|
On November 29 2016 05:45 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 05:12 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 04:34 MaestroSC wrote:On November 29 2016 04:05 WGT-Baal wrote:
The fact that you have to pay was not a big issue at launch. Lots of ppl bought the game. But bnet 2 being so bad didnt help.
Back in bw i would sometimes just sit and chat on a channel for a while, playing a game or 2 in 4 hours. It was fun, it was social.
Ladder could have used separate mmr for each race from the start , funnier team games (i mean 2v2 and all suck... Whereas i have so many crazy memories on 4v4 hunters)
The design was also at fault. Ppl had high hopes for hots then felt disapointed and left. I stayed until lotv but adding even more gimmicky units killed the game for me A lot of people have already said it... but for most gamers the UMS scene was bigger than the melee map scene. IN BW and WC3 especially... there were hundreds of thousands more people playing those than the ladder. And BNET 2.0 completely KILLED that scene... because the new UI was absolute dogshit for: finding games, joining games, seeing what games were popular, seeing what games were getting a lot of attention. In BNET 2.0 all of the UMS creators stopped trying, because they realized it was most likely that none of their maps will ever even get seen let alone played. How you can go backwards 10 years after the original... is a truely special Feat that Blizz pulled off with 2.0 All they needed was to return to Bnet 1 from BW/WC3 and it would have given their game sO MUCH MORE LIFE. Then we get to the multiplayer ladder experience... which was balanced/designed by people who dont understand what people appreciate about RTS games. I dont play RTS games expecting them to play like Fighting games.... I dont need big explosions of 200 units crashing into 200 other units... The damage was so turned up on everything that the fights were over in 2 seconds regardless. Go watch a BW stream (Jaedong is streaming right now) you can see the battles ebb and flow, going back and forth. In sc2 literally 90% of fights were over within 2 seconds of engaging. Then you throw in stupid design units like: Colossus, Widow Mines, Banelings and its EASY to see why this game was never going to succeed. Then Blizz decides "You know whats wrong with our game? We arent getting to 200/200 fast enough... lets add more workers to the start!" Most people were complaining about how the game devolved into every match being a race to 3-4base 200/200 so they made that race even faster... hell they should have jsut made that the way the match starts. Both players start with 3 bases and full worker saturation... since thats all Blizz thought we wanted form a RTS why even go with the half-measure of just increasing starting workers. Go big or go home. This game was not what anyone hoped for, and every expansion made the game worse....added more and more ridiculously stupid units... id rather play Wings of Liberty than Legacy of the Void. Blizzard decided to make a game that didnt appeal to casuals OR hardcore RTS fans. Instead they made this game that hovers in the middle.. that neither group cares enough about to stay interested.... which is why their game/scene is now dead. They needed to either go full LoL and make it super casual friendly and get rid of the cheesy units like Banelings/widowmines that have a chance of ending the game immediately... or they needed to slow down the game and let it become about strategy again. Any/everyone who has been on this site since before SC2 saw what SC2 was and how it wouldnt have a long life because it didnt appeal to the people who were actually fans of the genre. But then TL got flooded by 100000 new fans of SC who refused to listen to anything negative. And i feel obligated to mention... that Blizz's idea to sell this as 3 full priced individual games... was a giant slap in the face, especially in an era of gaming riddled with DLC... they sold expansion packs at the same price of the original, and they were NOWHERE near worth that. And thats from someone who LOVED the campaign. they didnt sell BW as 3 individual games, they didnt sell WC3 as 3 individual games...there was no reason to do that with Sc2 except because they thought they could get away with it because they were making the sequel to BW, a huge success. Wow dude nice job. You reiterated complaints from 2010 that have been written 1000 times and largely have been fixed at this point. What would be more useful is realizing games like CSGO and Melee started at far worse points than SC2 and had dramatic revivals. I dont believe in "too little too late" when you look at these examples. We should be asking how to get there instead of cluttering up the thread with 2010 BNET 2.0 complaints. And by the time they were "fixed" the game had bled out more than an order of magnitude of its players. 
Cool, let me know when you build that time machine.
There's really zero reason to talk about BattleNet in 2010 right now, RTS in 2016 is less popular than RTS in 2010 this has nothing to do with BattleNet and probably has had a far greater impact. The playerbase of SC2 has never even approached numbers close to the popular games of today so people shouldn't look to them for where SC2 should be.
Can we please stop driving the UMS thing into the ground? People would still play LoL/DotA/Rocketleague/whatever instead.
|
On November 29 2016 05:45 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 05:12 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 04:34 MaestroSC wrote:On November 29 2016 04:05 WGT-Baal wrote:
The fact that you have to pay was not a big issue at launch. Lots of ppl bought the game. But bnet 2 being so bad didnt help.
Back in bw i would sometimes just sit and chat on a channel for a while, playing a game or 2 in 4 hours. It was fun, it was social.
Ladder could have used separate mmr for each race from the start , funnier team games (i mean 2v2 and all suck... Whereas i have so many crazy memories on 4v4 hunters)
The design was also at fault. Ppl had high hopes for hots then felt disapointed and left. I stayed until lotv but adding even more gimmicky units killed the game for me A lot of people have already said it... but for most gamers the UMS scene was bigger than the melee map scene. IN BW and WC3 especially... there were hundreds of thousands more people playing those than the ladder. And BNET 2.0 completely KILLED that scene... because the new UI was absolute dogshit for: finding games, joining games, seeing what games were popular, seeing what games were getting a lot of attention. In BNET 2.0 all of the UMS creators stopped trying, because they realized it was most likely that none of their maps will ever even get seen let alone played. How you can go backwards 10 years after the original... is a truely special Feat that Blizz pulled off with 2.0 All they needed was to return to Bnet 1 from BW/WC3 and it would have given their game sO MUCH MORE LIFE. Then we get to the multiplayer ladder experience... which was balanced/designed by people who dont understand what people appreciate about RTS games. I dont play RTS games expecting them to play like Fighting games.... I dont need big explosions of 200 units crashing into 200 other units... The damage was so turned up on everything that the fights were over in 2 seconds regardless. Go watch a BW stream (Jaedong is streaming right now) you can see the battles ebb and flow, going back and forth. In sc2 literally 90% of fights were over within 2 seconds of engaging. Then you throw in stupid design units like: Colossus, Widow Mines, Banelings and its EASY to see why this game was never going to succeed. Then Blizz decides "You know whats wrong with our game? We arent getting to 200/200 fast enough... lets add more workers to the start!" Most people were complaining about how the game devolved into every match being a race to 3-4base 200/200 so they made that race even faster... hell they should have jsut made that the way the match starts. Both players start with 3 bases and full worker saturation... since thats all Blizz thought we wanted form a RTS why even go with the half-measure of just increasing starting workers. Go big or go home. This game was not what anyone hoped for, and every expansion made the game worse....added more and more ridiculously stupid units... id rather play Wings of Liberty than Legacy of the Void. Blizzard decided to make a game that didnt appeal to casuals OR hardcore RTS fans. Instead they made this game that hovers in the middle.. that neither group cares enough about to stay interested.... which is why their game/scene is now dead. They needed to either go full LoL and make it super casual friendly and get rid of the cheesy units like Banelings/widowmines that have a chance of ending the game immediately... or they needed to slow down the game and let it become about strategy again. Any/everyone who has been on this site since before SC2 saw what SC2 was and how it wouldnt have a long life because it didnt appeal to the people who were actually fans of the genre. But then TL got flooded by 100000 new fans of SC who refused to listen to anything negative. And i feel obligated to mention... that Blizz's idea to sell this as 3 full priced individual games... was a giant slap in the face, especially in an era of gaming riddled with DLC... they sold expansion packs at the same price of the original, and they were NOWHERE near worth that. And thats from someone who LOVED the campaign. they didnt sell BW as 3 individual games, they didnt sell WC3 as 3 individual games...there was no reason to do that with Sc2 except because they thought they could get away with it because they were making the sequel to BW, a huge success. Wow dude nice job. You reiterated complaints from 2010 that have been written 1000 times and largely have been fixed at this point. What would be more useful is realizing games like CSGO and Melee started at far worse points than SC2 and had dramatic revivals. I dont believe in "too little too late" when you look at these examples. We should be asking how to get there instead of cluttering up the thread with 2010 BNET 2.0 complaints. And by the time they were "fixed" the game had bled out more than an order of magnitude of its players.
That's useful dude. Are you also that guy who says "I called it" about everything? People love that guy.
Do you like starcraft 2? Do you want it to grow larger than it is right now? If so you aren't helping dug
|
One of the problems I think is a lack of a good UMS system to attract casuals to play. Co-Op and the revamped arcade were steps in the right direction, but there's a reason why so many casual people played BW and WC3 especially, and that was UMS and other sorts of things.
The competitive scene could be helped by splitting the multiplayer and single player into separate entities, and adding an in game currency and more microtransactions, but at the end of the day the vast majority of people that played BW and WC3 over B.net were way more interested in the plethora of custom games and such that you could play. I don't think the current arcade is objectively bad, but it's still worse than its predecessors in that you can't name lobbies and it's buggy (penders, broken lobbies with certain games, etc) despite all the customization features the editor offers.
TL;DR - UMS and Customs were what brought the vast majority of the casual playerbase, and SC2 is sorely lacking that department.
|
On November 28 2016 06:06 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 05:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I didn't watch the video though, not interested to watch a french video when the person is european and could have done an english video instead. What a stupid reason. Let me remind you that Europe is a continent of independent countries not British/Australian/American colonies.
Bulgarian? Yet I understand you, I must speak Bulgarian, or you English.
If Firecake can speak English well enough, then he should use English as otherwise his audience is limited to a fraction of the available people. When foreigners talk to other foreigners they use English. If he cannot speak English then that is fair enough, he can let the community subtitle it.
The point of communication is to communicate, and that means in whatever language is the most appropriate.
|
On November 29 2016 05:53 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:06 Shield wrote:On November 28 2016 05:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I didn't watch the video though, not interested to watch a french video when the person is european and could have done an english video instead. What a stupid reason. Let me remind you that Europe is a continent of independent countries not British/Australian/American colonies. Bulgarian? Yet I understand you, I must speak Bulgarian, or you English. If Firecake can speak English well enough, then he should use English as otherwise his audience is limited to a fraction of the available people. When foreigners talk to other foreigners they use English. If he cannot speak English then that is fair enough, he can let the community subtitle it. The point of communication is to communicate, and that means in whatever language is the most appropriate.
If you do the job of making subtitles, (which quite some work), why not transcript them directly on a blank page and post the here 2.
Red Viper is right, that watching a 45 minute video of a foreign language with english subtitles is quite a task. Reading all subtitles in 10 minutes or listening to an english video in 45 minutes is much easier.
|
On November 29 2016 05:53 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:06 Shield wrote:On November 28 2016 05:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I didn't watch the video though, not interested to watch a french video when the person is european and could have done an english video instead. What a stupid reason. Let me remind you that Europe is a continent of independent countries not British/Australian/American colonies. If Firecake can speak English well enough, then he should use English as otherwise his audience is limited to a fraction of the available people. When foreigners talk to other foreigners they use English. If he cannot speak English then that is fair enough, he can let the community subtitle it. The point of communication is to communicate, and that means in whatever language is the most appropriate.
I agree but when I made my video the goal was simply to explain why Starcraft is dying to my French community. I believe a big part of the French community would have not seen my video if I were talking in English.
Also, this is the first time I make a video like this, I wanted to do it simple at the beginning.
In the future I might try to do the whole thing in English but I would have to work a lot more on the video since my English is not great.
|
For me, what killed my playing was that fights are over so quick. So quick in fact that if I am back at my base swapping an add-on then my army could get caught and melt away before I had a chance to switch the view, assess the situation and make an adjustment.
In other RTS games, I felt that I had more chance to influence the outcome by making a tactical decision than in SC2. The only time I felt that in SC2 was using small numbers of units as hit squads and dropping all over the place. As a mech player by preference that was not satisfying.
|
On November 29 2016 06:01 FireCake wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 05:53 DeadByDawn wrote:On November 28 2016 06:06 Shield wrote:On November 28 2016 05:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I didn't watch the video though, not interested to watch a french video when the person is european and could have done an english video instead. What a stupid reason. Let me remind you that Europe is a continent of independent countries not British/Australian/American colonies. If Firecake can speak English well enough, then he should use English as otherwise his audience is limited to a fraction of the available people. When foreigners talk to other foreigners they use English. If he cannot speak English then that is fair enough, he can let the community subtitle it. The point of communication is to communicate, and that means in whatever language is the most appropriate. I agree but when I made my video the goal was simply to explain why Starcraft is dying to my French community. I believe a big part of the French community would have not seen my video if I were talking in English. Also, this is the first time I make a video like this, I wanted to do it simple at the beginning. In the future I might try to do the whole thing in English but I would have to work a lot more on the video since my English is not great.
Your written English is excellent, give it a go! And I agree with many of the points in the video.
|
On November 29 2016 05:58 Clonester wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 05:53 DeadByDawn wrote:On November 28 2016 06:06 Shield wrote:On November 28 2016 05:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I didn't watch the video though, not interested to watch a french video when the person is european and could have done an english video instead. What a stupid reason. Let me remind you that Europe is a continent of independent countries not British/Australian/American colonies. Bulgarian? Yet I understand you, I must speak Bulgarian, or you English. If Firecake can speak English well enough, then he should use English as otherwise his audience is limited to a fraction of the available people. When foreigners talk to other foreigners they use English. If he cannot speak English then that is fair enough, he can let the community subtitle it. The point of communication is to communicate, and that means in whatever language is the most appropriate. If you do the job of making subtitles, (which quite some work), why not transcript them directly on a blank page and post the here 2. Red Viper is right, that watching a 45 minute video of a foreign language with english subtitles is quite a task. Reading all subtitles in 10 minutes or listening to an english video in 45 minutes is much easier.
I didn't do the job of making subtitles.
I added the full transcription on the first page of the topic.
|
On November 29 2016 06:04 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 06:01 FireCake wrote:On November 29 2016 05:53 DeadByDawn wrote:On November 28 2016 06:06 Shield wrote:On November 28 2016 05:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I didn't watch the video though, not interested to watch a french video when the person is european and could have done an english video instead. What a stupid reason. Let me remind you that Europe is a continent of independent countries not British/Australian/American colonies. If Firecake can speak English well enough, then he should use English as otherwise his audience is limited to a fraction of the available people. When foreigners talk to other foreigners they use English. If he cannot speak English then that is fair enough, he can let the community subtitle it. The point of communication is to communicate, and that means in whatever language is the most appropriate. I agree but when I made my video the goal was simply to explain why Starcraft is dying to my French community. I believe a big part of the French community would have not seen my video if I were talking in English. Also, this is the first time I make a video like this, I wanted to do it simple at the beginning. In the future I might try to do the whole thing in English but I would have to work a lot more on the video since my English is not great. Your written English is excellent, give it a go! And I agree with many of the points in the video.
My accent is terrible.
My accent is so awful that I remember people wishing I win my matches in WCS only so they can hear me in post-interview ^^
|
On November 29 2016 05:51 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 05:45 207aicila wrote:On November 29 2016 05:12 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 04:34 MaestroSC wrote:On November 29 2016 04:05 WGT-Baal wrote:
The fact that you have to pay was not a big issue at launch. Lots of ppl bought the game. But bnet 2 being so bad didnt help.
Back in bw i would sometimes just sit and chat on a channel for a while, playing a game or 2 in 4 hours. It was fun, it was social.
Ladder could have used separate mmr for each race from the start , funnier team games (i mean 2v2 and all suck... Whereas i have so many crazy memories on 4v4 hunters)
The design was also at fault. Ppl had high hopes for hots then felt disapointed and left. I stayed until lotv but adding even more gimmicky units killed the game for me A lot of people have already said it... but for most gamers the UMS scene was bigger than the melee map scene. IN BW and WC3 especially... there were hundreds of thousands more people playing those than the ladder. And BNET 2.0 completely KILLED that scene... because the new UI was absolute dogshit for: finding games, joining games, seeing what games were popular, seeing what games were getting a lot of attention. In BNET 2.0 all of the UMS creators stopped trying, because they realized it was most likely that none of their maps will ever even get seen let alone played. How you can go backwards 10 years after the original... is a truely special Feat that Blizz pulled off with 2.0 All they needed was to return to Bnet 1 from BW/WC3 and it would have given their game sO MUCH MORE LIFE. Then we get to the multiplayer ladder experience... which was balanced/designed by people who dont understand what people appreciate about RTS games. I dont play RTS games expecting them to play like Fighting games.... I dont need big explosions of 200 units crashing into 200 other units... The damage was so turned up on everything that the fights were over in 2 seconds regardless. Go watch a BW stream (Jaedong is streaming right now) you can see the battles ebb and flow, going back and forth. In sc2 literally 90% of fights were over within 2 seconds of engaging. Then you throw in stupid design units like: Colossus, Widow Mines, Banelings and its EASY to see why this game was never going to succeed. Then Blizz decides "You know whats wrong with our game? We arent getting to 200/200 fast enough... lets add more workers to the start!" Most people were complaining about how the game devolved into every match being a race to 3-4base 200/200 so they made that race even faster... hell they should have jsut made that the way the match starts. Both players start with 3 bases and full worker saturation... since thats all Blizz thought we wanted form a RTS why even go with the half-measure of just increasing starting workers. Go big or go home. This game was not what anyone hoped for, and every expansion made the game worse....added more and more ridiculously stupid units... id rather play Wings of Liberty than Legacy of the Void. Blizzard decided to make a game that didnt appeal to casuals OR hardcore RTS fans. Instead they made this game that hovers in the middle.. that neither group cares enough about to stay interested.... which is why their game/scene is now dead. They needed to either go full LoL and make it super casual friendly and get rid of the cheesy units like Banelings/widowmines that have a chance of ending the game immediately... or they needed to slow down the game and let it become about strategy again. Any/everyone who has been on this site since before SC2 saw what SC2 was and how it wouldnt have a long life because it didnt appeal to the people who were actually fans of the genre. But then TL got flooded by 100000 new fans of SC who refused to listen to anything negative. And i feel obligated to mention... that Blizz's idea to sell this as 3 full priced individual games... was a giant slap in the face, especially in an era of gaming riddled with DLC... they sold expansion packs at the same price of the original, and they were NOWHERE near worth that. And thats from someone who LOVED the campaign. they didnt sell BW as 3 individual games, they didnt sell WC3 as 3 individual games...there was no reason to do that with Sc2 except because they thought they could get away with it because they were making the sequel to BW, a huge success. Wow dude nice job. You reiterated complaints from 2010 that have been written 1000 times and largely have been fixed at this point. What would be more useful is realizing games like CSGO and Melee started at far worse points than SC2 and had dramatic revivals. I dont believe in "too little too late" when you look at these examples. We should be asking how to get there instead of cluttering up the thread with 2010 BNET 2.0 complaints. And by the time they were "fixed" the game had bled out more than an order of magnitude of its players. That's useful dude. Are you also that guy who says "I called it" about everything? People love that guy. Do you like starcraft 2? Do you want it to grow larger than it is right now? If so you aren't helping dug
Because dismissing valid and legitimate complaints just because they've been voiced before (and ignored for years) is definitely helping.
I'm tired of people who joined this scene in 2013/2014 telling me what I love and don't love and how I feel about this franchise and how I should feel about this game. Y'all were in diapers when we were playing SC.
Go back to reddit if you want to bury your head in the sand and circlejerk with other teenagers who share your viewpoint and downvote all opposers, TL has always been a site for the hardcore enthusiasts.
|
On November 29 2016 06:15 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 05:51 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 05:45 207aicila wrote:On November 29 2016 05:12 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 04:34 MaestroSC wrote:On November 29 2016 04:05 WGT-Baal wrote:
The fact that you have to pay was not a big issue at launch. Lots of ppl bought the game. But bnet 2 being so bad didnt help.
Back in bw i would sometimes just sit and chat on a channel for a while, playing a game or 2 in 4 hours. It was fun, it was social.
Ladder could have used separate mmr for each race from the start , funnier team games (i mean 2v2 and all suck... Whereas i have so many crazy memories on 4v4 hunters)
The design was also at fault. Ppl had high hopes for hots then felt disapointed and left. I stayed until lotv but adding even more gimmicky units killed the game for me A lot of people have already said it... but for most gamers the UMS scene was bigger than the melee map scene. IN BW and WC3 especially... there were hundreds of thousands more people playing those than the ladder. And BNET 2.0 completely KILLED that scene... because the new UI was absolute dogshit for: finding games, joining games, seeing what games were popular, seeing what games were getting a lot of attention. In BNET 2.0 all of the UMS creators stopped trying, because they realized it was most likely that none of their maps will ever even get seen let alone played. How you can go backwards 10 years after the original... is a truely special Feat that Blizz pulled off with 2.0 All they needed was to return to Bnet 1 from BW/WC3 and it would have given their game sO MUCH MORE LIFE. Then we get to the multiplayer ladder experience... which was balanced/designed by people who dont understand what people appreciate about RTS games. I dont play RTS games expecting them to play like Fighting games.... I dont need big explosions of 200 units crashing into 200 other units... The damage was so turned up on everything that the fights were over in 2 seconds regardless. Go watch a BW stream (Jaedong is streaming right now) you can see the battles ebb and flow, going back and forth. In sc2 literally 90% of fights were over within 2 seconds of engaging. Then you throw in stupid design units like: Colossus, Widow Mines, Banelings and its EASY to see why this game was never going to succeed. Then Blizz decides "You know whats wrong with our game? We arent getting to 200/200 fast enough... lets add more workers to the start!" Most people were complaining about how the game devolved into every match being a race to 3-4base 200/200 so they made that race even faster... hell they should have jsut made that the way the match starts. Both players start with 3 bases and full worker saturation... since thats all Blizz thought we wanted form a RTS why even go with the half-measure of just increasing starting workers. Go big or go home. This game was not what anyone hoped for, and every expansion made the game worse....added more and more ridiculously stupid units... id rather play Wings of Liberty than Legacy of the Void. Blizzard decided to make a game that didnt appeal to casuals OR hardcore RTS fans. Instead they made this game that hovers in the middle.. that neither group cares enough about to stay interested.... which is why their game/scene is now dead. They needed to either go full LoL and make it super casual friendly and get rid of the cheesy units like Banelings/widowmines that have a chance of ending the game immediately... or they needed to slow down the game and let it become about strategy again. Any/everyone who has been on this site since before SC2 saw what SC2 was and how it wouldnt have a long life because it didnt appeal to the people who were actually fans of the genre. But then TL got flooded by 100000 new fans of SC who refused to listen to anything negative. And i feel obligated to mention... that Blizz's idea to sell this as 3 full priced individual games... was a giant slap in the face, especially in an era of gaming riddled with DLC... they sold expansion packs at the same price of the original, and they were NOWHERE near worth that. And thats from someone who LOVED the campaign. they didnt sell BW as 3 individual games, they didnt sell WC3 as 3 individual games...there was no reason to do that with Sc2 except because they thought they could get away with it because they were making the sequel to BW, a huge success. Wow dude nice job. You reiterated complaints from 2010 that have been written 1000 times and largely have been fixed at this point. What would be more useful is realizing games like CSGO and Melee started at far worse points than SC2 and had dramatic revivals. I dont believe in "too little too late" when you look at these examples. We should be asking how to get there instead of cluttering up the thread with 2010 BNET 2.0 complaints. And by the time they were "fixed" the game had bled out more than an order of magnitude of its players. That's useful dude. Are you also that guy who says "I called it" about everything? People love that guy. Do you like starcraft 2? Do you want it to grow larger than it is right now? If so you aren't helping dug Because dismissing valid and legitimate complaints just because they've been voiced before (and ignored for years) is definitely helping. I'm tired of people who joined this scene in 2013/2014 telling me what I love and don't love and how I feel about this franchise and how I should feel about this game. Y'all were in diapers when we were playing SC. Go back to reddit if you want to bury your head in the sand and circlejerk with other teenagers who share your viewpoint and downvote all opposers, TL has always been a site for the hardcore enthusiasts.
You could have just clicked my username and saw that I had joined in early 2008 lol.
Instead you wrote this embarrassing post. I think you and your unwarranted elitism should leave. Take your dumbass hipster savior signature with you.
|
On November 29 2016 06:01 FireCake wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 05:53 DeadByDawn wrote:On November 28 2016 06:06 Shield wrote:On November 28 2016 05:53 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I didn't watch the video though, not interested to watch a french video when the person is european and could have done an english video instead. What a stupid reason. Let me remind you that Europe is a continent of independent countries not British/Australian/American colonies. If Firecake can speak English well enough, then he should use English as otherwise his audience is limited to a fraction of the available people. When foreigners talk to other foreigners they use English. If he cannot speak English then that is fair enough, he can let the community subtitle it. The point of communication is to communicate, and that means in whatever language is the most appropriate. I agree but when I made my video the goal was simply to explain why Starcraft is dying to my French community. I believe a big part of the French community would have not seen my video if I were talking in English. Also, this is the first time I make a video like this, I wanted to do it simple at the beginning. In the future I might try to do the whole thing in English but I would have to work a lot more on the video since my English is not great.
what you did actually is fine, if you think you can express yourself more precisely with your mother tongue go for it, if some people can't stand reading subtitles so be it
|
On November 29 2016 05:47 Ansibled wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 05:45 207aicila wrote:On November 29 2016 05:12 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 04:34 MaestroSC wrote:On November 29 2016 04:05 WGT-Baal wrote:
The fact that you have to pay was not a big issue at launch. Lots of ppl bought the game. But bnet 2 being so bad didnt help.
Back in bw i would sometimes just sit and chat on a channel for a while, playing a game or 2 in 4 hours. It was fun, it was social.
Ladder could have used separate mmr for each race from the start , funnier team games (i mean 2v2 and all suck... Whereas i have so many crazy memories on 4v4 hunters)
The design was also at fault. Ppl had high hopes for hots then felt disapointed and left. I stayed until lotv but adding even more gimmicky units killed the game for me A lot of people have already said it... but for most gamers the UMS scene was bigger than the melee map scene. IN BW and WC3 especially... there were hundreds of thousands more people playing those than the ladder. And BNET 2.0 completely KILLED that scene... because the new UI was absolute dogshit for: finding games, joining games, seeing what games were popular, seeing what games were getting a lot of attention. In BNET 2.0 all of the UMS creators stopped trying, because they realized it was most likely that none of their maps will ever even get seen let alone played. How you can go backwards 10 years after the original... is a truely special Feat that Blizz pulled off with 2.0 All they needed was to return to Bnet 1 from BW/WC3 and it would have given their game sO MUCH MORE LIFE. Then we get to the multiplayer ladder experience... which was balanced/designed by people who dont understand what people appreciate about RTS games. I dont play RTS games expecting them to play like Fighting games.... I dont need big explosions of 200 units crashing into 200 other units... The damage was so turned up on everything that the fights were over in 2 seconds regardless. Go watch a BW stream (Jaedong is streaming right now) you can see the battles ebb and flow, going back and forth. In sc2 literally 90% of fights were over within 2 seconds of engaging. Then you throw in stupid design units like: Colossus, Widow Mines, Banelings and its EASY to see why this game was never going to succeed. Then Blizz decides "You know whats wrong with our game? We arent getting to 200/200 fast enough... lets add more workers to the start!" Most people were complaining about how the game devolved into every match being a race to 3-4base 200/200 so they made that race even faster... hell they should have jsut made that the way the match starts. Both players start with 3 bases and full worker saturation... since thats all Blizz thought we wanted form a RTS why even go with the half-measure of just increasing starting workers. Go big or go home. This game was not what anyone hoped for, and every expansion made the game worse....added more and more ridiculously stupid units... id rather play Wings of Liberty than Legacy of the Void. Blizzard decided to make a game that didnt appeal to casuals OR hardcore RTS fans. Instead they made this game that hovers in the middle.. that neither group cares enough about to stay interested.... which is why their game/scene is now dead. They needed to either go full LoL and make it super casual friendly and get rid of the cheesy units like Banelings/widowmines that have a chance of ending the game immediately... or they needed to slow down the game and let it become about strategy again. Any/everyone who has been on this site since before SC2 saw what SC2 was and how it wouldnt have a long life because it didnt appeal to the people who were actually fans of the genre. But then TL got flooded by 100000 new fans of SC who refused to listen to anything negative. And i feel obligated to mention... that Blizz's idea to sell this as 3 full priced individual games... was a giant slap in the face, especially in an era of gaming riddled with DLC... they sold expansion packs at the same price of the original, and they were NOWHERE near worth that. And thats from someone who LOVED the campaign. they didnt sell BW as 3 individual games, they didnt sell WC3 as 3 individual games...there was no reason to do that with Sc2 except because they thought they could get away with it because they were making the sequel to BW, a huge success. Wow dude nice job. You reiterated complaints from 2010 that have been written 1000 times and largely have been fixed at this point. What would be more useful is realizing games like CSGO and Melee started at far worse points than SC2 and had dramatic revivals. I dont believe in "too little too late" when you look at these examples. We should be asking how to get there instead of cluttering up the thread with 2010 BNET 2.0 complaints. And by the time they were "fixed" the game had bled out more than an order of magnitude of its players. Cool, let me know when you build that time machine. There's really zero reason to talk about BattleNet in 2010 right now, RTS in 2016 is less popular than RTS in 2010 this has nothing to do with BattleNet and probably has had a far greater impact. The playerbase of SC2 has never even approached numbers close to the popular games of today so people shouldn't look to them for where SC2 should be. Can we please stop driving the UMS thing into the ground? People would still play LoL/DotA/Rocketleague/whatever instead.
Sure, many people would play other games instead. Many people would also play SC2 UMS. Not as many, but many more than now.
No. It is one issue that continues to be underrepresented and underdiscussed. If you have never been a mapper, modder or amateur game developer then you might not understand, but SC2 actually shipped with a fucking amazing tool for creating custom content. And we were robbed of seeing that potential be achieved because of Blizzard's decisions and inaction for years regarding the piss poor custom map ecosystem on bnet 2.0.
It would have been another avenue to keep people interested in the game and keep them on the bnet "platform". One that would have been easy to just enjoy casually. It doesn't have to snatch the players out of DotA's mouth, but if it meant that more people would play maybe 5 hours of SC2 UMS a week and 20 hours of DotA instead of 25 hours of DotA, that would still have been a tremendous and constantly self-reinforcing win for SC2's longevity.
If you don't understand that, it's your problem.
|
On November 29 2016 06:21 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 06:15 207aicila wrote:On November 29 2016 05:51 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 05:45 207aicila wrote:On November 29 2016 05:12 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 04:34 MaestroSC wrote:On November 29 2016 04:05 WGT-Baal wrote:
The fact that you have to pay was not a big issue at launch. Lots of ppl bought the game. But bnet 2 being so bad didnt help.
Back in bw i would sometimes just sit and chat on a channel for a while, playing a game or 2 in 4 hours. It was fun, it was social.
Ladder could have used separate mmr for each race from the start , funnier team games (i mean 2v2 and all suck... Whereas i have so many crazy memories on 4v4 hunters)
The design was also at fault. Ppl had high hopes for hots then felt disapointed and left. I stayed until lotv but adding even more gimmicky units killed the game for me A lot of people have already said it... but for most gamers the UMS scene was bigger than the melee map scene. IN BW and WC3 especially... there were hundreds of thousands more people playing those than the ladder. And BNET 2.0 completely KILLED that scene... because the new UI was absolute dogshit for: finding games, joining games, seeing what games were popular, seeing what games were getting a lot of attention. In BNET 2.0 all of the UMS creators stopped trying, because they realized it was most likely that none of their maps will ever even get seen let alone played. How you can go backwards 10 years after the original... is a truely special Feat that Blizz pulled off with 2.0 All they needed was to return to Bnet 1 from BW/WC3 and it would have given their game sO MUCH MORE LIFE. Then we get to the multiplayer ladder experience... which was balanced/designed by people who dont understand what people appreciate about RTS games. I dont play RTS games expecting them to play like Fighting games.... I dont need big explosions of 200 units crashing into 200 other units... The damage was so turned up on everything that the fights were over in 2 seconds regardless. Go watch a BW stream (Jaedong is streaming right now) you can see the battles ebb and flow, going back and forth. In sc2 literally 90% of fights were over within 2 seconds of engaging. Then you throw in stupid design units like: Colossus, Widow Mines, Banelings and its EASY to see why this game was never going to succeed. Then Blizz decides "You know whats wrong with our game? We arent getting to 200/200 fast enough... lets add more workers to the start!" Most people were complaining about how the game devolved into every match being a race to 3-4base 200/200 so they made that race even faster... hell they should have jsut made that the way the match starts. Both players start with 3 bases and full worker saturation... since thats all Blizz thought we wanted form a RTS why even go with the half-measure of just increasing starting workers. Go big or go home. This game was not what anyone hoped for, and every expansion made the game worse....added more and more ridiculously stupid units... id rather play Wings of Liberty than Legacy of the Void. Blizzard decided to make a game that didnt appeal to casuals OR hardcore RTS fans. Instead they made this game that hovers in the middle.. that neither group cares enough about to stay interested.... which is why their game/scene is now dead. They needed to either go full LoL and make it super casual friendly and get rid of the cheesy units like Banelings/widowmines that have a chance of ending the game immediately... or they needed to slow down the game and let it become about strategy again. Any/everyone who has been on this site since before SC2 saw what SC2 was and how it wouldnt have a long life because it didnt appeal to the people who were actually fans of the genre. But then TL got flooded by 100000 new fans of SC who refused to listen to anything negative. And i feel obligated to mention... that Blizz's idea to sell this as 3 full priced individual games... was a giant slap in the face, especially in an era of gaming riddled with DLC... they sold expansion packs at the same price of the original, and they were NOWHERE near worth that. And thats from someone who LOVED the campaign. they didnt sell BW as 3 individual games, they didnt sell WC3 as 3 individual games...there was no reason to do that with Sc2 except because they thought they could get away with it because they were making the sequel to BW, a huge success. Wow dude nice job. You reiterated complaints from 2010 that have been written 1000 times and largely have been fixed at this point. What would be more useful is realizing games like CSGO and Melee started at far worse points than SC2 and had dramatic revivals. I dont believe in "too little too late" when you look at these examples. We should be asking how to get there instead of cluttering up the thread with 2010 BNET 2.0 complaints. And by the time they were "fixed" the game had bled out more than an order of magnitude of its players. That's useful dude. Are you also that guy who says "I called it" about everything? People love that guy. Do you like starcraft 2? Do you want it to grow larger than it is right now? If so you aren't helping dug Because dismissing valid and legitimate complaints just because they've been voiced before (and ignored for years) is definitely helping. I'm tired of people who joined this scene in 2013/2014 telling me what I love and don't love and how I feel about this franchise and how I should feel about this game. Y'all were in diapers when we were playing SC. Go back to reddit if you want to bury your head in the sand and circlejerk with other teenagers who share your viewpoint and downvote all opposers, TL has always been a site for the hardcore enthusiasts. You could have just clicked my username and saw that I had joined in early 2008 lol. Instead you wrote this embarrassing post. I think you and your unwarranted elitism should leave. Take your dumbass hipster savior signature with you.
The only thing that's embarrassing is lapdogs pretending there's nothing wrong or that nothing should be criticized.
You have not been around long enough this scene or gaming in general to tell me what to do, especially in that tone.
|
On November 29 2016 06:24 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 06:21 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 06:15 207aicila wrote:On November 29 2016 05:51 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 05:45 207aicila wrote:On November 29 2016 05:12 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 04:34 MaestroSC wrote:On November 29 2016 04:05 WGT-Baal wrote:
The fact that you have to pay was not a big issue at launch. Lots of ppl bought the game. But bnet 2 being so bad didnt help.
Back in bw i would sometimes just sit and chat on a channel for a while, playing a game or 2 in 4 hours. It was fun, it was social.
Ladder could have used separate mmr for each race from the start , funnier team games (i mean 2v2 and all suck... Whereas i have so many crazy memories on 4v4 hunters)
The design was also at fault. Ppl had high hopes for hots then felt disapointed and left. I stayed until lotv but adding even more gimmicky units killed the game for me A lot of people have already said it... but for most gamers the UMS scene was bigger than the melee map scene. IN BW and WC3 especially... there were hundreds of thousands more people playing those than the ladder. And BNET 2.0 completely KILLED that scene... because the new UI was absolute dogshit for: finding games, joining games, seeing what games were popular, seeing what games were getting a lot of attention. In BNET 2.0 all of the UMS creators stopped trying, because they realized it was most likely that none of their maps will ever even get seen let alone played. How you can go backwards 10 years after the original... is a truely special Feat that Blizz pulled off with 2.0 All they needed was to return to Bnet 1 from BW/WC3 and it would have given their game sO MUCH MORE LIFE. Then we get to the multiplayer ladder experience... which was balanced/designed by people who dont understand what people appreciate about RTS games. I dont play RTS games expecting them to play like Fighting games.... I dont need big explosions of 200 units crashing into 200 other units... The damage was so turned up on everything that the fights were over in 2 seconds regardless. Go watch a BW stream (Jaedong is streaming right now) you can see the battles ebb and flow, going back and forth. In sc2 literally 90% of fights were over within 2 seconds of engaging. Then you throw in stupid design units like: Colossus, Widow Mines, Banelings and its EASY to see why this game was never going to succeed. Then Blizz decides "You know whats wrong with our game? We arent getting to 200/200 fast enough... lets add more workers to the start!" Most people were complaining about how the game devolved into every match being a race to 3-4base 200/200 so they made that race even faster... hell they should have jsut made that the way the match starts. Both players start with 3 bases and full worker saturation... since thats all Blizz thought we wanted form a RTS why even go with the half-measure of just increasing starting workers. Go big or go home. This game was not what anyone hoped for, and every expansion made the game worse....added more and more ridiculously stupid units... id rather play Wings of Liberty than Legacy of the Void. Blizzard decided to make a game that didnt appeal to casuals OR hardcore RTS fans. Instead they made this game that hovers in the middle.. that neither group cares enough about to stay interested.... which is why their game/scene is now dead. They needed to either go full LoL and make it super casual friendly and get rid of the cheesy units like Banelings/widowmines that have a chance of ending the game immediately... or they needed to slow down the game and let it become about strategy again. Any/everyone who has been on this site since before SC2 saw what SC2 was and how it wouldnt have a long life because it didnt appeal to the people who were actually fans of the genre. But then TL got flooded by 100000 new fans of SC who refused to listen to anything negative. And i feel obligated to mention... that Blizz's idea to sell this as 3 full priced individual games... was a giant slap in the face, especially in an era of gaming riddled with DLC... they sold expansion packs at the same price of the original, and they were NOWHERE near worth that. And thats from someone who LOVED the campaign. they didnt sell BW as 3 individual games, they didnt sell WC3 as 3 individual games...there was no reason to do that with Sc2 except because they thought they could get away with it because they were making the sequel to BW, a huge success. Wow dude nice job. You reiterated complaints from 2010 that have been written 1000 times and largely have been fixed at this point. What would be more useful is realizing games like CSGO and Melee started at far worse points than SC2 and had dramatic revivals. I dont believe in "too little too late" when you look at these examples. We should be asking how to get there instead of cluttering up the thread with 2010 BNET 2.0 complaints. And by the time they were "fixed" the game had bled out more than an order of magnitude of its players. That's useful dude. Are you also that guy who says "I called it" about everything? People love that guy. Do you like starcraft 2? Do you want it to grow larger than it is right now? If so you aren't helping dug Because dismissing valid and legitimate complaints just because they've been voiced before (and ignored for years) is definitely helping. I'm tired of people who joined this scene in 2013/2014 telling me what I love and don't love and how I feel about this franchise and how I should feel about this game. Y'all were in diapers when we were playing SC. Go back to reddit if you want to bury your head in the sand and circlejerk with other teenagers who share your viewpoint and downvote all opposers, TL has always been a site for the hardcore enthusiasts. You could have just clicked my username and saw that I had joined in early 2008 lol. Instead you wrote this embarrassing post. I think you and your unwarranted elitism should leave. Take your dumbass hipster savior signature with you. The only thing that's embarrassing is lapdogs pretending there's nothing wrong or that nothing should be criticized. You have not been around long enough this scene or gaming in general to tell me what to do, especially in that tone.
I'm embarrassed for you dude. I've played brood war since release. Many people have. You aren't special. If you are quite old you certainly seem emotionally stunted for your age.
I have lots of criticism for sc2. The difference is mine are rooted in the present and isn't leftover tears from 2010.
|
On November 29 2016 06:23 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 05:47 Ansibled wrote:On November 29 2016 05:45 207aicila wrote:On November 29 2016 05:12 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 04:34 MaestroSC wrote:On November 29 2016 04:05 WGT-Baal wrote:
The fact that you have to pay was not a big issue at launch. Lots of ppl bought the game. But bnet 2 being so bad didnt help.
Back in bw i would sometimes just sit and chat on a channel for a while, playing a game or 2 in 4 hours. It was fun, it was social.
Ladder could have used separate mmr for each race from the start , funnier team games (i mean 2v2 and all suck... Whereas i have so many crazy memories on 4v4 hunters)
The design was also at fault. Ppl had high hopes for hots then felt disapointed and left. I stayed until lotv but adding even more gimmicky units killed the game for me A lot of people have already said it... but for most gamers the UMS scene was bigger than the melee map scene. IN BW and WC3 especially... there were hundreds of thousands more people playing those than the ladder. And BNET 2.0 completely KILLED that scene... because the new UI was absolute dogshit for: finding games, joining games, seeing what games were popular, seeing what games were getting a lot of attention. In BNET 2.0 all of the UMS creators stopped trying, because they realized it was most likely that none of their maps will ever even get seen let alone played. How you can go backwards 10 years after the original... is a truely special Feat that Blizz pulled off with 2.0 All they needed was to return to Bnet 1 from BW/WC3 and it would have given their game sO MUCH MORE LIFE. Then we get to the multiplayer ladder experience... which was balanced/designed by people who dont understand what people appreciate about RTS games. I dont play RTS games expecting them to play like Fighting games.... I dont need big explosions of 200 units crashing into 200 other units... The damage was so turned up on everything that the fights were over in 2 seconds regardless. Go watch a BW stream (Jaedong is streaming right now) you can see the battles ebb and flow, going back and forth. In sc2 literally 90% of fights were over within 2 seconds of engaging. Then you throw in stupid design units like: Colossus, Widow Mines, Banelings and its EASY to see why this game was never going to succeed. Then Blizz decides "You know whats wrong with our game? We arent getting to 200/200 fast enough... lets add more workers to the start!" Most people were complaining about how the game devolved into every match being a race to 3-4base 200/200 so they made that race even faster... hell they should have jsut made that the way the match starts. Both players start with 3 bases and full worker saturation... since thats all Blizz thought we wanted form a RTS why even go with the half-measure of just increasing starting workers. Go big or go home. This game was not what anyone hoped for, and every expansion made the game worse....added more and more ridiculously stupid units... id rather play Wings of Liberty than Legacy of the Void. Blizzard decided to make a game that didnt appeal to casuals OR hardcore RTS fans. Instead they made this game that hovers in the middle.. that neither group cares enough about to stay interested.... which is why their game/scene is now dead. They needed to either go full LoL and make it super casual friendly and get rid of the cheesy units like Banelings/widowmines that have a chance of ending the game immediately... or they needed to slow down the game and let it become about strategy again. Any/everyone who has been on this site since before SC2 saw what SC2 was and how it wouldnt have a long life because it didnt appeal to the people who were actually fans of the genre. But then TL got flooded by 100000 new fans of SC who refused to listen to anything negative. And i feel obligated to mention... that Blizz's idea to sell this as 3 full priced individual games... was a giant slap in the face, especially in an era of gaming riddled with DLC... they sold expansion packs at the same price of the original, and they were NOWHERE near worth that. And thats from someone who LOVED the campaign. they didnt sell BW as 3 individual games, they didnt sell WC3 as 3 individual games...there was no reason to do that with Sc2 except because they thought they could get away with it because they were making the sequel to BW, a huge success. Wow dude nice job. You reiterated complaints from 2010 that have been written 1000 times and largely have been fixed at this point. What would be more useful is realizing games like CSGO and Melee started at far worse points than SC2 and had dramatic revivals. I dont believe in "too little too late" when you look at these examples. We should be asking how to get there instead of cluttering up the thread with 2010 BNET 2.0 complaints. And by the time they were "fixed" the game had bled out more than an order of magnitude of its players. Cool, let me know when you build that time machine. There's really zero reason to talk about BattleNet in 2010 right now, RTS in 2016 is less popular than RTS in 2010 this has nothing to do with BattleNet and probably has had a far greater impact. The playerbase of SC2 has never even approached numbers close to the popular games of today so people shouldn't look to them for where SC2 should be. Can we please stop driving the UMS thing into the ground? People would still play LoL/DotA/Rocketleague/whatever instead. Sure, many people would play other games instead. Many people would also play SC2 UMS. Not as many, but many more than now. No. It is one issue that continues to be underrepresented and underdiscussed. If you have never been a mapper, modder or amateur game developer then you might not understand, but SC2 actually shipped with a fucking amazing tool for creating custom content. And we were robbed of seeing that potential be achieved because of Blizzard's decisions and inaction for years regarding the piss poor custom map ecosystem on bnet 2.0. It would have been another avenue to keep people interested in the game and keep them on the bnet "platform". One that would have been easy to just enjoy casually. It doesn't have to snatch the players out of DotA's mouth, but if it meant that more people would play maybe 5 hours of SC2 UMS a week and 20 hours of DotA instead of 25 hours of DotA, that would still have been a tremendous and constantly self-reinforcing win for SC2's longevity. If you don't understand that, it's your problem.
We already have UMS in SC2, it is called Co-op.
Way too late and not open to community additions, but hey, this is SC2, we know how Blizzard wants it.
I fully agree with Firecake that proffesional SC2 will be over in one year at most, unless viewership starts increasing. The ONLY way to achieve that is to make the 1v1 ladder FTP, to gain new players. This would also be beneficial to Blizzard, as those players would also be attracted to paid content.
|
On November 29 2016 06:45 Xamo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 06:23 207aicila wrote:On November 29 2016 05:47 Ansibled wrote:On November 29 2016 05:45 207aicila wrote:On November 29 2016 05:12 Little-Chimp wrote:On November 29 2016 04:34 MaestroSC wrote:On November 29 2016 04:05 WGT-Baal wrote:
The fact that you have to pay was not a big issue at launch. Lots of ppl bought the game. But bnet 2 being so bad didnt help.
Back in bw i would sometimes just sit and chat on a channel for a while, playing a game or 2 in 4 hours. It was fun, it was social.
Ladder could have used separate mmr for each race from the start , funnier team games (i mean 2v2 and all suck... Whereas i have so many crazy memories on 4v4 hunters)
The design was also at fault. Ppl had high hopes for hots then felt disapointed and left. I stayed until lotv but adding even more gimmicky units killed the game for me A lot of people have already said it... but for most gamers the UMS scene was bigger than the melee map scene. IN BW and WC3 especially... there were hundreds of thousands more people playing those than the ladder. And BNET 2.0 completely KILLED that scene... because the new UI was absolute dogshit for: finding games, joining games, seeing what games were popular, seeing what games were getting a lot of attention. In BNET 2.0 all of the UMS creators stopped trying, because they realized it was most likely that none of their maps will ever even get seen let alone played. How you can go backwards 10 years after the original... is a truely special Feat that Blizz pulled off with 2.0 All they needed was to return to Bnet 1 from BW/WC3 and it would have given their game sO MUCH MORE LIFE. Then we get to the multiplayer ladder experience... which was balanced/designed by people who dont understand what people appreciate about RTS games. I dont play RTS games expecting them to play like Fighting games.... I dont need big explosions of 200 units crashing into 200 other units... The damage was so turned up on everything that the fights were over in 2 seconds regardless. Go watch a BW stream (Jaedong is streaming right now) you can see the battles ebb and flow, going back and forth. In sc2 literally 90% of fights were over within 2 seconds of engaging. Then you throw in stupid design units like: Colossus, Widow Mines, Banelings and its EASY to see why this game was never going to succeed. Then Blizz decides "You know whats wrong with our game? We arent getting to 200/200 fast enough... lets add more workers to the start!" Most people were complaining about how the game devolved into every match being a race to 3-4base 200/200 so they made that race even faster... hell they should have jsut made that the way the match starts. Both players start with 3 bases and full worker saturation... since thats all Blizz thought we wanted form a RTS why even go with the half-measure of just increasing starting workers. Go big or go home. This game was not what anyone hoped for, and every expansion made the game worse....added more and more ridiculously stupid units... id rather play Wings of Liberty than Legacy of the Void. Blizzard decided to make a game that didnt appeal to casuals OR hardcore RTS fans. Instead they made this game that hovers in the middle.. that neither group cares enough about to stay interested.... which is why their game/scene is now dead. They needed to either go full LoL and make it super casual friendly and get rid of the cheesy units like Banelings/widowmines that have a chance of ending the game immediately... or they needed to slow down the game and let it become about strategy again. Any/everyone who has been on this site since before SC2 saw what SC2 was and how it wouldnt have a long life because it didnt appeal to the people who were actually fans of the genre. But then TL got flooded by 100000 new fans of SC who refused to listen to anything negative. And i feel obligated to mention... that Blizz's idea to sell this as 3 full priced individual games... was a giant slap in the face, especially in an era of gaming riddled with DLC... they sold expansion packs at the same price of the original, and they were NOWHERE near worth that. And thats from someone who LOVED the campaign. they didnt sell BW as 3 individual games, they didnt sell WC3 as 3 individual games...there was no reason to do that with Sc2 except because they thought they could get away with it because they were making the sequel to BW, a huge success. Wow dude nice job. You reiterated complaints from 2010 that have been written 1000 times and largely have been fixed at this point. What would be more useful is realizing games like CSGO and Melee started at far worse points than SC2 and had dramatic revivals. I dont believe in "too little too late" when you look at these examples. We should be asking how to get there instead of cluttering up the thread with 2010 BNET 2.0 complaints. And by the time they were "fixed" the game had bled out more than an order of magnitude of its players. Cool, let me know when you build that time machine. There's really zero reason to talk about BattleNet in 2010 right now, RTS in 2016 is less popular than RTS in 2010 this has nothing to do with BattleNet and probably has had a far greater impact. The playerbase of SC2 has never even approached numbers close to the popular games of today so people shouldn't look to them for where SC2 should be. Can we please stop driving the UMS thing into the ground? People would still play LoL/DotA/Rocketleague/whatever instead. Sure, many people would play other games instead. Many people would also play SC2 UMS. Not as many, but many more than now. No. It is one issue that continues to be underrepresented and underdiscussed. If you have never been a mapper, modder or amateur game developer then you might not understand, but SC2 actually shipped with a fucking amazing tool for creating custom content. And we were robbed of seeing that potential be achieved because of Blizzard's decisions and inaction for years regarding the piss poor custom map ecosystem on bnet 2.0. It would have been another avenue to keep people interested in the game and keep them on the bnet "platform". One that would have been easy to just enjoy casually. It doesn't have to snatch the players out of DotA's mouth, but if it meant that more people would play maybe 5 hours of SC2 UMS a week and 20 hours of DotA instead of 25 hours of DotA, that would still have been a tremendous and constantly self-reinforcing win for SC2's longevity. If you don't understand that, it's your problem. We already have UMS in SC2, it is called Co-op. Way too late and not open to community additions, but hey, this is SC2, we know how Blizzard wants it. I fully agree with Firecake that proffesional SC2 will be over in one year at most, unless viewership starts increasing. The ONLY way to achieve that is to make the 1v1 ladder FTP, to gain new players. This would also be beneficial to Blizzard, as those players would also be attracted to paid content.
What's up with ppl obssesion with Free to play and especially free stuffs? Back in the day we were working our ass off to buy a brand new game on CD or CD's so todays era is what? Let devs works their ass off for free so we can complain for free on free websites and free forums?
|
On November 29 2016 06:02 DeadByDawn wrote:
For me, what killed my playing was that fights are over so quick. So quick in fact that if I am back at my base swapping an add-on then my army could get caught and melt away before I had a chance to switch the view, assess the situation and make an adjustment.
In other RTS games, I felt that I had more chance to influence the outcome by making a tactical decision than in SC2. The only time I felt that in SC2 was using small numbers of units as hit squads and dropping all over the place. As a mech player by preference that was not satisfying.
Why are you attacking with your army while knowing you gonna do macro stuffs in your base? That's a common mistake and there is nothing about the game you can blame, well maybe you do if you need half an hour to realize ur in the middle of the map with clumped army and have enought time to prepare. Bad fights were bad in every RTS when u did not paid attention.
|
On November 28 2016 19:27 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 17:52 Dingodile wrote:
This game has to many problems. But outside this game too:
1) very toxic sc2 community
2) twitch numbers. In sc2, you get more viewers when you are talking with the viewers. When Jaedong and Grubby played their original game (BW/WC3), we all noticed that just playing the game gets much more viewers than talking.
3) I already complained in 2011 about "personality-based" interests from the community, they care more about players than the game. One of many proofs is what I mean about 2). I feel like we lost 90% of the community when Stephano and IdrA left the game. Such thing never happened in WC3 and BW days. I agree with all your points, but the most with the third one. Community was far too deeply invested in people that created their "brands" and then left. Not enough community game-related content post-Day9, too much personality based things. Drunk stream anyone?
It's more like streaming has changed and except tournaments, you can see mainly dumb stuffs happening on twitch and gameplay becoming 2nd thing, while entertaining factor is a huge thing (read as sellout). Meanwhile in StarCraft its superhard to focus on the game and entertain chat too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
