|
On January 23 2016 02:56 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 08:58 heishe wrote:
Of course they don't know the game like we do, but a lot of their criticism and subjective feeling about the game are justified because SC2 does objectively have some pretty stupid things that do make it a "clickfest", like the arbitrary macro mechanics and lack of a lot of utility function in the UI and control that would make it easier to manage. Also, at the level that most players enter the game, playing speedy far outweighs playing strategically smart, by a ton actually. TBH if these things were gone I think the game would automatically become exactly 120% more awesome, because the sick Korean APM would go into many multipronged unit micro battles which are infinitely more exciting to watch (and also to play) than seeing someones APM being pumped into putting down mules and checking how many drones they have at each expansion. FWIW this is pretty much exactly why I stopped playing. Mechanics far outweigh strategy in Starcraft 2, and there is very little strategic flexibility or variation in either the matchups or maps. The only real "strategic" question: is my opponent cheesing or no? If no, then you know exactly everything that's going to happen in the game from start to finish and there's nothing you can do about it except execute more cleanly/faster than the other guy and for god's sake don't look away from your minimap for more than 5 seconds. LOTV only made this problem worse by adding lots of new micro mechanics to the mayhem. This isn't why I play "strategy" games so I've moved on.
What exactly do you mean by strategic decision? How you split your units, which you make and every little decision like that is a strategic decision. If you chees in ZvZ then strategic decision would be what kind of chees you go for, how early your pool and gas is, how many banelings you make, how many ravagers, when can you start making workers again, how many can you get away with, do you need a spine and much much more.
What you seem to want is a slower game where decision making is alpha and omega and no that is not Starcraft, it never was and I hope it never will be.
|
On January 23 2016 02:56 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 08:58 heishe wrote:
Of course they don't know the game like we do, but a lot of their criticism and subjective feeling about the game are justified because SC2 does objectively have some pretty stupid things that do make it a "clickfest", like the arbitrary macro mechanics and lack of a lot of utility function in the UI and control that would make it easier to manage. Also, at the level that most players enter the game, playing speedy far outweighs playing strategically smart, by a ton actually. TBH if these things were gone I think the game would automatically become exactly 120% more awesome, because the sick Korean APM would go into many multipronged unit micro battles which are infinitely more exciting to watch (and also to play) than seeing someones APM being pumped into putting down mules and checking how many drones they have at each expansion. FWIW this is pretty much exactly why I stopped playing. Mechanics far outweigh strategy in Starcraft 2, and there is very little strategic flexibility or variation in either the matchups or maps. The only real "strategic" question: is my opponent cheesing or no? If no, then you know exactly everything that's going to happen in the game from start to finish and there's nothing you can do about it except execute more cleanly/faster than the other guy and for god's sake don't look away from your minimap for more than 5 seconds. LOTV only made this problem worse by adding lots of new micro mechanics to the mayhem. This isn't why I play "strategy" games so I've moved on.
You shouldn't have been playing "Real Time" Strategy games in the first place if you have a problem with the necessary actions that need to be made in respect to Real Time. TBS is more for you.
|
On January 23 2016 04:05 ddayzy wrote:
What exactly do you mean by strategic decision? How you split your units, which you make and every little decision like that is a strategic decision. If you chees in ZvZ then strategic decision would be what kind of chees you go for, how early your pool and gas is, how many banelings you make, how many ravagers, when can you start making workers again, how many can you get away with, do you need a spine and much much more.
What you seem to want is a slower game where decision making is alpha and omega and no that is not Starcraft, it never was and I hope it never will be.
I'm not surprised that after 5 years of SC2, a lot of people don't know what strategic gameplay is. If you think building a gas extractor @13 drones instead of @18 constitutes compelling strategic decisionmaking I'm really terrified by the low standards consumers have for video games these days.
Instead of asking "how many" banelings to make, I want to be asking whether I'm going to be playing with melee ground (ling/bane/ultra), ranged ground (hydra/roach/lurker), or air. If I'm protoss I'd like to choose between templar tech, robo, or stargate. Terran should be able to choose between barracks, mech, or air. Combinations should also be possible, of course.
That's just unit comps. Then there's the problem of playstyles. Zerg is funneled into aggressive play with poor defensive options, whereas protoss has always been forced onto the defensive with little ability to control the map or trade units.
Lastly the maps themselves are so cookie-cutter and uninteresting. Your pattern of expansions is laid out for you with no strategic dilemmas, and you hardly spend any time contesting strategic areas of the map compared to even "non-strategy" games like Counter-Strike or League of Legends, to say nothing of Civ, XCOM, chess, etc.
|
On January 23 2016 05:21 BaronVonOwn wrote:
That's just unit comps. Then there's the problem of playstyles. Zerg is funneled into aggressive play with poor defensive options
Conveniently forgetting the year and a half (or was it closer to two years?) of swarm host turtle play... it must have been so traumatic that your mind blocked it out entirely, haha. What about the period of spine forest into brood lord infestor slowroll that preceded that?
On January 23 2016 05:21 BaronVonOwn wrote:
whereas protoss has always been forced onto the defensive with little ability to control the map or trade units.
Yeah you're right, Protoss has always been forced to play defensively, you know except for all the years where the best Protoss strategies relied on cheese, two base all-inning or otherwise hitting a very aggressive timing attack. Nevermind the Adept bullshit going on right now.
Honestly I would tend to agree with the general sentiment of your post, if not for the condescending tone and objectively wrong arguments that you chose to support it.
Except the map part, maps have been pretty boring for a while now.
On January 23 2016 05:21 BaronVonOwn wrote:
and you hardly spend any time contesting strategic areas of the map compared to even "non-strategy" games like Counter-Strike or League of Legends, to say nothing of Civ, XCOM, chess, etc.
Also I just find these random namedrops really funny... Mostly because it would be ironic if you were referring to Civ 5 and XCOM:EU, which are by far the more popular games these days, because Civ 5 is considered a dumbed down mainstream-ification of Civ 3 / 4 by series veterans; likewise XCOM:EU compared to the original game. Couldn't help but point that out. 
|
On January 23 2016 05:21 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 04:05 ddayzy wrote:
What exactly do you mean by strategic decision? How you split your units, which you make and every little decision like that is a strategic decision. If you chees in ZvZ then strategic decision would be what kind of chees you go for, how early your pool and gas is, how many banelings you make, how many ravagers, when can you start making workers again, how many can you get away with, do you need a spine and much much more.
What you seem to want is a slower game where decision making is alpha and omega and no that is not Starcraft, it never was and I hope it never will be. I'm not surprised that after 5 years of SC2, a lot of people don't know what strategic gameplay is. If you think building a gas extractor @13 drones instead of @18 constitutes compelling strategic decisionmaking I'm really terrified by the low standards consumers have for video games these days. Instead of asking "how many" banelings to make, I want to be asking whether I'm going to be playing with melee ground (ling/bane/ultra), ranged ground (hydra/roach/lurker), or air. If I'm protoss I'd like to choose between templar tech, robo, or stargate. Terran should be able to choose between barracks, mech, or air. Combinations should also be possible, of course. That's just unit comps. Then there's the problem of playstyles. Zerg is funneled into aggressive play with poor defensive options, whereas protoss has always been forced onto the defensive with little ability to control the map or trade units. Lastly the maps themselves are so cookie-cutter and uninteresting. Your pattern of expansions is laid out for you with no strategic dilemmas, and you hardly spend any time contesting strategic areas of the map compared to even "non-strategy" games like Counter-Strike or League of Legends, to say nothing of Civ, XCOM, chess, etc.
And that person is you. I'm sorry but what you are saying here is utter nonsens.
That is a strategic decision, it is a incredible important decision because it is gonna limit what you can and can't do from there one. If your tech requires gas when you can tech depends on when you take the gas, the same goes for units. If you commit to gas early you might not have enough minerals to do other things. This is hard decision to make that effects what you can do later and it will depend on what your oponent is doing unless you are planning on doing, since you like chess, a forcing move.
That is one minor minor thing you do in a game of Starcraft and it has such a huge impact on your build and game. If you like chess you would surely appreciate how complicated that is.
The situation you are describing in your second paragraph is allready in a game, and is one of many many decisions you must make during the game. You have to decide on that and on how many of each unit you are gonna make. What is your point with this paragraph?
I'm sorry? Zerg had Swarm Host and have Lurkers. They were and are perfectly capable of playing defensivly. As Protoss you have mothership core with recall, blink stalkers, warp prisme, observers and the ability to warp in on the other end of the map? Protoss who spent half of the last patch cannon rushing don't ahve offensive options or map control?
What on earth are you talking about? Of course there will be a optimal way of expanding, that will be the case no matter how the map are made. Yet there are gold bases, people taking secret base and you can choose to expand towards or away from your oponent giving players options.
Potential base spots are no strategic spaceswhaaaaaa...?
Saying games like League of Legends and Counter Strike are not strategic is stupid.
If you think Civilization requires more strategical decisions then Starcraft you have never understod Starcraft at all. Please provide me with a list of all the strategic decisions you make in a game of Civilization and I will do the same for Starcraft and we can compere..
|
On January 23 2016 01:05 Big J wrote:
As far as I know the problem with indie RTS games is that there is no engine you can develop it on. Blizzard is probably the only company that has an engine worth of a modern times RTS games and they are not giving it away.
Blizzard has given it away.
make your own RTS game on their MODKit any time you want.
and there is Valve's response to the world builder.
https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_2_Workshop_Tools/Addon_Overview
Valve will license anything.. including their Dota2 engine.
the Source 2 engine is free for developers
don't liek these options? how about another Valve product: Unreal4?
https://www.unrealengine.com/faq
https://www.unrealengine.com/custom-licensing
the 22 year old versions of IceFrog, Daniel Buntin, David Crane, Jon Van Canagham and Sid Meier has so many more tools at their disposal than they did years ago; these talented, creative game designers are out there.. just as they were 10,20, 30 and even 40 years ago. None of them are making RTS games.
|
People can white knight ActiBlizz all they want but seriously now why is Sc2 not doing particularly well even in Korea? BW is still one of the most popular games there, so the RTS doommongery doesn't really cut it in this instance, neither does the other excuses. Hard to accept, but maybe Sc2 is just not good enough to be a really popular game even with the downward trend/poor performance of RTS games in AAA developers and smaller studios/indie. Could be many things from the design of the game, devs out of their depth with a proper competitive game and not moving with the times or just Sc2 being low priority at Activision board meetings. I wouldn't like to say which one and it's not all doom and gloom as
Sc2 has also had some high points and fun times. I have found memories of the game during WoL personally.
Oh yeah someone in this thread was saying Pac-Man is dead? the legend never dies! ;D
http://store.steampowered.com/app/236450/
|
On January 23 2016 06:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 01:05 Big J wrote:
As far as I know the problem with indie RTS games is that there is no engine you can develop it on. Blizzard is probably the only company that has an engine worth of a modern times RTS games and they are not giving it away. Blizzard has given it away. make your own RTS game on their MODKit any time you want. and there is Valve's response to the world builder. https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_2_Workshop_Tools/Addon_OverviewValve will license anything.. including their Dota2 engine. the Source 2 engine is free for developers don't liek these options? how about another Valve product: Unreal4? https://www.unrealengine.com/faqhttps://www.unrealengine.com/custom-licensingthe 22 year old versions of IceFrog, Daniel Buntin, David Crane, Jon Van Canagham and Sid Meier has so many more tools at their disposal than they did years ago; these talented, creative game designers are out there.. just as they were 10,20, 30 and even 40 years ago. None of them are making RTS games.
The Unreal engine is from Epic, not from Valve
|
On January 23 2016 09:26 KrOeastbound wrote:People can white knight ActiBlizz all they want but seriously now why is Sc2 not doing particularly well even in Korea? BW is still one of the most popular games there, so the RTS doommongery doesn't really cut it in this instance, neither does the other excuses. Hard to accept, but maybe Sc2 is just not good enough to be a really popular game even with the downward trend/poor performance of RTS games in AAA developers and smaller studios/indie. Could be many things from the design of the game, devs out of their depth with a proper competitive game and not moving with the times or just Sc2 being low priority at Activision board meetings. I wouldn't like to say which one and it's not all doom and gloom as Sc2 has also had some high points and fun times. I have found memories of the game during WoL personally. Oh yeah someone in this thread was saying Pac-Man is dead? the legend never dies! ;D http://store.steampowered.com/app/236450/
the linked game above has nothing to do with the arcade Pacman game released in 1981. Nothing. in the 1981 arcade coin-op game you can use the same memorized pattern to go from the 3rd board to the 9th Key. i could teach my grandmother to break 200,000 in arcade Pacman in less than a day.
Despite how crap the game was it pulled in 7 Billion. No other dot-eating-maze-game that came out after it came even close. The games coming out after Pacman were really good... and made fuck all.
Kotick knows all this way better than anyone and is aligning ATVI's resources accordingly. No more RTS games. Kotick is a genius of monetization and has determined RTS games can't be monetized.
So we're getting Guitar Hero, Skylanders, Moar WoW, Hearthstone. etc etc. they can be monetized.
it doesn't matter that a some group of people are playing a 17 year old RTS game and spending $0.
|
On January 23 2016 06:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 01:05 Big J wrote:
As far as I know the problem with indie RTS games is that there is no engine you can develop it on. Blizzard is probably the only company that has an engine worth of a modern times RTS games and they are not giving it away. Blizzard has given it away. make your own RTS game on their MODKit any time you want. and there is Valve's response to the world builder. https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_2_Workshop_Tools/Addon_OverviewValve will license anything.. including their Dota2 engine. the Source 2 engine is free for developers don't liek these options? how about another Valve product: Unreal4? https://www.unrealengine.com/faqhttps://www.unrealengine.com/custom-licensingthe 22 year old versions of IceFrog, Daniel Buntin, David Crane, Jon Van Canagham and Sid Meier has so many more tools at their disposal than they did years ago; these talented, creative game designers are out there.. just as they were 10,20, 30 and even 40 years ago. None of them are making RTS games.
So I'm really not well-versed in these these software questions, I can only tell you what I heard which is why I said afaik. I'm happy to be proven wrong here if you can find me some good sources that state that some cheaply available modern engine is well-suited for RTS development, so that indie developers could use it.
Now to your points in specific:
Blizzard has not given it away as far as I know. If you mean the editor, the deal is if you make something with the editor it belongs to them. So an indie company cannot develop a game in the editor.
I don't know about Valve's world builder, but I could see it being a similar deal to blizzard's. Also in both of them you probably have to rely heavily on workarounds to make your own ideas work and it will never be quite the same as making a game from scratch.
Don't know if the unreal engine is good for it. But I remember some comments about the Frostbite engine which would have been used in the cancelled CnC and that the developers had to put in tons of work to adapt it for an RTS.
|
On January 23 2016 04:05 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 02:56 BaronVonOwn wrote:On January 22 2016 08:58 heishe wrote:
Of course they don't know the game like we do, but a lot of their criticism and subjective feeling about the game are justified because SC2 does objectively have some pretty stupid things that do make it a "clickfest", like the arbitrary macro mechanics and lack of a lot of utility function in the UI and control that would make it easier to manage. Also, at the level that most players enter the game, playing speedy far outweighs playing strategically smart, by a ton actually. TBH if these things were gone I think the game would automatically become exactly 120% more awesome, because the sick Korean APM would go into many multipronged unit micro battles which are infinitely more exciting to watch (and also to play) than seeing someones APM being pumped into putting down mules and checking how many drones they have at each expansion. FWIW this is pretty much exactly why I stopped playing. Mechanics far outweigh strategy in Starcraft 2, and there is very little strategic flexibility or variation in either the matchups or maps. The only real "strategic" question: is my opponent cheesing or no? If no, then you know exactly everything that's going to happen in the game from start to finish and there's nothing you can do about it except execute more cleanly/faster than the other guy and for god's sake don't look away from your minimap for more than 5 seconds. LOTV only made this problem worse by adding lots of new micro mechanics to the mayhem. This isn't why I play "strategy" games so I've moved on. What exactly do you mean by strategic decision? How you split your units, which you make and every little decision like that is a strategic decision. If you chees in ZvZ then strategic decision would be what kind of chees you go for, how early your pool and gas is, how many banelings you make, how many ravagers, when can you start making workers again, how many can you get away with, do you need a spine and much much more. What you seem to want is a slower game where decision making is alpha and omega and no that is not Starcraft, it never was and I hope it never will be.
On January 23 2016 04:16 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 02:56 BaronVonOwn wrote:On January 22 2016 08:58 heishe wrote:
Of course they don't know the game like we do, but a lot of their criticism and subjective feeling about the game are justified because SC2 does objectively have some pretty stupid things that do make it a "clickfest", like the arbitrary macro mechanics and lack of a lot of utility function in the UI and control that would make it easier to manage. Also, at the level that most players enter the game, playing speedy far outweighs playing strategically smart, by a ton actually. TBH if these things were gone I think the game would automatically become exactly 120% more awesome, because the sick Korean APM would go into many multipronged unit micro battles which are infinitely more exciting to watch (and also to play) than seeing someones APM being pumped into putting down mules and checking how many drones they have at each expansion. FWIW this is pretty much exactly why I stopped playing. Mechanics far outweigh strategy in Starcraft 2, and there is very little strategic flexibility or variation in either the matchups or maps. The only real "strategic" question: is my opponent cheesing or no? If no, then you know exactly everything that's going to happen in the game from start to finish and there's nothing you can do about it except execute more cleanly/faster than the other guy and for god's sake don't look away from your minimap for more than 5 seconds. LOTV only made this problem worse by adding lots of new micro mechanics to the mayhem. This isn't why I play "strategy" games so I've moved on. You shouldn't have been playing "Real Time" Strategy games in the first place if you have a problem with the necessary actions that need to be made in respect to Real Time. TBS is more for you.
I just quoted these two but there are multiple other responses like this in the thread, and I have to say this shitty behavior you just displayed doesn't help with keeping new players. Someone just explains why they stopped playing in a calm manner without insulting anyone and your inner SC2 fanboy gets offended, so you get defensive and basically insult them with some completely nonsensical and pseudo psychological garbage. Similar treatment of anyone who suggests changes to the game because they don't like a certain aspect of the game is seen all the time on here, Bnet forums and the Starcraft subreddit, even if the suggestions would make perfect sense and wouldn't change the nature of the game at all.
It seems all actual discussion about the content and balance of the game revolves around the endless balance whines of diamond players who think a balance patch is going to carry them to masters league, or spoiled terrans who are mad discussing that they can't exactly replicate a playstyle from brood war.
|
On January 23 2016 11:21 heishe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 04:05 ddayzy wrote:On January 23 2016 02:56 BaronVonOwn wrote:On January 22 2016 08:58 heishe wrote:
Of course they don't know the game like we do, but a lot of their criticism and subjective feeling about the game are justified because SC2 does objectively have some pretty stupid things that do make it a "clickfest", like the arbitrary macro mechanics and lack of a lot of utility function in the UI and control that would make it easier to manage. Also, at the level that most players enter the game, playing speedy far outweighs playing strategically smart, by a ton actually. TBH if these things were gone I think the game would automatically become exactly 120% more awesome, because the sick Korean APM would go into many multipronged unit micro battles which are infinitely more exciting to watch (and also to play) than seeing someones APM being pumped into putting down mules and checking how many drones they have at each expansion. FWIW this is pretty much exactly why I stopped playing. Mechanics far outweigh strategy in Starcraft 2, and there is very little strategic flexibility or variation in either the matchups or maps. The only real "strategic" question: is my opponent cheesing or no? If no, then you know exactly everything that's going to happen in the game from start to finish and there's nothing you can do about it except execute more cleanly/faster than the other guy and for god's sake don't look away from your minimap for more than 5 seconds. LOTV only made this problem worse by adding lots of new micro mechanics to the mayhem. This isn't why I play "strategy" games so I've moved on. What exactly do you mean by strategic decision? How you split your units, which you make and every little decision like that is a strategic decision. If you chees in ZvZ then strategic decision would be what kind of chees you go for, how early your pool and gas is, how many banelings you make, how many ravagers, when can you start making workers again, how many can you get away with, do you need a spine and much much more. What you seem to want is a slower game where decision making is alpha and omega and no that is not Starcraft, it never was and I hope it never will be. Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 04:16 Jealous wrote:On January 23 2016 02:56 BaronVonOwn wrote:On January 22 2016 08:58 heishe wrote:
Of course they don't know the game like we do, but a lot of their criticism and subjective feeling about the game are justified because SC2 does objectively have some pretty stupid things that do make it a "clickfest", like the arbitrary macro mechanics and lack of a lot of utility function in the UI and control that would make it easier to manage. Also, at the level that most players enter the game, playing speedy far outweighs playing strategically smart, by a ton actually. TBH if these things were gone I think the game would automatically become exactly 120% more awesome, because the sick Korean APM would go into many multipronged unit micro battles which are infinitely more exciting to watch (and also to play) than seeing someones APM being pumped into putting down mules and checking how many drones they have at each expansion. FWIW this is pretty much exactly why I stopped playing. Mechanics far outweigh strategy in Starcraft 2, and there is very little strategic flexibility or variation in either the matchups or maps. The only real "strategic" question: is my opponent cheesing or no? If no, then you know exactly everything that's going to happen in the game from start to finish and there's nothing you can do about it except execute more cleanly/faster than the other guy and for god's sake don't look away from your minimap for more than 5 seconds. LOTV only made this problem worse by adding lots of new micro mechanics to the mayhem. This isn't why I play "strategy" games so I've moved on. You shouldn't have been playing "Real Time" Strategy games in the first place if you have a problem with the necessary actions that need to be made in respect to Real Time. TBS is more for you. I just quoted these two but there are multiple other responses like this in the thread, and I have to say this shitty behavior you just displayed doesn't help with keeping new players. Someone just explains why they stopped playing in a calm manner without insulting anyone and your inner SC2 fanboy gets offended, so you get defensive and basically insult them with some completely nonsensical and pseudo psychological garbage. Similar treatment of anyone who suggests changes to the game because they don't like a certain aspect of the game is seen all the time on here, Bnet forums and the Starcraft subreddit, even if the suggestions would make perfect sense and wouldn't change the nature of the game at all. It seems all actual discussion about the content and balance of the game revolves around the endless balance whines of diamond players who think a balance patch is going to carry them to masters league, or spoiled terrans who are mad discussing that they can't exactly replicate a playstyle from brood war.
Telling people who don't want to make decisions in real time that a REAL TIME strategy game might not be for them and pointing out the multitude of strategical decisions made in a game of Starcraft to someone claiming there are non is nonsens how? If the change you want for Starcraft is to take out the real time aspect you not only want to change the game you want it to change genre which is dumb.
Your post is so dishonest it makes me wonder about your motives. Pointing out factual errors in someones argument and providing counter arguments is shitty behaviour? Then what would your petulant rant constitute?
You are free to dislike whatever you want but when you say what you dislike is that there is no strategical decisions in Starcraft I'm also free to point out that you are factually wrong and the multitude of strategical decisions made in a game of Starcraft.
|
On January 22 2016 23:23 MaCRo.gg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 13:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 22 2016 10:02 MaCRo.gg wrote:On January 22 2016 09:45 Penev wrote:
He just means it's a nationality. Can we please stop this stupid focusing on that word? Really reads more like "Korean is not a race". Doesn't it?... Ignoring that word is what got this system to where it is now. While African Americans are being killed by cops lets keep ignoring that word. While Michigan poisons Flint lets ignore that word. While Trump incites hate lets ignore that word. Since appeasing racial exclusionary policies works soooooo well.... EDIT: This isn't supporting the notion that supporting the current WCS system is being racist. I don't agree with that sentiment, you can support Trump without being racist but that doesn't make Trump not racist. it is ATVI's and Blizzard's cash. they are creating excitement in parts of the world that will buy their games in the future in proportion with future projected buying patterns. not in proportion with where the best players are. South Korea is not where they generate the most revenue. ATVI and Blizzard are in the business of SELLING VIDEO GAMES... not running leagues... the WCS is just a money loser designed to generate hype for future ATVI games and hype for stuff like that Nova campaign. if someone wants to create this pie-in-the-sky, ideal, super-fair amazing league they can get a tourney license from Blizz and have a blast. the probability of generating a profit is zero so no one will ever do this. I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm fine with WCS being what ever it wants it to be. It is Blizzard's money. They can limit or have 0 Koreans for all their events and I couldn't care less. What I do have a problem with is Blizzard giving monetary incentive for all other tournaments to NOT have Koreans in them. I just don't see the increase in Korean scene funding as a justifiable trade-off. If they want to have these "anti-Korean" policies, they should rather have all the WCS money go to a separate welfare tournament for the foreigners like the 2012 WCS. I don't think any of the "pro-Korean" posters on here think Korean scene should be artificially propped up by Blizzard, they just want Koreans to be able attend their tournaments.
The actual problem is neither nor. It is the almost yearly changing policy of blizzard. But I am pretty sure Blizzard isn't gonna keep doing that.
The recent changes of course ejected some players that were specifically adapted to the previous system. The same happened before with non Koreans when they suddenly invited Koreans into WCS EU and US.
It will take some time to cure but it will in the end.
More interesting is the debate about mechanical demands vs. strategical depth and variety of SC2. While LOTV has improved SC2, this is still one of the major things to discuss.
|
On January 23 2016 10:51 Big J wrote:
If you mean the editor, the deal is if you make something with the editor it belongs to them.
Blizzard's ownership of your work is debateable depending on where you live.
Microsoft does not own Starcraft1 despite the fact that is was made with Microsoft development tools.
The guy making Dota1 now works for Valve and made Dota2. Blizzard did not go after IceFrog with the claim they owned his work.
On January 23 2016 10:51 Big J wrote:
Also in both of them you probably have to rely heavily on workarounds to make your own ideas work and it will never be quite the same as making a game from scratch.
the DOTA1 idea worked great on the WC3 worldbuilder and it is not as good as the SC2 worldbuilder. However, if you disagree, the WC3 worldbuilder is still available for use today.
In conclusion: the problem with making a new RTS game is not cost. The problem is that no one from Bob Kotick to Gabe Newell to Andrew Wilson believes you can generate revenue in the genre.
Even Blizzard has stopped developing new RTS games. Blizzcon 2015 was Starcraft's Swan Song.
|
On January 23 2016 05:21 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2016 04:05 ddayzy wrote:
What exactly do you mean by strategic decision? How you split your units, which you make and every little decision like that is a strategic decision. If you chees in ZvZ then strategic decision would be what kind of chees you go for, how early your pool and gas is, how many banelings you make, how many ravagers, when can you start making workers again, how many can you get away with, do you need a spine and much much more.
What you seem to want is a slower game where decision making is alpha and omega and no that is not Starcraft, it never was and I hope it never will be. I'm not surprised that after 5 years of SC2, a lot of people don't know what strategic gameplay is. If you think building a gas extractor @13 drones instead of @18 constitutes compelling strategic decisionmaking I'm really terrified by the low standards consumers have for video games these days. Instead of asking "how many" banelings to make, I want to be asking whether I'm going to be playing with melee ground (ling/bane/ultra), ranged ground (hydra/roach/lurker), or air. If I'm protoss I'd like to choose between templar tech, robo, or stargate. Terran should be able to choose between barracks, mech, or air. Combinations should also be possible, of course. That's just unit comps. Then there's the problem of playstyles. Zerg is funneled into aggressive play with poor defensive options, whereas protoss has always been forced onto the defensive with little ability to control the map or trade units. Lastly the maps themselves are so cookie-cutter and uninteresting. Your pattern of expansions is laid out for you with no strategic dilemmas, and you hardly spend any time contesting strategic areas of the map compared to even "non-strategy" games like Counter-Strike or League of Legends, to say nothing of Civ, XCOM, chess, etc.
Have you tried supreme commander forged alliance?
Also i agree with your idea. SC/SC2 lacks impactful choices to be made. It's either you make the good one, or the bad one(example:unit compositions)
. Each option you get should have advantages and weaknesses so that you'd have to think which one to choose and not just blindly rely on your last 100 games played. (example : attack A or B in CSGO, or do a tech rush vs T1 spam in supcom FA). The part I like the most is in Best of X series, where players get to study their opponent, plan their builds for specific points in the set, etc.. But unfortunately, who here plays Best of X often?
Are SC/SC2 cool games? Probably yes. Are they strategic?Not really, but it's fine, if you like it.
|
Wow, all you guys saying SC2 has no strategy. Do you even play the game? When you did play the game, you must literally play blind, no scouting, follow an exacting build order down to a T, without any regard to responding to any changing circumstances, and then get fustrated.
|
On January 24 2016 01:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wow, all you guys saying SC2 has no strategy. Do you even play the game? When you did play the game, you must literally play blind, no scouting, follow an exacting build order down to a T, without any regard to responding to any changing circumstances, and then get fustrated.
We need to define what "strategy" is.
SC2 definitely have some form of planning and decision making involved.
|
On January 24 2016 01:51 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 01:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wow, all you guys saying SC2 has no strategy. Do you even play the game? When you did play the game, you must literally play blind, no scouting, follow an exacting build order down to a T, without any regard to responding to any changing circumstances, and then get fustrated. We need to define what "strategy" is. SC2 definitely have some form of planning and decision making involved.
Strategy is well defined enough. Just about any definition is adequate.
1- "a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim."
2- "the art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle."
3- "a plan for military operations and movements during a war or battle."
4- "the skill of making or carrying out plans to achieve a goal"
5- "is a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty"
People who say SC2 has no strategy are actually being inflammatory. What they're saying is that the strategic depth is limited, which may be the case in comparison with other games - or not. Either way it's arguable. Perhaps those who say that are arguing from ignorance though. To give an example, I'm a big fan of counter-strike, which is touted by many as a game with incredible strategic depth, which is true to an extent. Some teams watch other teams play, they figure out tendencies and "counter-strat". Others use raw skill and simple tactics to win, with just about no overall strategy. So there are teams with very elaborate strategies spanning multiple rounds, and well-rehearsed tactics, and some of those get obliterated by raw mechanical skill.
Many people, myself included, feel like the strategic portion of the game, while very important, often gets overshadowed by the mechanics and the general "reactive" feel to the general decisionmaking process. Yet if we're serious, BW had a lot of that too. BO wins, mind games, reactive plays (which IMO were at least less based on unit composition). So there is strategy, but are viewers given the tools to appreciate it? I dunno.
|
8751 Posts
On January 24 2016 01:51 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 01:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wow, all you guys saying SC2 has no strategy. Do you even play the game? When you did play the game, you must literally play blind, no scouting, follow an exacting build order down to a T, without any regard to responding to any changing circumstances, and then get fustrated. We need to define what "strategy" is. SC2 definitely have some form of planning and decision making involved.
Do we even need to define it to address BaronVonOwn's concerns though? He states a bunch of things don't exist in the game that actually do exist in the game. It's like if I say "fruits aren't on the menu because there are no bananas, oranges and apples" and then you look over at the other table and see people eating bananas, oranges, and apples. How do you even respond to that? Say that we need to define what a fruit is? Maybe he's got something good to teach us but the way he's gone about it so far isn't making sense to me. If you're gonna come to a hardcore SC2 forum and say SC2 doesn't have strategy, then you ought to have a pretty tight argument and logic and say exactly what you mean. Instead he's just made himself look like someone who never reached an understanding of competitive play.
I think if you look at anything that involves strategy like other games or business or politics you can find analogues to it in SC2. And just like other things that involve strategy, strategy can end up not mattering much due to other factors having a bigger influence on the outcome. Or all other things are equal and strategy determines the outcome.
|
I think defining what someone means by "strategy" is a good start because the general consensus would be the game theoretical one imo (like Djzapz tries to refer to), and in that one it makes no sense to talk about distinctions like strategy or real-time strategy games from other genres:
In the general wide-sense any game is a strategy game and any game playing in real-time + Show Spoiler +I guess we have to talk about simulated real-time here to be precise since even SC2 like any other computer program is actually turn-based, the turns just happen way too fast
In that light I believe that when someone says that a game is lacking strategy they refer to the decisions that are largely execution independent. Since the prevalence of such decisions (let's call them "internal decisions") are a defining difference of what we understand as strategy game genre (and it's subgenre's like RTS), compared to (let's call them "external") decisions which are based on execution which any game played in real-time naturally have. (e.g. the decision to attack an opponent in a shooter, which in theory has just as high of a chance of killing you, but practically might be surprised by your initiative).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
