EPTOn November 28 2016 21:49 FireCake wrote:
I am surprised too :D
It took me a long time to repeat and record this.
I am surprised too :D
It took me a long time to repeat and record this.
such a BOSS
FireCake's opinion on the decline of StarCraft 2 - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
WhosQuany
Germany257 Posts
such a BOSS | ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
On November 29 2016 00:11 KOtical wrote: after almost 7 years of sc2 in total, i personally think it happened to less new stuff in multiplayer to keep people around... from WoL the player base was still pretty big, and everyone was wondering what new things await us after that glorious WoL Times... HotS came out and multiplayer wise people were dissapointed... to less new stuff and the things that were new been kinda dumb... New Units were (correct me if im wrong) T: Widow Mine, Hellbat, Z: Swarm Host, Viper, P:MSC, Tempest, Oracle People hated: Swarm Host, MSC (nexus overcharge) People disliked: widow mines, Tempest, Oracle except from those new units and a few balance changes + some horrible new maps there was kinda nothing new in hots. and from thos few new units people didnt like over 50% of em... That was the part were all the players started to leave. And by the end of hots the player base was already to small... even if lotv would have been the perfect sc2 game, blizz lost the people when they moved from wol to hots... thats just my oppinion, maybe some of ya´ll relate to it My opinion is that at least part of the people who left left because of real-life issues, got older and such. Not any majority, but a good number. Also for a significant amount of time the game very much depended on personalities/players, who left to do other stuff too. It's not the game being poorly designed in some areas that was the reason of the decline. People got older, many transitioned from BW/WC3 + other competitive and socially engaging games came up. It's going to be hard for SC2 to capture the attention of younger generation, since the only social interaction you have in game is stress caused by trying your best to not get backstabbed/taken by surprise by the opponent. It's mostly about influx of new people right now.It's not impossible though. Aside from that, there were many things done poorly, for example multiplayer exclusivity for each expansion - it's still surprising for me to see people asking about which game they should buy to play multiplayer. I understand the decision of making the game separate for single player with each focusing on different race, but it has been done really poorly. I'd make it a single ladder with access from any expansion you get. I don't see any reason to keep WoL/HotS/LotV separate. At all. | ||
|
dacSyzygy
Germany42 Posts
On November 28 2016 21:39 papaz wrote: SC2 is despite all efforts from Blizzard still too much real time mechanics and too little strategy for the average joe. When do people actually do any kind of decision making or follow a game plan? I'm an average joe that is playing around gold level and although I am enjoying the game I rarely do anything at all but to focus on not getting supply block and trying to spend my money. I can't remember that I have ever made any decision making. If I win it's either because I have out macroed my opponent or I won as a result of BO win. TLDR: SC2 is not strategy for most gamers, it's mechanics only hence it's not fun. That man got it right. In BW you had lots of real strategical options, like claiming key positions fast (cliffs, islands, ramps) and you used early pressure mainly to scout, deny scouting and expanding. You could do some tech-rushes for early harassment, but you really sacrificed and risked a lot when doing so in a way you could expect critical damage to your opponent. Also the whole damage concept of actually reducing damage output vs. some kind of units (Concussion vs. Large, Explosive vs. Small) is WAY better than the "Bonus Damage" concept of SC2. Why that? Because in SC2 your whole Army dies in a few seconds of not babysitting it because you have insane amounts of bonusdamage and splash on the field. Every friggin' Unit has some spell or special ability in SC2 and at the same time you have a lot more eco to manage (injects, calldowns, chronoboost) if you want to compete in macro. Now the bases run dry even faster, so you need to expand even more. The average player will always lack one way, while desperately trying to avoid supplyblocks, overmins and falling for harassment. Its simply over the top what you "can do" in SC2 so many many players get a frustrating feeling of not having time for actually stratical gameplay because you have to microbabysitting so much crap. That is why "Build orders" are simply the way to go in SC2. Mechanical repeating of the same and same and same stuff as flawless as possible gets you the best results. What I really miss in SC2 is value of strategy. The BW defenders advantage (Units shooting up a cliff/ramp miss 60% of their shots if I remember correctly) and the mapdesign which included narrow passages, islands and cliffs next to expansions allowed to fight even opponents which focused a lot more on macro while you focused on some strategic tech. Both could win, both could fail. In SC2 one of the hints when starting a game is so true (and boring): The bigger army almost always wins. Sad for a strategy game. | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 29 2016 00:29 dacSyzygy wrote: That man got it right. In BW you had lots of real strategical options, like claiming key positions fast (cliffs, islands, ramps) and you used early pressure mainly to scout, deny scouting and expanding. You could do some tech-rushes for early harassment, but you really sacrificed and risked a lot when doing so in a way you could expect critical damage to your opponent. Also the whole damage concept of actually reducing damage output vs. some kind of units (Concussion vs. Large, Explosive vs. Small) is WAY better than the "Bonus Damage" concept of SC2. Why that? Because in SC2 your whole Army dies in a few seconds of not babysitting it because you have insane amounts of bonusdamage and splash on the field. Every friggin' Unit has some spell or special ability in SC2 and at the same time you have a lot more eco to manage (injects, calldowns, chronoboost) if you want to compete in macro. Now the bases run dry even faster, so you need to expand even more. The average player will always lack one way, while desperately trying to avoid supplyblocks, overmins and falling for harassment. Its simply over the top what you "can do" in SC2 so many many players get a frustrating feeling of not having time for actually stratical gameplay because you have to microbabysitting so much crap. That is why "Build orders" are simply the way to go in SC2. Mechanical repeating of the same and same and same stuff as flawless as possible gets you the best results. What I really miss in SC2 is value of strategy. The BW defenders advantage (Units shooting up a cliff/ramp miss 60% of their shots if I remember correctly) and the mapdesign which included narrow passages, islands and cliffs next to expansions allowed to fight even opponents which focused a lot more on macro while you focused on some strategic tech. Both could win, both could fail. In SC2 one of the hints when starting a game is so true (and boring): The bigger army almost always wins. Sad for a strategy game. What he's describing could easily apply to Brood war. Low level players who let scvs idle and get supply blocked constantly are going to get destroyed by someone who just out macros them. I don't think his criticism has standing. | ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
On November 29 2016 00:41 lestye wrote: What he's describing could easily apply to Brood war. Low level players who let scvs idle and get supply blocked constantly are going to get destroyed by someone who just out macros them. I don't think his criticism has standing. I think they went a little overboard with the BW praise, but the thing that BW punished you far less for idle units and miscontrol is true. Spider mine splash was not nearly potentially devastating as Widow Mine hit. Single Scarab hit was not potentially gamechanging as it is with Purification Nova combined with natural unit clumping, which is hard to avoid for lower level players. SC2 is super clean in everything and requires more accuracy plus similar attention span that Brood War required, if not bigger. I don't think a modern RTS where you could literally have units sitting around not having too big influence on the overall game would be feasible though. Just thinking, maybe it could. | ||
|
Uni1987
Netherlands642 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4690 Posts
There is still a lot more tournaments and money flowing into SC2 than there was at the hight of BW. People either are too young or dont remmeber the BW times. Back then You had two options: watch Korea play (sometimes!) at some crazy time or dont watch sc at all. There was one-two tournament with some money per year for foreigners. Other than that You could play nation war (for Glory - not for money). Now look at right side of the screen! Metric shitton of tournaments (WITH MONEY PRIZES) everyday! If that is dead game BW was never alive. Go to LoL section and see how much tournaments there is? I will answer You : not much! In Lol we get cross-region play (when Korea/China play Europe/North America) maybe 2-3 times a year. You really want that? I will laugh at anyone saying dead game - i remmber when i had to wait whole year for WCG... | ||
|
dacSyzygy
Germany42 Posts
On November 29 2016 00:41 lestye wrote: What he's describing could easily apply to Brood war. Low level players who let scvs idle and get supply blocked constantly are going to get destroyed by someone who just out macros them. I don't think his criticism has standing. nobody talks about "low level" players that can't handle the basics. Its also not about "winning". SC2 punishes mistakes (aka not constantly babysitting or one/two misclicks) a lot harder which is very frustrating. And one of the reasons is, that there is too much splash and bonusdamage on the field and too few damage-reduction factors. The other one is, that every single unit has some special ability that you must use to really perform well, which even more favors the "faster" players which are ahead in eco and micro anyway. So it really comes down to: execute BOs flawlessly and be as close to a mechanical clickrobot as you can. Thats not fun. Not even to watch. | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland1878 Posts
On November 29 2016 01:04 aQuaSC wrote: I think they went a little overboard with the BW praise, but the thing that BW punished you far less for idle units and miscontrol is true. Spider mine splash was not nearly potentially devastating as Widow Mine hit. Single Scarab hit was not potentially gamechanging as it is with Purification Nova combined with natural unit clumping, which is hard to avoid for lower level players. SC2 is super clean in everything and requires more accuracy plus similar attention span that Brood War required, if not bigger. I think BW also provided more options to play actual map control and stall. Units like lurkers, spider mines and such were pretty viable for stalling and wearing down the opponent as they pushed. You could also for example engage and fall back once the siegetanks started the siege mode. SC2 is full of stuff like conc shells, blink and fungal growth that often force you to commit to big engagements all at once. Obviously it's still mechanically demanding stuff, but it's much more varied than just maxing out the unit producting and perfecting the build order. | ||
|
Damusson
Canada54 Posts
On November 28 2016 23:21 Fatam wrote: As someone who likes Starcraft a lot, I do sometimes hate it when you can basically make the worst possible decision out of the ones available to you, but still win because of superior mechanics. All sports are like this though. Let's say you have pro sports team playing some amateur team (football, baseball, hockey, whatever). The amateur team tries to use an excellent positional system, lots of strategy, make the plays with the best statistical odds, etc. And then the pro team is just doing whatever, no real strategy. And they win because they are far superior mechanically. They can run faster, throw farther, pitch better, hit more home runs, shoot better, etc. This is an extreme example, but I just want to point out that mechanics deciding games over strategy is possible in everything, not just Starcraft. | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 29 2016 01:32 dacSyzygy wrote: nobody talks about "low level" players that can't handle the basics. Its also not about "winning". SC2 punishes mistakes (aka not constantly babysitting or one/two misclicks) a lot harder which is very frustrating. And one of the reasons is, that there is too much splash and bonusdamage on the field and too few damage-reduction factors. The other one is, that every single unit has some special ability that you must use to really perform well, which even more favors the "faster" players which are ahead in eco and micro anyway. So it really comes down to: execute BOs flawlessly and be as close to a mechanical clickrobot as you can. Thats not fun. Not even to watch. The original post was. It was criticizing of a lack of strategy in low-level games because of macro. That's what I was addressing. | ||
|
Little-Chimp
Canada948 Posts
- don't blame UMS. It's 2016 and there are F2P games everywhere and full AAA games for 2 bucks on steam. The arcade doesn't matter - patches every month has it's positives but you'll never have a savior, bisu or jaedong meta changing moment shifting the patches every month. - melee at it's most alive is not as alive as starcraft in its graveyard. I have to give its community credit though for having such a great and positive scene playing through dolphin and LAN while SC2 players are constantly shitting themselves for not being the biggest esport of all time anymore while still retaining 200k players on a regular basis | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
From what I can tell most of the complaints seem to be triggered by the surprising revelation that in an RTS game events occur in real time. | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 29 2016 01:48 Little-Chimp wrote: The OP is decent but these comments lol. So many shit tier opinions it's hard to know where to start. - don't blame UMS. It's 2016 and there are F2P games everywhere and full AAA games for 2 bucks on steam. The arcade doesn't matter - patches every month has it's positives but you'll never have a savior, bisu or jaedong meta changing moment shifting the patches every month. - melee at it's most alive is not as alive as starcraft in its graveyard. I have to give its community credit though for having such a great and positive scene playing through dolphin and LAN while SC2 players are constantly shitting themselves for not being the biggest esport of all time anymore while still retaining 200k players on a regular basis You mean Life of Peasant isn't going to make Starcraft a better esport? A+ Someone who is reasonable. Especially on your last point, people should look at steam graphs/charts to see what kind of numbers games get when they're not Dota or CS:GO. | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 29 2016 01:49 Ansibled wrote: What does it's not a strategy game even mean? Serioulsy I have no idea how you can even remotely approach that conclusion. From what I can tell most of the complaints seem to be triggered by the surprising revelation that in an RTS game events occur in real time. It's a really common sentiment from casuals on /r/games who complain about Blizzard RTSs while pointing to games like Supreme Commander as the ideal competitive experience. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On November 29 2016 01:53 lestye wrote: It's a really common sentiment from casuals on /r/games who complain about Blizzard RTSs while pointing to games like Supreme Commander as the ideal competitive experience. Even better, they cite AoE2 which has been extremely figured out in terms of build orders(I mean pretty much every unit movement is planned) and it's sooo much about mechanical execution it's ridiculous. The "SC2 is not a strategy game" argument is just silly. Just because the mechanical skill ceiling is high doesn't mean it's just that. It's the same argument people make about shooters "It's just point and click!"...... | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
Very nice video, you did not speak of certain things but was good sharing in any case. You really should have done it in engrish dude  mais si t'as un super accent (you have a super accent) .. it is a frog accent but i'm sure the video would have been better for it (got to break more eggs to get more omelettes! "omelettes du fromage ahhahahahahhhahaha (sorry can't translate humor every time) .. Still time to do a 10 minute english version.. do it if you know what s good for you (pm me i'll coach you through it <3 ). At least feugateau (firecake in french ) has the guts to go to the plate and do the "destiny post" .. and at least he says loud and clear that HE WANTS TO PLAY SC2.. .. a better sc2 yes but he doesn't even go into that, he tries to stay on course and that's an effort that many do not do. i mean do we see liquid players making posts that say mighty high and loud "sc2 is alive, and here is why!" ??? (oups almost added a twit ch emote  )Re reading my post i see that i might be misunderstood  so i'll add that little me is glad if blizzard takes off of sc2 and we get it back to change it and make it the game it deserves to be.deep mind  | ||
|
207aicila
1237 Posts
On November 28 2016 20:30 aQuaSC wrote: I think many issues with the arcade come from the fact that there is not much quality content in it, due to how much effort it takes to do something of quality in the editor. There are tons of cringy stuff. BW and WC3 map editors were about putting blocks mostly, compared to the editor we got with SC2. It's sometimes funny to me how people state that the competitive side of the game is that much dependent on the other side of the game that has literally nothing to do with it. I was never able to connect ums players to pro scene followers in terms of gameplay, I think they were being drawn there plainly because of the show that was put and that trend shows today with SC2. Many interesting players and recently Korean tournaments liked by people are gone, and with them gone there is loss in game's popularity. I wonder if similar situation could happen to other games if half of their top competitive scene just left. And the reason there isn't any quality content on the arcade anymore is because mappers gave up in 2011 when they realized Blizzard's atrocious popularity-centric implementation of the initial arcade meant that their hard work would never get any exposure and be wasted because everyone played Nexus Wars and Tower Defense and that was it. Seriously. There were some bloody amazing custom maps and mods being created even as far back as the Wings of Liberty Beta. You heard that right, if you don't believe me go look up Husky's showcases from that time. But the custom game system was so laughably bad that it was impossible to discover them and actually get a lobby going unless you did it with a bunch of friends. Mappers realized it's not worth the effort if no one will ever play their stuff, so they mostly gave up. And that's one of the most subtle and insidious failings of SC2's longevity plan; old school folks will remember that most BW players were actually rather casual and spent most of their time playing BGH and Sunken Defense and things of that nature rather than 1v1ing on iCCup all the time; SC2's equivalent of that has been stillborn due to stupid decisions on Blizzard's part, despite the fact that the engine itself is very versatile and powerful when it comes to making custom content. | ||
|
Raneth
England527 Posts
On November 28 2016 19:24 lestye wrote: The reverse is even worse imo. Having to deal with really bad design that doesn't work itself out, refusing to patch, got us into some terrible times in WoL. No we didnt. The meta was never allowed to settle. Whenever a strategy came to prominence it was patched out after no more than a month. The balance cries that fuelled the patching lead to a game where it was almost impossible to generate interesting spectator narratives around champions because as soon as anyone started dominating, their build orders got hit with the nerf bat. In my opinion that is the main reason for the loss of interest in the competitive scene. How can you root for your favourite player when he's bouncing between winning tournaments and being relegated after a month of patches? | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On November 29 2016 01:48 Little-Chimp wrote: The OP is decent but these comments lol. So many shit tier opinions it's hard to know where to start. - don't blame UMS. It's 2016 and there are F2P games everywhere and full AAA games for 2 bucks on steam. The arcade doesn't matter - patches every month has it's positives but you'll never have a savior, bisu or jaedong meta changing moment shifting the patches every month. - melee at it's most alive is not as alive as starcraft in its graveyard. I have to give its community credit though for having such a great and positive scene playing through dolphin and LAN while SC2 players are constantly shitting themselves for not being the biggest esport of all time anymore while still retaining 200k players on a regular basis I don't know about "shit tier opinions", but yours is mostly crap. - While there are free to play games and games for 2 bucks on Steam, Arcade matters and it keeps the game fresh for those people who are casual players and cannot be bothered to be competitive. It's how DotA/LoL came. It was a UMS map in WarCraft. I'm guessing if mods count, you could also argue that's how Counter-Strike came from Half-Life as well. - It's true Blizzard patched game too quickly at some points, but there were times when they let meta game develop. For instance, 200/200 at 12 min by Stephano was figured out at some point. The problem really is, as other people have pointed out already, if you leave meta unchanged for too long, you'll make people quit. How do you define how long should meta game last before a balance patch? There's no fast and hard rule about this. One of the reasons it worked for Brood War is because Blizzard stopped patching it after some time, so you're left with balancing maps or coming up with build orders. I doubt it was because Blizzard employees were so smart that figured out balance patches will never be needed. | ||
| ||
