On November 28 2016 10:28 Charoisaur wrote: avilo you say you want blizzard to patch the game more often but when I tune into your stream all I hear is you complaining about "the stupid stuff they have put in the game for no reason" in the latest patch. And you really want them to do such changes more often?
and no adepts didn't replace zealots, zealots still have a fundemental role in the game, especially in pvz.
This is what i'm talking about. Do you realize the only patch LOTV has had is essentially -1 adept dmg patch?
From November 2015 to November 2016.
How do we as an SC2 community find that acceptable in any way?
On November 28 2016 10:28 Charoisaur wrote: avilo you say you want blizzard to patch the game more often but when I tune into your stream all I hear is you complaining about "the stupid stuff they have put in the game for no reason" in the latest patch. And you really want them to do such changes more often?
and no adepts didn't replace zealots, zealots still have a fundemental role in the game, especially in pvz.
This is what i'm talking about. Do you realize the only patch LOTV has had is essentially -1 adept dmg patch?
From November 2015 to November 2016.
How do we as an SC2 community find that acceptable in any way?
On November 28 2016 10:28 Charoisaur wrote: avilo you say you want blizzard to patch the game more often but when I tune into your stream all I hear is you complaining about "the stupid stuff they have put in the game for no reason" in the latest patch. And you really want them to do such changes more often?
and no adepts didn't replace zealots, zealots still have a fundemental role in the game, especially in pvz.
This is what i'm talking about. Do you realize the only patch LOTV has had is essentially -1 adept dmg patch?
From November 2015 to November 2016.
How do we as an SC2 community find that acceptable in any way?
I remember parasitic bomb nerf, collossus buff, immortal nerf, queen buff, liberator anti armor nerf, thor buff, cyclone-cost reduction, SH cost-reduction and pylon overcharge nerf,
Hit the nail on the head for me with the cash cow , basically feels like if we want anything more we are paying more for it.. hence why i havent bought any of the new stuff, i just feel like blizzard are milking the most out of the dead cow now, and changes 1 year apart for balance...... but skins and voice packs done in 6 month period and missions brought out even quicker.. why??? $$$$$ thats all it is hence why i play LOL now. and just come here now and then to see if anything has changed(fyi it never has)
However, the longest official game in SC2 history at the moment is not you vs MaNa, which was 3h 5min in-game time, it's ZhuGeLiang vs Lillekanin in WCS 2015 Season 1 qualifiers which lasted 4h 10min in-game time (vod part1, part2).
I'm also very interested to see what DeepMind can go with SC2. Blizzard is making a new API called StarCraft II API for the AI project, so you should take a loot at if you are planning on working on AIs.
On November 28 2016 10:28 Charoisaur wrote: avilo you say you want blizzard to patch the game more often but when I tune into your stream all I hear is you complaining about "the stupid stuff they have put in the game for no reason" in the latest patch. And you really want them to do such changes more often?
and no adepts didn't replace zealots, zealots still have a fundemental role in the game, especially in pvz.
This is what i'm talking about. Do you realize the only patch LOTV has had is essentially -1 adept dmg patch?
From November 2015 to November 2016.
How do we as an SC2 community find that acceptable in any way?
Don't forget the patch that killed Skyterran after they 'Let the meta settle' for a whooping 2 weeks.
On November 28 2016 05:40 BalanceEnforcer wrote: Macro is "killing" this game, LoL is all Micro. I have played on and off since release and together with many others we still hate having to inject larva, forgetting to build workers and units, build additional production buildings, look the minimap and drop mules all while microing our little hearths out to the point our dear souls eventually died f10+Ning thinking this game is fucking stupid because all my opponent really did was pressing some button cuz micro doesnt award enough contra camping and amassing units etc. This is atleast why i gave up on this game. So with that said, may Wc4 live a very very long life.
you being a noob doesnt have to do with the fact that the sc2 e-sports scene is dying, if you dont want to play the game cause you're too lazy to buid up good mechanics has nothing to do with the fact that theres no more pro-league or disbanded KeSPA teams.
On November 28 2016 12:09 Probe1 wrote: I've written my thoughts on this topic enough times. It is abundantly clear that Starcraft 2 has 1-2 years left before tournaments dry up. The mismanagement of the game has been demonstrated since the beginning and continues today, albeit things have improved.
I wish everyone who draws income from Starcraft 2 the best and hope that Blizzard has the courage to change the course and make multiplayer completely free. It is not the only thing that must be done but at this point it is the only thing that can change its momentum.
Agree
Although not about the times you have written your thoughts about this topic. Let's create dozens more of these threads and post in them endlessly.
Have said it before, will say it later, the main reason why Starcraft is declining is the Starcraft community. It's toxic, it spends more time complaining about the game than enjoying it, it spends more time wondering why the game is doing badly than making the game go better. It craps on Blizzard for everything (and everything's contrary), it craps on people for not being good enough, not having enough APM, not having the right strategies, it craps on other games for being inferior, it craps on its own game for not being Broodwar...
If I had come to this forum before I watched all of the GSLs, there is no way I would be watching SC2 today. And this is by far the best SC2 forum.
On November 28 2016 08:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: SC2 esports has never been viable. it existed only because Blizzard donated money into a money losing scene. SC2 esports has never fallen because it never rose.
i remember at the height of SC2 esports alleged "popularity" Tasteless and Artosis joking about the homeless guys wanting to get into the TV studio for the free pizza.
in Canada SC2 esports was "viable" as a once a year event in toronto until about 2013. after that.. forget it. so in Canada the scene "fell" from a barely viable once a year event to no viable events.
You apparently weren't around when the GSL was hosting a tourney every 2-3 months, when MLG was hosting tournaments, when big tournament viewership was easily into 6 figures (now they are in 5 figures) and when streamers regularly had thousands of people watching them (now Broodwar streams get more viewers).
Events like this just don't happen regularly anymore:
Too bad you missed 2011, it was fun.
As for the viability of E-Sports, remember that most of Elon Musk's endeavors are not viable financially either. It takes a long time for some things to get profitable.
But so many people saw the potential that they were willing to invest (in both Musk and SC2). Especially considering the viewership for SC2 is the coveted young male audience that advertisers desperately want to advertise to.
But investors don't see the potential anymore.
do you think any of that made money?
They probably didn't. MLG is notorious for never being profitable. 2012 had huge oversaturation and reckless spending which led to the "recession" of tournaments of 2013, and it was all downhill from there.
On November 28 2016 06:52 stuchiu wrote: More in-depth thoughts about the video. There are specific events that hurt Korean SC2 from the outset like the long fight with KeSPa/OGN and Blizzard and matchfixing.
There are also intangibles like how much a lack of structure in the tournament format hurt SC2 in the early years. Could it have solidified a following if WCS was made earlier? That's something people think was part of the cause.
I don't think I am competent enough to talk about these things in details but I believe it is not very important. My assumption is that Starcraft 2 needs a lot of players to be a successful e-sport game. Most players probably don't know or don't care about the long fight between kespa and OGN so it doesn't push them away from the game.
On November 28 2016 06:52 stuchiu wrote:But since the main thrust of the argument is gameplay (rightly so, since that's your expertise) there is something else that should be considered beyond strategic depth.
That is also tactical depth. Despite Bio tank vs muta/ling/bling being played out longer than most strategies in SC2's history, it still remains exciting and interesting when it is played out. If I had to guess I think it's because the matchup is one of the best at revealing the type of player a person is.
I like to compare Starcraft 2 not with chess but with Go. Chess is about killing your opponent, Go is about making a bigger territory. For me, I see Go players as 2 gentlemen that ask each other what part of the board game they want : -"I am putting this stone here to claim this territory" -"Interesting move, In this case you leave a weakness here so I claim this territory" ... My point is they are communicating, they are trading territory, they are trading blows by blows without going all in.
Now let's go back to muta ling baneling against tank marine. What I really love about these army composition is that they force people to trade (or to "talk") : Marine tank always win in direct engagement but the reinforcements are slow to come and can't be everywhere. Muta ling baneling is weaker but very mobile (Possible trade base, worker harass, killing reinforcement...). Instead of going all in in one engagement, these army force you to take damage and send it back elsewhere. For example, if the tanks reach a good position near a zerg expand, then the zerg player has to abandon this base. But the zerg player can then kill a lot of the reinforcements and maybe attack a terran expand aswell. -"I am sending my marines and tanks here to destroy your fourth base" -"Interesting move, in this case you leave a wekness on your third base so I will destroy it aswell or kill your reinforcements" In my opinion, this kind of communication between players is what make this game great. (On a side note : this is also why pro players can often tell which player is behind a barcode)
Also, the baneling is a key unit. I think it is the most well designed unit of Starcraft 2. This unit allows you to trade your economy/tech (the unit cost a lot of gas) to defend in an emergency. Which means even if the terran player don't do damage directly by destroying a base, it still do damage because the zerg player has to produce banelings and hurts his economy. (Indirect damage -> communication between players). The unit is also very good because it prevents a fight to be completly one sided. To do damage the baneling has to explodes and thus the zerg player loses ressources. It reduces the snowball effect and one sided battle. It reduces the amount of games where there is only one fight in a 20 min game and a winner 5 sec after.
I think the developpers got really lucky to have a very good ZvT match up since they didn't manage to make others match ups as good as ZvT. They even managed to make ZvT boring in LoTv. But, this is often what happens in video game, game designers try something and sometimes it turns out to be very good but they don't manage to reproduce it. I am sure you follow the Smash scene. SSBM was awesome and proves to still be awesome 15 years later while the super smash bros games after SSBM was... kinda boring
On November 28 2016 10:28 Charoisaur wrote: avilo you say you want blizzard to patch the game more often but when I tune into your stream all I hear is you complaining about "the stupid stuff they have put in the game for no reason" in the latest patch. And you really want them to do such changes more often?
and no adepts didn't replace zealots, zealots still have a fundemental role in the game, especially in pvz.
This is what i'm talking about. Do you realize the only patch LOTV has had is essentially -1 adept dmg patch?
From November 2015 to November 2016.
How do we as an SC2 community find that acceptable in any way?
These changes are so inconsequential and some outright bad/don't address myriads of problems. Queen change is one of the worst changes made to LOTV.
The lib nerf killed T lategame, and the adept nerf did nothing to stop the rampant "spam adepts into mineral line" gameplay.
The changes besides the queen change are basically negligible and address no huge gameplay issues. They are so conservative of "changes" you can hardly say any were made. And some were just outright bad.
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.
On November 28 2016 12:09 Probe1 wrote:I wish everyone who draws income from Starcraft 2 the best and hope that Blizzard has the courage to change the course and make multiplayer completely free. It is not the only thing that must be done but at this point it is the only thing that can change its momentum.
Might be worth a try. I'd advise however against overestimating the game's draw in its current state. LotV sold reasonably well, and the overwhelming majority of those buyers aren't playing ladder either, despite multiplayer having no - monetary - entry barrier for them.
Thank you guys. I didn't expect my video to receive so much positive feedback outside of the french community.
On November 28 2016 10:10 avilo wrote:
YOU CANNOT HAVE 1 GAMEPLAY/BALANCE/DESIGN PATCH ONLY ONCE EVERY 1 YEAR.
On November 28 2016 10:28 Charoisaur wrote: avilo you say you want blizzard to patch the game more often but when I tune into your stream all I hear is you complaining about "the stupid stuff they have put in the game for no reason" in the latest patch. And you really want them to do such changes more often?
I think what Avilo says is not contradictory.
If we had changes every 3 months the meta game will never be set in stone. So people would have thousands of things to try before feeling frustrated that something has no counter play.
If the game was changed regularly the game would feel "fresh" and people would be a lot less in the urge of complaining about broken stuff
On November 28 2016 04:16 KT_Elwood wrote: I have watched till 25:00 min so far a) You ignored Heroes and Hearthstone as Blizzards F2P games b) You ignored the fact that Legacy is standalone, and other than 1v1 Ladder sc2 is F2P (Spawn), c) SC2 comes with 3 full Solo campaigns, a map editor and hundreds of popular Custom maps. LoL is just a copy of a successfull custom map in WC3. 90-120€ Well spent (I dont like Coop)
I think Blizzard devs are also players. And they make pretty good games. And like many more mature players they never thought anyone would pay for fucking skins, or they thought it was shitty to make kids spent 30$ every month on progression in the "F2P" game or on useless digital content.
Well, players today want that shit. They want micro transaction, they want "achievements", they want cool CS:GO skins and HS cardbacks and LoL Champions. CS:GO Skins may even be illegal in germany, since buying keys to boxes to have a chance to obtain something that can be traded for money is gambling, and underage kids are doing it, and Volvo does not seem to be listed as provider of gambling.....well enough. Blizzard had good reasons to not jump on the Hypuu train of sneaking into kids wallets (aside from WoW, wich charges you upfront)
Okay my suggestion on the "what costs money" stuff is actually that Blizzard pools achievements/Gold for all games launched via the bnet client. You can earn Gold to buy cards in hearthstone by playing Diablo, or Sc2. Or you are forced to explore other games (F2P) to get an achievement (win an Archonmode game to get raynor-Santa-skin) or something.
I going to watch more now ^^
Gamers are the most pro-consumerist people around. So Blizzard adds totally pointless grind mechanisms and low-effort achievements to all of their games? Good, because that keeps people playing. Games become simplified and shallow? Good, because that appeals to casuals. You can gamble your money away on skins and more overpriced meaningless nonsense? Good, because that creates a sustainable business model. Story lines of Blizzard games are infantile and reactionary? Who cares, because only 'weird' people care about story lines, and besides, second rate comic book aesthetics and superhero tropes are hip.
Meanwhile ever larger studios are consolidating their grip on the market with games that become ever worse, while fans become ever dumber and more franchise obsessed, while business models become more and more predatory. But it's all good, because capitalism.
Skins are the worst example, people campaigned to have them in the game not because they wanted to buy skins, but because they wanted other people to buy skins and therefore pay for their play time.
On November 28 2016 03:48 geissenberg wrote: I think the answer is simple: Complicated economy based RTS games are not popular at the moment.
I hope not all publishers and developers are drawing this conclusion. I feel there's still a nice market for RTS games, but they really need to do way better job than SC2 has done. It feels like SC2 tried to hit so many targets with casual market, hardcore community, old Starcraft fans, new audiences and everything between that it never really figured out its own thing. A lot of the stuff is copied over from Starcraft 1 into a game that doesn't work at all like SC1 does. In the end it feels like SC2 design is a list of checkboxes being ticked to appeal audiences rather than the game committing into being a thing of its own and embracing whatever strenghts it has.
----
In terms of patches, I think the big thing is how radically every small numeric change affects the balance. This comes down to how the unit design and AI pathing work in SC2 and how easily units operate at close to maximum level. Because the units almost automatically operate at maximum efficiency in big unit balls, most balance changes end up being applied very directly to the strenght of the unit right away.
Most of the units in SC2 are designed for very specific things and there's a very limited window of viability for them. Once outside the window, there are very tools the players can use to make the unit viable again.
All this makes the balancing process of SC2 a nightmare. On one hand you need to constantly adjusting to keep the game from going stale (BL Infestor era for example). Then again, on the other hand, every time you patch you very crudely force the changes in right away rather than allowing players to figure out and adapt to them over a longer period of time through constantly improving plays and counterplays.
EPT
