|
On August 16 2016 23:15 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 15:51 insitelol wrote:On August 16 2016 13:31 Khai wrote:
I never understand why competitive games undergo such drastic changes, particularly when it's not at the start of a season/year. This. But i guess DK is in the state where "SC2 is only getting worse everyday so let's turn everything on its head we got nothing to lose". I've been saying this for ages: "leave this game alone". It's not healthy for an esport to be changed drastically every half a year. But people continue to drag in their "the more changes the better" casual attitude. It's keeping the game fresh the say. "i'll definitely gonna play after these changes". They said this before the LoTV release, they are saying this now. But the truth is LoTV has A HALF of HoTS playerbase http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=1&r=-2&sx=a&sy=c . Where are you guys, you promised me to play the game, you hyped so much, i believed you. But it all turned out that changes didnt attract new players or make old ones to come back but instead scared off the huge number of dedicated players. I myself did go through a long period of apathy and irritation, and finally overcame that and adapted. But seems like half of the players where lost in the process. Now they are gonna do it again. And all i see is people hyping that w/o even understanding how this will turn out lead by avilo who's only purpose is to attract attention to his person. I was one that was hyped for LOTV and played very little and didn't watch to much either. Why? Because the game failed to deliver what i was personally hoping for: mech. Even more, the only MU where mech worked became a shit fest IMO, TvT; even the classic marine tank became way worse due to tankvacs. So i was disillusioned and frustrated with SC2 and the design team. The announced changes are giving me a lot of hope that things will finally fall in to place and i can't wait to start playing again. I'm also not a fan of avilo's thinking of "often and big changes like the MOBAS". I think the game needs big changes now, to fix design issues, and once that is dealt with, minor balance changes might be enough for a long, long time.
Brood War was very lucky to not need any balance or design changes after 2001, primarily due to the innovations brought on by revised build orders, new exploits, new maps and players further breaking mechanical boundaries.
Mech is a classic example of where David Kim royally fucked up with LotV and I am so glad they're changing things from Blizzcon onwards. It is almost impossible to play Mech from a competitive standpoint in any of the three matchups, because of how hard the Mech arsenal - or the air units that you have to build because Mech has shitty anti-air - get countered by key Protoss and Zerg units.
The Siege Tank desperately needed a damage buff, because it simply doesn't do the alpha damage it did back in Brood War, whist being 50% more supply inefficient and costing more vespene gas than its BW counterpart.
(Yes, Siege Tanks in BW cost 2 supply compared to the SC2 version which costs 3. Also, they cost 25 less Vespene Gas in BW in comparison to SC2, while dealing far less burst damage and DPS.)
|
If they really want people to test it widely, it needs to be accessible within a few clicks from the multiplayer screen and come with matchmaking. I don't really understand why they always just put out a "test map" and what useful data they can gather from it when most people won't bother looking for it - and even if they do, it's very hard to find an evenly matched game and most of the games will be onesided stomps not affected by the changes in any way.
|
I think big design changes after every blizzcon would probably do wonders for SC2
|
On August 16 2016 23:44 ROOTFayth wrote:
I think big design changes after every blizzcon would probably do wonders for SC2
I think it depends a lot on the state of the game, I don't want there to be change for the sake of it.
|
Cyclone looks way too volatile with that design: the unit now deals 42 DPS, 84 vs armored, and gains 14 DPS per upgrade or -14 per point of armor. That's so extreme that a single upgrade is going to completely decide games. A 33% damage swing for one upgrade is significantly more extreme than even the basic units (lings/marines).
I am personally NOT looking forward to two banelings no longer killing banelings in ZvZ (they will now survive with 1 HP). That's going to make being the defender in ling/bane an absolute nightmare, and it's already very stressful and a losing game.
|
On August 16 2016 23:41 opisska wrote:
If they really want people to test it widely, it needs to be accessible within a few clicks from the multiplayer screen and come with matchmaking. I don't really understand why they always just put out a "test map" and what useful data they can gather from it when most people won't bother looking for it - and even if they do, it's very hard to find an evenly matched game and most of the games will be onesided stomps not affected by the changes in any way.
I heard that they want to integrate the balance test map into the matchmaking queue, but it won't come today. It may come in a few weeks though.
|
On August 16 2016 23:49 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 23:41 opisska wrote:
If they really want people to test it widely, it needs to be accessible within a few clicks from the multiplayer screen and come with matchmaking. I don't really understand why they always just put out a "test map" and what useful data they can gather from it when most people won't bother looking for it - and even if they do, it's very hard to find an evenly matched game and most of the games will be onesided stomps not affected by the changes in any way. I heard that they want to integrate the balance test map into the matchmaking queue, but it won't come today. It may come in a few weeks though.
Great, looking forward to it. It's gonna be the BETA feeling all over again!
I still cherish my memories of nexus-canon rushing people fondly 
|
On August 16 2016 22:57 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 22:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 16 2016 13:51 avilo wrote:
Anyways, my main thoughts about all those changes are - hallelujah. Who gives a fuck if some of the changes are too good or too bad. The point is they're changes that actually change the way we'll play the game rather than this game slowly dying off while every single caster pretends like the same exact 2 rax stim into 16 marine drop into the Terran dying to ultras is the epitome of SC2 strategic gameplay.
SC2 consists of more than just TvZ. Also, i see lots of Medivac/Tank/Marine/Widow Mine compositions in TvZ. you can not see the forest through the trees. The entire genre is in decline and a lower tide means all boats are lower. All Blizzard can do is slow the decline. I'm happy with these changes and with Blizzard's continued efforts to support an RTS game. However, the entire genre and all teh games in it will continue to decline. It does not matter what Creative Assembly, Blizzard, Relic, and Blackbird/Gearbox do.. its already over. The reasons its over are beyond the scope of David Kim's job and the job of Team 1. David Kim is doing a great job. On August 16 2016 20:58 Blackfeather wrote:
I think dota 2 is bigger than lol only in terms of prizepool not viewers yet (hard to say with ingame viewers and valve not releasing numbers to ti6 yet). But yeah, those two are at the top afaik.
Honestly whenever viewer numbers are declining visibly companies should probably shake up the meta. not always. sometimes the game is perfectly fine and forces beyond the game are causing it to decline in popularity. Dunno, most competitive people I know stick to their guns unless they get either bored or frustrated. A new meta usually solves both. Hell I haven't been laddering since early swarm and am hyped for balance changes, cause I really want sc2 to succeed and be the game I envision (not like that's ever gonna come true, nor saying that would be desirable for everyone). Also a lot of genres have been labeled "dying" weren't dead at all. Look at RPGs, which were supposedly dead before DA:O and now are a stable AAA genre again. The genre is more dying because nobody is investing than dying because there's a huge lack of interest. I mean mobas are doing great, 4x are doing well, why should RTS be the only one left out? Haven't played AoA, but outside of that the only new AA RTS I know of has been GG which had a lot of design flaws. They tried to create CnC in scifi but their units and atmosphere were utterly boring. Pretty optimistic that Relic's gonna make money with DoW III unless they screw up big time.
you use the word "dying" i dont. the claim made by those saying the RTS genre still has a chance at immense popularity is that every single game maker is making bad games. Nah, these game makers have moved on and no longer want to extract blood from a stone.
now that we have free 10+ player voice on PC no one wants to play lonely 1v1 games while sitting at their PC at home. That is out of Blizzard's , Ensemble's and EALA's control.
|
On August 16 2016 23:46 Ansibled wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 23:44 ROOTFayth wrote:
I think big design changes after every blizzcon would probably do wonders for SC2 I think it depends a lot on the state of the game, I don't want there to be change for the sake of it.
by state of the game you mean how popular it is? because at this point I don't think balance matters too much in terms of either bringing in new players or bringing back old players
|
I love the fact that Blizzard gives so much love to sc2 and has courage to bring so big changes. But as Zerg I have some issues with that. For example- Ravagers will now have armoured mark just as roaches. I just can't imagine how Zerg would defend new cyclone/new tank push when the changes will go live...As both wreck armoured units so freaking hard now.I mean Hydra maybe, but even if its light it still will die from 2 shots of tanks...I know that mech has some problems but i don't think that those design changes are balanced. Hope they will tweak some of it later.
|
hydras will have 1 extra range it's going to make a sizeable difference, also for now it's design change, they will attack balance after
|
On August 16 2016 23:53 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 22:57 Blackfeather wrote:On August 16 2016 22:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 16 2016 13:51 avilo wrote:
Anyways, my main thoughts about all those changes are - hallelujah. Who gives a fuck if some of the changes are too good or too bad. The point is they're changes that actually change the way we'll play the game rather than this game slowly dying off while every single caster pretends like the same exact 2 rax stim into 16 marine drop into the Terran dying to ultras is the epitome of SC2 strategic gameplay.
SC2 consists of more than just TvZ. Also, i see lots of Medivac/Tank/Marine/Widow Mine compositions in TvZ. you can not see the forest through the trees. The entire genre is in decline and a lower tide means all boats are lower. All Blizzard can do is slow the decline. I'm happy with these changes and with Blizzard's continued efforts to support an RTS game. However, the entire genre and all teh games in it will continue to decline. It does not matter what Creative Assembly, Blizzard, Relic, and Blackbird/Gearbox do.. its already over. The reasons its over are beyond the scope of David Kim's job and the job of Team 1. David Kim is doing a great job. On August 16 2016 20:58 Blackfeather wrote:
I think dota 2 is bigger than lol only in terms of prizepool not viewers yet (hard to say with ingame viewers and valve not releasing numbers to ti6 yet). But yeah, those two are at the top afaik.
Honestly whenever viewer numbers are declining visibly companies should probably shake up the meta. not always. sometimes the game is perfectly fine and forces beyond the game are causing it to decline in popularity. Dunno, most competitive people I know stick to their guns unless they get either bored or frustrated. A new meta usually solves both. Hell I haven't been laddering since early swarm and am hyped for balance changes, cause I really want sc2 to succeed and be the game I envision (not like that's ever gonna come true, nor saying that would be desirable for everyone). Also a lot of genres have been labeled "dying" weren't dead at all. Look at RPGs, which were supposedly dead before DA:O and now are a stable AAA genre again. The genre is more dying because nobody is investing than dying because there's a huge lack of interest. I mean mobas are doing great, 4x are doing well, why should RTS be the only one left out? Haven't played AoA, but outside of that the only new AA RTS I know of has been GG which had a lot of design flaws. They tried to create CnC in scifi but their units and atmosphere were utterly boring. Pretty optimistic that Relic's gonna make money with DoW III unless they screw up big time. you use the word "dying" i dont. the claim made by those saying the RTS genre still has a chance at immense popularity is that every single game maker is making bad games. Nah, these game makers have moved on and no longer want to extract blood from a stone. now that we have free 10+ player voice on PC no one wants to play lonely 1v1 games while sitting at their PC at home. That is out of Blizzard's , Ensemble's and EALA's control.
Sorry if I put words in your mouth, wasn't my intention, I'm pretty tired.
I'm not convinced that ranked 1v1 is the future as well. But I can see 2v2 or 3v3 f.e. work if it's done well, gets rid of most of the old remnants that slow the game down unnecessarily and still provide some atmosphere. DoW 1 is a still a lot of fun on LAN-parties.
I think relic is on a good way from what little we know of DoW3.
Also imo a well made single player rts could still sell well. A lot of the buyers of sc2 never saw the ladder despite the game intentionally being designed as an esport game.
I still think that Sc2 has the potential to get some of their players back if they change the ladder to more of a hybrid between LotV and SCBW and increase the diversity in strategies.
I still don't like their macro mechanics and terrible terrible damage systems, but I doubt they'll change the game that much.
|
Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
|
Im glad blizzard is finally discussing major changes. In my opinion the game would be much more interesting if changes of this magnitude were on the table twice a year.
I know a lot of people hate the idea of learning something new, but adapting to change is a skill that progamers should need anyway.
You cant deny that sc2 interest has declined much more than it should for a blizzard flagship, and changes like this might breathe some life into it.
I think this is one of the best announcements weve had.
|
On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
There will always be demand for competitive 1v1 games, be they RTS, fighting games or other. Maybe not as popular as team games, but still a great need.
EDIT: and SC2, Civs and Total War sell very, very well.
|
Just make the game turn based already god dammit!
|
Is this on a testmap yet?
|
On August 16 2016 23:41 opisska wrote:
If they really want people to test it widely, it needs to be accessible within a few clicks from the multiplayer screen and come with matchmaking. I don't really understand why they always just put out a "test map" and what useful data they can gather from it when most people won't bother looking for it - and even if they do, it's very hard to find an evenly matched game and most of the games will be onesided stomps not affected by the changes in any way.
Also this very much. Please acknowledge this blizzard.
|
On August 17 2016 00:38 Koivusto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 23:41 opisska wrote:
If they really want people to test it widely, it needs to be accessible within a few clicks from the multiplayer screen and come with matchmaking. I don't really understand why they always just put out a "test map" and what useful data they can gather from it when most people won't bother looking for it - and even if they do, it's very hard to find an evenly matched game and most of the games will be onesided stomps not affected by the changes in any way. Also this very much. Please acknowledge this blizzard.
Already been announced they will be adding matchmaking to it.
source
|
On August 17 2016 00:35 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets. There will always be demand for competitive 1v1 games, be they RTS, fighting games or other. Maybe not as popular as team games, but still a great need. EDIT: and SC2, Civs and Total War sell very, very well.
Civs? Civilization is not an RTS. define "very very well" ?
SC2: LotV didn't even make $0.1 Billion. Neither did SC2:HotS.
ATVI counts their revenues in Billions not millions.
I'm very happy ATVI continues to fund SC2 despite its weak #s relative to every other Blizzard franchise except HotS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
