Regardless of the situation, we will still action upon "dead game" comments. As this is a sensitive issue for SC2 fans, please do not come into this thread and talk about SC2 players switching over to BW. This thread is also not about bashing Blizzard, David Kim, or the WCS system.
Artosis talks about the recent closures and does not think WCS region lock was a prime factor in proleague's demise. He says GSL will be around in 2017.
On October 21 2016 01:17 iamkaokao wrote: Some experience i had in other RTS
The problem with sc2 was mainly always that it is a 1v1 game indeed.. i played age of empires conquerors for like 10 years.. and it was never stressful as sc2... , we had an scene" with tournaments , leagues , we had nation cups etc this happened about the same time and a bit after broodwar ..
the 3v3 was the main format , so the expectative to see who would play which map was nice, they had to bench players and most teams had like 10 players that swap accordingly to the map, some players were good in water, others in macro maps etc.. we had positions similar to LoL you had "wings and pockets" so it was fun to play with friends, everyone knew each other , we had chat rooms to make "balanced games" since you could pick who to play with and chat or troll before games,and just meet people..you could even choose who you wanted to play and in which map, i even got to play vs famous players like boxer and just watching boxer or some of the korean pros was really cool in the chat" or channels.. the community had alot of meaning since we really knew each other and styles.
whenever a new league was announced there was a lot of draft going on ,to create star teams and the expectative was awesome as well
maps were randomly generated so you would never have the same map twice.. you could never really prepare like in sc2 , usually 99% of the time the best team or player would win (unless they rolled a terrible map) and also because there is no ramp mechanics.. overcharged pylons.. or anything that stops you from harassing constantly.. making the game more fun overall and less stressing NOT because the harass but because you can lose in 1 second to 1 spell in sc2..
Maps were drastically different too.. you had migration.. which you started in a tiny island and a big one in the center to contest... you had arabia "standard open map ,you had black forest " macro maps" , maps like yucatan that were very open with rivers etc... " nomad where you started with only 1 worker.. etc
the format of tournaments was so great , example" SKT vs KT" in a tournament playoff ,would play like this :
1v1 - bo3 ( ace players) = 1 point 2v2 - = 1 point 3v3 - bo3 = 2 point 4v4 - = 1 point
you are guaranted to see the ace games and bo3... and also brings chances for rookies to show up or swap in certain maps ,3v3 or 4v4
maps wwere completly dark so you would have to explore from 0 every time and find the resources.. that was probably the weakest part of "random generated maps " is that you can get really bad starting resources.. but at tournaments you could remake the game 3 times i believe if you had such maps...
the first thing that really shocked me after playing for so long AOC was that sc2 wasnt a team game.. it was only focused in 1v1.. and i had no experience with broodwar back then, RTS for me were about team games, we also had 1v1 tournaments but people really cared about the team games much more, similar to proleague, because the brands and draft
team games in sc2 are horrible , maps are so tiny.. you usually have to fight with your own allies to take a third.. , in AoC you could build your base anyware.. it didnt had "fixed center location"so you had to design the base yourself from the starting point, making the game more interesting, less boring in the long term i actually think that was the main reason i never got bored of it.. the fact that the maps always change.. so the way a map is played is absolutly diferent from the game before..
i never liked spells in RTS , because it makes the games frustrating and snowbally, that was also why the games after conquerors werent good in this series.. they started adding "fixed base locations" and spells" in age of mythology, but old RTS players prefered open battles with intense micro like broodwar, instead of 2 people hiding in their base for 40min... waiting for the " timing attack" or all in" which makes game boring and repetitive.. even from pro gamers perspective..
appologies for the wall of text and poor english
I agree completely although I played more 1v1 than team games in AOC.
AoC is in my opinion the best RTS ever made. SC2 and BroodWar are worse games but with better patching and multiplayer support. Had the support for AoC been as good as Blizzards I would never have touched Starcraft.
Unfortunately Age of Empires III was never as good as AoC, just as Warcraft 3 was pure crap compared to Warcraft 1 and 2. Age of Mythology was even worse since they introduced spells and random crap. I really hate the spell aspect of Starcraft. RTS should be about macro, strategy and tactics not who can unleash which spell the fastest.
AoC had a pureness to the RTS experience that SC2 and BroodWar lacks.
I really long for a real RTS that focus on the beauty of economy and army movement not who can dodge which spell the best.
Warcraft III is source of all evil. It started the trend of focusing on micro over strategy and macro and spawned MOBAS which killed off RTS and destoryed E-sports for good. The world would have been a better place if Warcraft III never had been made.
On October 21 2016 01:17 iamkaokao wrote: Some experience i had in other RTS
The problem with sc2 was mainly always that it is a 1v1 game indeed.. i played age of empires conquerors for like 10 years.. and it was never stressful as sc2... , we had an scene" with tournaments , leagues , we had nation cups etc this happened about the same time and a bit after broodwar ..
the 3v3 was the main format , so the expectative to see who would play which map was nice, they had to bench players and most teams had like 10 players that swap accordingly to the map, some players were good in water, others in macro maps etc.. we had positions similar to LoL you had "wings and pockets" so it was fun to play with friends, everyone knew each other , we had chat rooms to make "balanced games" since you could pick who to play with and chat or troll before games,and just meet people..you could even choose who you wanted to play and in which map, i even got to play vs famous players like boxer and just watching boxer or some of the korean pros was really cool in the chat" or channels.. the community had alot of meaning since we really knew each other and styles.
whenever a new league was announced there was a lot of draft going on ,to create star teams and the expectative was awesome as well
maps were randomly generated so you would never have the same map twice.. you could never really prepare like in sc2 , usually 99% of the time the best team or player would win (unless they rolled a terrible map) and also because there is no ramp mechanics.. overcharged pylons.. or anything that stops you from harassing constantly.. making the game more fun overall and less stressing NOT because the harass but because you can lose in 1 second to 1 spell in sc2..
Maps were drastically different too.. you had migration.. which you started in a tiny island and a big one in the center to contest... you had arabia "standard open map ,you had black forest " macro maps" , maps like yucatan that were very open with rivers etc... " nomad where you started with only 1 worker.. etc
the format of tournaments was so great , example" SKT vs KT" in a tournament playoff ,would play like this :
1v1 - bo3 ( ace players) = 1 point 2v2 - = 1 point 3v3 - bo3 = 2 point 4v4 - = 1 point
you are guaranted to see the ace games and bo3... and also brings chances for rookies to show up or swap in certain maps ,3v3 or 4v4
maps wwere completly dark so you would have to explore from 0 every time and find the resources.. that was probably the weakest part of "random generated maps " is that you can get really bad starting resources.. but at tournaments you could remake the game 3 times i believe if you had such maps...
the first thing that really shocked me after playing for so long AOC was that sc2 wasnt a team game.. it was only focused in 1v1.. and i had no experience with broodwar back then, RTS for me were about team games, we also had 1v1 tournaments but people really cared about the team games much more, similar to proleague, because the brands and draft
team games in sc2 are horrible , maps are so tiny.. you usually have to fight with your own allies to take a third.. , in AoC you could build your base anyware.. it didnt had "fixed center location"so you had to design the base yourself from the starting point, making the game more interesting, less boring in the long term i actually think that was the main reason i never got bored of it.. the fact that the maps always change.. so the way a map is played is absolutly diferent from the game before..
i never liked spells in RTS , because it makes the games frustrating and snowbally, that was also why the games after conquerors werent good in this series.. they started adding "fixed base locations" and spells" in age of mythology, but old RTS players prefered open battles with intense micro like broodwar, instead of 2 people hiding in their base for 40min... waiting for the " timing attack" or all in" which makes game boring and repetitive.. even from pro gamers perspective..
appologies for the wall of text and poor english
I agree completely although I played more 1v1 than team games in AOC.
AoC is in my opinion the best RTS ever made. SC2 and BroodWar are worse games but with better patching and multiplayer support. Had the support for AoC been as good as Blizzards I would never have touched Starcraft.
Unfortunately Age of Empires III was never as good as AoC, just as Warcraft 3 was pure crap compared to Warcraft 1 and 2. Age of Mythology was even worse since they introduced spells and random crap. I really hate the spell aspect of Starcraft. RTS should be about macro, strategy and tactics not who can unleash which spell the fastest.
AoC had a pureness to the RTS experience that SC2 and BroodWar lacks.
I really long for a real RTS that focus on the beauty of economy and army movement not who can dodge which spell the best.
Warcraft III is source of all evil. It started the trend of focusing on micro over strategy and macro and spawned MOBAS which killed off RTS and destoryed E-sports for good. The world would have been a better place if Warcraft III never had been made.
Age of Empires was a fun game, but i am sorry its not even close comparison. Age of series were never really competitive, sometimes you just quit in the beginning when you have a bad rng. Randomized maps can never be competitive, can't immagine a competitive rts with this amount of luck included. There is no balance in Age of empires, there is always 1-2 overpowered races and people just abuse the same races in the same period, you see same build everysingle game mostly by both sides. Its a really fun game to play with your friends casually but really not interesting to watch or play 1v1.
So when we think about an rts game that really casual friendly but still couldn't achieve anything compared to sc, it shows that a more casual friendly gameplay doesn't necessarily bring more players for rts genre. I don't think not being able to compete in higher levels makes players leave the game, bad designs do. Designs like widow mine, tempests, swarm hosts, overcharge, oracle, invincible nydus, air units being overwhelming. While a broken unit like adept can be fixed by a simple balance change, these bad designs can't be fixed by changing numbers. I know that every individual player might hate something particular in the game but there are some units don't contribute anything positive to the game that most players agree on. Blizzard didn't accept their poor work and make radical reworks unfortunately. This seems to me the main reason. Obviously a better interface, better arcade system and changes like we had in last patch would increase the count of players a lot as well in early dates of wol. Even though every right move were made, we can't know how bigger the scene could be, in the end its an rts and we have the most popular one atm.
On October 21 2016 01:17 iamkaokao wrote: Some experience i had in other RTS
The problem with sc2 was mainly always that it is a 1v1 game indeed.. i played age of empires conquerors for like 10 years.. and it was never stressful as sc2... , we had an scene" with tournaments , leagues , we had nation cups etc this happened about the same time and a bit after broodwar ..
the 3v3 was the main format , so the expectative to see who would play which map was nice, they had to bench players and most teams had like 10 players that swap accordingly to the map, some players were good in water, others in macro maps etc.. we had positions similar to LoL you had "wings and pockets" so it was fun to play with friends, everyone knew each other , we had chat rooms to make "balanced games" since you could pick who to play with and chat or troll before games,and just meet people..you could even choose who you wanted to play and in which map, i even got to play vs famous players like boxer and just watching boxer or some of the korean pros was really cool in the chat" or channels.. the community had alot of meaning since we really knew each other and styles.
whenever a new league was announced there was a lot of draft going on ,to create star teams and the expectative was awesome as well
maps were randomly generated so you would never have the same map twice.. you could never really prepare like in sc2 , usually 99% of the time the best team or player would win (unless they rolled a terrible map) and also because there is no ramp mechanics.. overcharged pylons.. or anything that stops you from harassing constantly.. making the game more fun overall and less stressing NOT because the harass but because you can lose in 1 second to 1 spell in sc2..
Maps were drastically different too.. you had migration.. which you started in a tiny island and a big one in the center to contest... you had arabia "standard open map ,you had black forest " macro maps" , maps like yucatan that were very open with rivers etc... " nomad where you started with only 1 worker.. etc
the format of tournaments was so great , example" SKT vs KT" in a tournament playoff ,would play like this :
1v1 - bo3 ( ace players) = 1 point 2v2 - = 1 point 3v3 - bo3 = 2 point 4v4 - = 1 point
you are guaranted to see the ace games and bo3... and also brings chances for rookies to show up or swap in certain maps ,3v3 or 4v4
maps wwere completly dark so you would have to explore from 0 every time and find the resources.. that was probably the weakest part of "random generated maps " is that you can get really bad starting resources.. but at tournaments you could remake the game 3 times i believe if you had such maps...
the first thing that really shocked me after playing for so long AOC was that sc2 wasnt a team game.. it was only focused in 1v1.. and i had no experience with broodwar back then, RTS for me were about team games, we also had 1v1 tournaments but people really cared about the team games much more, similar to proleague, because the brands and draft
team games in sc2 are horrible , maps are so tiny.. you usually have to fight with your own allies to take a third.. , in AoC you could build your base anyware.. it didnt had "fixed center location"so you had to design the base yourself from the starting point, making the game more interesting, less boring in the long term i actually think that was the main reason i never got bored of it.. the fact that the maps always change.. so the way a map is played is absolutly diferent from the game before..
i never liked spells in RTS , because it makes the games frustrating and snowbally, that was also why the games after conquerors werent good in this series.. they started adding "fixed base locations" and spells" in age of mythology, but old RTS players prefered open battles with intense micro like broodwar, instead of 2 people hiding in their base for 40min... waiting for the " timing attack" or all in" which makes game boring and repetitive.. even from pro gamers perspective..
appologies for the wall of text and poor english
I agree completely although I played more 1v1 than team games in AOC.
AoC is in my opinion the best RTS ever made. SC2 and BroodWar are worse games but with better patching and multiplayer support. Had the support for AoC been as good as Blizzards I would never have touched Starcraft.
Unfortunately Age of Empires III was never as good as AoC, just as Warcraft 3 was pure crap compared to Warcraft 1 and 2. Age of Mythology was even worse since they introduced spells and random crap. I really hate the spell aspect of Starcraft. RTS should be about macro, strategy and tactics not who can unleash which spell the fastest.
AoC had a pureness to the RTS experience that SC2 and BroodWar lacks.
I really long for a real RTS that focus on the beauty of economy and army movement not who can dodge which spell the best.
Warcraft III is source of all evil. It started the trend of focusing on micro over strategy and macro and spawned MOBAS which killed off RTS and destoryed E-sports for good. The world would have been a better place if Warcraft III never had been made.
I know that every individual player might hate something particular in the game but there are some units don't contribute anything positive to the game that most players agree on. .
no there's nothing that most players agree on. from your list the only things I agree on being badly designed are swarmhosts and tempests but other players think they are good designed.
On October 21 2016 01:17 iamkaokao wrote: Some experience i had in other RTS
The problem with sc2 was mainly always that it is a 1v1 game indeed.. i played age of empires conquerors for like 10 years.. and it was never stressful as sc2... , we had an scene" with tournaments , leagues , we had nation cups etc this happened about the same time and a bit after broodwar ..
the 3v3 was the main format , so the expectative to see who would play which map was nice, they had to bench players and most teams had like 10 players that swap accordingly to the map, some players were good in water, others in macro maps etc.. we had positions similar to LoL you had "wings and pockets" so it was fun to play with friends, everyone knew each other , we had chat rooms to make "balanced games" since you could pick who to play with and chat or troll before games,and just meet people..you could even choose who you wanted to play and in which map, i even got to play vs famous players like boxer and just watching boxer or some of the korean pros was really cool in the chat" or channels.. the community had alot of meaning since we really knew each other and styles.
whenever a new league was announced there was a lot of draft going on ,to create star teams and the expectative was awesome as well
maps were randomly generated so you would never have the same map twice.. you could never really prepare like in sc2 , usually 99% of the time the best team or player would win (unless they rolled a terrible map) and also because there is no ramp mechanics.. overcharged pylons.. or anything that stops you from harassing constantly.. making the game more fun overall and less stressing NOT because the harass but because you can lose in 1 second to 1 spell in sc2..
Maps were drastically different too.. you had migration.. which you started in a tiny island and a big one in the center to contest... you had arabia "standard open map ,you had black forest " macro maps" , maps like yucatan that were very open with rivers etc... " nomad where you started with only 1 worker.. etc
the format of tournaments was so great , example" SKT vs KT" in a tournament playoff ,would play like this :
1v1 - bo3 ( ace players) = 1 point 2v2 - = 1 point 3v3 - bo3 = 2 point 4v4 - = 1 point
you are guaranted to see the ace games and bo3... and also brings chances for rookies to show up or swap in certain maps ,3v3 or 4v4
maps wwere completly dark so you would have to explore from 0 every time and find the resources.. that was probably the weakest part of "random generated maps " is that you can get really bad starting resources.. but at tournaments you could remake the game 3 times i believe if you had such maps...
the first thing that really shocked me after playing for so long AOC was that sc2 wasnt a team game.. it was only focused in 1v1.. and i had no experience with broodwar back then, RTS for me were about team games, we also had 1v1 tournaments but people really cared about the team games much more, similar to proleague, because the brands and draft
team games in sc2 are horrible , maps are so tiny.. you usually have to fight with your own allies to take a third.. , in AoC you could build your base anyware.. it didnt had "fixed center location"so you had to design the base yourself from the starting point, making the game more interesting, less boring in the long term i actually think that was the main reason i never got bored of it.. the fact that the maps always change.. so the way a map is played is absolutly diferent from the game before..
i never liked spells in RTS , because it makes the games frustrating and snowbally, that was also why the games after conquerors werent good in this series.. they started adding "fixed base locations" and spells" in age of mythology, but old RTS players prefered open battles with intense micro like broodwar, instead of 2 people hiding in their base for 40min... waiting for the " timing attack" or all in" which makes game boring and repetitive.. even from pro gamers perspective..
appologies for the wall of text and poor english
I agree completely although I played more 1v1 than team games in AOC.
AoC is in my opinion the best RTS ever made. SC2 and BroodWar are worse games but with better patching and multiplayer support. Had the support for AoC been as good as Blizzards I would never have touched Starcraft.
Unfortunately Age of Empires III was never as good as AoC, just as Warcraft 3 was pure crap compared to Warcraft 1 and 2. Age of Mythology was even worse since they introduced spells and random crap. I really hate the spell aspect of Starcraft. RTS should be about macro, strategy and tactics not who can unleash which spell the fastest.
AoC had a pureness to the RTS experience that SC2 and BroodWar lacks.
I really long for a real RTS that focus on the beauty of economy and army movement not who can dodge which spell the best.
Warcraft III is source of all evil. It started the trend of focusing on micro over strategy and macro and spawned MOBAS which killed off RTS and destoryed E-sports for good. The world would have been a better place if Warcraft III never had been made.
I know that every individual player might hate something particular in the game but there are some units don't contribute anything positive to the game that most players agree on. .
no there's nothing that most players agree on. from your list the only things I agree on being badly designed are swarmhosts and tempests but other players thinks they are good designed.
when "others" are %15 of the player database, removing those things will definetly create a general happiness. Very simple.
On October 21 2016 01:17 iamkaokao wrote: Some experience i had in other RTS
The problem with sc2 was mainly always that it is a 1v1 game indeed.. i played age of empires conquerors for like 10 years.. and it was never stressful as sc2... , we had an scene" with tournaments , leagues , we had nation cups etc this happened about the same time and a bit after broodwar ..
the 3v3 was the main format , so the expectative to see who would play which map was nice, they had to bench players and most teams had like 10 players that swap accordingly to the map, some players were good in water, others in macro maps etc.. we had positions similar to LoL you had "wings and pockets" so it was fun to play with friends, everyone knew each other , we had chat rooms to make "balanced games" since you could pick who to play with and chat or troll before games,and just meet people..you could even choose who you wanted to play and in which map, i even got to play vs famous players like boxer and just watching boxer or some of the korean pros was really cool in the chat" or channels.. the community had alot of meaning since we really knew each other and styles.
whenever a new league was announced there was a lot of draft going on ,to create star teams and the expectative was awesome as well
maps were randomly generated so you would never have the same map twice.. you could never really prepare like in sc2 , usually 99% of the time the best team or player would win (unless they rolled a terrible map) and also because there is no ramp mechanics.. overcharged pylons.. or anything that stops you from harassing constantly.. making the game more fun overall and less stressing NOT because the harass but because you can lose in 1 second to 1 spell in sc2..
Maps were drastically different too.. you had migration.. which you started in a tiny island and a big one in the center to contest... you had arabia "standard open map ,you had black forest " macro maps" , maps like yucatan that were very open with rivers etc... " nomad where you started with only 1 worker.. etc
the format of tournaments was so great , example" SKT vs KT" in a tournament playoff ,would play like this :
1v1 - bo3 ( ace players) = 1 point 2v2 - = 1 point 3v3 - bo3 = 2 point 4v4 - = 1 point
you are guaranted to see the ace games and bo3... and also brings chances for rookies to show up or swap in certain maps ,3v3 or 4v4
maps wwere completly dark so you would have to explore from 0 every time and find the resources.. that was probably the weakest part of "random generated maps " is that you can get really bad starting resources.. but at tournaments you could remake the game 3 times i believe if you had such maps...
the first thing that really shocked me after playing for so long AOC was that sc2 wasnt a team game.. it was only focused in 1v1.. and i had no experience with broodwar back then, RTS for me were about team games, we also had 1v1 tournaments but people really cared about the team games much more, similar to proleague, because the brands and draft
team games in sc2 are horrible , maps are so tiny.. you usually have to fight with your own allies to take a third.. , in AoC you could build your base anyware.. it didnt had "fixed center location"so you had to design the base yourself from the starting point, making the game more interesting, less boring in the long term i actually think that was the main reason i never got bored of it.. the fact that the maps always change.. so the way a map is played is absolutly diferent from the game before..
i never liked spells in RTS , because it makes the games frustrating and snowbally, that was also why the games after conquerors werent good in this series.. they started adding "fixed base locations" and spells" in age of mythology, but old RTS players prefered open battles with intense micro like broodwar, instead of 2 people hiding in their base for 40min... waiting for the " timing attack" or all in" which makes game boring and repetitive.. even from pro gamers perspective..
appologies for the wall of text and poor english
I agree completely although I played more 1v1 than team games in AOC.
AoC is in my opinion the best RTS ever made. SC2 and BroodWar are worse games but with better patching and multiplayer support. Had the support for AoC been as good as Blizzards I would never have touched Starcraft.
Unfortunately Age of Empires III was never as good as AoC, just as Warcraft 3 was pure crap compared to Warcraft 1 and 2. Age of Mythology was even worse since they introduced spells and random crap. I really hate the spell aspect of Starcraft. RTS should be about macro, strategy and tactics not who can unleash which spell the fastest.
AoC had a pureness to the RTS experience that SC2 and BroodWar lacks.
I really long for a real RTS that focus on the beauty of economy and army movement not who can dodge which spell the best.
Warcraft III is source of all evil. It started the trend of focusing on micro over strategy and macro and spawned MOBAS which killed off RTS and destoryed E-sports for good. The world would have been a better place if Warcraft III never had been made.
[...] I don't think not being able to compete in higher levels makes players leave the game, bad designs do. Designs like widow mine, tempests, swarm hosts, overcharge, oracle, invincible nydus, air units being overwhelming. While a broken unit like adept can be fixed by a simple balance change, these bad designs can't be fixed by changing numbers. I know that every individual player might hate something particular in the game but there are some units don't contribute anything positive to the game that most players agree on. Blizzard didn't accept their poor work and make radical reworks unfortunately. This seems to me the main reason. Obviously a better interface, better arcade system and changes like we had in last patch would increase the count of players a lot as well in early dates of wol. Even though every right move were made, we can't know how bigger the scene could be, in the end its an rts and we have the most popular one atm.
Exactly. But it is way too late to introduce chat channels and better arcarde lobby system years after release when most players are gone already - and those are far away from in a good state still. And about the team aspect of AoE vs. SC2 he is very right. SC2 is too narrowly focussed on 1on1 pro-level and really nothing else indeed.
Thats what I mean when I say profeedback wont give this game what it needs. But blizzard was mainly looking for balance on pro-level over the years and everything was aligned to that. They (pros) wont request improvements for 3on3 games, the arcade system or the chat channels. I am not here to blame pro players. Pro-feedback about balance details was just fully irrelevant for the factors that could have made SC2 more successful. And I know and we have discussed that they didn't listen to pro-feedback at all or at least not enough. But Blizzards whole approach of just aiming for that was plain wrong. You build a pyramid from the bottom, not from the top.
lol. I think spells in games are great. the spells in brood war were perfect for the game. they added a synergistic element.
Stork's games with D-Web and shuttle speed were mind-blowing. Imagine PvZ without maelstrom reavers in the late game, it would really suck lol! Ensnare and Lurkers was awesome too when it was used against fantasy's bio. Dark Archons sniping High Templar with feedback was huge in PvP and the Arbiter dynamic in PvT was truly thrilling. Especially when 2-base protoss used Arbiters against in PvT, I loved Shuttle games with this aspect.
Dark Swarm Lurkers was great too even after Terran started mine transitions. At first it was really sad when scourge hit science vessels or groups of infantry was hit by plague. And it sucks drone lines were killed by irradiated vessels or 0 skill protoss killed 12 hydra with one storm. but think how great it when an Arbiter stasises a Dragoon on the ramp to defend a recall. Or a zealot kills 8 vultures with one mind. But what about late game PvZ when Reach maelstroms and storms to death 10 devourers or better yet when boxer locksdown 6 BCs for his goliath.
I don't think spells are the problem. I think auto-cast is the problem.
Personally the argument about spells I can hear it, there is definitely such a thing as too many spells in a RTS and you might question if you want to have spells at all depending on the game. In BW there are a few spells I have mixed feelings for, such as swarm or even storm (if I was Z I think I would also dislike irradiate), and D Web I don't really like it especially the corsair+reaver with Dweb stuff I think is pretty uggly. The one thing that's most annoying with spells is they really take a lot of "babysitting" in a way, such as if you choose not to always be aware of when to use each of them and then also always be ready to cast it at the right moment/instant, it becomes useless and you lose potential and investment. Playing against spells also requires this kind of constant focus and refocus and checking, sometimes you just can't see it coming and have to deal with the effect after it is cast. And the effects often kind of creates this blow in the game in terms of time and space, course of game can change so much just for one spell, a few seconds, which could be questionable to someone who wants to play a RTS with a manageable flow or something^^ lol. Well it's interesting, and some effects can be rly cool and have so many different uses, but if there are too many spells it's tedious, you could rather want to play a game where there are few spells or none at all so that you have more freedom as to where you want to place your focus at all times and rely more on strategy and tactics than control. For me AoE2 doesn't do it because the mechanics of micro are too simplistic, but I still enjoy(ed) playing it.
Also the argument about team games of course is on point. And fun games in general, UMS, etc, I heard back a long time ago on bnet they were doing melee games where you have free alliance/disalliance during game and you negociate^^ must be fun
Not sure what you guys are expecting; for Blizzard to state that the KR scene is in shambles and how they will fix it? I don't personally anticipate any announcements or anything.
On October 21 2016 07:52 YokoKano wrote: lol. I think spells in games are great. the spells in brood war were perfect for the game. they added a synergistic element.
Stork's games with D-Web and shuttle speed were mind-blowing. Imagine PvZ without maelstrom reavers in the late game, it would really suck lol! Ensnare and Lurkers was awesome too when it was used against fantasy's bio. Dark Archons sniping High Templar with feedback was huge in PvP and the Arbiter dynamic in PvT was truly thrilling. Especially when 2-base protoss used Arbiters against in PvT, I loved Shuttle games with this aspect.
Dark Swarm Lurkers was great too even after Terran started mine transitions. At first it was really sad when scourge hit science vessels or groups of infantry was hit by plague. And it sucks drone lines were killed by irradiated vessels or 0 skill protoss killed 12 hydra with one storm. but think how great it when an Arbiter stasises a Dragoon on the ramp to defend a recall. Or a zealot kills 8 vultures with one mind. But what about late game PvZ when Reach maelstroms and storms to death 10 devourers or better yet when boxer locksdown 6 BCs for his goliath.
I don't think spells are the problem. I think auto-cast is the problem.
*smart-cast
Eh, I don't think smart cast is the reason either. Ultimately this topic is probably the hardest topic to talk about because there's no formula for a great RTS. A lot of people would be completely turned off of fighting the pathing/UI every game.
And ultimately our comparisons might be out of whack because we might be chasing after something thats not really realistic. A super awesome RTS that appeals to casuals, that has a massive skill ceiling, thats not only balanced but is super captivating for hundreds of thousands of people across the world to watch competitive esports to have crazy fancy leagues every year and stuff. In an era where we're competing with so many games that arent anywhere near as stressful as SC1 + SC2, that might be unrealistic.
On October 21 2016 04:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Artosis talks about the recent closures and does not think WCS region lock was a prime factor in proleague's demise. He says GSL will be around in 2017.
On October 21 2016 04:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Artosis talks about the recent closures and does not think WCS region lock was a prime factor in proleague's demise. He says GSL will be around in 2017.
This is a great interview. Just seeing Artosis' passion for the game puts me in a better mood.
I agree, but it's a pity Artosis didnt say WHY he thought lotv is the best SC2 has ever been. Maybe someone can ask this again next time he is interviewed.
On October 21 2016 04:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Artosis talks about the recent closures and does not think WCS region lock was a prime factor in proleague's demise. He says GSL will be around in 2017.
This is a great interview. Just seeing Artosis' passion for the game puts me in a better mood.
I agree, but it's a pity Artosis didnt say WHY he thought lotv is the best SC2 has ever been. Maybe someone can ask this again next time he is interviewed.
I don't mean to be callous about it but it's extremely unhelpful for him to say anything except that.
"Oh yea haha man this game peaked in 2011 you guys should watch League"
This is his job. He's going to be supportive as long as it's not really bad or obvious. These are the little things any person employed in the scene are going to say.
You know unless they're like, Destiny or avilo tier. But their income is exactly that - being controversial and getting da clicks.
On October 21 2016 01:17 iamkaokao wrote: Some experience i had in other RTS
The problem with sc2 was mainly always that it is a 1v1 game indeed.. i played age of empires conquerors for like 10 years.. and it was never stressful as sc2... , we had an scene" with tournaments , leagues , we had nation cups etc this happened about the same time and a bit after broodwar ..
the 3v3 was the main format , so the expectative to see who would play which map was nice, they had to bench players and most teams had like 10 players that swap accordingly to the map, some players were good in water, others in macro maps etc.. we had positions similar to LoL you had "wings and pockets" so it was fun to play with friends, everyone knew each other , we had chat rooms to make "balanced games" since you could pick who to play with and chat or troll before games,and just meet people..you could even choose who you wanted to play and in which map, i even got to play vs famous players like boxer and just watching boxer or some of the korean pros was really cool in the chat" or channels.. the community had alot of meaning since we really knew each other and styles.
whenever a new league was announced there was a lot of draft going on ,to create star teams and the expectative was awesome as well
maps were randomly generated so you would never have the same map twice.. you could never really prepare like in sc2 , usually 99% of the time the best team or player would win (unless they rolled a terrible map) and also because there is no ramp mechanics.. overcharged pylons.. or anything that stops you from harassing constantly.. making the game more fun overall and less stressing NOT because the harass but because you can lose in 1 second to 1 spell in sc2..
Maps were drastically different too.. you had migration.. which you started in a tiny island and a big one in the center to contest... you had arabia "standard open map ,you had black forest " macro maps" , maps like yucatan that were very open with rivers etc... " nomad where you started with only 1 worker.. etc
the format of tournaments was so great , example" SKT vs KT" in a tournament playoff ,would play like this :
1v1 - bo3 ( ace players) = 1 point 2v2 - = 1 point 3v3 - bo3 = 2 point 4v4 - = 1 point
you are guaranted to see the ace games and bo3... and also brings chances for rookies to show up or swap in certain maps ,3v3 or 4v4
maps wwere completly dark so you would have to explore from 0 every time and find the resources.. that was probably the weakest part of "random generated maps " is that you can get really bad starting resources.. but at tournaments you could remake the game 3 times i believe if you had such maps...
the first thing that really shocked me after playing for so long AOC was that sc2 wasnt a team game.. it was only focused in 1v1.. and i had no experience with broodwar back then, RTS for me were about team games, we also had 1v1 tournaments but people really cared about the team games much more, similar to proleague, because the brands and draft
team games in sc2 are horrible , maps are so tiny.. you usually have to fight with your own allies to take a third.. , in AoC you could build your base anyware.. it didnt had "fixed center location"so you had to design the base yourself from the starting point, making the game more interesting, less boring in the long term i actually think that was the main reason i never got bored of it.. the fact that the maps always change.. so the way a map is played is absolutly diferent from the game before..
i never liked spells in RTS , because it makes the games frustrating and snowbally, that was also why the games after conquerors werent good in this series.. they started adding "fixed base locations" and spells" in age of mythology, but old RTS players prefered open battles with intense micro like broodwar, instead of 2 people hiding in their base for 40min... waiting for the " timing attack" or all in" which makes game boring and repetitive.. even from pro gamers perspective..
appologies for the wall of text and poor english
I agree completely although I played more 1v1 than team games in AOC.
AoC is in my opinion the best RTS ever made. SC2 and BroodWar are worse games but with better patching and multiplayer support. Had the support for AoC been as good as Blizzards I would never have touched Starcraft.
Unfortunately Age of Empires III was never as good as AoC, just as Warcraft 3 was pure crap compared to Warcraft 1 and 2. Age of Mythology was even worse since they introduced spells and random crap. I really hate the spell aspect of Starcraft. RTS should be about macro, strategy and tactics not who can unleash which spell the fastest.
AoC had a pureness to the RTS experience that SC2 and BroodWar lacks.
I really long for a real RTS that focus on the beauty of economy and army movement not who can dodge which spell the best.
Warcraft III is source of all evil. It started the trend of focusing on micro over strategy and macro and spawned MOBAS which killed off RTS and destoryed E-sports for good. The world would have been a better place if Warcraft III never had been made.
Age of Empires was a fun game, but i am sorry its not even close comparison. Age of series were never really competitive, sometimes you just quit in the beginning when you have a bad rng. Randomized maps can never be competitive, can't immagine a competitive rts with this amount of luck included. There is no balance in Age of empires, there is always 1-2 overpowered races and people just abuse the same races in the same period, you see same build everysingle game mostly by both sides. Its a really fun game to play with your friends casually but really not interesting to watch or play 1v1.
So when we think about an rts game that really casual friendly but still couldn't achieve anything compared to sc, it shows that a more casual friendly gameplay doesn't necessarily bring more players for rts genre. I don't think not being able to compete in higher levels makes players leave the game, bad designs do. Designs like widow mine, tempests, swarm hosts, overcharge, oracle, invincible nydus, air units being overwhelming. While a broken unit like adept can be fixed by a simple balance change, these bad designs can't be fixed by changing numbers. I know that every individual player might hate something particular in the game but there are some units don't contribute anything positive to the game that most players agree on. Blizzard didn't accept their poor work and make radical reworks unfortunately. This seems to me the main reason. Obviously a better interface, better arcade system and changes like we had in last patch would increase the count of players a lot as well in early dates of wol. Even though every right move were made, we can't know how bigger the scene could be, in the end its an rts and we have the most popular one atm.
You have: (1) no idea what competitive Age of Empires game-play is, (2) no idea what "broken units" or "bad design" is for Starcraft, (3) no idea why RTS is a niche genre compared to other genres,
Your entire post is a huge mess which I disagree with entirely.
EPT
