| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Warning for everyone in this thread: I WILL moderate your posts very harshly from now on if you can't have a civil discussion. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
To get better at the game improving your mechanics is the more efficient way, which isn't the same as "strategy not mattering till you are in league x" Well obviously strategy will matter SOMEWHAT. You can't win in Plat if you perfectly mass a single unit and just a-move it. Strategy is still a magnitude behind macro mechanics when it comes to deciding a game at a lower level. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
I actually think LotV is better than HotS and WoL ever were, from a spectator point of view  TvT is the only exception. The matchup just sucks right now. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 18 2016 23:14 Incognoto wrote: Well obviously strategy will matter SOMEWHAT. You can't win in Plat if you perfectly mass a single unit and just a-move it. Strategy is still a magnitude behind macro mechanics when it comes to deciding a game at a lower level. No it's not. As i told you before as long as both players are similar in mechanical skill (which should be the case in pretty much any ladder game in sc2) the strategy is important. What you mean is getting better at the game, which is different though. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
That should indicate which aspect, in starcraft 2, actually makes a difference. Strategy is less important than macro when you're improving. That makes sense, since strategy is based on proper macro anyway. Since proper macro is mostly unobtainable out of players below masters, strategy similarly takes the back seat when you want to improve. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 18 2016 20:47 opisska wrote: No it's not "relevant" to anything. It's vague enough that anyone who is either dissatisfied with SC2 or needs an excuse for his own suckiness can find enough useful material in it. It has never stimulated any useful discussion apart from confirmatory circlejerk. A post like the OP focuses on general concepts because that's where the problems lie in SC2. Getting into specifics is mostly demonstrating why the overarching principles of the post have merit. It's not about 'excusing my suckiness', I never cared how good/bad I was when I played, what's bothered me is how frustrating it is to lose, even how frustrating it is to win sometimes. I can appreciate competition, but I play games for fun, SC2 was fun to me throughout the life of Wings, then, as units got added/changed in HotS, it was no longer fun. This is hardly a coincidence, and the number of people who are dissatisfied with SC2 at this point massively outnumber the people who aren't. Just look at past/present viewership on tournaments and streams. Even as I type this, BW streams are more popular than SC2, this is a very common occurrence. When someone so thoughtfully explains the reasons why this game has become dissatisfying, and highlights the reasons why so many people have lost interest in it over the years, that is not something you should ignore. That is an opportunity to reflect. There's a real discussion here, if you don't want to take part in it then simply don't post. A post like this is born from a deep love of what SC2 was, and could have been with the proper care. If we didn't care, then like so many others, we would be gone and you wouldn't hear a word from us. | ||
|
Solstice245
United States145 Posts
On April 18 2016 23:17 Salteador Neo wrote: Didn't bother to read the whole thing then and ofc I won't now. I actually think LotV is better than HotS and WoL ever were, from a spectator point of view TvT is the only exception. The matchup just sucks right now.So, you must not have noticed that the OP said one of blizzards mistakes with sc2 is making it a game for spectators, and not necessarily the players. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 19 2016 00:07 Incognoto wrote: All right, it's grasping at semantics (I'll bite anyway), but let's just say that "when you want to get better at the game", it makes more sense to increase your mechanical ability than it does to increase your strategic understanding of the game. That should indicate which aspect, in starcraft 2, actually makes a difference. Strategy is less important than macro when you're improving. That makes sense, since strategy is based on proper macro anyway. Since proper macro is mostly unobtainable out of players below masters, strategy similarly takes the back seat when you want to improve. It's not semantics though, it's two different concepts people confuse all the time The same is true for pretty much any game btw, strategy is only important when both players/teams are similar in mechanical skill. I don't see people complaining about that in other sports/esports | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
On April 18 2016 20:48 Gwavajuice wrote: - in 2015, he makes this article but he has already abandoned all love for the game, it's just a testament before he totally leaves the game and the community. 100% criticism, 0% positivity, 0% solution providing. As a result, this article has 0% impact on the development of the game. Most forums ban for personal attacks and stupid 3rd grade stuff that no one really cares about. I'd also ban for statements like this, that are seemingly intelligent and serious, but that completely misrepresent someone's argument, to the point it is offensive. Calling someone stupid hurts no one feelings (or at least shouldn't). Misrepresenting his argument like this in an effort to show it is irrelevant is far more offensive and is wrong. Solutions were proposed throughout. And if he abandoned all love for the game, he wouldn't have wrote the article and created his own mod. But instead of picking apart his points in the article, you attack his tone. Seriously what do you say to any of his points, even the simplest like "Problem Zealot, Solution Hellbat. Problem Mutalisk, Solution Tempest/Phoenix." Do you think there isn't a problem with hard counters? People that spend hours critiquing something in a serious effort to improve it, are the ones that love it the most. How many hours did you spend writing an article to help Starcraft? Maybe I am wrong and I missed your article, please link it to me. People spend their time on the things they love. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On April 19 2016 00:41 Solstice245 wrote: So, you must not have noticed that the OP said one of blizzards mistakes with sc2 is making it a game for spectators, and not necessarily the players. Didn't really need the OP to know that Blizz designed the game to be an e-sport. Has been said countless times and it's just obvious to me tbh. Is it one of the factors that makes it lose players? Most likely. Did they achieve their esport purpose? Considering the 6 years it has been running as an esport from day one, I would say yes. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 19 2016 01:11 BronzeKnee wrote: Most forums ban for personal attacks and stupid 3rd grade stuff that no one really cares about. I'd also ban for statements like this, that are seemingly intelligent and serious, but that completely misrepresent someone's argument, to the point it is offensive. Calling someone stupid hurts no one feelings (or at least shouldn't). Misrepresenting his argument like this in an effort to show it isn't irrelevant is far more offensive and is wrong. Solutions were proposed throughout. And if he abandoned all love for the game, he wouldn't have wrote the article and created his own mod. But instead of picking apart his points in the article, you attack his tone. Seriously what do you say to any of his points, even the simplest like "Problem Zealot, Solution Hellbat. Problem Mutalisk, Solution Tempest/Phoenix." Do you think there isn't a problem with hard counters? People that spend hours critiquing something in a serious effort to improve it, are the ones that love it the most. What have you done to help Starcraft? How many hours did you spend writing an article to help Starcraft? People spend their time on the things they love. What exactly did this do to "improve starcraft" ? It was written in a way noone responsible for the game would take it seriously even if there are some points in it which are interesting to discuss. The title of this thread pretty much tells the whole story tbh. Don't compare this "narcissistic opinion piece" with actual good articles like A treatise on the economy of sc2 because it simply doesn't compare. Not saying there is nothing of value in it, but overall there is very little meat to this op in comparison to its length due to its unnecessary "philosophical" wording which in essence makes the arguments he has as abstract as possible. "Improving starcraft" ? Yeah no, pretty much anything in there was written in a better way before. | ||
|
DSK
England1110 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 19 2016 02:02 Salteador Neo wrote: Didn't really need the OP to know that Blizz designed the game to be an e-sport. Has been said countless times and it's just obvious to me tbh. Is it one of the factors that makes it lose players? Most likely. Did they achieve their esport purpose? Considering the 6 years it has been running as an esport from day one, I would say yes. While it's still considered an e-sport, that's largely because Blizzard still supports it themselves, which misses the point. An e-sport is something created by a community, just like physical sports. Another thing they have in common is that they are designed to be interesting games, not designed for a spectator experience. They've had their grasp on this game since its inception, in a desperate bid to control everything and force it to happen. Blizzard has their e-sport, but it's nothing like any other e-sport I can point to, including other Blizzard games. Hearthstone is a card game, and it's more of an e-sport than SC2 at this point. Team 5 isn't designing Hearthstone to be spectator-first, they're not concerned with that. They're just in it to make a great game. The SC2 team never understood this, they don't care about whether it's fun to play, they justify nearly every single change they make by what they think the spectator likes. So a necessary question comes out at this stage, when the team that develops a game doesn't care about the players, should it come as any surprise that the players react to this and stop playing? | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 19 2016 02:07 The_Red_Viper wrote: What exactly did this do to "improve starcraft" ? About as much as any other article, on average: nothing. Blizzard takes almost no feedback from the community, this is no secret. Just because writing an in-depth piece on the state of SC2 is a fool's errand, it doesn't take away from the fact that it comes out of a love for the game. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
On April 19 2016 02:07 The_Red_Viper wrote: What exactly did this do to "improve starcraft" ? It was written in a way noone responsible for the game would take it seriously even if there are some points in it which are interesting to discuss. The title of this thread pretty much tells the whole story tbh. Don't compare this "narcissistic opinion piece" with actual good articles like A treatise on the economy of sc2 because it simply doesn't compare. Not saying there is nothing of value in it, but overall there is very little meat to this op in comparison to its length due to its unnecessary "philosophical" wording which in essence makes the arguments he has as abstract as possible. "Improving starcraft" ? Yeah no, pretty much anything in there was written in a better way before. What did it do? It highlighted flaws, and significant ones in an eloquent way. You may disagree with how it was written, but the ideas being written stands independent on how it was written, and would be taken to heart by anyone who is mature and has self respect. Someone may call you arrogant and in a rude way, but if you self reflect and realize you are arrogant then they aren't wrong, and you should change regardless of how the message was delivered. Not working toward that change because you feel disrespected is not only immature, it holds you back. And why would you let someone else's rude tone hold you back? Why would you let them have power over you? That isn't what a mature person does. Do people really have so much power over Blizzard that simply by being rude to them results in Blizzard not doing what they should do? Whoops, I forgot, I was talking about Blizzard Entertainment here and the answer is yes: David Kim wrote: There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. Yeah this design team needs to go... they aren't mature, and apparently they get demotivated by criticism. That isn't how you respond to criticism. Man up Blizzard. And for the record, the "good article" you linked did absolutely nothing to change Starcraft either. But it isn't up the authors to change Starcraft, that is the role of the design team. It is up to the authors to highlight problems and/or suggest solutions (no you don't have to suggest solutions, simply highlighting problems is productive in itself, to someone who is mature and is interested in fixing their problems). | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Nothing to do with "mature" or not, if you wanna rgue that presentation isn't important than you are simply wrong. Coherent structure and language is extremely important, we don't wanna read flowery and abstract wording for an article which is about game design, that stuff belongs in other forms of literature. Not even pointing out the problems of his argumentation itself, it's all in this thread already, no need to start from the beginning again. As i said before there are better blogs/articles/posts about sc2's problems and these weren't presented in the most narcissistic way possible (and usually they had more meat as well), which is why they are far superior. But yeah sure, if you are going into this with the mindset of "blizzard sucks anyway", you probably can have fun with it i guess. | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
You've clearly never worked in software development. Do me a favor, go try to build something. Doesn't matter what. Tell me when you start so I can start spewing vitriol every step of the way. See how motivated you are to keep working on your product. Blizzard is not a person. There are people behind that title, and they have to sludge through all this negative shit about their game any time they go online. Developing is so largely mental, and without motivation your productivity is going to drop fucking 80% or more. Why in the world would someone want to put their 120% into a game seemingly no one enjoys in the least? Of course they're demoralized. Starcraft is a fucking great game, but no one ever says that. Everyone has their own dream version of the game, and they're not even remotely happy with the game until it reaches that fantasy. The only positive feed back you see from the community are "This is so much better than hots", followed by "Here's why it's still shit". Yeah, good luck keeping your head above the water in that environment. They don't even have the luxury of being a top esport anymore for that ego boost. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17362 Posts
so we have whining about polemics only to see polemics 2 paragraphs later. basing a mass firing on PR style comments ... thanks for the laugh. you can only get rid of them if you can with certainty replace them with something better. Blizzard has run out of RTS teams to raid.. they're all gone dude. Most of these knee-jerk style reaction firings result going from the frying pan and into the fire. As an independent software maker i love it when the CIO goes on a firing spree. i fill my pockets with boatloads of cash and always look like the hero that saved the project no matter whether it was easy-peazy or brutally complex. Blizzard has gone on the record many times they have a hard time finding Blizzard level employees because they are picky. They can't snap their fingers and make 20 Rob Pardos appear in Anaheim. you do not know enough about hiring game designers to state for certain the new group will be better. Also, they are not pulling their best guys off of billion dollar projects so they can sell a few more copies into a market that is sinking fast. Putting all kinds of effort into creating a new RTS team for a proven non-performer like the RTS genre is spending good money after bad. Leave the RTS team the way it is and enjoy the last few viable years of the RTS genre; these final years are happening right in the SC franchise and no where else. The only place a following of any kind remains with Blizzard is precisely because Blizzard and its RTS team are the best in the biz. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On April 19 2016 03:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: The article i linked didn't change the game no, but at least it got a response out of blizzard because it was written in a way people can actually discuss the arguments presented without having to interprete a lot of poor wording (in the context of such an article, this type of prose is simply bad for the purpose this text maybe had) Nothing to do with "mature" or not, if you wanna rgue that presentation isn't important than you are simply wrong. Coherent structure and language is extremely important, we don't wanna read flowery and abstract wording for an article which is about game design, that stuff belongs in other forms of literature. Not even pointing out the problems of his argumentation itself, it's all in this thread already, no need to start from the beginning again. As i said before there are better blogs/articles/posts about sc2's problems and these weren't presented in the most narcissistic way possible (and usually they had more meat as well), which is why they are far superior. But yeah sure, if you are going into this with the mindset of "blizzard sucks anyway", you probably can have fun with it i guess. The thing is that you and many other skeptics are going into this with the mindset of "this post sucks anyway". The style and form is admittedly very dry and harsh, that's how the author wants to convey his points. If you're attacking the form more than the actual content, then that to me indicates that you don't understand (or don't want to understand) the content in the first place. If you're writing a protest article (which is what this is), you aren't going to sugar coat what you're saying, are you? The content itself has some pretty solid general points, though if you want to choose to completely ignore them, then why are you even in this thread? | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17362 Posts
On April 19 2016 03:14 InfCereal wrote: @BronzeKnee You've clearly never worked in software development. Do me a favor, go try to build something. Doesn't matter what. Tell me when you start so I can start spewing vitriol every step of the way. See how motivated you are to keep working on your product. give this man one of them blue stars, gold stars. some kind of star. when the top execs get flustered and start firing people i (as a hired gun) start making huge cash... its like robbery.. but without a mask. | ||
|
pr0n3d91
18 Posts
| ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Solar vs ByuN
MaxPax vs Solar
Rogue vs Percival
Cure vs Solar
herO vs Solar
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
herO vs MaxPax
Rogue vs TriGGeR
BSL
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Scan
Rain vs Mong
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs Ample
JyJ vs sSak
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
