Is SC2 too fast? - Page 5

Post a Reply

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 16 17 Next All

beheamoth

44 Posts

April 15 2016 15:39 GMT

#81

close this thread please.

Pontius Pirate

United States1557 Posts

April 15 2016 15:44 GMT

#82

I, for one, had a lot more fun playing on the fast speed than faster. And it was awesome to see what Parting was capable of when he had a game that was accidentally put on a lower speed setting in the middle of a professional match. I've even watched some replays of games that I enjoyed a lot on the faster setting and found them to still be just as fun to watch on the next highest speed setting. The focus on making everything as fast as possible has gone too far, and we have quite a lot of leeway in which we can afford to slow the game down and still have it appear fast-paced and exciting for spectators.

Particularly given the boosted starting worker counts and the speed creep that has involved the addition of faster units and of buffs to the speeds of units, I'd love to see a universal decrease in the speed of the game. It can be a minor change, but remember that BW was about 8%-12% slower, depending on which metric you use. That's why the BW worker speed of 5 was originally judged to be the equivalent of about 2.5 when Starbow was made, rather than about 2.8, as it is in SC2 vanilla. It sounds like a rather subtle change, but I think it would lead to the game feeling significantly more fun to play, and being much more beginner-friendly.

In fact, when I've introduced friends to this game, the only times I've gotten them to stick around was when I introduced them gently, by starting them on a slightly lower game speed setting.

Aron Times

United States312 Posts

April 15 2016 15:48 GMT

#83

Hey folks, can you guys not attack the OP's skill level or perceived skill level? Even progamers find the game too fast and frantic. The feedback from Korean progamers back during the LotV beta was that the game was too hard.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/489623-canatas-commentary-on-lotv

Let that sink in for a bit. The Korean scene thought that LotV was too hard. The Korean scene actually raised issues about the barrier to entry instead of the typical reply you get from the foreigner community of "git gud scrub."

DjayEl

France252 Posts

April 15 2016 16:01 GMT

#84

You will never be able to run as fast a a professional soccer player if you do not practice at their level, which is one of the reasons you (and your friends as a team) would never beat a pro soccer team. This does not mean you cannot enjoy playing soccer casually with your friends against an equally-trained team in your local town, nor that no strategy does kick in at your level because of this "glass ceiling" you had yet to reach to play on a pro level.

In addition, in SC2, I would say up to top diamond, planning ahead your next moves and knowing exactly what to do at all times >>>> raw speed. Played ZvP (in HotS) against Adelscott once who was using 3x less apm than me and was still kicking my ass game after game just because every of his clicks was so much more effective and well planned. Confessed his low apm was preventing him to beat the best players though, but does that even matter for us mere mortals anyways?

Honestly I’m pretty sure any master-level playercan beat any player up to plat (whatever the race is) while not going past 50 apm at any given time, and I’m pretty sure they would still win 8 times out of 10… Might be wrong on this one, but it would be pretty interesting to test.

JimmyJRaynor

Canada17143 Posts

April 15 2016 16:04 GMT

#85

when i lose its too fast.
when i win.. its fun watching my opponent's miss-micro as i ravage his army and his base.

On April 16 2016 00:39 beheamoth wrote:
close this thread please.

leave this thread open please

Big J

Austria16289 Posts

April 15 2016 16:05 GMT

#86

On April 16 2016 00:35 The_Red_Viper wrote:

Show nested quote +

On April 16 2016 00:20 Big J wrote:

On April 15 2016 23:57 The_Red_Viper wrote:

On April 15 2016 23:46 Big J wrote:

On April 15 2016 22:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
It's rather that no matter how good you are you will have games which are competetive because of the matchmaking.
I think that is pretty much the most important part, as long as it doesn't feel unfair the player usually has some form of fun (if he actually is interested in the game he is playing, that is the requirement obviously)
"Silly" here simply means not optimal, the lower the skill the less optimal you probably can play, you actually don't need to cut corners and can build static d (people always say "hey if only the zegr would have built 2-3 spores everywhere, yeah not gonna happen, at lower lvl it's no problem)
Now you maybe try to be actually good, but that is the same in every game.
In LoL you have to learn to lasthit and every single laning matchup you could encounter, in csgo you have to learn flashes/smokes and the spray control, etc
As soon as you actually give a damn about your skill level every single game becomes a "grindfest" and you have to actually analyze your gameplay.

Exactly, the competitive part of your argument is the one that is important here. It applies to any competitive game out there. But so far nothing of that tells me why I would be playing SC2 over any other competitive game. So that's the question: What makes me play SC2 over any other game?
And I think the major weakness SC2 has is that its unique selling points - strategy, compositions, playstyles - are behind a glass skill ceiling. Noobs can see them performed by better players, but will struggle to get anywhere close to them. Which is why they turn away and play games in which the unique selling point is accessible. That this in no way compromises with being a competitive high-skill game can be seen by LoL, DotA, CS:Go etc, games that sell the core unique gameplay to everyone, yet have a crazy highlevel proscene.

SC2 fails here. The game is has been catered to a hardcore and proscene alone and mainly through speed, instead of thinking about ways that make the core gameplay accessible and then finding tools that make it hard and deep enough for professionals to differentiate.

See i don't agree with this all that much. The main selling point for sc2 is that it's an rts. People who like rts games like it for different reasons, but mainly i would imagine for the strategy, multitasking (macro/micro) and 1vs1 gameplay.
You saying this is behind a "glass skill ceiling" doesn't do it for me. You can do different strategies at silver level. You can do everything the pros do, just a lot worse (but as i said before, it doesn't matter because the matchmaking will give you opponents close to your skill)
You don't need 200 apm to have fun with sc2, you also can play it with 50 and be happy in silver league. Just as you can play csgo without having the perfect spray control or lol without having perfect cs.
The only difference might be that in sc2 there aren't a lot of new players which could play against each other to begin with, at that point the matchmaking kinda fails obviously.

If we are talking about attracting the masses to play sc2, sure then the general lvl of mechanics might be a problem (aka you kinda need to know all the hotkeys)
But i still think that the masses will never have fun with a game where multitasking is required, so i think it's more about rts as a genre and not so much about the specific design choices. Even though that could help a bit.

But those are the specific desing choices. That's what we basically understand under phrases like "faster pace in LotV than in WoL". For example in WoL you could make a turret ring and be eventually safe against drops. You made a strategic decision and investment and you got a pay off if your opponent still tried... or you got punished by your opponent making the proper strategical decisions against investments that he doesn't have to run into.
Then they tuned up medivac speed and muta regeneration/speed and gave out other similar buffs and nerfs to force you into multitasking strategies. Mechplay and Swarm Host play were made weak so that you have to play the fast-paced styles. Many underused units don't get more stability with combat stats and better counterrelations so that they get more costefficient and useful, but they get faster, so that instead of having fights and getting numbers right, you get rewarded for lots of hit-and-run strategies. Units like adepts or new swarm hosts have been designed to bypass defenses, so you have to rely on multitasking more and more. Half the game is about popping out of the fog of war and quickly killing the opponent where he is not. For worse players this means they just die a lot randomly, because there are just no safety nets besides being incredibly good at the game, which is the only way you can pay enough attention and react/position with units all the time on time.

For worse players that means that they play against worse players who also don't have the multitasking necessary to do these kind of things, or if they try it they do it inefficiently.
I was more talking about the absolut general kind of multitasking in an rts, controlling multiple units at once, the decision between micro and macro, these things. Basically what is understood as rts gameplay.
In mobas, csgo, fighting games, etc you don't have this. You control one unit alone and be done with it. You don't feel overwhelmed ever by having to control at two places at once, or macroing while pushing or similar stuff.
This is imo the main reason people (the masses) don't play a game like sc2 and no matter how much you make the controls easier, as long as this aspect of multitasking is still in the game people in general won't like to play it.
That's how i see it atm.

You surely could design the game less punishing though and that would help a bit, sure. I don't think that is the reason casuals don't play the game though. So yeah i guess in a way i agree with you, even though i don't think this is important for the lowest leagues all that much.

Oh yeah, for the lowest leagues WoL was already too difficult (though the hardcoreness was there intentionally already). You are right, the fundamental pace of multitasking is already very high. Which is why I don't like the decision to ramp it up even more in LotV (and HotS) at all. Some of the things just turn me away from the game, e.g. when I have to manage 3+ different ability-casters at once, or I'm forced to play X-unit because it is the only one fast enough to catch Y-unit.

OtherWorld

France17333 Posts

April 15 2016 16:18 GMT

#87

On April 15 2016 20:13 Dingodile wrote:
sc2 is like formula one. It is too fast so that you only can play/drive damn straightforwardly, very rare back and forth raand overtaking maneuvers in sc2/F1. Can you drive 300km/h by a bend? Slower them then you (better players/drivers) can finally overtaking something. They all only do waiting on mistakes by opponents all day long, so a such damn boring tactic.

I like that analogy, it's very accurate.

BronzeKnee

United States5218 Posts

April 15 2016 17:18 GMT

#88

On April 15 2016 18:52 Destructicon wrote:
The game itself is not too fast, the pace of the game however is way too fast, there are some units that are particularly guilty of this, like mutas, oracles and speedivacs.

I'll never understand why we needed a buff to Mutalisk speed and regeneration, and why Medivacs needed to move faster. They were both extremely powerful and core units in WOL that held roles in every matchup. It led to odd and strange design decisions, justifying things like Photon Overcharge and the Spore Crawler buff that made them ridiculous against biological units.

I think LOTV is too fast, I felt WOL was better. In general though, as Dingodile brought up, many times when you play SC2 it is just about waiting for the other person to make mistakes while not making mistakes yourself and a large part of that is due to the speed of the game. I felt this was especially true at a high level, if you made even small mistakes you might as well just gg often because there was no way to come back.

Sometimes it doesn't feel like you are in control of the game, you're just barely holding on and hoping the other guy falls off before you do.

Haighstrom

United Kingdom207 Posts

April 15 2016 17:32 GMT

#89

To answer the topic title only: "No."

Topdoller

United Kingdom3860 Posts

April 15 2016 17:33 GMT

#90

"Your base is under attack"- you blink and realize that most of ya shit is vaporized in about 3 seconds. Its been a problem with SC2 since the beginning.One of the biggest failings in this game,that hurts new players the most and causes them to dump it promptly. SC2 is nothing to so with strategy. Its about build orders and reaction times

Topdoller

United Kingdom3860 Posts

April 15 2016 17:34 GMT

#91

On April 16 2016 02:33 Topdoller wrote:
"Your base is under attack"- you blink and realize that most of ya shit is vaporized in about 3 seconds. Its been a problem with SC2 since the beginning.One of the biggest failings in this game,that hurts new players the most and causes them to dump it promptly. SC2 is nothing to do with strategy. Its about build orders and reaction times

Opps misclick !!!

KalWarkov

Germany4126 Posts

April 15 2016 17:34 GMT

#92

after playing wc3, i think thats the case.

and it needs heros, too.

ok, i might as well just play wc3 again.

TwiggyWan

France334 Posts

April 15 2016 17:50 GMT

#93

PLay supreme commander forged alliance if you wanna make choices in a RTS.

If you wanna mash buttons and think once every 2 minutes, play starcraft.

Dazed.

Canada3301 Posts

April 15 2016 18:02 GMT

#94

On April 15 2016 15:37 Laul wrote:
When I play, I dun really see any opportunity to really be 'strategic,' yknow?

Like, why waste my time making solid tanks lines and defenses when I could just as easily mash A and stim attack-move till I win?

Or even if it does go to late game, I'm just left in a trance where I'm just pressing buttons until I win, trying to keep up production at max.

Thoughts?

No. The game isnt particularly fast, its problem is that its too simplistic and lacks a high skill ceiling. You *can* just mash stim and charge, and thats the problem. MBS and unlimited select is unworkable.

Nakajin

Canada8989 Posts

April 15 2016 18:06 GMT

#95

I don't know if we can say it is too fast in general, it can be to fast for certain person, but at this point it is more a personal preference then a design flaw. The identity of the game is that it is fast pace and you always have to be on your toes, their is other game if you want a slower, more strategy focus game, Age of Empire is a perfect example, the wall and castle mechanics, make it so you can play slower and thinks about your move in advance, plus the fact that unit don't died nearly as fast as in sc2.

Personally, I like the faster pace and the "rhythms game" vibe more when I want to play competitive games, and the slower pace when I play just for fun.

Dangermousecatdog

United Kingdom7084 Posts

April 15 2016 18:30 GMT

#96

I wonder how many people actually read the OP instead of responding to the click baity title.

Neither are strategy. if you do mash A and stim attack-move (no APM needed to do that) that is a sure fire way to die to "solid tanks lines and defenses". Must be an interesting game to play. No game knowledge, no scouting, no reacting. Doesn't sound like the LoTV I watch and play. Is LoTV too fast? Should automated production should had been a thing? Maybe, maybe not, but you haven't given an argument for either. Instead it sounds like you was blindly turtling seige tanks in TvT and lost so you QQ.

Anyways, SC2 is a game of constant real time decisions and from the many posts here where people say they only make a decision every few minutes, it seems that many people simply are incapable of cannot thinking fast enough.

{ToT}ColmA

Japan3260 Posts

April 15 2016 19:31 GMT

#97

for me, i just came back to the game after ~2 years of not playing a game. it feels nice but i am so old i already have to think about my funeral so the game feels too fast for me. but on my very low level of play u can still win games without being fast

50IQdowns

2 Posts

April 15 2016 19:31 GMT

#98

lmao I can't believe you morons don't realize this is a troll post

User was temp banned for this post.

Shield

Bulgaria4824 Posts

April 15 2016 19:38 GMT

#99

I don't think the game is unpleasantly fast. Some units are too fast though. For example, mutalisk, medivac, oracle and reaper had their speed increased significantly. I'm not sure if oracle was initially fast. That and cheese is harder to hold if you're not pro.

Hexe

United States332 Posts

April 15 2016 20:06 GMT

#100

I think it is too fast when it comes to battles and the mass deathball vs deathball. most of the engagements rely on only a couple of factors. disrupter shots and lurkers vying space and not going into said space. upping unit health or making units physically bigger spacing wise would help. but SC2 is its on beast. I do like watching pros play back and forth games. I cant go back to broodwar, where there was more intent, but fighting the UI was the more important factor.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 16 17 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Is SC2 too fast? - Page 5

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming