EPTi mean there is no "heuuu" and things like that
FireCake's opinion on the decline of StarCraft 2 - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
i mean there is no "heuuu" and things like that | ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
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. | ||
|
FireCake
151 Posts
On November 28 2016 21:39 Makro wrote: i'm quite surprised by the fact that firecake is quite eloquent i mean there is no "heuuu" and things like that I am surprised too :D It took me a long time to repeat and record this. | ||
|
corydoras
161 Posts
But. I totally agree with every single one of those who say that the barriers of entry to SC2 are too big. The price (and lack of f2p multiplayers), lack of content - including in-game content - for beginners, lack of sense of progress for everyone who has no heart to grind hour after hour to get their mechanics to a certain level. It took me about a six months to get from silver to platinum, playing 5-15 games a week, then another year of "forever platinum" to get to diamond. If I hadn't loved Starcraft, I would have called it quits during that year. I barely had any sense of progress back then. A lot of my friends just gave up and switch to Heroes of the Storm (where you can suck and have fun) or Hearthstone (which is obviously less demanding mechanically). Also - we are getting older and the so called real life is catching up. So, without fresh blood in the community, the numbers will be declining. Teenagers who play games don't even know what Starcraft is. Also, after watching FireCake's video I reread Destiny's article from 2014. It's actually incredible that all the features he discussed were only just implemented in 3.8, while the final moment for such things to actually make any impact was a year ago when LotV was released and the game faced a short-term resurgence. These things are, for Adun's sake, not complicated. I mean: portraits? Voice packs? Skins? How difficult can it be to implement it? Right now this might not be too little, but it definitely is too late. And it might just be it - I finished Nova's mission pack yesterday and the final 'thank you' from the developers in the credits felt as if this was the final major content pack for SC2. So, welcome to the community of a good game which is not a mainstream e-sport anymore. SC2 will endure as a game - I mean if Paradox's games can, why SC2 couldn't? - but it won't be the same. EDIT: I forgot to mention: FireCake, that was a nice video and thanks for preparing this. I feel it's better if people with actual insider knowledge of the business initiate debates like this. | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 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. What Does thIs Even mean? macro is a part of strategy. if you didn't have that, you'd be complaining how there's no strategy and everything is a click fest. On November 28 2016 20:19 Shana wrote: Trying to play sc2 UMS sucks. That's the biggest reason why SC2 is "dead". You may argue about game design and so on but the vast majority doesn't even play ladder, most only buy to play SP. It's not popular enough to the masses. The reason why BW and WC3 so popular even to the casual players is because playing UMS on those game is easy and fun. Just ask most of the BW/WC3 players what were their fondest memory of playing BW/WC3 and I'll guarantee most will say playing UMS with friends, on LAN if they have rl game buddies. Neither exists on SC2. I don't think this is true either. War3 ums completely overshadowed its competitive scene. I don't think custom games matter in regards to esports, casuals are going to casual. And even if that was the case, how sad is the state of genre, that you'd need a mode to get away from the game for the game to become popular??? | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 28 2016 21:51 corydoras wrote: I have been playing SC2 "competitively" (i.e. for fun, but almost only 1v1 ranked) for over three years now. I'm having a lot of fun in LotV - definitely much more than in late HotS - and the game is way more entertaining for me to watch now than it was in HotS (remember when blink stalkers destroyed PvT and stalker-sentry dominated in PvZ?). But. I totally agree with every single one of those who say that the barriers of entry to SC2 are too big. The price (and lack of f2p multiplayers), lack of content - including in-game content - for beginners, lack of sense of progress for everyone who has no heart to grind hour after hour to get their mechanics to a certain level. It took me about a six months to get from silver to platinum, playing 5-15 games a week, then another year of "forever platinum" to get to diamond. If I hadn't loved Starcraft, I would have called it quits during that year. I barely had any sense of progress back then. A lot of my friends just gave up and switch to Heroes of the Storm (where you can suck and have fun) or Hearthstone (which is obviously less demanding mechanically). Also - we are getting older and the so called real life is catching up. So, without fresh blood in the community, the numbers will be declining. Teenagers who play games don't even know what Starcraft is. Also, after watching FireCake's video I reread Destiny's article from 2014. It's actually incredible that all the features he discussed were only just implemented in 3.8, while the final moment for such things to actually make any impact was a year ago when LotV was released and the game faced a short-term resurgence. These things are, for Adun's sake, not complicated. I mean: portraits? Voice packs? Skins? How difficult can it be to implement it? Right now this might not be too little, but it definitely is too late. And it might just be it - I finished Nova's mission pack yesterday and the final 'thank you' from the developers in the credits felt as if this was the final major content pack for SC2. So, welcome to the community of a good game which is not a mainstream e-sport anymore. SC2 will endure as a game - I mean if Paradox's games can, why SC2 couldn't? - but it won't be the same. Those things aren't complicated for games revolving around them, sc2 was not designed for the online f2p content era. All that shit had to be optimized. | ||
|
corydoras
161 Posts
On November 28 2016 21:55 lestye wrote: Those things aren't complicated for games revolving around them, sc2 was not designed for the online f2p content era. All that shit had to be optimized. Please, optimization shouldn't require a year. And the idea isn't new so even if optimization was required, they had time. Also, what's the problem with voicepacks exactly? How is it different from a new soundtrack (SC:BW music was reintroduced to SC2 in 2014)? Weren't skins and dance animations available since forever? | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 28 2016 21:58 corydoras wrote: Please, optimization shouldn't require a year. And the idea isn't new so even if optimization was required, they had time. Also, what's the problem with voicepacks exactly? How is it different from a new soundtrack (SC:BW music was reintroduced to SC2 in 2014)? Weren't skins and dance animations available since forever? They've explained it before. It's one thing to have a few units to have different skins, but when you have an entire armed skinned up, if the game isn't designed around it, there's going to be problems. They had to go back and reverse engineer how they worked in between late 2015 and 2016 | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
- RTS genre is simply not as big as it used to, most of the potential players probably moved to mobas or other genres. - Pay2play (three times because of the expansions!) compared to all the free mobas/card/other games. - It is too difficult to play, 90%+ of the players will be floating way too many minerals before 5 minutes into the game which invalidates most/all of the strategy decisions, which means mechanical skill > strategy. - Game is intended to be played mainly 1vs1 instead of teamplay. This means a lot of bad stuff happens, specially this: Players have no one to blame for their losses but themselves, so they blame balance (Blizzard) instead. - Design mistakes that lead to bad/frustrating gameplay. - Everyone in every forum thinks he/she is right about everything SC2 related and everyone else (including Blizz) is wrong. This combined with Blizzard actually trying to give and take feedback from the playerbase leads to frustration with every single patch, because they can't possibly leave everyone happy. | ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
On November 28 2016 22:30 Salteador Neo wrote: IMO the main reasons for SC2's decline are, in order: - RTS genre is simply not as big as it used to, most of the potential players probably moved to mobas or other genres. - Pay2play (three times because of the expansions!) compared to all the free mobas/card/other games. - It is too difficult to play, 90%+ of the players will be floating way too many minerals before 5 minutes into the game which invalidates most/all of the strategy decisions, which means mechanical skill > strategy. - Game is intended to be played mainly 1vs1 instead of teamplay. This means a lot of bad stuff happens, specially this: Players have no one to blame for their losses but themselves, so they blame balance (Blizzard) instead. - Design mistakes that lead to bad/frustrating gameplay. - Everyone in every forum thinks he/she is right about everything SC2 related and everyone else (including Blizz) is wrong. This combined with Blizzard actually trying to give and take feedback from the playerbase leads to frustration with every single patch, because they can't possibly leave everyone happy. Money is not that much of an issue, CS:GO and Overwatch are not free (Overwatch is more expensive than LotV). On a side, CS:GO popularity skyrocketed after it's initial failure because Valve delved deep into skins and helped gambling happen. I don't think it would be that big (had more money in it) if not for this. They got away with it and that's their success. And yes, it's much more difficult to play than other games where you control a single character, part of the game mechanics not all at once. Having a team on your side is an enormous stress reliever. Also not many people play solely for the challenge. But I think that topic has been exhausted over the years already. | ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
On November 28 2016 21:52 lestye wrote: What Does thIs Even mean? macro is a part of strategy. if you didn't have that, you'd be complaining how there's no strategy and everything is a click fest. I don't think this is true either. War3 ums completely overshadowed its competitive scene. I don't think custom games matter in regards to esports, casuals are going to casual. And even if that was the case, how sad is the state of genre, that you'd need a mode to get away from the game for the game to become popular??? In League of Legends I get to make decisions. "Should I attack", "should I be defensive", "should I go around the map and roam" etc. In SC2 I dare to say that for everyone below diamond it's: - Make Supply depots - Spend money and that's it. There is no "hmm... I scouted Roach Ling, I should to this...." or "I see that he has... I should" There is no strategy or tactics at all, I mean literally 0 for the avergae Joe. Hence you need to be at a certain skill level to get to any decision making at all where as in easier games you can get into the decision making part immidiately. So macro is all there is which for a lot of people isn't fun. I find the macro part fun why I stick around. But at my level, gold, I can't participate in any tactics or strategy discussion at all because it's all about "don't get supply blocked", "spend money". | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On November 28 2016 23:13 papaz wrote: In League of Legends I get to make decisions. "Should I attack", "should I be defensive", "should I go around the map and roam" etc. In SC2 I dare to say that for everyone below diamond it's: - Make Supply depots - Spend money and that's it. There is no "hmm... I scouted Roach Ling, I should to this...." or "I see that he has... I should" There is no strategy or tactics at all, I mean literally 0 for the avergae Joe. Hence you need to be at a certain skill level to get to any decision making at all where as in easier games you can get into the decision making part immidiately. It's really hard to argue with this because of how subjective this is. High level Brood War players will probably tell you the exact same thing for everyone below B in iccup. High level League of Legends players will probably say "learn to last hit" or do the routines first before you think about strategizing. Mechanically-demanding games will always have a certain skill floor that is pretty much 99% about execution. | ||
|
corydoras
161 Posts
On November 28 2016 22:04 lestye wrote: They've explained it before. It's one thing to have a few units to have different skins, but when you have an entire armed skinned up, if the game isn't designed around it, there's going to be problems. They had to go back and reverse engineer how they worked in between late 2015 and 2016 Okay, I understand. But it means that the issue was manageable so if they had allocated enough resources, they could have implemented it earlier. Maybe there were none because everyone was working on OW or HotS, but still - it was doable. Too bad they pushed it back so much. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
but seriously - RTS genre is simply not as big as it used to, most of the potential players probably moved to mobas or other genres. - Pay2play (three times because of the expansions!) compared to all the free mobas/card/other games. - It is too difficult to play, 90%+ of the players will be floating way too many minerals before 5 minutes into the game which invalidates most/all of the strategy decisions, which means mechanical skill > strategy. - Game is intended to be played mainly 1vs1 instead of teamplay. This means a lot of bad stuff happens, specially this: Players have no one to blame for their losses but themselves, so they blame balance (Blizzard) instead. - Design mistakes that lead to bad/frustrating gameplay. That's a pretty good roundup of the major reasons. I don't think they should shy away from the mechanical difficulty necessarily, as it would cease to be Starcraft at that point, but I do think there's a niche in the (albeit smaller than it used to be) market for a well-made RTS that is less mechanically-demanding and more decision-focused. 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. | ||
|
Dungeontay
126 Posts
He absolutely addressed the right issues SC2 is having at the moment. i dont think that SC2 as an esports is dead yet. I believe, that if the game was announced to be f2p, there could be a huge upswing again. But changes have to happen soon, as long as there is still somebody to witness it. | ||
|
lestye
United States4135 Posts
On November 28 2016 23:13 papaz wrote: In League of Legends I get to make decisions. "Should I attack", "should I be defensive", "should I go around the map and roam" etc. In SC2 I dare to say that for everyone below diamond it's: - Make Supply depots - Spend money and that's it. There is no "hmm... I scouted Roach Ling, I should to this...." or "I see that he has... I should" There is no strategy or tactics at all, I mean literally 0 for the avergae Joe. Hence you need to be at a certain skill level to get to any decision making at all where as in easier games you can get into the decision making part immidiately. So macro is all there is which for a lot of people isn't fun. I find the macro part fun why I stick around. But at my level, gold, I can't participate in any tactics or strategy discussion at all because it's all about "don't get supply blocked", "spend money". You don't scout to see what kind of early game aggression they might do? Building supply depots wont help you against early game rushes and harassment. You make decisions on how you want, where you want to attack, what you want to attack with, when do you want to expand, how greedy are you going to be, how should i scout, if he's being defensive, should i go for a rear attack or should i just contain and expand?, how can i avoid his static defense, can i bait him away from his static defense? what units are you going to get out, are you going to invest in upgrades or are you going into invest in something gimicky? The above isnt Code S level shit, but standard strategy that everyone has to go through, even kids in gold. I do agree that anything below plat is more macro oriented strategy, but there's plenty of strategy in the game. If I watch some gold-level replays, I'm not going to be in awe of the strategic supply depots, there's going to be plenty of tactical decisions, especially if they're close in skill level. | ||
|
Chernobyl
Brazil143 Posts
I love the game, and I don't care if kids prefer mobas/fps/rpgs alternatives. | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland1878 Posts
On November 28 2016 23:16 KeksX wrote: It's really hard to argue with this because of how subjective this is. High level Brood War players will probably tell you the exact same thing for everyone below B in iccup. High level League of Legends players will probably say "learn to last hit" or do the routines first before you think about strategizing. Mechanically-demanding games will always have a certain skill floor that is pretty much 99% about execution. While there's probably no denying that strong base mechanics are the thing that propels players up in ranks the fastest, it always felt to me that SC2 is very imbalanced in skills it requires. When I play BW, it feels like there's a million things I can improve and they all matter to a significant amount. I can even choose to be a little off in some things and excel in others and it makes satisfying and interesting games even if I'm not necessarily progressing the fastest way forward. In SC2 the tight unit pathfinding, insane firepower of unit balls and crazy effective macro boosters mean that the treshold where macro starts overruling everything else is very small. This is made even worse by some macro mechanics like warpgate and quickly recharging protoss shields that ensure any remaining army is going to regain its strength quickly. | ||
|
KOtical
Germany451 Posts
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 | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On November 28 2016 21:49 FireCake wrote: I am surprised too :D It took me a long time to repeat and record this. Feel like non-french speaking guys won't be able to appreciate it to its fullest obviously, so I have to say man, you really did present your thoughts very well. Great job! Now as to the actual content, I do agree with you that we would be in serious denial if we didn't admit that SC2 as an eSports is pretty much done now. If the best players leave and the level of play decreases at the top, that's about all it takes as far as I'm concerned for me to lose interest. I think SC2 is a very good game, which is often disregarded here in this kind of thread (people tend to either go for the "SC2 is a terrible game" opinion, or the "Lol another ded gaem thread" mocking one). SC2 is dead (at the competitive top level), but SC2 is also a very good game. It's not incompatible. As you said in your videos, a lot of other factors have made SC2's success plummet. For me, whether that's fully justified or not, the decline started at the 2012 queen patch and leading to months of broodlord-infestors, unchallenged by Blizzard. Before that, SC2 was the most dynamic, balanced and fun it has been in my memory. | ||
| ||
