|
On July 02 2016 11:56 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 11:54 Scarecrow wrote:On July 02 2016 11:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
it is clear that fans do not favor the predictable cookie cutter skillset that is now favored. This is only clear in your head and the skillset is just different. Fans have left for a wide variety of reasons, not because of the lack of early game all-ins. See, I think it is true for most fans. Go back and watch those WOL games, watch when people cheer. They are cheering early game holds and aggression the loudest because of the intense unpredictable nature. No one cheers when an Oracle shows up and gets a few kills today because it doesn't require much skill.
Um... they're cheering because its about the only engagement WoL ever has... outside of the deathball 200 fight where everything ends in 8 seconds.
|
On July 02 2016 11:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
there was no chance to comeback for either side. Honestly, doing all-ins was more fun, more intense.
See this is the problem. imo All-ins suck. imo Builds that transition are more fun and produce more intense back-and-forth games. It's just an opinion of yours, there's nothing 'wrong' with SC2, it's just an old game facing stiff competition and has moved away from the style of RTS you enjoy.
|
You're correlating fan cheering with game quality?
Also on a side note, just reading through both the polygon article and briefly skimmed through his manuscript about WoW and the guy is actually factually wrong in several of his examples. Not that I'm Blizzard's biggest supporter.
|
On July 02 2016 11:56 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 11:54 Scarecrow wrote:On July 02 2016 11:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
it is clear that fans do not favor the predictable cookie cutter skillset that is now favored. This is only clear in your head and the skillset is just different. Fans have left for a wide variety of reasons, not because of the lack of early game all-ins. See, I think it is true for most fans. Go back and watch those WOL games, watch when people cheer. They are cheering early game holds and aggression the loudest because of the intense unpredictable nature. No one cheers when an Oracle shows up and gets a few kills today because it doesn't require much skill. Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 11:53 RCCar wrote:On July 02 2016 11:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
Hyperbole aside, SC2 still takes skill, you still earn things, even expansions to an extent.
But as mentioned, the skill set is different, and it is clear that fans do not favor the predictable cookie cutter skillset that is now favored.
I also want to say that I don't find the harass units difficult to cope with in LOTV. I don't really find LOTV that hard actually in general. Sure it is the faster, but speed was never the issue in WOL. The hard part of WOL was getting to the late game, once I reached it, I took a deep breath.
Now I'm already there. Unfortunately it was the worst part of the game in WOL and while improved in LOTV it isn't as good as the early game in WOL. I tired very quickly of every PvT late in WOL being a 10-15 minute build up (because I defended drops well) to end with an 8 second fight between two huge armies where a single micro mistake could cost you the game. That was boring. The damage was too extreme and there was no chance to comeback.
The same is true today. I honest to god do not know what you mean by the cookie cutter skillset. If you are meaning the meta, you just gotta deal with it because its in every single online game ever made. If you are meaning the Korean pros lining up every build times and stuff, I think that's inevitable if you want to get better, and its just the fate of eSports games (Even CSGO has a gun buy order in the higher leagues.) If you are meaning multitasking and macroing, just stop RTS because it is not the right genre for you. There is no need to get stressed over a game if its most basic thing doesn't appeal. Since we are being honest with God, now, I don't think you're understanding any of what I'm saying. Blizzard created "harass" tools that are used the same by everyone, just as a cookie cutter produces the same result for everyone (provided they are used correctly). They aren't intense or unpredictable to use, so they are boring.
1 dimensional harass units being stupid are about the extent of our agreement.
Your argument on all ins being a chance for comeback is some extreme fallacy, because an all in is "break it or lose it". The moment you fail that all in is when you lose. Now you tell me how many times a failed all inner almost lost the game and then came back and won the thing in an epic 20-30 minute match because that would be an actual cheer.
|
On July 02 2016 11:58 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 11:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
there was no chance to comeback for either side. Honestly, doing all-ins was more fun, more intense. See this is the problem. imo All-ins suck. imo Builds that transition are more fun and produce more intense back-and-forth games. It's just an opinion of yours, there's nothing 'wrong' with SC2, it's just an old game facing stiff competition and has moved away from the style of RTS you enjoy.
You're absolutely right about builds that transition being the best. See that Idra/Bomber game I linked on the first page, that is an example of a good game with transitions are done by both sides. But transitioning today is too cookie cutterish. Back then, so much more was viable because defensive tools weren't as strong, and diversity gave the game more strategies.
But my point was that all-ins were better than macro for 20 minutes then big battle for 8 seconds and game over. That is my opinion of course, you lived through late WOL PvT too, where if the Protoss defended drops, there wasn't much happening.
On July 02 2016 11:58 Kuroeeah wrote:
You're correlating fan cheering with game quality?
No, I'm correlating fans cheering with the parts of the game fans enjoyed most. Let me quote myself:
Go back and watch those WOL games, watch when people cheer. They are cheering early game holds and aggression the loudest because of the intense unpredictable nature. And because the early game was so volatile, a lot of games ended then and there.
Here is one of games in question:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d_mlg-orlando-2011-starcraft-ii-game-1-2-3-eg-idra-z-vs-st-bomber-t-part-2-2_videogames
And that part of the game is exactly the part Blizzard removed. Is it any wonder why the fans moved on? I remember the early game being so intense, and everyone thought Idra was dead, everyone was on the edge of their seats for the early game.
|
WoL was garbage. was a BW elitist then because of it, but I really really like LOTV now. still prefer BW, but when I came back to see what LOTV was like i had low hopes - really have nothing to be smug about now, it's utterly fantastic.
|
On July 02 2016 12:02 RCCar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 11:56 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2016 11:54 Scarecrow wrote:On July 02 2016 11:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
it is clear that fans do not favor the predictable cookie cutter skillset that is now favored. This is only clear in your head and the skillset is just different. Fans have left for a wide variety of reasons, not because of the lack of early game all-ins. See, I think it is true for most fans. Go back and watch those WOL games, watch when people cheer. They are cheering early game holds and aggression the loudest because of the intense unpredictable nature. No one cheers when an Oracle shows up and gets a few kills today because it doesn't require much skill. On July 02 2016 11:53 RCCar wrote:On July 02 2016 11:48 BronzeKnee wrote:
Hyperbole aside, SC2 still takes skill, you still earn things, even expansions to an extent.
But as mentioned, the skill set is different, and it is clear that fans do not favor the predictable cookie cutter skillset that is now favored.
I also want to say that I don't find the harass units difficult to cope with in LOTV. I don't really find LOTV that hard actually in general. Sure it is the faster, but speed was never the issue in WOL. The hard part of WOL was getting to the late game, once I reached it, I took a deep breath.
Now I'm already there. Unfortunately it was the worst part of the game in WOL and while improved in LOTV it isn't as good as the early game in WOL. I tired very quickly of every PvT late in WOL being a 10-15 minute build up (because I defended drops well) to end with an 8 second fight between two huge armies where a single micro mistake could cost you the game. That was boring. The damage was too extreme and there was no chance to comeback.
The same is true today. I honest to god do not know what you mean by the cookie cutter skillset. If you are meaning the meta, you just gotta deal with it because its in every single online game ever made. If you are meaning the Korean pros lining up every build times and stuff, I think that's inevitable if you want to get better, and its just the fate of eSports games (Even CSGO has a gun buy order in the higher leagues.) If you are meaning multitasking and macroing, just stop RTS because it is not the right genre for you. There is no need to get stressed over a game if its most basic thing doesn't appeal. Since we are being honest with God, now, I don't think you're understanding any of what I'm saying. Blizzard created "harass" tools that are used the same by everyone, just as a cookie cutter produces the same result for everyone (provided they are used correctly). They aren't intense or unpredictable to use, so they are boring. 1 dimensional harass units being stupid are about the extent of our agreement. Your argument on all ins being a chance for comeback is some extreme fallacy, because an all in is "break it or lose it". The moment you fail that all in is when you lose. Now you tell me how many times a failed all inner almost lost the game and then came back and won the thing in an epic 20-30 minute match because that would be an actual cheer.
Watch the game between Bomber and Idra. Bomber doesn't do an all-in he does an aggressive play with non-harass units, which doesn't really exist in LOTV while transitioning.
|
Surviving cheese just to have a long game may have felt rewarding to you - and sure, I like competing from the beginning, but dying because you didn't scout a 4gate didn't feel fun - it was a waste of time.
The reason WoL was popular back then was because it was what made esports big in the west before everything else came out - because it had the reputation of being big in korea, so people were interested in checking out. People became open minded about competitive gaming afterwards because of it.
But it was certainly a niche in the west at the time. The games weren't particularly good.
|
On July 02 2016 12:19 coolprogrammingstuff wrote:
Surviving cheese just to have a long game may have felt rewarding to you - and sure, I like competing from the beginning, but dying because you didn't scout a 4gate didn't feel fun - it was a waste of time.
You were too greedy in WOL if you weren't scouting or were taking risks knowing you couldn't scout. I know today, defending is much easier, you don't need the Evo for the Spore, ect... so you don't need to scout as much. Because of that, the game is much more mechanical.
Counterstrike and DOTA were released long before SC2. And when SC2 came out, FPS and MOBAs weren't as good as they are today. Remember, SC2 took over MLG from Halo.
The big difference is my eyes, is that MOBAs and FPS have consistently evolved and become better over time, while RTS hasn't. Blizzard has spuns it wheels with the same bad design ideas throughout each iteration, and just copied skill shot abilities from MOBAs for new units in LOTV.
I don't think SC2 was doomed from the start at all, it could still be #1. I think it didn't improve as much as other genres, and got left in the dust. But that wasn't fate, that was Blizzard's fault.
|
It's not an interesting article. You're just old. Please leave. Don't let the door hit you on your way out. This game is fine. Thanks for posting.
|
Is this just poorly masked PO whine?
|
Sorry i see no comparison. Also SC2 WoL was shit your are looking through rose tinted glasses. Step of War \Xel'Naga Tower not thanks ..
SC2 is fine this what the developers want, they have had plenty of time to change it but hey havent. these "good old" days are garbage. Play SC 1 if you want a harder game, its still popular
|
|
|
see the game is pretty hard, and yes some things have been made easier but you drop 4 bases at once keep up the macro and control it all . . id hardly call that a hand out
|
Italy12246 Posts
You are playing less because SC2 is a 6 year old hardcore competitive game and it's very, very hard to keep playing with the same enjoyment over such a long time. Period.
I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy of some posters in this forum, it's absolutely absurd. Early WoL, when you "had to fight for your expansion with skill", was a one base cheesefest where a lot of the time a player won simply because he happened to get lucky with the spawn positions or map (close by ground Metalopolis vs Zerg, hello!). PvP was absolutely fucking unbearable, especially on maps like Tal'darim Altar or Bel'shir Beach. People fucking HATED cheeses and all-ins, we all hated blistering fucking sands, the 111 on Xel'naga Caverns (im sure you LOVED playing those games), having to soultrain zergs or die trying...i could name more. Everyone was claiming for macro games and macro maps that blizzard wasn't providing, that's why TLMC was born in the first place.
More people than today were watching and cheering because we Starcraft players were the first ones to truly make competitive gaming huge. BW, WC3, CS and Quake all came before SC2, but they never had the massive explosion SC2 had. We all had that feeling that something new and awesome was starting, and it was great to be part of it. Today i feel like people tend to cheer more for the game or players themselves, rather than for the sheer enthusiasm and novelty of it, and that's fine.
|
WoL was terrible at it's infancy. The unpredictability mostly had to do with people not understanding the game.
|
|
|
Why is this article remotely relevant? You're just projecting your emotions onto random words, this could have been about making the perfect salad dressing and you still would have said it's comparable to SC2.
|
I cannot see the point of this, balance changes (PO or other changes) are not done to make it more accessible. Frankly that argument has nothing to do with balance and gameplay. The "everyone deserves a medal" argument cannot be used in sc2 at all, the reason is that its a 1v1 game. Both cannot win, its impossible, You are either a winner or a loser, that is what the wow writers point was. It annoyed me and got me to quit wow, any 7 year old can play to max level in wow easy, then what have you yourself been able to accomplish? Then when the end game too got made into easy-mode everything you did felt futile.
Can you argue that any seven year old can go to master in sc2? No? In sc2 if you do win you have accomplished something and that isn't a feeling that have been watered down.
|
@BronzeKnee
I played World of WarCraft since the release in Europe and I can say that I gathered a lot of experience about the changes t
that happened ingame. I played through Vanilla, TBC, WOTLK, Cataclysm, Mists of Pandaria and experienced the start of Warlord of Draenor and there is one thing that I thought really changed things:
As an experienced player you felt, at least in PvE, as if your performance was cut down to the gear that was available to you and the mandatory button smashing. You could still do smart decision in terms of positioning and trying to line cooldowns in a better way but overall the ability to make a difference by the usage of abilities was gone.
StarCraft2 is different from that because you still have so many options to play and so many different layers to improve your gameplay that, especially as a non-grandmaster, you can do nearly everything you want if you spent the time and effort to figure it out. That is something that is simply not possible anymore for WoW, but it is for StarCraft2 and that is the point were your comparison is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
