The game is SO stream friendly because it supports give aways in such a beautiful way, gifting to the stream etc... This just creates more interaction with the people watching and gives them another reason to watch that stream. Then they can be in game and someone can pick up their gun and maybe even see that it was from a stream giveaway if someone decides to create a sticker for their stream.
I play CSGO more than SC2 now, and I have played SC2 since the WOL beta, I love both games. I can also get frustrated with CSGO, just like I do with SC2, but when I'm down 5-10 in CSGO, I know I can come back into the game and win. I am really new to CSGO and already have come back from games where I'm down 1-14.
In SC2, if I'm a 1 base zerg vs a 3 base terran, there is no coming back ever (pack my eggs in an overlord and go home).
|
All this commotion and talk about this blog article, and now he's switching back to LoL. rofl
|
On December 31 2014 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun. What about professional players?
Blizzard has absolutely no obligations to them. It's their game, they can do with it as they please.
|
On January 03 2015 17:23 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
All this commotion and talk about this blog article, and now he's switching back to LoL. rofl
From what I understand he is going to continue with SC2 because that's what he's good at. LoL has a lot more money in it from a personality/streamer perspective with a comparatively humongous audience, and if he does switch it will not be an overnight thing. He also confirmed that he will be playing SC2 for LotV release.
|
On January 03 2015 23:13 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun. What about professional players? Blizzard has absolutely no obligations to them. It's their game, they can do with it as they please.
Uh, if it weren't for the pro scene, sc2 would be just about completely dead at this point or basically just another red alert that is straight up broken with no hope of being fixed. This isn't 2001 anymore. You either keep up with the competition or you lose.
|
On January 04 2015 00:07 johnbongham wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2015 23:13 maartendq wrote:On December 31 2014 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun. What about professional players? Blizzard has absolutely no obligations to them. It's their game, they can do with it as they please. Uh, if it weren't for the pro scene, sc2 would be just about completely dead at this point or basically just another red alert that is straight up broken with no hope of being fixed. This isn't 2001 anymore. You either keep up with the competition or you lose.
Definitely not 2001. The years around that time was delivering quality RTS games.
|
On January 04 2015 00:29 KrOmander wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 00:07 johnbongham wrote:On January 03 2015 23:13 maartendq wrote:On December 31 2014 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun. What about professional players? Blizzard has absolutely no obligations to them. It's their game, they can do with it as they please. Uh, if it weren't for the pro scene, sc2 would be just about completely dead at this point or basically just another red alert that is straight up broken with no hope of being fixed. This isn't 2001 anymore. You either keep up with the competition or you lose. Definitely not 2001. The years around that time was delivering quality RTS games.
For the time? Yes. But I think with the proper engineering power and core game design, a modern RTS can be a lot better than everything we already had including BW, SC2 and AoE.. In a way, AoS-type games are proof of that.
There's soo many mechanics not being explored in RTS, and it's really easy to think of new ideas as well. My only hope at this point is the approach Day9 has with his game, because he's trying out different ideas.
RTS is not going anywhere, we just need a developer willing to invest and a business model that suites the genre.
|
On December 17 2014 10:56 Plexa wrote:I maintain that removing forcefield/colossus from protoss would do so much positive to the game purely because of the negative connotations those units/abilities invoke when players hear about them/see them.
I will love to see that happen. I stopped to play and watch SC2 pro games because it's really frustating to see forcefield and colossus on the battlefield...
|
On December 31 2014 15:31 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 04:46 DoubleReed wrote:On December 29 2014 03:26 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 13:44 DoubleReed wrote:On December 28 2014 08:41 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model. They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval. What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level. It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes. This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data. I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2. As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years. Well MTG also advances the story through each set. I don't think the community would mind patches if they were more planned in advance, or had some sort of story arc to them. Like if everyone knew that every year would have a dramatic patch around the same time of year then it would just become the norm. Then it's more like a mini-expansion. That hypes people up. But either way, I was not suggesting a direct translation of models. 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. I do understand your suggestion, I just respectfully disagree with it. Destiny's blog post wasn't about keeping "development up to rejuvenate their game". His post was about the lack of communication between the development team and the community. That is why he compared it to CS:GO, which apparently Valve had a lot of communication with their community. We obviously have a different opinion on how we want Starcraft 2 to turn out, which is good. I don't think a calm metagame means its broken, unless the meta has no variety. If every race aimed to get xyz army composition regardless of the opponent's composition, then the meta is broken. We saw this near the end of WoL, when zerg went BL/Infestor against protoss and terran. But as we reach the end of HotS, I think army compositions have gotten a lot more variety, and LotV will add more compositions. I agree, if there were more expansions, and Blizzard kept changing/adding/removing units, it would keep interest in the game. However, you run into power creeping as more units keep getting added, which ultimately turns into a forever unbalanced game. So I disagree with your statement "You can still maintain balance and metagame in a changing landscape." As well, the game will just become even more complex, and eventually some units will never be used, even if its still in the game. The more complex you make it, the bigger barrier to entry you create, which is counter intuitive to our goal of getting more people interested in Starcraft 2. I don't know how people would react with more expansions. You assume everyone will be excited, but I don't think the allure of something shiny and new will keep people interested in Starcraft 2 alone. A lot of us here like this game because its highly competitive, but if we keep having to learn new units because Blizzard decided to develop infinite expansions, then some of us will tire of this forever changing game.
This is why I suggest looking at MTG, because they have multiple ways of dealing with issues like power creep and complexity creep, and it's not that hard to translate. (Here some articles on power creep and complexity creep) For instance, complexity creep is handled in MTG by drastically limiting what kind of cards appear at Common Rarity. Similarly, basic units might only have a movement-based ability/upgrade. Blink, an activated-ability that you have to select a spot for, would be as complex as it might get for T1 units. Or maybe there's a cap on the amount of casters, or the effectiveness of casters at X tier for X race. Seriously, check out the articles. They're neat.
The idea of some units not being used is bizarre, as the units would obviously be removed or changed so that they are used. Or maybe other units with altered so that they are used again. This is not as much as a concern. I mean, even with the current state, there are units we don't see as much of (Nydus Worm, Battlecruiser, Carrier).
It's well known that people get tired of the game, but they also get tired of the metagame (which is much more rapid in a world of internet and constant streaming). The advantage here is that when you come back to the game after a couple of months, you get something fresh and captivating instantly. It's almost like playing a new game, but most of your skills translate over and you can jump right in.
|
On January 03 2015 23:13 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun. What about professional players? Blizzard has absolutely no obligations to them. It's their game, they can do with it as they please.
I completely agree, LoL has huge patches and reworks and that includes item changes that basically force feed the meta.
But the crowd are in for it, they look up to the pros to see how the new things are utilized, how to optimized it etc.
There is a most popular champion infrography that shows how each patch changes the popular picks and I don't think many pros suffered (though I am sure some had).
While dota release their big patches less often, they are often huge in scale as well.
Our hots tvz for example is almost identical since beta where reaper into quick third into bio mine, only difference is more timings and all ins which may or may not be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nnzt2vy.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MAlwgOx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NNXsHmr.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9uuvCPJ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qRs1Tgb.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zdoLMQa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fd1nENv.png)
