|
This is a result of players of all kinds, levels and regions don't enjoy playing the game as much as they could above everyting else.
TL was chosen as the platform to provide and discuss feedback for blizzard next to the korean pro scene.
The feedback that has been provided by these two instances, while always being quite ambivalent, hasn't been doing well for SC2 at all.
For TL community it was always more important to argue about racial balance in detail rather than helping to improve the basics of the game which make it unjoyable.
People who had nothing else in mind than getting an advantage for their own race in the balance discussions are to blame. There were plenty of them and people who are involved with SC2 professionally or semi-pros took their part in it. Allowing "Welcome to ZParcraft" by TheDWF to happen and take place is just one of the most prominent examples (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/460550-welcome-to-zparcraft-ii).
We experienced Korean pro feedback that was majorly biased depending on who you ask and which race the individual plays when it was not combined feedback by teammanagers.
Blizzard listened to this and therefore failed to shift SC2 into a fun game.
Giving an example:
The results were things like reduction of widow mine radius and an increase afterwards. But everyone failed to see that no matter of the radius of the widow mine it is just another unit that kills the fun of SC2 big time. It's mechanic is being experienced quite unfair for either side as hitting a huge chunk of banelings continually ends game at once and on the other hand they can render completely useless when just hitting one or two zerglings. Either way they feel punishing. Additionally defending against and clearing mines takes alot more effort than executing them.
Instead of discussing the radius of mines SC2 needed a discussion about if SC2 needs more of these mechanics which there already exist quite a few or not.
While there is a micro potential of mines, in opposite to popular believe even in progames the outcome of mines is mostly subject to randomness. It depends mostly on if the unit a mine focuses on is next to other units or not. As SC2 is a fast paced game with narrow timing windows that punishes to miss these timings and therefore players don't have unlimited time to position and micro everyting perfectly the randomness is happening even after the micro potential: Such as if zergs position units in front to take the mine hits and terran uses burrow + targeting micro and kills the first incoming units off with bio, then the damage mines will do after all that is still mainly determined by chance and randomness.
That is one example out of many punishing and frustration creating game mechanics. SC2 needs less of these mechanics instead of more to make it a fun game.
Discussions should have shifted to discuss these mechanics intrinsic value for SC2 instead of from a strict balance perspective.
Some may argue that HOTS TvZ was most fun to play and watch. The truth is SC2 was already then steering towards a dead end but the hope and faith in LOTV was keeping it alive and people involved motivated. Now as LOTV has failed to deliver that faith has declined to the minimum level ever.
And it could predictably not deliver. The issue never was if the radius of the mine is larger or smaller but the mechanic of the mine itself, the unit itself (to stick to the mine example). But blizzard listened to this kind of feedback and got stuck on that kind of game modification inspired by both the korean pro feedback and TL discussions. And to be fair they as well wanted it that way and their design not to be questioned to a certain degree.
That has obviously failed all along the line and one cannot come to any other result when analysing the current happenings which are a the major redesign of SC2 and the probable retirement of the korean SC2 scene. SC2 needs a check of all basic mechanics and unit interactions instead of minor balance adjustments and I was advocating that since the beginning of HOTS in discussions here at TL and being laughed at.
When it comes to the point where you introduce e.g. nexus/pylon cannon to the game you (blizzard) should evaluate better if the mechanic is required at all and if and in which ways it can be detrimental to the game. Instead of just implementing it in an environment of buffs over nerfs you should rather think about how to tone down things that might require Protoss to own and use a mechanic such as the pylon/nexus cannon.
As all the pro and wannabe pro feedback has completely failed to make SC2 any better it is now time to make a change.
Like a child who is completely inexperienced but can very well decide through the feeling of the gut if a thing is right or wrong so can noobs in SC2 see things that go wrong which pros have become blind for already as they see them as a necessary evil to play SC2 at all and forget about them (organisational blindness, professional tunnel vision). But they are not. Things can be changed and SC2 can be good at the same time for noobs and for pros. It doesn't contradict each other at all as most of you at TL asserted all too often. You (Blizzard) cannot just and only listen to the guys who do nothing else than day in day out focus on playing the game competitively. Why would you expect them to think outside the box? They hardly can. Doing so would require them to let go some of their current metagame skill and start thinking in alternatives that would be detrimental to their current level of play. But thinking outside the box would have been required to improve SC2. It hasn't taken place and has even been denied by popular demand here in these TL forums.
Stop. listening. to. them.
It is now time for game designers to take over. We don't need more useless pro feedback that is so narrowed down on certain meta situations that it loses the sight of the whole.
The pros will move on at a certain point, the casters obviously do too, the game is here to stay tho and the people who are enjoying to play a good RTS without ambitions in pro-gaming like myself as well.
Let someone take over who can develop a vision for the game in how the different races and their strengthes and weaknesses should interact and build the design on that.
Reverse and stop band-aid fixes like muta regeneration or nexus/pylon cannon. If mutas are weak focus on what makes them appear weak and tone that down. Giving them regeneration just causes additional problems which ask for additional band-aid fixes. SC2 has gone a long way in wrong decisionmaking to where it is now exactly according to this example.
Create solid foundations:
That cannot be e.g. that Zerg is only the defensive race with mostly melee units while terran being the offensive race with ranged units and I wont go in detail here why that is. You didn't fix that by giving the ravager to zerg but made it worse.
That cannot be to give the most offensive race the best defensive macro mechanic which is mules that allow attacks only to do limited damage. This is clearly a mechanic that must belong to a defensive race to make up for their counterparts aggressive potential.
SC2 never failed through balance but through design. Therefore SC2 needs now game design with clear visions and goals to achieve that make natural sense (as the two examples above of solid foundations).
If you achieve to get these basics right SC2 will then get another chance to re-establish itself at the player base and based on that develop a healthy and natural pro scene. It can get back in korea if the game feels worthy to play and watch and not only a mechanics check 90% with builds narrowed so much by the reigning meta that small deviations put you all-in or make you lose instantly. This is neither fun nor rewarding for both pros nor for noobs.
GL with that!
Adding some references so this can be better classified:
- Headadministrator SCCL 2005/6.
- Headadministrator BWCL 2002 - 2005.
- Extensive map creation in WC2 and Broodwar.
- Player since 1996.
- Still master or high master league capable as proven two seasons ago but I feel very few fun when doing so. :p
|
|
|
Basically it narrows down it is design non balance issue. This has been discussed hundreds of times and Blizzard clearly stated that they do not intended to target design at all unless it is extremely necessary (even though they are doing some now but not enough. My main issue is with the current resource system).
|
Believe it or not but SC2 most likely will not get "another chance", that ship has sailed with LotV release. The core game is six years old, there's no upcoming expansion underway, the gaming audiences had plenty of opportunities to experience the nature of the game and if they didn't like it back then they probably won't even try it after a (not gonna happen) significant re-work (for example other economy models). The core audience will kinda stay the same with a few new people popping up here and there, but that's it, I'm afraid there won't be that huge new influx of players/viewers you're hoping for.
I don't want to sound super pessimistic here, but you got to sort of realistic, it's not a new game Blizzard can hope to gain huge revenue from promoting anymore.
|
You generalize quite a bit when you say "TeamLiquid has this or that opinion/viewport/agenda/etc".
There is many different people on TL and many different voices. There are certainly some members to which your description applies, but I dont see myself in your words at all.
|
TLDR, i think blizzard have had their hands tied behind their back with this game from KR for a long time. Noones been allowed to say anything but Blizzard are serious shit now, they dont need anyone to prop up or develop an infrastructure for them.
I think when kespa or the KR scene falls, the secret pulling of strings behind the scenes which to me are all too apparent, the brand 'starcraft' in general will improve.
Come on, noones really ever said it but starcrafts whole design and structure has been directed by anyone but blizzard themselves, th KR scene who adopted this game as their own and televised it i think struck a deal a long time ago to keep things as they wanted it.
You could see blizzard wouldnt entertain any ideas when people started to try to take matters into their own hands when we could clearly see HOTS was basically WOL with a few extra units just delaying the inevitable stalemate game play we came to see 2 yrs earlier. It made no sense to me why blizzard wouldnt just try to implement some of the ideas the community had with some balance changes, economy and general balance. It just didnt happen!
The final straw for me was this year when multiple times the community and pros alike would suggest something what seems reasonable to fix an issue and then blizzard would seem to address something entirely different. Im going to bet that blizz employees are all under an extreme NDA NOT to mention any ties they have with organisations which have built a brand using their game so 'changes' are strictly not allowed in the interest of players training regimes.
Recently we have seen the KR scene taken away from foreign competition. I think this was the first steps of blizzard getting control of their property back, bleed them out so to speak of resources . . cash!
Just look at the fast and rapid changes they apply to all their other games, communitys cry, they change things quickly! With SC2, nope! Not going to happen! Why? Why not just try?
When the crash for the SC2 scene is complete you can expect to see this game take some massive shifts, become free to play and all those millions of ideas may become dlc in themselves to make the game interesting for everyone whilst keeping the GM league and competitive nature fully in tact. Come on, im not having it a company like this would bury their own flagship game and community. They have to be following some kind of 3rd party ruling.
I think after this blizzcon we are going to see some massive overhaul. Lets just see but i think the future of sc2 is going to get a hell of a lot brighter
|
I agree creager but I was mainly aiming towards korea with that. I believe it is possible for SC2 in Korea to live up again if the game gets right even after a shutdown of current highest tier teams and leagues. The foundation of broodwar is just big enough so that people will take notice of major changes and when the game gets in fact less frustrating and punishing to play.
On October 03 2016 00:32 RoomOfMush wrote:
You generalize quite a bit when you say "TeamLiquid has this or that opinion/viewport/agenda/etc".
There is many different people on TL and many different voices. There are certainly some members to which your description applies, but I dont see myself in your words at all.
I concluded that with the ambivalent feedback at the top of the text. Of course there are different voices but only few voices were listened to. And most pro feedback was completely stuck in thinking inside the box unfortunately.
|
You discuss problems which are solely the fault of the design team and then request they stop listening to pros and that will help them make better decisions.
Ok.
Roughly speaking, pros just want the game to be challenging yet fair for all three races and this is in line with the Design team's desires for Starcraft.
|
For TL community it was always more important to argue about racial balance in detail rather than helping to improve the basics of the game which make it enjoyable.
Honestly over the past 6 years i saw so many quality design discussions on this forum. (Lalush, Hider, Starbow guys and other) These guys challenged my own viewpoints countless times.
|
On October 03 2016 00:36 BEARDiaguz wrote:
You discuss problems which are solely the fault of the design team and then request they stop listening to pros and that will help them make better decisions.
Ok.
Roughly speaking, pros just want the game to be challenging yet fair for all three races and this is in line with the Design team's desires for Starcraft.
You don't design stuff "roughly speaking", though. Saying pro players and Blizzard have roughly the same desires for StarCraft isn't very telling, because "the game should be challenging yet fair" is a very, very broad goal that everyone can agree on.
|
On October 03 2016 00:36 BEARDiaguz wrote:
You discuss problems which are solely the fault of the design team and then request they stop listening to pros and that will help them make better decisions.
Ok.
Roughly speaking, pros just want the game to be challenging yet fair for all three races and this is in line with the Design team's desires for Starcraft.
All that pro-feedback and feedback from TL hasn't lead the game into a better position.
It even hindered blizzard to fix the fundamentals of the game but instead put focus on minimal changes such as "nerf bunker build time".
Therefore in my eyes it was at the first place more or less useless. I do not deny that if the fundamentals get right then pro feedback becomes important again. But they as a whole have failed to put the focus on the most important issues, which are matter of design and not balance. They stayed in the box blizzard gave them, so to speak. Therefore nothing has changed for the better and the game carries still the same fundamental problems as in the beginning.
But it is not on pros to give fundamental design feedback and suggestions. As I described they are the wrong persons to ask. Therefore I ask blizzard to stop asking them.
|
Every single thing HotS and LotV introduced was unnecessary (when not straight harmful for the game) and now we're fighting desperately to try to make things that should never have existed / been needed in the first place be fair and work (oracles, adepts, tempests, disruptors, mothership core : all unnecessary or evidence of unsound design ; swarm host : unnecessary, viper : shouldn't have been needed ; liberator, mines : wouldn't have been needed had the tank been solid...). And I fear this is never going to be the case, or it will be the case someday, but when the playerbase will be narrowed down to 3 players. I knew things were going to turn out poorly since they decided every expansion should be a revolution. So much could have been done with WoL set of units... Close your eyes and imagine every sensible change that has been made since (warpgate change, +4 range on phoenix, the WoL -> HotS ultra buff... / all the multiplayer changes with visible MMR, separate MMR...) had been done when we transitioned from WoL to HotS. We wouldn't be playing the #100 esports right now.
|
I still think Queen range 3-5 was a huge mistake and Photon Overcharge went further in the wrong direction. Warpgate was the first problematic design because it's strictly better than Gateways and it eliminates defenders advantage. Gateway units were weaker to compensate which meant that Protoss couldn't move out on the map to pressure the opponent without committing so they either have to turtle or all-in. Queen range and Photon Overcharge changed the other match-ups to be like this too and these are the worst aspects of the game in my eyes so I wish it could be revisited. It doesn't look it will get any better though so I've just accepted the reality and for the most part moved on from the game now.
|
I think you overestimate how much Pros get to contribute to the general design of Starcraft 2. In the betas for HotS and LotV we got to contribute to design decisions quite a bit (the removal of the warhound and where Blizzard ended up on macro mechanics spring to mind, both fine enough decisions) but aside from that ours aren't the ideas that get implemented. Our job is to try really hard to win games and then tell David Kim what's winning a bit too much. I imagine a lot of what you consider a design flaw is really just something irritating you can overcome through practice and determination, which is kinda the whole point of Starcraft 2.
|
Canada1205 Posts
On October 03 2016 00:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Every single thing HotS and LotV introduced was unnecessary (when not straight harmful for the game) and now we're fighting desperately to try to make things that should never have existed / been needed in the first place be fair and work (oracles, adepts, tempests, disruptors : all unnecessary ; swarm host : unnecessary, viper : shouldn't have been needed ; liberator : shouldn't have been needed had the tank been solid...). And I fear this is never going to be the case, or it will be the case someday, but when the playerbase will be narrowed down to 3 players. I knew things were going to turn out poorly since they decided every expansion should be a revolution. So much could have been done with WoL set of units... Close your eyes and imagine every sensible change that has been made since (warpgate change, +4 range on phoenix, the WoL -> HotS ultra buff... / all the multiplayer changes with visible MMR, separate MMR) had been done when we transitioned from WoL to HotS. We wouldn't be playing the #100 esports right now.
Actually, if there was one change I think was necessary, it was the MSC. Prior to this, Protoss aggression was more of commitment than with other races due to their lack of mobilty. It also meant that you didn't need perfect forcefields to hold off and not straight up die to a basic stim timing.
|
On October 03 2016 00:59 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 00:54 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Every single thing HotS and LotV introduced was unnecessary (when not straight harmful for the game) and now we're fighting desperately to try to make things that should never have existed / been needed in the first place be fair and work (oracles, adepts, tempests, disruptors : all unnecessary ; swarm host : unnecessary, viper : shouldn't have been needed ; liberator : shouldn't have been needed had the tank been solid...). And I fear this is never going to be the case, or it will be the case someday, but when the playerbase will be narrowed down to 3 players. I knew things were going to turn out poorly since they decided every expansion should be a revolution. So much could have been done with WoL set of units... Close your eyes and imagine every sensible change that has been made since (warpgate change, +4 range on phoenix, the WoL -> HotS ultra buff... / all the multiplayer changes with visible MMR, separate MMR) had been done when we transitioned from WoL to HotS. We wouldn't be playing the #100 esports right now. Actually, if there was one change I think was necessary, it was the MSC. Prior to this, Protoss aggression was more of commitment than with other races due to their lack of mobilty. It also meant that you didn't need perfect forcefields to hold off and not straight up die to a basic stim timing.
I ended up adding it to my list because I think it shows P was designed wrong in the first place. I agree it was necessary, but because they were so reluctant to make the sensible change they did to warpgate from HotS to LotV they couldn't buff gateway units.
|
jesus my man. There is no way to 'save' SC2. This is simply supply and demand at work. You could try pouring millions of dollars into this industry, it's just not going to revive it. If anything, it will only increase the SC2 bubble. The popularity is just not there. This isn't the community's fault, this isn't Kespa's fault, this certainly is not Blizzard's fault. It's just pure fact that people don't like RTS's currently. There is no way to fix that.
|
Incidentally, if I had to say what's flawed with Starcraft 2's development process it's that I don't think they have players of a high skill level in the office itself. Competitive game design isn't just creatives with a vision making decisions, what they come up with needs to go through multiple iterations before it's right. And they won't know it's right until proper competitive players get their hands on it and provide feedback that way. Magic: the Gathering is kinda great for this, they have both a design team and a playtest team of ex-pros and combined they go a long way to ensuring that Magic remains a well made competitive game.
As a game Starcraft's two biggest issues are that it's an RTS game, and people just have difficulty wrapping their heads around those these days, and that it's intentionally designed to be incredibly fucking hard to play.
|
Just say it like it is and cut the tldr out brother
Blizzard put a man who ruined Dawn of War in a position to balance the most complex and in depth RTS ever created maybe besides Brood War.
Just look at David Kims method of operation, there really isn't one, he has been floundering around and flip flopping since day 1 pretty much with no clear concise vision of what he wants to do or where he wants the game to go.
Anyone remember Ghosts and blue flame hellions? They got abused for maybe 1 or 2 tournaments and Kim promptly brings the nerf hammer down, then when BL/Infestor chased away 1/4 of the viewers and was obviously imbalanced we had to deal with it for 6 months while the balance team say on their hands claiming that waiting it out was the way to go.
Theres multitudes of examples like this throughout the patches that I'm sure everyone here remembers so theres little need to harp on them all, but still, you can't put someone incompetent in charge and then except things to go good, that doesn't work in real life, and it didn't work with SC2.
|
On October 03 2016 01:13 hjkim1304 wrote:
jesus my man. There is no way to 'save' SC2. This is simply supply and demand at work. You could try pouring millions of dollars into this industry, it's just not going to revive it. If anything, it will only increase the SC2 bubble. The popularity is just not there. This isn't the community's fault, this isn't Kespa's fault, this certainly is not Blizzard's fault. It's just pure fact that people don't like RTS's currently. There is no way to fix that.
can't say I disagree. But had some things been done better, maybe we wouldn't be in dire straits like now. Not the most popular, but in OK shape. Right now everything seems to be falling apart.
|
On October 03 2016 01:26 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 01:13 hjkim1304 wrote:
jesus my man. There is no way to 'save' SC2. This is simply supply and demand at work. You could try pouring millions of dollars into this industry, it's just not going to revive it. If anything, it will only increase the SC2 bubble. The popularity is just not there. This isn't the community's fault, this isn't Kespa's fault, this certainly is not Blizzard's fault. It's just pure fact that people don't like RTS's currently. There is no way to fix that. can't say I disagree. But had some things been done better, maybe we wouldn't be in dire straits like now. Not the most popular, but in OK shape. Right now everything seems to be falling apart.
Things that jump out of the paper as reason for the decline in popularity:
Swarm Host vs mech
Infestor/ broodlord era
No grassroots tournaments (remember the kespa drafts?)
not enough tournaments overall. My memory may be weak but i remember there was a time in early Wings, before the broodlord infestor era that seemed to have a tournament every weekend.
|
I've said this before.
It's ACTIVISION-Blizzard. Not just Blizzard.
It's better for them to let the game slowly die and focus their resources on their big cash cows (hearthstone, WoW, OW).
They still pretend to care because they got a reputation to uphold, but it's apparently obvious they don't.
|
TRUTH. I'd take a fun but unbalanced game over a balanced but boring game any day.
|
On October 03 2016 01:58 hai2u wrote:
TRUTH. I'd take a fun but unbalanced game over a balanced but boring game any day.
Yes. We play games for fun - not 'challenge' nor 'fairness'
|
On October 03 2016 01:58 hai2u wrote:
TRUTH. I'd take a fun but unbalanced game over a balanced but boring game any day.
Here is the issue. The game was never meant to be fun. It was made to be an Esports. Unbalance is absolutely not allowed when you create a game and you want to make a sport out of it.
|
|
|
On October 03 2016 00:32 RoomOfMush wrote:
You generalize quite a bit when you say "TeamLiquid has this or that opinion/viewport/agenda/etc".
There is many different people on TL and many different voices. There are certainly some members to which your description applies, but I dont see myself in your words at all.
TL has one viewpoint.
"The game is fine, stop complaining and pointing out flaws because that's unproductive."
Goodbye account
|
On October 03 2016 02:39 Wrath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 01:58 hai2u wrote:
TRUTH. I'd take a fun but unbalanced game over a balanced but boring game any day. Here is the issue. The game was never meant to be fun. It was made to be an Esports. Unbalance is absolutely not allowed when you create a game and you want to make a sport out of it.
This is absolutely correct.
On October 03 2016 02:46 PtitDrogo wrote:
I'm triggered
It's funny how pros these days (with only a couple exceptions) have nothing interesting or worthwhile to say about these vital topics. I do miss the days when people like qxc, HuK, even IdrA actually made thoughtful posts to these kinds of discussions instead of just shitposting weak memes or "bait".
|
There is just happening what I was expecting years ago. RTS based on intense use of mechanic, punishing for every slight mistake are outdated - look at MOBA's and their huge success.
Why doesn't SC 2 had automated production - why this game came down only to mechanical grind? There were no strategy involved unless u were on the highest tier. Most of your time and energy had to be invested in mechanical intense excercise - and this was not funny, nor pleasant.
But Blizzard was always listening to "old guard" (if one can say that) of RTS enthusiasts - those who were saying that game shouldn't be simplified, that it should be mechanically demanding. Those people had forgotten that for game to be succesfull as an e-sport there must be reasonable pool of spectators - and those spectators are coming from the ranks of players.
If u have game demanding mechanical grind, where slightest mistakes are punished, where come backs are rare you won't get big pool of gamers, and thus you won't get a big pool of spectators.
Take a look at LoL for example - game loathed by SC2 elitists for its "simplicity". As it is this game is mechanically simplier but it is much more strategic - there, instead of mechanical grind, most important aspect of playing is decision making. In SC2 it is exactly opposite. Anyone can see which game is doing better at the moment.
|
On October 03 2016 03:00 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 02:39 Wrath wrote:On October 03 2016 01:58 hai2u wrote:
TRUTH. I'd take a fun but unbalanced game over a balanced but boring game any day. Here is the issue. The game was never meant to be fun. It was made to be an Esports. Unbalance is absolutely not allowed when you create a game and you want to make a sport out of it. This is absolutely correct. It's funny how pros these days (with only a couple exceptions) have nothing interesting or worthwhile to say about these vital topics. I do miss the days when people like qxc, HuK, even IdrA actually made thoughtful posts to these kinds of discussions instead of just shitposting weak memes or "bait".
Your only contribution in this thread is writing "you are correct" and you're shitting and me, nice bait.
This thread is just as smart as the guy that did a video on reddit Blaming Destiny's Reddit post for the downfall of Starcraft 2.
Funny thing is that Historically David didn't fucking listen to pros, that's how we ended up with Broodlord/Infestors for so long remember ?
Many many people were posting about "Doing a massive redesign of everything to fix the game" over the years, but I've never seen someone directly targeting the pros like that. (plz keep the bullying to David kim ).
But you know, ignoring all the anecdotal "evidence" of this thread that you use to make your point, I actually agree with you, sc2 could be a lot better designed. Sure ! But this ? :
"Create solid foundations:
That cannot be e.g. that Zerg is only the defensive race with mostly melee units while terran being the offensive race with ranged units and I wont go in detail here why that is. You didn't fix that by giving the ravager to zerg but made it worse.
That cannot be to give the most offensive race the best defensive macro mechanic which is mules that allow attacks only to do limited damage. This is clearly a mechanic that must belong to a defensive race to make up for their counterparts aggressive potential."
2010 wants its balance whine back.
P.S: I'm just a biased pro gamers that wants an unfair advantage even if it means destroying the game so feel free to ignore my post
|
Katowice25012 Posts
While I agree there may be a bit of truth here, I think your premise is overall faulty. I'm not sure why you are uniquely qualified to notice all pros talk only about balance in a biased way, as if that's not something other parties, notably SC2 designers themselves, notice. For example, I have in the past criticized Blizzard for not hiring ex-professionals the way some other studios do (Riot and Wizards of the Coast) to lead their balance teams, as in-house feedback from people who have shown they understand the games on a competitive level to help discuss those issues. The response I got (in personal face to face conversations with them) is that they don't because they feel both that these people can't provide useful feedback on the game as a whole on the level they need, in addition to not having the correct "design" skills they would want in that role. Both things you accuse them of doing.
My general feeling, as someone who has frequent meetings with Blizzard on the professional level (and has in the past and is currently negotiating contracts of tournament structure such as WCS, plus providing feedback), and as someone who consistently has sit down one on one casual discussions with the Morhaimes and development leads of SC2 and other games*, is that designers don't take this feedback very seriously. I don't think any of them have the time to read TL, these are guys that have 6 hours a meetings a day and need to actually do work on top of that I'm not sure where they would get the time to read TL, Battlenet forums, and reddit. This feedback comes to them in the form of wrap-ups that the community team scours the internet for, and then delivers in summary packages, which they then balance with internal opinions and personal perspective. My guess is this is the norm in the industry, I don't know for sure, but it seems to me they judge a lot of these opinions with a weight that is appropriate to their overall business though there are a lot of decisions I don't personally agree with. TL and reddit are more noise than substance so to infer that these heavily changed their core philosophy seems far fetched.
I also don't know why you personally talk down to everyone else talking as "wannabie pros" when you haven't done anything to differentiate yourself from that category, aren't you "just another" novice designer? Why should we believe this instance that tells us what is fun more than the others?
*I'm saying this mostly to brag, but also to give weight to my opinion as a likely possibility
|
Canada8989 Posts
Oh look another "sc2 is shit, it has always beem shit and you should be ashame to love it" thread.
Seriously half the time going to TL just make me sad/angry.
|
On October 03 2016 01:54 halomonian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 01:26 [PkF] Wire wrote:On October 03 2016 01:13 hjkim1304 wrote:
jesus my man. There is no way to 'save' SC2. This is simply supply and demand at work. You could try pouring millions of dollars into this industry, it's just not going to revive it. If anything, it will only increase the SC2 bubble. The popularity is just not there. This isn't the community's fault, this isn't Kespa's fault, this certainly is not Blizzard's fault. It's just pure fact that people don't like RTS's currently. There is no way to fix that. can't say I disagree. But had some things been done better, maybe we wouldn't be in dire straits like now. Not the most popular, but in OK shape. Right now everything seems to be falling apart. Things that jump out of the paper as reason for the decline in popularity: Swarm Host vs mech -snip-.
Funny enough, those games always garnered the most viewers.
|
I have to agree with the OP.
Blizzard is making the game faster, more unforgiving, and is bandaid fixing any problem in the name of balance. They're not noticing that the game isn't particularly fun to play.
I do wish they would make macro harder, and not micro. When micro is soul crushingly hard, you lose just due to one misclick or similar.
If macro was hard, you'd lose because you weren't as good as your opponent.
On October 03 2016 03:39 Nakajin wrote:
Oh look another "sc2 is shit, it has always beem shit and you should be ashame to love it" thread.
Seriously half the time going to TL just make me sad/angry.
You didn't even read the thread
|
On October 03 2016 00:40 ionONE wrote:Show nested quote +For TL community it was always more important to argue about racial balance in detail rather than helping to improve the basics of the game which make it enjoyable.
Honestly over the past 6 years i saw so many quality design discussions on this forum. (Lalush, Hider, Starbow guys and other) These guys challenged my own viewpoints countless times.
And Blizzard listened. You can they took a few things from Starbow in legacy of the void.
|
The two biggest mistakes regarding SC2 in Korea were:
- not having any recent Korean BW pros involved in the initial development of SC2, DKim doesn't count as BW was very different in 2001.
- not coming to an agreement with Kespa immediately. OGN was going to have an SC2 league in 2010 but the Kespa/Blizz dispute canceled it.
They've done a lot to try to make up for those mistakes but a huge part of a game's success, especially in trend-oriented Korea, is momentum, and Blizzard killed what little they had.
---------------------------------
However, I disagree with the popular perception that Blizzard has been making a lot of mistakes recently or that they've been killing their game. I actually think that 2013-present Blizzard has extended the lifespan of a game that didn't seem destined for a long one in the first place.
-WCS stopped the oversaturation of tournaments, improved the EU ladder. WCS NA was probably a mistake as the NA scene wasn't strong enough to improve from the Koreans invading, but WCS EU was brilliant.
-Balance decisions have been controversial, but nothing as bad as BL/Infestor has come up, and most things have been patched without waiting a year or more. WoL was also not that well balanced (except for a short time in early 2012) and was frequently deathball vs deathball.
-The Korean scene finally got a BW-like structure with proleague and 2 major individual leagues, even if it was too late to save the scene.
-Blizzcons have been fantastic.
|
Flash retiring a couple of months right after the lotv release was really into something.
Anyways, my opinion is that SC2 and particularly lotv(wol was the bestbtw) failed because the design is much more micro oriented than macro. And when you make the game a lot faster -with lotv, it becomes a torture to play at some point, at least for the more casual players. i agree with a poster above that said Sc2 should be more about macro.
Oh and the switch should have been faster. The last couple of osl's were pointless in my opinion. The community + the pros were split in half and sc2 lost a lot of momentum.
|
On October 03 2016 03:50 jalstar wrote:
The two biggest mistakes regarding SC2 in Korea were:
- not having any recent Korean BW pros involved in the initial development of SC2, DKim doesn't count as BW was very different in 2001.
- not coming to an agreement with Kespa immediately. OGN was going to have an SC2 league in 2010 but the Kespa/Blizz dispute canceled it.
They've done a lot to try to make up for those mistakes but a huge part of a game's success, especially in trend-oriented Korea, is momentum, and Blizzard killed what little they had.
This I do agree with. They had all the initial hype going for them, but they ended up failing to transition the Korean scene to SC2 as a whole which ended up having the fans refusing to transition also because they kept comparing SC2 to BW (which is very hard to do since SC2 was an all in fest in the beginning as well as unbalanced while BW was very refined at this point as well as having many star players with huge fan base). And when they missed that boat of initial hype, and fans divided, League hit Korea and everyone went to MOBA. This downfall was long overdue. It was kept going because of Blizzard and select few in the community that have been so passionate about this game. The scene won't die. We will still have pro players. But the scene will keep downsizing. Proleague will most likely disappear, and a lot of Korean SC2 teams will be disbanded. This is sad but I can't see this going any other way. Free market at work.
|
Well no need to feel personally attacked @drogo. No need to attack me as well, I am not a balance whiner. Prolly you are just afraid that I could be right in what I say.
Blizzards strategy is to receive feedback from TL and korean pros. Blizzard expressed themselves that feedback of korean pro gamers oftenly is as different as the races they play. These statements and that they do not follow many suggestion as you here state yourself support that it is not that valuable for them in alot of situations.
I don't blame pros at all but they are obviously not the right people to ask everything all the time. Following the reasons of logical thinking one who tries to be best in a certain system and setup cannot at the same time have doubts about this very system which however was needed to acquire the necessary tools to improve the system fundamentally. You simply cannot afford that as a pro as it would decrease your focus on winning the game and then decrease your results. You guys have to fully accept the system to become the best at it at it in the first place, this is a necessary requirement in thinking patterns as you will understand.
You guys are not to be blamed but have to accept that reality. I don't want to judge about individuals but put general conclusions. There surely are individuals who have doubts and certainly these are not helpful for their performance or even cause those many quits and switches to other games.
The ones who can afford doubts are the ones who are not affected by a doubtful way of thinking as their performance doesn't matter.
Compare that with a soccer club: You got players (progamers), coaches, presidents, medicals, etc. You don't have the players decide about acquisitions of the club even tho probably every single one of them surely believes to know best. You don't have the president decide about medical treatments of injured players. Compare it with the balance of powers in executive, legislative and judiciary. That works pretty well in reality and noone would ever try and doubt that system of different strengthes and weaknesses to reach the best results.
Just in SC2 that is different. And it is a clear sign of arrogance that runs like a red thread through the whole scene of SC2 towards:
a) lower level players.
b) players of other games.
It has something of late roman decedence that pro-players are to be expected and probably many believe themselves that they are the only people to ask when it comes to improving that game.
The result of this policy throughout the past years can be seen and is the biggest imaginable debacle with disbandoning teams in korea just 3/4 year after the release of LOTV, which should turn everything to the good.
It is important to note that blizzard relies on and works with that system. No matter how many individual suggestions they have been following in the past this system of mainly relying on pro feedback and working with that should be changed to create different results.
Concerning the bias thing: I mainly directed that towards korea according to the information blizzard itself has released.
Concerning TL: Many people can voice their opinion here and do so, maybe too many. It is more an issue of discussions always going all the way down to the smallest common denominator, which wasn't helpful at all for SC2 as SC2 required larger changes which should not be subject to make everyone happy at once. Yes, they are now coming after all. Lets hope they don't mess it up.
On October 03 2016 03:37 Heyoka wrote:
This feedback comes to them in the form of wrap-ups that the community team scours the internet for, and then delivers in summary packages, which they then balance with internal opinions and personal perspective.
Sure thing. Now one source of failure could be which opinions are being transported to them and which are being emphasized. Anyway I doubt that they would put up a PR and feedback thing like that on TL and then give a shit about it. That simply makes no sense. I am pretty sure they read and evaluate pretty carefully what is brought up here at TL direct or indirect. The reason for that is simple: If Blizzard knew themselves what to do they would not need that kind of system to begin with. Putting it up is a clear sign of them being a bit helpless in how to proceed with SC2 development to say the least and an ask for help.
Also your argument about time doesn't make sense to me. They got a department that solely is responsible to develop the balance and multiplayer experience of SC2. I don't think these guys are burdened with daily 6 hour meetings which deny them to do their actual job especially due to the fact that it is not that much to read. Probably half a day or less is enough to read everything of importance that is being brought up at TL within one week.
|
On October 03 2016 03:55 lastride wrote:
Flash retiring a couple of months right after the lotv release was really into something.
Anyways, my opinion is that SC2 and particularly lotv(wol was the bestbtw) failed because the design is much more micro oriented than macro. And when you make the game a lot faster -with lotv, it becomes a torture to play at some point, at least for the more casual players. i agree with a poster above that said Sc2 should be more about macro.
Oh and the switch should have been faster. The last couple of osl's were pointless in my opinion. The community + the pros were split in half and sc2 lost a lot of momentum.
Huh, I kinda agree with this also. I personally think they should've gotten rid of spell-oriented unit designs as well as unlimited unit selection. Make macro little bit more difficult. I don't mean it in terms of queen injecting etc. but make the game so that the games don't end with 1 oracle, couple of widow mine hits, or have someone win a game with one engagement that ends in 5 seconds and afterwards press F2+A to win.
If we had maybe only 24 or 36 unit selection, I think it could've helped alleviate this issue...
|
Never heard a pro saying : DK listen to me, i suggest some things and he does it...
On the other side, the community, specially NA scene ruins the game :
For TvZ : used to be a fun war bio vs LBM (best MU acording to all).
But :
"We want macro changes"
"we don't like mutas, we want a hard counter"
"We wants mech"
Now they keep spamming : nerf ultras, while it's the direct result of larva nerf and having a mutas hard counter.
And we're going to have turtle mech back thx to Avilo & fan...
Feel like DK does efforts to listen "community" (casual players with bias and poor understanding of the game) and it's what is wrong
|
Bisutopia19231 Posts
How unhappy are you guys with the current state of the game? Disregard what anger you have about the past. The only thing left is what you do about the game right now. SC2 isn't going anywhere, you just may get to a point where you have to contribute more then a view to keep the scene going.
|
When you have a race that can produce its basic units anywhere on the map, but still need it to have shooting supplies, you know you failed as a game designer.
The huge majority of changes made to the game since WOL have been terrible. More gimmicks, more binary units and less counterplay options.
|
So the downfall of sc2 in Korea is because Blizzard listened to pro players... fantastic.
I'm 100% sure I could dig out a shit ton of post from 2 years ago that are saying exactly the opposite. What makes your analysis better?
(Side note : I like the game and have fun playing it every day, shoot me!)
EDIT : Oh and maybe you missed it, but there have been plenty of extremely fun pro games lately, last ones just a few hours ago...
|
On October 03 2016 04:26 LSN wrote:Well no need to feel personally attacked @drogo. No need to attack me as well, I am not a balance whiner. Prolly you are just afraid that I could be right in what I say. Blizzards strategy is to receive feedback from TL and korean pros. Blizzard expressed themselves that feedback of korean pro gamers oftenly is as different as the races they play. These statements and that they do not follow many suggestion as you here state yourself support that it is not that valuable for them in alot of situations. I don't blame pros at all but they are obviously not the right people to ask everything all the time. Following the reasons of logical thinking one who tries to be best in a certain system and setup cannot at the same time have doubts about this very system which however was needed to acquire the necessary tools to improve the system fundamentally. You simply cannot afford that as a pro as it would decrease your focus on winning the game and then decrease your results. You guys have to fully accept the system to become the best at it at it in the first place, this is a necessary requirement in thinking patterns as you will understand. You guys are not to be blamed but have to accept that reality. I don't want to judge about individuals but put general conclusions. There surely are individuals who have doubts and certainly these are not helpful for their performance or even cause those many quits and switches to other games. The ones who can afford doubts are the ones who are not affected by a doubtful way of thinking as their performance doesn't matter. Compare that with a soccer club: You got players (progamers), coaches, presidents, medicals, etc. You don't have the players decide about acquisitions of the club even tho probably every single one of them surely believes to know best. You don't have the president decide about medical treatments of injured players. Compare it with the balance of powers in executive, legislative and judiciary. That works pretty well in reality and noone would ever try and doubt that system of different strengthes and weaknesses to reach the best results. Just in SC2 that is different. And it is a clear sign of arrogance that runs like a red thread through the whole scene of SC2 towards: a) lower level players. b) players of other games. It has something of late roman decedence that pro-players are to be expected and probably many believe themselves that they are the only people to ask when it comes to improving that game. The result of this policy throughout the past years can be seen and is the biggest imaginable debacle with disbandoning teams in korea just 3/4 year after the release of LOTV, which should turn everything to the good. It is important to note that blizzard relies on and works with that system. No matter how many individual suggestions they have been following in the past this system of mainly relying on pro feedback and working with that should be changed to create different results. Concerning the bias thing: I mainly directed that towards korea according to the information blizzard itself has released. Concerning TL: Many people can voice their opinion here and do so, maybe too many. It is more an issue of discussions always going all the way down to the smallest common denominator, which wasn't helpful at all for SC2 as SC2 required larger changes which should not be subject to make everyone happy at once. Yes, they are now coming after all. Lets hope they don't mess it up. Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 03:37 Heyoka wrote:
This feedback comes to them in the form of wrap-ups that the community team scours the internet for, and then delivers in summary packages, which they then balance with internal opinions and personal perspective.
Sure thing. Now one source of failure could be which opinions are being transported to them and which are being emphasized. Anyway I doubt that they would put up a PR and feedback thing like that on TL and then give a shit about it. That simply makes no sense. I am pretty sure they read and evaluate pretty carefully what is brought up here at TL direct or indirect. The reason for that is simple: If Blizzard knew themselves what to do they would not need that kind of system to begin with. Putting it up is a clear sign of them being a bit helpless in how to proceed with SC2 development to say the least and an ask for help. Also your argument about time doesn't make sense to me. They got a department that solely is responsible to develop the balance and multiplayer experience of SC2. I don't think these guys are burdened with daily 6 hour meetings which deny them to do their actual job especially due to the fact that it is not that much to read. Probably half a day or less is enough to read everything of importance that is being brought up at TL within one week.
Will you believe me if I tell you David kim and the entire Sc2 design team didn't listen to pro until 2016 ? (and even then it was just a little bit)
Therefore the pros were physicly unable to destroy sc2 design ?
You seem really convinced of that fact, ence your entire post, but it's just not the case.
|
Before we enter an infinite loop that ends with a lock to this thread can we get an actual Korean opinion on the matter?
|
100% disagree with the premise of your thread entirely.
Because your thread is actually under the assumption that there were ever patch changes made to the game in a consistent and iterative manner.
But they were never done like that.
In fact, it's quite the opposite of exactly what your thread premise is. Blizzard almost never listened to the community on anything, especially when it came to gameplay. Or when they did it was with a delay of 1+ yr each time which was not helpful.
Remember TL discussions of DH10 and DH9 economy models? These were never tested on a live game. Blizzard claimed to only test them internally.
Remember all the discussions of high ground advantage? Never implemented, or considered publicly.
Remember mech not being viable ever since the siege tank nerf and the past 4+ yrs of people like myself and others basically handing blizzard the blueprints on how to make mech viable without being OP? They still refuse to listen that mech has no anti-air unit EVEN TO THIS DAY on the test mod there still is no factory anti-air option to promote factory based play.
Remember the 1+ yr it took for blizzard to acknowledge that infestors+broodlords was ridiculously OP and ruining the game to the point we had ZvZ games that devolved into both players doing this exact strategy and the entire pro scene had almost become entirely ZvZ at one point? It was blizzard's ego and the fact they weren't listening that led to this taking so long to fix.
Remember almost 1 yr later the same exact thing happened with swarmhosts and blizzard still refused to do anything and listen to the community or tweak anything at all. Both of these situations arose because blizzard had the terrible habit of believing if a match-ups winrate was 50/50 between two races then the game was perfectly balanced despite the gameplay being utterly terrible.
Remember mass adepts in LOTV? OH WAIT. This is still currently in the game even since after the beta, and the entire last 9 months this still is ruining the game and blizzard refuses to listen to the community about it and take any aggressive stance on making changes to it. All because they still faultily believe that if winrates are fine it's ok for Protosses to make 99% adepts in their games.
Your thread premise does not match up to the reality that Blizzard never listened to the community, and blizzard has been incompetent as hell and slow as fuck to ever respond to any of the design or balance concerns of this game.
Problematic champions/heroes in HOTS, LoL, and DotA are addressed quite quickly before they destroy the balance ecosystem of those games. Just a day or two ago Zarya was hotfixed in Heroes of the Storm because she was way overperforming.
So why the fuck is this not done to blatantly game breaking mechanics like invincible nydus worm (still in the game)? Why are there no hotfixes to massing pure adepts (still in the game)? Why are there no hotfixes to parasitic bomb (still in the game)? 8 armor ultras? Still in the game. Mass ravagers? Yep stil in the game.
What about the queen range buff that was just put in the game which was unnecessary and to be blatantly honest has ruined the game just as badly as the previous queen range buff that occurred over 2 yrs ago?
Mech viability? It's taken 4+ yrs for blizzard to acknowledge the siege tank sucks.
Do you see my point? Your thread original post is claiming the downfall of SC2 is somehow everyone here on teamliquid's fault or the SC2 reddit or the battle.net forums, etc. How is that possible when blizzard has consistently shown they refuse to embrace the iterative design process they talk about, and they almost never patch SC2?
You're living in a dreamworld where this game is patched bi-weekly - 1 month like other successful games, and then assuming that SC2 is in the current state it's in. I can assure you, if that were the case, SC2 would be alive and thriving way more than it is now.
Currently, blizzard is still on the "hey we'll patch every year" schedule of "iterative" changes, and then when any of those changes are bad they are left in the game for the next 1+ yr.
Those are just my thoughts, and i'm sure a lot of people will analyze the situation objectively. If myself or someone wanted to we can go back through every patch for SC2 that has been released and you'll be presented quite a terrible picture of an "iterative process."
|
On October 03 2016 04:37 BisuDagger wrote:
How unhappy are you guys with the current state of the game? Disregard what anger you have about the past. The only thing left is what you do about the game right now. SC2 isn't going anywhere, you just may get to a point where you have to contribute more then a view to keep the scene going.
I think it's terrible
But there isn't a better game either, so whatcha gunna do.
There aren't a lot of fun interactions in the game. What's the ZvP meta? Chase adepts around your bases, losing workers because they *cannot* defend without drone losses while the protoss techs up and expands freely.
ZvZ? 3 hatch ling bane. Oh boy.
ZvT? Try not to die until ultras.
Dumb meta is dumb
|
@Drogo
Well their system relies on pro feedback from korea and on feedback from TL which to a certain degree is being dominated by pro feedback as well, as if a pro says anything here not only few people just blindly follow and support that.
So they certainly work with that feedback but create their own conclusion and assumptions based on that which you don't consider "listen" to pro feedback.
My criticism is mainly addressing blizzard. Their current system of feedback and the use of that feedback obviously hasn't brought the wanted results. Their goal must have been failed.
But I criticize pros as well as those being generally listened the most at but by default (as explained) are not or only limitedly capable of thinking outside the box when giving suggestions. This results in mainly meaningless little changes as pros usually don't demand to make the game good for everyone but close their little balance gap that they are currently focused on. This kind of feedback, no matter if being followed 1:1 or not is not of any value to make SC2 a better game.
In general I aim towards an increase in quality of feedback that blizzard receives from its sources and I advertise for putting less weight on the word and thinking patterns of progamers in order to make the game great again but to search and follow new and different approaches of desgingn the game.
@Avilo, sorry but wrong
It doesn't matter if they listen to pro feedback or not 1:1. What matters is if this feedback has yet brought up the deceisive breakthrough and victory or not and if it is capable of doing so at all.
1. Korean pro feedback is oftenly biased as blizzard stated themselves.
2. Foreigner feedback as far as it can be followed openly here on TL hasn't as well. I have read most of the things in the past years and those were mainly about small, smaller and the smallest changes to fix the tiny little balance gaps that appear mainly at certain level and upwards.
That kind of feedback altogether (the whole approach) is utterly useless to turn the game for the better. I haven't seen a single pro to discuss SC2 from a different angle of view than balance, which can be the first step to thinking outside the box. And it is not their job so I don't blame them. I blame blizzard to still ask their opinion on issues that can't be provided with solutions that have their origin in the thinking patterns of pros by default or not to ask the right questions at all.
SC2 needs other kind of feedback, feedback that is not mainly focused on balance details and motivated by rage about balance but feedback that respects e.g. the fun and frustration levels of unit interactions, and many other things of importance such as the fundamental analysis about the role and effect of mules, offensive vs. defensive metagames and which fits best for which race (put whatever you feel is important there, I put what I consider important from the view of someone that mainly has played zerg in SC2). What I describe is a shift in values away from "balance the game on the highest level of play and it will be good for everyone" cause it has failed drastically, even for the players that play there. As pro feedback obviously and even according to this discussion is not capable to deliver that, we need other sources of influence to determinate the future progression of SC2 multiplayer and potentially bring the deceisive steps.
What has made SC2 what it is now is the broad assumption of only the highest level of play(ers) should be allowed to speak and being deceicive and the meta of discussions mainly circle around those few things that are brought up in this environment. It is what I call arrogance and decadence probably comparable with the late roman.
Believe it or not. I think you guys truly don't know what I am talking of. ^_^
|
It's the maps, dammit, not the units.
There's your base, your driveway, and the street outside, then the middle...
That the topographical designs of maps determine gamestyle so directly isn't fun.
|
|
|
On October 03 2016 05:58 WeddingEpisode wrote:
It's the maps, dammit, not the units.
There's your base, your driveway, and the street outside, then the middle...
That the topographical designs of maps cater so directly in size and shape to gameplay isn't fun.
Yeah that's true the map design is a huge factor for balance. If a race play a tournament, and all the maps unfavor you : your race looks underpowered, and you get buff, but if the maps then become better, so you become overpowered...
But not the first time it was mentionned, pro give some feedbacks : "give us balanced map before engaging patch on the game".
But it was ignored.
DK is pretty lazy with maps, there is no real deep reflexion and it's just : "yeah it looks cool so we release it" even if they're usually bugged...
|
Everything I've been arguing for years.
Blizzard needs a skilled person to lead the direction of the game. That is all there is too it. David Kim is clearly not that person.
|
On October 03 2016 06:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
Everything I've been arguing for years.
Blizzard needs a skilled person to lead the direction of the game. That is all there is too it. David Kim is clearly not that person.
Yeah, what does "skilled" mean to you precisely, because just throwing around that "DK is not skilled enough" is a very old and outdated statement.
DK is highly skilled at making in-depth analysis based on precise data and numbers, that's how he kept the job for so long.
What other skill would you suggest, other than the ability to analyze and interpret lots of data, trying to identify imbalance in numbers and compensate it? How do you define a 100% capable lead designer, since you're so sure that DK lacks the necessary qualities?
|
SC2 never failed through balance but through design. Therefore SC2 needs now game design with clear visions and goals to achieve that make natural sense (as the two examples above of solid foundations).
I agree with your main point here, but i pushed for that in a lot of threads, it's not gonna happen.
The current sc2 is what will stay, either you can find a way to have fun with it (i did i guess) or just try to find another game.
|
SC/RTS in Korea never really made that much cash for Blizzard. The genre has not had the companies attention since the day WoW was released. I'm kinda surprised its lasted this long with Diablo and WoW making far more and now with Overwatch and Hearthstone kicking ass it puts SC2/RTS even lower on the totem pole.
I think Blizzard is putting SC2 into maintenance mode after BlizzCon 2016.
|
Finally someone who gets it. Its not about balance. Even with perfect balance in terms of win rates you still lose 50 percent of time to annoying shit. It's about design. The fundamental error that blizzard makes is that they believe complex abilities/mechanics/fundamentals lead to a more strategic/fun/nuanced game. This is not true! If you look at all successful games (from Chess, soccer, Overwatch, Lol, WC3 even BW), its always simple fundamental things given a large enough space to play out lead to a complex, strategic, and most of all playable game. Further not of these games where original designed for a pro base. By designing SC2 for a pro-base Blizzard has actively destroyed their pro-scene. Simply because the influx of new pros doesn't equal the number retiring. Without noobs learning and supporting the game, the game can't last.
Redesign the game for noobs/fun. However open up maps or push lots of the active abilities to later tier units, and you will get the kind of infinite variation needed to make this comparable to say chess. Simple mechanics + Complexity development through-out the game as players expand/move. Not complex mechanics+ frantic, jagged, volatile, development with abrupt endings
Also forget LoL type active abilities and battles. That game is completely different. Not every SC unit has to be a special sunflower.
|
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place.
|
On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place.
SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans.
That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part.
BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene.
Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect.
|
On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect.
Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument.
|
On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect.
Agreed. I almost exclusively played ums for the duration of BW. Sc2 arcade wasn't too great so i wound up getting into ladder more so on it which i find way too stressful to play often.
|
On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument.
Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical?
|
On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical?
What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business.
|
There was no way Starcraft 2 can win in Korea. Nostalgia always wins. If Starcraft 2 would have been more like Brood War, they would have had other reasons to not play it
|
On October 03 2016 12:23 Heyjoray wrote:
There was no way Starcraft 2 can win in Korea. Nostalgia always wins. If Starcraft 2 would have been more like Brood War, they would have had other reasons to not play it
They can get in touch with progamers during off-season and even make a TV reality show where DB and DK can talk about game design and such.
But here is the thing though, they want to make an esport and yet they largely ignored progamer's input.
And now most of the BW players left SC2.
|
On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical?
Yeah why pre-install BW instead of other games.
|
On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business.
If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept?
|
On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept?
"But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people."
I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter.
Edit: Btw, I have no problem admitting that BW is a better designed game than SC2. That doesn't have much to do with my original point. A high skill-based 1v1 game could succeed back in the BW days, but not anymore.
|
On October 03 2016 12:31 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:23 Heyjoray wrote:
There was no way Starcraft 2 can win in Korea. Nostalgia always wins. If Starcraft 2 would have been more like Brood War, they would have had other reasons to not play it They can get in touch with progamers during off-season and even make a TV reality show where DB and DK can talk about game design and such. But here is the thing though, they want to make an esport and yet they largely ignored progamer's input. And now most of the BW players left SC2.
People always play the nostalgia card whenever the sucessor doesn't achieve the same level of success of the predecessor. Did people consider that WC2 was better than WC3 or that WC1 was better than WC2 for that matter? Funny, I don't remember that. Did people consider that AoE was better than AoE2? I also don't remember that. Why is it that when some people consider a predecessor better it's got to be due to nostalgia? Can't they actually think the other game was better? Is that impossible?
|
On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept?
"Better" is completely subjective. You can analyze the games, how they do specific things like economy, unit interactions and lots and lots of other things. Based on that analysis you surely can make comments on what game is more likely to appeal to certain audiences. But "better" is still no objective truth. There are people who think sc2 is the better game and they will have reasons as well. What is the "better" game, football or american football? 
|
On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter.
Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then?
|
SC2 needs more personalities like Avilo to promote the game. Lets face it, when Avilo plays, people come in and watch.
|
On October 03 2016 12:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "Better" is completely subjective. You can analyze the games, how they do specific things like economy, unit interactions and lots and lots of other things. Based on that analysis you surely can make comments on what game is more likely to appeal to certain audiences. But "better" is still no objective truth. There are people who think sc2 is the better game and they will have reasons as well. What is the "better" game, football or american football?
I completely agree that better is subjective. That's exactly what I've been saying. Some people will prefer one game, others will prefer the other. I'm not the one reasoning that when people say they prefer BW it's gotta be due to nostalgia.
As we can see now (with the viewing ratings), Korea has shown that they are not very fond of SC2. They were once very fond of BW. I guess alienating the BW viewer base wasn't such a smart decision after all, right?
|
Blizzard listened? Good one.
Only took 6 years.
I mean, I don't overall disagree with your argument. But blizzard has been using game designers for the past 6 years. Don't blame this on pro players rofl.
I also have no idea what you are talking about with zerg melee units and terran ranged units and being offensive and defensive...
|
On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then?
Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise.
|
As much as I've played and watched SC2, I felt like SC2 just straight up wasn't fun from a design perspective. Everything felt like balls to the walls excessive one way or the other, and there was no middle ground. I remember having a conversation with my friend during WoL beta and asking why did Immortals straight up just counter Marauders, while Marauders straight up countered Stalkers. I felt like design decisions like that really limited creativity for the players. Beyond the fact that they've constantly messed up execution of WCS, balance patches, relationships in Korea, etc... Blizzard just didn't execute properly on a very good IP and IMO, got lazy in 2010-2012 when SC2 was THE game and probably thought that it was their moves that created that vs how the market was moving.
|
On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise.
I still think you are pushing this too much. What do you mean by "being pre-installed" anyway? Do you mean like they bought PCs in stores and they came with only BW pre-installed? Is that it?
AFAIK, most Koreans played BW in PC Bangs and PCs there had many "pre-installed" games, right? Why did they choose BW then?
|
On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise.
I don't remember BW being pre-installed on most computers, unless you're talking about PC Bang computers then I'm not sure why this is a point at all - PC Bang's have literally all the popular games preinstalled.
|
On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise. I still think you are pushing this too much. What do you mean by "being pre-installed" anyway? Do you mean like they bought PCs in stores and they came with only BW pre-installed? Is that it?
Yes.
On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote:
AFAIK, most Koreans played BW in PC Bangs and PCs there had many "pre-installed" games, right? Why did they choose BW then?
Because of a combination of BW being good and them already being familiar with it since it's pre-installed.
If you don't think a game being automatically on every computer makes a big difference in its popularity, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
On October 03 2016 12:54 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "Better" is completely subjective. You can analyze the games, how they do specific things like economy, unit interactions and lots and lots of other things. Based on that analysis you surely can make comments on what game is more likely to appeal to certain audiences. But "better" is still no objective truth. There are people who think sc2 is the better game and they will have reasons as well. What is the "better" game, football or american football? I completely agree that better is subjective. That's exactly what I've been saying. Some people will prefer one game, others will prefer the other. I'm not the one reasoning that when people say they prefer BW it's gotta be due to nostalgia. As we can see now (with the viewing ratings), Korea has shown that they are not very fond of SC2. They were once very fond of BW. I guess alienating the BW viewer base wasn't such a smart decision after all, right?
Ok sure i can agree with that! I actually think that games in a franchise should always feel the same even if they wanna change things. It doesn't need to be a 1:1 copy, but when unit names and look are the only ressemblance (a little bit exaggerated) then you have a problem imo.
|
On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise. I still think you are pushing this too much. What do you mean by "being pre-installed" anyway? Do you mean like they bought PCs in stores and they came with only BW pre-installed? Is that it? AFAIK, most Koreans played BW in PC Bangs and PCs there had many "pre-installed" games, right? Why did they choose BW then?
IMO BW was popular in Korea because
1) PC Bang culture was starting to really take off, BW was a good way to cultivate that
2) Easily accessible, and cheap/free so people of all ages could play
3) Robust UMS and other multiplayer system for people who didn't want to play the 1v1 aspect of it
4) Because of 1-3, eSports essentially took off and that got more people interested in it
5) Just as importantly; little competition in the space.
|
On October 03 2016 13:05 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans.
That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part.
BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene.
Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise. I still think you are pushing this too much. What do you mean by "being pre-installed" anyway? Do you mean like they bought PCs in stores and they came with only BW pre-installed? Is that it? Yes. Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote:
AFAIK, most Koreans played BW in PC Bangs and PCs there had many "pre-installed" games, right? Why did they choose BW then?
Because of a combination of BW being good and them already being familiar with it since it's pre-installed. If you don't think a game being automatically on every computer makes a big difference in its popularity, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You're presenting a chicken and the egg problem. BW was not on every computer until it became popular. Only until it became popular, could I go to Yongsan and ask for it to be installed on a new computer.
|
On October 03 2016 13:02 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise. I don't remember BW being pre-installed on most computers, unless you're talking about PC Bang computers then I'm not sure why this is a point at all - PC Bang's have literally all the popular games preinstalled.
I first heard this in some Starcraft documentary. From googling, this top comment here says the same thing . https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/zky9r/sc2_in_korea/
|
On October 03 2016 13:08 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans.
That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part.
BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene.
Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise. I still think you are pushing this too much. What do you mean by "being pre-installed" anyway? Do you mean like they bought PCs in stores and they came with only BW pre-installed? Is that it? AFAIK, most Koreans played BW in PC Bangs and PCs there had many "pre-installed" games, right? Why did they choose BW then? IMO BW was popular in Korea because 1) PC Bang culture was starting to really take off, BW was a good way to cultivate that 2) Easily accessible, and cheap/free so people of all ages could play 3) Robust UMS and other multiplayer system for people who didn't want to play the 1v1 aspect of it 4) Because of 1-3, eSports essentially took off and that got more people interested in it 5) Just as importantly; little competition in the space.
Well, I can totally agree with that. I just have a hard time believing a game became a national sport because some retailers decide to "pre-install" it in some computers. In fact, you actually even denied that was a common practice.
|
On October 03 2016 13:10 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 13:02 Chaggi wrote:On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans.
That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part.
BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene.
Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise. I don't remember BW being pre-installed on most computers, unless you're talking about PC Bang computers then I'm not sure why this is a point at all - PC Bang's have literally all the popular games preinstalled. I first heard this in some Starcraft documentary. From googling, this top comment here says the same thing . https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/zky9r/sc2_in_korea/
I don't remember that but it's not like I bought mass amount of computers back then either. I know that in PC Bang's, they were preinstalled because every game was basically preinstalled, but you could also request certain games when you got computers built, and BW was essentially a default option.
Source: Am Chinese, went back to China+KR almost every summer during that time period.
On October 03 2016 13:12 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 13:08 Chaggi wrote:On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:
[quote]
Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument.
Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise. I still think you are pushing this too much. What do you mean by "being pre-installed" anyway? Do you mean like they bought PCs in stores and they came with only BW pre-installed? Is that it? AFAIK, most Koreans played BW in PC Bangs and PCs there had many "pre-installed" games, right? Why did they choose BW then? IMO BW was popular in Korea because 1) PC Bang culture was starting to really take off, BW was a good way to cultivate that 2) Easily accessible, and cheap/free so people of all ages could play 3) Robust UMS and other multiplayer system for people who didn't want to play the 1v1 aspect of it 4) Because of 1-3, eSports essentially took off and that got more people interested in it 5) Just as importantly; little competition in the space. Well, I can totally agree with that. I just have a hard time believing a game became a national sport because some retailers decide to "pre-install" it in some computers. In fact, you actually even denied that was a common practice.
Again, it's a chicken and the egg issue. I can't imagine why there was a concentrated effort to push BW to be pre-installed on computers unless the market dictated that. I think the documentary and post that was being referenced was a mix of PC Bang (truth) and personal computers (not really too sure that's the truth)
|
On October 03 2016 00:58 BEARDiaguz wrote:
I think you overestimate how much Pros get to contribute to the general design of Starcraft 2. In the betas for HotS and LotV we got to contribute to design decisions quite a bit (the removal of the warhound and where Blizzard ended up on macro mechanics spring to mind, both fine enough decisions) but aside from that ours aren't the ideas that get implemented. Our job is to try really hard to win games and then tell David Kim what's winning a bit too much. I imagine a lot of what you consider a design flaw is really just something irritating you can overcome through practice and determination, which is kinda the whole point of Starcraft 2.
Shh Iaguz, don't try to use common sense and reason. I've come to realize many people find it hard to fault themselves inside and outside a video games. Instead they decide to blame external circumstances. For instance, in nearly every team game I've lost (LoL, Overwatch etc.) there is always one person that blames their team instead of themselves, and another that blames the heroes chosen.
I don't fault them though. Its very hard to reflect on your actions and make the decision to say "What could I have done in that situation to make the outcome different?" Even I have this problem in life.
The challenge with SC2 is finding out what choices we made lead to our loss. With hundreds of small decisions to make a minute, its no wonder many people would rather blame the game than the player.
|
Whenever I see posts like this I have to ask, if Sc2 is such a bad game, give me an example of a well designed RTS game which you would like? Its easy to bash the game designers of sc2 for making a game which you personally dislike but its quite another to actually point to things which make a good rts game. BW is a great game, no question but its design is heavily influenced by the game engine, unit selection limit etc. so I do not thin BW is a fair model for a modern RTS game. Other than that what else do you have? Starbow is a great example of a game which was supposed to fix the issues of sc2 and how popular did it get?
Personally I still enjoy the gameplay of Sc2, so I take issue with the idea that the design of StarCraft2 is the problem, I would point to other things like the fact that the number of people willing to actually get involved in a competitive rts is very small. I do not think any rts released today would be that popular, even if it was the ultimate perfection of competitive rts design.
|
The nostalgia argument for BW is so bad yet you read it everywhere...
So if Starcraft 3 gets made I guess the foreigner SC2 scene will reject the new game and continue with SC2? That's how nostalgia works right? Or is it only Koreans who are controlled by nostalgia? lol. No I suspect SC2 will stay very very dead.
BW blew up in Korea and is still played today because it's one of the greatest games ever made and gaming STILL hasn't produced a better esport 18 years and counting.
|
I regret the time I spent reading this.
To the OP:
1. Blizzard listened to pro players too much?! You kidding? I can't even begin to phrase how wrong that is. How many times have pros asked for a tank buff? A broodlord nerf?!
2. Your suggested changes are literally a few days work with the editor , go forth and code , you think a mod can't get big ? I got this thing called mobas to show you that started as a mod.
3. Who cares if the game dies as an esport?! Really, are you trying to go pro? As long as I got people to play when I click play I'm fine. Sure, having top players to look up to is cool but I play this game because it is fun for me. BW servers are still up so I don't see blizzard shutting down the sc2 servers anytime soon.
Let me extend on number three, let's say you do care about the game as an esport because you decided for it to be your career, then let me tell you something, your suggestions are super biased , you don't want the game to be 'better' you want it to be more popular, because more viewers means bigger salary and more buisness opportunites.
Making a game more popular might sound like a direct correlation to making it more fun but that is inaccurate. A popular game needs to be more accessible , more fun to watch ( more viewers then players ) have a clearer narrative arc within the game and so on, do these things make it better to play ? A 'better' game? Not aways
|
On October 03 2016 13:51 SlammerIV wrote:
Whenever I see posts like this I have to ask, if Sc2 is such a bad game, give me an example of a well designed RTS game which you would like? Its easy to bash the game designers of sc2 for making a game which you personally dislike but its quite another to actually point to things which make a good rts game. BW is a great game, no question but its design is heavily influenced by the game engine, unit selection limit etc. so I do not thin BW is a fair model for a modern RTS game. Other than that what else do you have? Starbow is a great example of a game which was supposed to fix the issues of sc2 and how popular did it get?
Personally I still enjoy the gameplay of Sc2, so I take issue with the idea that the design of StarCraft2 is the problem, I would point to other things like the fact that the number of people willing to actually get involved in a competitive rts is very small. I do not think any rts released today would be that popular, even if it was the ultimate perfection of competitive rts design.
Nobody is saying that SC2 is a bad game but it didn't live up to the expectation.
Beside Dragoon AI, 95% of the stuff in BW was carefully thought out.
And no back then they had the tech to have unlimited unit selection but they made it limited so that people wouldn't be able to just 1A their army, they have to carefully pick their units.
Regarding Reavers's scarab, newsflash: it was actually patched to be like that. BoxeR originally played Protoss but when they nerfed Reavers, he switched to Terran.
Mutalisk stacking?
There is this concept calling magic box where if you select unit in a box, it will stay in formation. But if you select units that are away from each other, it will clump. Again this was designed like that.
So BW is a fair model.
Also, WC3 and AoE were pretty fun.
|
|
|
It doesn't feel like OP is really describing why SC2 has been doing bad in Korea. He does bring up a good discussion about balance and design, but there were a multitude of other factors that have affected SC2's popularity in Korea. Right from its release in Korea it was almost never as popular as BW, and it has been an uphill battle since then to gain any traction there. It needed to explode in popularity soon after release as much as LoL and Overwatch would do later on, but it failed to do so even with Blizzard implementing some excellent additions and changes over the years. I don't think even a miracle in overhauling its core design would cause the game to spike in popularity as much as we would like. It needed to have been popular from the start, and it would still be extremely difficult to grow its popularity in Korea even if it became a better game.
|
On October 03 2016 14:38 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 13:51 SlammerIV wrote:
Whenever I see posts like this I have to ask, if Sc2 is such a bad game, give me an example of a well designed RTS game which you would like? Its easy to bash the game designers of sc2 for making a game which you personally dislike but its quite another to actually point to things which make a good rts game. BW is a great game, no question but its design is heavily influenced by the game engine, unit selection limit etc. so I do not thin BW is a fair model for a modern RTS game. Other than that what else do you have? Starbow is a great example of a game which was supposed to fix the issues of sc2 and how popular did it get?
Personally I still enjoy the gameplay of Sc2, so I take issue with the idea that the design of StarCraft2 is the problem, I would point to other things like the fact that the number of people willing to actually get involved in a competitive rts is very small. I do not think any rts released today would be that popular, even if it was the ultimate perfection of competitive rts design. Nobody is saying that SC2 is a bad game but it didn't live up to the expectation. Beside Dragoon AI, 95% of the stuff in BW was carefully thought out. And no back then they had the tech to have unlimited unit selection but they made it limited so that people wouldn't be able to just 1A their army, they have to carefully pick their units. Regarding Reavers's scarab, newsflash: it was actually patched to be like that. BoxeR originally played Protoss but when they nerfed Reavers, he switched to Terran. Mutalisk stacking? There is this concept calling magic box where if you select unit in a box, it will stay in formation. But if you select units that are away from each other, it will clump. Again this was designed like that. So BW is a fair model. Also, WC3 and AoE were pretty fun.
I don't think Slammer is arguing that BW was limited to the technology available. I think he views BW's engine as inferior to SC2, regardless of design intentions, and so it would be difficult to compare them.
As well, he is only trying to compare modern RTS, and we must admit there hasn't been many RTS games that compares or competes with SC2.
|
On October 03 2016 14:38 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 13:51 SlammerIV wrote:
Whenever I see posts like this I have to ask, if Sc2 is such a bad game, give me an example of a well designed RTS game which you would like? Its easy to bash the game designers of sc2 for making a game which you personally dislike but its quite another to actually point to things which make a good rts game. BW is a great game, no question but its design is heavily influenced by the game engine, unit selection limit etc. so I do not thin BW is a fair model for a modern RTS game. Other than that what else do you have? Starbow is a great example of a game which was supposed to fix the issues of sc2 and how popular did it get?
Personally I still enjoy the gameplay of Sc2, so I take issue with the idea that the design of StarCraft2 is the problem, I would point to other things like the fact that the number of people willing to actually get involved in a competitive rts is very small. I do not think any rts released today would be that popular, even if it was the ultimate perfection of competitive rts design. Nobody is saying that SC2 is a bad game but it didn't live up to the expectation. Beside Dragoon AI, 95% of the stuff in BW was carefully thought out. And no back then they had the tech to have unlimited unit selection but they made it limited so that people wouldn't be able to just 1A their army, they have to carefully pick their units. Regarding Reavers's scarab, newsflash: it was actually patched to be like that. BoxeR originally played Protoss but when they nerfed Reavers, he switched to Terran. Mutalisk stacking? There is this concept calling magic box where if you select unit in a box, it will stay in formation. But if you select units that are away from each other, it will clump. Again this was designed like that. So BW is a fair model. Also, WC3 and AoE were pretty fun.
Starbow is also better than SC2 just because of the pathing.
For example here is a random clip from a random game that just shows how pathing should have been done:
http://imgur.com/scCsF0E
|
On October 03 2016 12:58 Chaggi wrote:
As much as I've played and watched SC2, I felt like SC2 just straight up wasn't fun from a design perspective. Everything felt like balls to the walls excessive one way or the other, and there was no middle ground. I remember having a conversation with my friend during WoL beta and asking why did Immortals straight up just counter Marauders, while Marauders straight up countered Stalkers. I felt like design decisions like that really limited creativity for the players. Beyond the fact that they've constantly messed up execution of WCS, balance patches, relationships in Korea, etc... Blizzard just didn't execute properly on a very good IP and IMO, got lazy in 2010-2012 when SC2 was THE game and probably thought that it was their moves that created that vs how the market was moving.
Exactly these things should be discussed again and questioned. Especially everything vs. bio is a big source of issues for me. Bio basically is too strong against everything without splash and weak against splash. It has in parts been covered with ravager and adept interaction to make it less visible. But exactly therefore these two units are detrimental to the game as well. They don't fix core issues (which remain to exist) but make them less obvious so that in future it gets even harder to get to the roots and therefore I like to use WOL and HOTS examples.
That creates the 5 second fights where even pro players cannot make as much difference in fights as they wished and e.g. as in broodwar where them took sometimes half a minute with alot of options to make different units interact with each other, pulling back and forth and not everything dead within a second.
There are certainly other factors such as 1v1 not as popular as teamplay. But the fact is that SC2 even scares away those people who by nature are affine to that 1v1 competition. SC2 creates frustration, I see that wherever I look. These meta factors therefore cannot be the only reasons but there must exist manual problems as well.
|
I feel the same way you do. Brood war has created a passion in me that starcaft 2 could not replicate and I think it goes back to design. I have been following sc2 and team liquid for about 7 years now. I don't have time to follow any other game but I bought LOTV and not even installed it on my pc . If it weren't so hard to find games in brood war I would play that again. I love the game and the community but I am sad to see it loosing popularity. I hope they find the solution because I think there are a lot of people like me that still love this game and would love to see it continue .
|
I have gone from making LR threads to watching 2.5 games in the last 6 months, from anti-moba to following every single leagues game this Worlds.
Blizzard has done nothing to improve the situation but adding lurker (which they cave in after 6 years) and thats not gonna last for me.
OGN is so wise in picking LoL as the next BW. More fun, (arguably) better developer, better league structures (super important, I lost interest when all leagues including Proleague are forced to use 99% same map pool) and much more.
|
On October 03 2016 12:58 Chaggi wrote:
As much as I've played and watched SC2, I felt like SC2 just straight up wasn't fun from a design perspective. Everything felt like balls to the walls excessive one way or the other, and there was no middle ground. I remember having a conversation with my friend during WoL beta and asking why did Immortals straight up just counter Marauders, while Marauders straight up countered Stalkers. I felt like design decisions like that really limited creativity for the players. Beyond the fact that they've constantly messed up execution of WCS, balance patches, relationships in Korea, etc... Blizzard just didn't execute properly on a very good IP and IMO, got lazy in 2010-2012 when SC2 was THE game and probably thought that it was their moves that created that vs how the market was moving.
Just about the WoL Immortal thing, because it triggers me every time. Immortal had 5 range at the start, so before fireing at Marauders, they had to get in range of a bunch of Marines, who could melt the shield so afterwards Marauders could take care of them.
Yeah the Immortal countered Marauders when its shields where up, if they were down the interaction changed and Marauders countered Immortals. Saying that limits creativity is admitting not being able to keep up with the game.
And then there were also Sentries with Guardian Shield, who could minimize damage of small attacks. The interactions between t1 and t2 in WoL where amazingly deep.
But then you read on the forums, Forcefields make me micro 2 armies, Immortals and Roaches just spider around when I a-move my 1 army group. I can't a-move into sieged tanks. Thors beat infinity amounts of my 1 group of Mutas.
Under all of these complaints the Baneling slipped through and today everyone is fine doing army spltting like crazy. But using targetfire, never. And if you have to balance a game that was based around using multiple units and targetfireing their strongest target, then you are a little screwed if your playerbase denies the existence of a core rts mechanic.
All in the past though, now the game is based around voidzones.
|
On October 03 2016 20:02 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:58 Chaggi wrote:
As much as I've played and watched SC2, I felt like SC2 just straight up wasn't fun from a design perspective. Everything felt like balls to the walls excessive one way or the other, and there was no middle ground. I remember having a conversation with my friend during WoL beta and asking why did Immortals straight up just counter Marauders, while Marauders straight up countered Stalkers. I felt like design decisions like that really limited creativity for the players. Beyond the fact that they've constantly messed up execution of WCS, balance patches, relationships in Korea, etc... Blizzard just didn't execute properly on a very good IP and IMO, got lazy in 2010-2012 when SC2 was THE game and probably thought that it was their moves that created that vs how the market was moving. Just about the WoL Immortal thing, because it triggers me every time. Immortal had 5 range at the start, so before fireing at Marauders, they had to get in range of a bunch of Marines, who could melt the shield so afterwards Marauders could take care of them. Yeah the Immortal countered Marauders when its shields where up, if they were down the interaction changed and Marauders countered Immortals. Saying that limits creativity is admitting not being able to keep up with the game. And then there were also Sentries with Guardian Shield, who could minimize damage of small attacks. The interactions between t1 and t2 in WoL where amazingly deep. But then you read on the forums, Forcefields make me micro 2 armies, Immortals and Roaches just spider around when I a-move my 1 army group. I can't a-move into sieged tanks. Thors beat infinity amounts of my 1 group of Mutas. Under all of these complaints the Baneling slipped through and today everyone is fine doing army spltting like crazy. But using targetfire, never. And if you have to balance a game that was based around using multiple units and targetfireing their strongest target, then you are a little screwed if your playerbase denies the existence of a core rts mechanic. All in the past though, now the game is based around voidzones.
Oh dude, giving how you tought that WoL interactions were "amazingly deep" you are going to LOVE Brood War!
|
A wall of text, yet nothing of value/fresh/new. You could ve just stated: i think design>balance, and though i don't know shit about designing an RTS, so ill just "summ" it up with some blah blah blah about zerg being defensive race and terran being offensive w/o any clear suggestions nor undestanding what is REALLY wrong with this game.
To me, personally, what's being wrong with SC2 and RTS as a whole is: RTS being RTS, a very COMPLEX gameplay, a design that is no longer accepted by public. In order to make a successful RTS these days, you have to simplify its gameplay to the max. The less units the better, the less mechanics the better. Adding abilities to every unit was one of the biggest mistakes if you ask me. Woah! mobas are popular and they have micro abilities, lets add some to SC! Right? Wrong. Why can't people understand that you can't burden the players with so many tasks. An RTS player already has TONS of things to manage. This is when "Hard" =/= fun or even interest. When you have THAT much stress you just become frustrated and can't maintain focus. Having 6-7 units (not 15+ per race like it is in SC2) is ALREADY enough to show your potential as a player. Especially if each unit has a distinct role (not overlapping with other units). Some simple, CLEAR archetype, like: slow but strong (e.g. a Siege Tank), fast but low DPS (e.g. a vulture/zergling) etc. Not a bazillion of similar designs so that it takes an eternity to understand how all of them interact (welcome casuals!). Beauty is in the simplicity. For some reason devs seem to forget and/or neglect that thinking that you can only highlight your skill by managing 382 microabilities. The greatest games in the world have simple rules: e.g. kicking/throwing a ball into the opponents net. Are players experiencing any troubles showing off their skills? With just a rubber ball? Nope. If u want a more relevant example: CS/LoL/Dota. 5-8 buttons - is all it takes to have 100k watching your personal stream.
tldr. Noone will play RTS in its current state. And yes it requires redesigning from scratch.
|
The initial design was bad with warpgates. That led to having to have a mothership core.
There's too much splash in the game and workers die too fast. They introduced splash to stop death ball. What it did was stop deathball, but now everything dies so fast and deathball sorta still is around because there's so much splash.
team games are at worst level. every game is zling, reaper, photon/oracle/dt. its completely unplayable.
|
|
|
Man I miss the balance thread, where are the whiners were parked, now they're free and that site is gone to shit.
|
|
|
|
|
why Neeb? he's the reason why sc2 can be alive again :D
|
tbh i think blizzard really fucked up making the games so much shorter. i understand what they were trying to do, however I don't think it should be at the expense of shorter midgames (and early game is almost nonexistent outside of a few scenarios)
also rip larva change
|
Reason is FUCKING Neeb. He added so much salt into wound!
|
Make the game f2p and see it rise again. Although they should have done that years ago..
|
On October 03 2016 22:02 TheHumanLife wrote:
why Neeb? he's the reason why sc2 can be alive again :D
it shows how much koreans have lost their motivation to practice.
regarding the recent disbanding rumors this seems worrysome.
|
On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
to add to your point...
the genius of Overwatch is that i can quit playing for 3 weeks and come back to it and still have a great time for a weekend. stop playing all week and play for another weekend. RTS can get frustrating when you have 7+ days gaps in your game play blitzes. Overwatch is not like that at all... its all shits and giggles no matter how long ago i last played.
Overwatch is eating into my SC2 playing time and i'm sure it is for many other SC2/RTS fans.
|
Can we just admit that it's not Blizzard's fault or Pro's Fault or whatever? It's the shift in Culture around the globe and the perception of Millenials tastes have changed.
Rewind 15 years ago - the Gaming trend really took off. PS2, XBOX, Gaming Computers full design, Gamecube, and much more. Because of the technological advances, gaming became legit. And the generation of 12-18 year olds loved it. Then, slowly but surely, everything that made gaming great now became "how do we get the most use out of a game"
Then, everything started to change when it came to Gaming/entertainment. Young people want instant gratification. Instant success. Instant everything and RTS games are not instant. And Blizzard (like every other company) saw this trend and wanted to make games feel more "instant" and that's why we get these 10-15 minute games. Those do not seem too burdensome on people who want it NOW.
TL:DR version:
Millenials tastes for gaming has changed - and unlikely to revert back is a main reason for decline in RTS.
|
On October 03 2016 22:35 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 22:02 TheHumanLife wrote:
why Neeb? he's the reason why sc2 can be alive again :D it shows how much koreans have lost their motivation to practice. regarding the recent disbanding rumors this seems worrysome.
Honestly, + Show Spoiler + with Neeb winning Kespa Cup, I hope the reverse happens and Koreans take pride in knowing they were once the dominate country when it came to Starcraft games. I hope this sparks a mindset, we are not going to get beat by some player from NA ladder (even though Neeb played a ton on the KR server). Maybe it's just my mindset. When someone beats me in something I'm really good at, I get upset and want to work harder to prove it was a fluke.
That being said in the spoiler (don't read the spoiler if you don't want the KESPA Cup spoiled)
I think SC2 needs Blizzcon to be close and competitive and tense. If we get a lot of 3-0 series with no competition and the same builds over and over, it might be the final nail in the coffin. It's sad, because I love watching StarCraft.
|
On October 03 2016 23:59 catabowl wrote:
Can we just admit that it's not Blizzard's fault or Pro's Fault or whatever? It's the shift in Culture around the globe and the perception of Millenials tastes have changed.
Rewind 15 years ago - the Gaming trend really took off. PS2, XBOX, Gaming Computers full design, Gamecube, and much more. Because of the technological advances, gaming became legit. And the generation of 12-18 year olds loved it. Then, slowly but surely, everything that made gaming great now became "how do we get the most use out of a game"
Then, everything started to change when it came to Gaming/entertainment. Young people want instant gratification. Instant success. Instant everything and RTS games are not instant. And Blizzard (like every other company) saw this trend and wanted to make games feel more "instant" and that's why we get these 10-15 minute games. Those do not seem too burdensome on people who want it NOW.
TL:DR version:
Millenials tastes for gaming has changed - and unlikely to revert back is a main reason for decline in RTS.
Oh you better bet its Blizzards fault.
|
Just let the kr scene die if it must and unlock the regions for Koreans.
Every rts game is dying off and most of everyone in kr have moved onto overwatch and lol.
|
Normally I do not like conspiracy, but lemme try one. (just for fun)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LRrjmfd.jpg)
As you can see, the catchphrase of KeSPA Cup 2016 is "Here We Stand."
This reminds me of "Here I stand", the opening song of tving starleague and we all know that tving starleague was the last BW league.
Does this indicate the end of KR SC2? Any thoughts?
|
On October 03 2016 22:35 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 22:02 TheHumanLife wrote:
why Neeb? he's the reason why sc2 can be alive again :D it shows how much koreans have lost their motivation to practice. regarding the recent disbanding rumors this seems worrysome.
Neeb is legit, the Koreans didn't lose their skill overnight.
|
On October 04 2016 03:38 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 22:35 Charoisaur wrote:On October 03 2016 22:02 TheHumanLife wrote:
why Neeb? he's the reason why sc2 can be alive again :D it shows how much koreans have lost their motivation to practice. regarding the recent disbanding rumors this seems worrysome. Neeb is legit, the Koreans didn't lose their skill overnight.
When in +15 years the koreans not only lose but getting owned by a foreigner who wasnt even that good a year ago you know there is something definitely wrong. The truth is that the korean scene is in a big decline ..for some time now.
|
On October 03 2016 00:45 LSN wrote:
All that pro-feedback and feedback from TL hasn't lead the game into a better position.
What many of you, SC2 fans, are unable to understand, is that its not the changes that made BW popular in Korea for that long, but lack of changes. Thanks to that community was spared from unnececary buff/nerf wars that are problems here since forever. Instead of crying loud that Bisu build is imbalanced, korean zergs were forced to find solution the harder way and korean map designers had to create better, more balanced maps. During long 10 years metagame shifted few times and strats that were thouth to be imposible to deal with one season were obsolete another. That left ZvZ and, to some degree, PvP matches insanely boring to watch. But most of it was left spectacular. Pros didnt have to forgone their habits becouse of balance shifting or becouse of seeing th\eir favorite unit is no longer OP. They had to do it, becouse someone was succesfull with finding solution.
But its better to blame complete lack of "changes" or "wrong changes" instead of fundamental thing that game should be flexible enough to "balance itself". The sad truth you are unable to accept is that not-pros are not the ones who dictate a balance changes, and even the word of pros should be taken with a grain of salt becouse of their possible bias.
|
On October 03 2016 00:28 Creager wrote:
Believe it or not but SC2 most likely will not get "another chance", that ship has sailed with LotV release. The core game is six years old, there's no upcoming expansion underway
I wouldn't completely count out the possibility for another expansion. WoW keeps getting expansions, D3 will continue with another expansion soon. I wouldn't find it too absurd if we got a SC2 prequel expansion, but it would only be worthwhile if it completely redesigned the game.
|
On October 04 2016 07:14 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 00:28 Creager wrote:
Believe it or not but SC2 most likely will not get "another chance", that ship has sailed with LotV release. The core game is six years old, there's no upcoming expansion underway I wouldn't completely count out the possibility for another expansion. WoW keeps getting expansions, D3 will continue with another expansion soon. I wouldn't find it too absurd if we got a SC2 prequel expansion, but it would only be worthwhile if it completely redesigned the game.
That'd be awesome, but I can't imagine Blizz (or any major game developers, really) thinking that making more RTS is worth their while.
|
You are all way overthinking this. Tell me something. Can anyone really name any other RTS out there that was made in the last 5 years or so that is even remotely in the same universe as SC2 in terms of popularity? I cant and there is a reason why no companies are making RTS games anymore. It is simply because no one really plays them anymore in terms of the general gaming population. Even if Blizzard had done everything right I still highly doubt the viewer and player base would be much better (perhaps marginally better at best) than it currently is.
|
On October 04 2016 09:31 Fliparoni wrote:
You are all way overthinking this. Tell me something. Can anyone really name any other RTS out there that was made in the last 5 years or so that is even remotely in the same universe as SC2 in terms of popularity? I cant and there is a reason why no companies are making RTS games anymore. It is simply because no one really plays them anymore in terms of the general gaming population. Even if Blizzard had done everything right I still highly doubt the viewer and player base would be much better (perhaps marginally better at best) than it currently is.
Yup thats pretty much it. Thats why moba are taking over. This is all about micro and ofc teamplay which is easier to get in as a casual.
|
Blizzard is still in full control of their product. They are free to implement whatever they want, just like how people should be free to express whatever they desire out of a game.
You know excuses have run dry when people start targeting the player base for blaming. I've seen this in WoW's decline, TERA etc. Blizzard has had years of experience and knowledge of what made their previous products so good (I hope) and many opportunities to deliver. It is no one else's fault but their own.
|
On October 04 2016 09:36 SinO[Ob] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:31 Fliparoni wrote:
You are all way overthinking this. Tell me something. Can anyone really name any other RTS out there that was made in the last 5 years or so that is even remotely in the same universe as SC2 in terms of popularity? I cant and there is a reason why no companies are making RTS games anymore. It is simply because no one really plays them anymore in terms of the general gaming population. Even if Blizzard had done everything right I still highly doubt the viewer and player base would be much better (perhaps marginally better at best) than it currently is. Yup thats pretty much it. Thats why moba are taking over. This is all about micro and ofc teamplay which is easier to get in as a casual.
speak for yourself. I grew up with RTS, and its still my favorite genre. yet i cannot bring myself to play sc2 anymore. i would buy/play wc4 in a heartbeat. in wc3 you could not lose your entire army if you looked away for 2 sec to catch a mosquito in your room, while in sc2 there is this possibility and frustration. It's hard, i dont mind that its difficult, but its hard in the wrong areas.
|
There are a lot of reasons and people to point at for the downfall of SC2, but I feel that there are two main reasons that SC2 is dying.
Firstly, Blizzard's early game design was very lazy, primarily due to their hesitance to change the game engine and, instead, resorting to only patching the "bugs" in the engine. I was one of many people who suggested certain changes, such as proposing that each unit should have "special" micro, akin to vulture patrol micro, muta stacking + move shot micro. What the community got was the WoL beta phoenix. Blizzard was never able to filter out the good suggestions from the bad suggestions; they just simply chose pander to the noobs/masses and take whatever suggestions the "pros" gave to be absolute. They didn't understand the idea of 1 vulture potentially killing an infinite amount of zerglings or surrounding a poorly controlled group of dragoons with mines.
Secondly, the satisfaction and enjoyment from playing any game comes from mastering and improving at a difficult game. Since the micro in SC2 is computer assisted, there is minimal precision behind these actions; you just have to do them as fast as you can with moderate accuracy. I have no qualms with having autocast, smartcast, automine, MBS, smart AI, etc, but when the computer is doing 75% of the dirty work, and the 25% left for the human player to do is just Attack-move, hold position, cast storm here, stop here, patrol this area, etc, the game becomes less interesting than chess.
I understand Blizzard wanted to implement all of their new and wonderful quality-of-life changes to the AI -- fine. But who's the best at autocasting? The computer. Who's the best at smart casting? The computer. MBS? Computer. Smart AI A-move? Computer. There is no difference from spamming whatever hotkey a person uses for Storm than from splitting the storms. There is no sizable difference from strategically placing your units on the map to flank someone than from just steamrollering with a death ball. There is no downside to sending dropships with marines and medics everywhere since it's no drain on controlling the main deathball. As a result, the human player is merely an extension of the computer; there is absolutely no room in SC2 for the human player to exhibit better control, better A-move, better MBS, or better strategic thinking.
You could argue that unit composition is strategy. I personally don't think it is, but okay.
You could argue that splitting marines is limited by human control.
You could argue that spellcasting takes precision.
You could argue that speed is worth practicing for. Sure.
But then let me ask you this: would you want to watch a competition of two people compete in a speedtyping contest, where the prompt is "What is the best way to establish world peace," where each contestant is given automatic spell correction and the winner is decided firstly by word count instead of by content? Wouldn't it be better to have a more in-depth prompt, where spell-checking is given but not automatically corrected, and by judging by the content rather than the word count?
|
Dakota_Fanning
Hungary2349 Posts
"Unfortunately" op has some very good points. I still want to play SC2, but when I do, I don't want to play LotV, but instead I play WoL and COOP. I just don't enjoy LotV. Drastic changes would be required for me to enjoy it (resource model included).
|
Well, given that there are so few tournaments in Korea, when they have an event other than GSL, SSL, and Proleague, it wouldn't be fair to them if a foreigner just comes in to dominate and take first place. A foreigner is literally destroying Korean SC2 scene.
|
I would kill for a good 1v1 rts game. Hell, if the 2v2 would be good i would play that aswell.
RTS is my favorite Genre by far, but here i am not playing any RTS at the moment. Why is that? Because the genre is dead? NO!
Because there isnt any good RTS game out there. IF i were to play one it would be broodwar, but playing SC2 is a NO NO, BIG NO and its not because the market is dead lol
|
On October 05 2016 14:16 Foxxan wrote:
I would kill for a good 1v1 rts game. Hell, if the 2v2 would be good i would play that aswell.
RTS is my favorite Genre by far, but here i am not playing any RTS at the moment. Why is that? Because the genre is dead? NO!
Because there isnt any good RTS game out there. IF i were to play one it would be broodwar, but playing SC2 is a NO NO, BIG NO and its not because the market is dead lol
Pretty much all game dev companies disagree with you, hence they're not making RTSs. May be you're right and they're wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.
As I've said before, RTS may be revived by making one with a large luck element, which would make losing less unpleasant. I doubt anyone would take a risk on such a game, though.
|
I think SC2 is too predictable and too hard counter based.
This leaves no room for subtlety in the game, no on the fly adjustments to current composition, a full tech switch is required (hope you have enough time). I find this predictable and very lazy RTS game design. It also is the reason why SC2 games feel unsatisfying.
The result is games with 1 unit spam, my god seriously, you call that RTS ?
|
|
|
I think the game directors just messed up by making SC2 so much faster combat-wise than broodwar, and with every expansion, it just got worse.
Just stuff out of their control such as the camera being more zoomed out, collision boxes being so much smaller just makes combat so much less epic.
Spammable micro based skills really shouldn't be the core of an army. Stalkers with blink, adepts, ravagers disruptors etc. Stalkers were intentionally made shit against everything because they had blink, so much so that they are one of the most cost inefficient units in the game without it. The skills make the game so much faster than it has to be because using them just speeds up combat so much.
Remember WoL protoss early game? Was laughably weak on gateway tech because the sentry existed to stop them from dying.
Phoenix lift is an example where it works well - it's insanely good in small numbers, but rapidly diminishes in value in larger groups for straight up killing stuff.
Finally, for viewer enjoyment, the core of an endgame army shouldn't be one unit, and it REALLY should not be an air unit. Watching a cloud of units go up against a cloud of units is just terrible.
Goals for where they want to go with an RTS should be
Spread out units more
Slow down combat
Emphasize macro - lower the required workers per base, increase bases, etc. You won't get it to broodwar levels since multi-building select and such is really needed for a modern game, but you can make it more difficult.
Lower the emphasis on army micro, put the spells on the spell casters and leave it unless you can make it work like phoenix lift - extremely good on a small scale, strategic on the big scale. This should also make positioning a lot more important.
You can still have game changing spells in there that are flat out broken. But you have to make sure that they can't be massed, whether it be through prohibitive cost or micro limitations etc.
|
Without reading throug all of this, I'll add my opinion.
SC and SC2 were games designed to the needs and wishes of a non - Pro western audience. Patching it closely to the wishes of those who play it in , a certain way, best ruins it.
I know this sounds cheesy, but often in life its the choices somebody else makes for us have the coolest outcome.
You don't tell the chef at the fancy restaurant how to prepare your dish, you let him choose. You don't want your favourite band to play "only that one song you liked from the radio" 24 Times in a row.
And you don't ask children IF they want icecream for dinner every night.
You should not ask Korean 500APM-Uber-Terrans if they actually think MASS MMM + Liberator and Tank is the best way to play terran.
Thats why you go thorugh the uber-Terrans so fast. Teaja, Innovation, Maru........all long gone, hit the scene forced the meta to shift to their multitask and fallen to the evermore lowered skill ceiling for protoss and zerg.
|
On October 05 2016 18:10 KT_Elwood wrote:
Without reading throug all of this, I'll add my opinion.
SC and SC2 were games designed to the needs and wishes of a non - Pro western audience. Patching it closely to the wishes of those who play it in , a certain way, best ruins it.
I know this sounds cheesy, but often in life its the choices somebody else makes for us have the coolest outcome.
You don't tell the chef at the fancy restaurant how to prepare your dish, you let him choose. You don't want your favourite band to play "only that one song you liked from the radio" 24 Times in a row.
And you don't ask children IF they want icecream for dinner every night.
You should not ask Korean 500APM-Uber-Terrans if they actually think MASS MMM + Liberator and Tank is the best way to play terran.
Thats why you go thorugh the uber-Terrans so fast. Teaja, Innovation, Maru........all long gone, hit the scene forced the meta to shift to their multitask and fallen to the evermore lowered skill ceiling for protoss and zerg.
Ahem...bullshit.
Regarding Starcraft Broodwar, players like Boxer, Nada, iloveoov, Savior and Flash all had different playstyles yet all were dominant and the game was never patched specifically because of them and their playstyles.
Regarding Starcraft 2, don't blame koreans for playing terran to it's maximum potential, blame Blizzard and their retarded design of Protoss and Zerg. If Protoss and Zerg were well designed you wouldn't have this opinion. You'd praise the game and call it's design awesome.
The problem isn't Terran or 500 apm koreans, it's Protoss and Zerg. Always has been.
|
On October 04 2016 09:31 Fliparoni wrote:
You are all way overthinking this. Tell me something. Can anyone really name any other RTS out there that was made in the last 5 years or so that is even remotely in the same universe as SC2 in terms of popularity? I cant and there is a reason why no companies are making RTS games anymore. It is simply because no one really plays them anymore in terms of the general gaming population. Even if Blizzard had done everything right I still highly doubt the viewer and player base would be much better (perhaps marginally better at best) than it currently is.
it is fascinating to note that as many genres age.. the games get better and as a paradox they make less money. often a franchise sequel will be better in every respect and the sequel makes less cash.
it is at this point publishers start to pull the plug.
|
I'm no game designer, neither am I as experienced as a lot of you guys posting, but here are my thoughts.
THE GAME
-----------------
SC2 is a beautiful game! I love playing it at top high masters as Terran in 1v1, and I love playing it with my mates in the 2v2, 3v3 format. Through all the balance changes that come and go there is always the excitement when your race gets a buff, and a sense of fearful curiosity when other races get it. It is however always exciting both to play and watch SC2 games.
THE BALANCE
---------------------
Terran won the GSL in a TvP finals, Zerg won the SSL in a ZvZ finals, and Protoss won the Kespa Cup in a PvP finals. What more do we want? This is by far theeeee most balanced the game has looked at least to me. The Game is "at" if not "extremely near" the perfect spot.
NOT THE MOST WATCHED GAME
------------------------------------------------
It's a tough game to learn and play and be good at, and I like that! Most of my friends tried to understand it and couldn't. I feel superior to casual gamers playing easier games, and classes and masses will always be where they're at.
NOT BROODWAR
--------------------------
I won't come out and say it's better than Broodwar and be hated all my life by all the BW fans out there. But I will say that it's a different game. People good at Broodwar didn't always become the best here, and I'm sure people really good at SC2 would suck at BW. It's a stylistic preference. Both games and I've hear BW more than SC2 require a whole lotta skill, and two different kind of skills to play these games too. SC2 is not BroodWar, and I don't think it has to be. I'm all excited for the HD BROODWAR coming out, and I hope they add in a campaign to that too and make it something totally cool.
CONCLUSION
--------------------
Whiners will wine, if they walk bare feet for miles or drive a Ferrari for the same distance. There's more money in other games for gamers, just like its different for every sport for athletes. A guy who can run the fastest may not be the best soccer player. Everybody out there makes their own decisions, I hope for a more positive and optimistic outlook for SC2.
Cheers! May Sc2 make our gamers happy and rich (especially those skilled poor souls in Korea), and may more people understand the beauty of SC2 to promote its game. AMEN
|
There are some streamers who constantly complain about how horrible the game is even though they've been playing it for many hours per week for over 6 years.
SC2's long term prospects are bleak for those trying to find a way to make money off of it in the future. its best to have an exit strategy if you are in this group. for those who want to buy a game, play it and have fun SC2 is just fine. Even considering its 6+ years old.
Its been a good 6.5 years. I'm going to stick with SC2 for atleast another year. 7.5 years of fun for $140USD is a good deal.
|
Canada1205 Posts
On October 06 2016 03:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
There are some streamers who constantly complain about how horrible the game is even though they've been playing it for many hours per week for over 6 years.
SC2's long term prospects are bleak for those trying to find a way to make money off of it in the future. its best to have an exit strategy if you are in this group. for those who want to buy a game, play it and have fun SC2 is just fine. Even considering its 6+ years old.
Its been a good 6.5 years. I'm going to stick with SC2 for atleast another year. 7.5 years of fun for $140USD is a good deal.
Not to mention that the amount of hours of entertainment that I've gotten for free have been absolutely massive in comparison to other forms of media entertainment.
|
You're completely ignoring all the extrinsic factors that are causing the downfall in Korea, like viable, free alternatives that are more social and less stressful. It's quite obvious.
|
On October 06 2016 04:58 Hydro033 wrote:
You're completely ignoring all the extrinsic factors that are causing the downfall in Korea, like viable, free alternatives that are more social and less stressful. It's quite obvious.
ya, like Overwatch for example 
|
It's total bullshit to blame the community.
It wasn't the community that came up with sentries, warpgates, warhounds, colossi and the shredder.
|
On October 06 2016 05:09 _vk_ wrote:
It's total bullshit to blame the community.
It wasn't the community that came up with sentries, warpgates, warhounds, colossi and the shredder.
Blizzard should be able to come up with ideas for units like the Warhound and Shredder that turn out to fail. You need space to come up with all sorts of ideas. Its part of the creative process.
Titan failed. Blizzard picked up the pieces and made Overwatch. Do we now claim Blizzard sucks because they failed with Titan?
|
On October 06 2016 05:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 05:09 _vk_ wrote:
It's total bullshit to blame the community.
It wasn't the community that came up with sentries, warpgates, warhounds, colossi and the shredder. Blizzard should be able to come up with ideas for units like the Warhound and Shredder that turn out to fail. You need space to come up with all sorts of ideas. Its part of the creative process. Titan failed. Blizzard picked up the pieces and made Overwatch. Do we now claim Blizzard sucks because they failed with Titan?
Titan?
|
That's just nostalgia talking from you guys. It's time to move on from that nostalgia and play SCBW HD
|
On October 06 2016 05:35 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 05:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 06 2016 05:09 _vk_ wrote:
It's total bullshit to blame the community.
It wasn't the community that came up with sentries, warpgates, warhounds, colossi and the shredder. Blizzard should be able to come up with ideas for units like the Warhound and Shredder that turn out to fail. You need space to come up with all sorts of ideas. Its part of the creative process. Titan failed. Blizzard picked up the pieces and made Overwatch. Do we now claim Blizzard sucks because they failed with Titan? Titan?
The Story of Overwatch: The Fall of Titan. its on youtube someplace. its a good video. Metzen is a bit over dramatic. but its interesting.
every creative company and person needs space to fail with their experiments and should not be demonized for the failure of a new experiment.
edit: here is the video
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 04 2016 09:31 Fliparoni wrote:
You are all way overthinking this. Tell me something. Can anyone really name any other RTS out there that was made in the last 5 years or so that is even remotely in the same universe as SC2 in terms of popularity? I cant and there is a reason why no companies are making RTS games anymore. It is simply because no one really plays them anymore in terms of the general gaming population. Even if Blizzard had done everything right I still highly doubt the viewer and player base would be much better (perhaps marginally better at best) than it currently is.
This so much.
|
woah no the disruptors in the pvps recently has been awesome.
|
Wow, 8 pages deep and the discussion still hasn't gone toxic. Good for you TL.
May I ask do you people have fun playing this game? I definitely have been enjoying it despite getting steamrolled on ladder by low tier GMs. I play for fun, that's all.
|
Pro-scene feedback is important, and they are saying the game is too hard. That's not a very imprecise statement but I agree with it.
Starcraft used to be simple to pick up but hard to master. Now starcraft is hard to pick (and understand) and even harder to master AND is more volatile than ever. Although the game is balanced 'on average' it doesn't make it necessarily stable (i.e. the best player wins less often; results are more volatile and hence less rewarding). The game has become heavily reliant on fast precise 'clutch' responses to powerful strategies and units that can end games by themselves.
The best part of the op is the reference to a concrete example of design introduction that was detrimental to the enjoyment of the game (mines) and the pro-scene. Although it might be 'somewhat' enjoyable to watch, a game of chance isn't enjoyable to play seriously.
But where the op loses consistency, I feel, is where it encourages Blizzard to stop listening to the pros regarding balance while stating that the problem is design rather than balance.
I, for one, would really appreciate a TL post highlighting the concepts in RTS that are generally agreed to be bad for the genre. For example units that encourage chance, stalemate, turtling, ect. I know it has been talked about to extreme boredom but to have a single place as a reference with some structure would be good. And it would help highlight concrete areas where Blizzard may have gone wrong.
tldr: the problem is game volatility, which is leading to pro feedback that the game is too hard
|
Make it free to play with micro transactions.
|
He's dead on about widow mines. Playing vs widow mines killed the game for me. If you will never be any better than gold/plat (and I will never be), there is just no way to defend against them cost-effectively (as zerg). Its just not fun and I stopped playing the game a year ago because of it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 06 2016 02:26 RoboPuG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 18:10 KT_Elwood wrote:
Without reading throug all of this, I'll add my opinion.
SC and SC2 were games designed to the needs and wishes of a non - Pro western audience. Patching it closely to the wishes of those who play it in , a certain way, best ruins it.
I know this sounds cheesy, but often in life its the choices somebody else makes for us have the coolest outcome.
You don't tell the chef at the fancy restaurant how to prepare your dish, you let him choose. You don't want your favourite band to play "only that one song you liked from the radio" 24 Times in a row.
And you don't ask children IF they want icecream for dinner every night.
You should not ask Korean 500APM-Uber-Terrans if they actually think MASS MMM + Liberator and Tank is the best way to play terran.
Thats why you go thorugh the uber-Terrans so fast. Teaja, Innovation, Maru........all long gone, hit the scene forced the meta to shift to their multitask and fallen to the evermore lowered skill ceiling for protoss and zerg.
Ahem...bullshit. Regarding Starcraft Broodwar, players like Boxer, Nada, iloveoov, Savior and Flash all had different playstyles yet all were dominant and the game was never patched specifically because of them and their playstyles. Regarding Starcraft 2, don't blame koreans for playing terran to it's maximum potential, blame Blizzard and their retarded design of Protoss and Zerg. If Protoss and Zerg were well designed you wouldn't have this opinion. You'd praise the game and call it's design awesome. The problem isn't Terran or 500 apm koreans, it's Protoss and Zerg. Always has been.
I don't really get, why you call "BS" and literally repeat what I have said ?
- Don't ask Koreans what THEY WANT
- Make Zerg and Protoss a) harder to play b) more effective if played hard, instead of F2A (Spamming abilities like corrosive bile is not hard btw !)
Terran has the least room for errors. What used to take pixelperfect forcefields, now is dumbed down to overcharge, and there is basicly no push that can not be stopped by queens and ravagers. Queue up some Injects, half the roach HP and give them Burrow heal so there is potential in micro again.
|
In all seriousness I think if LotV was doing it's job perfectly we wouldn't see this flux of Warcraft 3 and BW players returning to their respective games. Can't say I can draw much knowledge from this thread though and personally I feel the game is in a great state in comparison to HotS.
|
the biggest problem of SC2 is that 1 battle often decides all + battles are over too fast. Shit dies in a matter of seconds.
When players do dance and exchange units, this becomes super interesting shit.
RTS should be a game of "advantages". I.e. one player has a smaller army, but he puts his army in all these favourable positions to win the game.
as a player nothing motivates me more than being able to pull comebacks from unwinnable positions by winning these microbattles here and there slowly crawling my way back into the game. And that shouldn't be "just more apm/multitasking".
Even though this still happens in SC2, there should be much more (like 10 times more) of that to motivate people to play more.
|
But Legacy is more about churning out MOAR disposable units. Even Protoss has lost the focus on "important" units and does very well by spamming a gateway army that is very forgiving.
|
On October 06 2016 16:52 fLyiNgDroNe wrote:
the biggest problem of SC2 is that 1 battle often decides all + battles are over too fast. Shit dies in a matter of seconds.
When players do dance and exchange units, this becomes super interesting shit.
RTS should be a game of "advantages". I.e. one player has a smaller army, but he puts his army in all these favourable positions to win the game.
as a player nothing motivates me more than being able to pull comebacks from unwinnable positions by winning these microbattles here and there slowly crawling my way back into the game. And that shouldn't be "just more apm/multitasking".
Even though this still happens in SC2, there should be much more (like 10 times more) of that to motivate people to play more.
This is not true and has never been true of SC2 or even Broodwar. I will never understand this argument. Just because the largest battle of the game is one sided or ended in 5 seconds doesn't mean that the game is inherently flawed. If your ling scout killed two probes because you won the micro battle against your opponent and then effectively bottled him out of his 3rd or 4th base while you took your 4th or 5th and then used that as positioning to take said final battle. The whole game was not decided by one big battle. It was a series of things you did right and your opponent did wrong that gave you an advantage. People who spout "points" like this or who make claims about A-moving are the reason the game is dying. You have started to believe your own bullshit and feed off each others circle jerking.
RANT over.
|
On October 06 2016 17:10 KT_Elwood wrote:
But Legacy is more about churning out MOAR disposable units. Even Protoss has lost the focus on "important" units and does very well by spamming a gateway army that is very forgiving.
I will concede the adept is a problem, and I wish the unit had never been implemented.
|
On October 06 2016 06:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 05:35 NukeD wrote:On October 06 2016 05:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 06 2016 05:09 _vk_ wrote:
It's total bullshit to blame the community.
It wasn't the community that came up with sentries, warpgates, warhounds, colossi and the shredder. Blizzard should be able to come up with ideas for units like the Warhound and Shredder that turn out to fail. You need space to come up with all sorts of ideas. Its part of the creative process. Titan failed. Blizzard picked up the pieces and made Overwatch. Do we now claim Blizzard sucks because they failed with Titan? Titan? The Story of Overwatch: The Fall of Titan. its on youtube someplace. its a good video. Metzen is a bit over dramatic. but its interesting. every creative company and person needs space to fail with their experiments and should not be demonized for the failure of a new experiment. edit: here is the video + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq-HwvYjLLg
Thank you very much for the video. Very interesting!
|
On October 06 2016 08:14 Xamo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:31 Fliparoni wrote:
You are all way overthinking this. Tell me something. Can anyone really name any other RTS out there that was made in the last 5 years or so that is even remotely in the same universe as SC2 in terms of popularity? I cant and there is a reason why no companies are making RTS games anymore. It is simply because no one really plays them anymore in terms of the general gaming population. Even if Blizzard had done everything right I still highly doubt the viewer and player base would be much better (perhaps marginally better at best) than it currently is. This so much.
Yeah. Gotta agree. SCII is a six year old game in a withering genre that still pulls some impressive numbers.
I think Blizzard needs to split MP from the LoTV campaign. Cheaper MP will let SCII compete with stars like Rocket League, CS:GO and MOBAs. If microtransactions turn out well I could even see F2P working.
|
im fine with the game ballance and when we look on the pro tournaments its pretty even between the races.
crying about the game balance because people are not able to master the game is stupid and makes no sense
|
On October 06 2016 19:00 Denjor1elf wrote:
im fine with the game ballance and when we look on the pro tournaments its pretty even between the races.
crying about the game balance because people are not able to master the game is stupid and makes no sense
Yes, but that happens with any game not just SC2 ... people will always complain even in real life.
|
I agree that design is what killed SC2.
Rather than fixing up the fundamentals of the game, David Kim only cares about little stats here and there to achieve balance.
LotV should have been a major revamp of the whole game, but they went for the safe easy route.
Issues are:
- Lack of micro (see the famous TL article Depth of micro) This was published in 2013 and Blizzard has done nothing.
- Warp gates. Gives no defenders advantage and encourages Protoss all-ins.
- One 2 second battle decides the game, units have way too much DPS.
- Too many attack move units that do massive damage (protoss collosus deathballs, banelings etc...)
Seriously LotV should've fixed up fundamental flaws, but they went for the increase bunker build time by 5 seconds route.
At least Co-Op is massive and fun in SC2, that will be the main mode people play now.
|
On October 06 2016 19:30 Highways wrote:I agree that design is what killed SC2. Rather than fixing up the fundamentals of the game, David Kim only cares about little stats here and there to achieve balance. LotV should have been a major revamp of the whole game, but they went for the safe easy route. Issues are: - Lack of micro (see the famous TL article Depth of micro) This was published in 2013 and Blizzard has done nothing. - Warp gates. Gives no defenders advantage and encourages Protoss all-ins. - One 2 second battle decides the game, units have way too much DPS. - Too many attack move units that do massive damage (protoss collosus deathballs, banelings etc...) Seriously LotV should've fixed up fundamental flaws, but they went for the increase bunker build time by 5 seconds route. At least Co-Op is massive and fun in SC2, that will be the main mode people play now.
I don't think 12 worker start and significantly reduced resources per base is a change in line with bunker build time philosophy.
|
Here is my solution which is mindnumbingly obvious to anyone with proper balance experience
what i mean is that you should be able to set a minimum league to post when you make a new thread to keep the feedback relevant
what you need is channeled feedback, one for casuals one for pros achieved through league locking the bnet forum so we can have serious discussions and have a dialogue with david kim or blizzards devs/managers without being pitchforked by lowleaguers
im masters every season ive played since wol beta and i dont post on bnet forums because i will get -30 and twenty people in gold saying "you are biased" when i post nothing but objective facts and welcome discussion where/when am i wrong and how, instead people just throw aspersions and ad hominems because they dont have any real arguments because again they are bad at the game.
Without a league lock everyone thinks they are gm level and balance applies directly to them and so the forums would be flooded with balance complaints, bnet forums have a solution to this they are not implementing making the bnet forums unserious.
Just to prove balance does not apply to average joe, if you learned to split your marines recently, banelings were not overpowered before that, you just didnt know how to deal with them
but to a novice obviously banelings will SEEM imbalanced because they require an unintuitive solution, same goes for mech, lategame protoss, ultras etc
|
On October 03 2016 01:21 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Just say it like it is and cut the tldr out brother
Blizzard put a man who ruined Dawn of War in a position to balance the most complex and in depth RTS ever created maybe besides Brood War.
Just look at David Kims method of operation, there really isn't one, he has been floundering around and flip flopping since day 1 pretty much with no clear concise vision of what he wants to do or where he wants the game to go.
Anyone remember Ghosts and blue flame hellions? They got abused for maybe 1 or 2 tournaments and Kim promptly brings the nerf hammer down, then when BL/Infestor chased away 1/4 of the viewers and was obviously imbalanced we had to deal with it for 6 months while the balance team say on their hands claiming that waiting it out was the way to go.
Theres multitudes of examples like this throughout the patches that I'm sure everyone here remembers so theres little need to harp on them all, but still, you can't put someone incompetent in charge and then except things to go good, that doesn't work in real life, and it didn't work with SC2.
BL Infestor was the result of David Kim buffing Queens with 2 extra attack range. Then it turned out that Zerg could hold practically anything by spamming queens and drones to maximise their economy. And that's why we ended up with 14 minute unstoppable tier 3.
HotS was so poorly designed and had the most stale metagame I had ever seen in any RTS. Every single game was Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Mines vs Ling/Bling/Muta/Ultra vs Stalker/Colossus/HighTemplar. This was every HotS game aside from when we saw Swarm Hosts pre-nerf, but Swarm Hosts were such a game ruining unit against Terran Mech and Protoss that they got nerfed to hell.
And now we have Legacy of Harassment, where nothing but cheese builds and defending with high micro units seem to be the norm. We now have some meta-breakingly overpowered units as well like Tankivacs, 5 range pickup Warp Prisms, Adepts, Hatchery tech Overlords with Ventral Sacs and Pneumaticized Carapace, redesigned Immortals, mass Reapers capable of pinning Zerg players back in their base.
And to put the OP's example of punishing game design back in the equation, let's talk about the Disruptor for a second. It does friendly fire damage, it has a long cooldown, it requires you to manually aim, and for some unit compositions like MMM and Stalker Immortal, it's very easy to dodge and mitigate.
At this point, David Kim needs to step down and resign, because when ex-Brood War pros - formerly playing one of the most difficult e-sports ever to master - complain about LotV being too difficult, you know you fucked up.
|
On October 06 2016 21:31 FoxDog wrote:
Here is my solution which is mindnumbingly obvious to anyone with proper balance experience
what i mean is that you should be able to set a minimum league to post when you make a new thread to keep the feedback relevant
what you need is channeled feedback, one for casuals one for pros achieved through league locking the bnet forum so we can have serious discussions and have a dialogue with david kim or blizzards devs/managers without being pitchforked by lowleaguers
im masters every season ive played since wol beta and i dont post on bnet forums because i will get -30 and twenty people in gold saying "you are biased" when i post nothing but objective facts and welcome discussion where/when am i wrong and how, instead people just throw aspersions and ad hominems because they dont have any real arguments because again they are bad at the game.
Without a league lock everyone thinks they are gm level and balance applies directly to them and so the forums would be flooded with balance complaints, bnet forums have a solution to this they are not implementing making the bnet forums unserious.
Just to prove balance does not apply to average joe, if you learned to split your marines recently, banelings were not overpowered before that, you just didnt know how to deal with them
but to a novice obviously banelings will SEEM imbalanced because they require an unintuitive solution, same goes for mech, lategame protoss, ultras etc
I do think balance applies to all levels of play. If two equally unskilled noobs are playing Race A and Race B, yet one is winning more than the other, then there is an imbalance at the "unskilled noobish" level.
In a perfect world, SC2 would be balanced at all levels of play, but people on TL tend to prioritize balance at the very top because we like watching the top players play in fair conditions. With that being said, I can certainly understand that lower level players would find frustrating that some of their noobish comrades have less to do to win a game.
"Get better", although always welcome personal advice, isn't really a valid response to global imbalance.
The balance threads/forums separated by leagues is probably a good idea though. Nothing good could come from a gold player arguing with a master player about the balance of their respective races.
|
On October 06 2016 21:31 FoxDog wrote:
Just to prove balance does not apply to average joe, if you learned to split your marines recently, banelings were not overpowered before that, you just didnt know how to deal with them
but to a novice obviously banelings will SEEM imbalanced because they require an unintuitive solution, same goes for mech, lategame protoss, ultras etc
On that note I would also argue the statement about engagements being too fast and overall unit dps too high. While I also feel that some fights happen too quick and often require instant reaction to prevent you from losing excessive amount of workers or army in some situations, these "2 second" engagements have no place in higher level play because of "unintuitive" mindfulness of the fights players should/should not take.
Last game of Trap - Neeb from last week shows it the best I think, both players have Disruptors, the highest dps units in the game that can end fights in - this time literally - 2 seconds, but they both are playing it out rather than smashing two armies into each other where only thing that really matters is composition and who shoots first...
|
On October 06 2016 20:47 ThunderBum wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 19:30 Highways wrote:I agree that design is what killed SC2. Rather than fixing up the fundamentals of the game, David Kim only cares about little stats here and there to achieve balance. LotV should have been a major revamp of the whole game, but they went for the safe easy route. Issues are: - Lack of micro (see the famous TL article Depth of micro) This was published in 2013 and Blizzard has done nothing. - Warp gates. Gives no defenders advantage and encourages Protoss all-ins. - One 2 second battle decides the game, units have way too much DPS. - Too many attack move units that do massive damage (protoss collosus deathballs, banelings etc...) Seriously LotV should've fixed up fundamental flaws, but they went for the increase bunker build time by 5 seconds route. At least Co-Op is massive and fun in SC2, that will be the main mode people play now. I don't think 12 worker start and significantly reduced resources per base is a change in line with bunker build time philosophy.
It didn't change anything, though. I have to take a fourth earlier to support 3 base economy, but that changes nothing. Right now, you build your fourth, it finishes, you move 8 workers from the main to the fourth. When the rest of the main mines out, you move the other 8 down.
Basically what they did was artificially upped the base count. Before, you needed 3 for a longer game. Now you need 4 for a longer game. Oh boy, so different.
|
On October 06 2016 22:49 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 20:47 ThunderBum wrote:On October 06 2016 19:30 Highways wrote:I agree that design is what killed SC2. Rather than fixing up the fundamentals of the game, David Kim only cares about little stats here and there to achieve balance. LotV should have been a major revamp of the whole game, but they went for the safe easy route. Issues are: - Lack of micro (see the famous TL article Depth of micro) This was published in 2013 and Blizzard has done nothing. - Warp gates. Gives no defenders advantage and encourages Protoss all-ins. - One 2 second battle decides the game, units have way too much DPS. - Too many attack move units that do massive damage (protoss collosus deathballs, banelings etc...) Seriously LotV should've fixed up fundamental flaws, but they went for the increase bunker build time by 5 seconds route. At least Co-Op is massive and fun in SC2, that will be the main mode people play now. I don't think 12 worker start and significantly reduced resources per base is a change in line with bunker build time philosophy. It didn't change anything, though. I have to take a fourth earlier to support 3 base economy, but that changes nothing. Right now, you build your fourth, it finishes, you move 8 workers from the main to the fourth. When the rest of the main mines out, you move the other 8 down. Basically what they did was artificially upped the base count. Before, you needed 3 for a longer game. Now you need 4 for a longer game. Oh boy, so different.
Having to take more bases and knowing when to do so and the gameplay changes that arise from having more surface area to defend and a shorter timer to make committed attacks i think is a pretty significant change and a good one for the game. It's certainly more impactful than a balance tweak. How many successive 2 base all ins were protoss capable of before their minerals ran dry? I'm glad we don't have those games anymore.
|
On October 06 2016 17:50 LongShot27 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 17:10 KT_Elwood wrote:
But Legacy is more about churning out MOAR disposable units. Even Protoss has lost the focus on "important" units and does very well by spamming a gateway army that is very forgiving.
I will concede the adept is a problem, and I wish the unit had never been implemented.
So you think the colossi vs. bio stuff was better?
Adapts were just shifting the problem and it became less visible is what you fail to see and now let yourself be deceived to blame adapts.
The source however is neither the adapt nor the colossi. The source is bio (basic units) which are that strong that other op units were required to create viablo counters.
The same applies to the queen buff. In WOL at bitbybitprime times tvz was majorly decided by bio pushes that could not or only barely and largely depending on luck be defended. Then blizzard buffed the queen instead of nerfing bio.
The same applies to muta regen, nexus or pylon cannon, etc.
While most buffs have indeed as well other factors and reasons that play in most of them unite that to counter strong bio play was one of the main factors to be balanced out when initiated.
Bio is tier 1, its got the marine shields, highest dps/cost in game with anti air in marines, marauders that bring tankyness and anti armoured dps, stim for max mobility and enemy units cannot escape (means fights against bio lose every unit if you don't kill the bio or have more mobile units than the bio - hence got stuck on muta/bane/ling in TvZ), medivacs to heal, escape fights or to overcome cliffs in absurd speeds.
It is just too good by design and that causes more or less all the problems of SC2 design is what I am pretty sure of.
Bio is as well the origin of the terrible damage fights where everything is just being melted away within seconds. It's counters e.g. banelings or colossi do the same with bio and destroy at the same time options for players to make enough difference through skill in fights (this needs time mainly) as it limits games to always the same compositions and cycles of builds and units.
|
On October 06 2016 21:31 FoxDog wrote:
im masters every season ive played since wol beta and i dont post on bnet forums because i will get -30 and twenty people in gold saying "you are biased" when i post nothing but objective facts and welcome discussion where/when am i wrong and how, instead people just throw aspersions and ad hominems because they dont have any real arguments because again they are bad at the game.
by definition, Golds are dead on average at the game in the mode requiring the most skill : 1v1 Ranked Ladder.
|
I used to be a part of the group complaining about everything, I'm not sure why, probably frustration with what I couldn't defeat in game (and maybe because I just jumped on the bandwagon).
So I stopped playing for a long while.
3-4 months ago I picked the game up again, and I really like it.
Come to think of it I can't imagine ANY other RTS I would rather play. I can't even begin to think of one, they are all slow as shit and really not that fun. I can say without a doubt, SC2 is the absolute best RTS game I have played (I would except the argument maybe brood war is better).
But this is a god damn good game, and it still gets support. I was all for double harvester mineral approach everyone was pushing for, but I like what we got now. I think both combined would have been the best, but the current economy system is great imo.
I don't want to play 40 min fucking game lol, I wouldn't play this at all if it was still like that. The shorter length of games made this playable for me again... playable... otherwise who has the time?
I don't think mines are a problem because they aren't a "fun" unit or don't have "micro potential." They actually do have some micro potential, and their design makes them unique... which offers unique functionality.
I just don't give a shit anymore, Idk why I even click these threads, I just want to enjoy the fucking game lol and I do. You should try it as well.
If you think BW was a better game, great, many people are going back to it. You can play it anytime you want
I get the passion dude, but maybe its time to try and not make this game something it isn't, just enjoy it for what it is and try to help improve it.
Frankly, I think RTS will never make it big as an esport. The rules are too complex... more complex than chess even. Most people can't understand RTS but CSGO... simple. plant the bomb, shoot the other team. Basketball same thing, throw the ball in a hole, run down a court.
|
BW ladder was as every bit stressful as SC2 ladder. I'm a big advocate of the "SC2 sucked bc of terribad UMS."
People complain harass is too op in SC2.
A reaver gets your entire mineral line while you take 3 seconds off to click on your macro structures in the natural.
1 DT can still ruin the entire game if you don't prepare for it after meticulous scouting, defilers and statis field are BS, bio isn't viable vs protoss unless you're going for an half all in bichanic timing attack (switch bio to mech, you get SC2 - just gives me the giggles every time.), vultures are too op, they should cost at least some gas for the mines... I never see ghosts in play... BoxeR has no golden mouse...
All words I wrote on a korean SC community back in the 2000s.
Never has there been complete satisfaction with a game- even if it was 'the' SCBW. I find a lot of the complaints I had in SCBW transition into SC2, which is why I don't understand people saying BW was so much better. (Especially people who play fastest. Fastest kinda turns into a dull, never ending macro, A move, try to harass through 123456543234563 turrets. whoever gets off 1 good harass and gets a trade with their army wins with the next wave. I don't see how they play it.)
I know I was first introduced to SC because of a UMS called Zergling Blood. My uncle showed 6 yo me how to play it, and I was in love with the game since. It wasn't until much later I would actually try out 1v1 and become a salty random player on GameI.
P.S. I sometimes hear the words
BW was more balanced than SC2.
Most bs argument I've ever seen. I know people say that BW was balanced, but I think this is a most common misconception of the nostalgia goggles kicking in. BW was so imbalanced that you ended up fixing the winrate with heavy race favored maps. Vultures are OP- I do admit it as a former dirty Random player. But you know what? Stasis field OP, Dark swarm OP!
But on the maps, I actually think that this is an awesome idea, fix balance through maps,because
1. mappers don't need to focus on perfect 3 race balance as much,
2. you could get cooler looking dynamics suited for PvZ but not so much PvT, which is OK, because the underperforming race can ban it.
3. maps with specific race matches in mind can be themed to fit that. A good Terran map could be themed Korean War, and take the theme of a famous Korean War battlefield. Many TvTs will be played on it and it will be kewl.''
|
On October 07 2016 11:35 RCCar wrote:
BW ladder was as every bit stressful as SC2 ladder. I'm a big advocate of the "SC2 sucked bc of terribad UMS."
People complain harass is too op in SC2.
A reaver gets your entire mineral line while you take 3 seconds off to click on your macro structures in the natural.
1 DT can still ruin the entire game if you don't prepare for it after meticulous scouting, defilers and statis field are BS, bio isn't viable vs protoss unless you're going for an half all in bichanic timing attack (switch bio to mech, you get SC2 - just gives me the giggles every time.), vultures are too op, they should cost at least some gas for the mines... I never see ghosts in play... BoxeR has no golden mouse...
All words I wrote on a korean SC community back in the 2000s.
Never has there been complete satisfaction with a game- even if it was 'the' SCBW. I find a lot of the complaints I had in SCBW transition into SC2, which is why I don't understand people saying BW was so much better. (Especially people who play fastest. Fastest kinda turns into a dull, never ending macro, A move, try to harass through 123456543234563 turrets. whoever gets off 1 good harass and gets a trade with their army wins with the next wave. I don't see how they play it.)
I know I was first introduced to SC because of a UMS called Zergling Blood. My uncle showed 6 yo me how to play it, and I was in love with the game since. It wasn't until much later I would actually try out 1v1 and become a salty random player on GameI.
P.S. I sometimes hear the words
BW was more balanced than SC2.
Most bs argument I've ever seen. I know people say that BW was balanced, but I think this is a most common misconception of the nostalgia goggles kicking in. BW was so imbalanced that you ended up fixing the winrate with heavy race favored maps. Vultures are OP- I do admit it as a former dirty Random player. But you know what? Stasis field OP, Dark swarm OP!
But on the maps, I actually think that this is an awesome idea, fix balance through maps,because
1. mappers don't need to focus on perfect 3 race balance as much,
2. you could get cooler looking dynamics suited for PvZ but not so much PvT, which is OK, because the underperforming race can ban it.
3. maps with specific race matches in mind can be themed to fit that. A good Terran map could be themed Korean War, and take the theme of a famous Korean War battlefield. Many TvTs will be played on it and it will be kewl.''
The fact is: BW is balanced. Sure maps are important in a game's balance, but you can obviously see that this is also the case for SC2. But more importantly, BW feels balanced. Any race can win at any point in the game. Early game, mid game, and late game. This is a big complaint many people seem to have with SC2 btw. Terrans, for instance, always felt like a powerhouse in mid game, but felt weaker in late game. Zerg is pretty much the opposite. Also, vultures are "OP"? Maybe, in a vacuum, but guess what? So is the defiler and the arbiter. The point is vultures are OP in the hands of fantasy, not in the hands of every scrub that ever played this game =D.
|
On October 07 2016 11:44 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 11:35 RCCar wrote:
BW ladder was as every bit stressful as SC2 ladder. I'm a big advocate of the "SC2 sucked bc of terribad UMS."
People complain harass is too op in SC2.
A reaver gets your entire mineral line while you take 3 seconds off to click on your macro structures in the natural.
1 DT can still ruin the entire game if you don't prepare for it after meticulous scouting, defilers and statis field are BS, bio isn't viable vs protoss unless you're going for an half all in bichanic timing attack (switch bio to mech, you get SC2 - just gives me the giggles every time.), vultures are too op, they should cost at least some gas for the mines... I never see ghosts in play... BoxeR has no golden mouse...
All words I wrote on a korean SC community back in the 2000s.
Never has there been complete satisfaction with a game- even if it was 'the' SCBW. I find a lot of the complaints I had in SCBW transition into SC2, which is why I don't understand people saying BW was so much better. (Especially people who play fastest. Fastest kinda turns into a dull, never ending macro, A move, try to harass through 123456543234563 turrets. whoever gets off 1 good harass and gets a trade with their army wins with the next wave. I don't see how they play it.)
I know I was first introduced to SC because of a UMS called Zergling Blood. My uncle showed 6 yo me how to play it, and I was in love with the game since. It wasn't until much later I would actually try out 1v1 and become a salty random player on GameI.
P.S. I sometimes hear the words
BW was more balanced than SC2.
Most bs argument I've ever seen. I know people say that BW was balanced, but I think this is a most common misconception of the nostalgia goggles kicking in. BW was so imbalanced that you ended up fixing the winrate with heavy race favored maps. Vultures are OP- I do admit it as a former dirty Random player. But you know what? Stasis field OP, Dark swarm OP!
But on the maps, I actually think that this is an awesome idea, fix balance through maps,because
1. mappers don't need to focus on perfect 3 race balance as much,
2. you could get cooler looking dynamics suited for PvZ but not so much PvT, which is OK, because the underperforming race can ban it.
3. maps with specific race matches in mind can be themed to fit that. A good Terran map could be themed Korean War, and take the theme of a famous Korean War battlefield. Many TvTs will be played on it and it will be kewl.''
The fact is: BW is balanced. Sure maps are important in a game's balance, but you can obviously see that this is also the case for SC2. But more importantly, BW feels balanced. Any race can win at any point in the game. Early game, mid game, and late game. This is a big complaint many people seem to have with SC2 btw. Terrans, for instance, always felt like a powerhouse in mid game, but felt weaker in late game. Zerg is pretty much the opposite. Also, vultures are "OP"? Maybe, in a vacuum, but guess what? So is the defiler and the arbiter. The point is vultures are OP in the hands of fantasy, not in the hands of every scrub that ever played this game =D.
You seem to be saying that vultures aren't op because scrubs use them. No, they're op because scrubs play scrubs (not really because matchmaking is garbage in BW), but in a similar skillset, vultures do their worth with very minimum effort- after they deposit their 3 spider mines. I don't know if this is a thing in TL but people used to say "get a vulture for every 3 mines you purchase!" FanTaSy was a hero because he knew not only how to press 'i' and shart out spider mines, but also how to utilize the unit itself to the max.
I don't know why balance has you triggered all of a sudden. It is a fact that while SC2 maps divide maps into macro and rush categories, BW would blatantly make maps where a certain race was weak. Take the era back when Sav***(may his name be forever cursed) and Zerg would dominate the entire game with its Lair triforce tech. We got freaking 'longinus', the most biased freaking map against Zerg. If you look at the name, the spear that penetrated Jesus Christ the savior, you know who the fuck the map was gunning for.
Also, I don't know what you mean when 'any race can win at any point in the game'. It was pretty obvious in BW that Terran was the turtle race that would have its strengths in the late game with 3/3 mech while Toss was the gimicky race which would have to recall and field its way before Terran got its upgrade in stride(I think 2/1 was when T started to tilt the scale), Zerg was very strong in its lair tech back in the day, especially vs P with its stupid mass hydra rush. There were definitely all ins and timings you could do in SCBW, but I would say that SC2 is actually entirely made of timing rushes.
|
On October 07 2016 12:02 RCCar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 11:44 petro1987 wrote:On October 07 2016 11:35 RCCar wrote:
BW ladder was as every bit stressful as SC2 ladder. I'm a big advocate of the "SC2 sucked bc of terribad UMS."
People complain harass is too op in SC2.
A reaver gets your entire mineral line while you take 3 seconds off to click on your macro structures in the natural.
1 DT can still ruin the entire game if you don't prepare for it after meticulous scouting, defilers and statis field are BS, bio isn't viable vs protoss unless you're going for an half all in bichanic timing attack (switch bio to mech, you get SC2 - just gives me the giggles every time.), vultures are too op, they should cost at least some gas for the mines... I never see ghosts in play... BoxeR has no golden mouse...
All words I wrote on a korean SC community back in the 2000s.
Never has there been complete satisfaction with a game- even if it was 'the' SCBW. I find a lot of the complaints I had in SCBW transition into SC2, which is why I don't understand people saying BW was so much better. (Especially people who play fastest. Fastest kinda turns into a dull, never ending macro, A move, try to harass through 123456543234563 turrets. whoever gets off 1 good harass and gets a trade with their army wins with the next wave. I don't see how they play it.)
I know I was first introduced to SC because of a UMS called Zergling Blood. My uncle showed 6 yo me how to play it, and I was in love with the game since. It wasn't until much later I would actually try out 1v1 and become a salty random player on GameI.
P.S. I sometimes hear the words
BW was more balanced than SC2.
Most bs argument I've ever seen. I know people say that BW was balanced, but I think this is a most common misconception of the nostalgia goggles kicking in. BW was so imbalanced that you ended up fixing the winrate with heavy race favored maps. Vultures are OP- I do admit it as a former dirty Random player. But you know what? Stasis field OP, Dark swarm OP!
But on the maps, I actually think that this is an awesome idea, fix balance through maps,because
1. mappers don't need to focus on perfect 3 race balance as much,
2. you could get cooler looking dynamics suited for PvZ but not so much PvT, which is OK, because the underperforming race can ban it.
3. maps with specific race matches in mind can be themed to fit that. A good Terran map could be themed Korean War, and take the theme of a famous Korean War battlefield. Many TvTs will be played on it and it will be kewl.''
The fact is: BW is balanced. Sure maps are important in a game's balance, but you can obviously see that this is also the case for SC2. But more importantly, BW feels balanced. Any race can win at any point in the game. Early game, mid game, and late game. This is a big complaint many people seem to have with SC2 btw. Terrans, for instance, always felt like a powerhouse in mid game, but felt weaker in late game. Zerg is pretty much the opposite. Also, vultures are "OP"? Maybe, in a vacuum, but guess what? So is the defiler and the arbiter. The point is vultures are OP in the hands of fantasy, not in the hands of every scrub that ever played this game =D. You seem to be saying that vultures aren't op because scrubs use them. No, they're op because scrubs play scrubs (not really because matchmaking is garbage in BW), but in a similar skillset, vultures do their worth with very minimum effort- after they deposit their 3 spider mines. I don't know if this is a thing in TL but people used to say "get a vulture for every 3 mines you purchase!" FanTaSy was a hero because he knew not only how to press 'i' and shart out spider mines, but also how to utilize the unit itself to the max. I don't know why balance has you triggered all of a sudden. It is a fact that while SC2 maps divide maps into macro and rush categories, BW would blatantly make maps where a certain race was weak. Take the era back when Sav***(may his name be forever cursed) and Zerg would dominate the entire game with its Lair triforce tech. We got freaking 'longinus', the most biased freaking map against Zerg. If you look at the name, the spear that penetrated Jesus Christ the savior, you know who the fuck the map was gunning for. Also, I don't know what you mean when 'any race can win at any point in the game'. It was pretty obvious in BW that Terran was the turtle race that would have its strengths in the late game with 3/3 mech while Toss was the gimicky race which would have to recall and field its way before Terran got its upgrade in stride(I think 2/1 was when T started to tilt the scale), Zerg was very strong in its lair tech back in the day, especially vs P with its stupid mass hydra rush. There were definitely all ins and timings you could do in SCBW, but I would say that SC2 is actually entirely made of timing rushes.
I was essentialy saying that units being "OP" in a vaccum is pretty much pointless. Every race has their "OP" units and the game is balanced as a whole. Yes, vultures are obviously efficient units, but even in pro games, you could easily see that only a handful of pros could actually make them look OP.
Some maps were (very) good for certain races in BW. But this also was true for SC2. Hell, I've see people complaining about map pools in SC2 a lot. So your point here is moot.
Terran was the turtle race? Since when? Flash style in TvP (one matchup) is defensive, but not what I would call turtly. He harass a lot. Fantasy and others played a much more offensive style, depending on the map. In TvZ is completely different though. Terran is usually the aggressor. See? The game has a mix of styles depending on the matchup. Your generalizations aren't exactly correct.
I guess the most important point that I was trying to make though is that the game at least FEELS more balanced and fair in every skill level. You don't see people complaining all the time about balance in BW forums.
|
Sorry, meant to edit. Please delete.
|
Canada1205 Posts
On October 07 2016 12:23 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 12:02 RCCar wrote:On October 07 2016 11:44 petro1987 wrote:On October 07 2016 11:35 RCCar wrote:
BW ladder was as every bit stressful as SC2 ladder. I'm a big advocate of the "SC2 sucked bc of terribad UMS."
People complain harass is too op in SC2.
A reaver gets your entire mineral line while you take 3 seconds off to click on your macro structures in the natural.
1 DT can still ruin the entire game if you don't prepare for it after meticulous scouting, defilers and statis field are BS, bio isn't viable vs protoss unless you're going for an half all in bichanic timing attack (switch bio to mech, you get SC2 - just gives me the giggles every time.), vultures are too op, they should cost at least some gas for the mines... I never see ghosts in play... BoxeR has no golden mouse...
All words I wrote on a korean SC community back in the 2000s.
Never has there been complete satisfaction with a game- even if it was 'the' SCBW. I find a lot of the complaints I had in SCBW transition into SC2, which is why I don't understand people saying BW was so much better. (Especially people who play fastest. Fastest kinda turns into a dull, never ending macro, A move, try to harass through 123456543234563 turrets. whoever gets off 1 good harass and gets a trade with their army wins with the next wave. I don't see how they play it.)
I know I was first introduced to SC because of a UMS called Zergling Blood. My uncle showed 6 yo me how to play it, and I was in love with the game since. It wasn't until much later I would actually try out 1v1 and become a salty random player on GameI.
P.S. I sometimes hear the words
BW was more balanced than SC2.
Most bs argument I've ever seen. I know people say that BW was balanced, but I think this is a most common misconception of the nostalgia goggles kicking in. BW was so imbalanced that you ended up fixing the winrate with heavy race favored maps. Vultures are OP- I do admit it as a former dirty Random player. But you know what? Stasis field OP, Dark swarm OP!
But on the maps, I actually think that this is an awesome idea, fix balance through maps,because
1. mappers don't need to focus on perfect 3 race balance as much,
2. you could get cooler looking dynamics suited for PvZ but not so much PvT, which is OK, because the underperforming race can ban it.
3. maps with specific race matches in mind can be themed to fit that. A good Terran map could be themed Korean War, and take the theme of a famous Korean War battlefield. Many TvTs will be played on it and it will be kewl.''
The fact is: BW is balanced. Sure maps are important in a game's balance, but you can obviously see that this is also the case for SC2. But more importantly, BW feels balanced. Any race can win at any point in the game. Early game, mid game, and late game. This is a big complaint many people seem to have with SC2 btw. Terrans, for instance, always felt like a powerhouse in mid game, but felt weaker in late game. Zerg is pretty much the opposite. Also, vultures are "OP"? Maybe, in a vacuum, but guess what? So is the defiler and the arbiter. The point is vultures are OP in the hands of fantasy, not in the hands of every scrub that ever played this game =D. You seem to be saying that vultures aren't op because scrubs use them. No, they're op because scrubs play scrubs (not really because matchmaking is garbage in BW), but in a similar skillset, vultures do their worth with very minimum effort- after they deposit their 3 spider mines. I don't know if this is a thing in TL but people used to say "get a vulture for every 3 mines you purchase!" FanTaSy was a hero because he knew not only how to press 'i' and shart out spider mines, but also how to utilize the unit itself to the max. I don't know why balance has you triggered all of a sudden. It is a fact that while SC2 maps divide maps into macro and rush categories, BW would blatantly make maps where a certain race was weak. Take the era back when Sav***(may his name be forever cursed) and Zerg would dominate the entire game with its Lair triforce tech. We got freaking 'longinus', the most biased freaking map against Zerg. If you look at the name, the spear that penetrated Jesus Christ the savior, you know who the fuck the map was gunning for. Also, I don't know what you mean when 'any race can win at any point in the game'. It was pretty obvious in BW that Terran was the turtle race that would have its strengths in the late game with 3/3 mech while Toss was the gimicky race which would have to recall and field its way before Terran got its upgrade in stride(I think 2/1 was when T started to tilt the scale), Zerg was very strong in its lair tech back in the day, especially vs P with its stupid mass hydra rush. There were definitely all ins and timings you could do in SCBW, but I would say that SC2 is actually entirely made of timing rushes. I was essentialy saying that units being "OP" in a vaccum is pretty much pointless. Every race has their "OP" units and the game is balanced as a whole. Yes, vultures are obviously efficient units, but even in pro games, you could easily see that only a handful of pros could actually make them look OP. Some maps were (very) good for certain races in BW. But this also was true for SC2. Hell, I've see people complaining about map pools in SC2 a lot. So your point here is moot. Terran was the turtle race? Since when? Flash style in TvP (one matchup) is defensive, but not what I would call turtly. He harass a lot. Fantasy and others played a much more offensive style, depending on the map. In TvZ is completely different though. Terran is usually the aggressor. See? The game has a mix of styles depending on the matchup. Your generalizations aren't exactly correct. I guess the most important point that I was trying to make though is that the game at least FEELS more balanced and fair in every skill level. You don't see people complaining all the time about balance in BW forums.
That's probably one of the biggest problems. Regardless of if things are balanced or not, sometimes it didn't "feel" balanced.
|
On October 07 2016 12:23 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 12:02 RCCar wrote:On October 07 2016 11:44 petro1987 wrote:On October 07 2016 11:35 RCCar wrote:
BW ladder was as every bit stressful as SC2 ladder. I'm a big advocate of the "SC2 sucked bc of terribad UMS."
People complain harass is too op in SC2.
A reaver gets your entire mineral line while you take 3 seconds off to click on your macro structures in the natural.
1 DT can still ruin the entire game if you don't prepare for it after meticulous scouting, defilers and statis field are BS, bio isn't viable vs protoss unless you're going for an half all in bichanic timing attack (switch bio to mech, you get SC2 - just gives me the giggles every time.), vultures are too op, they should cost at least some gas for the mines... I never see ghosts in play... BoxeR has no golden mouse...
All words I wrote on a korean SC community back in the 2000s.
Never has there been complete satisfaction with a game- even if it was 'the' SCBW. I find a lot of the complaints I had in SCBW transition into SC2, which is why I don't understand people saying BW was so much better. (Especially people who play fastest. Fastest kinda turns into a dull, never ending macro, A move, try to harass through 123456543234563 turrets. whoever gets off 1 good harass and gets a trade with their army wins with the next wave. I don't see how they play it.)
I know I was first introduced to SC because of a UMS called Zergling Blood. My uncle showed 6 yo me how to play it, and I was in love with the game since. It wasn't until much later I would actually try out 1v1 and become a salty random player on GameI.
P.S. I sometimes hear the words
BW was more balanced than SC2.
Most bs argument I've ever seen. I know people say that BW was balanced, but I think this is a most common misconception of the nostalgia goggles kicking in. BW was so imbalanced that you ended up fixing the winrate with heavy race favored maps. Vultures are OP- I do admit it as a former dirty Random player. But you know what? Stasis field OP, Dark swarm OP!
But on the maps, I actually think that this is an awesome idea, fix balance through maps,because
1. mappers don't need to focus on perfect 3 race balance as much,
2. you could get cooler looking dynamics suited for PvZ but not so much PvT, which is OK, because the underperforming race can ban it.
3. maps with specific race matches in mind can be themed to fit that. A good Terran map could be themed Korean War, and take the theme of a famous Korean War battlefield. Many TvTs will be played on it and it will be kewl.''
The fact is: BW is balanced. Sure maps are important in a game's balance, but you can obviously see that this is also the case for SC2. But more importantly, BW feels balanced. Any race can win at any point in the game. Early game, mid game, and late game. This is a big complaint many people seem to have with SC2 btw. Terrans, for instance, always felt like a powerhouse in mid game, but felt weaker in late game. Zerg is pretty much the opposite. Also, vultures are "OP"? Maybe, in a vacuum, but guess what? So is the defiler and the arbiter. The point is vultures are OP in the hands of fantasy, not in the hands of every scrub that ever played this game =D. You seem to be saying that vultures aren't op because scrubs use them. No, they're op because scrubs play scrubs (not really because matchmaking is garbage in BW), but in a similar skillset, vultures do their worth with very minimum effort- after they deposit their 3 spider mines. I don't know if this is a thing in TL but people used to say "get a vulture for every 3 mines you purchase!" FanTaSy was a hero because he knew not only how to press 'i' and shart out spider mines, but also how to utilize the unit itself to the max. I don't know why balance has you triggered all of a sudden. It is a fact that while SC2 maps divide maps into macro and rush categories, BW would blatantly make maps where a certain race was weak. Take the era back when Sav***(may his name be forever cursed) and Zerg would dominate the entire game with its Lair triforce tech. We got freaking 'longinus', the most biased freaking map against Zerg. If you look at the name, the spear that penetrated Jesus Christ the savior, you know who the fuck the map was gunning for. Also, I don't know what you mean when 'any race can win at any point in the game'. It was pretty obvious in BW that Terran was the turtle race that would have its strengths in the late game with 3/3 mech while Toss was the gimicky race which would have to recall and field its way before Terran got its upgrade in stride(I think 2/1 was when T started to tilt the scale), Zerg was very strong in its lair tech back in the day, especially vs P with its stupid mass hydra rush. There were definitely all ins and timings you could do in SCBW, but I would say that SC2 is actually entirely made of timing rushes. I was essentialy saying that units being "OP" in a vaccum is pretty much pointless. Every race has their "OP" units and the game is balanced as a whole. Yes, vultures are obviously efficient units, but even in pro games, you could easily see that only a handful of pros could actually make them look OP. Some maps were (very) good for certain races in BW. But this also was true for SC2. Hell, I've see people complaining about map pools in SC2 a lot. So your point here is moot. Terran was the turtle race? Since when? Flash style in TvP (one matchup) is defensive, but not what I would call turtly. He harass a lot. Fantasy and others played a much more offensive style, depending on the map. In TvZ is completely different though. Terran is usually the aggressor. See? The game has a mix of styles depending on the matchup. Your generalizations aren't exactly correct. I guess the most important point that I was trying to make though is that the game at least FEELS more balanced and fair in every skill level. You don't see people complaining all the time about balance in BW forums.
oh you sweet summer child. I did't do TL until 2015, but I can tell you right now that in Korea, at least, insults and slurs flew fast and thick against each other's race. Its subsided now than before, but I think that's because the meta hasn't been really altered since 2012. T still goes late mech vs Zerg, Zerg still boasts the lair triad while P goes Corsair + something with the occasional Templar Speed Zealot. And believe me, the game didn't seem balanced when I played it. Maybe its because the people who used to play ladder stepped out (like me), and take a more third person approach to the game. The things I whined about seem less OP now that I'm just all bark.
|
On October 06 2016 19:30 Highways wrote:I agree that design is what killed SC2. Rather than fixing up the fundamentals of the game, David Kim only cares about little stats here and there to achieve balance. LotV should have been a major revamp of the whole game, but they went for the safe easy route. Issues are: - Lack of micro (see the famous TL article Depth of micro) This was published in 2013 and Blizzard has done nothing. - Warp gates. Gives no defenders advantage and encourages Protoss all-ins. - One 2 second battle decides the game, units have way too much DPS. - Too many attack move units that do massive damage (protoss collosus deathballs, banelings etc...) Seriously LotV should've fixed up fundamental flaws, but they went for the increase bunker build time by 5 seconds route. At least Co-Op is massive and fun in SC2, that will be the main mode people play now.
i agree on the lack of micro, but i disagree on the rest...
warp gates are fine now etc. i can read a frustated terran player between the lines 
|
The reason is simple - It just isn't a very fun game. It was OK for about 3 months but I stopped playing it after 3 months. This is after playing SCBW for years - why? It's just so much more fun.
This game would have been many times more successful if they just made it SCBW 2.0 with upgraded graphics and mechanics. It had all the interesting strategies and unit interactions in place. SC2 is just blob vs blob with lots of clunky, unfun and boring units with either forced or nonexistent interactions, with every unit having a specified use with almost no room for creativity. The damage and armor type system also functions very poorly and there are comparatively very few scenarios where micro and strategy can overcome numbers.
Blizzard can reap what they sow. They lost out on tons of profits by failing to copy SCBW with this game.
|
On October 07 2016 17:15 Shikyo wrote:They lost out on tons of profits by failing to copy SCBW with this game.
Relative to ATVI's top franchises no RTS game ever made much money at all. Its foolhardy to expect that after the genre exists for 15+ years it would all of a sudden start making WoW or CoD type money. SC2 profits were in line with expectations and allocated resources. This is why ATVI bragged about its sales levels after every SC2 release. When ATVI's product fails to meet expectations and allocated resources they remain dead silent.. like they did for Destiny or the latest Guitar Hero disaster.
ATVI properly prioritized their resources. Their top guys never did work on SC2. Pardo was pulled off of it.
RTS fans thinking they deserve more and better resources than ATVI and Blizzard allocated to the project are flat out wrong. ATVI is in the business of making Billions not Millions.
I realize Blizzard's top guys never did work on the game. Blizzard is so good even their "B" team is miles better at making an RTS game than any one else. As a result, i'm 100% satisfied with SC2 and the time i've spent playing it over 6 years.
|
I realize Blizzard's top guys never did work on the game. Blizzard is so good even their "B" team is miles better at making an RTS game than any one else. As a result, i'm 100% satisfied with SC2 and the time i've spent playing it over 6 years. It's not about who makes better cinematics or unit models. Personally I don't care about graphics in an rts, all I want is clear and descriptive style, and I always found 2D and simple models/effects of WC3 better then most modern rts games for that specific reason.
Rts games are primarily played in single player. You need to feel like an actual commander, and in Sc2, you're not. You just hear Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis mumbling to themselves like some crazed hermits, and you as a player just do their work for them with no recognition. I loved the way you were addressed to in BW and earlier C&C games, or even Homeworld for that matter. In Sc2, you are Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis and unfortunately, they aren't likable or well written.
The games story also sucks. Plain and simple. If story is ridiculously bad and you can't relate to anything, you're not gonna finish the story or simply won't be engaged with the game.
Most if not all old school rts games were made with single player in mind and multiplayer only as an afterthought.
Arcade is bullshit even now after 6 years. No custom named lobbies. Something that can only be called a ridiculous excuse instead of chat channels. The game sucks because social aspect isn't there. Instead of an overview of dozens of open games and ums you have simply "play" button. You can't even say glhf before the game starts. The whole experience is extremely unwelcoming and depressing.
Single player campaigns also don't teach players how to play the game. Where are the missions where someone is explaining the concept of economy? Tutorial isn't really fleshed out for that.
Also, 3 campaigns split 6 years apart? What if I was 12 years old or younger, and wanted to learn to play Zerg, back when WoL came out, but was scared to play multiplayer? What if I got HotS but wanted to learn to play Protoss or Terran?
Forget the multiplayer. No new blood will ever play it if single player sucks balls. Not many people will stay when you can play 100s of games and barerly speak to anyone.
This is where the game lacks.
It doesn't matter how well you choose your team or how much you gonna spend on an rts, if you make it antisocial, unwelcoming and unhelpful.
|
I'd like to contribute here.
First I have a half baked thumbnail of what I see happening. I'll explain it poorly and find a scapegoat, that'll ruffle the feathers of those fat cats up in Washington. Astonished yet? Now I'll take these ingredients, attach them together with some common-or-garden logic - you can't argue with logic - and hey presto. You follow?
No?
Well we need an example, I'll take any example, almost totally at random, could be anything.
MY IDEA, UNIT, MY IDEA, IMBALANCE, MY IDEA.
-no! no! no! I'm totally wrong.
They do it for the money you naive fools! It's their property. That's how it works, you should shut up and love it or vote with your pockets. That's how growed up did behave.
-I like your style, but I miss the point entirely.
RTS is old, the new thing now is fighting pandas. You can't change that, you're asking for the moon and we're on Mars baby.
-Almost right young 'un
I'm here to imply that I'm a professional, my credentials are unquestionable, I've lost more in chump change than you'll earn in a life time, I was playing video games before the beginning of time (1994) and I was top masters before I could properly wipe my ass. Here are the facts: Their top men are busy, and I'm not talking RTS guys, I'm talking REAL TOP MEN.
+ Show Spoiler +
So that was fun. It's been fun. I've enjoyed reading the thread.
Now I'm going to slam my junk in that drawer in the kitchen where the dead batteries go.
|
On October 08 2016 00:51 Nazara wrote:It's not about who makes better cinematics or unit models. Personally I don't care about graphics in an rts, all I want is clear and descriptive style, and I always found 2D and simple models/effects of WC3 better then most modern rts games for that specific reason.
Rts games are primarily played in single player. You need to feel like an actual commander, and in Sc2, you're not. You just hear Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis mumbling to themselves like some crazed hermits, and you as a player just do their work for them with no recognition. I loved the way you were addressed to in BW and earlier C&C games, or even Homeworld for that matter. In Sc2, you are Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis and unfortunately, they aren't likable or well written.
The games story also sucks. Plain and simple. If story is ridiculously bad and you can't relate to anything, you're not gonna finish the story or simply won't be engaged with the game.
Most if not all old school rts games were made with single player in mind and multiplayer only as an afterthought.
Arcade is bullshit even now after 6 years. No custom named lobbies. Something that can only be called a ridiculous excuse instead of chat channels. The game sucks because social aspect isn't there. Instead of an overview of dozens of open games and ums you have simply "play" button. You can't even say glhf before the game starts. The whole experience is extremely unwelcoming and depressing.
Single player campaigns also don't teach players how to play the game. Where are the missions where someone is explaining the concept of economy? Tutorial isn't really fleshed out for that.
Also, 3 campaigns split 6 years apart? What if I was 12 years old or younger, and wanted to learn to play Zerg, back when WoL came out, but was scared to play multiplayer? What if I got HotS but wanted to learn to play Protoss or Terran?
Forget the multiplayer. No new blood will ever play it if single player sucks balls. Not many people will stay when you can play 100s of games and barerly speak to anyone.
This is where the game lacks.
It doesn't matter how well you choose your team or how much you gonna spend on an rts, if you make it antisocial, unwelcoming and unhelpful.
Rob Pardo is a better game designer than David Kim. That said, Rob Pardo is a better game designer than just about everybody. DK is still really good.
The Arcade does not generate revenue. That said, i played and enjoyed Zealot Hockey and the community around the game for a good 6 months between NHL '94 Seasons. The community rivals NHL '94 and i'm pretty impressed. The tools Blizzard handed the Zealot Hockey guys to contribute to their success are solid. I'm happy with the Arcade.
|
That ship sailed away long time ago. SC2 in Korea is a lost cause.
Actually I don't know what is that obsession with Korea. The game didnt really became big in Korea... Big deal. CS:GO and DOTA are not big in Korea. Do Valve care ? Nope, it's one country.
I think that Blizzard spent too much resources to promote the game in South Korea instead of marketing it to the western market AND China as the next natural step from WC3.
As for the game itself. It's still fun, I still play it... It's the best(and the only) RTS at the moment. Too bad that this genre will die with it, though.
|
On October 08 2016 02:03 Dapper_Cad wrote:I'd like to contribute here. First I have a half baked thumbnail of what I see happening. I'll explain it poorly and find a scapegoat, that'll ruffle the feathers of those fat cats up in Washington. Astonished yet? Now I'll take these ingredients, attach them together with some common-or-garden logic - you can't argue with logic - and hey presto. You follow? No? Well we need an example, I'll take any example, almost totally at random, could be anything. MY IDEA, UNIT, MY IDEA, IMBALANCE, MY IDEA. -no! no! no! I'm totally wrong. They do it for the money you naive fools! It's their property. That's how it works, you should shut up and love it or vote with your pockets. That's how growed up did behave. -I like your style, but I miss the point entirely. RTS is old, the new thing now is fighting pandas. You can't change that, you're asking for the moon and we're on Mars baby. -Almost right young 'un I'm here to imply that I'm a professional, my credentials are unquestionable, I've lost more in chump change than you'll earn in a life time, I was playing video games before the beginning of time (1994) and I was top masters before I could properly wipe my ass. Here are the facts: Their top men are busy, and I'm not talking RTS guys, I'm talking REAL TOP MEN. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M So that was fun. It's been fun. I've enjoyed reading the thread. Now I'm going to slam my junk in that drawer in the kitchen where the dead batteries go.
I'm actually thinking of calling it "the nut cracker" because those batteries really are useless and I only use it for one other thing... and as much as I might wish I didn't, I keep coming back and mutilating my genitals in it.
On October 08 2016 02:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 00:51 Nazara wrote:It's not about who makes better cinematics or unit models. Personally I don't care about graphics in an rts, all I want is clear and descriptive style, and I always found 2D and simple models/effects of WC3 better then most modern rts games for that specific reason.
Rts games are primarily played in single player. You need to feel like an actual commander, and in Sc2, you're not. You just hear Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis mumbling to themselves like some crazed hermits, and you as a player just do their work for them with no recognition. I loved the way you were addressed to in BW and earlier C&C games, or even Homeworld for that matter. In Sc2, you are Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis and unfortunately, they aren't likable or well written.
The games story also sucks. Plain and simple. If story is ridiculously bad and you can't relate to anything, you're not gonna finish the story or simply won't be engaged with the game.
Most if not all old school rts games were made with single player in mind and multiplayer only as an afterthought.
Arcade is bullshit even now after 6 years. No custom named lobbies. Something that can only be called a ridiculous excuse instead of chat channels. The game sucks because social aspect isn't there. Instead of an overview of dozens of open games and ums you have simply "play" button. You can't even say glhf before the game starts. The whole experience is extremely unwelcoming and depressing.
Single player campaigns also don't teach players how to play the game. Where are the missions where someone is explaining the concept of economy? Tutorial isn't really fleshed out for that.
Also, 3 campaigns split 6 years apart? What if I was 12 years old or younger, and wanted to learn to play Zerg, back when WoL came out, but was scared to play multiplayer? What if I got HotS but wanted to learn to play Protoss or Terran?
Forget the multiplayer. No new blood will ever play it if single player sucks balls. Not many people will stay when you can play 100s of games and barerly speak to anyone.
This is where the game lacks.
It doesn't matter how well you choose your team or how much you gonna spend on an rts, if you make it antisocial, unwelcoming and unhelpful. Rob Pardo is a better game designer than David Kim. That said, Rob Pardo is a better game designer than just about everybody. DK is still really good. The Arcade does not generate revenue. That said, i played and enjoyed Zealot Hockey and the community around the game for a good 6 months between NHL '94 Seasons. The community rivals NHL '94 and i'm pretty impressed. The tools Blizzard handed the Zealot Hockey guys to contribute to their success are solid. I'm happy with the Arcade.
Agreed on Rob Pardo. Though you'd have thought that in a community dedicated to a game he designed - every member of which is convinced they understand the intricacies of game design and the challenges of creative work in a large team trying to hit deadline within a corporate structure servicing a player base of millions - that an in depth interview with Rob Pardo would have got more traction.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/475404-designer-notes-podcast-interview-with-rob-pardo
|
i posted that interview when it originally occurred and it got a bit more traction. what i took away from it is that when the Dota1 MOD on WC3 was exploding so was WoW and they only had enough bandwidth in their development pipeline to service 1 big thing. So they went with the thing with a $15 USD monthly fee.
|
Unfortunately I also have to shift a bit of the blame at TL or some of their moderators.
Posts like this, critizising the game in that way were just shut down and any mention of the player population in decline and saying things like the game "is dead or would be dead soon",
I think we would have needed this discussion earlier, before even the frist expansion came out.
The question is what type of game do we want?
A game played by a large player base, a player base that watches streams or produce content themselves, e-sports, teams and tournaments with lots of money on the line?
Or do we want a game kept alive by a loyal but very small fan base that love it, but never gets any attention by anyone else.
Do we want a place in the sportlighe or do we want a place in the niche?
If we root for the latter nothing needs to change because the loyal core will always remain loyal no matter what.
If we aim at a place for the game in the spotlight, the game itself needs a big player base to stand on, so the game must appeal to the casual. The casual must love the game, the game has to be ballanced mainly for casual play and unit and game design have to aim at the casual.
BUT nearly every discussion, was led by elitists, game ballancing and ballancing discussions seemed to only be aimed at the pro levels and even forum discussions were shut down seemingly because casuals didn't seem to have a say.
SC2 at the start had a huge player base for a strategy game, even in multiplayer but they all left and just bought the expansions for the storyline ( <3 ) which they played through and never touched the game again.
There is no real replay value in the campaingn (as opposed to other strat games like total war) and most people where just shattered by their multiplayer experience.
The casual had to do tasks and tasks to prevent, dark templar rushes or this to prevent marine rushes, drops in the mineral line, doomballs, also cannons and other chesy strats, or it what be that one mistake or that one fight that would decide everything in a split second of looking somewhere else.
Most casuals simply got scared away by that over time and although starcraft was supposed to be a "strategy" game for casuals it is just a mechanic excerices nothing else.
For a casual it was only who can pump put more units or who can execute a harassment better or get a timing better and there were/are no strategial thoughts to it on the lower levels of play.
WC3 for example back in the day was far more enjoyable to play for me at the casual level. (Although there where some cheesy strats there too for casuals, they where harder to pull off and normally you wouldn't loose games as fast as you can in SC2)
If I would make an overall suggestion on how to improove the gameplay and design to make the game more enjoyable for casuals and therfore get it a place in the spotlight and esports, I would suggest, just looking at what WC3 did right.
|
Rob Pardo is a better game designer than David Kim. That said, Rob Pardo is a better game designer than just about everybody. DK is still really good. He's only a designer by name, in reality he's more of a balance director.
All I ever see from him are balance tweaks and PR. The only "design" changes that I remember was half patch economy change and "Suicide" Disruptor->"Reavery" Disruptor changes in the beta.
DK is not good, he is average at best. I can count at least 10-15 people (amateurs) on this very forum that post very insightful and logical arguments or simply present a good understanding of what design actually is and how it is achieved, some people took it upon themselves to fix the game with mods, and while some of them are drastically different from each other, they seem to focus in the same areas or at least try to fix the same units. To me it confirms that they have identified real problems with the game that could be easily fixed by such a "good designer", but DK just seems oblivious.
Just because he (DK) is experienced, doesn't mean he is good, and it also doesn't mean that you need any game design degree or studies to know what is wrong with the game, while all you need to be a designer is simply common sense and ability to predict how one change affects other changes. A designers job is to know what you want and try to get out there and do it, while DK has no direction at all. Months of test balance maps, dozens of changes tested but nothing coming out of it. There is no solid theme for any race at the moment.
The Arcade does not generate revenue. That's not the point I was making. Blizzard do not need to put money into the Arcade or work with the community bringing the already popular games to the spotlight. What Arcade needed on WoL launch was complete overhaul.
What BW and WC3 done right:
- named games instead of being seeded automatically by the system. Automatic seed brings all problems described in this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/509980-where-are-the-custom-games-players#6
and probably some more as well.
- more interaction between players (small, cosy, almost private chat channels) on the chat instead of the constant poo spam.
- easy way to chill after a stressfull game (instead of changing 4+ menus and wait 15 seconds of buffering, you just have a look at open games and see 2v2s, BGHs and UMS games) or an incentive to finally try out the "real man mode" of 1v1 as all games are grouped into one window.
- pregame lobbies. Not only you could have a little chat with your opponent and exchange pleasantries (in SC2 you hardly even have the time to type glhf ^^), but seeing your opponent's name in the lobby actually helped you remember his name. In SC2, I can hardly remember other guys nickname 5 seconds after the game starts. In SC1, somehow I remember other players and can even make friends with them (socialize in a 1v1 game? Heresy!), because not only their game lobbies are named in unique fashion, you get to see creators name before you even join it.
- while SC2 editor is more powerful and allows much more degree of control, it is very complicated and it can take you days/weeks of testing just to figure out a change to a simple mechanic. Not to mention the enormous amount of bugs of the editor and conflicts between multiple game modes that take hours/days to clean up, or sometimes very ugly work-arounds. In comparison, SC1 and WC3 editors were childs play.
Arcade is important because in most RTS games the Arcade is the main mode for casual players, not the 1v1. Casual player can play a couple of 1v1 games in a week, but then he will want something less frustrating, and UMS were best for that reason. With active and accessible UMS, people don't need to look for less frustrating games outside of SC2.
For example, any time I experienced any type of ladder anxiety or just simple annoyance after losing a couple of games in a row on a bad day, I could just decide to play an UMS while already browsing 1v1 games. The point is, I didn't get frustrated beyond belief because I could always relax playing 2v2 or Zergling Defence map, without changing any menus. If I had to change this many menus, I might have just exit the game and play something else.
The UMS and lobby system is what kept me playing BW, and kept my interest high and frustration level low.
Both in BW and WC3, main portion of users played UMS games or easy game modes like Fastest of BGH. It is also stated, that Co-Op has more users then 1v1, which further proves the point.
If we had a decent Arcade system and Blizzard didn't try to modernize the looks at the cost of practicality, the game's main story was coherent and engaging, the game could have had a lot larger playerbase despite all the balance whining.
|
ok guys, here's how you increase sc2's popularity:
MAKE IT FREE
seriously, this is one of the biggest and most easily resolved differences between starcraft and a lot of its competitors. sc2 has a steep barrier of entry due to the $40 up front cost ($60 previously), plus it has a reputation as very hard to pick up. so people who are just getting into competitive games are discouraged from trying it out, and will pick something free like dota, or at least significantly cheaper like counterstrike. your average player doesn't care nearly as much about the fine points of game design or balance nearly as much as TL forum posters (especially the long term BW veterans), but they do care about money. so make the multiplayer completely free to compete with these, and sell the campaigns separately in-game, like the nova missions already are.
with the microtransaction stuff that's being previewed, i have a feeling this might be happening sometime soon - hoping for something good in blizzcon announcements.
|
On October 08 2016 07:04 -NegativeZero- wrote:
ok guys, here's how you increase sc2's popularity:
MAKE IT FREE
seriously, this is one of the biggest and most easily resolved differences between starcraft and a lot of its competitors. sc2 has a steep barrier of entry due to the $40 up front cost ($60 previously), plus it has a reputation as very hard to pick up. so people who are just getting into competitive games are discouraged from trying it out, and will pick something free like dota, or at least significantly cheaper like counterstrike. your average player doesn't care nearly as much about the fine points of game design or balance nearly as much as TL forum posters (especially the long term BW veterans), but they do care about money. so make the multiplayer completely free to compete with these, and sell the campaigns separately in-game, like the nova missions already are.
with the microtransaction stuff that's being previewed, i have a feeling this might be happening sometime soon - hoping for something good in blizzcon announcements.
I somewhat agree with what you pointed out, but I guess the problem seems to be KEEP people playing the game. Yes, if it's free more people will try the game, but will they stay? Given how few players have actually stuck with SC2, I'm not really sure about that.
I do think though that Blizzard should have taken the Dota 2 route. Use an awesome multiplayer game (BW) and put in a new engine, doing some small tweaks here and there (eg, MBS, automine) and just monetize it, with campaigns, skins, voice announcers, the whole deal. They could have made a way cheaper game (no need to design a whole new game) and also charge very little (or even make it free in multiplayer and charge only the campaigns/skins/etc.).
|
On October 08 2016 07:12 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:04 -NegativeZero- wrote:
ok guys, here's how you increase sc2's popularity:
MAKE IT FREE
seriously, this is one of the biggest and most easily resolved differences between starcraft and a lot of its competitors. sc2 has a steep barrier of entry due to the $40 up front cost ($60 previously), plus it has a reputation as very hard to pick up. so people who are just getting into competitive games are discouraged from trying it out, and will pick something free like dota, or at least significantly cheaper like counterstrike. your average player doesn't care nearly as much about the fine points of game design or balance nearly as much as TL forum posters (especially the long term BW veterans), but they do care about money. so make the multiplayer completely free to compete with these, and sell the campaigns separately in-game, like the nova missions already are.
with the microtransaction stuff that's being previewed, i have a feeling this might be happening sometime soon - hoping for something good in blizzcon announcements. I somewhat agree with what you pointed out, but I guess the problem seems to be KEEP people playing the game. Yes, if it's free more people will try the game, but will they stay? Given how few players have actually stuck with SC2, I'm not really sure about that. I do think though that Blizzard should have taken the Dota 2 route. Use an awesome multiplayer game (BW) and put in a new engine, doing some small tweaks here and there (eg, MBS, automine) and just monetize it, with campaigns, skins, voice announcers, the whole deal. They could have made a way cheaper game (no need to design a whole new game) and also charge very little (or even make it free in multiplayer and charge only the campaigns/skins/etc.).
part of this is just the nature of the 1v1 gameplay, combined with (again) the pricing model. if someone buys starcraft and plays it, and they also try dota and play it, but their friends don't want to spend the money on starcraft, then they're probably going to stick with dota. i've heard and seen many cases of people who play team based games and complain about them just as much as the good old TL balance whiners, but they keep playing because their friends also play.
|
On October 08 2016 02:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 00:51 Nazara wrote:It's not about who makes better cinematics or unit models. Personally I don't care about graphics in an rts, all I want is clear and descriptive style, and I always found 2D and simple models/effects of WC3 better then most modern rts games for that specific reason.
Rts games are primarily played in single player. You need to feel like an actual commander, and in Sc2, you're not. You just hear Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis mumbling to themselves like some crazed hermits, and you as a player just do their work for them with no recognition. I loved the way you were addressed to in BW and earlier C&C games, or even Homeworld for that matter. In Sc2, you are Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis and unfortunately, they aren't likable or well written.
The games story also sucks. Plain and simple. If story is ridiculously bad and you can't relate to anything, you're not gonna finish the story or simply won't be engaged with the game.
Most if not all old school rts games were made with single player in mind and multiplayer only as an afterthought.
Arcade is bullshit even now after 6 years. No custom named lobbies. Something that can only be called a ridiculous excuse instead of chat channels. The game sucks because social aspect isn't there. Instead of an overview of dozens of open games and ums you have simply "play" button. You can't even say glhf before the game starts. The whole experience is extremely unwelcoming and depressing.
Single player campaigns also don't teach players how to play the game. Where are the missions where someone is explaining the concept of economy? Tutorial isn't really fleshed out for that.
Also, 3 campaigns split 6 years apart? What if I was 12 years old or younger, and wanted to learn to play Zerg, back when WoL came out, but was scared to play multiplayer? What if I got HotS but wanted to learn to play Protoss or Terran?
Forget the multiplayer. No new blood will ever play it if single player sucks balls. Not many people will stay when you can play 100s of games and barerly speak to anyone.
This is where the game lacks.
It doesn't matter how well you choose your team or how much you gonna spend on an rts, if you make it antisocial, unwelcoming and unhelpful. Rob Pardo is a better game designer than David Kim. That said, Rob Pardo is a better game designer than just about everybody. DK is still really good. The Arcade does not generate revenue. That said, i played and enjoyed Zealot Hockey and the community around the game for a good 6 months between NHL '94 Seasons. The community rivals NHL '94 and i'm pretty impressed. The tools Blizzard handed the Zealot Hockey guys to contribute to their success are solid. I'm happy with the Arcade.
If rob pardo is a better game designer than just about everybody, then it makes perfect sense in my brain that there are only bad RTS games in this world excpept broodwar.
He was a designer of SC2 if i know correct, sc2 is a crap RTS game.
Broodwar is the only acceptable one yet he wasnt a designer of that game. But he made zealot hockey, oh wow proof right there that he really knows how to design games.. Oh wait never heard of that one but it must be a truly remarkable good game atleast if you enjoyed it more than nhl 94.
|
he was pulled off SC2 very early on because he had bigger fish to fry as Creative Director. its in the 4 hour interview posted here earlier.
http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,12797/
the guy has been a big part of some great games. In general, Blizzard game designers are at minimum good and sometimes great.
Has Pardo been replaced in his position at Blizzard?
|
What does "good design" even mean. Design needs a goal, i guess in the case of games it should be "fun". How do we actually meassure that though? The number of people playing the game? There are a lot of factors which are important for that, simply saying Game A has more players therefore it is the "better" (designed) game is flawed imo.
Tasks you have to do in rts games aren't fun for most people. It's fun for some though. I don't think you can make an rts game which is very close to starcraft like rts games and be really successful (lol, dota2, csgo) at the same time if we only look at multiplayer numbers (i feel that is the main topic here, no?)
The general trend in gaming (and other forms of entertainment) seems to be that the easier it is to get into something, the less effort you have to put in, the more successful it is.
Decide for yourself it that means it is "well designed" (i guess if we look at it the most basic way the success proves it is)
|
On October 08 2016 03:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i posted that interview when it originally occurred and it got a bit more traction. what i took away from it is that when the Dota1 MOD on WC3 was exploding so was WoW and they only had enough bandwidth in their development pipeline to service 1 big thing. So they went with the thing with a $15 USD monthly fee.
Ohhh... nice, I posted in that one, was sure I posted something in a thread about the interview but couldn't find it.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/473471-4-hours-of-pardo-discussing-blizzard-game-design
It is a bit of a longer thread but I mean jesus... with the way TL rehashes the same half dozen talking points on balance and design for 10-20 pages every 3-6 months you'd think a key player in Blizzard design speaking for 4 hours on those subjects fresh after leaving the company would warrant more than a page and a half.
But balance and design isn't what this is about really is it? It's a contest between young men trying to show who has the biggest hardest brain. And I sympathise, I really do. My brain is an enormous throbbing stainless steel organ and I need people to know about it but... you can only read people comparing units, races and scapegoats so many times with nothing being built (shout out to starbow though, and those 6m1g peeps and others) no real analysis being done (again, there are exceptions) before you start to get a bit cynical.
And yea, that analysis seems about right. I'd go further and say that what happened - that their open approach to map making resulted in their engine being used to invent a genre which took over esports but they didn't see a penny - made them too careful with what they let people do with the editor, thereby hurting the casual UMS part of the game. Although it might just have been the difference in the company that was making the game 10 years later. I mean its not unexpected that a larger organisation, beholden to shareholders would create something more homogeneous and risk free than a small team of dedicated enthusiasts right?
|
With posts like this it's has been more than 3 years since something constructive and original came to the spot... post are these are just opportunity for little rant from the same nicknames all over again. It's getting boring tbh
|
On October 08 2016 09:48 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
With posts like this it's has been more than 3 years since something constructive and original came to the spot... post are these are just opportunity for little rant from the same nicknames all over again. It's getting boring tbh How do you expect anything original when same problems from 3 years ago are still there to be addressed?
|
I want to add two sources into this thread so that we have some facts to talk about:
Gamemeca ranks StarCraft 2 at #14, Brood War at #17 for the last week:
http://www.gamemeca.com/popup/ranking.php?scode=O
Multiclick lists StarCraft 2 at #15, Brood War at #7 right now(18:29 CEST) http://multiclick.co.kr/sub/gamepatch/gamerank.html
Multiclick is definitely the more interesting source as it is pretty much a live ranking(pc bangs/at home). We can see that StarCraft 2 has a market share of 0.72%, with the median of this list being at 0.09%. Brood War is sitting comfortably at 2% - however Overwatch and League of Legends toegether make up >55% of the market share.
Two games heavily dominate the Korean market right now. Every other game tries to just find its niche, including Brood War. Granted Brood War has a bonus here because it once was "that game" making up a huge percentage of the market share, so naturally there will be a ton of nostalgia and old fans around.
But if anything kills korean StarCraft, it's Overwatch and League, since those games caused the biggest loss for Brood War as they share a similar audience.
A solution would be to make the game more interesting than both of these games. I don't think thats possibly with the current gaming trend.
|
LoL is a kiddy version of Dota, Overwatch is a pretty version of TF2. I guess that's what sells?
|
how is Overwatch share a similar audience?
|
On October 09 2016 06:30 fLyiNgDroNe wrote:
how is Overwatch share a similar audience?
Well there are people who just wanna play competitive multiplayer games. I would argue a lot of people posting on this very forum are like that. Looking at new games and see if the game pushes the right buttons.
Personally OW didn't do it for me, but a lot of other people love playing that game (both in the west and in korea specifically: http://gametrics.com/ ; Apparently the new OW league in korea had the biggest OGN qualifier EVER)
I think people in general overvalue the importance of "favorite genre" quite a bit. I am sure that most people here can enjoy other genres than RTS
|
On October 08 2016 08:14 The_Red_Viper wrote:
What does "good design" even mean. Design needs a goal, i guess in the case of games it should be "fun". How do we actually meassure that though? The number of people playing the game? There are a lot of factors which are important for that, simply saying Game A has more players therefore it is the "better" (designed) game is flawed imo.
Tasks you have to do in rts games aren't fun for most people. It's fun for some though. I don't think you can make an rts game which is very close to starcraft like rts games and be really successful (lol, dota2, csgo) at the same time if we only look at multiplayer numbers (i feel that is the main topic here, no?)
The general trend in gaming (and other forms of entertainment) seems to be that the easier it is to get into something, the less effort you have to put in, the more successful it is.
Decide for yourself it that means it is "well designed" (i guess if we look at it the most basic way the success proves it is)
Same here. It's so easy for anyone to claim "i know what good design is, you all are just clueless". Because noone really knows what this actually means. It's like listening to a fortune teller. Everyone knows it's all bluff, but there is always that argument: "i can see somthing you can't". I read dozens of articles/interviews/threads about what makes a "good design" and you know what, to summ it all up a "good designer" could just state: i made a popular game = im good. instead of wasting our time with pathetic explanations of imaginary things pretending he figured out the "system". There is no "system" in design. I can't quote correctly, but as far as i recall it was François de La Rochefoucauld, who said something like: "a man who invented/innovated/created something great (really outstanding) always tends to explain his success as a consequence of some well calculated plan while truth is he was just lucky".
|
It is now time for game designers to take over. We don't need more useless pro feedback that is so narrowed down on certain meta situations that it loses the sight of the whole.
This is where the argument should end. This is the single most valid point. This whole post is filled with valid arguments but this is the biggest thing that wraps up everything. Whatever Blizzard's thought process is behind adjusting the game for pro scenes or individual players they are swayed too often by people outside their departments usually to be faced by the worse outcomes than not.
|
As long as Blizzard is finally listening, I figured I'd put in my two cents.
Background:
I played BW from 2001ish up through 2007 off and on, and watched the pro scene religiously. During the development of SC2, I would be lying if I said SC2 wasn't my single most anticipated game in my entire life. I voiced many concerns between 2007 and 2011 during the SC2 development cycle and was disappointed when it was clear that Blizzard wasn't listening. They were taking the great decisions made by their predecessors and throwing them in the trash, and as much as we were speaking out, we were being ignored. What a frustrating time that was. Still, I played SC2 throughout WoL before realizing that I my concerns would never be addressed and quitting for good.
On fundamentals:
I was quite worried about the following problems: MBS (multiple building selection) and unlimited unit selection. These features weren't in the previous RTS games from Blizzard, and for good reason, they dumb down the game. They make it easier for lesser skilled players to take games off of better skilled players. I would remove both of these from SC2, return to single building selection and make the maximum number of units in a control group supply-based and capped at 24 supply per control group. This means late game you'd need about 6 control groups to move your entire army, which feels right to me.
On units:
A lot of what is boring about SC2 comes down to hard unit counters and poorly designed units in general. Roaches, Immortals and Marauders come to mind. I would just take them all out. Some units added by the expansions suffer the same problem: uninspired design leading to boring or frustrating battles. Ravagers, Swarm Hosts, Liberators, Cyclones, Void Rays, Tempests and Adepts all need to be removed and replaced with something else, or not replaced at all. Frankly, SC2 doesn't need a wide array of units. Early in development they decided to cap the units per race at 13, and frankly I think that was too many. 10 each would be fine. In BW, so many units were unused that there were basically only 10 per race anyway, and it was fine.
BW was great because that game was based around soft counters. This is because the damage system was reductive rather than additive. No units gained bonus damage vs. certain types, but they did get reduced damage against certain types. Blizzard needs to redo their entire damage system to remove the bonus damage and replace it with a reduced damage soft counter system, and it would make the game much less punishing. I remember one of the first games I played of SC2, I went rax -> bunker into factory -> siege tanks. My opponent walked into my base with 1 immortal and 5 zealots and wrecked me. I understand that is what they intended to happen, but that intention is shit: hard counters should be avoided under most circumstances.
Carriers, Battlecruisers and Ultralisks are all extremely lackluster, especially Carriers. They need to behave like they do in BW: all interceptors should exit at once and they should have a leash range that is longer than their initial attack range, to give players better control over the carriers themselves. Basically, they should move and attack until they are leashed back to the carriers due to range. Even then, carriers suffer from the problem of being hard countered by cheap, easily massable units: Vikings and Corruptors. You see carriers and in 2 minutes you have a composition that can counter them. This is extremely disappointing.
Colossus are less rewarding to play with and more frustrating to play against than Reavers. They should remove Colossus and add Reavers.
Warp gates remove defenders advantage and completely inverse traditional RTS dynamics. I really hate warp gates and they ruin an entire race singlehandedly. They would be fine as a late, late game tech (fleet beacon tech).
Sentries force early protoss units to be too weak. Give Zealots and Stalkers +50 HP and remove sentries. Force Field is a stupid spell. I understand that it's needed right now but it shouldn't be, protoss t1 units should be beefy as hell. Same goes with the MSC and photon overcharge. In BW protoss units were house, now they feel like glass.
Thors are stupid units, similar to Colossus. They have ridiculously high ground single target attack damage and a weak splash air attack, it should be reversed.
Siege tanks have been in a sorry state, I understand that recently they got buffed, but I fear that it's too little too late. Siege tanks were the single most iconic unit in BW and allowed Terran, the race with the weakest units otherwise, to secure positional advantage. In SC2 Terran has the strongest units otherwise and seige tanks are effectively useless because of it.
On economy:
SC2 was designed to be played on small maps and with low economy, as was evidenced by the initial release of Wings of Liberty and the maps that came with it. Blizzard has done a lot to attempt to address this issue in the past but I think that their attempts have fallen short. They should make it so expanding is much more rewarding with fewer workers, and diminish the income logarithmicly with the number of workers mining them. This would make expansions less risky to take and renew the incentive to take positions on the map earlier in the game. I loved BW because it felt like a game of Go: you establish your initial location, and as long as the game doesn't end early, both players look to establish positions on the map far from their starting locations to secure those resource potentials. SC2 needs this dynamic to add options to the midgame.
I could spend hours and write a whole paper on my suggestions for this game but I just don't think it's worth it. There's no way Blizzard will smother their ugly baby and start over. I just hope they look at these failures and implement fixes in their next RTS, should they ever choose to return to that genre.
|
This incoherent and absurd post generated 11 pages of discussion. Help. Blizzard had game designers; they designed what was probably the second-best RTS of all time. There are a lot of things about it that are frustrating and not fun, but it was still great. It's probably not going to have the legacy of BW. Things die. SC2 doesn't need conspiracy theories or carpet blame on people who had no real control over the IP to explain its death.
|
United States33367 Posts
Was TL always an echo chamber of terrible posts, or did I just notice it recently?
|
On October 09 2016 09:07 Waxangel wrote:
Was TL always an echo chamber of terrible posts, or did I just notice it recently?
I think that there used to be a lot of bad posts but there was also a lot of good news and general updates because there was a lot of stuff going on. Now, there's relatively little activity to report on, but the number of self-indulgent nonsense posts seems to be roughly the same as it was before.
|
The truth is (as far as I can see) is that the last planned expansion for this game is almost a year old allready. People get bored and move over the other things. Instead of trying to find out who's responsible for the downfall or whatnot, rather appreciate the game for what it is/has been/and will continue to be... A great RTS.
Looking at the current stats and seeing that only 220k people are registered as active 1v1 players is just another reminder that this game is not what it used to be. (especially if you think about the amount of copies sold in 2010)
It's a shame that SC2 is dying and I don't know why people don't like this game anymore but what the heck. As long as I can find opponents for 1v1 I'll probably stick around for many more years.
|
On October 09 2016 09:35 Jan1997 wrote:
The truth is (as far as I can see) is that the last planned expansion for this game is almost a year old allready. People get bored and move over the other things. Instead of trying to find out who's responsible for the downfall or whatnot, rather appreciate the game for what it is/has been/and will continue to be... A great RTS.
Looking at the current stats and seeing that only 220k people are registered as active 1v1 players is just another reminder that this game is not what it used to be. (especially if you think about the amount of copies sold in 2010)
It's a shame that SC2 is dying and I don't know why people don't like this game anymore but what the heck. As long as I can find opponents for 1v1 I'll probably stick around for many more years.
Actually the number of ranked players in 1v1 is going up again for the first time this year
http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sx=a&sy=c
|
On October 09 2016 09:56 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 09:35 Jan1997 wrote:
The truth is (as far as I can see) is that the last planned expansion for this game is almost a year old allready. People get bored and move over the other things. Instead of trying to find out who's responsible for the downfall or whatnot, rather appreciate the game for what it is/has been/and will continue to be... A great RTS.
Looking at the current stats and seeing that only 220k people are registered as active 1v1 players is just another reminder that this game is not what it used to be. (especially if you think about the amount of copies sold in 2010)
It's a shame that SC2 is dying and I don't know why people don't like this game anymore but what the heck. As long as I can find opponents for 1v1 I'll probably stick around for many more years. Actually the number of ranked players in 1v1 is going up again for the first time this year http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sx=a&sy=c
All it needs now is to recover those 100k + lost players.
|
On October 09 2016 10:50 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 09:56 KeksX wrote:On October 09 2016 09:35 Jan1997 wrote:
The truth is (as far as I can see) is that the last planned expansion for this game is almost a year old allready. People get bored and move over the other things. Instead of trying to find out who's responsible for the downfall or whatnot, rather appreciate the game for what it is/has been/and will continue to be... A great RTS.
Looking at the current stats and seeing that only 220k people are registered as active 1v1 players is just another reminder that this game is not what it used to be. (especially if you think about the amount of copies sold in 2010)
It's a shame that SC2 is dying and I don't know why people don't like this game anymore but what the heck. As long as I can find opponents for 1v1 I'll probably stick around for many more years. Actually the number of ranked players in 1v1 is going up again for the first time this year http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sx=a&sy=c All it needs now is to recover those 100k + lost players.
Not sure what you're referring to, highest in 2016 is 251k, we're at 223k atm.
If you're referring to older times, well ... there were many more lost, not just 100k.
|
On October 09 2016 10:56 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2016 10:50 Probe1 wrote:On October 09 2016 09:56 KeksX wrote:On October 09 2016 09:35 Jan1997 wrote:
The truth is (as far as I can see) is that the last planned expansion for this game is almost a year old allready. People get bored and move over the other things. Instead of trying to find out who's responsible for the downfall or whatnot, rather appreciate the game for what it is/has been/and will continue to be... A great RTS.
Looking at the current stats and seeing that only 220k people are registered as active 1v1 players is just another reminder that this game is not what it used to be. (especially if you think about the amount of copies sold in 2010)
It's a shame that SC2 is dying and I don't know why people don't like this game anymore but what the heck. As long as I can find opponents for 1v1 I'll probably stick around for many more years. Actually the number of ranked players in 1v1 is going up again for the first time this year http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sx=a&sy=c All it needs now is to recover those 100k + lost players. Not sure what you're referring to, highest in 2016 is 251k, we're at 223k atm. If you're referring to older times, well ... there were many more lost, not just 100k.
2015 and 2014 from the same link provided.
|
On October 08 2016 16:09 Nazara wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 09:48 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
With posts like this it's has been more than 3 years since something constructive and original came to the spot... post are these are just opportunity for little rant from the same nicknames all over again. It's getting boring tbh How do you expect anything original when same problems from 3 years ago are still there to be addressed?
Well since nothing from those 3 problems was changed it almost looks like it's an voice of 5 CombatEXs on random forum post (read as irrelevant)
|
Reasons for the downfall? Was it ever big in Korea?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I think the reason it failed in KR is because it was pushed onto the KR audience. The Kespa lawsuit, removal of BW which was considered a national sport from PL to replace with SCII etc... disgruntled BW fans and caused a strife between fans of both games. For me, when SCII was released, it was a fun game. I've been watching Blizzard website since either 2007 or 08 constantly for updating and as I played the game, expectations never really lined up with reality.
I enjoyed the game when it was first released because it was still new. I liked the graphics, liked the units overall etc... I had a hard time playing protoss (read: didn't enjoy) but I thought playing as terran and zerg was fun, however, several years into WoL and all my games turned out the same. Regardless of whatever map I played on, the compositions in all matchups were the same. I moved up to high plat, neared diamond in WoL then the game stopped being fun and so I stopped.
Still watched some tourney though even into HoTS's life but stopped somewhat fully when Jaedong won ASUS RoG (followed him for most of 2013 and in WCS NA where he lost to theognis lol). Since then, I only saw KT vs SKT PL finals where KT swept SKT 4-0 (flash scv pulled parting, TY 2 rax bunkered Classic who just won a championship recently). The game imo took a turn for the worst.
HoTS didn't have much new changes. Widow mines were boring to play with and none of the other changes were enticing. LoTV took it a step further, made the game worse imo. Removed the early game which was a terrible idea and forced the player to constantly expand due to lowered mineral count inbase. So, basically, forced transition and a game that went downhill with each expansion is the reason for SCII downfall in KR.
|
|
|
On October 09 2016 08:25 mikedebo wrote:
This incoherent and absurd post generated 11 pages of discussion. Help. Blizzard had game designers; they designed what was probably the second-best RTS of all time. There are a lot of things about it that are frustrating and not fun, but it was still great. It's probably not going to have the legacy of BW. Things die. SC2 doesn't need conspiracy theories or carpet blame on people who had no real control over the IP to explain its death.
As long as Total Annihilation was the First 
It's kinda depressing to see how low sc2's audiences are in Korea...
|
People mentioning the share of broodway in pc bangs. I dont know about people but i never play broodwar but i love watching it. Its a very good viewing experience even for non players. That should count for something other than just actual playing the game popularity.
|
I think each subsequent expansion has made the gameplay worse in spots it shouldn't have - as a few users touched on, lazy defensive stuff like nexus cannon and now with pylons; Protoss's warp gate mechanic meaning all in or turtle; tanks and thors being poorly designed units in some ways making bio > mech after WOL, even hellbats are inferior to hellions from a 'make the game interesting' standpoint. For Zerg, adding new stuff to basically make mutas useless except in select situations - they're meant to be a harass unit that if not properly defended against can do game ending damage, but they're not simply too easy to counter for every race that they're not worth the cost. There were a bunch of issues in WOL, BL/Inf at the end was overpowered, but at times when ghosts/blue flame were the meta the devs reacted by nerfing to basically making both units worthless.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know the most fun I ever had watching the pro scene was the WOL to early HOTS days and I just don't enjoy the mechanics of LOTV as a player and i've stopped playing entirely. Yes, nobody wants to see swarmhost 2 hour games but the swarmhost was just a flawed unit in the first place as well. I actually think WOL was a better game than LOTV in a lot of ways and obviously each expansion should make the game better, not worse both for players and viewers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
