FireCake here. I have been a progamer for 4 years on StarCraft 2 and the decline of StarCraft 2 and the announce of the end of proleague and many well known korean teams of StarCraft really affected me. So I made a video about the declining popularity of StarCraft 2. Why the game is declining, how we could change it, what is the future of StarCraft 2...
The video was originally in French but people greatly appreciated this video so they added subtitles so more people can see the video. Big thanks to them.
Link to the video :
Please if you have any comments or if you have want to ask me something about the video feel free to do so.
Edit : Some people asked for it, here is the full transcription of the video :
I am going to talk about the e-sport death of Starcraft 2.
Anybody that has already heard about SC2 in one way or another knows it very well: the game is running out of steam. In addition, news recently came out about the world best SC2 pro teams to quit SC2 competitive scene for good. The Proleague in Korea is also shutting down. This simply was one of the best SC2 tournaments in the world. I was a SC2 pro player for several years and a lot of my viewers asked me what is my point of view on the topic but also if I will continue playing SC2 competitively, what is the future of SC2, why did the game collapsed ? This video is here to answer all these questions. Furthermore, I do really want to set the record straight about SC2. Why? Because a lot of nonsenses have been said about SC2 and I think that the game deserves way better than that. I tried here to make a well-founded video, with plenty of points, to be able to well address the subject. I hope you will enjoy the video and that you will learn stuff.
First of all, to well address the subject, what is the so called e-sport death of SC2? We are obviously going to talk about what happened in Korea, with the disbanding of the world best SC2 teams and the end of Proleague but first of all I would like to focus on of the whole SC2 e-sport context and background to well understand how things go. Four years ago, so in 2012, there were a lot SC2 tournaments going on. They were organized by many different organizers like Redbull, TSL … There were just many of them. Four years later we notice that some tournaments managed to remain active, a lot disappeared, and only two new tournaments/organizers came up into the scene, that are Kespa Cup and SSL. They aren’t even actually new since GSL which was split from 5 to 6 seasons a year to now only 2 seasons a year, plus 1 season of Kespa Cup and 2 seasons of SSL a year. So actually, there is no new SC2 tournament and there is no new organizer. This is very serious because 4 to 5 years ago, SC was a very flourishing e-sport game to the extent that new e-sport tournament organizers like Dreamhack or ESL simply took off thanks to SC. That is how powerful SC was back in the days. But now, it is the exact opposite effect that is happening. Rumour has it that Blizzard, the game editor, is forced to pay organizers to make them host SC2 tournaments that they do not want to host since they wouldn’t get a decent number of viewers from of it. This is a big deal because tournaments organizers are in the best position to know if SC2 is alive or dead. Why? Because these guys invest huge amounts of money in SC2. Millions are needed to create a SC2 tournament. If these guys stop hosting SC2 tournaments, it’s because they are fully conscious thanks to statistics that the game is not booming anymore, that the game is dead. It goes even further. Here are some examples. Nowadays tournaments are ‘discount’ tournaments. Dreamhack is a tournament existing for years, there were SC2 DH back in 2012 and there still are now in 2016. In 2012, all 32 matches were performed on stage with the two players fighting, and all series were casted. This year, only the last six series of the tournament were performed on stage. All the other matches were played backstage without seeing the players at any time. It is even worse than that. Why? Because at DH Leipzig in early 2016, something huge happened: only one match was played on stage. A single one. It was the final, and it took place at 11am on a Sunday. Viewers had to be very much pumped to watch it… (#passion) Why did the final take place at this moment? Because the most important e-sport tournament for this DH was the CGSO one. The CSGO staff wanted their final to take place in the afternoon and SC2 to clear the way for the ‘big fish’. This feeling is so real that I perfectly remember CSGO casters making fun of SC2 pro players while they were waiting for the CSGO tournament to start. If I find again the video I will show it to you because it is really extraordinary. [VIDEO] SC2 is also losing a lot of its popularity. This can be easily noticed by looking to the stats provided by Google Trends. Google Trends is a tool that allows the analysis of the number of Google searches performed on a given subject through time. What will interest us is SC2. If we look at this graph, we see that the game fame went down with years. The peaks match with each release of SC2 expansions. The SC related search number plummets with time. You are going to tell me that it is perfectly normal: when a new game is out, there is a huge hype which is progressively going down. Actually for an e-sport game it should be the opposite since the game is wanted to last not only several months, the time for players to buy it and finish it, but years. People are wanted to be interested by the game and to play it for years. Now let’s look at the Google Trends graph for League of Legends, which is a very efficient e-sport game, and let’s compare it to the SC2 one. It is very interesting because it is almost the opposite graph. In its early days, LoL was nothing, with a very tiny viewership but its audience grew up and up in number and never ceased increasing while SC2’s kept decreasing. In the beginning SC2 was dominating LoL but now the trend it totally reversed. LoL was built on very solid foundations and was able to gather a huge fan base while SC2 was losing its with years.
Pro players wages changed a lot too. Unfortunately, I can’t give you detailed data because every pro player signed a non-disclosure agreement with his team about it. We often talk about salaries when between pro players. The average salaries expected when being a SC2 pro player back in 2011-2012 were 5 figures salaries. In other words if you were a top SC2 player in 2011-2012 you could have earned up to 10k, 15k, 20k€ a month. (NDR: Firecake is talking about foreigner players’ salaries, for Korean players’ salaries, see TL post) Nowadays, world best SC2 players only earn less than 1k€ a month.
There’s audience too. Audience is very important. It plummeted both on Twitch and Youtube. If we look at the evolution of SC2 streamers statistics this year, we notice that their audience was divided by 3. This is huge. I witnessed it myself; Yogo (French SC2 streamer) witnessed it too. We are both SC2 streamers. We streamed about 10 to 20hrs a week of SC2 this year, each week, and our viewer number was at least divided by 3. If you look at Twitch top watched games, you see LoL etc, but where is SC2? Four years ago, SC2 was in top 3. Nowadays, good luck finding SC2 on Twitch! It is like playing “Where is Wally?” It’s about the same difficulty level. SC2 is top 20, top 30, and sometimes even behind “social eating” streams… And I’m not even kidding. In addition, SC2 suffered a lot from the loss of extremely talented casters. I think about people like Day9, HuskyStarcraft. People like this made me play SC2. Plus, they are great human beings. I am very disappointed to have never had the luck to meet Day9. They really were extremely talented casters who did a lot for SC2. Yet they left.
Now that you have considered all of this, we can finally speak of the reason I made this video that is the end of Proleague and of the five best SC2 teams. This news is completely crazy because Proleague is a 13 year old tournament. It is important to notice that e-sport as we know it is something pretty recent. Not the fact of doing video games tournaments but the fact that structures, tournaments, professional players come into consideration. Proleague is 13 year old. This was an incredibly stable tournament. A lot of organisations did not last that long. Proleague is 13 year old. This is huge. And it stops doing SC2 tournaments. This is unbelievable. The worst thing in all of that is that yet all of this means nothing. It means absolutely nothing. Why so? Because there are other SC2 tournament to make up for the loss of Proleague. In this case, we lose players, the best players in the world. We lose INnoVation, a GSL winner, we lose Zest who won so many tournaments, we lose soO, the guy who became so famous thanks to his numerous second place finishes, we lose a lot of players. This is the one true bad news for SC2, because it will influence a lot SC2 viewers. Why? Because these players have many fans. If these players stop playing, their fans will be disappointed as they will have no one else to cheer for. Hence, fans disappear to. Some will say that new players will rise but actually there is not that much of new SC2players. As a competitor, the main reason I play SC2 is to beat the world best players. If these players leave, the overall skill level will drop. What if I tell you that the SC2 tournaments you’re watching in 2016 are not the highest skilled ones? That the pro player skills were far better before? Do you still feel like watching SC2 tournaments? This question is very important. This will illegitimate SC2 as an e-sport game. I want to digress for a moment, to show you an article written by Stuchiu. Stuchiu is a “behind the scene man” that made a lot for the game. He wrote many articles about SC2. He highlighted some of the best players. He has a good knowledge of the SC2 scene. He wrote an article about the lack of skill in current SC2 competitions compared to the old ones. Link is in the description. So, we have a lot of players in Korea, the best ones, who left. They are unable to keep competing because they don’t have team anymore. Ok. Traditional Korean tournaments, for example GSL, the most prestigious of them, need 32 players to be run. Actually it’s more 64 players because there is Code S and Code A, but let’s say 32 players. Now that most of Korean pro players left, is GSL still able to happen with at least 32 pro players, with no casual players or no full time players in it? This challenges the relevancy of SC2 e-sport. There are not even enough players to make tournaments. Rumour has it once again that there will not be any GSL in 2017. Yes it’s only a rumour but it tarnishes the reputation of GSL. If this rumour is only a rumour, the first GSL would do would be to deny it. But GSL hasn’t done it yet. This does not stand for a proof but this is scary.
Could this downfall have been anticipated? The answer is yes. Considering all I have already said, less tournaments, less organizers, less viewers; why all this leads to a SC2 collapse? It’s pretty simple. In e-sport the key is viewer number. The only thing that does really matters is audience. How does a tournament work? For a tournament to happen, a lot of money is needed. Where does all this money come from? Sponsors. Sponsors are very famous keyboards, computers brands… that give money to structure, tournament, and players to get good advertisement. Sponsors look for the maximum people to see their products. If there are less viewers, sponsors will invest less money in the game which will lead to less tournaments. The key in e-sport is audience. This is the only thing that matters. We need viewers and we need a lot of them for e-sport to do well. But who are these viewers? Who watches SC2 tournaments? The answer is pretty simple. They are either SC2 players looking for new strategies or former SC2 players, able to understand the game and why what pro players do is impressive and hence, to enjoy the show. Is it possible to watch SC2 tournaments without ever having launched a game? Theoretically yes, it is possible, but actually, most of SC2 viewers are also SC2 players. Hence, when I say “the key is audience”, actually the key are the players.
So for e-sport to be healthy, viewers are needed. But who are they? They are players. So the number of players has to be maximised. In the past, SC2 was a successful game. A very successful game. Now it isn’t anymore. Why? There are two main possible reasons: SC2 evolved to something bad or SC2 did not evolve at all. It has missed the boat. SC2 should have known changes that never happened. I am now going to discuss the numerous reasons to SC2 downfall but keep in mind there is not a unique reason to this situation. Why did SC2 collapsed? It did because of a combination of failed stuffs. Four years ago, Destiny, a famous SC2 streamer, published a Reddit article entitled “Starcraft 2 will be dead before Legacy of the Void if Blizzard doesn't change its course”, Legacy of the Void being the last SC2 expansion pack. This article is in English but I urge you to read it. I find this article instructive and interesting to read because it draws the same conclusions as I just did. It assesses that SC2 is not doing well on some points and that if this situation keeps going this way, the game will come to a standstill. Actually four years later all I am saying is that the game did collapsed. It really did. Destiny also brings solutions in his article and we had to wait for four years for Blizzard to implement them. Why is the number of SC2 players decreasing? For Destiny, the game is simply not attractive at all to new players. Let’s imagine you are just starting SC2. First you will be a bit lost and what you will want to do is to find some content about how to play, what are the main strategies, what are you doing wrong, why are you losing? Etc… Then try to Google “SC2 legacy of the void tutorial”, try to find resources on the internet, you will find nothing. Maybe if you are lucky you will find HOTS/WOL build orders that will be of no use for you. You just cannot learn the game by looking for help on the internet. Now let’s we look at what LoL is doing. There are hundreds of playable heroes on LoL that can be played at top, mid, bot or jungle. There are a lot of characters and a lot of ways to play them but just chose any of them, for example playing top with Trundle, just Google “Trundle top build” and you will find many diversified tutorials. This is something very important since it will incite the player to improve and keep playing. Another thing that LoL does way better than SC2 is inciting players to play. Yes I know, it is completely crazy, players have to be incited to play. Experience rewarding at the end of each LoL game, no matter if you win or lose, is something pretty new but damn efficient. These experience points will allow you to buy skins, abilities, ingame graphical assets. This incites very much LoL players to keep playing to keep unlocking skins and so on. Whereas in SC2, if you win, you win, and if you lose, you lose. That’s all. But now, four years after Destiny’s post, it is very interesting to see that Blizzard finally agreed to add ingame skins to unlock, Nova DLCs, emotes, …. A lot of small contents to unlock. Let me stop you there. Skins are awesome but they are not free! Plus you can only unlock them by paying. This leads me to talk about the last huge negative point about SC2: we are fooled by Blizzard. We are Blizzard cash cows. Why? I had to pay Wings of Liberty. The basic SC2 game. About 40-60€. Fine. Then there’s HOTS. Same thing, about 40-60€. Then there’s LOTV. Same thing, about 40-60€. Then there is Nova DLCs, 10-20-30€. Ok. Then, skins, 4-5€ each skin which makes 40€ total. The amount of money spent on SC2 is unacceptable. LoL is a free game and you only need to play it to unlock skins and the whole game content. I personally think that if Blizzard really wanted to revive SC2 e-sport, they would fulfill this absolute need that is making SC2 a free to play game. It is simply unthinkable that SC2 is not F2P already. It prevents of lot of potential new players from starting the game. This however is what the game needs to keep surviving as an e-sport game. Unfortunately, let’s be honest, Blizzard does not seem to like free to play policy. Even Overwatch was announced to be a F2P but in the end, it was not released as a F2P. Hence I do not think SC2 will ever be a F2P, or it will be Blizzard last resort, to come in at least 2 to 3 years. Hence this will not be what will make the game survive. Before exposing what is to me the main reason to SC2 collapsing, that is gameplay issue, I would really like to stress that SC2 collapsed because of many different reasons. As an example of a minor reason, when the game was released in 2010, there was no ingame chat. It means there was a stupid guy at blizzard who thought “yeah, we can sell an AAA rating game without ingame chat”. This is mind blowing. A game made by Blizzard, one of the best videogames companies in the world, is not finished, with no ingame chat. To me this is a very minor mistake but it remains an aberration. This kind of minor mistakes did not help SC2 at all. However, there are other reasons, fake ones. I would like to demolish them before I keep going, to continue on healthy basis. Among the fake reasons I really do not like, there is “SC2 is a 1v1 game and 1v1 cannot succeed in e-sport”. I would like to remind you that SC2 was flourishing four years ago, and it was already 1v1 at this time… This argument is invalid. E-sport may have changed and multiplayers game may be in a leading position but I can name you 1v1 games that are doing well, for example Hearthstone, versus fighting games like Street Fighter or Super Smash Bros. Also, and I know some will argue and I agree with them, there are cell phone games tournaments like Clash Royal. It may be a game at the very limit of e-sport however Clash Royals tournaments gather a lot of people. Hence the audience for 1v1 does exist. Another fake reason, SC2 would be a too fast game. Same thing, four years ago SC2 was already a fast game and was doing very well. Plus since then, others fast games like CS:GO, other FPS are doing very well. The audience for fast games does exist too. Finally, the last fake reason I hate the most, “SC2 is dying because of the 12 workers start”. I just cannot stand this point for many reasons. First of all, SC2 collapsing started before Legacy of the Void. Hence if there a problem in the game, it has to be something else as the main reason. So this is just a minor reason. Plus I would like to stress that it is wrong. People saying that the 12 workers start makes the game too fast is a total aberration. The game seems faster in LOTV thanks to new units which are available very early in the game and that incite players to keep harassing their opponent. I reference to adept for Protoss. This unit is available very very very early in the game and is almost always profitable. Hence as a Protoss the first unit you want to pop out is adept. Same thing as Terran with reaper. This is an existing unit since WoL but it was given grenades since LotV which make it extremely powerful and always profitable in the early game. That much profitable that in Blizzcon, the world biggest SC2 tournament that took place two weeks ago, reapers were used in each single game of the grand finale ByuN vs Dark. In two or three games, depending on what you call mass reaper, ByuN did a mass reaper and won. These new units coming in very early in the game give this high speed impression. Ravagers, even if they are less used by now, can also be named for Zergs as early available pressure unit. Hence the 12 workers start is not responsible at all of the SC2 downfall. The game became too fast and less strategic-oriented because of the new units. Last thing. Let’s imagine the 12 workers start has been here since WoL. And that only now in LotV we would be switching to 6 workers to start the game. I am deeply convinced that people would argue that “it was better in HotS and LotV when there were 12 workers”. Except that it is stupid thinking and not at all the core or the problem. To some extent we could say that the biggest deal with switching from 6 to 12 workers is that casual players are forced to learn the basics of the game once again. In any game, having to learn the basics again should not be an issue but it is in SC2 because of the lack of tutorials. I personally think that the worker change is a bad change gameplay-wise. It will not lead to a downfall of SC2 on its own but it is pretty bad because there is no tutorial available to learn the game again. Hence players have to learn the game again but they are unable to do so. Let’s now deal with to me the biggest issue that led SC2 to collapse, I mean gameplay. SC2 is a RTS game, strategies are used to defeat the opponent. Ok. My point is that SC2 had balance issues. I do not mean that one strategy is stronger than others but that some strategies were overused. Actually the using rate of strategies is not an issue, the issue is not to change this. If you look at all the LotV balance patches that came out, almost no change can be noticed. Now, let’s look at the same thing for the same amount of time for LoL. All the changes that were performed in one year. This is insane. It makes us wonder who is actually working on SC2! Anyway, I think that at some moment in SC2 history, some changes should have been done but they did not happen. For example, the broodlord/infestor era. I’m convinced that people that already knew back SC2 in 2010/2011 know exactly what I’m referring to. They may even be still traumatized from it. We went through a time where all Zerg players were only using one strategy: broodlords infestators combo. This strategy was way too strong. It was stronger than any other Zerg army composition. This is a first huge issue since it put aside strategy. There is on OP strat, the rest is shit. But also, this army composition was very strong against any race. As a consequence, only this strategy was seen in tournaments. Maybe sometimes the Zerg player struggled to reach this army composition but the whole game was about getting broodlord infestors. It caused a lot of troubles since viewers but even players got sick of it. It took one year to Blizzard to change things. They waited HotS. It has to be understood that in the beginning, this army composition was very interesting. I am sure that many people remember that one 50 min Stephano vs KiWiKaKi game, where Stephano was making infestors broodlords but KiWiKaKi managed to win in the end using two mothership vortexes. A lot a people remember this game and enjoyed it. And it is deserved since it was brand new but from this point, players and viewers saw broodlord infestors every game. Each game there was only broodlord infestors. The first games you find it funny but in the end, it becomes so lame. Blizzard did nothing for too long back in the days. The same issue is encountered in 2013-2014 until 2015 with swarmhosts. I am sure some of you are laughing since I was one of the guys who polluted the game with this strategy. What were SH? This unit enabled Zerg players to camp in very long games and to win on long term. This unit creates free units to attack. The idea behind that is to stay at home and to destroy costly enemy units with SH free units. At some point trading like this for a long time will make the opponent starving. But for this style to be successful, the game has to last very very long because only very few costly units are taken to the opponent each time a fight happens and this process has to be repeated again and again. This is boring. The idea of winning thanks to resource balance is interesting: it was brand new in SC2. I trade better than you every time we meet until I win since we gather almost the same amount of resource, except that the result were very long, boring and repetitive games. I play the longest game in the SC2 history versus MaNa. This was a crazy game. The average duration for a SC2 game is about 20 minutes for the longest games. This very game I played against MaNa lasted something like 3 hours. A really long time. This is the longest SC2 game ever. I used swarmhost in this game and viewers loved it. This is very important to notice. I remember that the number of viewers went from 5000 viewers to 10000, then 15000, then 20000 and up to 30000 viewers. 30000 viewers watched this totally boring strategy. Once you have watched it for 30 minutes you perfectly get what is happening. Yet the game lasted 3 hours and viewers loved it. However, after that a lot of players started to do the same thing, I think about Korean players like Life, a wonderful player. As a result, viewers and players ate SH games over and over. This was so boring and it took Blizzard one and a half year to take care of the situation. They waited the situation to become totally unbearable to do something. Now, on LotV,I would say that this is a better situation since players tend to use varied army compositions, but some units are still causing troubles. Ultralisk, once popped out, make marines useless. Adept is unbearable. Liberator is a low micro, very powerful unit. There are still a lot of issues and in a year, Blizzard almost changed nothing. To me, this is the biggest weakness of SC2. The game is interesting, deep, but after some time playing it, optimal strategies are found and are always played, with only very small differences between the games. Hence players/viewers feel like they keep doing/watching the same thing over and over again. This, to me, make SC2 a boring game to play. And if the game is boring for players it also is for viewers. As a conclusion, I am not going to lie to you, I think that SC2 e-sport is completely over. Let’s imagine you’re a pro player and you want to keep being a fulltime SC2 pro player, playing in tournaments, etc…. What are you going to do? Looking for a team and sponsors because you need them to go to tournaments, earn a salary to live for the day, etc…. You’re going to look for the SC2 teams that may interest you, you’re going to get personal endorsements. You are going to contact them like: “I am a SC2 pro player, I am really motivated and I would like you to endorse me and to give me money. I return you will be able to enjoy my fame: I have thousands of Twitter followers, fans in tournaments, Hence if you put a logo of your company on my jersey, a lot of people are going to see it”. This is this kind of talk you’re going to have with teams and sponsors and in return, they will give you money and allow you to go to tournaments. But what are they going to ask you? “Your project is amazing and interesting, let’s give it a try! What is the next tournament you’re going to compete in?” “I don’t know, I just don’t know”. No tournament is announced yet. I don’t know it WCS, DH or IEM will take place next year. Of course I can try to lie to them, but they’re not stupid, so what I am actually really asking to them is something more like “hey buddy, could you give me money so that I can represent your brand in tournament I’m totally not sure that will happen”. So ok, the actual SC2 situation is not fun. SC2 e-sport is probably dead. However, the title of my video is “The e-sport death of SC2”, not the actual game. What does this mean? It means that you can still play SC2 campaign, coop mode or multiplayer just like nothing ever happened. Blizzard even announced they will add more coop missions in the future. You will still be able to have fun on SC2. I myself do stream it and I enjoy it. What is really going on on SC2? SC2 is just completely old-fashioned. And so what? I would like to end this video on a good note. I think that SC2 will remain for many as a wonderful game that requires a lot of mastery. I think that many people show huge respect to one of the first e-sport game, that requires a lot of skill. It has nothing to do with games like Clash Royale, or maybe even HS where a lot of luck, of RNG comes into consideration. SC2 has that much of an aura that it managed to reach Deepmind. For those who do not know, Deepmind is the company that created AlphaGo. AlphaGo is the AI that beat the world best go player. This is wonderful news, I am not going to discuss it more. Now Deepmind is challenging SC2. What do they want to do? They want to develop a SC2 AI able to defeat all SC2 players in the world. Just this. Just this. Why is it so awesome? I will monitor closely if they manage to do so. This would be unbelievable. Above all, it just shows the amount of respect Deepmind has for SC2. They said it themselves. The game is interesting and strategically deep enough, playing it requires a lot of things, it is a real time game which demands constant thinking, constant focusing. For them, the game is perfect for an AI to challenge it. I am personally going to monitor it closely. You may not see me anymore in SC2 tournaments since I do not think it will be possible to compete in tournaments next year, but if the chance is given to me to make an AI able to beat the world best SC2 players, I will join it for sure. I find this idea wonderful. One can even imagine AI versus AI SC2 tournaments. I do not know if you even realize the new strategies that we could witness. It would be different. Anyway, I think that SC2 e-sport is other but there is another future for SC2, not a dark one. Let’s see what will come out of this, but I am really looking forward to seeing it.
I hope you enjoyed the video, this is the first of its kind I do. If you did enjoyed it, I would be nice of you to like it, maybe to expose your own opinion in the comment section. If you have any question, feel free to ask them to me. Last thing, feel free to share this video since I think it can be useful to new players entering e-sport. Why so? Because it is often very interesting to know what happened before. Here we are, I leave you here. See you, take care!
Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tried to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2.
On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote: Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tryied to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2.
It's one of the biggest best selling pc game of the last decade, and got a huge following for many year with still tens of thousand of people playing it. I think it's fair to say it is a good game.
On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote: Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tryied to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2.
It's one of the biggest best selling pc game of the last decade, and got a huge following for many year with still tens of thousand of people playing it. I think it's fair to say it is a good game.
Well, the campaign was super fun for WoL and HotS (never got LotV myself), but I don't think the multiplayer has ever been enough in Sc2 to carry the game.
1. Game isn't free to play, it's expensive to play, I've (gladly) invested over 150 buying all of the expansions, how can that compete with something like LoL which is free and low requirement enough so that crappy PC's can still run it? It can't, not being free to play is a staple reason why LoL dominates.
2. Too hard, modern gamers are lazy and want instant/low learning curve gratification. Even me, I'm almost at 10K ladder games on SC2, made Masters multiple times, the game is alot of work, it takes effort to practice, study pro vods for the meta, grind out practice games. MOBAS are far easier and less stressful to play, HOTS for instance. It's social, brings pressure off of the 1v1, and rewards you even for losing (daily quests and such)
3. Inattentive and clueless balance/design team. Long periods of super imbalanced strategies at work (Colossus deathballs, Swarm Host vs. Mech, Brood Lord/Infestor, The Soul Train push) to push away casuals. Good on David for keeping racial balance around 50%, that isn't easy, but the game has gotten worse and less popular with every expansion where instead of core design problems being addressed only more gimmick units (Oracles, Liberators, Swarm Hosts) and more frantic click inducing mechanics (Inject Larva, Photon Overcharge) so theres that. HOTS has a FAR superior balance team to Starcraft, they actually make real and intelligent changes.
Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
That's a crucial point. If the balance had been tighter when GSL's first kicked into gear, that would have set a better foundation. Along similar lines, battle.net 2.0 was godawful for years. There were no chat channels. Setting up tournament games was a god damn nightmare, and professional players couldn't block spammers for a time. Lan wasn't the biggest thing, but it would have made the process smoother.
However, I will never forget when SC2 pushed effing Halo out of the mainstage at MLG. That was incredible.
SC2 could have been THE juggernaut of e-sports. It still is the highest competitive one by leagues.
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.
Can someone post a transcript? With videos like this, I usually play it in the background and listen to the speaker while I do other stuff. However, since I don't speak French, I am forced to read the text very slowly and it is very, very jarring to have to read so slow.
On November 28 2016 03:31 Nakajin wrote: It's one of the biggest best selling pc game of the last decade, and got a huge following for many year with still tens of thousand of people playing it. I think it's fair to say it is a good game.
Sales are a better indicator of hype (or hope for what the game could become) than the actual quality of the game its self. There's no question Sc2 had plenty of hype, but presumably a better game would have been able to retain or grow its player base better.
Though the elitist in me is also cautious of thinking that popularity means everything to a game. Applying that same logic to the music industry, has some unfavorable connotations.
On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote: Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tryied to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2.
I suppose the numbers don't support my opinion, but i don't see it. It always looks like i'm watching a lucky charms commercial with that animation style. Though i feel like its much harder to pick up for the spectator than SC2, due to the sheer amount of spells and animations of those spells. I mean 10 guys throwing 5-6 spells/items, from a pool of 130 champions. Its a mess to watch without a significant number of games played.
Though imo that makes Lol's success all the more impressive. Though i don't intrinsically think its a better spectator sport simply because of the success its had.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
That's a crucial point. If the balance had been tighter when GSL's first kicked into gear, that would have set a better foundation. Along similar lines, battle.net 2.0 was godawful for years. There were no chat channels. Setting up tournament games was a god damn nightmare, and professional players couldn't block spammers for a time. Lan wasn't the biggest thing, but it would have made the process smoother.
However, I will never forget when SC2 pushed effing Halo out of the mainstage at MLG. That was incredible.
SC2 could have been THE juggernaut of e-sports. It still is the highest competitive one by leagues.
SC2 is what brought eSports into mainstream attention back in 2010-2011. I think that's big enough of a feat. That it got taken over by more relaxed, team-based F2P DOTA clones is hardly surprising. I have very fond memories of watching SC2 the past six years, starting with the modest tournaments resulting in the HDH invitational at the end of BETA through the peak around 2013-2014 when major tournaments attracted over 100,000 viewers.
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.
Lol. SC2 has a complicated economy? Or are you saying its a complicated game and it also has an economy aspect? Because SC2 has a stupidly simple economy. There is many strategy games with far more complicated economy models. Starcraft has always been the most (or one of the most) simple ones. Just look at the 1602 AD series. Thats complicated economy.
This is the problem SC2 has: There is the SC2 that the players want and there is the SC2 that blizzard wants and these two have relatively little overlap. But blizzard has decided not to produce the SC2 the players want. They try to force the SC2 that they want, but that just doesnt work all that well. Slowly, patch by patch, people were leaving because they realized the SC2 they want will not be given to them. There might be a few people who like blizzards version of SC2, but they are not enough.
None of you got the message, Firecare with the end of Proleague, HSC and probably GSL and DH SC2 may be dead as esport. No Tournaments = no teams = no players = no competition.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
On November 28 2016 03:49 Ppjack wrote: shouldn't all the dead game prophets be banned from TL ? thought it was against the rules
Where's Seeker who's been stalking me and banning for 1 week freaking twice for nothing? I didn't even get answer from him. Entire thread is about "dead game" concept. Why no one gets banned this time, huh?!!! Are you man enough now to admit this? Or you gonna repeat again? If I get ban this is joke... I'm going to write directly to Nazgul.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
If I understand correctly he is talking about the esport death of sc2, not the death of sc2, which would translate into empty ladder and stuff like that (and that isn't the case in 1v1). Since there are real signs and consequences of decline/death (end of proleague, new WCS induced retirements, star players retirement, teams disbanding) there is actually something to talk about right now. I didn't watch the video but I'm pretty sure it isn't about daed game memes, it's probably thoughtful.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
If I understand correctly he is talking about the esport death of sc2, not the death of sc2, which would translate into empty ladder and stuff like that (and that isn't the case in 1v1). Since there are real signs and consequences of decline/death (end of proleague, new WCS induced retirements, star players retirement, teams disbanding) there is actually something to talk about right now. I didn't watch the video but I'm pretty sure it isn't about daed game memes, it's probably thoughtful.
Regardless of what specific aspect of the game he's talking about and if there are signs of it or not, we need to stop using the words dead and death. When casuals start spamming that shit everywhere because some one told them SC2 died then it has a real effect on SC2
On November 28 2016 04:49 Neric wrote: It is very simple: The game got destroyed by expansions. You can see a similar problem with other titles like WoW.
I highly agree with this, WoW is quiet good example. Those fellas who launched petition for returning vanilla WoW are like BW players which want their game back.
On November 28 2016 04:49 Neric wrote: It is very simple: The game got destroyed by expansions. You can see a similar problem with other titles like WoW.
I disagree, for the most part the expansions have only made the game better, not worse. This thread in general is really silly, SC2 isn't dead. Is it as popular e-sport wise as 5 years ago? No, but it still has a scene and is doing fine.
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.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
I don't think the dead game comments are appropriate (nor is this thread in my opinion), and I don't make those comments. But I don't think they had any influence.
Sponsors are smart enough to look at the viewership, which has been in steady decline, long before we got dead game comments. Would you want to sponsor something with declining viewership regardless of negativity on a forum? I think a good measure of the health of SC2 is the strategy forum. It used to be booming, with lots people posting strats and looking for help. Now it is nearly dead.
Starcraft is declining because of game design decisions.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
If I understand correctly he is talking about the esport death of sc2, not the death of sc2, which would translate into empty ladder and stuff like that (and that isn't the case in 1v1). Since there are real signs and consequences of decline/death (end of proleague, new WCS induced retirements, star players retirement, teams disbanding) there is actually something to talk about right now. I didn't watch the video but I'm pretty sure it isn't about daed game memes, it's probably thoughtful.
I don't think he is that stupid to not realize that this title alone is carrying these fucking memes spread by braindead people.
Can we talk about the fact that the subtitles are transparent, which makes them ridiculously difficult to read. Can someone just sum up his points in the video? I know SC2 should have been released with ingame chat as he says, but SC2 was on top of the world when it didn't have ingame chat, that was not the reason for the decline.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
I don't think the dead game comments are appropriate (nor is this thread in my opinion), and I don't make those comments. But I don't think they had any influence.
Sponsors are smart enough to look at the viewership, which has been in steady decline, long before we got dead game comments.
Starcraft is declining because of game design decisions.
Starcraft is declining because of many, many reasons. Game design decisions are likely a big factor though, i agree. "ded geam" comments are stupid, but at the same time people who ignore the bad things which are happening aren't helping either. Having an open conversation about it is way more constructive and big community figures should do that in some way or form. I mean i think these overly negative comments without any perspective "ded gaem", etc have an impact on people who maybe would join the scene otherwise. New players who aren't sure, if you look at the sc2 subreddit there sometimes are posts of people who ask if it is still worth it because they can read anywhere (lol reddit, csgo reddit, etc) that sc2 is a "dead game". Ofc it impacts the scene a bit. I wouldn't say that it's a huge factor though.
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.
On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote: Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tryied to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2.
It's one of the biggest best selling pc game of the last decade, and got a huge following for many year with still tens of thousand of people playing it. I think it's fair to say it is a good game.
There was a statistic from Blizzard around 2011 that said less than half of the people who purchased the game touched any of its multiplayer features. Just saying. Many people used to buy Blizzard games for the SP alone regardless of how balanced or well designed the MP was. I say used to because they haven't released many games with SP content lately, but yeah.
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.
I think the problem is not SC2 as a game, it is the RTS kind of video game. I played RTS for about 20 years (Im 33). Dune, C&C serie, AOE serie, Wrcraft serie, SC ofc...and I try to remind myself if an RTS made the history. I mean in terms of popularity, units sold, e-sport,...etc
Probably Brood War is the best RTS ever made, but behind it, no other one marked its time. (I exclude WC3 away from classical RTS). As I read in this topic, it is very hard to play a 1v1 RTS game.
No talk about balance issues, I think SC2 is huge in terms of balance in compared of others olders games (C&C balance is a joke, nations in AOE are very similar except maybe in AOM).
So, just about kind of game, it is so hard to master it that a lot of players leave it. For me, SC2 is not a dead game... it is just it has never been alive I mean 2010-2012 were fun years : big MLG events, Korea switch from BW to SC2, a lot of teams, a lot of players. But since then (probably HOTS release) sc2 popularity drops month after month. Unfortunatly, I started to play sc2 at the end of 2012 so I can saw its decline. It makes me so sad cause I think it is the best RTS have ever played.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
I don't think the dead game comments are appropriate (nor is this thread in my opinion), and I don't make those comments. But I don't think they had any influence.
Sponsors are smart enough to look at the viewership, which has been in steady decline, long before we got dead game comments.
Starcraft is declining because of game design decisions.
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.
I have tried to get several of my friends to play SC2 (for last 2 years I have not tried) but answer is always same. They think game is too difficult. Its the game that koreans dominate. Too difficult game to enjoy.
People enjoy playing more easy games like dota and csgo
Excellent video FireCake. It was really cool to see everything summed up for once. You are obviously a smart guy and a good speaker!
I completely agree that the sc2 multiplayer should've been f2p already and I really hope they will announce it in 2017 finally, otherwise the future is not looking good for sc2. That Blizzard waits too long to make changes when the gameplay gets stale is by now just a fact imo, but I think they have become more open to community feedback at least!
I do not agree that sc2 esports is already dead, I still see new players asking for advice on reddit each and every day and I think players will still be able to be progamers in 2017. But we really need f2p and more frequent changes to get more players, or I'm not too sure about WCS 2018.
The lack of LotV basic tutorials is a good point btw, it feels weird that I have to recommend videos from WoL or HotS to new players when they ask how to learn sc2. I wished a big community figure would start making new tutorials that cover the complete basics, like FilterSC's Bronze to Masters series. Bonjwa is actually doing a great job, but it's a german site . On top of that we also need ingame tutorials and build orders I think!
Still, I hope that WCS 2017 will soon be announced and will be amazing. Then I hope sc2 will go f2p next year! If anything, BlizzCon showed us that in theory there is still interest in sc2, Blizzard just has to take the next step. Oh yea and Deepmind vs sc2 pros will be exciting!
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
If I understand correctly he is talking about the esport death of sc2, not the death of sc2, which would translate into empty ladder and stuff like that (and that isn't the case in 1v1). Since there are real signs and consequences of decline/death (end of proleague, new WCS induced retirements, star players retirement, teams disbanding) there is actually something to talk about right now. I didn't watch the video but I'm pretty sure it isn't about daed game memes, it's probably thoughtful.
This is exactly my video, especially the conclusion.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
If I understand correctly he is talking about the esport death of sc2, not the death of sc2, which would translate into empty ladder and stuff like that (and that isn't the case in 1v1). Since there are real signs and consequences of decline/death (end of proleague, new WCS induced retirements, star players retirement, teams disbanding) there is actually something to talk about right now. I didn't watch the video but I'm pretty sure it isn't about daed game memes, it's probably thoughtful.
Regardless of what specific aspect of the game he's talking about and if there are signs of it or not, we need to stop using the words dead and death. When casuals start spamming that shit everywhere because some one told them SC2 died then it has a real effect on SC2
We shouldn't be afraid of words. Many people talk about Starcraft being a dead game. I think it is important to understand what it means exactly. Short version : Starcraft e-sport = dead Starcraft = alive
On November 28 2016 06:08 stuchiu wrote: Interesting video so far.
I am happy to hear that from someone a lot more experienced than me in this area
On November 28 2016 05:48 BronzeKnee wrote: Can we talk about the fact that the subtitles are transparent, which makes them ridiculously difficult to read. Can someone just sum up his points in the video? I know SC2 should have been released with ingame chat as he says, but SC2 was on top of the world when it didn't have ingame chat, that was not the reason for the decline.
You are the first one to report this problem so I checked the subtitles again but I don't see your problem. I see subtitles in white surrounded with a black rectangle so I don't really know what you are talking about.
I am sorry this is the first time I put subtitles on a video, I must have missed something
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.
Umm?...
I could understand this:
I didn't watch the video though, not interested to watch a *insert language* video when the person is american and could have done an english video instead.
But not "european" part at all. Or you have way too high expectations how good english europeans outside northern europe speak.
I rather watch in french and have correct subtitles than watch somebody trying to explain in broken english or language is limiting what he wants to say.
Your video raises many good points and people agree here. But some people that agree with you here have been saying the complete opposite in other threads. Just one example: You list that LoL had a lot of changes and SC2 had very little and that that is sad. I remember just a few days ago people complained along multiple pages that SC2 saw too many changes.
Honestly I'm getting tired of this debate. Don't get me wrong FireCake, it's a good video. But reading so many contradictory statements, wishes and "reason for the downfall" is just annoying at this point.
Also, what's the point? Blizzard has shown that they won't drastically change the game. They have a fixed direction that they will contine to follow. They don't really care about the korean scene dying, or at least not enough to jump the gun on decisions. They will still take it slow.
There's nothing we can do at this point. LoL, Overwatch and the other games will continue to dominate. Dead game memes will continue to exist, players will retire, teams will disband.
People need to like a game's core. Many people find the core off-putting. Nothing will change that - no amount of balance changes, no amount of tweaks. You'd need to change SC2's core to make it appeal to an audience that praises Overwatch and LoL.
On November 28 2016 06:36 KeksX wrote: Your video raises many good points and people agree here. But some people that agree with you here have been saying the complete opposite in other threads. Just one example: You list that LoL had a lot of changes and SC2 had very little and that that is sad. I remember just a few days ago where people complained along multiple pages that SC2 saw too many changes.
Honestly I'm getting tired of this debate. Don't get me wrong FireCake, it's a good video. But reading so many contradictory statements, wishes and "reason for the downfall" is just annoying at this point.
Also, what's the point? Blizzard has shown that they won't drastically change the game. They have a fixed direction that they will contine to follow. They don't really care about the korean scene dying, or at least not enough to jump the gun on decisions. They will still take it slow.
There's nothing we can do at this point. LoL, Overwatch and the other games will continue to dominate, SC2 will continue to shrink.
Maybe the reason Blizzard aren't doing anything is because they're too busy pushing Overwatch? It seems popular now, so I don't know. Either way, there are many reasons why SC2 isn't doing well. BW is also a hard game but UMS (Arcade in SC2) is noob friendly. I think if Arcade was more developed, that would have helped to keep casual players. Let's remember that SC2 didn't have Arcade for so long... its predecessor was mediocre.
On November 28 2016 06:36 KeksX wrote: Your video raises many good points and people agree here. But some people that agree with you here have been saying the complete opposite in other threads. Just one example: You list that LoL had a lot of changes and SC2 had very little and that that is sad. I remember just a few days ago where people complained along multiple pages that SC2 saw too many changes.
Honestly I'm getting tired of this debate. Don't get me wrong FireCake, it's a good video. But reading so many contradictory statements, wishes and "reason for the downfall" is just annoying at this point.
Also, what's the point? Blizzard has shown that they won't drastically change the game. They have a fixed direction that they will contine to follow. They don't really care about the korean scene dying, or at least not enough to jump the gun on decisions. They will still take it slow.
There's nothing we can do at this point. LoL, Overwatch and the other games will continue to dominate, SC2 will continue to shrink.
Maybe the reason Blizzard aren't doing anything is because they're too busy pushing Overwatch? It seems popular now, so I don't know. Either way, there are many reasons why SC2 isn't doing well. BW is also a hard game but UMS (Arcade in SC2) is noob friendly. I think if Arcade was more developed, that would have helped to keep casual players.
One scenario I like to tell/ask people: Imagine you had won a lottery ticket for reddit. Everyone on reddit sees one post you make. Blizzard just pushed a balance patch that fixed all issues mentioned by the community. So you decide to post the balance patch and tell people how much more awesome SC2 is now.
Do you think people would actually stop playing Overwatch, League Of Legends, DotA2, Counter Strike: GO because of that? And start playing SC2?
Who honestly believes that imbalances, map issues or things like that are the issue? (Most) People just don't want to play SC2.
On November 28 2016 05:48 BronzeKnee wrote: Can we talk about the fact that the subtitles are transparent, which makes them ridiculously difficult to read.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
I don't think the dead game comments are appropriate (nor is this thread in my opinion), and I don't make those comments. But I don't think they had any influence.
Sponsors are smart enough to look at the viewership, which has been in steady decline, long before we got dead game comments.
Starcraft is declining because of game design decisions.
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.
Only europeans can make english videos? :o.
No but if you limit yourself as a central european by making it french when you really should be able to do it in english then i am not wasting my time by watching a 40 minute video with subtitles. If the same video would be made by a korean i would be able to understand why it's not in english and give the person the benefit of the doubt. In this case it's simply annoying. That doesn't mean that only the western world can make english videos, but i expect it here, yes. Just like TL expects us to write in english.
edit: video format, or rather audio is beautiful because you can get the information while doing something else. It's slow, but at least i can listen to it while playing sc2 for example. A written text would be superior, but not when i have to watch a 40 minute video
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.
I probably worded it badly, but yeah sure i expect europeans to be able to do their content in english for the most part. I don't expect him to be as eloquent as a native speaker, but that's not even necessary. At the same time i get that he probably didn't do it for an english speaking audience in the first place, but if he really wants to get his ideas out there it would be way better do make a new english video instead.
The main reason SC2 failed as an Esport is that Blizzard straight up refused to listen to the community for years, and by the time they did it was too late. People were asking for LAN for years and they refused to implement it. People asked to add the ability to watch games in progress or rejoin games as an observer, and they refused. People asked for them to add microtransactions, and they took until this year to do so. People asked for a revamp of the economy (Double Harvest) and David Kim shrugged it aside. People asked for a fix to blatant imbalances and crap design and they ignored everything and watched viewer counts tumble. Meanwhile other games that actually listened to their community thrived while SC2 fell by the wayside. Blizzard deserves every ounce of hate they get from the community for how they handled the game. This game could have been amazing to this day had Blizzard not ignored the community. Now they pretend that they care but they clearly still don't, and even then it's too little too late.
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.
There's also the fact that it's hard for us to dissect the problem since we don't have viewing numbers across all of the years for SC2 and other esports games to compare and then compare/contrast what happened in detail.
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.
For instance, if I asked you to describe Polt, INnoVation, Taeja, Gumiho and Dream's BiovZ play, you'd end with 5 very different answers despite all 5 using the same units. Polt is very base-trade heavy, INnoVation is the pure MMMM push to it's highest level of play, Taeja plays the slowest most measured late game, Gumiho played the extreme harassment with the most split forces. Dream was a combination of INnoVation's extreme push style with Taeja's map awareness.
LotV could be hurting from a lack of tactical depth as well as strategic depth. These are initial thoughts, I haven't sat down to really research any of it.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
I don't think the dead game comments are appropriate (nor is this thread in my opinion), and I don't make those comments. But I don't think they had any influence.
Sponsors are smart enough to look at the viewership, which has been in steady decline, long before we got dead game comments.
Starcraft is declining because of game design decisions.
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.
Only europeans can make english videos? :o.
No but if you limit yourself as a central european by making it french when you really should be able to do it in english then i am not wasting my time by watching a 40 minute video with subtitles. If the same video would be made by a korean i would be able to understand why it's not in english and give the person the benefit of the doubt. In this case it's simply annoying. That doesn't mean that only the western world can make english videos, but i expect it here, yes. Just like TL expects us to write in english.
I don't understand this, if it is easier to make his point in his own language he should do it in that language. Doing a 40 minutes speech in another language is super hard, there is no need to do a mediocre video in English if you can make a good one in french. It's way easier for us to read subtitle for us then for him to do a video in English.
On November 28 2016 06:51 Solar424 wrote: The main reason SC2 failed as an Esport is that Blizzard straight up refused to listen to the community for years, and by the time they did it was too late. People were asking for LAN for years and they refused to implement it. People asked to add the ability to watch games in progress or rejoin games as an observer, and they refused. People asked for them to add microtransactions, and they took until this year to do so. People asked for a revamp of the economy (Double Harvest) and David Kim shrugged it aside. People asked for a fix to blatant imbalances and crap design and they ignored everything and watched viewer counts tumble. Meanwhile other games that actually listened to their community thrived while SC2 fell by the wayside. Blizzard deserves every ounce of hate they get from the community for how they handled the game. This game could have been amazing to this day had Blizzard not ignored the community. Now they pretend that they care but they clearly still don't, and even then it's too little too late.
Not only that you have zero proof that these are actually the reasons, we have enough indicators that show that they aren't. Other games are missing key features to date and are not affected by it.
I mean hell, Riot announced a replay system how long ago? And then again this october? Not sure if they even have it now.
StarCraft II did a lot of things right. It helped kickstart the streamer scene and it was a role model for many new eSports titles. When CS:GO was still a bullshit game, StarCraft II already had a huge following that was spoiled by nice features.
At some point we need to finally realize that the core game is the issue here. "Frustrating, mechanically and mentally challenging game that will make you literally feel exhausted after playing" is just not a good sell compared to "Press Q for awesome wins!! Yaay!" (No offense to Overwatch players)
On November 28 2016 06:51 Solar424 wrote: The main reason SC2 failed as an Esport is that Blizzard straight up refused to listen to the community for years, and by the time they did it was too late. People were asking for LAN for years and they refused to implement it. People asked to add the ability to watch games in progress or rejoin games as an observer, and they refused. People asked for them to add microtransactions, and they took until this year to do so. People asked for a revamp of the economy (Double Harvest) and David Kim shrugged it aside. People asked for a fix to blatant imbalances and crap design and they ignored everything and watched viewer counts tumble. Meanwhile other games that actually listened to their community thrived while SC2 fell by the wayside. Blizzard deserves every ounce of hate they get from the community for how they handled the game. This game could have been amazing to this day had Blizzard not ignored the community. Now they pretend that they care but they clearly still don't, and even then it's too little too late.
Not only that you have zero proof that these are actually the reasons, we have enough indicators that show that they aren't. Other games are missing key features to date and are not affected by it.
I mean hell, Riot announced a replay system how long ago? And then again this october? Not sure if they even have it now.
StarCraft II did a lot of things right. It helped kickstart the streamer scene and it was a role model for many new eSports titles. When CS:GO was still a bullshit game, StarCraft II already had a huge following that was spoiled by nice features.
At some point we need to finally realize that the core game is the issue here. "Frustrating, mechanically and mentally challenging game that will make you literally feel exhausted after playing" is just not a good sell compared to "Press Q for awesome wins!! Yaay!" (No offense to Overwatch players)
The game itself is flawed in a bunch of ways, but the lack of communication from Blizzard was the last straw that probably made many people leave to games where they feel that developers see them as more than a wallet.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
I don't think the dead game comments are appropriate (nor is this thread in my opinion), and I don't make those comments. But I don't think they had any influence.
Sponsors are smart enough to look at the viewership, which has been in steady decline, long before we got dead game comments.
Starcraft is declining because of game design decisions.
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.
Only europeans can make english videos? :o.
No but if you limit yourself as a central european by making it french when you really should be able to do it in english then i am not wasting my time by watching a 40 minute video with subtitles. If the same video would be made by a korean i would be able to understand why it's not in english and give the person the benefit of the doubt. In this case it's simply annoying. That doesn't mean that only the western world can make english videos, but i expect it here, yes. Just like TL expects us to write in english.
I don't understand this, if it is easier to make his point in his own language he should do it in that language. Doing a 40 minutes speech in another language is super hard, there is no need to do a mediocre video in English if you can make a good one in french. It's way easier for us to read subtitle for us then for him to do a video in English.
I am not necessarily saying that he should do an english video in the first place. But when he wants to get his ideas out there then it would be better to either have an english video, or the english text as a whole. I am not going to watch a 40 minute video when in the end the text probably could be read in 5 minutes. It's a waste of time. That's the problem here. And yes i expect europeans to be able to do that, i wouldn't expect the same if i wanted to know the ideas of a korean progamer though for obvious reasons. I understand why he did the video in french, i do not understand why there wasn't more work involved when presenting the ideas to a wider audience. But this thread shouldn't be about this discussion anyway, so whatever.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
That's a crucial point. If the balance had been tighter when GSL's first kicked into gear, that would have set a better foundation. Along similar lines, battle.net 2.0 was godawful for years. There were no chat channels. Setting up tournament games was a god damn nightmare, and professional players couldn't block spammers for a time. Lan wasn't the biggest thing, but it would have made the process smoother.
However, I will never forget when SC2 pushed effing Halo out of the mainstage at MLG. That was incredible.
SC2 could have been THE juggernaut of e-sports. It still is the highest competitive one by leagues.
I always found this attitude to be one of the many problems in the SC2 community. People were never happy with their own game's relative popularity and success, it always had to be the greatest game ever, that everyone looked to as the best game of all time, period. As evidenced by this post, it is not enough that it achieved success, it had to be better than Halo. The gameplay? That's not the primary concern. The primary concern is how many viewers its getting and whether its beating Halo or league of legends.
Would you see the same attitude from Halo gamers, league of legends gamers? I don't think so. They couldn't care less. They just enjoy whatever game they enjoy and leave other people to enjoy their games. With many SC2 fans, they are constantly looking at the viewer counts, trying to convince everyone and themselves that their game is the best game ever. In a way I'm kind of glad that that kind of attitude never amounted to anything. It just smacks of such elitism, that I am kind of happy SC2 is declining just so we won't have to hear about it anymore.
Anyway the difference between declining and dead is largely immaterial. Technically half life 1 is not a dead game either, because you have some tiny community playing in online servers this very moment. It is basically a 'ded gaem', but again it shouldn't matter. All that matters is whether you have fun playing it, or at least had fun. Time to move on!
On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote: People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh.
It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins.
A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh.
On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote: People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh.
It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins.
A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh.
For a competitive game if you can't justify the cost of the game, you can't justify spending the time to get good at it either. It's not prohibitively expensive.
The biggest failure is blizzards complete anti grassroots style of business (no lan etc) which is required probably more then anything to create a self sustaining competitive game.
There are games that are significantly harder to play then sc2 (melee, gg xrd etc) which both have arguably a higher barrier of entry, and the first is unarguably a larger scene and growing.
It's a massive copout to blame everything but the game when a game is dying. It's an even bigger copout to blame cost when millions already own the game, they just don't like it.
On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote: People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh.
It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins.
A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh.
For a competitive game if you can't justify the cost of the game, you can't justify spending the time to get good at it either. It's not prohibitively expensive.
The biggest failure is blizzards complete anti grassroots style of business (no lan etc) which is required probably more then anything to create a self sustaining competitive game.
There are games that are significantly harder to play then sc2 (melee, gg xrd etc) which both have arguably a higher barrier of entry, and the first is unarguably a larger scene and growing.
It's a massive copout to blame everything but the game when a game is dying. It's an even bigger copout to blame cost when millions already own the game, they just don't like it.
It is only a copout to blame one factor if it is the only factor you consider you and pretend it is the only important one. That is true for any factor you can come up with though. There surely are factors which are more relevant than others, but the truth is that nobody here actually knows what % it actually is in any case.
So yes, free multiplayer would help a lot, more people would try it and thus more people would keep playing it.
On November 28 2016 03:49 Ppjack wrote: shouldn't all the dead game prophets be banned from TL ? thought it was against the rules
Where's Seeker who's been stalking me and banning for 1 week freaking twice for nothing? I didn't even get answer from him. Entire thread is about "dead game" concept. Why no one gets banned this time, huh?!!! Are you man enough now to admit this? Or you gonna repeat again? If I get ban this is joke... I'm going to write directly to Nazgul.
If you have a problem with moderation, take it to Website Feedback.
On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote: Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tryied to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2.
It's one of the biggest best selling pc game of the last decade, and got a huge following for many year with still tens of thousand of people playing it. I think it's fair to say it is a good game.
Well, the campaign was super fun for WoL and HotS (never got LotV myself), but I don't think the multiplayer has ever been enough in Sc2 to carry the game.
Huh, there sure a lot of people playing the game, and on a community website about the game, for multiplayer thats not even fun.
On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote: People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh.
It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins.
A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh.
I don't think that will ever happen. i don't think that will ever happen. Give Starcraft is vulnerable to hacking like most FPS, it makes sense to put a cost on it to mitigate cheating.
I really hate titles like this. Can someone actually look at what an ACTUAL dead game looks like before saying Starcraft is dead? Like really. It's far from dead. You're putting Starcraft in the same boat as Command & Conquer 3, Giant Bomb, Quake, Sure, it looks pitiful to multi-mutli- million player MOBAs, but Starcraft was never going to be THAT popular again. Especially in the West where RTS esports wasn't exactly the most popular thing historically.
There's a lot more competition for esports nowadays, a lot more social, easy to get into, social games that way more people would be way more invested in. Starcraft 2 had a huge 2 year burst of popularity since there was that void of competition, and then as more games came out, it went back to the status quo of earlier years. Compare the foreign Brood War tournament scene in 2005 to Counterstrike 1.6 and you'll see what I mean.
On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote: People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh.
It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins.
A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh.
For a competitive game if you can't justify the cost of the game, you can't justify spending the time to get good at it either. It's not prohibitively expensive.
The biggest failure is blizzards complete anti grassroots style of business (no lan etc) which is required probably more then anything to create a self sustaining competitive game.
There are games that are significantly harder to play then sc2 (melee, gg xrd etc) which both have arguably a higher barrier of entry, and the first is unarguably a larger scene and growing.
It's a massive copout to blame everything but the game when a game is dying. It's an even bigger copout to blame cost when millions already own the game, they just don't like it.
There are multiple reasons of course, but f2p is one for sure. And players will always stop playing a game, so it does not matter how many people bought it in the past. People stop playing LoL, Dota and Hearthstone all the time, but a lot of new players start too.
Btw with new players I especially mean young new players. We want 12 years old to start playing sc2 and for them f2p is literally the biggest factor that makes them try out a new game. They can for sure afford spending the time to get good at sc2, but might not be able to spend the money. In markets like Russia and China f2p is even more important.
Another factor is that nowadays players want an incentive to keep playing. As FireCake said, in sc2 that is just losing or winning, that's it. Players want to unlock stuff through playing and that's something f2p games offer. Play, get some coins or something, unlock new skins etc... repeat.
Just getting better is not enough reason for casual players to keep playing, for my friends that play LoL, CS:GO and Overwatch it's all about loot boxes, skins, new weapons etc... and stuff like that could be in a f2p sc2. I think Blizzard realised that and it will happen soon, but it's just really late.
On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote: Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tryied to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2.
It's one of the biggest best selling pc game of the last decade, and got a huge following for many year with still tens of thousand of people playing it. I think it's fair to say it is a good game.
Well, the campaign was super fun for WoL and HotS (never got LotV myself), but I don't think the multiplayer has ever been enough in Sc2 to carry the game.
Huh, there sure a lot of people playing the game, and on a community website about the game, for multiplayer thats not even fun.
On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote: People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh.
It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins.
A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh.
I don't think that will ever happen. i don't think that will ever happen. Give Starcraft is vulnerable to hacking like most FPS, it makes sense to put a cost on it to mitigate cheating.
If that is really the only way to counteract hacking it's really sad tbh. But if it is indeed like that, then at least make it cheap like CS:GO and offer an ingame currency and rewards for playing the game. Even daily quests like in HS and Heroes would be cool.
On November 28 2016 04:49 Neric wrote: It is very simple: The game got destroyed by expansions. You can see a similar problem with other titles like WoW.
I highly agree with this, WoW is quiet good example. Those fellas who launched petition for returning vanilla WoW are like BW players which want their game back.
Except vanilla folks like would like to just have an option to play on those old servers. We dont wanna destroy retail players or we arent jumping on their throat everytime some dead gaem memes comes up... We just want to coexist in piece together as a community meanwhile this is literally war between BW and SC2... it can't just be StarCraft... regardless if guy or lady likes BW or LoTV....
On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote: Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tryied to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2.
It's one of the biggest best selling pc game of the last decade, and got a huge following for many year with still tens of thousand of people playing it. I think it's fair to say it is a good game.
Well, the campaign was super fun for WoL and HotS (never got LotV myself), but I don't think the multiplayer has ever been enough in Sc2 to carry the game.
Huh, there sure a lot of people playing the game, and on a community website about the game, for multiplayer thats not even fun.
On November 28 2016 07:12 Musicus wrote:
On November 28 2016 07:01 bo1b wrote: People blaming the cost is fucking stupid tbh.
It's a huge barrier of entry though. Tons of people bought LotV this weekend thanks to the blick friday sale. If the price goes down to 10 or 15 bucks permanently that would be fine, but it will take forever. Making the multiplayer free and selling the campaigns ingame would just make so much more sense I think, especially now that they started to sell stuff like voice packs and skins.
A free multiplayer was the one announcement I really expected at BlizzCon tbh.
I don't think that will ever happen. i don't think that will ever happen. Give Starcraft is vulnerable to hacking like most FPS, it makes sense to put a cost on it to mitigate cheating.
If that is really the only way to counteract hacking it's really sad tbh. But if it is indeed like that, then at least make it cheap like CS:GO and offer an ingame currency and rewards for playing the game. Even daily quests like in HS and Heroes would be cool.
That's not the only way, but that's a limiting way. And that's why CS:GO and Starcraft are kinda forced to it, because unlike MOBAs, a lot of the stuff is done client side.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
That's a crucial point. If the balance had been tighter when GSL's first kicked into gear, that would have set a better foundation. Along similar lines, battle.net 2.0 was godawful for years. There were no chat channels. Setting up tournament games was a god damn nightmare, and professional players couldn't block spammers for a time. Lan wasn't the biggest thing, but it would have made the process smoother.
However, I will never forget when SC2 pushed effing Halo out of the mainstage at MLG. That was incredible.
SC2 could have been THE juggernaut of e-sports. It still is the highest competitive one by leagues.
I always found this attitude to be one of the many problems in the SC2 community. People were never happy with their own game's relative popularity and success, it always had to be the greatest game ever, that everyone looked to as the best game of all time, period. As evidenced by this post, it is not enough that it achieved success, it had to be better than Halo. The gameplay? That's not the primary concern. The primary concern is how many viewers its getting and whether its beating Halo or league of legends.
Would you see the same attitude from Halo gamers, league of legends gamers? I don't think so. They couldn't care less. They just enjoy whatever game they enjoy and leave other people to enjoy their games. With many SC2 fans, they are constantly looking at the viewer counts, trying to convince everyone and themselves that their game is the best game ever. In a way I'm kind of glad that that kind of attitude never amounted to anything. It just smacks of such elitism, that I am kind of happy SC2 is declining just so we won't have to hear about it anymore.
Anyway the difference between declining and dead is largely immaterial. Technically half life 1 is not a dead game either, because you have some tiny community playing in online servers this very moment. It is basically a 'ded gaem', but again it shouldn't matter. All that matters is whether you have fun playing it, or at least had fun. Time to move on!
You have to keep in mind when the SC2 was developed. Even WoW had tons of issues with engine from 2002? SC2 was developed after the technology explosion with quad cores and powerful cpus and gpus + 64bit system. If ppl are asking for implementetions of things like LAN etc. I guess they just dont publicly say that engine is limiting them in certain ways alot. + look at the mainterance downtimes. They need few hours to reset things and turn them back on.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
That's a crucial point. If the balance had been tighter when GSL's first kicked into gear, that would have set a better foundation. Along similar lines, battle.net 2.0 was godawful for years. There were no chat channels. Setting up tournament games was a god damn nightmare, and professional players couldn't block spammers for a time. Lan wasn't the biggest thing, but it would have made the process smoother.
However, I will never forget when SC2 pushed effing Halo out of the mainstage at MLG. That was incredible.
SC2 could have been THE juggernaut of e-sports. It still is the highest competitive one by leagues.
I always found this attitude to be one of the many problems in the SC2 community. People were never happy with their own game's relative popularity and success, it always had to be the greatest game ever, that everyone looked to as the best game of all time, period. As evidenced by this post, it is not enough that it achieved success, it had to be better than Halo. The gameplay? That's not the primary concern. The primary concern is how many viewers its getting and whether its beating Halo or league of legends.
Would you see the same attitude from Halo gamers, league of legends gamers? I don't think so. They couldn't care less. They just enjoy whatever game they enjoy and leave other people to enjoy their games. With many SC2 fans, they are constantly looking at the viewer counts, trying to convince everyone and themselves that their game is the best game ever. In a way I'm kind of glad that that kind of attitude never amounted to anything. It just smacks of such elitism, that I am kind of happy SC2 is declining just so we won't have to hear about it anymore.
Anyway the difference between declining and dead is largely immaterial. Technically half life 1 is not a dead game either, because you have some tiny community playing in online servers this very moment. It is basically a 'ded gaem', but again it shouldn't matter. All that matters is whether you have fun playing it, or at least had fun. Time to move on!
It's not elitism. From an observer standpoint I enjoy pro matches played at the highest level and for good money. I dont watch tournaments if I think I can play at their level.
Most people watch professional entertainment, whether its sports or in the art world. Very few people set out to watch low budget independent movies that don't have proper writing or lighting.
Seeing console gamers actually take the time and check out a RTS. That was pretty cool. I think most of us saw the potential, and we eventually got it with LoL being on ESPN. EDIT:+ Show Spoiler +
I wasnt dissing Halo. MLG was Halo, I thought replacing it was amazing.
I still play almost on a daily basis, so on that front the only thing that matters is fast matchmaking
I m sad to agree with most points of Firecake but i rly dont think sc2 pro scene will die... i mean we can always make a full circle right? even if we take the darkest scenery and imagine that sc2 pro scene will die soon all teams will be gone after 3 years imagine sc2 would be free to play, and atrract more and more people i think. Also i think that this viedo is very good i hope it was watched by some1 from Blizzard cuz we need to show them that they need to work on thier game more and better quick.... I hope to see U firecake in more tournaments DO NOT retire pls
On November 28 2016 03:25 XenOsky- wrote: Is not a good game, it never was, no need to overcomplicate over this. Blizzard tried to force the game into korea's mainstream and didn't work, it was kinda popular in the west for a little while but League Of Legends is far superior in terms of spectating, and the fact that the game is free to play just killed sc2.
By what metric is StarCraft II a bad game? There are simply no other RTS games left but StarCraft, am I supposed to believe that the only remaining RTS that has sold well in almost the past decade is bad? StarCraft II is held to an unreasonable, and frankly unachievable, standard by anyone who thinks it is a bad game.
I'm fairly certain that I watch League of Legends more than most people here, and it is not a far superior spectator experience. It certainly has moments, but the experience is at worst equal though this somewhat depends on what Riot wanted to force the meta into for the current month. Why do you think League is a better spectator experience? I would say on average a 40 minute LoL game has about 10 minutes worth watching and 30 minutes you can just zone out of and not miss anything. I'm sure people will mention viewership but StarCraft does better for the size of it's playerbase, so I'm not sure that's a compelling reason.
CSGO is popular and isn't free to play, looking at steamcharts it seems to average around 10x the concurrent player numbers of SC2, I also don't think anyone is calling it dead.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
Changes to StarCraft are honestly pretty insignificant. The most recent patch is certainly more than usual, but overall the game is very stable and doesn't change much from patch to patch. I would also be willing to guess that more people regain interest due to patches than are scared away, there's a reason LoL has kept up it's 2 week patching cycle.
On November 28 2016 04:51 KT_Elwood wrote: None of you got the message, Firecare with the end of Proleague, HSC and probably GSL and DH SC2 may be dead as esport. No Tournaments = no teams = no players = no competition.
WCS will still exist next year, there aren't suddenly going to be no tournaments and going around saying such a thing is stupid especially when some of the ones you list have already talked about continuing in the future. This is not to say SC2 doesn't have issues here, but be reasonable. Since we still don't have information on WCS, and this is an actual problem, there's not much to talk about anyway.
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.
It is hardly the fault of StarCraft that you want to play a different game, it's not supposed to be a MOBA and changing it like this is something that will will actually kill the game. MOBAs are more popular, but RTS has it's place and while StarCraft remains the only modern RTS that isn't terrible it's not dying out anytime soon.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
If I understand correctly he is talking about the esport death of sc2, not the death of sc2, which would translate into empty ladder and stuff like that (and that isn't the case in 1v1). Since there are real signs and consequences of decline/death (end of proleague, new WCS induced retirements, star players retirement, teams disbanding) there is actually something to talk about right now. I didn't watch the video but I'm pretty sure it isn't about daed game memes, it's probably thoughtful.
This is exactly my video, especially the conclusion.
On November 28 2016 04:38 SC2Towelie wrote: This "dead game" shit is honestly getting ridiculous...
It's honestly had a direct negative influence on the game. Who's gonna sponsor a game when the first thing anyone says when it's brought up is "lol ded game"
If I understand correctly he is talking about the esport death of sc2, not the death of sc2, which would translate into empty ladder and stuff like that (and that isn't the case in 1v1). Since there are real signs and consequences of decline/death (end of proleague, new WCS induced retirements, star players retirement, teams disbanding) there is actually something to talk about right now. I didn't watch the video but I'm pretty sure it isn't about daed game memes, it's probably thoughtful.
Regardless of what specific aspect of the game he's talking about and if there are signs of it or not, we need to stop using the words dead and death. When casuals start spamming that shit everywhere because some one told them SC2 died then it has a real effect on SC2
We shouldn't be afraid of words. Many people talk about Starcraft being a dead game. I think it is important to understand what it means exactly. Short version : Starcraft e-sport = dead Starcraft = alive
On November 28 2016 05:48 BronzeKnee wrote: Can we talk about the fact that the subtitles are transparent, which makes them ridiculously difficult to read. Can someone just sum up his points in the video? I know SC2 should have been released with ingame chat as he says, but SC2 was on top of the world when it didn't have ingame chat, that was not the reason for the decline.
You are the first one to report this problem so I checked the subtitles again but I don't see your problem. I see subtitles in white surrounded with a black rectangle so I don't really know what you are talking about.
I am sorry this is the first time I put subtitles on a video, I must have missed something
Calling StarCraft esports dead is frankly idiotic. I know it's not dead because I watched the qualifier of a WCS 2017 event today and dead esports don't have tournaments.
On November 28 2016 06:51 Solar424 wrote: The main reason SC2 failed as an Esport is that Blizzard straight up refused to listen to the community for years, and by the time they did it was too late. People were asking for LAN for years and they refused to implement it. People asked to add the ability to watch games in progress or rejoin games as an observer, and they refused. People asked for them to add microtransactions, and they took until this year to do so. People asked for a revamp of the economy (Double Harvest) and David Kim shrugged it aside. People asked for a fix to blatant imbalances and crap design and they ignored everything and watched viewer counts tumble. Meanwhile other games that actually listened to their community thrived while SC2 fell by the wayside. Blizzard deserves every ounce of hate they get from the community for how they handled the game. This game could have been amazing to this day had Blizzard not ignored the community. Now they pretend that they care but they clearly still don't, and even then it's too little too late.
SC2 didn't fail as an esport, it's been going for 6 years has a great legacy of tournaments and will continue to have great tournaments. Where is the failure? LAN isn't the reason SC2 isn't more popular, nor is the ability to spectate in game or microtransactions. The main advantage of microtransactions is it allows the current community to support the continued development of the game imo. The economy was changed for LotV, and they did address DH during the beta. You didn't get the result you wanted, sucks. http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/17085919227 If Blizzard listened to every case of whining about imbalance and terrible design, they wouldn't have time to actually do anything. Sure you can argue some things go too far, but nobody is ever going to get this perfectly and overall SC2 is well balanced.
Other games get shit on by their communities just as much or more, SC2 is still an amazing game. If you think it isn't and that it should have a much larger playerbase, why hasn't some other RTS developer come along to take this supposedly lucrative market? There is a reason SC2 is the only recent RTS people play.
On November 28 2016 06:51 Solar424 wrote: The main reason SC2 failed as an Esport is that Blizzard straight up refused to listen to the community for years, and by the time they did it was too late. People were asking for LAN for years and they refused to implement it. People asked to add the ability to watch games in progress or rejoin games as an observer, and they refused. People asked for them to add microtransactions, and they took until this year to do so. People asked for a revamp of the economy (Double Harvest) and David Kim shrugged it aside. People asked for a fix to blatant imbalances and crap design and they ignored everything and watched viewer counts tumble. Meanwhile other games that actually listened to their community thrived while SC2 fell by the wayside. Blizzard deserves every ounce of hate they get from the community for how they handled the game. This game could have been amazing to this day had Blizzard not ignored the community. Now they pretend that they care but they clearly still don't, and even then it's too little too late.
Not only that you have zero proof that these are actually the reasons, we have enough indicators that show that they aren't. Other games are missing key features to date and are not affected by it.
I mean hell, Riot announced a replay system how long ago? And then again this october? Not sure if they even have it now.
StarCraft II did a lot of things right. It helped kickstart the streamer scene and it was a role model for many new eSports titles. When CS:GO was still a bullshit game, StarCraft II already had a huge following that was spoiled by nice features.
At some point we need to finally realize that the core game is the issue here. "Frustrating, mechanically and mentally challenging game that will make you literally feel exhausted after playing" is just not a good sell compared to "Press Q for awesome wins!! Yaay!" (No offense to Overwatch players)
The game itself is flawed in a bunch of ways, but the lack of communication from Blizzard was the last straw that probably made many people leave to games where they feel that developers see them as more than a wallet.
They have been giving regular updates for the last year and half?
Honestly a lot of the posts here just read like people are trying to grasp at whatever reason they can find for the reasons SC2 isn't as popular as it 'should be' or as it once was, as if there is some desperation to be right about SC2 dying. I mean sure everything that sucked about SC2 contributed in some way or another, but probably less than anything singled out would have you believe.
In 2013, League of Legends had 70 million registered players and 32.5 million daily players. By 2013, WoL sold 6 million copies. In 2011 League had 15 million registered players. SC2 could be literally perfect and it wouldn't beat out LoL for viewership.
So I guess what's left is why is SC2 less popular than it used to be? Every game bleeds players, but games like LoL probably get as many new players as they lose and the game is larger than StarCraft ever was, that helps attract people. StarCraft is an old game in a genre people don't really talk about anymore and one that is honestly a lot harder to get into, it's not going to attract the same number of players. I'm sure a lot of the things Blizzard did along the way drove people away, but not doing those things or doing other things would have driven different people away. You can't make everyone happy. Overall I'm pretty content with the state of the game, and I don't really see much need to go around and tell everyone the game is dying when it clearly isn't.
Also as an aside about viewership, StarCraft VoDs perform well. If you look at ESLs channel for example, the most recent IEM Katowice final of Polt vs Snute beat out the LoL Katowice final of Fnatic vs SKT.
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.
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.
Are you implying that other game developers don't pour a shitton of money into their games' eSports scenes? Because you'd be dead wrong. The only succesfull eSports games that exist without the dev constantlythrowing money at it are Brood War, CS 1.6, Quake and the other "early games". Are you also implying that 2010-2012 never happened? Because it did happen and SC2 rose a ton during that time.
This whole debate would be easier if we just kept to the facts.
I wouldn't take pride in bringing it to the table, someone already did it :
On November 28 2016 03:48 geissenberg wrote: Complicated economy based RTS games are not popular at the moment.
SC2 is faster, harder, and way less forgivable than other games. Plus you're alone when you lose. The money required to play it is the last straw for the typical casual newbie.
You mocked Sc2 streaming popularity by comparing it to those of "social eating", but I'm not choked... Social eating is easier to relate to, easier to understand : it requires no effort to enjoy. Enjoying watching Sc2 requires at least a basic understanding of the game. And Sc2 understanding - for someone without a serious RTS experience - requires you to accept losing games after games alone while trying to figure out an impossibly complex system. How many newbies would accept it ?
As you said, things would probably be more enjoyable for newbies if there were easier access to tutorials, new skins, ... But I don't believe it would reverse the situation. Games as a whole tend to be easier, while with Starcraft 2 you are required to be at your 100% and invest a minimum of 100 hours to fully get the basics...
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.
Are you implying that other game developers don't pour a shitton of money into their games' eSports scenes? Because you'd be dead wrong. The only succesfull eSports games that exist without the dev throwing money at it are Brood War, CS 1.6, Quake and the other "early games". Are you also implying that 2010-2012 never happened? Because it did happen and SC2 rose a ton during that time.
This whole debate would be easier if we just kept to the facts.
Brood War esports was viable without Blizzard support. Tickets got sold for real money. it was not free to get into the TV Studio and then they handed you free food.
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.
Are you implying that other game developers don't pour a shitton of money into their games' eSports scenes? Because you'd be dead wrong. The only succesfull eSports games that exist without the dev throwing money at it are Brood War, CS 1.6, Quake and the other "early games". Are you also implying that 2010-2012 never happened? Because it did happen and SC2 rose a ton during that time.
This whole debate would be easier if we just kept to the facts.
Brood War esports was viable without Blizzard support.
I think it's a rather large step to say SC2 isn't a good game. It's a pretty damn good game.
Popularity can easily be broken down into the fact that there are simply more fun, rewarding games to play out there. SC2 is hard, and not very rewarding, why would 95% of the "gamers" on the planet want to play that over, say, literally anything else out there.
I don't think there will ever be a place for extremely hard 1v1 games to be on the top of the list for popularity. SC2 appeals to a very particular group of people, those who like competition, those who dislike relying on teammates, those who like a serious challenge (not to say other games aren't hard), etc.
Obviously SC2 is on the decline, the game is 6 years old, the last expansion came out a year ago, and again, there's funner, more rewarding games out there. Oh well, I'm still enjoying the shit out of it, both as a player and spectator.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
2) All succesful eSports, including StarCraft II during it's height, still have/had a viability (EDIT: outside of the developer's circle) that saw an increase and/or decline. StarCraft II definitely saw an increase between 2010 and 2012, where there were so many tournaments people started to get annoyed by them. Compared to that, we definitely have a decline.
SC2 was a successful esport for the first year of its life, but it just couldn't sustain due to the drop in interest due to bad small unchanging maps for the first half of the year, as well as the lack of social interface and lack of LAN. The 6 month long infestor broodlord era as well as protoss warpgate FF collosus game design choices didn't help matters either. Hots fixed some of these, with clans and a slightly better chat and arcade interface, but by then the massive interest in SC2 had faded and LoL and CSGO which did those simple social interface properly overtook it.
We always focus on SC2 but take a game like Counter-Strike. The game has been around literally forever. We went from CS 1.6 to CS:Source and now to Global Offensive. The e--sports element is huge compared to SC2 and while I only started following CS recently, I must say the sport seems to be doing very well.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
Melee seems to be doing just fine despite the opposite: the developer actively trying to kill the scene.
On November 28 2016 06:51 Solar424 wrote: The main reason SC2 failed as an Esport is that Blizzard straight up refused to listen to the community for years, and by the time they did it was too late. People were asking for LAN for years and they refused to implement it. People asked to add the ability to watch games in progress or rejoin games as an observer, and they refused. People asked for them to add microtransactions, and they took until this year to do so. People asked for a revamp of the economy (Double Harvest) and David Kim shrugged it aside. People asked for a fix to blatant imbalances and crap design and they ignored everything and watched viewer counts tumble. Meanwhile other games that actually listened to their community thrived while SC2 fell by the wayside. Blizzard deserves every ounce of hate they get from the community for how they handled the game. This game could have been amazing to this day had Blizzard not ignored the community. Now they pretend that they care but they clearly still don't, and even then it's too little too late.
SC2 didn't fail as an esport, it's been going for 6 years has a great legacy of tournaments and will continue to have great tournaments. Where is the failure? LAN isn't the reason SC2 isn't more popular, nor is the ability to spectate in game or microtransactions. The main advantage of microtransactions is it allows the current community to support the continued development of the game imo. The economy was changed for LotV, and they did address DH during the beta. You didn't get the result you wanted, sucks. http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/17085919227 If Blizzard listened to every case of whining about imbalance and terrible design, they wouldn't have time to actually do anything. Sure you can argue some things go too far, but nobody is ever going to get this perfectly and overall SC2 is well balanced.
Other games get shit on by their communities just as much or more, SC2 is still an amazing game. If you think it isn't and that it should have a much larger playerbase, why hasn't some other RTS developer come along to take this supposedly lucrative market? There is a reason SC2 is the only recent RTS people play.
On November 28 2016 06:51 Solar424 wrote: The main reason SC2 failed as an Esport is that Blizzard straight up refused to listen to the community for years, and by the time they did it was too late. People were asking for LAN for years and they refused to implement it. People asked to add the ability to watch games in progress or rejoin games as an observer, and they refused. People asked for them to add microtransactions, and they took until this year to do so. People asked for a revamp of the economy (Double Harvest) and David Kim shrugged it aside. People asked for a fix to blatant imbalances and crap design and they ignored everything and watched viewer counts tumble. Meanwhile other games that actually listened to their community thrived while SC2 fell by the wayside. Blizzard deserves every ounce of hate they get from the community for how they handled the game. This game could have been amazing to this day had Blizzard not ignored the community. Now they pretend that they care but they clearly still don't, and even then it's too little too late.
Not only that you have zero proof that these are actually the reasons, we have enough indicators that show that they aren't. Other games are missing key features to date and are not affected by it.
I mean hell, Riot announced a replay system how long ago? And then again this october? Not sure if they even have it now.
StarCraft II did a lot of things right. It helped kickstart the streamer scene and it was a role model for many new eSports titles. When CS:GO was still a bullshit game, StarCraft II already had a huge following that was spoiled by nice features.
At some point we need to finally realize that the core game is the issue here. "Frustrating, mechanically and mentally challenging game that will make you literally feel exhausted after playing" is just not a good sell compared to "Press Q for awesome wins!! Yaay!" (No offense to Overwatch players)
The game itself is flawed in a bunch of ways, but the lack of communication from Blizzard was the last straw that probably made many people leave to games where they feel that developers see them as more than a wallet.
They have been giving regular updates for the last year and half?
Honestly a lot of the posts here just read like people are trying to grasp at whatever reason they can find for the reasons SC2 isn't as popular as it 'should be' or as it once was, as if there is some desperation to be right about SC2 dying. I mean sure everything that sucked about SC2 contributed in some way or another, but probably less than anything singled out would have you believe.
Did you read my post? I never said that SC2 died because of no LAN, I just gave that as an example of Blizzard basically telling the community to go fuck themselves. When the developers of the game are that ignorant to the community's wishes, it tends to make them leave. If you look at other Blizzard games you can see the same communication problems.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
2) All succesful eSports, including StarCraft II during it's height, still have/had a viability (EDIT: outside of the developer's circle) that saw an increase and/or decline. StarCraft II definitely saw an increase between 2010 and 2012, where there were so many tournaments people started to get annoyed by them. Compared to that, we definitely have a decline.
it was never viable. it never rose. it always needed cash and continues to need it. they are bribing people with pizza to attend events to make it appear like a fun event. the title says "decline".
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
Melee seems to be doing just fine despite the opposite: the developer actively trying to kill the scene.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
2) All succesful eSports, including StarCraft II during it's height, still have/had a viability (EDIT: outside of the developer's circle) that saw an increase and/or decline. StarCraft II definitely saw an increase between 2010 and 2012, where there were so many tournaments people started to get annoyed by them. Compared to that, we definitely have a decline.
it was never viable. it never rose. it always needed cash and continues to need it. they are bribing people with pizza to attend events to make it appear like a fun event. the title says "decline".
I mean I went to a GSL event without pizza and it seemed to do just fine, I'm not really sure the availability of pizza is an important topic of discussion.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
Melee seems to be doing just fine despite the opposite: the developer actively trying to kill the scene.
I'd say with a 2001, Melee is definitely not a modern eSports anymore. I mean the same thing can be said about Brood War.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
2) All succesful eSports, including StarCraft II during it's height, still have/had a viability (EDIT: outside of the developer's circle) that saw an increase and/or decline. StarCraft II definitely saw an increase between 2010 and 2012, where there were so many tournaments people started to get annoyed by them. Compared to that, we definitely have a decline.
it was never viable. it never rose. it always needed cash and continues to need it. they are bribing people with pizza to attend events to make it appear like a fun event. the title says "decline".
You're saying that as if other games don't have free events, and other games don't give out food, and GOM gave out pizza all the time. It was a very occasional thing. I think the last time they had free pizza is when Mike Morhaime attended a viewing, and bought everyone pizza, which he also did when he went on OGN for Hearthstone.
On November 28 2016 08:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote: SC2 was a successful esport for the first year of its life, but it just couldn't sustain due to the drop in interest due to bad small unchanging maps for the first half of the year, as well as the lack of social interface and lack of LAN. The 6 month long infestor broodlord era as well as protoss warpgate FF collosus game design choices didn't help matters either. Hots fixed some of these, with clans and a slightly better chat and arcade interface, but by then the massive interest in SC2 had faded and LoL and CSGO which did those simple social interface properly overtook it.
The most popular games in the world don't use or have LAN. And LoL's social features are/were a complete joke.
The fact that that LoL thrived so much when THIS
is what their spectator mode was, in addition to many years without sandbox replays, shows me that those features have little to do with esports success...
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
Melee seems to be doing just fine despite the opposite: the developer actively trying to kill the scene.
Yeah, SC2's tournament prize pools are hilariously bloated and non-sustainable, while Melee's are sustainable. Most Melee tournaments are smaller anyways, because the scene largely went underground after 2007 and only came back to the main stage at EVO a few years ago.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
Melee seems to be doing just fine despite the opposite: the developer actively trying to kill the scene.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
2) All succesful eSports, including StarCraft II during it's height, still have/had a viability (EDIT: outside of the developer's circle) that saw an increase and/or decline. StarCraft II definitely saw an increase between 2010 and 2012, where there were so many tournaments people started to get annoyed by them. Compared to that, we definitely have a decline.
it was never viable. it never rose. it always needed cash and continues to need it. they are bribing people with pizza to attend events to make it appear like a fun event. the title says "decline".
I mean I went to a GSL event without pizza and it seemed to do just fine, I'm not really sure the availability of pizza is an important topic of discussion.
the GSL was only viable due to money donated into the scene.
Blizzcon has a chance to be viable because BLizzard can raise the ticket price well above $100 and draw 26,000+ people. GSL never was viable.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
Melee seems to be doing just fine despite the opposite: the developer actively trying to kill the scene.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
2) All succesful eSports, including StarCraft II during it's height, still have/had a viability (EDIT: outside of the developer's circle) that saw an increase and/or decline. StarCraft II definitely saw an increase between 2010 and 2012, where there were so many tournaments people started to get annoyed by them. Compared to that, we definitely have a decline.
it was never viable. it never rose. it always needed cash and continues to need it. they are bribing people with pizza to attend events to make it appear like a fun event. the title says "decline".
I mean I went to a GSL event without pizza and it seemed to do just fine, I'm not really sure the availability of pizza is an important topic of discussion.
The other major difference is that people actually play melee, instead of talking about playing it.
SC2's first few years were held up by a few factors:
- having the same name as star1/bw and being associated with that legacy - expansions that could artificially reinvigourate the scene every few years - like above, people's hopes that Blizzard would improve/fix the game in subsequent expansions/patches - less competition from other esports games/companies
Despite having all of the time given to it from the above, SC2 was never improved enough to stand alone on its own. It depends way too much on Blizzard's cash infusion and not enough on the fundamentals of the game itself.
Having said that, what Blizzard has added to SC2 since LotV has released has been great, but the whole basis of Starcraft (1 or 2) is in the gameplay and that is where SC2 is lacking in fundamentals. Arcade has improved but is still lacking. Normal/melee gameplay (disregarding balance) still has too many silly aspects to it. Coop is a great addition.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
Melee seems to be doing just fine despite the opposite: the developer actively trying to kill the scene.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
2) All succesful eSports, including StarCraft II during it's height, still have/had a viability (EDIT: outside of the developer's circle) that saw an increase and/or decline. StarCraft II definitely saw an increase between 2010 and 2012, where there were so many tournaments people started to get annoyed by them. Compared to that, we definitely have a decline.
it was never viable. it never rose. it always needed cash and continues to need it. they are bribing people with pizza to attend events to make it appear like a fun event. the title says "decline".
I mean I went to a GSL event without pizza and it seemed to do just fine, I'm not really sure the availability of pizza is an important topic of discussion.
the GSL was only viable due to money donated into the scene.
Blizzcon has a chance to be viable because BLizzard can raise the ticket price well above $100 and draw 26,000+ people. GSL never was viable.
Just because it receives a subsidy doesn't mean it's not viable. Those subsidies are just marketing expenses. That's how LCS is viable in spite of it not being profitable.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
Melee seems to be doing just fine despite the opposite: the developer actively trying to kill the scene.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
2) All succesful eSports, including StarCraft II during it's height, still have/had a viability (EDIT: outside of the developer's circle) that saw an increase and/or decline. StarCraft II definitely saw an increase between 2010 and 2012, where there were so many tournaments people started to get annoyed by them. Compared to that, we definitely have a decline.
it was never viable. it never rose. it always needed cash and continues to need it. they are bribing people with pizza to attend events to make it appear like a fun event. the title says "decline".
I mean I went to a GSL event without pizza and it seemed to do just fine, I'm not really sure the availability of pizza is an important topic of discussion.
The other major difference is that people actually play melee, instead of talking about playing it.
Do you have anything to say or are you just being edgy for the sake of it?
People play StarCraft. I played it today in fact, and when I logged in Blizzard said 50,000 other people were logged in on my server too.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
Melee seems to be doing just fine despite the opposite: the developer actively trying to kill the scene.
On November 28 2016 08:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so there is no decline. it was never viable.
You're confusing two things:
1) No modern eSports exists without the developer throwing a literal shitton of money at it. That does not make it any less or more viable. It's just the developer seeing a huge marketing opportunity in eSports and investing in it. It's normal at this point and Blizzard set the standard for this.
2) All succesful eSports, including StarCraft II during it's height, still have/had a viability (EDIT: outside of the developer's circle) that saw an increase and/or decline. StarCraft II definitely saw an increase between 2010 and 2012, where there were so many tournaments people started to get annoyed by them. Compared to that, we definitely have a decline.
it was never viable. it never rose. it always needed cash and continues to need it. they are bribing people with pizza to attend events to make it appear like a fun event. the title says "decline".
I mean I went to a GSL event without pizza and it seemed to do just fine, I'm not really sure the availability of pizza is an important topic of discussion.
the GSL was only viable due to money donated into the scene.
Blizzcon has a chance to be viable because BLizzard can raise the ticket price well above $100 and draw 26,000+ people. GSL never was viable.
The GSL was viable because of money.
The GSL was never viable.
Can you pick one already? I'm gonna go with viable since I have video evidence of it existing for 6 years.
the GSL was made viable by Blizzard donating money into GOMTV/GSL/Gretch/ETC.
The GSL does not stand on its own from ticket sales revenue, live event revenue and TV rights fees.
BlizzCon is an example of an event that at least stands a chance at viability because they have proven 26,000+ people will spend $100 to attend and some will buy $40 virtual tickets to see the event on video.
On November 28 2016 09:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the GSL was made viable by Blizzard donating money into GOMTV/GSL/Gretch/ETC.
The GSL does not stand on its own from ticket sales revenue, live event revenue and TV rights fees.
That is neither exclusive to the GSL nor does it mean the GSL is not viable. If GSL can make a profit with Blizzard's investment, and Blizzard sees the investment as worthwhile, the GSL is viable.
what it means is that SC2 esports never "fell". again.. back to the title of this thread. Blizzard is just pumping less donation money into the scene.
they could never sell tickets for it like they can and still do for BlizzCon. and with each passing BilzzCon ATVI invents new ways for 26,000+ customers to spend even more money.
I remember near the end of HOTS, I was hitting almost 2-2.5k viewers some streaming days.
LOTV suddenly it's a lot lower besides the inital spike at the start of LOTV.
Months later, i can tell i'm getting 1k-1.5k purely off of my personality and not because of the game itself anymore =/
So yeh, there's a lot of truth in Firecake's post, a lot of people have recognized similar things.
I mean...in terms of why the game has fallen off it's really obvious but no one wants to discuss it, no one wants to get blizzard to change it, and anyone that says what i'm about to say just gets told to shut up time and time again.
And what is this that no one wants to discuss?
YOU CANNOT HAVE 1 GAMEPLAY/BALANCE/DESIGN PATCH ONLY ONCE EVERY 1 YEAR.
There, i said it for the millionth time. What is the correlation? LoL, DotA, even Heroes, have CONSISTENT BALANCE/GAMEPLAY/DESIGN PATCHES to address gameplay issues.
Meanwhile, in SC2 upon release a lot of people quit the game because they did not enjoy playing against or watching people make literally 40+ adepts every single game. It took months...for blizzard to come out and acknowledge that was a problem. The fact they refused to even acknowledge it was an issue for so long tells the story of what's happened to SC2.
But the list goes on of unpatched core gameplay issues. Invincible nydus, warp prism, ultras for 1 year (game came out in Nov 2015 first and only huge gameplay patch has been Nov 2016 what. the. fuck).
We live in 2016. The industry has changed. Games have changed. Gamers have changed. I'm going to be blunt here - you cannot put out garbage gameplay, not address issues with that gameplay for months, and expect to keep, let alone grow a player base.
The #1 issue with SC2 has always been the GAMEPLAY. There are so many things myself or you guys could fix and address just by opening the map editor and changing a few values. But Blizzard has shown an unwillingness to even be able to do things this simple.
I mean hell, they literally banned me from their official b.net forums for pointing out mass reapers is an issue that should be immediately fixed - and then their own employee came out and basically told me to my face i was banned because of an accidental duplicate post. Right buddy.
Another example of how ridiculous Blizzard's design team has been, and the best on i can think of are adepts. This unit LITERALLY REPLACED ANOTHER ENTIRE UNIT IN THE GAME (the zealot).
How can a designer/balance team not patch since Nov 2015 and not recognize a very basic design flaw in their game that one unit is entirely replaced by another unit? I mean it does not take a Comp Sci degree, let alone a Diamond ranked SC2 account to recognize there's a gameplay design issue there.
Anyways, as i always post in any thread of this nature, as i have since around 2011-2012 -
The #1 thing that has kept SC2 from growing are the lack of gameplay/design/balance patches from the developers.
But as usual, i'm sure SC2 angry mob will continue to not accept the above fact and stay in the delusion that one patch a year is great for the game.
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.
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.
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.
Every friend I had that used to play SC2 has quit over the years. Most of them quit at LOTV.
They all had the same complaint: the game just isn't fun anymore. Too many gimmicks, too much harassment.
Alot of people say it's MOBAs killing the RTS genre or whatever. It's not. It's SC2 killing itself by making a game that only korean pros can play, only for said korean pros to stop playing it altogether.
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).
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.
ya, as a once a year thing in Toronto it was break-even-viable as well. if it were a real profit center like WWF wrestling in the late 1970s it could grow from almost nothing like the WWF did in those years. but, in reality, not enough profit was made at each event to increase the # of live events. Contrast this with something like the WWF where they kept adding more events each year and increasing ticket prices... and rights fees and building a giant merchandise business.
every "for profit" attempt to run competitive play like MLG and NASL went down because they were a block hole for money.
Honestly, I think with regard to getting more people playing, free to play multiplayer could have done more for this game than anything else Blizzard could have done.
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).
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.
On November 28 2016 12:39 ihatevideogames wrote: Every friend I had that used to play SC2 has quit over the years. Most of them quit at LOTV.
They all had the same complaint: the game just isn't fun anymore. Too many gimmicks, too much harassment.
Alot of people say it's MOBAs killing the RTS genre or whatever. It's not. It's SC2 killing itself by making a game that only korean pros can play, only for said korean pros to stop playing it altogether.
So much of this.
I didn't buy LOTV too.
It used to be that thinking and original use of units would yield great value (Slayer's blue flame, or MVP's fantastic GSL runs!).
Now the game turned entirely into a mechanical clickfest up to masters and higher. Each single unit is a DoTA hero, while you have to keep the macro flowing behind. They steadily raised the mechanical bar (that you need to cross to get to the fun part) to a point where they ruled out most people... They completely reversed the design goals of BW and WOL (a few units with no spells) into LOTV spellfest...
+ god damn many-years-old map
+ fundamentally broken economy partially due to too many workers and the saturation curve
etc.
but yeah fundamentally, they made the game unplayable for too many people... the game has other problems, but i would ignore them and still play the game if not for that.
On November 28 2016 12:39 ihatevideogames wrote: Every friend I had that used to play SC2 has quit over the years. Most of them quit at LOTV.
They all had the same complaint: the game just isn't fun anymore. Too many gimmicks, too much harassment.
Alot of people say it's MOBAs killing the RTS genre or whatever. It's not. It's SC2 killing itself by making a game that only korean pros can play, only for said korean pros to stop playing it altogether.
So much of this.
I didn't buy LOTV too.
It used to be that thinking and original use of units would yield great value (Slayer's blue flame, or MVP's fantastic GSL runs!).
Now the game turned entirely into a mechanical clickfest up to masters and higher. Each single unit is a DoTA hero, while you have to keep the macro flowing behind. They steadily raised the mechanical bar (that you need to cross to get to the fun part) to a point where they ruled out most people... They completely reversed the design goals of BW and WOL (a few units with no spells) into LOTV spellfest...
+ god damn many-years-old map
+ fundamentally broken economy partially due to too many workers and the saturation curve
etc.
but yeah fundamentally, they made the game unplayable for too many people... the game has other problems, but i would ignore them and still play the game if not for that.
I didn't buy LOTV too.
why do people make those claims when they don't even have the game?
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).
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.
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.
I don't think you've been paying attention. They made that conclusions years ago.
On November 28 2016 17:41 FireCake wrote: 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).
I think SC2 is exactly missing the interactive dialogue between players ("You took that, so I'll try to take this") in many cases. However, I feel even baneling is pretty dull in some ways, especially in the micromanagement section.
If we look at BW M&M interaction against something like lurker, there's a very clear difference. The zerg player makes a lot of tactical decisions on how he plays the lurkers. There's a lot of possibilities in what kind of position you burrow them and how you get them there (simply having them burrowed there, deploying them alongside a ling attack and so on...). Once the terran sees the lurkers, there's a nice set of possibilities of counterplay from falling back, trying to snipe the lurkers, splitting marines to going for a runby and all that. In case of a run-by for example, the zerg player probably gets some free hits but then has to figure out how to handle the run-by, possibly meaning more repositioning with lurkers and more decisions with the marines. It's a very reactive situation for both the players and there are a lot of potential trades happening where both players gain and lose something.
Meanwhile with banelings you pretty much have to split back with your marines. It's a very mechanical thing you just need to do as efficiently as you can. Certainly there's some finesse to it, but it's still a pretty straightforward interaction most of the time.
Also, in terms of accessibility the marine split is pretty hard. For an experienced player it's routine, but for a new or less active player it's a thing that'll lose you games over and over again. Meanwhile being proficient at it doesn't allow you to do that much cool and creative stuff other than just getting more out of the fight in a predetermined way.
I gave up on actively following SC2 somewhere early HotS though, so I'm not sure if there's some game changing in LotV gameplay. Most of the peeks I've taken at recent games seemed to have improved from many previous versions, but the core issues still seemed to be there most of the 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.
I don't think you've been paying attention. They made that conclusions years ago.
Most did definitely, but I'd like to think somebody at some point is going to give it a try. Especially now that SC2 isn't stealing all the attention.
I highly doubt there's going to be any triple A pokes at it anytime soon, but maybe some smaller studio will get adventurous and succeed in a sufficient way.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
^ this
The reverse is even worse imo. Having to deal with really bad design that doesn't work itself out, refusing to patch, got us into some terrible times in WoL.
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?
What Firecake is right about: The Useless information on "old Patch" Guides and BOs. With Buildorders, the only relevant informations are on the latest patch. And we need people who have ever written a BO guide or made a video, to simply delete Old Content so it does not pop out as top googly search result.
I guess this should be a TL top News. Delete old stuff please.
I did not read all 7 pages. But i think one additional huge problem is, that sc2 was not lucky enough to have a balanced 2v2 or even 3v3, or better said that these modes are not fun enough. wc3 was also balanced around 1v1 but luckily 2v2 turned out to be fun and "balanced" too. In sc1 there was 3v3 BGH which we played as kids and it was fun as hell. there were even leagues for that with.
Dont get me wrong, i love 1v1, master each season, but some more teamplay would have helped keeping players at the game. They somehow tried with archon mode but it failed horribly because it is boring as hell for the macro played. Archon mode could work, if balanced separately or something like this.
On November 28 2016 19:40 KT_Elwood wrote: What Firecake is right about: The Useless information on "old Patch" Guides and BOs. With Buildorders, the only relevant informations are on the latest patch. And we need people who have ever written a BO guide or made a video, to simply delete Old Content so it does not pop out as top googly search result.
I guess this should be a TL top News. Delete old stuff please.
Thing also is that some people with good intentions (ones that community needs) are willing to invest the time for making a 40-minute video guide or 10+ pages write-up about something that's going to be soon obsolete anyway.
Too big length and unnecessarily deep writing is enough to drive some people away from a piece, remember the TL ultimate PvT guide or something? I think it was WoL related, so many resources put into a thing that was going to last a month or so.
EDIT: excuse me, it was a PvZ guide, found it: http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/monk/PvZ_guide/pvz_theguide.pdf 100 pages! Who read all of that? It's good for practice as a writer, but doesn't work for a player that wants to know more unless SC2 is the only thing he does in life
What also killed the game for me was the lack of good easily acessible custom games and smurfs. Warcraft 3 allowed more fun between serious games. A frustrating loss? It was so easy to just go search some random and good custom games. Wanted to learn a new race? Create a smurf in under a minute. Wanted to make a big tryhard session against some better opponents? Tournament. The game was also way better for casual team games. Even finding a casual clan with some offcicial matches here and there was easy.
Something to keep in mind about SC2 is that it really is the last of a certain era of gaming. There's nothing that could truly predict this would happen, so that's not Blizzard's fault. With LoL, Dota2 and CS going mainstream, it simply meant we were fully into the F2P model for "major" games. (Granted, there will always be the Console Model games and the occasional Overwatch, but pretty much only Blizzard has the cachet to pull that off right now.)
So much of the analysis of SC2 really needs to keep this in mind, as the entire ecosystem of gaming changed less than a year after launch. But that doesn't absolve Blizzard of their two fairly catastrophic mistakes: Battlenet 2.0 and the SC2 Economy.
Bnet 2.0 has been rehashed for 6 years, so that isn't new but it crippled the social-interaction reach of SC2, but I really think it was the design aspects of the Economy within the game that was so punishing. During the LOTV beta, when they were testing the modified economy, the RedBull Battlegrounds happened. And that tournament was amazing. Terrible balance, it should be noted, but that Archon Mode tournament was a joy to watch. Games weren't actually decided in the first 30 seconds, like 80% of all professional matches. We got a glimpse of what SC2 could be, and I really miss that we didn't get that opportunity.
The world, however, will keep moving on. We may get another RTS in the future, but the model will be different. The rise of SC:BW happened with most people played with their friends locally, rather than nameless handles internationally. That matters quite a bit for people to keep playing. It also matters that something like 75% of people that buy Hats/Skins/Cosmetics actually gift them to other people, which is where the social aspect of F2P games is centered around.
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.
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 think many issues with the arcade come from the fact that there is not much quality content in it, due to how much effort it takes to do something of quality in the editor. There are tons of cringy stuff. BW and WC3 map editors were about putting blocks mostly, compared to the editor we got with SC2.
It's sometimes funny to me how people state that the competitive side of the game is that much dependent on the other side of the game that has literally nothing to do with it. I was never able to connect ums players to pro scene followers in terms of gameplay, I think they were being drawn there plainly because of the show that was put and that trend shows today with SC2. Many interesting players and recently Korean tournaments liked by people are gone, and with them gone there is loss in game's popularity.
I wonder if similar situation could happen to other games if half of their top competitive scene just left.
Simply Sc2 is just not a great game and RTS is not exactly shining right now. I used to really like Sc2, but my reasons (and I am sure many others have similar thoughts) why it's not a great game:
1) The campaign having a cheesey vibe compared to the more edgy Sc1&BW campaigns. WoL was also the only actual good campaign imo.
2) UMS never seemed like a fun place to be for too long. I would rather load up other RTS games between 2010-2012 like BW, Wc3 or even Red Alert 3 to play the custom maps in those games over Sc2's arcade.
3) "Terrible terrible damage" just isn't fun for ladder players and I dare say even high level players most of the time.
4) A little bit more minor, but I have to say the design of Protoss. A real fun killing race that has been to play against over the years, and I do not mean that as a balance complaint point of view, but simply enjoyment factor whilst laddering.
5) The nail in the coffin: LotV. "Make it faster" they said. How about making the game better? Because of "boring early game" everyone wants to be thrusted straight into the mid game was declared the reason why Sc2 wasn't leading the way. Let's forget that the first few minutes of LoL solo que matches hardly anything happens, and that game is doing quite well.
For me the Addons are the killers. Every Addon lead to a decline of the game in interested people. And when everyone called LOTV the best iteration of SC 2, I wonder why Pros like Heromarine say they dislike LOTV and rather played HOTS and even mor WOL.
The first nail for me is that WOL had only a Terran Campaign. In RTS you learn the basics of the game by playing an amazing campaign, Warcraft III had this, SC had this. In WOL you only learned terran (and that was a terran way out of proportion to the multiplayer terran) and a little bit of protoss. Same for HOTS with Zerg and LotV with Protoss. You singleplayer experience was either not there or you could not transfer it to the multiplayer part. Then the new need of forcing new units into the game with every addon turned into a fuckfest. Oracle, Tempest, SH and Widow Mine have been bad designed units in HotS, that tuned up the worker harrasment heavily or forced up frustraiting to play against playstyles. Take Ling-Bane-Muta against MMM(M), the most played style and still one of the best to play. It is not frustrating for both sides, as both sides have almost equal conditions, they can harass with runbys/drops, their main fights are mechanical demanding for both sides, they can defend runbys/drops thanks to fast lings or fast stimmed bio without having larger forces in their bases, if they react quick enough. The style is constant action over a time without feeling frustraiting, because you see where you do mistakes (not splitting, not target firing banes) and you see where you done good. Then look at SH plays or Tempest plays or a proxy Oracle, a Widowmine drop. Playing against the first 2 means you play against a wall out of your range that chips away parts of your base/army every so slightly every few secs and playing against the last to means that you get terrible terrible damage in the early game you cant comeback from a single unit that went into your mineral line early. This did not became better, Adept, Liberator and Lurker are terrible frustrating to play against once again, Adepts killing your workers in the dozens and you can only see how your marauders do no damage (while your marines get shred), same goes for the Zerg. Liberator force your to either play boring as stale positions in the lategame where you have to chip away small bits with the viper, while terran just replaces these bits and fuck your mining in a frustrating way. Especially when the maps have not been used to it and you couldnt place your spore or even your queens had hard times to reach em. And Lurkers are just again another wall you run into and see your stuff poop.
For me the games became worse with each now addon, not better. The need of Blizzard to force 2 new units each into game turned the game into a much more complicated, much more volatile, much harder to balance state, where more and more frustrating playstyles have been introduced. This put down the interest in SC II with each addon release, not increased it.
Then Arcade: Has been a total mess long time. In Wc3, the Arcade was a major point to even get into the game (once a time after release) and it was beatiful and deverse. From the TDs to the Dotas over real RPGs and to total crazy stuff like hardly working FPS. You name it, you played it. Yeah, it is harder to find a map in WC3 Arcade, as you either had to be lucky to find them open hosted or you had to download them at hiveworkshop, but once you hosted it, people joined and you played and it almost spread itself. The editor was on the one hand beautiful easy to use and on the other hand so powerfull that you could do almost anything there (which then started to be harder then just changing and creating units). The SC II editor never got to this point, mapmakers go way more frustrated using it then using it in WC3. And the Arcade mode itself was a mess, because only popular games got a high rank during that times and not often played games never found anyone to play with. You still can name your lobbies, which is a still a shame. You also cant controll when your lobby starts in arcade, it starts right after the last dude joined. Not to talk about all the downthings of Bnet 2.0 at the beginning.
Another big issue was the trend to give your players something to play for in multiplayer games. Lol, Dota, CS:GO, all these games give their players something after a win (or even a loss) and they see some progression/reward after games they play. CS:GO was almost a dead/failed game till valve found out, that a large number of ranks (from which you can downrank!!!!) and cosmetic items dropped at the end of the game help the players to motivate. Look where the game is now since the intervention of skins and ranks? Yes RTS have never been the pinnicle of esport (outside of korea, where blizzards failure is even bigger) but this heavy decline shouldnt be there, if Blizzard would be able to read out the trends of the industry and patch them in like Valve did with CS:GO. So you sit there, girnd your gears in the multiplayer and get nothing but MMR points (you couldnt know about some time ago). It is equally frustrating to grind your gears in CS:GO, it can even be more frustrating, when you once again play with a full stack of foreign language speakers and retards againt a hacker (and hackers are much more frequently as they have ever been in SC II there... and now Hackers are close to be gone in SC II) but at least you gained something for it. You saw your rank in one of 18 skill ranks and gained some cent wise skins (or if you are lucky, some $ skins). In SC II you are left with a victory/defeat screen and the option to play it another game.
Yes, I know that Blizzard braught alot people wanted to the game, like better ranks with Master 1-3 and so on, with micro transactions, soon with WCS Battlechests financing WCS like Valve finances his tournaments with stickers/compendiums. BUT IT IS TOO LATE. The trend for these thing started in 2012-2013, now we get major things in 2016, centuries in computer ages later. WCS Battlechests, something like CS:GO Operations, just come out in 2017, a time where it is over.
Yes, The game is not dead. Alot of people have fun playing coop, playing some ladder games here and there, playing the campaign once in a while or play some arcade maps. But in the esport branche of SC II, something this website majorly covers, And the esport is dying off in so rapid fashin, that it is frustrating. It is not dead yet, but with the lose of practically all professional korean teams, with the loss of last (and only) teamleague for these teams, with the loss of more and more western tournaments (MLG, RB, HSC gone, less and less DH couvering SC II, WCS leagues gones, WCS championchips are only old tournaments we had long time like IEM Katowice changed to WCS brand), with the loss of regional tournaments like EPS, we are in a rapid decline in every region, on every scale. Yes, there are personans and sponsors who still go for SC II, because they have PASSION and love the game, but its an economical situation, where money making gets harder and harder each day or is even impossible. And only from passion a scene cannot live, it will not die aslong there is passion, but it will be in a sad position. Not only compared to major esport titles, but also compared to its former self.
Me for myself, I switched back to Warcraft III as my major Esport title. With the end of ProLeague, the possible end of SSL and the less and less tournaments in the west (11 WCS circuit events are a joke the once we had over 20-25 premiere and major tournaments in a year) gave me time and WC III is gets injected with live again. Yes, it is also mostly passion driven, yes, it is once again frustrating to deal with Blizzard, but it is like BW: It is the game we always loved more then SC II and only switched over because it was new and big, not because it was better. Now BW and WC III have their 2nd phase of prosperation, they are still smaller then SC II, but they are the games we played, when we were children, the games we waked up early or stayed up late even our parents forbid it. Now these games are back on bigger scales back and the replacement is going down.
On November 28 2016 20:43 DanteStyle55 wrote: if only everyone realized what a masterpiece broodwar was and played that. someone fund 1m$ tourneys in broodwar pls T_T
I wouldn't want to play BW anymore, and when someone who grew up around RTS games in the 90's is saying that, then I think getting the kids into it is going to be super tricky. Simply dated from a technical point of view and in this day and age I would prefer a smoother expeirence for a multiplayer game, but I do hope for an RTS game that has as big an impact in the future.
I just think the Sc2 scene should chill. Seriously doubt things are going to improve from here on, but the game has had a decent following over the years (although not as big as it could have been) and I personally have a lot of good memories of Sc2. Sure lots of other people have also. Doesn't need to be be one of the biggest games out there, and for those looking for a return of 2011 levels of popularity, I feel those guys are setting themselves up for a fall.
The game requires too much attention at all times. In TvZ if terran looks away at a wrong time, his entire army gets decimated by banelings in 3 seconds. On the other hand, if zerg makes that type of mistake, his entire army gets decimated by mines and tanks. The same goes for harasment. You don't react to baneling drop fast enough, your economy is gone. You let 4 helions or 4 adepts to your mineral line, the damage will be critical. It is very frustrating to lose a game like that and these type of loses happen regularly, even to top players. Being frustrated from losing deters people from playing the game and ultimately from watching the game. The rest is pure math.
On November 28 2016 20:43 DanteStyle55 wrote: if only everyone realized what a masterpiece broodwar was and played that. someone fund 1m$ tourneys in broodwar pls T_T
The problem is that Broodwar, as beautiful a game as it is, is way too hard and clunky to get into right now. Whenever I felt like playing BW again, after 2 years of playing SC2, the only thing I could think about was "no hotkey remapping?". And I don't consider myself a "casual". I'm not even talking about the gameplay itself, just basic UI QoL. Like come on, a video game nowadays needs those basic features to garner a wide audience. I don't see BW getting that back, at least in the West. Now, where is that BW HD at, Blizzard?
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.
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.
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.
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???
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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???
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".
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???
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.
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
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.
- 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.
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.
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???
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.
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???
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.
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.
after almost 7 years of sc2 in total, i personally think it happened to less new stuff in multiplayer to keep people around... from WoL the player base was still pretty big, and everyone was wondering what new things await us after that glorious WoL Times... HotS came out and multiplayer wise people were dissapointed... to less new stuff and the things that were new been kinda dumb... New Units were (correct me if im wrong) T: Widow Mine, Hellbat, Z: Swarm Host, Viper, P:MSC, Tempest, Oracle People hated: Swarm Host, MSC (nexus overcharge) People disliked: widow mines, Tempest, Oracle
except from those new units and a few balance changes + some horrible new maps there was kinda nothing new in hots. and from thos few new units people didnt like over 50% of em... That was the part were all the players started to leave. And by the end of hots the player base was already to small... even if lotv would have been the perfect sc2 game, blizz lost the people when they moved from wol to hots... thats just my oppinion, maybe some of ya´ll relate to it
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.
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.
On November 29 2016 00:11 KOtical wrote: after almost 7 years of sc2 in total, i personally think it happened to less new stuff in multiplayer to keep people around... from WoL the player base was still pretty big, and everyone was wondering what new things await us after that glorious WoL Times... HotS came out and multiplayer wise people were dissapointed... to less new stuff and the things that were new been kinda dumb... New Units were (correct me if im wrong) T: Widow Mine, Hellbat, Z: Swarm Host, Viper, P:MSC, Tempest, Oracle People hated: Swarm Host, MSC (nexus overcharge) People disliked: widow mines, Tempest, Oracle
except from those new units and a few balance changes + some horrible new maps there was kinda nothing new in hots. and from thos few new units people didnt like over 50% of em... That was the part were all the players started to leave. And by the end of hots the player base was already to small... even if lotv would have been the perfect sc2 game, blizz lost the people when they moved from wol to hots... thats just my oppinion, maybe some of ya´ll relate to it
My opinion is that at least part of the people who left left because of real-life issues, got older and such. Not any majority, but a good number. Also for a significant amount of time the game very much depended on personalities/players, who left to do other stuff too.
It's not the game being poorly designed in some areas that was the reason of the decline. People got older, many transitioned from BW/WC3 + other competitive and socially engaging games came up. It's going to be hard for SC2 to capture the attention of younger generation, since the only social interaction you have in game is stress caused by trying your best to not get backstabbed/taken by surprise by the opponent. It's mostly about influx of new people right now.It's not impossible though.
Aside from that, there were many things done poorly, for example multiplayer exclusivity for each expansion - it's still surprising for me to see people asking about which game they should buy to play multiplayer. I understand the decision of making the game separate for single player with each focusing on different race, but it has been done really poorly. I'd make it a single ladder with access from any expansion you get. I don't see any reason to keep WoL/HotS/LotV separate. At all.
On November 28 2016 21:39 papaz wrote: SC2 is despite all efforts from Blizzard still too much real time mechanics and too little strategy for the average joe.
When do people actually do any kind of decision making or follow a game plan?
I'm an average joe that is playing around gold level and although I am enjoying the game I rarely do anything at all but to focus on not getting supply block and trying to spend my money.
I can't remember that I have ever made any decision making. If I win it's either because I have out macroed my opponent or I won as a result of BO win.
TLDR: SC2 is not strategy for most gamers, it's mechanics only hence it's not fun.
That man got it right.
In BW you had lots of real strategical options, like claiming key positions fast (cliffs, islands, ramps) and you used early pressure mainly to scout, deny scouting and expanding. You could do some tech-rushes for early harassment, but you really sacrificed and risked a lot when doing so in a way you could expect critical damage to your opponent.
Also the whole damage concept of actually reducing damage output vs. some kind of units (Concussion vs. Large, Explosive vs. Small) is WAY better than the "Bonus Damage" concept of SC2. Why that? Because in SC2 your whole Army dies in a few seconds of not babysitting it because you have insane amounts of bonusdamage and splash on the field. Every friggin' Unit has some spell or special ability in SC2 and at the same time you have a lot more eco to manage (injects, calldowns, chronoboost) if you want to compete in macro. Now the bases run dry even faster, so you need to expand even more. The average player will always lack one way, while desperately trying to avoid supplyblocks, overmins and falling for harassment. Its simply over the top what you "can do" in SC2 so many many players get a frustrating feeling of not having time for actually stratical gameplay because you have to microbabysitting so much crap. That is why "Build orders" are simply the way to go in SC2. Mechanical repeating of the same and same and same stuff as flawless as possible gets you the best results.
What I really miss in SC2 is value of strategy. The BW defenders advantage (Units shooting up a cliff/ramp miss 60% of their shots if I remember correctly) and the mapdesign which included narrow passages, islands and cliffs next to expansions allowed to fight even opponents which focused a lot more on macro while you focused on some strategic tech. Both could win, both could fail. In SC2 one of the hints when starting a game is so true (and boring): The bigger army almost always wins. Sad for a strategy game.
On November 28 2016 21:39 papaz wrote: SC2 is despite all efforts from Blizzard still too much real time mechanics and too little strategy for the average joe.
When do people actually do any kind of decision making or follow a game plan?
I'm an average joe that is playing around gold level and although I am enjoying the game I rarely do anything at all but to focus on not getting supply block and trying to spend my money.
I can't remember that I have ever made any decision making. If I win it's either because I have out macroed my opponent or I won as a result of BO win.
TLDR: SC2 is not strategy for most gamers, it's mechanics only hence it's not fun.
That man got it right.
In BW you had lots of real strategical options, like claiming key positions fast (cliffs, islands, ramps) and you used early pressure mainly to scout, deny scouting and expanding. You could do some tech-rushes for early harassment, but you really sacrificed and risked a lot when doing so in a way you could expect critical damage to your opponent.
Also the whole damage concept of actually reducing damage output vs. some kind of units (Concussion vs. Large, Explosive vs. Small) is WAY better than the "Bonus Damage" concept of SC2. Why that? Because in SC2 your whole Army dies in a few seconds of not babysitting it because you have insane amounts of bonusdamage and splash on the field. Every friggin' Unit has some spell or special ability in SC2 and at the same time you have a lot more eco to manage (injects, calldowns, chronoboost) if you want to compete in macro. Now the bases run dry even faster, so you need to expand even more. The average player will always lack one way, while desperately trying to avoid supplyblocks, overmins and falling for harassment. Its simply over the top what you "can do" in SC2 so many many players get a frustrating feeling of not having time for actually stratical gameplay because you have to microbabysitting so much crap. That is why "Build orders" are simply the way to go in SC2. Mechanical repeating of the same and same and same stuff as flawless as possible gets you the best results.
What I really miss in SC2 is value of strategy. The BW defenders advantage (Units shooting up a cliff/ramp miss 60% of their shots if I remember correctly) and the mapdesign which included narrow passages, islands and cliffs next to expansions allowed to fight even opponents which focused a lot more on macro while you focused on some strategic tech. Both could win, both could fail. In SC2 one of the hints when starting a game is so true (and boring): The bigger army almost always wins. Sad for a strategy game.
What he's describing could easily apply to Brood war. Low level players who let scvs idle and get supply blocked constantly are going to get destroyed by someone who just out macros them. I don't think his criticism has standing.
On November 28 2016 21:39 papaz wrote: SC2 is despite all efforts from Blizzard still too much real time mechanics and too little strategy for the average joe.
When do people actually do any kind of decision making or follow a game plan?
I'm an average joe that is playing around gold level and although I am enjoying the game I rarely do anything at all but to focus on not getting supply block and trying to spend my money.
I can't remember that I have ever made any decision making. If I win it's either because I have out macroed my opponent or I won as a result of BO win.
TLDR: SC2 is not strategy for most gamers, it's mechanics only hence it's not fun.
That man got it right.
In BW you had lots of real strategical options, like claiming key positions fast (cliffs, islands, ramps) and you used early pressure mainly to scout, deny scouting and expanding. You could do some tech-rushes for early harassment, but you really sacrificed and risked a lot when doing so in a way you could expect critical damage to your opponent.
Also the whole damage concept of actually reducing damage output vs. some kind of units (Concussion vs. Large, Explosive vs. Small) is WAY better than the "Bonus Damage" concept of SC2. Why that? Because in SC2 your whole Army dies in a few seconds of not babysitting it because you have insane amounts of bonusdamage and splash on the field. Every friggin' Unit has some spell or special ability in SC2 and at the same time you have a lot more eco to manage (injects, calldowns, chronoboost) if you want to compete in macro. Now the bases run dry even faster, so you need to expand even more. The average player will always lack one way, while desperately trying to avoid supplyblocks, overmins and falling for harassment. Its simply over the top what you "can do" in SC2 so many many players get a frustrating feeling of not having time for actually stratical gameplay because you have to microbabysitting so much crap. That is why "Build orders" are simply the way to go in SC2. Mechanical repeating of the same and same and same stuff as flawless as possible gets you the best results.
What I really miss in SC2 is value of strategy. The BW defenders advantage (Units shooting up a cliff/ramp miss 60% of their shots if I remember correctly) and the mapdesign which included narrow passages, islands and cliffs next to expansions allowed to fight even opponents which focused a lot more on macro while you focused on some strategic tech. Both could win, both could fail. In SC2 one of the hints when starting a game is so true (and boring): The bigger army almost always wins. Sad for a strategy game.
What he's describing could easily apply to Brood war. Low level players who let scvs idle and get supply blocked constantly are going to get destroyed by someone who just out macros them. I don't think his criticism has standing.
I think they went a little overboard with the BW praise, but the thing that BW punished you far less for idle units and miscontrol is true. Spider mine splash was not nearly potentially devastating as Widow Mine hit. Single Scarab hit was not potentially gamechanging as it is with Purification Nova combined with natural unit clumping, which is hard to avoid for lower level players. SC2 is super clean in everything and requires more accuracy plus similar attention span that Brood War required, if not bigger.
I don't think a modern RTS where you could literally have units sitting around not having too big influence on the overall game would be feasible though. Just thinking, maybe it could.
This is ridiculous! There is still a lot more tournaments and money flowing into SC2 than there was at the hight of BW. People either are too young or dont remmeber the BW times. Back then You had two options: watch Korea play (sometimes!) at some crazy time or dont watch sc at all. There was one-two tournament with some money per year for foreigners. Other than that You could play nation war (for Glory - not for money). Now look at right side of the screen! Metric shitton of tournaments (WITH MONEY PRIZES) everyday! If that is dead game BW was never alive.
Go to LoL section and see how much tournaments there is? I will answer You : not much! In Lol we get cross-region play (when Korea/China play Europe/North America) maybe 2-3 times a year. You really want that?
I will laugh at anyone saying dead game - i remmber when i had to wait whole year for WCG...
On November 28 2016 21:39 papaz wrote: SC2 is despite all efforts from Blizzard still too much real time mechanics and too little strategy for the average joe.
When do people actually do any kind of decision making or follow a game plan?
I'm an average joe that is playing around gold level and although I am enjoying the game I rarely do anything at all but to focus on not getting supply block and trying to spend my money.
I can't remember that I have ever made any decision making. If I win it's either because I have out macroed my opponent or I won as a result of BO win.
TLDR: SC2 is not strategy for most gamers, it's mechanics only hence it's not fun.
That man got it right.
In BW you had lots of real strategical options, like claiming key positions fast (cliffs, islands, ramps) and you used early pressure mainly to scout, deny scouting and expanding. You could do some tech-rushes for early harassment, but you really sacrificed and risked a lot when doing so in a way you could expect critical damage to your opponent.
Also the whole damage concept of actually reducing damage output vs. some kind of units (Concussion vs. Large, Explosive vs. Small) is WAY better than the "Bonus Damage" concept of SC2. Why that? Because in SC2 your whole Army dies in a few seconds of not babysitting it because you have insane amounts of bonusdamage and splash on the field. Every friggin' Unit has some spell or special ability in SC2 and at the same time you have a lot more eco to manage (injects, calldowns, chronoboost) if you want to compete in macro. Now the bases run dry even faster, so you need to expand even more. The average player will always lack one way, while desperately trying to avoid supplyblocks, overmins and falling for harassment. Its simply over the top what you "can do" in SC2 so many many players get a frustrating feeling of not having time for actually stratical gameplay because you have to microbabysitting so much crap. That is why "Build orders" are simply the way to go in SC2. Mechanical repeating of the same and same and same stuff as flawless as possible gets you the best results.
What I really miss in SC2 is value of strategy. The BW defenders advantage (Units shooting up a cliff/ramp miss 60% of their shots if I remember correctly) and the mapdesign which included narrow passages, islands and cliffs next to expansions allowed to fight even opponents which focused a lot more on macro while you focused on some strategic tech. Both could win, both could fail. In SC2 one of the hints when starting a game is so true (and boring): The bigger army almost always wins. Sad for a strategy game.
What he's describing could easily apply to Brood war. Low level players who let scvs idle and get supply blocked constantly are going to get destroyed by someone who just out macros them. I don't think his criticism has standing.
nobody talks about "low level" players that can't handle the basics. Its also not about "winning". SC2 punishes mistakes (aka not constantly babysitting or one/two misclicks) a lot harder which is very frustrating. And one of the reasons is, that there is too much splash and bonusdamage on the field and too few damage-reduction factors. The other one is, that every single unit has some special ability that you must use to really perform well, which even more favors the "faster" players which are ahead in eco and micro anyway. So it really comes down to: execute BOs flawlessly and be as close to a mechanical clickrobot as you can. Thats not fun. Not even to watch.
On November 28 2016 21:39 papaz wrote: SC2 is despite all efforts from Blizzard still too much real time mechanics and too little strategy for the average joe.
When do people actually do any kind of decision making or follow a game plan?
I'm an average joe that is playing around gold level and although I am enjoying the game I rarely do anything at all but to focus on not getting supply block and trying to spend my money.
I can't remember that I have ever made any decision making. If I win it's either because I have out macroed my opponent or I won as a result of BO win.
TLDR: SC2 is not strategy for most gamers, it's mechanics only hence it's not fun.
That man got it right.
In BW you had lots of real strategical options, like claiming key positions fast (cliffs, islands, ramps) and you used early pressure mainly to scout, deny scouting and expanding. You could do some tech-rushes for early harassment, but you really sacrificed and risked a lot when doing so in a way you could expect critical damage to your opponent.
Also the whole damage concept of actually reducing damage output vs. some kind of units (Concussion vs. Large, Explosive vs. Small) is WAY better than the "Bonus Damage" concept of SC2. Why that? Because in SC2 your whole Army dies in a few seconds of not babysitting it because you have insane amounts of bonusdamage and splash on the field. Every friggin' Unit has some spell or special ability in SC2 and at the same time you have a lot more eco to manage (injects, calldowns, chronoboost) if you want to compete in macro. Now the bases run dry even faster, so you need to expand even more. The average player will always lack one way, while desperately trying to avoid supplyblocks, overmins and falling for harassment. Its simply over the top what you "can do" in SC2 so many many players get a frustrating feeling of not having time for actually stratical gameplay because you have to microbabysitting so much crap. That is why "Build orders" are simply the way to go in SC2. Mechanical repeating of the same and same and same stuff as flawless as possible gets you the best results.
What I really miss in SC2 is value of strategy. The BW defenders advantage (Units shooting up a cliff/ramp miss 60% of their shots if I remember correctly) and the mapdesign which included narrow passages, islands and cliffs next to expansions allowed to fight even opponents which focused a lot more on macro while you focused on some strategic tech. Both could win, both could fail. In SC2 one of the hints when starting a game is so true (and boring): The bigger army almost always wins. Sad for a strategy game.
What he's describing could easily apply to Brood war. Low level players who let scvs idle and get supply blocked constantly are going to get destroyed by someone who just out macros them. I don't think his criticism has standing.
I think they went a little overboard with the BW praise, but the thing that BW punished you far less for idle units and miscontrol is true. Spider mine splash was not nearly potentially devastating as Widow Mine hit. Single Scarab hit was not potentially gamechanging as it is with Purification Nova combined with natural unit clumping, which is hard to avoid for lower level players. SC2 is super clean in everything and requires more accuracy plus similar attention span that Brood War required, if not bigger.
I think BW also provided more options to play actual map control and stall. Units like lurkers, spider mines and such were pretty viable for stalling and wearing down the opponent as they pushed. You could also for example engage and fall back once the siegetanks started the siege mode. SC2 is full of stuff like conc shells, blink and fungal growth that often force you to commit to big engagements all at once.
Obviously it's still mechanically demanding stuff, but it's much more varied than just maxing out the unit producting and perfecting the build order.
On November 28 2016 23:21 Fatam wrote: As someone who likes Starcraft a lot, I do sometimes hate it when you can basically make the worst possible decision out of the ones available to you, but still win because of superior mechanics.
All sports are like this though. Let's say you have pro sports team playing some amateur team (football, baseball, hockey, whatever). The amateur team tries to use an excellent positional system, lots of strategy, make the plays with the best statistical odds, etc. And then the pro team is just doing whatever, no real strategy. And they win because they are far superior mechanically. They can run faster, throw farther, pitch better, hit more home runs, shoot better, etc.
This is an extreme example, but I just want to point out that mechanics deciding games over strategy is possible in everything, not just Starcraft.
On November 28 2016 21:39 papaz wrote: SC2 is despite all efforts from Blizzard still too much real time mechanics and too little strategy for the average joe.
When do people actually do any kind of decision making or follow a game plan?
I'm an average joe that is playing around gold level and although I am enjoying the game I rarely do anything at all but to focus on not getting supply block and trying to spend my money.
I can't remember that I have ever made any decision making. If I win it's either because I have out macroed my opponent or I won as a result of BO win.
TLDR: SC2 is not strategy for most gamers, it's mechanics only hence it's not fun.
That man got it right.
In BW you had lots of real strategical options, like claiming key positions fast (cliffs, islands, ramps) and you used early pressure mainly to scout, deny scouting and expanding. You could do some tech-rushes for early harassment, but you really sacrificed and risked a lot when doing so in a way you could expect critical damage to your opponent.
Also the whole damage concept of actually reducing damage output vs. some kind of units (Concussion vs. Large, Explosive vs. Small) is WAY better than the "Bonus Damage" concept of SC2. Why that? Because in SC2 your whole Army dies in a few seconds of not babysitting it because you have insane amounts of bonusdamage and splash on the field. Every friggin' Unit has some spell or special ability in SC2 and at the same time you have a lot more eco to manage (injects, calldowns, chronoboost) if you want to compete in macro. Now the bases run dry even faster, so you need to expand even more. The average player will always lack one way, while desperately trying to avoid supplyblocks, overmins and falling for harassment. Its simply over the top what you "can do" in SC2 so many many players get a frustrating feeling of not having time for actually stratical gameplay because you have to microbabysitting so much crap. That is why "Build orders" are simply the way to go in SC2. Mechanical repeating of the same and same and same stuff as flawless as possible gets you the best results.
What I really miss in SC2 is value of strategy. The BW defenders advantage (Units shooting up a cliff/ramp miss 60% of their shots if I remember correctly) and the mapdesign which included narrow passages, islands and cliffs next to expansions allowed to fight even opponents which focused a lot more on macro while you focused on some strategic tech. Both could win, both could fail. In SC2 one of the hints when starting a game is so true (and boring): The bigger army almost always wins. Sad for a strategy game.
What he's describing could easily apply to Brood war. Low level players who let scvs idle and get supply blocked constantly are going to get destroyed by someone who just out macros them. I don't think his criticism has standing.
nobody talks about "low level" players that can't handle the basics. Its also not about "winning". SC2 punishes mistakes (aka not constantly babysitting or one/two misclicks) a lot harder which is very frustrating. And one of the reasons is, that there is too much splash and bonusdamage on the field and too few damage-reduction factors. The other one is, that every single unit has some special ability that you must use to really perform well, which even more favors the "faster" players which are ahead in eco and micro anyway. So it really comes down to: execute BOs flawlessly and be as close to a mechanical clickrobot as you can. Thats not fun. Not even to watch.
The original post was. It was criticizing of a lack of strategy in low-level games because of macro. That's what I was addressing.
The OP is decent but these comments lol. So many shit tier opinions it's hard to know where to start.
- don't blame UMS. It's 2016 and there are F2P games everywhere and full AAA games for 2 bucks on steam. The arcade doesn't matter
- patches every month has it's positives but you'll never have a savior, bisu or jaedong meta changing moment shifting the patches every month.
- melee at it's most alive is not as alive as starcraft in its graveyard. I have to give its community credit though for having such a great and positive scene playing through dolphin and LAN while SC2 players are constantly shitting themselves for not being the biggest esport of all time anymore while still retaining 200k players on a regular basis
On November 29 2016 01:48 Little-Chimp wrote: The OP is decent but these comments lol. So many shit tier opinions it's hard to know where to start.
- don't blame UMS. It's 2016 and there are F2P games everywhere and full AAA games for 2 bucks on steam. The arcade doesn't matter
- patches every month has it's positives but you'll never have a savior, bisu or jaedong meta changing moment shifting the patches every month.
- melee at it's most alive is not as alive as starcraft in its graveyard. I have to give its community credit though for having such a great and positive scene playing through dolphin and LAN while SC2 players are constantly shitting themselves for not being the biggest esport of all time anymore while still retaining 200k players on a regular basis
You mean Life of Peasant isn't going to make Starcraft a better esport?
A+ Someone who is reasonable. Especially on your last point, people should look at steam graphs/charts to see what kind of numbers games get when they're not Dota or CS:GO.
On November 29 2016 01:49 Ansibled wrote: What does it's not a strategy game even mean? Serioulsy I have no idea how you can even remotely approach that conclusion.
From what I can tell most of the complaints seem to be triggered by the surprising revelation that in an RTS game events occur in real time.
It's a really common sentiment from casuals on /r/games who complain about Blizzard RTSs while pointing to games like Supreme Commander as the ideal competitive experience.
On November 29 2016 01:49 Ansibled wrote: What does it's not a strategy game even mean? Serioulsy I have no idea how you can even remotely approach that conclusion.
From what I can tell most of the complaints seem to be triggered by the surprising revelation that in an RTS game events occur in real time.
It's a really common sentiment from casuals on /r/games who complain about Blizzard RTSs while pointing to games like Supreme Commander as the ideal competitive experience.
Even better, they cite AoE2 which has been extremely figured out in terms of build orders(I mean pretty much every unit movement is planned) and it's sooo much about mechanical execution it's ridiculous.
The "SC2 is not a strategy game" argument is just silly. Just because the mechanical skill ceiling is high doesn't mean it's just that. It's the same argument people make about shooters "It's just point and click!"......
Very nice video, you did not speak of certain things but was good sharing in any case.
You really should have done it in engrish dude mais si t'as un super accent (you have a super accent) .. it is a frog accent but i'm sure the video would have been better for it (got to break more eggs to get more omelettes! "omelettes du fromage ahhahahahahhhahaha (sorry can't translate humor every time) .. Still time to do a 10 minute english version.. do it if you know what s good for you (pm me i'll coach you through it <3 ).
At least feugateau (firecake in french ) has the guts to go to the plate and do the "destiny post" .. and at least he says loud and clear that HE WANTS TO PLAY SC2.. .. a better sc2 yes but he doesn't even go into that, he tries to stay on course and that's an effort that many do not do.
i mean do we see liquid players making posts that say mighty high and loud "sc2 is alive, and here is why!" ??? (oups almost added a twit ch emote )
Re reading my post i see that i might be misunderstood so i'll add that little me is glad if blizzard takes off of sc2 and we get it back to change it and make it the game it deserves to be.
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 think many issues with the arcade come from the fact that there is not much quality content in it, due to how much effort it takes to do something of quality in the editor. There are tons of cringy stuff. BW and WC3 map editors were about putting blocks mostly, compared to the editor we got with SC2.
It's sometimes funny to me how people state that the competitive side of the game is that much dependent on the other side of the game that has literally nothing to do with it. I was never able to connect ums players to pro scene followers in terms of gameplay, I think they were being drawn there plainly because of the show that was put and that trend shows today with SC2. Many interesting players and recently Korean tournaments liked by people are gone, and with them gone there is loss in game's popularity.
I wonder if similar situation could happen to other games if half of their top competitive scene just left.
And the reason there isn't any quality content on the arcade anymore is because mappers gave up in 2011 when they realized Blizzard's atrocious popularity-centric implementation of the initial arcade meant that their hard work would never get any exposure and be wasted because everyone played Nexus Wars and Tower Defense and that was it.
Seriously. There were some bloody amazing custom maps and mods being created even as far back as the Wings of Liberty Beta. You heard that right, if you don't believe me go look up Husky's showcases from that time.
But the custom game system was so laughably bad that it was impossible to discover them and actually get a lobby going unless you did it with a bunch of friends. Mappers realized it's not worth the effort if no one will ever play their stuff, so they mostly gave up. And that's one of the most subtle and insidious failings of SC2's longevity plan; old school folks will remember that most BW players were actually rather casual and spent most of their time playing BGH and Sunken Defense and things of that nature rather than 1v1ing on iCCup all the time; SC2's equivalent of that has been stillborn due to stupid decisions on Blizzard's part, despite the fact that the engine itself is very versatile and powerful when it comes to making custom content.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
^ this
The reverse is even worse imo. Having to deal with really bad design that doesn't work itself out, refusing to patch, got us into some terrible times in WoL.
No we didnt. The meta was never allowed to settle. Whenever a strategy came to prominence it was patched out after no more than a month.
The balance cries that fuelled the patching lead to a game where it was almost impossible to generate interesting spectator narratives around champions because as soon as anyone started dominating, their build orders got hit with the nerf bat.
In my opinion that is the main reason for the loss of interest in the competitive scene. How can you root for your favourite player when he's bouncing between winning tournaments and being relegated after a month of patches?
On November 29 2016 01:48 Little-Chimp wrote: The OP is decent but these comments lol. So many shit tier opinions it's hard to know where to start.
- don't blame UMS. It's 2016 and there are F2P games everywhere and full AAA games for 2 bucks on steam. The arcade doesn't matter
- patches every month has it's positives but you'll never have a savior, bisu or jaedong meta changing moment shifting the patches every month.
- melee at it's most alive is not as alive as starcraft in its graveyard. I have to give its community credit though for having such a great and positive scene playing through dolphin and LAN while SC2 players are constantly shitting themselves for not being the biggest esport of all time anymore while still retaining 200k players on a regular basis
I don't know about "shit tier opinions", but yours is mostly crap.
- While there are free to play games and games for 2 bucks on Steam, Arcade matters and it keeps the game fresh for those people who are casual players and cannot be bothered to be competitive. It's how DotA/LoL came. It was a UMS map in WarCraft. I'm guessing if mods count, you could also argue that's how Counter-Strike came from Half-Life as well.
- It's true Blizzard patched game too quickly at some points, but there were times when they let meta game develop. For instance, 200/200 at 12 min by Stephano was figured out at some point. The problem really is, as other people have pointed out already, if you leave meta unchanged for too long, you'll make people quit. How do you define how long should meta game last before a balance patch? There's no fast and hard rule about this. One of the reasons it worked for Brood War is because Blizzard stopped patching it after some time, so you're left with balancing maps or coming up with build orders. I doubt it was because Blizzard employees were so smart that figured out balance patches will never be needed.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
^ this
The reverse is even worse imo. Having to deal with really bad design that doesn't work itself out, refusing to patch, got us into some terrible times in WoL.
No we didnt. The meta was never allowed to settle. Whenever a strategy came to prominence it was patched out after no more than a month.
The balance cries that fuelled the patching lead to a game where it was almost impossible to generate interesting spectator narratives around champions because as soon as anyone started dominating, their build orders got hit with the nerf bat.
In my opinion that is the main reason for the loss of interest in the competitive scene. How can you root for your favourite player when he's bouncing between winning tournaments and being relegated after a month of patches?
What? Do you even remember how long that entire era was ? It was allowed to settle, and we got was something completely awful.
On November 29 2016 01:48 Little-Chimp wrote: The OP is decent but these comments lol. So many shit tier opinions it's hard to know where to start.
- don't blame UMS. It's 2016 and there are F2P games everywhere and full AAA games for 2 bucks on steam. The arcade doesn't matter
- patches every month has it's positives but you'll never have a savior, bisu or jaedong meta changing moment shifting the patches every month.
- melee at it's most alive is not as alive as starcraft in its graveyard. I have to give its community credit though for having such a great and positive scene playing through dolphin and LAN while SC2 players are constantly shitting themselves for not being the biggest esport of all time anymore while still retaining 200k players on a regular basis
I don't know about "shit tier opinions", but yours is mostly crap.
- While there are free to play games and games for 2 bucks on Steam, Arcade matters and it keeps the game fresh for those people who are casual players and cannot be bothered to be competitive. It's how DotA/LoL came. It was a UMS map in WarCraft. I'm guessing if mods count, you could also argue that's how Counter-Strike came from Half-Life as well.
Your opinion is crap. My opinion is right. I'm glad we're having such a productive discussion here.
There is a greater diversity in games now, DotA and LoL came before SC2 so I don't see what that has to do with anything. Why would you play a Half Life mod if someone released a full game that does the same thing but better?
On November 29 2016 03:02 Ryndika wrote: There really isn't tangible scene aka tournaments next year? Everything is just "most likely some tournament will happen in DH or somewhere else."
Where did the WCS system go?
Nowhere, WCS is still around next year. In fact we've already started the first tournament for it with IEM Gyeonggi qualifiers. They need to announce details but it is obviously happening.
On November 29 2016 01:48 Little-Chimp wrote: The OP is decent but these comments lol. So many shit tier opinions it's hard to know where to start.
- don't blame UMS. It's 2016 and there are F2P games everywhere and full AAA games for 2 bucks on steam. The arcade doesn't matter
- patches every month has it's positives but you'll never have a savior, bisu or jaedong meta changing moment shifting the patches every month.
- melee at it's most alive is not as alive as starcraft in its graveyard. I have to give its community credit though for having such a great and positive scene playing through dolphin and LAN while SC2 players are constantly shitting themselves for not being the biggest esport of all time anymore while still retaining 200k players on a regular basis
I don't know about "shit tier opinions", but yours is mostly crap.
- While there are free to play games and games for 2 bucks on Steam, Arcade matters and it keeps the game fresh for those people who are casual players and cannot be bothered to be competitive. It's how DotA/LoL came. It was a UMS map in WarCraft. I'm guessing if mods count, you could also argue that's how Counter-Strike came from Half-Life as well.
- It's true Blizzard patched game too quickly at some points, but there were times when they let meta game develop. For instance, 200/200 at 12 min by Stephano was figured out at some point. The problem really is, as other people have pointed out already, if you leave meta unchanged for too long, you'll make people quit. How do you define how long should meta game last before a balance patch? There's no fast and hard rule about this. One of the reasons it worked for Brood War is because Blizzard stopped patching it after some time, so you're left with balancing maps or coming up with build orders. I doubt it was because Blizzard employees were so smart that figured out balance patches will never be needed.
I'm aware of where dota and CS came from, but I don't see how this matters. Again, it's 2016, not 2003. UMS in warcraft 3 and brood war was insanely popular because it was a large source of free and fun mini games. Back then these games were in competition with what, flash games?
UMS now competes with steam, humble bundles, a zillion phone games, etc. UMS will never save sc2. I agree that it is a neat tool for an up and coming game dev to maybe try and create something in though.
On November 29 2016 01:48 Little-Chimp wrote: The OP is decent but these comments lol. So many shit tier opinions it's hard to know where to start.
- don't blame UMS. It's 2016 and there are F2P games everywhere and full AAA games for 2 bucks on steam. The arcade doesn't matter
- patches every month has it's positives but you'll never have a savior, bisu or jaedong meta changing moment shifting the patches every month.
- melee at it's most alive is not as alive as starcraft in its graveyard. I have to give its community credit though for having such a great and positive scene playing through dolphin and LAN while SC2 players are constantly shitting themselves for not being the biggest esport of all time anymore while still retaining 200k players on a regular basis
I don't know about "shit tier opinions", but yours is mostly crap.
- While there are free to play games and games for 2 bucks on Steam, Arcade matters and it keeps the game fresh for those people who are casual players and cannot be bothered to be competitive. It's how DotA/LoL came. It was a UMS map in WarCraft. I'm guessing if mods count, you could also argue that's how Counter-Strike came from Half-Life as well.
- It's true Blizzard patched game too quickly at some points, but there were times when they let meta game develop. For instance, 200/200 at 12 min by Stephano was figured out at some point. The problem really is, as other people have pointed out already, if you leave meta unchanged for too long, you'll make people quit. How do you define how long should meta game last before a balance patch? There's no fast and hard rule about this. One of the reasons it worked for Brood War is because Blizzard stopped patching it after some time, so you're left with balancing maps or coming up with build orders. I doubt it was because Blizzard employees were so smart that figured out balance patches will never be needed.
I'm aware of where dota and CS came from, but I don't see how this matters. Again, it's 2016, not 2003. UMS in warcraft 3 and brood war was insanely popular because it was a large source of free and fun mini games. Back then these games were in competition with what, flash games?
UMS now competes with steam, humble bundles, a zillion phone games, etc. UMS will never save sc2. I agree that it is a neat tool for an up and coming game dev to maybe try and create something in though.
Not to mention paid & free, big content patches of games people already own.
Unless a mod brings a completely new experience that no other game can replicate, I don't think we'll see that kind of big UMS scene. The last real big one was DayZ.
But I digress, I think the above is ultimately the reason why SC2/Dota 2 will never replicate WC3's custom map scene.
Zealot/Footmen Frenzy clones aren't going to save RTS esports.
I'm aware of where dota and CS came from, but I don't see how this matters. Again, it's 2016, not 2003. UMS in warcraft 3 and brood war was insanely popular because it was a large source of free and fun mini games. Back then these games were in competition with what, flash games?
Very important fact that alot of people seem to forget.
The only way a proper custom game/arcade scene could have worked was if Blizzard implemented matchmaking into them and allowed developers to find ways to monetize them.
There is still not a single reason for a game 10 years in development to have the UMS so much worse then the 10 year old Warcraft one. From the editor to the arcade section to the lobbies, everything felt shit right from the get go. Coustom was the place to play Warcraft if you were younger and looked for casual experience and from there people transitioned to the melee maps once in a while. In SC II it was just downright trash.
Same goes for overall Bnet 2.0 and the long time needed implement simple changes. There is also no excuse for not trying to sign Icefrog in 2009/2010 (or whoever was then in Charge) and get him right on the track to make a better Dota in SC II with the support of Blizzard. Instead they never recognized the dota scene and finally after Valve made their move (because they are not stupid) they announced some kind of "Blizzard Dota" which then needed 3 more years of development (of which they used after the release of Hearth of the Swarm over half of the SC II team for a year) to bring out a Moba that cant stand LoL or Dota II in any way.
I guess the code of SC II must be extremly frustrating to work with and very bad programmed that it take them ages to get basic features (like community funded tournaments by chest/compendiums/skins/portraits/stickers) in their game. Valve showed how to do it right from 2013 on, community asks since 2014, we get it in 2017.
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
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
^ this
The reverse is even worse imo. Having to deal with really bad design that doesn't work itself out, refusing to patch, got us into some terrible times in WoL.
No we didnt. The meta was never allowed to settle. Whenever a strategy came to prominence it was patched out after no more than a month.
The balance cries that fuelled the patching lead to a game where it was almost impossible to generate interesting spectator narratives around champions because as soon as anyone started dominating, their build orders got hit with the nerf bat.
In my opinion that is the main reason for the loss of interest in the competitive scene. How can you root for your favourite player when he's bouncing between winning tournaments and being relegated after a month of patches?
What? Do you even remember how long that entire era was ? It was allowed to settle, and we got was something completely awful.
Yes I do remember, I was playing very close to competitively at the time. The scene was NEVER allowed to settle. Broodwar had YEARS of people losing to the same builds at a time. The bisu build ended like 3 years of Protoss getting completely creamed by zergs.
Whenever the was a dominant race in broodwar, it was left to the players to figure it out, in SC2 it was patched -very- quickly, and -very- often.
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.
On November 29 2016 03:44 Clonester wrote: There is still not a single reason for a game 10 years in development to have the UMS so much worse then the 10 year old Warcraft one. From the editor to the arcade section to the lobbies, everything felt shit right from the get go. Coustom was the place to play Warcraft if you were younger and looked for casual experience and from there people transitioned to the melee maps once in a while. In SC II it was just downright trash.
Same goes for overall Bnet 2.0 and the long time needed implement simple changes. There is also no excuse for not trying to sign Icefrog in 2009/2010 (or whoever was then in Charge) and get him right on the track to make a better Dota in SC II with the support of Blizzard. Instead they never recognized the dota scene and finally after Valve made their move (because they are not stupid) they announced some kind of "Blizzard Dota" which then needed 3 more years of development (of which they used after the release of Hearth of the Swarm over half of the SC II team for a year) to bring out a Moba that cant stand LoL or Dota II in any way.
I guess the code of SC II must be extremly frustrating to work with and very bad programmed that it take them ages to get basic features (like community funded tournaments by chest/compendiums/skins/portraits/stickers) in their game. Valve showed how to do it right from 2013 on, community asks since 2014, we get it in 2017.
Icefrog was already working at Valve by 2009.
I'm not saying that Starcraft 2 didnt have tons of awful problems with UMS at the beginning, but ultimately in this day and age, the UMS scene would not sustain and survive because of everything we talked about in previous posts. It's why CS:GO mods aren't as big as half-life/cs 1.6 mods were.
On November 28 2016 03:48 chocomaro wrote: Every month or two there's a balance change. And significant changes are often enough that it puts off people like me who feels like "welp gotta learn a new way to play the game again".
I started telling myself a few years back "when the patching is stabilized and not so frequent i'll REALLY get into it". That never stopped, and it's just annoying that they're trying to make every unit in the game used.
^ this
The reverse is even worse imo. Having to deal with really bad design that doesn't work itself out, refusing to patch, got us into some terrible times in WoL.
No we didnt. The meta was never allowed to settle. Whenever a strategy came to prominence it was patched out after no more than a month.
The balance cries that fuelled the patching lead to a game where it was almost impossible to generate interesting spectator narratives around champions because as soon as anyone started dominating, their build orders got hit with the nerf bat.
In my opinion that is the main reason for the loss of interest in the competitive scene. How can you root for your favourite player when he's bouncing between winning tournaments and being relegated after a month of patches?
What? Do you even remember how long that entire era was ? It was allowed to settle, and we got was something completely awful.
Yes I do remember, I was playing very close to competitively at the time. The scene was NEVER allowed to settle. Broodwar had YEARS of people losing to the same builds at a time. The bisu build ended like 3 years of Protoss getting completely creamed by zergs.
Whenever the was a dominant race in broodwar, it was left to the players to figure it out, in SC2 it was patched -very- quickly, and -very- often.
Not towards the end which is what I was referring to. It was patched constantly late 2010 early 2011 but not as much after.
But ultimately, I don't think SC2 or any other game could stand that test of time like BW did, in regards to those times of questionable balance.
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.
On November 29 2016 03:44 Clonester wrote: There is still not a single reason for a game 10 years in development to have the UMS so much worse then the 10 year old Warcraft one. From the editor to the arcade section to the lobbies, everything felt shit right from the get go. Coustom was the place to play Warcraft if you were younger and looked for casual experience and from there people transitioned to the melee maps once in a while. In SC II it was just downright trash.
Same goes for overall Bnet 2.0 and the long time needed implement simple changes. There is also no excuse for not trying to sign Icefrog in 2009/2010 (or whoever was then in Charge) and get him right on the track to make a better Dota in SC II with the support of Blizzard. Instead they never recognized the dota scene and finally after Valve made their move (because they are not stupid) they announced some kind of "Blizzard Dota" which then needed 3 more years of development (of which they used after the release of Hearth of the Swarm over half of the SC II team for a year) to bring out a Moba that cant stand LoL or Dota II in any way.
I guess the code of SC II must be extremly frustrating to work with and very bad programmed that it take them ages to get basic features (like community funded tournaments by chest/compendiums/skins/portraits/stickers) in their game. Valve showed how to do it right from 2013 on, community asks since 2014, we get it in 2017.
Icefrog was already working at Valve by 2009.
I'm not saying that Starcraft 2 didnt have tons of awful problems with UMS at the beginning, but ultimately in this day and age, the UMS scene would not sustain and survive because of everything we talked about in previous posts. It's why CS:GO mods aren't as big as half-life/cs 1.6 mods were.
Starcraft II development started in 2004! 2000 fucking 4. And they never thought in the next 7 years of development to include the most popular western and chinese map into the their very next RTS. No matter when Valve sniped Icefrog down, Blizzard could easy do it before with their very own plattform. Instead they never supported Dota in any way and ultimativly lost the founder and best itteration of the newest PC game genre to Valve. Maybe UMS could never be to SC2 what it was to Wc3. But it could be much much more to SC II then it actually was to SC II. The scene was hungry for SC 2, new possibilites, fresh graphics. And 2 month after founding out of annoying it is to work with the new editor and how much more annoying the new arcade section is, they either went back to Wc3 or they left. Yes Wc3s arcade section was not perfect, fresh maps needed to be distributed by hosting games or on Hiveworkshop, the map browser was a pain in the ass, but SC II made everything worse. 10 years after Wc3 Blizzard could not make a Bnet 2.0 (and arcade section 2.0), that was better then the old one, but made it significant worse.
Was bnet the ultimate and UMS the ultimate reason why SC II went downhill? No. but is one of the many annoying things the games had or still have which werent needed and are by no means justified. Yes SC II is still great game, a great RTS. But from a company that made 3 stellar RTS games back to back to back (WC 2, BW, Wc3) you expected another big shot. And the shoot is good, the game is a freaking good RTS. But in every corner you find this small annoying pieces, from Bnet 2.0 over game design over addon releases over economy modell, that nip after nip after nip fuck you up till you tilt, either start BW/Wc3 (where ever you come from) again or swap over to Dota II.
SC II is for me still the very best esport to watch (well, after Wc3 for me, but thats just a much smaller scene with less events and money), it is so much easier to follow an 1v1 RTS then a Moba or FPS. But in every corner of SC II you find some thing that either offends you or has offended you for years.
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.
Fixed complains? The game designs core has been focused with each expansion on more terrible terrible worker line damage and super annoying to play and watch unit designs. Thats a 2016 problem, not 2010. WoL was better to play and watch then where we got now.
On November 29 2016 03:44 Clonester wrote: There is still not a single reason for a game 10 years in development to have the UMS so much worse then the 10 year old Warcraft one. From the editor to the arcade section to the lobbies, everything felt shit right from the get go. Coustom was the place to play Warcraft if you were younger and looked for casual experience and from there people transitioned to the melee maps once in a while. In SC II it was just downright trash.
Same goes for overall Bnet 2.0 and the long time needed implement simple changes. There is also no excuse for not trying to sign Icefrog in 2009/2010 (or whoever was then in Charge) and get him right on the track to make a better Dota in SC II with the support of Blizzard. Instead they never recognized the dota scene and finally after Valve made their move (because they are not stupid) they announced some kind of "Blizzard Dota" which then needed 3 more years of development (of which they used after the release of Hearth of the Swarm over half of the SC II team for a year) to bring out a Moba that cant stand LoL or Dota II in any way.
I guess the code of SC II must be extremly frustrating to work with and very bad programmed that it take them ages to get basic features (like community funded tournaments by chest/compendiums/skins/portraits/stickers) in their game. Valve showed how to do it right from 2013 on, community asks since 2014, we get it in 2017.
Icefrog was already working at Valve by 2009.
I'm not saying that Starcraft 2 didnt have tons of awful problems with UMS at the beginning, but ultimately in this day and age, the UMS scene would not sustain and survive because of everything we talked about in previous posts. It's why CS:GO mods aren't as big as half-life/cs 1.6 mods were.
Starcraft II development started in 2004! 2000 fucking 4. And they never thought in the next 7 years of development to include the most popular western and chinese map into the their very next RTS. No matter when Valve sniped Icefrog down, Blizzard could easy do it before with their very own plattform. Instead they never supported Dota in any way and ultimativly lost the founder and best itteration of the newest PC game genre to Valve. Maybe UMS could never be to SC2 what it was to Wc3. But it could be much much more to SC II then it actually was to SC II. The scene was hungry for SC 2, new possibilites, fresh graphics. And 2 month after founding out of annoying it is to work with the new editor and how much more annoying the new arcade section is, they either went back to Wc3 or they left. Yes Wc3s arcade section was not perfect, fresh maps needed to be distributed by hosting games or on Hiveworkshop, the map browser was a pain in the ass, but SC II made everything worse. 10 years after Wc3 Blizzard could not make a Bnet 2.0 (and arcade section 2.0), that was better then the old one, but made it significant worse.
Was bnet the ultimate and UMS the ultimate reason why SC II went downhill? No. but is one of the many annoying things the games had or still have which werent needed and are by no means justified. Yes SC II is still great game, a great RTS. But from a company that made 3 stellar RTS games back to back to back (WC 2, BW, Wc3) you expected another big shot. And the shoot is good, the game is a freaking good RTS. But in every corner you find this small annoying pieces, from Bnet 2.0 over game design over addon releases over economy modell, that nip after nip after nip fuck you up till you tilt, either start BW/Wc3 (where ever you come from) again or swap over to Dota II.
SC II is for me still the very best esport to watch (well, after Wc3 for me, but thats just a much smaller scene with less events and money), it is so much easier to follow an 1v1 RTS then a Moba or FPS. But in every corner of SC II you find some thing that either offends you or has offended you for years.
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.
Fixed complains? The game designs core has been focused with each expansion on more terrible terrible worker line damage and super annoying to play and watch unit designs. Thats a 2016 problem, not 2010. WoL was better to play and watch then where we got now.
You said 2009, not me. Icefrog started working on Dota as the lead developer in 2005. So they only had 3-4 years to recruit him before Valve did. And they did fly out Icefrog to Blizzard, but they wanted to focus on WoW at the time, as the company was growing so much. That's the story for that.
And how did they not support Dota in any way when they had a Dota tournament in 2005? And had specific patches specifically to help Dota?
And yeah, it did use an outdated model, but like you said, it was developed in 2004 and they were too slow to change course.
It could be better, but I think the state of custom games in Dota 2 and in general kinda shows how there's much less interest in it nowadays. Especially in the later years of WC3 where it was NOTHING but Dota, because Dota was a unique experience you could only get through Warcraft III and nowhere else.
On November 29 2016 03:44 Clonester wrote: There is still not a single reason for a game 10 years in development to have the UMS so much worse then the 10 year old Warcraft one. From the editor to the arcade section to the lobbies, everything felt shit right from the get go. Coustom was the place to play Warcraft if you were younger and looked for casual experience and from there people transitioned to the melee maps once in a while. In SC II it was just downright trash.
Same goes for overall Bnet 2.0 and the long time needed implement simple changes. There is also no excuse for not trying to sign Icefrog in 2009/2010 (or whoever was then in Charge) and get him right on the track to make a better Dota in SC II with the support of Blizzard. Instead they never recognized the dota scene and finally after Valve made their move (because they are not stupid) they announced some kind of "Blizzard Dota" which then needed 3 more years of development (of which they used after the release of Hearth of the Swarm over half of the SC II team for a year) to bring out a Moba that cant stand LoL or Dota II in any way.
I guess the code of SC II must be extremly frustrating to work with and very bad programmed that it take them ages to get basic features (like community funded tournaments by chest/compendiums/skins/portraits/stickers) in their game. Valve showed how to do it right from 2013 on, community asks since 2014, we get it in 2017.
Icefrog was already working at Valve by 2009.
I'm not saying that Starcraft 2 didnt have tons of awful problems with UMS at the beginning, but ultimately in this day and age, the UMS scene would not sustain and survive because of everything we talked about in previous posts. It's why CS:GO mods aren't as big as half-life/cs 1.6 mods were.
Starcraft II development started in 2004! 2000 fucking 4. And they never thought in the next 7 years of development to include the most popular western and chinese map into the their very next RTS. No matter when Valve sniped Icefrog down, Blizzard could easy do it before with their very own plattform. Instead they never supported Dota in any way and ultimativly lost the founder and best itteration of the newest PC game genre to Valve. Maybe UMS could never be to SC2 what it was to Wc3. But it could be much much more to SC II then it actually was to SC II. The scene was hungry for SC 2, new possibilites, fresh graphics. And 2 month after founding out of annoying it is to work with the new editor and how much more annoying the new arcade section is, they either went back to Wc3 or they left. Yes Wc3s arcade section was not perfect, fresh maps needed to be distributed by hosting games or on Hiveworkshop, the map browser was a pain in the ass, but SC II made everything worse. 10 years after Wc3 Blizzard could not make a Bnet 2.0 (and arcade section 2.0), that was better then the old one, but made it significant worse.
Was bnet the ultimate and UMS the ultimate reason why SC II went downhill? No. but is one of the many annoying things the games had or still have which werent needed and are by no means justified. Yes SC II is still great game, a great RTS. But from a company that made 3 stellar RTS games back to back to back (WC 2, BW, Wc3) you expected another big shot. And the shoot is good, the game is a freaking good RTS. But in every corner you find this small annoying pieces, from Bnet 2.0 over game design over addon releases over economy modell, that nip after nip after nip fuck you up till you tilt, either start BW/Wc3 (where ever you come from) again or swap over to Dota II.
SC II is for me still the very best esport to watch (well, after Wc3 for me, but thats just a much smaller scene with less events and money), it is so much easier to follow an 1v1 RTS then a Moba or FPS. But in every corner of SC II you find some thing that either offends you or has offended you for years.
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.
Fixed complains? The game designs core has been focused with each expansion on more terrible terrible worker line damage and super annoying to play and watch unit designs. Thats a 2016 problem, not 2010. WoL was better to play and watch then where we got now.
I meant in terms of Bnet features, it's actually really good right now. Gameplay is subjective and I agree it could be much better, but it's certainly better than WOL.
Like I guess if force fields and fungal growth is the pinnacle of gameplay for you 2010 was pretty good? Only thing I remember being better than now was ZvT as marine tank vs baneling muta was super super fun until widow mines came to town.
I've never expected to see SC2 as popular as it could have been.. it's just obvious that a RTS will never be as popular as any other action games, period.
The absolute irony of SC2, is that it's probably the closest game of any "esport" games to be called "sport".
On November 29 2016 03:44 Clonester wrote: There is still not a single reason for a game 10 years in development to have the UMS so much worse then the 10 year old Warcraft one. From the editor to the arcade section to the lobbies, everything felt shit right from the get go. Coustom was the place to play Warcraft if you were younger and looked for casual experience and from there people transitioned to the melee maps once in a while. In SC II it was just downright trash.
Same goes for overall Bnet 2.0 and the long time needed implement simple changes. There is also no excuse for not trying to sign Icefrog in 2009/2010 (or whoever was then in Charge) and get him right on the track to make a better Dota in SC II with the support of Blizzard. Instead they never recognized the dota scene and finally after Valve made their move (because they are not stupid) they announced some kind of "Blizzard Dota" which then needed 3 more years of development (of which they used after the release of Hearth of the Swarm over half of the SC II team for a year) to bring out a Moba that cant stand LoL or Dota II in any way.
I guess the code of SC II must be extremly frustrating to work with and very bad programmed that it take them ages to get basic features (like community funded tournaments by chest/compendiums/skins/portraits/stickers) in their game. Valve showed how to do it right from 2013 on, community asks since 2014, we get it in 2017.
Icefrog was already working at Valve by 2009.
I'm not saying that Starcraft 2 didnt have tons of awful problems with UMS at the beginning, but ultimately in this day and age, the UMS scene would not sustain and survive because of everything we talked about in previous posts. It's why CS:GO mods aren't as big as half-life/cs 1.6 mods were.
Starcraft II development started in 2004! 2000 fucking 4. And they never thought in the next 7 years of development to include the most popular western and chinese map into the their very next RTS. No matter when Valve sniped Icefrog down, Blizzard could easy do it before with their very own plattform. Instead they never supported Dota in any way and ultimativly lost the founder and best itteration of the newest PC game genre to Valve. Maybe UMS could never be to SC2 what it was to Wc3. But it could be much much more to SC II then it actually was to SC II. The scene was hungry for SC 2, new possibilites, fresh graphics. And 2 month after founding out of annoying it is to work with the new editor and how much more annoying the new arcade section is, they either went back to Wc3 or they left. Yes Wc3s arcade section was not perfect, fresh maps needed to be distributed by hosting games or on Hiveworkshop, the map browser was a pain in the ass, but SC II made everything worse. 10 years after Wc3 Blizzard could not make a Bnet 2.0 (and arcade section 2.0), that was better then the old one, but made it significant worse.
Was bnet the ultimate and UMS the ultimate reason why SC II went downhill? No. but is one of the many annoying things the games had or still have which werent needed and are by no means justified. Yes SC II is still great game, a great RTS. But from a company that made 3 stellar RTS games back to back to back (WC 2, BW, Wc3) you expected another big shot. And the shoot is good, the game is a freaking good RTS. But in every corner you find this small annoying pieces, from Bnet 2.0 over game design over addon releases over economy modell, that nip after nip after nip fuck you up till you tilt, either start BW/Wc3 (where ever you come from) again or swap over to Dota II.
SC II is for me still the very best esport to watch (well, after Wc3 for me, but thats just a much smaller scene with less events and money), it is so much easier to follow an 1v1 RTS then a Moba or FPS. But in every corner of SC II you find some thing that either offends you or has offended you for years.
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.
Fixed complains? The game designs core has been focused with each expansion on more terrible terrible worker line damage and super annoying to play and watch unit designs. Thats a 2016 problem, not 2010. WoL was better to play and watch then where we got now.
I meant in terms of Bnet features, it's actually really good right now. Gameplay is subjective and I agree it could be much better, but it's certainly better than WOL.
Like I guess if force fields and fungal growth is the pinnacle of gameplay for you 2010 was pretty good? Only thing I remember being better than now was ZvT as marine tank vs baneling muta was super super fun until widow mines came to town.
its easy to point at Borfestor (with fungal) and Soul trains (with force fields), but the first one only became in issue thanks to queen range buff and ghost nerf and the soul train wasnt looking that unbalanced. Mostly annoying to play against, you are right. But guess what, instead of removing them, they are still in the game. For me it is HotS>WoL>>>>LotV. I never got used to LotVs fast terrible terrible damage and left the 1v1 soon after release of it. HotS looked very balanced long time (after WM rebuff), the games could be stale, but I personally enjoyed long drawn out games where one was sitting on a knifes edge in holding infnite amounts of bullshit (aka free units and spells) while trying to get the last free base on the map. Both WoL and HotS had bad unit concept in them, but LotV took it to a whole different level with these kind of units and someone else described it very well: Nobody wants 2 secs 200/200 fights after 12 minutes of macro up. So the answer of Blizzard was not to make evergoing battles possible, but to skip the first 2 minutes and speed up the macro phase while also speed up the worker killing significant, so more games end before 2 sec 200/200 fights thanks to terrible terrible damage. I hate this decision.
And you have to take a lot with a grain of salt. The game got out in 2010, but only now the Bnet features are actuelly really good? Thats just way too late and in these thread alot of people (like me) come here, who disliked things from 2010 ongoing (where I even didnt know what TL is, I just played the game during that time) and see that in a phase of rapid decline finally things work out like they should have 6 years ago. That makes me and others mad and they keep rephrasing the old posts from back then, because it took so long to get it right. When CS:GO was fucked up and meant to die in 2012, Valve found solutions within one year and in late 2013 the game was growing again. And CS:GO also came from 2 split up communities (just like SC II) and was highly controvers in the beginning.
Everything I write is a piece of a salty ass fan of Blizzards old RTS and the madness of Blizzard invested so much in this game (millions in WCS, millions in development over the years) and it took them so long to figure out whats wrong with the plattfrom and now we are here with an iteration of SC II i clearly dont like, while I really liked Hearth of the swarm.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
Am I the only one that recognizes the need to grow the player base through a more newbie friendly game? Clearly, the skill cap is not enough to draw in adequate viewership. Afterall, it's much easy for viewers to appreciate and be blown away by pro gamers when they also play the game, and, really: does any popular esports game exist where relatively few players play the main game?
I don't believe it's just because of 1v1, as opposed to team games. That's a small contributor at most. Clearly, people aren't getting stressed or intimidated the same way when they play Hearthstone and Super Smash Brothers. Let's face the facts: the game is incredibly taxing, regardless of your skill level. And CO-OP is by far the most popular main game mode; not 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 or archon mode.
The barrier for entry is still too damn high. SC2, unlike BW, was launched during an era of increased accessibility. Some people actually thought that SC2 was too accessible, by taking away the 12 unit selection limit, being able to rally workers to mine automatically, and having a "find idle worker" button. Yet, despite all of the changes over the years, it's clear that nobody's close to reaching the skill cap. There's always more a player can do in this game. That being said, I think it would be prudent for Blizzard to reduce the barrier of entry. Some things may be possible without affecting the skill cap, but even if it were to drop a bit, I feel like the skill cap could be reduced while still being unreachable by the very best. Micro alone, ensures this.
First and foremost, I hope others can realize the importance of increasing accessibility. That being said, here are some ideas (not the "be all end all", but hopefully will generate discussion!):
1. Macro mechanics need to change or go away. I feel like Blizzard was on the right track with this before, but gave up because they didn't want to deal with the balance changes. In my opinion, they dropped the ball here, big time.
2. Put optional progress bars that can be displayed in the corner, helping players keep track of what they're building and researching. Also have bars to assist in keeping track of your unit composition.
3. Incorporate a build order helper of sorts. This not only allows players to focus more on "fun" aspects of the game, but would also help new players from feeling lost. Build orders could not only give players a simpler start, but could also have a "game goal" attached on how each build order directs you towards a win. Giving new players direction could go a very long way! Could even be a professionally voiced guide, similar to campaign mode, where they discuss the goals with you and how you will achieve them (maybe this would also help players feel less "isolated").
In Wc3 4v4 was almost played as much as 1v1. (atleast to some stats I read a year ago about bnet games).
In Sc II you play random team 2v2/3v3/4v4 and you have to play against an arranged team of 2/3/4s. You lose. They sit on TS, you just got paired with a random m8. I never understood why Blizzard decided to scrap the old Idea of WC3, where AT and RT was split into 2 branches and had no direct connection. It is extremly frustraiting in team games, when you want to play with random people against random people and get totally crushed by a team that workes togeather for longer time and is in a TS all time.
Just another thing of Bnet 2.0 that is worse then Bnet 1.0. I remember when the post above mentioned teamgames and it is a hugh bummer to the random team games appeal RTS games have. And by no means justified.
On November 29 2016 07:57 Clonester wrote: In Wc3 4v4 was almost played as much as 1v1. (atleast to some stats I read a year ago about bnet games).
In Sc II you play random team 2v2/3v3/4v4 and you have to play against an arranged team of 2/3/4s. You lose. They sit on TS, you just got paired with a random m8. I never understood why Blizzard decided to scrap the old Idea of WC3, where AT and RT was split into 2 branches and had no direct connection. It is extremly frustraiting in team games, when you want to play with random people against random people and get totally crushed by a team that workes togeather for longer time and is in a TS all time.
Just another thing of Bnet 2.0 that is worse then Bnet 1.0. I remember when the post above mentioned teamgames and it is a hugh bummer to the random team games appeal RTS games have. And by no means justified.
I know what you mean. When I complained about that I was getting responses from other players that "team games don't matter" and that 1vs1 is the real game. I've been masters in 1vs1 many times, but I still don't understand that. There's no support even from players, so how could you have support from Blizzard?
"If you look at all the LotV balance patches that came out, almost no change can be noticed. Now, let’s look at the same thing for the same amount of time for LoL. All the changes that were performed in one year. This is insane. It makes us wonder who is actually working on SC2!"
"Ultralisk, once popped out, make marines useless. Adept is unbearable. Liberator is a low micro, very powerful unit. There are still a lot of issues and in a year, Blizzard almost changed nothing."
That sounds like balance whining to me? I'm sorry if this sounds mean FireCake, but seriously, despite a region lock that is supposedly hurting the Korean SC2 players quite bad this year, you achieved nothing in 2016 despite an abundance of tournaments available to you with minimal Korean threats. E-sport for SC2 will continue in 2017, clearly your career has ended. Contrary to your speculation, IEMs and DHs will happen in 2017. There will also be a WCS 2017 and overall, LOTS of tournaments that you could potentially participate but you have decided not to - NOT because there will be none.
Perhaps you should whine less and try to study the build and come up with counters to a powerful strategy rather than waiting for Blizzard to patch. Coming up with a counter and winning against a supposedly "OP" build is one of the most rewarding feeling of playing SC2.
Well, as followers of TL know I have been advocating alot of the points made myself, especially the gameplay, one-type strategy ones and that it is seriously not so much about 1v1 vs. teamgames.
But I am way further than what has been stated in this issue:
1. Problem of SC2 is not only not to attract new players (F2P) but as well to lose old players and frustrate those who love the game the most by nature. Before elitism was all around blaming "noobs" for leaving the game for it being too difficult, which is utter bullshit but was being believed by a good amount of pros/casters for a long time.
2. the question is not if or that always the same unit compositions are being played but why! - This is quite easily being answered: It is the day 1 criticism argument against SC2, which is terrible terrible damage. The units counter each other way too well and therefore always the same is needed to counter each other the best possible way. - You state swarmhost and winfestor areas amongst reapers etc. Noone can deny this. But the problem is much deeper. Even without that zergs were mainly/always playing muta/bling against terrans who always use armies composed of 80% bio. The issue there is that bio just is too good for this game to have more evenly balanced set of choices. For me it is the source of all evil in SC2 as bio introduces terrible damage at first. Only after bio was as strong as it is counters had to be implemented to counter this terrible damage with more terrible damage (colossi/baneling) and even more mobility or mechanics that compensate for bio mobility. You can easily see that from what is being used and what has been imlemented. To overcome bio mobility and offer the option to disengage from fights against bio ppl. mostly used a) units that could maintain a superior mobility (muta/bling) and b) other stuff like MSC teleport and nexus/pylon cannon was implemented so that its mobility would not have such a huge impact.
3. I brought up already the question why the wrong feedback was being delivered/heared/etc. This is again about SC2 elitism and ppl. continuing to claim that the game is right and that it is on the player if there are any issues. The elitism of SC2 led to a world of where nothing else than detail balance on pro-level seemed to matter instead of fundamental improvements to the games basics. There were voices like that of destiny hinting in the right direction, but those were not taken seriously enough for the longest amount of time and as well never hitted the mark perfectly. And when I remember right destiny was giving a variety of reasons and you basically could pick the ones you like and dismiss the ones you don't. Again probably this is a result of SC2 political correctness where nobody really dared to blame it all on gameplay mechanics alone and instead was embedding any points to be made in this regard in a variety of other reasons that contribute to the inevitable.
Congrats on the post (well the transcript of the video)! I like those emotional posts cause they speak way more the truth than those pure analytical statements that are usually being provided here.
One misunderstandings should be cleared nevertheless:
Of course there is the soccer vs. tennis issue with SC2. Tennis can never be as popular as soccer and neither can SC2 be as popular as the teamgames. But is completely right that the decline of SC2 is not due to that. SC2, when successful, could easily maintain a user base that is lesser than those of CS/mobas but still huge enough to legitimate it.
When I see ppl. argue about that it is always about either or. Both is true instead. SC2 wont be as popular for the reason of soccer vs tennis popularity but it is even less popular than it should for reasons that are totally not connected with that at all.
SC2 needs a major redesign/balance still. Start off with nerfing bio and continue with its counters. Then suddenly you realize that almost any unit in SC2 is overpowered. The mistake of SC2 was to believe letting op units fight against op units is interesting. E.g. bio vs zerg if not enough banelings bio will win 100:0 and if enough banelings zerg wins almost 100:0 (if you don't count the lost banelings). This can by default never get balanced as little variance translates into huge differences and any deviation from the best practice combinations of units is being punished harshly. SC2 is stuck and will stay stuck as long as muta/ling cannot fight bio without banelings at all or as long as protoss needs MSC backwarp/pylon cannon in order to have an exit strategy from fights they are inferior and to fight drops while moving out, etc (just 2 most visible of the many example).
But blizzard goes the opposite way still. +1/2 range hydras, +armour ultralisk, buff tanks, buff banelings. Why not simply nerf bio instead? Then nerf baneling dmg by 50% (so that they are a supporting splash unit but not the backbone of the army against bio). Then nerf roaches, then nerf immortals, etc.. Suddenly you have viable mech play and bio still has its place. GG.
Hydralisks for example have always been viable against protoss (non air) and even in ZvZ. The issues with hydra is that they cannot compete with bio. Slower, less dps less effective hitpoints, larger.
On November 29 2016 07:37 p68 wrote: Am I the only one that recognizes the need to grow the player base through a more newbie friendly game? Clearly, the skill cap is not enough to draw in adequate viewership. Afterall, it's much easy for viewers to appreciate and be blown away by pro gamers when they also play the game, and, really: does any popular esports game exist where relatively few players play the main game?
I don't believe it's just because of 1v1, as opposed to team games. That's a small contributor at most. Clearly, people aren't getting stressed or intimidated the same way when they play Hearthstone and Super Smash Brothers. Let's face the facts: the game is incredibly taxing, regardless of your skill level. And CO-OP is by far the most popular main game mode; not 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 or archon mode.
The barrier for entry is still too damn high. SC2, unlike BW, was launched during an era of increased accessibility. Some people actually thought that SC2 was too accessible, by taking away the 12 unit selection limit, being able to rally workers to mine automatically, and having a "find idle worker" button. Yet, despite all of the changes over the years, it's clear that nobody's close to reaching the skill cap. There's always more a player can do in this game. That being said, I think it would be prudent for Blizzard to reduce the barrier of entry. Some things may be possible without affecting the skill cap, but even if it were to drop a bit, I feel like the skill cap could be reduced while still being unreachable by the very best. Micro alone, ensures this.
First and foremost, I hope others can realize the importance of increasing accessibility. That being said, here are some ideas (not the "be all end all", but hopefully will generate discussion!):
1. Macro mechanics need to change or go away. I feel like Blizzard was on the right track with this before, but gave up because they didn't want to deal with the balance changes. In my opinion, they dropped the ball here, big time.
2. Put optional progress bars that can be displayed in the corner, helping players keep track of what they're building and researching. Also have bars to assist in keeping track of your unit composition.
3. Incorporate a build order helper of sorts. This not only allows players to focus more on "fun" aspects of the game, but would also help new players from feeling lost. Build orders could not only give players a simpler start, but could also have a "game goal" attached on how each build order directs you towards a win. Giving new players direction could go a very long way! Could even be a professionally voiced guide, similar to campaign mode, where they discuss the goals with you and how you will achieve them (maybe this would also help players feel less "isolated").
I quite like your ideas, especially 2 and 3. Macro mechanics is a tough one at this point because of the zerg EZ accusations without injects.
I think we should take out MBS and limit control groups again. If we're going to play a game that casuals can't get into lets go all out on toughening it up. Make the AI shit too, that was fun apparently
SC2 is a difficult game, yes. But it's not the problem. The problem is that it's difficult & not rewarding. How a player can be rewarded in a game like sc2? There are plenty different ways, but obviously the most important along them is that a player should feel rewarded just with achieving victory. Can you say that you feel happy winning in sc2? I personally can say at best that I feel satisfied, but not delighted. Why so? Because I achieve most victories not through beautiful micro, smart strategies, but just being a little faster, doing less mistakes, distributing my attention better... Such things. Well, I do win also with help of some nice micro or smart moves, but it happens so freaking rarely. 1 of 100 games (actually, even less) is brilliant for me, but all others are routine. I think the game speed is just too fast. I think I would love if the game was even more difficult, but not because of increase of game speed.
The game speed is too fast not cause of 7, 6, 5 but because of terrible damage.
If bio didn't wreck anything within a second and banelings/colossi(the old ones mainly) didn't wreck bio as quickly players could have longer fights where they can make the difference outside of pure numbers and timings.
Now we even got adepts that wreck light units within seconds. Too many steps into that direction have been made to take them all back. But it must still happen.
We got mutas that kill anything within seconds and heal up for dmg taken to be perfectly fine some seconds later. We got phoenix that kill mutalisks within seconds and little micro.
The list could be endlessly continued.
It is boring.
But it is important to understand that the origin of that is terrible damage marines/bio which have no downside other than being victim to terrible dmg counters.
Remember WOL: PvT fights alway about boring colossi vs. viking fights. Either colossi kill bio fast enough and T got no chance or vikings kill colossi fast enough and P got no chance. It was only about that.
It is and was boring! LOTV only shifted and covered some of the basic issues with more overpowered tools for every side. The nail in the coffin so to speak as the game designers majorly misunerstood what made broowar great.
This is more like command & conquer than broodwar but on a much better pro-balanced level (hello browder).
On November 29 2016 08:26 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: I think we should take out MBS and limit control groups again. If we're going to play a game that casuals can't get into lets go all out on toughening it up. Make the AI shit too, that was fun apparently
Well if it overall has a positive effect on the gameplay then it's a good measure. Unless you can get the same effect with other methods. A good example is smartcasting. Smartcasting is what makes sc2 spells extremely frustarting to play against as soon as the enemy has a certain number of spellcasters. That is true for reaper grenades, parasitic bomb/abduct, it was true for fungal, pdd/seeker and sniper, it is/was true for pretty much any spell which was perceived as too strong. The solution? Nerf, nerf, nerf to the point where abilities don't feel satisfying to use anymore or add some other mechanic to it which makes the spell extremely situational. Just because smartcasting seems to be essential, which imo is absurd. I would much rather have strong spells which are hard to use than spammable spells which aren't satisfying anymore. Both when i use it actively or when i have to play against it.
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.
Who said I was attacking then macroing?
When your army is on the map moving out and you need to do something back at base then you have to divide your attention. Most things can be queued up by putting your buildings on tab groups but when you need to do something attention consuming, such as swap addons then you are too vulnerable to say a couple of disruptor balls from nowhere.
Seconds count in this game, you can not baby sit your army as it moves all the time, you have to multitask.
On November 29 2016 08:47 LSN wrote: The game speed is too fast not cause of 7, 6, 5 but because of terrible damage.
If bio didn't wreck anything within a second and banelings/colossi(the old ones mainly) didn't wreck bio as quickly players could have longer fights where they can make the difference outside of pure numbers and timings.
Yep, and Kim did say that they were looking into slowing the fights down. Never heard anything about it again.
It would allow a player to showcase their skill better. But it seems 'terrible, terrible damage' is the mantra of SC2 and it will never change. It would also allow a spectator to understand better what is happening. Even after these years I still have to watch replays to understand what the hell happened in a fight I just saw.
On November 29 2016 08:47 LSN wrote: The game speed is too fast not cause of 7, 6, 5 but because of terrible damage.
If bio didn't wreck anything within a second and banelings/colossi(the old ones mainly) didn't wreck bio as quickly players could have longer fights where they can make the difference outside of pure numbers and timings.
Yep, and Kim did say that they were looking into slowing the fights down. Never heard anything about it again.
It would allow a player to showcase their skill better. But it seems 'terrible, terrible damage' is the mantra of SC2 and it will never change. It would also allow a spectator to understand better what is happening. Even after these years I still have to watch replays to understand what the hell happened in a fight I just saw.
This is mostly due to the pathing though. Stuff clumps up in sc2, which makes big armies look small and in general makes it harder to spectate big engagemens. It also increases the dps density, which is to this day one of the biggest problems of sc2. People can say that the bw pathing is "dumb" but the effect it had was simply superior. If you can get the same effect with a "smarter" pathing then go for it, but it seems to be essential that the units spread while moving
But yes lets rather add + 2 range hydras and + 3 armour ultralisk and + life banelings and + this and that instead of just admitting that bio is way too strong and universal of a unit/composition.
Sure you can achieve balanced winrates like that but the game wont be balanced in itself and cannot be by default.
Any little variation will have huge frustrating effects. E.g. a little micro mistake of bio vs. banelings and you lose them all in the fraction of a second. Or a little misplaced drop defence and bio kills whole eco + hatch within a second or two.
@viper Ofc bw pathing could tone that down and allow only less dps/area, allow better surroundings, allow better anti splash dmg by default but it is not only the pathing. Bio got +10 hp upgrade. They got marauders to tank damage, to slow down escaping units and deal dmg against armoured. They got heal from the air which is always in perfect position in opposite to BW medics. They can load into their healers and escape almost any situation.
Sure this needs strong counters and the existing history of buffs/implementation of units/mechanics against that.
I find this game has been called dead since year one of its release. Year after year passes with the ever present dead game prophet screaming at the top of his lungs at how certain he is the game is over. And with each passing year I smirk more and more thinking "shouldn't we wait for a game to be dead before we announce it as dead?"
the difference of mood between TL and reddit is astonishing. guess which place became the actual best place to follow and appreciate the game.. (love the LR tho)
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.
What did they fix?
Unit design: nope Bnet 2.0: nope game pacing:not only nope, but they actually made it worse Price/balls of selling 1 game as 3 full price games: nope. Manage to stop their alienation of either/both the hardcore and/or casual crowd: nope. Changed anything regarding the poor design of SC2 units: nope. (if anything they added more terrible units in HotS and LotV.
Tell me again what they fixed and what we should focus on fixing moving forward?
Also my favorites are the people saying "everyone quit cause the game is too hard" its a PvP game... our opponents are eachother. We didnt quit because the game is hard... we quit because the game is shit, and we wanted to play something better. Ive played BW since release, and was stil playing it up til Sc2 launch, and BW was infinitely harder than SC2.
The skill cap has NOTHING to do with why people dont play the game anymore, why it gets no views on twitch, and why the scene is so fucking dead, while it was basically the Flagship of Esports for years.
The game is unpopular because Blizzard just took a huge shit on a lot of peoples favorite gaming franchise, and were turned away from it.
On November 29 2016 09:02 LSN wrote: But yes lets rather add + 2 range hydras and + 3 armour ultralisk and + life banelings and + this and that instead of just admitting that bio is way too strong and universal of a unit/composition.
Sure you can achieve balanced winrates like that but the game wont be balanced in itself and cannot be by default.
Any little variation will have huge frustrating effects. E.g. a little micro mistake of bio vs. banelings and you lose them all in the fraction of a second. Or a little misplaced drop defence and bio kills whole eco + hatch within a second or two.
@viper Ofc bw pathing could tone that down and allow only less dps/area, allow better surroundings, allow better anti splash dmg by default but it is not only the pathing. Bio got +10 hp upgrade. They got marauders to tank damage, to slow down escaping units and deal dmg against armoured. They got heal from the air which is always in perfect position in opposite to BW medics. They can load into their healers and escape almost any situation.
Sure this needs strong counters and the existing history of buffs/implementation of units/mechanics against that.
Oh yeah sure there are more reasons for bio specifically. The medivac for example shouldn't be in this game period. But i was mostly talking about the general pace of fights, etc. The whole deal with "deathballs" is due to the pathing as well (mixed with hardcounters; If hardcounters can move tight as a ball, yes then you get a true deathball)
Personally i think sc2 gets worse the bigger the armies get. Which is sad and shouldn't be the case.
People need to focus more on the future at this point, sc2 was partially successful because of the small but very passionate foreign BW viewer base who did a great job hyping the SC franchise to esports fans. That kind of crazy passion doesn't really exist in sc2 right now, which is both blizzard and the community's fault, and that fact means it will be harder for SC3 or WC4 to be successful.
I stopped playing 1v1 a long time ago (2011) because it was frustratingly difficult to make your units do what you wanted them to do. The future of RTS is low APM games.
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.
What did they fix?
Unit design: nope Bnet 2.0: nope game pacing:not only nope, but they actually made it worse Price/balls of selling 1 game as 3 full price games: nope. Manage to stop their alienation of either/both the hardcore and/or casual crowd: nope. Changed anything regarding the poor design of SC2 units: nope. (if anything they added more terrible units in HotS and LotV.
Tell me again what they fixed and what we should focus on fixing moving forward?
Also my favorites are the people saying "everyone quit cause the game is too hard" its a PvP game... our opponents are eachother. We didnt quit because the game is hard... we quit because the game is shit, and we wanted to play something better. Ive played BW since release, and was stil playing it up til Sc2 launch, and BW was infinitely harder than SC2.
The skill cap has NOTHING to do with why people dont play the game anymore, why it gets no views on twitch, and why the scene is so fucking dead, while it was basically the Flagship of Esports for years.
The game is unpopular because Blizzard just took a huge shit on a lot of peoples favorite gaming franchise, and were turned away from it.
Bnet is great right now, I'm not sure what more you could ask for other than the arcade stuff that no one will use. They added in the chat rooms, clan shit, separate race per mmr, Co op, archon mode, etc etc
Game design and unit design is subjective (I like LOTV more than WOL and especially HOTS). You can buy the entire multiplayer by just buying LOTV right now.
I'm not sure if you're just emotional or genuinely not very bright but try to research and think of the facts first before vomiting your "took a shit on the fans" hyperbole all over threads.
On November 29 2016 11:28 Korakys wrote: I stopped playing 1v1 a long time ago (2011) because it was frustratingly difficult to make your units do what you wanted them to do. The future of RTS is low APM games.
The APM requirement of Starcraft 2 is not the problem. It's the attention requirement. I lost a game earlier today because I was not looking at my army for two seconds while leapfrogging my tanks and the enemy flanked with zerglings. Two seconds that I went back to my base to macro was all it took for me to lose an entire engagement. Had I been paying attention, the APM required to counter the zergling flank wouldn't have been much. I mean it doesn't take much APM to micro infantry around.
The Oracle suffers from the same problem. It doesn't take a lot of APM to counter the Oracle, but it deals such an absurd amount of damage that you have to be already paying attention in order to counter it.
There are so many things in Starcraft 2 that are overpowered because they require a lot of attention to counter:
If you paid 100% attention to your army, none of these units would even be overpowered. They'd actually be underpowered since they rely so much on the element of surprise that they would be nothing but bumps in the road for 100% alert opponents.
On November 29 2016 09:15 Thieving Magpie wrote: I find this game has been called dead since year one of its release. Year after year passes with the ever present dead game prophet screaming at the top of his lungs at how certain he is the game is over. And with each passing year I smirk more and more thinking "shouldn't we wait for a game to be dead before we announce it as dead?"
I agree with you completely. SC2 isn't as popular, but it is far from dead.
Honestly, its not possible to determine what caused the decline of SC2. Sure many of us have our suspicions, and some will tout it as facts, but we cannot possibly know the entire truth.
I think the decline is due to many factors, all of which was stated already by many of us.
Its a hard game, so not many will pick it up. It wasn't free (I know part of it is now but regardless it wasn't upon release). Arcade sucks, especially compared to War 3 and BW arcade. It lacked social interaction. Other games competed for the attention of gamers. RTS aren't popular anymore. Didn't feel rewarding to win, and losing was a horrible feeling. Team games are more fun to play than 1v1. BW fans expected SC2 to be similar, but was hugely disappointed (i.e. they didn't like the design of SC2). Blizzard's reputation made the hype, but the game didn't completely live up to that hype. SC2 isn't fun. SC2 is frustrating.
There are probably even more reasons why.
Each one alone probably wouldn't have been such a problem, but all of them combined and you have the decline of SC2.
The problem though is some of these things Blizzard can't control. And things they could change might alienate even more players.
We can discuss this ad nauseam, and it won't do much good.
I'm fairly certain Blizzard already acknowledges the decline of SC2. The good news is that they are trying to do something about it. This patch is actively trying to regain the 'mech players' in an attempt to add depth to terran gameplay/style. They also made vast improvements to Battlenet. Albeit, not great but better than WoL Bnet.
I don't think Blizzard is focusing on SC2. It's not their cash cow. They won't pull the plug though, because it's still a franchise that garners a lot of attention.
Look at their newest franchise, Overwatch. The game isn't even a year old and they announced a full league with complete support and contracts for players. I'm kind of pissed that Blizzard would give so much attention to their youngest child, but give minimal attention to the middle child.
On November 29 2016 09:15 Thieving Magpie wrote: I find this game has been called dead since year one of its release. Year after year passes with the ever present dead game prophet screaming at the top of his lungs at how certain he is the game is over. And with each passing year I smirk more and more thinking "shouldn't we wait for a game to be dead before we announce it as dead?"
The game isn't dead, but it's basically on life support at this point. If Blizzard pulled out of WCS the scene would disappear overnight. As of now there are no offline tournaments that exist without Blizzard support aside from small tournaments now that Proleague is dead. It's no secret that IEM and DH would drop this game in a heartbeat if Blizzard wasn't paying them.
I agree with the spirit, if not all the details, of Firecake's video. I do however think online tournaments can easily continue to exist into the foreseeable future. But yea: we are pretty much looking at something like the end of big triple-A production international tournaments. We have to adapt. Highlighting Deepmind is an interesting way of thinking about it, but for me personally, it is the brutal depth and challenge of sc2 that will always keep me playing and watching.
Another thing: not all viewer bases are created equal. If the sc2 scene demonstrates itself to be particularly tuned in, particularly passionate, we can keep some sponsor $$ in the scene perpetually.
On November 29 2016 12:43 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: RTS aren't popular anymore. Didn't feel rewarding to win, and losing was a horrible feeling. Team games are more fun to play than 1v1.
.... .... I don't think Blizzard is focusing on SC2. It's not their cash cow. They won't pull the plug though, because it's still a franchise that garners a lot of attention.
Look at their newest franchise, Overwatch. The game isn't even a year old and they announced a full league with complete support and contracts for players. I'm kind of pissed that Blizzard would give so much attention to their youngest child, but give minimal attention to the middle child.
back when RTS peaked in the 90s and early 2000s the only way to watch massive army engagements was on a giant desktop PC with a massive monitor sitting on your desk.
the big army engagements are the payoff in any RTS game for the general player. now we have Clash of Clans and a plethora of other Tablet and Smartphone games that provide that "slow build up" feeling culminating in the giant army engagement.
increased consumer choices brought about by improving technology pushed the PC-RTS out of the market.
this has happened to many genres starting with Pong games the mid 1970s. Tech will keep improving and it will keep giving consumers more choices which will marginalize certain genres that at one time had a huge influence and sway.
1970s - Space Invaders ( Gallery Shooter ) 1980s - PacMan ( Dot Eating Maze Game ) 1990s - Monkey Island ( point and click adventure ) 2000s - C&C/SC/AoE ( RTS )
do all these genres still exist? sure they do. Their best revenue days are behind them. and if its 1 thing ATVI is good at.. its generating revenue. they know how to do that.
ATVI and Bilzzard upper management's guys aer in their 40s. They know all this stuff 10000X better than we do. They're all over it.
people claiming every company that makes RTS games "got stupid" and all of these companies simultaneously started making crap games lose their me via Reductio Ad Absurdum. Their perspective is ridiculous.
On November 29 2016 14:32 cutler wrote: after reading this thread my head hurts...what is going on here?!? Why is this Thread so famous?
threads like this allow all the wannabe game-designers to come out of their holes. unfortunately there are a lot of them on TL.
plus there is nothing wrong with being part of an active community around an existing great game and just playing that game forever. the community keeps playing it forever. problem solved.
examples: Super Tecmo Bowl (1988). NHL '94 (1993), Brood War ( 1999) , Red Alert 2 (2000).
it looks to me like RA2 is going to be the "last C&C game standing" in that giant RTS series. Guess who the designer was?
I agree completely on some of the points but not so much on others. The worker change is good, it fast forward all the inactive early games while still keeping early game harass opptunity. Relearning the game isn't bad considering the game needed a big overhaul after all the SH games. Not having new tutorial is because there's just not that many content makers targeting new players. Strategy videos do still get posted.
I was hoping a huge overhaul game every few years with minor patches in between in order to keep the game fresh and exciting. But nothing ever changes significantly until the most recent patch.
Hopefully blizzard can read this tl thread and do more and take an active attitude going into this
On November 29 2016 12:43 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: RTS aren't popular anymore. Didn't feel rewarding to win, and losing was a horrible feeling. Team games are more fun to play than 1v1.
.... .... I don't think Blizzard is focusing on SC2. It's not their cash cow. They won't pull the plug though, because it's still a franchise that garners a lot of attention.
Look at their newest franchise, Overwatch. The game isn't even a year old and they announced a full league with complete support and contracts for players. I'm kind of pissed that Blizzard would give so much attention to their youngest child, but give minimal attention to the middle child.
back when RTS peaked in the 90s and early 2000s the only way to watch massive army engagements was on a giant desktop PC with a massive monitor sitting on your desk.
the big army engagements are the payoff in any RTS game for the general player. now we have Clash of Clans and a plethora of other Tablet and Smartphone games that provide that "slow build up" feeling culminating in the giant army engagement.
increased consumer choices brought about by improving technology pushed the PC-RTS out of the market.
this has happened to many genres starting with Pong games the mid 1970s. Tech will keep improving and it will keep giving consumers more choices which will marginalize certain genres that at one time had a huge influence and sway.
1970s - Space Invaders ( Gallery Shooter ) 1980s - PacMan ( Dot Eating Maze Game ) 1990s - Monkey Island ( point and click adventure ) 2000s - C&C/SC/AoE ( RTS )
do all these genres still exist? sure they do. Their best revenue days are behind them. and if its 1 thing ATVI is good at.. its generating revenue. they know how to do that.
ATVI and Bilzzard upper management's guys aer in their 40s. They know all this stuff 10000X better than we do. They're all over it.
people claiming every company that makes RTS games "got stupid" and all of these companies simultaneously started making crap games lose their me via Reductio Ad Absurdum. Their perspective is ridiculous.
I agree Blizzard knows their shit. I don't think they will let SC2 just die a slow death. They aren't shipping SC2 off to a retirement home so that it can be left to collect dust and have no family visit.
However, I'm pissed that they didn't actively support the tournaments right from the get go. It makes me appreciate Riot starting the LCS. Riot knew it will take active involvement to push a game towards longevity. Instead it seemed like Blizzard relied on the grassroots to keep SC2 alive. Only when they realized it needed support did they decide to step in.
I feel like Blizzard wanted to see how far can passion from the community keep the game from declining in popularity. It worked for BW, but obviously didn't for SC2.
On November 29 2016 11:28 Korakys wrote: I stopped playing 1v1 a long time ago (2011) because it was frustratingly difficult to make your units do what you wanted them to do. The future of RTS is low APM games.
The APM requirement of Starcraft 2 is not the problem. It's the attention requirement. I lost a game earlier today because I was not looking at my army for two seconds while leapfrogging my tanks and the enemy flanked with zerglings. Two seconds that I went back to my base to macro was all it took for me to lose an entire engagement. Had I been paying attention, the APM required to counter the zergling flank wouldn't have been much. I mean it doesn't take much APM to micro infantry around.
The Oracle suffers from the same problem. It doesn't take a lot of APM to counter the Oracle, but it deals such an absurd amount of damage that you have to be already paying attention in order to counter it.
There are so many things in Starcraft 2 that are overpowered because they require a lot of attention to counter:
If you paid 100% attention to your army, none of these units would even be overpowered. They'd actually be underpowered since they rely so much on the element of surprise that they would be nothing but bumps in the road for 100% alert opponents.
This is why I stopped playing. HOTS added too many anti-fun units and LOTV continued the trend. I'm one of the people who think SC2 is too fast and this is what I mean. It's BS that someone can fly an oracle into your base at the 5 minute mark or whatever and win the whole game for a 125/125 early game investment. SC2 is full of frustrating, unsatisfying ways to lose and that turns off players of all skill levels but especially new players.
On November 29 2016 11:28 Korakys wrote: I stopped playing 1v1 a long time ago (2011) because it was frustratingly difficult to make your units do what you wanted them to do. The future of RTS is low APM games.
The APM requirement of Starcraft 2 is not the problem. It's the attention requirement. I lost a game earlier today because I was not looking at my army for two seconds while leapfrogging my tanks and the enemy flanked with zerglings. Two seconds that I went back to my base to macro was all it took for me to lose an entire engagement. Had I been paying attention, the APM required to counter the zergling flank wouldn't have been much. I mean it doesn't take much APM to micro infantry around.
The Oracle suffers from the same problem. It doesn't take a lot of APM to counter the Oracle, but it deals such an absurd amount of damage that you have to be already paying attention in order to counter it.
There are so many things in Starcraft 2 that are overpowered because they require a lot of attention to counter:
If you paid 100% attention to your army, none of these units would even be overpowered. They'd actually be underpowered since they rely so much on the element of surprise that they would be nothing but bumps in the road for 100% alert opponents.
This is why I stopped playing. HOTS added too many anti-fun units and LOTV continued the trend. I'm one of the people who think SC2 is too fast and this is what I mean. It's BS that someone can fly an oracle into your base at the 5 minute mark or whatever and win the whole game for a 125/125 early game investment. SC2 is full of frustrating, unsatisfying ways to lose and that turns off players of all skill levels but especially new players.
I didn't like the way XYZ units are designed, that is why I quit SC2.
On November 29 2016 14:21 Oreo7 wrote: I agree with the spirit, if not all the details, of Firecake's video. I do however think online tournaments can easily continue to exist into the foreseeable future. But yea: we are pretty much looking at something like the end of big triple-A production international tournaments. We have to adapt. Highlighting Deepmind is an interesting way of thinking about it, but for me personally, it is the brutal depth and challenge of sc2 that will always keep me playing and watching.
For most e-sport games it will be ok to have only good online tournaments. But Starcraft 2 was once a game with my many full time players and insanely big tournaments. I think it is too depressing for most of the community to have "only" online tournaments.
Co op and deepmind is an alternative way of keep promoting Starcraft but on an other field since 1v1 failed. Remember archon mod last year ? In my opinion it was the first attemp to move people away from 1v1
On November 29 2016 14:32 cutler wrote: after reading this thread my head hurts...what is going on here?!? Why is this Thread so famous?
threads like this allow all the wannabe game-designers to come out of their holes. unfortunately there are a lot of them on TL.
Why not attack the arguments instead of the authors? Let me ask you this question: What do you want starcraft to look like? What should be key elements to its design and gameplay? Do you think Blizzard does the best job possible achieving this result? As i said quite often in the last few years, it's obvious that not everybody wants the same from the game but i also think that pleasing the more competitive people is the way to go because casuals won't see the difference anyway unless you make the game as beginner friendly as possible. It wouldn't be starcraft anymore at that point though (automatic macro, less focus on multitasking, extreme defenders advantage so there is no way to lose the game in the first few minutes, etc)
I will never forgive a single person that raised a stink about "dead game" bullshit at any point during this game's history. A LOT of people have skipped this game because they were given the impression that nobody plays it and that the online lobbies would be deserted. I have seen it first hand.
Firecake: be glad that you could even be a pro gamer and play your favorite game for any amount of time. That's something many of the people on this forum wish they could have experienced.
I don't really think the balance of the game has ever been that big of a problem. There were occasionally some shitty styles that had to be patched out but overall that never really seemed to affect viewership numbers. I think people just got tired of the game and moved on.
The Korean scene in particular has had some serious issues that never had anything to do with game design. From Day 1 there was the feud between Blizzard and Kespa, later the hybrid proleague that gave SC2 a bad reputation with viewers and brood war pros alike because they were forced to play it. The whole transition from BW to SC2 was just forced and never should have been done that way. Players should have been free to choose what game they wanted to play without being banned from Kespa. Besides Tastosis, the quality of the English casting in Korea has always been lower than tournaments abroad and held to absolutely no professional standards, as well as recruiting totally random people to cast that nobody had ever heard of and who weren't really charismatic or knowledgeable about the game. Guess who was running tournaments with lazy casting and poor production value? It was Kespa. And now we have the revelation that the SC2 teams were secretly colluding to price-fix their players' salaries.
So in my opinion Kespa is both incompetent and corrupt. That organization has done more damage to SC2 than Blizzard ever did. The GSL and the WCS system (ran by Blizzard) have always produced the greatest tournaments and attracted the most viewers. And that also happens to be the part of the scene that was grown organically and is still being supported to this day.
Just let the SC2 scene shrink in peace for gods sake. People will still keep having tournaments for this game for years to come, whether or not they have big prize pools.
On November 29 2016 15:59 alexanderzero wrote: Firecake: be glad that you could even be a pro gamer and play your favorite game for any amount of time. That's something many of the people on this forum wish they could have experienced.
Pro gamer is far from an ideal job where you play video games and get enough money to do whatever you want. It is a terrible choice in the long term, you have to work in a very stressful environment and there are many shady tournaments/organizers/teams you have to deal with. People will praise you when you succeed, insult you when you fail and forget you when you leave. You also have to ask for your money from tournaments all the times else you are sure you will never get it.
I don't regret my choice (I think I would have regret more not to try being a progamer). But I believe the true winners are tournaments organizers and Blizzard who should be really glad that they had pro gamers to use for their business. Look at where the previous progamers (like Idra, Naniwa..) are compared to the organizations (like DH, ESL...)
On November 29 2016 15:59 alexanderzero wrote: Just let the SC2 scene shrink in peace for gods sake. People will still keep having tournaments for this game for years to come, whether or not they have big prize pools.
I think it is good to acknowledge the mistakes of the situation to have a britghter future for us and the next generations : This is what I mention in the end of my video, in my opinion e-sport in sc2 is over (unless a gigantic WCS announcement), if you want a future for Starcraft 2 the scene has to changed somehow. For the next generations I am thinking about the new progamers, the new teams, the new games. I think they should watch what happenned on previous "e-sport" games to takes the good decisions for their future
On November 29 2016 11:28 Korakys wrote: I stopped playing 1v1 a long time ago (2011) because it was frustratingly difficult to make your units do what you wanted them to do. The future of RTS is low APM games.
Anything than that, i cant express enought hate already... games likes Quakeworld, Quake 3 Arena, Painkiller were great fast paced games... why is everything need to be slow ?
On November 29 2016 15:59 alexanderzero wrote: I will never forgive a single person that raised a stink about "dead game" bullshit at any point during this game's history. A LOT of people have skipped this game because they were given the impression that nobody plays it and that the online lobbies would be deserted. I have seen it first hand.
While dead game threads surely are not helpful they are in no way the reason for SC2 decline and cannot be blamed.
They are more an equivalent or synonym for people who believe their actual reasons and arguments are neither being heared nor ever will be addressed.
Nice video. An idle thought - does a game like SC2 need to be significantly more dynamic to be a successful esport?
Balance in LoL and DOTA 2 seems to be a somewhat dynamic thing - the games are always changing, powerful strats are found and then nerfed.
Given the complexity of interactions in all 3 games, I suspect (but I don't know) that powerful strategies will always be found, however careful the designers and whatever the designer's intent.
Firecake makes an interesting point: powerful strategies are exciting the first time they're seen. Viewers want to witness creativity, and they respect when a player innovates. They get boring when they stick around as the number 1 thing. Dynamic balance, if done correctly, means that players can keep coming up with innovative strategies.
Starcraft 2's thing, to some extent, was to avoid regular rule changes - I get the impression that this was partly looking at how successful Brood War was with no balance patches whatsoever. I wonder if this is no longer a winning strategy today.
The game plays on the bleeding edge of human reaction. A simple mistake can cause you the game due to stupid amounts of damage. I've been masters many times, and the game feels too punishing on little mistakes. Even at the highest level of play, at the highest reaction rate and mechanical skill, I see top pros making a game-ending mistake all time. I was watching Innovation stream a week ago(?), who is ranked 1 on Korean ladder, and was amazed at his mechanical skill. He plays vs. Z, builds up a little marine mine comp to harass,etc but takes a look away for a millisecond and his main force dies to a zerg/bane. He quits the game. It ended less than 8 min. A simple game-ending mistake should be not be allowed to happen, and it happens consistently at top level.
This is also the reason why you never see a consistent top winner, or a consistent pool of top 10, top 5 players. Take note of the top 5 now it will most certainly change in the near future. TY, currently second best, so far has failed twice in the qualifiers to IEM. Patience who just won Homestory, beating Zest, Stats, TY, has failed twice to qualify as well, losing to Jjakji. A korean filled qualifier has always been like throwing darts, there's upsets all over. Top 5 players should not lose to code B players. How is it in 2016 season 1 SSL and GSL, the top 10 players are completely different form each other? And in season 2 the top five of both tournaments are different. In other 1v1 games do we see as much randomness at top level of play? In WC3, there is a consistent top. In Melee, the top 5 is set in stone. I assume it's as well for SC1 (I don't follow SC). In tennis, there is a consistent top 5. Same goes for chess. Because of this inconsistency with SC2, it's hard to root for a certain player, as their reign on top is short lived.
Yes mistakes will happen with a game that has an immeasurable skill ceiling like SC2. You can argue that a top player making a mistake balances out because the opposing top player also makes mistakes, and you can argue that the Korean talent pool was(is) so stacked and deep so that's why so many upsets happen and it's so hard to predict. But I believe that theoretically if there is a game that eliminated all factors of luck, at the highest level of competition there would be filtering out of extraordinary players who should always make less mistakes than other, and hence the top talent pool should not deviate too much.
But since the game plays on the bleeding edge of human reaction, where the game can be decided by looking away for a millisecond, or by one big fight that happens and ends all too quickly, it's frustrating.
On November 29 2016 17:11 lpunatic wrote: Starcraft 2's thing, to some extent, was to avoid regular rule changes - I get the impression that this was partly looking at how successful Brood War was with no balance patches whatsoever. I wonder if this is no longer a winning strategy today.
Maps do much of the "fine tuning" of racial balance in Brood War.
If the StarCraft 2 development team were more careful with their design choices and not included mechanics that could ruin the map balance paradigm (re: Force Fields, Warpgates, Protoss Balance, Static Defense balance, Economic System, etc) then StarCraft 2 could have shared similar success to Brood War.
Unfortunately in StarCraft 2, maps are not the hugely impacting medium of balance Blizzard can go to, but more of a minor one.
Blizzard kind of went off and did their own thing haphazardly, choosing to ignore the lessons learned from the very robust and revolutionary Korean StarCraft eSports scene that existed for 10 years before the release of StarCraft 2.
StarCraft 2 is a good game, but it could have been a much better game than it was, but many mistakes were made along the way.
On November 29 2016 17:11 lpunatic wrote: Starcraft 2's thing, to some extent, was to avoid regular rule changes - I get the impression that this was partly looking at how successful Brood War was with no balance patches whatsoever. I wonder if this is no longer a winning strategy today.
Maps do much of the "fine tuning" of racial balance in Brood War.
If the StarCraft 2 development team were more careful with their design choices and not included mechanics that could ruin the map balance paradigm (re: Force Fields, Warpgates, Protoss Balance, Static Defense balance, Economic System, etc) then StarCraft 2 could have shared similar success to Brood War.
Unfortunately in StarCraft 2, maps are not the hugely impacting medium of balance Blizzard can go to, but more of a minor one.
Blizzard kind of went off and did their own thing haphazardly, choosing to ignore the lessons learned from the very robust and revolutionary Korean StarCraft eSports scene that existed for 10 years before the release of StarCraft 2.
StarCraft 2 is a good game, but it could have been a much better game than it was, but many mistakes were made along the way.
I think the important factor is speed - SC2 is a lot faster then BW by design and as a result you have very little to no time to salvage any blunder. Meanwhile in brood war if you screwed up but reacted quickly you weren't dead immediately.
That's actually punishing point of any issue. The game is faster so any factor affecting game will hit the game a lot quicker and as a result is a lot more punishing than it would be in BW.
On November 29 2016 19:09 BakedButters wrote: The game plays on the bleeding edge of human reaction. A simple mistake can cause you the game due to stupid amounts of damage. I've been masters many times, and the game feels too punishing on little mistakes. Even at the highest level of play, at the highest reaction rate and mechanical skill, I see top pros making a game-ending mistake all time.
As a side note, most satisfying games have established a good balance between mistakes and awesome plays. Early GSL seasons were exciting partly because players like Fruit Dealer and MKP seemed to find ways to defy the very rules of the game.
Obviously it's hard to maintain the constant feel of novelty and exploration as the game gets more figured out, but it still feels like in SC2 the better player usually just makes less mistakes and plays more efficient. Actual star player highlight moments are pretty rare.
If the speed of the game is one of the significant issues, why everyone was absolutely against the idea of lowering the game speed? They wanted to do it for lower leagues, seems silly and to be honest it would be weird if they implemented it with current matchmaking (maybe they would make some hard division between lower and higher leagues), but it could work out somehow - of course for those that play the game hardcore it sounds ludicrous and feels like neverending bullet-time scene from the Matrix, but I haven't seen an opinion from a player that plays casually for fun
I think it would be interesting to know how many people play the single player on a speed setting lower than faster.
On November 29 2016 21:00 aQuaSC wrote: If the speed of the game is one of the significant issues, why everyone was absolutely against the idea of lowering the game speed? They wanted to do it for lower leagues, seems silly, but it could work out - of course for those that play the game hardcore it sounds ludicrous and feels like neverending bullet-time scene from the Matrix, but I haven't seen an opinion from a player that plays casually for fun
I don't think the overall speed is too fast. However, the damage numbers are out of this world, the splash damage massive and so on.
Playing at different game speeds on different skill levels seems to create an awful gap.
In most RTS games terrible players are allowed to play terrible games and the game itself kind of speeds up and intensifies as the player skill increases. Meanwhile in SC2 they tried to give everybody the tools to do terrible terrible damage right away. The outcome is that anyone can do insane damage with a lucky attack, but only extremely skilled players can consistently keep the received damage at manageable level.
It's a bit like boxing match where both the boxers have horseshoes in their gloves. Unless both contestants are super good, the guy who swings and hits first usually wins. It's damn hard to have a satisfying slugfest like that too when the first good hit ends the fight.
On November 29 2016 21:00 aQuaSC wrote: If the speed of the game is one of the significant issues, why everyone was absolutely against the idea of lowering the game speed? They wanted to do it for lower leagues, seems silly, but it could work out - of course for those that play the game hardcore it sounds ludicrous and feels like neverending bullet-time scene from the Matrix, but I haven't seen an opinion from a player that plays casually for fun
I don't think the overall speed is too fast. However, the damage numbers are out of this world, the splash damage massive and so on.
Playing at different game speeds on different skill levels seems to create an awful gap.
In most RTS games terrible players are allowed to play terrible games and the game itself kind of speeds up and intensifies as the player skill increases. Meanwhile in SC2 they tried to give everybody the tools to do terrible terrible damage right away. The outcome is that anyone can do insane damage with a lucky attack, but only extremely skilled players can consistently keep the received damage at manageable level.
It's a bit like boxing match where both the boxers have horseshoes in their gloves. Unless both contestants are super good, the guy who swings and hits first usually wins. It's damn hard to have a satisfying slugfest like that too when the first good hit ends the fight.
I agree. If they lowered the dps all across the board kinda like they did with Cyclone lock-on, I'd be fine with it.
I believe sc2 has been the best game in the last decade. The problem is 98% of 'gamers' are noobs who can't implement a unique strategy to save their lives. E-sports are supposed to be the ultimate measure of skill and whits between players. Starcraft is a good game, it just doesn't fit the modern requirements of a flashy 'always fun' spectator game that every player can get into.
On November 29 2016 21:20 MrSunny wrote: I believe sc2 has been the best game in the last decade. The problem is 98% of 'gamers' are noobs who can't implement a unique strategy to save their lives. E-sports are supposed to be the ultimate measure of skill and whits between players. Starcraft is a good game, it just doesn't fit the modern requirements of a flashy 'always fun' spectator game that every player can get into.
Thing is that competitive games in 2010 became 'cool' and easily marketable, and being marketable forces making the games social easy to get into to maximize your playerbase, and SC2 of course falls short in this regard. The biggest, most significant reasons the game is not as popular anymore is the fact that the officialy supported mode is 1v1 and that many team-based alternatives popped up.
Does anyone know how Quake was like over the years with Counterstrike as it's competition? There seems to be a simple pattern there.
On November 29 2016 21:00 aQuaSC wrote: If the speed of the game is one of the significant issues, why everyone was absolutely against the idea of lowering the game speed? They wanted to do it for lower leagues, seems silly, but it could work out - of course for those that play the game hardcore it sounds ludicrous and feels like neverending bullet-time scene from the Matrix, but I haven't seen an opinion from a player that plays casually for fun
I don't think the overall speed is too fast. However, the damage numbers are out of this world, the splash damage massive and so on.
Playing at different game speeds on different skill levels seems to create an awful gap.
In most RTS games terrible players are allowed to play terrible games and the game itself kind of speeds up and intensifies as the player skill increases. Meanwhile in SC2 they tried to give everybody the tools to do terrible terrible damage right away. The outcome is that anyone can do insane damage with a lucky attack, but only extremely skilled players can consistently keep the received damage at manageable level.
It's a bit like boxing match where both the boxers have horseshoes in their gloves. Unless both contestants are super good, the guy who swings and hits first usually wins. It's damn hard to have a satisfying slugfest like that too when the first good hit ends the fight.
I agree. If they lowered the dps all across the board kinda like they did with Cyclone lock-on, I'd be fine with it.
I think part of the issue is the way units reflect their BW counterparts. For example the marine dps in BW is already very formiddable, but then you add the practically instant animations for turning and firing, combine it with extremely easy stimpacking and wrap it all up with the way units pack up in SC2 and you've got a ball of volatility at your hands.
On one hand the firepower is absolutely insane and on the other hand any kind of splash damage evaporates the whole group. It makes very little sense that despite all the differences, the health and damage values and res and supply costs are pretty much copied over from BW. Even the stim is pretty similar.
Thinking of it now, the marine may even have been the first unit put into the game and served as a starting guideline for the rest of the unit design.
On November 29 2016 16:18 FireCake wrote: I think it is good to acknowledge the mistakes of the situation to have a britghter future for us and the next generations : This is what I mention in the end of my video, in my opinion e-sport in sc2 is over (unless a gigantic WCS announcement), if you want a future for Starcraft 2 the scene has to changed somehow. For the next generations I am thinking about the new progamers, the new teams, the new games. I think they should watch what happenned on previous "e-sport" games to takes the good decisions for their future
Agreed. I'm baffled by those who don't want the game to grow. Keep the conversation going!
On November 29 2016 15:59 alexanderzero wrote: I will never forgive a single person that raised a stink about "dead game" bullshit at any point during this game's history. A LOT of people have skipped this game because they were given the impression that nobody plays it and that the online lobbies would be deserted. I have seen it first hand.
While dead game threads surely are not helpful they are in no way the reason for SC2 decline and cannot be blamed.
They are more an equivalent or synonym for people who believe their actual reasons and arguments are neither being heared nor ever will be addressed.
You mix up cause and effect here.
The dead game meme definitely created a feedback loop. People say SC2 is dead -> other people pick that up and actually mean it because they didn't check -> more peple say SC2 is dead -> more people think SC2 is actually dead.
Just go on /r/starcraft and search for threads "Is StarCraft really dead??", now that is just the number of people that bothered to ask. There are probably many more that simply thought "People say SC2 is dead, not gonna bother checking it out".
The dead game meme, like many other things, had an impact on how people perceive StarCraft nowadays. I mean even StarCraft players are turned off by that meme.
On November 29 2016 11:28 Korakys wrote: I stopped playing 1v1 a long time ago (2011) because it was frustratingly difficult to make your units do what you wanted them to do. The future of RTS is low APM games.
Anything than that, i cant express enought hate already... games likes Quakeworld, Quake 3 Arena, Painkiller were great fast paced games... why is everything need to be slow ?
Not sure what you're talking about. "Everything need to be slow", 99% of the modern games are incredibly fast-paced and slow-paced games are dying out.
On November 29 2016 15:59 alexanderzero wrote: I will never forgive a single person that raised a stink about "dead game" bullshit at any point during this game's history. A LOT of people have skipped this game because they were given the impression that nobody plays it and that the online lobbies would be deserted. I have seen it first hand.
While dead game threads surely are not helpful they are in no way the reason for SC2 decline and cannot be blamed.
They are more an equivalent or synonym for people who believe their actual reasons and arguments are neither being heared nor ever will be addressed.
You mix up cause and effect here.
The dead game meme definitely created a feedback loop. People say SC2 is dead -> other people pick that up and actually mean it because they didn't check -> more peple say SC2 is dead -> more people think SC2 is actually dead.
Just go on /r/starcraft and search for threads "Is StarCraft really dead??", now that is just the number of people that bothered to ask. There are probably many more that simply thought "People say SC2 is dead, not gonna bother checking it out".
The dead game meme, like many other things, had an impact on how people perceive StarCraft nowadays. I mean even StarCraft players are turned off by that meme.
On November 29 2016 11:28 Korakys wrote: I stopped playing 1v1 a long time ago (2011) because it was frustratingly difficult to make your units do what you wanted them to do. The future of RTS is low APM games.
Anything than that, i cant express enought hate already... games likes Quakeworld, Quake 3 Arena, Painkiller were great fast paced games... why is everything need to be slow ?
Not sure what you're talking about. "Everything need to be slow", 99% of the modern games are incredibly fast-paced and slow-paced games are dying out.
Literally KeksX for president for this "feedback loop" post!
On November 29 2016 23:27 Incognoto wrote: I like one thing which Firecake addresses. Viewership for the game is directly related to the amount of actual players.
This "daed gaem destroyed starcraft" meme is just a bunch of nonsense. Nobody outside Team Liquid and maybe Bnet and reddit knows about this joke. It is not one of the factors that drove sc2 popularity backwards. I feel sorry for those that find themselves offended by this.
Blame the state of the game on blizzard, they were too slow and too proud to acknowledge their mistakes and fix things in time, period.
On November 30 2016 00:07 Espartaquen wrote: This "daed gaem destroyed starcraft" meme is just a bunch of nonsense. Nobody outside Team Liquid and maybe Bnet and reddit knows about this joke. It is not one of the factors that drove sc2 popularity backwards. I feel sorry for those that find themselves offended by this.
Blame the state of the game on blizzard, they were too slow and too proud to acknowledge their mistakes and fix things in time, period.
Well that is certainly not true, I've seen lots of people who don't follow SC2 repeat it or say they're not interested in StarCraft because everyone calls it dead.
Sure it is not the sole contributing factor, but it's not the case that outside of TL or SCreddit everyone ignores it.
Well that is certainly not true, I've seen lots of people who don't follow SC2 repeat it or say they're not interested in StarCraft because everyone calls it dead.
Sure it is not the sole contributing factor, but it's not the case that nobody outside of TL or SCreddit ignores it.
Thing is, it´s an effect, not a cause. Nobody would be calling the game "dead" if people were actually playing the game. Thing is, the market has spoken, people don´t like playing starcraft anymore (there will always be a few hardcore users but in the grand scheme of things) and it´s because of blizzard´s fault. If you want the meme to go away then you should direct your frustration towards the problem, not to a bunch of trolls on the internet.
On November 30 2016 00:07 Espartaquen wrote: This "daed gaem destroyed starcraft" meme is just a bunch of nonsense. Nobody outside Team Liquid and maybe Bnet and reddit knows about this joke. It is not one of the factors that drove sc2 popularity backwards. I feel sorry for those that find themselves offended by this.
Blame the state of the game on blizzard, they were too slow and too proud to acknowledge their mistakes and fix things in time, period.
What? You listed three biggest community places for the game that have this plague of this bullshit "joke" and say that it barely affected anyone? So many people picked that up.
And what Blizzard did wrong in your opinion? Brood Lord/Infestor or Swarm Host? Then why people state 2015 as the best year of SC2? People move away from the game mainly because it's 1v1 and is not very social. Issues on Blizzard's part come after that. Do you think that sudden drop of 1v1 players at LotV release was because of some problem with the game? Maybe it got some people tired of the changes and overall different pace of the game, but mainly it's because they introduced co-op and many casuals went to play the part of StarCraft II that is directed at casuals. I wish we had co-op stats though.
I wouldn't mind them toning down burst dps in the game and other stuff but the fact is that gameplay issues in 1v1 are not the main reason why SC2 got less popular. It got less popular because it's hard for a 1v1 game nowadays to get more people to play it with no hype train with it. And the hype train it seems came to a full stop with KeSPA dropping everything SC2-related.
Game is also carried a lot by marketable people supporting it. I don't think BW would be still that popular in Korea if their big names didn't play anymore.
On November 29 2016 23:27 Incognoto wrote: I like one thing which Firecake addresses. Viewership for the game is directly related to the amount of actual players.
On November 29 2016 23:27 Incognoto wrote: I like one thing which Firecake addresses. Viewership for the game is directly related to the amount of actual players.
but as overwatch proves, there are other factors.
What is their player base and their viewerbase?
Care to elaborate because I'm interested? :p
Well in August Overwatch had something like 15 million sales and 3.1 million 'esports hours' watched on Twitch. SC2 had 2.5m in August. Unfortunately there isn't anything more recent, but the tournaments certainly don't do as well as you would expect given the popularity of the game. For example the OGN APEX tournament casted by Montecristo/DoA lost out to very bad (literally no name) LoL teams playing in KeSPA cup casted by LS and Rapid on SPOTV, and despite the complaints about SPOTV and the casters from a lot of LoL fans and the huge following Monte/DoA/OGN have. https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-games-twitch/ I expect Overwatch will pick up a bit with the Blizzard league thing, but it'll be interesting to see how it does.
This is also a pretty good indication of how much SC2 streaming relies on tournaments ignoring DotA because TI most other games have a much more casual viewership whereas StarCraft is focused on tournaments, or rather the lack of individual SC2 streams. I think that picked up a bit lately though.
Maybe that is because it's an FPS and there isn't a lot to pick up
Or perhaps game personalities haven't been developed yet. I like trump and savjz from hearthstone, I like so many different progamers from SC2, voyboy from lol, etc.
Overwatch is a horrible game to watch, it's pretty much impossible to spectate it and I don't envy casters that have to cover that game(except the fact that they probably get $$$ for it). I also tried playing it on free weekends twice already and unless you have friends playing with you it's woeful at best.
On November 30 2016 00:52 Nerchio wrote: Overwatch is a horrible game to watch, it's pretty much impossible to spectate it and I don't envy casters that have to cover that game(except the fact that they probably get $$$ for it). I also tried playing it on free weekends twice already and unless you have friends playing with you it's woeful at best.
On November 30 2016 00:52 Nerchio wrote: Overwatch is a horrible game to watch, it's pretty much impossible to spectate it and I don't envy casters that have to cover that game(except the fact that they probably get $$$ for it). I also tried playing it on free weekends twice already and unless you have friends playing with you it's woeful at best.
I agree but at the same time being able to play with friends is also what makes a game popular, esp. for the younger player who have more free time and the same/very similar schedule
On November 30 2016 00:52 Nerchio wrote: Overwatch is a horrible game to watch, it's pretty much impossible to spectate it and I don't envy casters that have to cover that game(except the fact that they probably get $$$ for it). I also tried playing it on free weekends twice already and unless you have friends playing with you it's woeful at best.
I love OW but youre right. First, dont play alone its useless and waaaay less fun. Second I just love playing it, not watching it. This just too messy, I really hope they make something to adjust camera positionning, and ESPECIALLY fix those damn color for obs. Red and blue everywhere sometime you will have hard time telling which team you are watching.
On November 30 2016 00:52 Nerchio wrote: Overwatch is a horrible game to watch, it's pretty much impossible to spectate it and I don't envy casters that have to cover that game(except the fact that they probably get $$$ for it). I also tried playing it on free weekends twice already and unless you have friends playing with you it's woeful at best.
I agree but at the same time being able to play with friends is also what makes a game popular, esp. for the younger player who have more free time and the same/very similar schedule
Yes but you can play other games with your friends too
On November 30 2016 00:07 Espartaquen wrote: This "daed gaem destroyed starcraft" meme is just a bunch of nonsense. Nobody outside Team Liquid and maybe Bnet and reddit knows about this joke. It is not one of the factors that drove sc2 popularity backwards. I feel sorry for those that find themselves offended by this.
Blame the state of the game on blizzard, they were too slow and too proud to acknowledge their mistakes and fix things in time, period.
1) Nobody is saying it destroyed StarCraft.
2) Check out every StarCraft-related thread in /r/games and similar communities, it will have a huge discussion about how dead the game is.
3) I think this thread established well enough that there's not one single entitity to blame, but multiple. Blizzard is a part of it. Stating that other things didn't help doesn't change that.
Well that is certainly not true, I've seen lots of people who don't follow SC2 repeat it or say they're not interested in StarCraft because everyone calls it dead.
Sure it is not the sole contributing factor, but it's not the case that nobody outside of TL or SCreddit ignores it.
Thing is, it´s an effect, not a cause. Nobody would be calling the game "dead" if people were actually playing the game. Thing is, the market has spoken, people don´t like playing starcraft anymore (there will always be a few hardcore users but in the grand scheme of things) and it´s because of blizzard´s fault. If you want the meme to go away then you should direct your frustration towards the problem, not to a bunch of trolls on the internet.
This is where you're jumping the gun too quickly imho. People want to playStarCraft. In fact, new players come into the game every day. It's just that there are many things that come into play that make them go away again.
We're also not talking just about a bunch of trolls on the internet. "StarCraft II is dead" is an opinion many people have at this point.
On November 29 2016 19:09 BakedButters wrote: The game plays on the bleeding edge of human reaction. A simple mistake can cause you the game due to stupid amounts of damage. I've been masters many times, and the game feels too punishing on little mistakes. Even at the highest level of play, at the highest reaction rate and mechanical skill, I see top pros making a game-ending mistake all time. I was watching Innovation stream a week ago(?), who is ranked 1 on Korean ladder, and was amazed at his mechanical skill. He plays vs. Z, builds up a little marine mine comp to harass,etc but takes a look away for a millisecond and his main force dies to a zerg/bane. He quits the game. It ended less than 8 min. A simple game-ending mistake should be not be allowed to happen, and it happens consistently at top level.
But since the game plays on the bleeding edge of human reaction, where the game can be decided by looking away for a millisecond, or by one big fight that happens and ends all too quickly, it's frustrating.
Yes, this is the biggest problem in my opinion. People are trying to dodge this issue by saying League of Legends or Counter-Strike, Quake etc. are fast-paced. Here's what they don't understand.
First of all other games are much more forgiving. In League of Legends you have a lot of built-in safeguards (towers). In League and most shooters, you get to respawn and start again. In Hearthstone you almost never lose within the first 5 turns.
The other huge difference is that in Starcraft you need to be giving 100% effort 100% of the time. In other games there's a lot of downtime. League, Overwatch and Counter-Strike have death cams where you basically get to do nothing and recuperate. Hearthstone is turn-based and so doesn't exact the same toll as Starcraft. In Starcraft the stress just keeps building until someone loses.
Any little mistake can cost you the game. In League you can make some really stupid move, tower dive or whatever and the game isn't over. Counter-Strike, sure try to knife the AWPer, you've got 29 other rounds to make it up. In Starcraft bad decisions tend to get brutally punished.
This dynamic was greatly inflated by the likes of widow mines, oracles, boost medivacs, liberators etc. Cheesy units that can end the game in a brutal, frustrating fashion. HOTS and LOTV were the exact opposite of what SC2 needed. WoL wasn't really that bad if you look at it purely from this perspective. But it wasn't good enough either.
I agree. I also think that there is some psychological barrier of a single match in StarCraft II being a definitive, singular game experience with little more emotions associated with it than a disappointment after a loss and satisfaction after a victory due to in-game stress and requirement for concentration. If something really satisfying or disappointing during the match happens it's rather intuitive for player to determine who has more chances to win in general and usually it snowballs. While other games have the gametime much more expanded, you can have failures and good moments, and both instances can be equally present in matches both won and a lost. Also downtime is a huge factor as you mention.
I can't wait for the improvements for the in-game tournaments that they announced. What if a regular SC2 ladder match was a BO3? When I think of it, it wouldn't even take much longer than regular League or CS match
Its so ridiculous to insinuate that "people calling the game dead are what killed it" What is already dead...cannot be killed. It was dead/dying long before anyone ever said "dead game". Thats WHY PEOPLE SAID IT WAS A DEAD GAME.
Thats like saying Doctors kill someone everytime they pronounce a time of death. "Time of death: 8:30 PM" OMG THE DOCTOR KILLED HIM AT 8:30!!!
On November 30 2016 02:19 MaestroSC wrote: Its so ridiculous to insinuate that "people calling the game dead are what killed it" What is already dead...cannot be killed. It was dead/dying long before anyone ever said "dead game". Thats WHY PEOPLE SAID IT WAS A DEAD GAME.
Thats like saying Doctors kill someone everytime they pronounce a time of death. "Time of death: 8:30 PM" OMG THE DOCTOR KILLED HIM AT 8:30!!!
On November 30 2016 02:19 MaestroSC wrote: Its so ridiculous to insinuate that "people calling the game dead are what killed it" What is already dead...cannot be killed. It was dead/dying long before anyone ever said "dead game". Thats WHY PEOPLE SAID IT WAS A DEAD GAME.
Thats like saying Doctors kill someone everytime they pronounce a time of death. "Time of death: 8:30 PM" OMG THE DOCTOR KILLED HIM AT 8:30!!!
Dumb.
Well before you want to call people dumb it's worth considering that the game is in fact not dead.
On November 30 2016 02:19 MaestroSC wrote: Its so ridiculous to insinuate that "people calling the game dead are what killed it" What is already dead...cannot be killed. It was dead/dying long before anyone ever said "dead game". Thats WHY PEOPLE SAID IT WAS A DEAD GAME.
Thats like saying Doctors kill someone everytime they pronounce a time of death. "Time of death: 8:30 PM" OMG THE DOCTOR KILLED HIM AT 8:30!!!
Dumb.
Well before you want to call people dumb it's worth considering that the game is in fact not dead.
i'd prefer people stick to the facts rather than firing off incorrect descriptions designed to elicit an emotional response.
the level of activity around SC2 in late 2016 is substantially lower than the level of community activity around SC2 in 2011. And its been a slow and steady decline. i'm still having fun with the game. the latest IEM qualifiers were fascinating to watch despite the hysterical screams of certain streamers.
i'm impressed with how well Blizzard has kept the SC2 playerbase going considering that RTS as a genre is in steep decline. i'm also impressed ATVI/Blizz was able to market LotV to hit the million mark as fast as HotS despite over all excitement and hype around the game being substantially lower in late 2015 as compared to March 2013.
Here is SC2 google trends the past 5 years and the past 2 years. SC2 is slowly declining. its rate of decline is decreasing.
i highly suspect TL.Net management has the exact same description for its SC2 membership base and its SC2 members' aggregate activity levels. Its slowly declining and has been for 5 years. And the rate of decline is decreasing.
For the amount that play StarCraft 2, the viewership % has always been very, very high. StarCraft and StarCraft 2 are really true eSports. They are so difficult to play that people don't approach them, but people love to watch them. Even people who don't even own the games.
Unfortunately, people watch what they play, so the viewership isn't #1.
But for the numbers that play StarCraft/StarCraft 2, they have amazing viewerships.
Sc2 is a great game. The multiplayer is great, otherwise we would not play it. The number of 1vs1 ranked ladder players is the same as always. Blizzard stated that 2mio players join every month (or season) play at least one game.
We cant compare apple with oranges. Counterstrike was always more popular than rts (cs was more popular than bw).
Its misleading if we blame blizzard, if sc2 is not as popular as other games, because there is no better formula for a competitive rts than bw/sc2. Also a reinvention/revolution of a genre cant be forced.
People forget that its often a question of fashion. Old music was not only good in the past. Queens, Beatles or Mozart is still good music, but young people dont listen it, because its not in! Its similar with games.
Instead of blaming the small popularity of sc2s on the gameplay, for which we have no better formula (it might be even the best formula, because it was very popular once), we should concentrate on issiues, where we already have solutions.
Make the game more interesting for casuals: One example is co-op. Its a fantastic addition, because you play with a friend against the computer. It doesnt require a lot of skill. You dont feel your-self dumb after a defeat. Its simply not frustrating. Its fun. Co-op is everything what the ladder cant be because of a human opponent.
Another point promote the game better: DeepMind plays sc2 is great, but its not enough. The starter kit needs an overhaul and a name change.
Reduce the requirements: It is possible! If you reduce the bit depth to 16 or 8 on lowest settings, you can play it on 10 year old pcs.
Free to play: The starter-kit is already free to play. You can make unranked 1vs1 free to play too, if you like. But the bigger issiue is that nobody knows anything about the starter kit (it doesnt sound free to play).
On November 30 2016 05:47 todespolka wrote: Sc2 is a great game. Its multiplayer is also great.
You cant compare apple with oranges. There is no other rts multiplayer game, which is as popular or more. If there was a better rts multiplayer game, we would not play sc2.
On November 30 2016 05:47 todespolka wrote: Sc2 is a great game. Its multiplayer is also great.
You cant compare apple with oranges. There is no other rts multiplayer game, which is as popular or more. If there was a better rts multiplayer game, we would not play sc2.
You overestimate marketing so much...
But I agree Sc2 is a great game
I wasnt finished with writing (edited my post). Sc2 had great marketing at release. But its not enough, if you want a vibrant community. The number of 1vs1 ranked ladder players stays constant, thats good, but its also part of the problem. We need fresh blood!
Better marketing, better starter-kit, more mods like co-op for casuals helps and blizzard has done a good job in the past year.
But i could understand if they let their developers work on more profitable games. I believe they analyzed the situation and come to the conclusion that sc2 has reached its peak (cant grow any further in this game environment). When you have games like hearthstone, overwatch, diablo or world of warcraft, its hard to justify developer time for sc2.
EDIT: I dont disagree with you. I am talking more about the opinion of the community.
i'd also like to add that since Greg Black and Tim Morten have been added to the Sc2 team i really like the direction SC2 has gone and i think their contributions have gone a long way to slowing the decline of the SC2 player base.
On November 30 2016 09:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i'd also like to add that since Greg Black and Tim Morten have been added to the Sc2 team i really like the direction SC2 has gone and i think their contributions have gone a long way to slowing the decline of the SC2 player base.
Thank you for reminding us. It will take time for them to undo the damage but the healing began when they revealed that coop was doing better than multiplayer. I think that showed incontrovertible proof that catering to casuals is actually healthy for the game in general.
Morten and Black worked on RA3 which had an entire Co-Op campaign. The Co-Op "Commanders" are basically "Generals" from C&C Generals.
i play Co-Op with my Silver ( her 1v1 rank) League 2v2 team-mate. Her APM is 40 and she is not devoting any of her spare time to "getting better at Starcraft2". like none. she does have this other mysterious resource though.. its called ..ummm money.
SC2 is a good game, and I wish that I were better at it. But I have over 300 games on Steam, I have many on the PS4, I have a HTC Vive and a PSVR.
I simply do not have the spare time to devote to gaining mastery of SC2, if at all possible. Nowadays there are just too many interesting options for my limited gaming time.
Co-Op and other user friendly modes are great for letting me just jump in for an hour without the stress of 1v1, or the need to devote hours to practice. It keeps me interested in SC2 and in fact the only eSports or streams that I watch are all SC2 related.
On November 30 2016 06:43 todespolka wrote:I wasnt finished with writing (edited my post). Sc2 had great marketing at release. But its not enough, if you want a vibrant community. The number of 1vs1 ranked ladder players stays constant, thats good, but its also part of the problem. We need fresh blood!
Better marketing, better starter-kit, more mods like co-op for casuals helps and blizzard has done a good job in the past year.
But i could understand if they let their developers work on more profitable games. I believe they analyzed the situation and come to the conclusion that sc2 has reached its peak (cant grow any further in this game environment). When you have games like hearthstone, overwatch, diablo or world of warcraft, its hard to justify developer time for sc2.
EDIT: I dont disagree with you. I am talking more about the opinion of the community.
Marketing only goes so far. When even the pros are complaining about the game not being fun, you know there's a problem.
I also dislike this idea that casual players should play coop. I want to play and enjoy an RTS game against another human being, not against stupid, overpowered, AI-controlled units. Meanwhile, there are some really good PvE players who might be frustrated at how coop mode is considered casual and should therefore not be as challenging as PvP (player vs. player, not Protoss vs. Protoss).
On November 30 2016 12:44 DeadByDawn wrote: SC2 is a good game, and I wish that I were better at it. But I have over 300 games on Steam, I have many on the PS4, I have a HTC Vive and a PSVR.
I simply do not have the spare time to devote to gaining mastery of SC2, if at all possible. Nowadays there are just too many interesting options for my limited gaming time.
Co-Op and other user friendly modes are great for letting me just jump in for an hour without the stress of 1v1, or the need to devote hours to practice. It keeps me interested in SC2 and in fact the only eSports or streams that I watch are all SC2 related.
Another example of someone not playing SC2 due to competition of audience.
Let's just agree that the decline of SC2 is a multi-factor cause that can't be quantified or qualified by any of us.
We all have our reasons to either play or not play SC2, but we should stop bickering about any specific reason or tout our opinions as facts.
Even the cyclical effect of the 'dead game' meme is a factor.
I honestly don't think this discussion is helpful in anyway. It is insightful, but will not in a significant way slow down or reverse the decline of SC2.
That job is for Blizzard.
It's our job to tell them if they are doing there job well. Whether that's through feedback on the patch, playing the game more, creating threads on reddit/tl/bnet forums, and even sending emails directly to Blizzard. Please be polite and informative if you want to write a thread or email. It will be more helpful and go a lot further.
Of course we could help revert the decline, but that's a big task. First, it would take the entire community to agree to cooperate. That means even someone like Avilo needs to stop with his constant threads touting his opinion is fact, and start acting a little bit more humble on his thread. Everyone needs to do the same. TL users could use a little humiltity.
Next, each of us has to be the ambassador for SC2, and actively encourage all of our friends, coworkers, family, and everyone we know to get back into the game or start playing. We also have to produce online content or point to content already online for everyone in our circle to watch.
And there is probably more to do to get a grassroots movement like this to work. However this movement requires everyone to have a passion power level over 1,000,000,000,000.
On November 30 2016 12:44 DeadByDawn wrote: SC2 is a good game, and I wish that I were better at it. But I have over 300 games on Steam, I have many on the PS4, I have a HTC Vive and a PSVR.
I simply do not have the spare time to devote to gaining mastery of SC2, if at all possible. Nowadays there are just too many interesting options for my limited gaming time.
Co-Op and other user friendly modes are great for letting me just jump in for an hour without the stress of 1v1, or the need to devote hours to practice. It keeps me interested in SC2 and in fact the only eSports or streams that I watch are all SC2 related.
....
Of course we could help revert the decline, but that's a big task. First, it would take the entire community to agree to cooperate. That means even someone like Avilo needs to stop with his constant threads touting his opinion is fact, and start acting a little bit more humble on his thread. Everyone needs to do the same. TL users could use a little humiltity.
Next, each of us has to be the ambassador for SC2, and actively encourage all of our friends, coworkers, family, and everyone we know to get back into the game or start playing. We also have to produce online content or point to content already online for everyone in our circle to watch.
And there is probably more to do to get a grassroots movement like this to work. However this movement requires everyone to have a passion power level over 1,000,000,000,000.
So let's let Blizzard handle it.
This is exactly the attitude that I find so unethical in (parts) of the SC2 gaming community, no offense. I'm sure you don't mean it to sound that way, but it really comes across in a bad way.
Basically you are saying that in order to turn the game around, everyone just needs to be as aggressive as possible in marketing it, and that factor *alone* will determine how many people play SC2. As if marketing is the only problem, as if the game itself had no issues, in spite of the fact that you said the decline of SC2 was multifaceted and surely gameplay is one of the issues. When you continuously, and actively press your friends, family, to play your game (and not in a gentle way, you actually have to push them to do this, which I find fairly offensive), they will eventually:
(a) give up their free will and play your game because you keep pushing them, which is a horrible precedent and not a good reason for anyone to do anything because its unethical (b) realize they made a horrible mistake and now realize how wonderful the game is that they already decided to stop playing a year or more ago (pretty unlikely).
Its not a factor of the community's willpower to push their friends, family, and co-workers to play their game. You can definitely introduce them to it, but that *alone* is not going to determine the success of SC2 unless you literally badger them until they start playing your game again, which is of course totally unethical.
It is highly unlikely that marketing alone is the cause of SC2's decline. It has had tons of exposure in popular media, back when SC2 was one of the only huge esports games being showed at major tournaments. Slowly other games have gained prominence, many of them with nothing but word of mouth advertising.
I think it is fairly obvious that there is something fundamentally wrong about the core gameplay.If I look to the right at this very moment, Nada and Sea have 2000 viewers each for StarCraft: Brood war. BROOD WAR! A game that came out more than two decades ago. Meanwhile the top two SC2 streamers share roughly 200 streamers each. Is this because Brood war has better advertising?? I don't think so
On November 30 2016 12:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Morten and Black worked on RA3 which had an entire Co-Op campaign. The Co-Op "Commanders" are basically "Generals" from C&C Generals.
i play Co-Op with my Silver ( her 1v1 rank) League 2v2 team-mate. Her APM is 40 and she is not devoting any of her spare time to "getting better at Starcraft2". like none. she does have this other mysterious resource though.. its called ..ummm money.
Red alert 3 actually had almost perfect balance. And i'm not being sarcastic. There were some crazy OP MCV rushes but RA3 was for the most part really well balanced from what i remember. Way more than CnC3. I'm not surprised Morten was a part of that game.
I wonder what the hell is going on right now with this latest SC2 patch tho.
I think you're forgetting some factors here. 4 years ago, the launch of CS GO making it a big competitor for sc2 5 years ago there was the 1st Worlds Championship of League of Legends making people gain interest into the game Withing those years other games came out with their tournaments and huge cashprizes that attract people interested in competitive play
The fact that League of Legends was a free to play and that high ranked players streaming and interacting with their viewers, anybody could connect with them (from total newbie to good player) whereas you GENERALLY didn't go to sc2 streamers for the LuLz they could give you, but to see how their gameplay or strategies.
Sc2 requires knowledge and mechanics that take time and willingness to try to master, not everybody is willing to do that,so making the scene grow is hard. "But we still had a shitload of viewership" Why was it the case 4 years ago ? Alot of people bought sc2 at it's launch due to all the hype around it, they played the compaign, probably tried to ladder a bit and voila, but that's a whole bunch of people with sc2 basic knowledge, so what do you do when tournaments are announced with some of the best players in the world or in your region ? You tune in and try to see how good some people have managed to get and ofcourse that weighs off over the years. Even if you didn't play sc2 it was still something you could watch without knowing shit, of course you didn't understand any of the mind games happening or why/how/what some strategies were used but you could still appreciate those dank splits.
The other social issue is usually on multiplayer games, you get to play with other people with whom you bond, and that is another thing that keeps some players on the game, you might not be motivated to keep on playing but you like the persons you get to play with so you have fun in another way. (I'm not saying that we don't get any social interaction on sc2 but I so far haven't bonded with as much people as on other games and I wouldn't be surprised if it's almost everybody's case)
And for the viewers on Twitch, a remember LoL streamers hitting 60k viewers almost every night, but now 10k is decent 1/6th of their viewership lost ! does it mean LoL is declining ? nope, just that there is alot more content on Twitch thanks to other streamers and other games.
for me, LoTV is awful, i stopped playing it after few games and I even didn't played single missions after first three because it is not interesting (that never happened to me and i am playing SC till 1999.). obviously i am not the only one. so many changes were made to "make game better" and appealing to masses but effect was opposite.
blizzard forgot about casual players and that is it... i could write a novel here but that will change nothing so i will stop.
And nowadays many people are putting their interest in games depending on where they are on Twitch... don't have any proof, but can't help this feeling
When I talk to people in person 100% of the SC2 players say that they love the game but don't have time to get good at it. 100% of the League players say that the game is alright, its nice that its free and that they don't need to put that much time into it.
And this spreads to all other games as well. For the most part, the main reason people don't play SC2 is that its too hard and takes too much dedication when they already have a tonne of options out there to improve and learn from.
On December 01 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: When I talk to people in person 100% of the SC2 players say that they love the game but don't have time to get good at it. 100% of the League players say that the game is alright, its nice that its free and that they don't need to put that much time into it.
And this spreads to all other games as well. For the most part, the main reason people don't play SC2 is that its too hard and takes too much dedication when they already have a tonne of options out there to improve and learn from.
I heard the same thing from many others.
They don't think its poorly designed, or imbalanced.
They just don't have the time to get good or even try. And with so many other games that have a lower barrier to entry, I suspect that is the biggest culprit.
On December 01 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: When I talk to people in person 100% of the SC2 players say that they love the game but don't have time to get good at it. 100% of the League players say that the game is alright, its nice that its free and that they don't need to put that much time into it.
And this spreads to all other games as well. For the most part, the main reason people don't play SC2 is that its too hard and takes too much dedication when they already have a tonne of options out there to improve and learn from.
You want the truth? Coming from someone that did SC2 => dota2.
Here's the difference, in MOBA and other team games, when u fail u can blame ur team. In SC2 u can't (well u blame balance, but u get the idea ).
On December 01 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: When I talk to people in person 100% of the SC2 players say that they love the game but don't have time to get good at it. 100% of the League players say that the game is alright, its nice that its free and that they don't need to put that much time into it.
And this spreads to all other games as well. For the most part, the main reason people don't play SC2 is that its too hard and takes too much dedication when they already have a tonne of options out there to improve and learn from.
You want the truth? Coming from someone that did SC2 => dota2.
Here's the difference, in MOBA and other team games, when u fail u can blame ur team. In SC2 u can't (well u blame balance, but u get the idea ).
I think it was a mistake for Blizzard to push 1v1 as the flagship multiplayer mode for the game. No matter what, 1v1 will always be the most stressful experience for any casual, and no amount of good balance or fun design can change that. Blizzard did a good job of gradually releasing features to ease that 1v1 experience, but all those should have been in the game from the start. Neglecting team game issues and fumbling with the Arcade for a few years only further compounded the problem.
The player base should be a pyramid. The 1v1 experience should be at the top with everything else below it. Making that structure too top-heavy hurt the game in my opinion. I think co-op was a great step in the right direction to correct that, and hopefully it can continue to retain existing players or even grow the game with casual players that may stick around to follow the pro scene or try out other modes like 1v1.
On December 01 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: When I talk to people in person 100% of the SC2 players say that they love the game but don't have time to get good at it. 100% of the League players say that the game is alright, its nice that its free and that they don't need to put that much time into it.
And this spreads to all other games as well. For the most part, the main reason people don't play SC2 is that its too hard and takes too much dedication when they already have a tonne of options out there to improve and learn from.
You want the truth? Coming from someone that did SC2 => dota2.
Here's the difference, in MOBA and other team games, when u fail u can blame ur team. In SC2 u can't (well u blame balance, but u get the idea ).
While there are certainly a few players out there that can't accept blame, I honestly don't think that is the majority.
Even when I play Overwatch, I don't get a lot of players blaming the team. Sure 1 in 10 games someone starts getting salty and thinks their team sucks, but that is 1 player out of 120.
On December 01 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: When I talk to people in person 100% of the SC2 players say that they love the game but don't have time to get good at it. 100% of the League players say that the game is alright, its nice that its free and that they don't need to put that much time into it.
And this spreads to all other games as well. For the most part, the main reason people don't play SC2 is that its too hard and takes too much dedication when they already have a tonne of options out there to improve and learn from.
You want the truth? Coming from someone that did SC2 => dota2.
Here's the difference, in MOBA and other team games, when u fail u can blame ur team. In SC2 u can't (well u blame balance, but u get the idea ).
While there are certainly a few players out there that can't accept blame, I honestly don't think that is the majority.
Even when I play Overwatch, I don't get a lot of players blaming the team. Sure 1 in 10 games someone starts getting salty and thinks their team sucks, but that is 1 player out of 120.
People don't need to yell *at you* to be blame you. Most people blame post game, usually when "casually" chatting about it with their friends.
On November 29 2016 15:59 alexanderzero wrote: I will never forgive a single person that raised a stink about "dead game" bullshit at any point during this game's history. A LOT of people have skipped this game because they were given the impression that nobody plays it and that the online lobbies would be deserted. I have seen it first hand.
While dead game threads surely are not helpful they are in no way the reason for SC2 decline and cannot be blamed.
They are more an equivalent or synonym for people who believe their actual reasons and arguments are neither being heared nor ever will be addressed.
You mix up cause and effect here.
The dead game meme definitely created a feedback loop. People say SC2 is dead -> other people pick that up and actually mean it because they didn't check -> more peple say SC2 is dead -> more people think SC2 is actually dead.
Just go on /r/starcraft and search for threads "Is StarCraft really dead??", now that is just the number of people that bothered to ask. There are probably many more that simply thought "People say SC2 is dead, not gonna bother checking it out".
The dead game meme, like many other things, had an impact on how people perceive StarCraft nowadays. I mean even StarCraft players are turned off by that meme.
That has only little truth in it imo. SC2 was in a bubble for a long time which now bursted. Representatives were rather uncritical with SC2 for all the years and put it on a podium where it could hardly be criticized and even constructive criticism was reflected back to the originator instead of taken serious.
The state of SC2 would be no different today if there were zero dead game threads. Most people have already left. I met several former masters, high masters and even some GM players in other games who told me not to have any reason to return. Just look at the german scene. Many players moved on to other things or other games already while there was still alot of hope for future expansions and changes and not due to dead game threads. You could also try and go to DOTA/LoL forums and start daily dead game threads with different accounts and it wouldn't cause anything.
In SC2 that hits on fertile grounds because there is substance in it. It might be a bit overly depressive these days, but this is a consequence of it being overly hyped and put in a bubble over the years, if at all. Now it is hitting the ground and this impact certainly lets break it through that a bit.
Not helpful in this manner is even a superficial statement and just short sighted. Cause it would have been helpful in fact if this happened earlier in mid and long term. And it is even beneficial that it is happening now so that further and deeper changes can be initiated now as they are onto it already.
Dead game threads have zero effect on the longevity of SC2 in the grand scheme of things when analysing it from the players side. They rather express overdue disappointment with the game that has been either hold back or was not correct to state about the game in public.
From a sponsors and organizers point of view this can have more effect on people with not so much insight. If the dead game mythos surivives long enough they might take that as a reason to lessen their support. Anyway and again that would just accelerate such developments and can not originate them.
And there is a chance for SC2 to do more things right in future than in the past still. I just don't see that incoming yet at all with the current major overhaul, unfortunately. It is another shift only which people who don't look behind or don't want to look behind (e. g. people who earn their money with SC2) do still not want to allow to happen.
Imo the only way of returning SC2 into a brighter light is to increase player satisfaction through enhancements of key game elements such as: more strategy, longer unit interactions in fights, less frustrating mechanics, less scaling of advantages and less terrible damage. This would spill over to everything else and let negative attitudes fall silent, not blaming them.
On November 29 2016 15:59 alexanderzero wrote: I will never forgive a single person that raised a stink about "dead game" bullshit at any point during this game's history. A LOT of people have skipped this game because they were given the impression that nobody plays it and that the online lobbies would be deserted. I have seen it first hand.
While dead game threads surely are not helpful they are in no way the reason for SC2 decline and cannot be blamed.
They are more an equivalent or synonym for people who believe their actual reasons and arguments are neither being heared nor ever will be addressed.
You mix up cause and effect here.
The dead game meme definitely created a feedback loop. People say SC2 is dead -> other people pick that up and actually mean it because they didn't check -> more peple say SC2 is dead -> more people think SC2 is actually dead.
Just go on /r/starcraft and search for threads "Is StarCraft really dead??", now that is just the number of people that bothered to ask. There are probably many more that simply thought "People say SC2 is dead, not gonna bother checking it out".
The dead game meme, like many other things, had an impact on how people perceive StarCraft nowadays. I mean even StarCraft players are turned off by that meme.
That has only little truth in it imo. SC2 was in a bubble for a long time which now bursted. Representatives were rather uncritical with SC2 for all the years and put it on a podium where it could hardly be criticized and even constructive criticism was reflected back to the originator instead of taken serious.
The state of SC2 would be no different today if there were zero dead game threads. Most people have already left. I met several former masters, high masters and even some GM players in other games who told me not to have any reason to return. Just look at the german scene. Many players moved on to other things or other games already while there was still alot of hope for future expansions and changes and not due to dead game threads. You could also try and go to DOTA/LoL forums and start daily dead game threads with different names and it wouldn't cause anything.
In SC2 that hits on fertile grounds because there is substance in it. It might be a bit overly depressive these days, but this is a consequence of it being overly hyped and put in a bubble over the years, if at all. Now it is hitting the ground and this impact certainly lets break it through that a bit.
Not helpful in this manner is even a superficial statement. Cause it would have been helpful in fact if this happened earlier in mid and long term. And it is even beneficial that it is happening now so that further and deeper changes can be initiated now as they are onto it already.
Dead game threads have zero effect on the longevity of SC2 in the grand scheme of things when analysing it from the players side. They rather express overdue disappointment with the game that has been either hold back or was not correct to state about the game in public.
From a sponsors and organizers point of view this can have more effect on people with not so much insight. If the dead game mythos surivives long enough they might take that as a reason to lessen their support. Anyway and again that would just accelerate such developments and can not originate them.
And there is a chance for SC2 to do more things right in future than in the past still. I just don't see that incoming yet at all with the current major overhaul, unfortunately. It is another shift only which people who don't look behind or don't want to look behind (e. g. people who earn their money with SC2). do still not want to allow to happen.
Imo the only way of moving back SC2 into a brighter light is to increase player satisfaction through enhancements of key game elements such as: more strategy, longer unit interactions in fights, less frustrating mechanics, less scaling of advantages and less terrible damage. This would spill over to everything else and let negative attitudes fall silent.
There is zero changes that can be made in SC2 without people posting dedgame threads about it. Its what gives them joy and power, and does nothing but make sponsors leave a scene (not that dedgame posters pay for anything anyway and adblock non-stop) causing less money to come into the scene.
Unless you have a base that actually puts money into the scene, then you don't have a scene. Period. Dedgame threads merely scares off sponsors and does nothing but kill the scene.
On December 01 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: When I talk to people in person 100% of the SC2 players say that they love the game but don't have time to get good at it. 100% of the League players say that the game is alright, its nice that its free and that they don't need to put that much time into it.
And this spreads to all other games as well. For the most part, the main reason people don't play SC2 is that its too hard and takes too much dedication when they already have a tonne of options out there to improve and learn from.
You want the truth? Coming from someone that did SC2 => dota2.
Here's the difference, in MOBA and other team games, when u fail u can blame ur team. In SC2 u can't (well u blame balance, but u get the idea ).
While there are certainly a few players out there that can't accept blame, I honestly don't think that is the majority.
Even when I play Overwatch, I don't get a lot of players blaming the team. Sure 1 in 10 games someone starts getting salty and thinks their team sucks, but that is 1 player out of 120.
People don't need to yell *at you* to be blame you. Most people blame post game, usually when "casually" chatting about it with their friends.
Ah that is true. But whatever the case maybe, I like to think the best in fellow gamers and assume they aren't blaming me.
Although I am pretty horrible in OW, so perhaps they are blaming me
On November 29 2016 15:59 alexanderzero wrote: I will never forgive a single person that raised a stink about "dead game" bullshit at any point during this game's history. A LOT of people have skipped this game because they were given the impression that nobody plays it and that the online lobbies would be deserted. I have seen it first hand.
While dead game threads surely are not helpful they are in no way the reason for SC2 decline and cannot be blamed.
They are more an equivalent or synonym for people who believe their actual reasons and arguments are neither being heared nor ever will be addressed.
You mix up cause and effect here.
The dead game meme definitely created a feedback loop. People say SC2 is dead -> other people pick that up and actually mean it because they didn't check -> more peple say SC2 is dead -> more people think SC2 is actually dead.
Just go on /r/starcraft and search for threads "Is StarCraft really dead??", now that is just the number of people that bothered to ask. There are probably many more that simply thought "People say SC2 is dead, not gonna bother checking it out".
The dead game meme, like many other things, had an impact on how people perceive StarCraft nowadays. I mean even StarCraft players are turned off by that meme.
That has only little truth in it imo. SC2 was in a bubble for a long time which now bursted. Representatives were rather uncritical with SC2 for all the years and put it on a podium where it could hardly be criticized and even constructive criticism was reflected back to the originator instead of taken serious.
The state of SC2 would be no different today if there were zero dead game threads. Most people have already left. I met several former masters, high masters and even some GM players in other games who told me not to have any reason to return. Just look at the german scene. Many players moved on to other things or other games already while there was still alot of hope for future expansions and changes and not due to dead game threads. You could also try and go to DOTA/LoL forums and start daily dead game threads with different names and it wouldn't cause anything.
In SC2 that hits on fertile grounds because there is substance in it. It might be a bit overly depressive these days, but this is a consequence of it being overly hyped and put in a bubble over the years, if at all. Now it is hitting the ground and this impact certainly lets break it through that a bit.
Not helpful in this manner is even a superficial statement. Cause it would have been helpful in fact if this happened earlier in mid and long term. And it is even beneficial that it is happening now so that further and deeper changes can be initiated now as they are onto it already.
Dead game threads have zero effect on the longevity of SC2 in the grand scheme of things when analysing it from the players side. They rather express overdue disappointment with the game that has been either hold back or was not correct to state about the game in public.
From a sponsors and organizers point of view this can have more effect on people with not so much insight. If the dead game mythos surivives long enough they might take that as a reason to lessen their support. Anyway and again that would just accelerate such developments and can not originate them.
And there is a chance for SC2 to do more things right in future than in the past still. I just don't see that incoming yet at all with the current major overhaul, unfortunately. It is another shift only which people who don't look behind or don't want to look behind (e. g. people who earn their money with SC2). do still not want to allow to happen.
Imo the only way of moving back SC2 into a brighter light is to increase player satisfaction through enhancements of key game elements such as: more strategy, longer unit interactions in fights, less frustrating mechanics, less scaling of advantages and less terrible damage. This would spill over to everything else and let negative attitudes fall silent.
There is zero changes that can be made in SC2 without people posting dedgame threads about it. Its what gives them joy and power, and does nothing but make sponsors leave a scene (not that dedgame posters pay for anything anyway and adblock non-stop) causing less money to come into the scene.
Unless you have a base that actually puts money into the scene, then you don't have a scene. Period. Dedgame threads merely scares off sponsors and does nothing but kill the scene.
No, I disagree.
These movements amongst sponsors and league/tournament organisators could have been observed already for a long time, if you didn't blindfold yourself. Just as firecake stated the sole and only reason for that is the active amount of players, which equals the active amount of potential watchers and fans. The drop of this number has nothing in common with dead game threads in forums. It is even the other way round: Alot of people who considered the game to be dead for them as a player continued to watch it and support it that way, which I dare to assume is quite unique in e-sports.
What you actually say is that the SC2 bubble should have been maintained even longer and that would help in any way.
I have to agree with LSN. The SC2 bubble was slowly deflating before the 'dead game' meme started to spread. However, the meme certainly increased the rate of deflation as more and more people stopped playing.
Without the 'dead game' meme, SC2 might have had a longer window of popularity. But this decline was inevitable, with or without any memes to affect the gamer population.
But LSN, no need to accuse Magpie of intentionally 'blindfolding' himself. It adds a negative connotation to your reply, and doesn't help the discussion.
Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
The problem is that if you wanna discuss these things usually people simply respond by either saying you are a bw elitist when you use it as an example (even if it isn't even true) or they call you "hobby game designer". Lots of rhetoric to never argue the actual topic and "win" by default. At the same time i think it's mainly because most people think that if they enjoy the game to some extent that's good enough. I also enjoy the game, i play it regularly and watch it a lot. BUT i don't think it is nearly as good as it could be. Everytime someone tells me that he already enjoys the game as it is i can only assume that the person didn't think about all these things which were discussed over the years. I mean i will be honest, it seems clear that the game wouldn't be on the same lvl as lol/dota/csgo, no matter how you design it casual players wouldn't even notice a difference between sc2 v1/2/3/X for the most part. But for people who are into rts or rather starcraft style rts there would be a difference. Ofc there are still various opinions on every issue, but i am 100% sure that a lot of people would agree on certain key elements starcraft should follow, elements it doesn't follow very well atm.
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
Because BW =/= SC2
Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird.
If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games?
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
Because BW =/= SC2
Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird.
If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games?
That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better)
Ideally, you would want to keep all those millions of BW fans watching live OSL/MSL/PL.
So what's a sure way of keeping BW fans?
BW was/is still being played by primarily custom map casual players. Most of the custom maps consists of micro maps such as microing vulture vs dragoon maps, shuttle/reaver vs shuttle/reaver, mutalisk/scourge vs mutalisk/scourge battle, etc. And of course, huge scale battles that spans in multiple screens and lasts for more than 30 seconds which can only be achieved through the mechanics of maintaining battle formations and high ground advantages.
So if you want to keep people that like BW happy, you would most likely want to keep the core unit combinations/gameplay mechanics that made BW great and expand/improve upon those. But let's explore what went wrong.
Let's not just talk about gameplay, both Blizzard made a HUGE marketing blunder by going at it against Kespa in the lawsuit where Blizzard that all those pro-games being played are Blizzard's properties and that Kespa have been running on illegal tournaments.
Kespa doesn't need Blizzard, Kespa have LoL leagues. Blizzard's ego was way too big for its own good.
But going back to the gameplay issues, I remember there use to be plenty of posters here on the site explaining that SC2 should probably go back to BW model of gameplay for the game to succeed.
But those users were heavily punished by the mods which wasn't ideal.
Then you got plenty of troll users who would whitewash SC2 to death by giving execuses of giving "SC2 time" even though after HotS' releases, the scene have been constantly downsizing.
And then there were users that were saying that "downsizing is healthy".
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
There is no way around it.
For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
There is no way around it.
For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene
You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base.
There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones.
So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either.
I think a lot of people simply don't pay attention to the fact that the pro teams are supported almost entirely by sponsors. The tourney wins aren't enough to support a living for the majority. When people mention the rosters of these teams, they ignore all the SUPPORT STAFF they have from coaches to media. You have upwards of 10 people on these teams and the tournament winnings are often less than 20k/year TEAM WIDE. SC2 has never had prize pools like LoL or DotA - but they also cheat, they crowdfund a massive chunk of those pools. DotA now competes with Poker World Series for highest prize pool
Blizzard wants to support a pro scene? They need to support the paychecks to keep these people playing - and to draw more people into it.Their plans with the Overwatch League could be put into SC2 just as easily. If anything, do what TB's done with tourneys - pay for them yourself if you want them. 50k viewers payign $1 to watch it makes for a nice pool for the players
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
Because BW =/= SC2
Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird.
If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games?
That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better)
No, its not.
For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space.
Different games are different, despite what older players project into it.
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
There is no way around it.
For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene
You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base.
There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones.
So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either.
If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires
There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid.
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
Because BW =/= SC2
Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird.
If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games?
That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better)
No, its not.
For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space.
Different games are different, despite what older players project into it.
Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
There is no way around it.
For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene
You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base.
There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones.
So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either.
If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires
There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid.
The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw.
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
Because BW =/= SC2
Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird.
If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games?
That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better)
No, its not.
For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space.
Different games are different, despite what older players project into it.
Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
There is no way around it.
For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene
You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base.
There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones.
So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either.
If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires
There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid.
The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw.
Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW?
A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be.
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
Because BW =/= SC2
Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird.
If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games?
That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better)
No, its not.
For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space.
Different games are different, despite what older players project into it.
Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense
On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:
On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:
On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
There is no way around it.
For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene
You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base.
There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones.
So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either.
If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires
There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid.
The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw.
Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW?
A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be.
I actually don't have a good idea how starcraft looked without broodwar. I would still argue that it is fair to say that broodwar is the version people in general talk about when speaking about the original starcraft and thus it's the version which should be defined as the game which defined what starcraft is. I have absolutely no idea about street fighter because i am not into fighting games at all, but from a very ignorant position it looks close enough to me? As i said details can be different, nobody is arguing for a 1:1 experience. It's about core gameplay, the "feeling" (for a lack of a better word atm), the philosophy behind a gaming series. For the same reason csgo isn't all of a sudden run n gun like call of duty and dota2 still values dota design over "modern moba" design. As i sasid, it is arguable if sc2 is close enough to the original starcraft. Ofc there are examples where this wasn't the case at all, i guess wc3 might be a good example (didn't play that game, or wc2 for that matter, either though. But i am fairly sure that the games are extremely different). So yeah there is absolutely more to it, but i think it isn't that absurd to say that games in a series should usually have the same core design values.
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
Because BW =/= SC2
Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird.
If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games?
That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better)
No, its not.
For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space.
Different games are different, despite what older players project into it.
Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense
On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:
On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:
On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
There is no way around it.
For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene
You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base.
There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones.
So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either.
If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires
There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid.
The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw.
Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW?
A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be.
I actually don't have a good idea how starcraft looked without broodwar. I would still argue that it is fair to say that broodwar is the version people in general talk about when speaking about the original starcraft and thus it's the version which should be defined as the game which defined what starcraft is. I have absolutely no idea about street fighter because i am not into fighting games at all, but from a very ignorant position it looks close enough to me? As i said details can be different, nobody is arguing for a 1:1 experience. It's about core gameplay, the "feeling" (for a lack of a better word atm), the philosophy behind a gaming series. For the same reason csgo isn't all of a sudden run n gun like call of duty and dota2 still values dota design over "modern moba" design. As i sasid, it is arguable if sc2 is close enough to the original starcraft. Ofc there are examples where this wasn't the case at all, i guess wc3 might be a good example (didn't play that game, or wc2 for that matter, either though. But i am fairly sure that the games are extremely different). So yeah there is absolutely more to it, but i think it isn't that absurd to say that games in a series should usually have the same core design values.
SC2 is literally the ONLY scene I know where people complain that the new game is fucking new. Anyone who plays fighting games will tell you that there is epochs of difference between each fighting game from how things move to how pixels interact. Slapping a 2 or a II or V or whatever to denote a new version of a series tells players it is a new series and not just BW with different graphics.
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
Because BW =/= SC2
Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird.
If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games?
That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better)
No, its not.
For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space.
Different games are different, despite what older players project into it.
Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense
On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:
On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:
On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
There is no way around it.
For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene
You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base.
There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones.
So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either.
If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires
There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid.
The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw.
Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW?
A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be.
I actually don't have a good idea how starcraft looked without broodwar. I would still argue that it is fair to say that broodwar is the version people in general talk about when speaking about the original starcraft and thus it's the version which should be defined as the game which defined what starcraft is. I have absolutely no idea about street fighter because i am not into fighting games at all, but from a very ignorant position it looks close enough to me? As i said details can be different, nobody is arguing for a 1:1 experience. It's about core gameplay, the "feeling" (for a lack of a better word atm), the philosophy behind a gaming series. For the same reason csgo isn't all of a sudden run n gun like call of duty and dota2 still values dota design over "modern moba" design. As i sasid, it is arguable if sc2 is close enough to the original starcraft. Ofc there are examples where this wasn't the case at all, i guess wc3 might be a good example (didn't play that game, or wc2 for that matter, either though. But i am fairly sure that the games are extremely different). So yeah there is absolutely more to it, but i think it isn't that absurd to say that games in a series should usually have the same core design values.
SC2 is literally the ONLY scene I know where people complain that the new game is fucking new. Anyone who plays fighting games will tell you that there is epochs of difference between each fighting game from how things move to how pixels interact. Slapping a 2 or a II or V or whatever to denote a new version of a series tells players it is a new series and not just BW with different graphics.
People complain all the time about csgo not being close enough to 1.6 for example. Typically just like the sc2 scene with articles and arguments of what the difference is and why the 1.6 version was better. Valve at least tries to get closer to it from time to time (also i think go is arguably way closer to 1.6 than sc2 is to bw). With dota2 they also tried to be as close as possible to dota. Why? Because the game was actually good and you don't need to change a lot. Competitive smash brothers people will also tell you that melee was the best version of it.
Slapping a 2 or a II or V or whatever to denote a new version of a series tells players it is a new series and not just BW with different graphics
Nobody is saying (well some are, but that's not the standpoint i argue here) that sc2 should be 1:1 bw. It is about the identity of starcraft which bw has defined. It should feel similar. It doesn't need to be a 1:1 clone to pass that test. You want to improve on older games, there needs to be changes because without changes there can't be positive evolution. It still should stay true to design philosophies laid out before. If you look at sc2 it breaks some of these, at that point it's relevant to argue if it was a wise decision to change things or not. Does it improve the experience in some ways? Does it worsen other aspects? What is more important in the bigger picture?
Implying that every new title is its own game and thus it's no problem to be different in key areas is absurd imo. Every mario title you will play will feel very similar. For a good reason.
i remember when we had appreciation threads trying to gauge what everyone liked about starcraft 2 and the events. "what do you guys like about starcraft 2? here's my fill:..." there was once a problem with an oversaturation of premium tournaments, this was in and around the time that MLG boosted sc2 up as its main event game and korean netizens were raving about how they liked it even over GSL as good as a tournament that was back in the day.
i have a lot of memories like that about this game and there were many new competitive esports players who found their start through sc2. once in a while you'll see gaming community members keeping their names with the sc2 tagged on the end. that goes for people in this community as well even though we've moved on to newer games.
i would used to sit down and spill my guts about how passionate i was about this game series, community, and knowledge within. there were so many controversial things, especially because people really cared.
i respect posters like thieving magpie over all these years.
i feel like a lot of skepticism and negativity came up when it wasn't the game that people wanted and needed it to be. it was a really deep and hurtful mark born intrinsically through that disappointment--so much that people came here to have somewhere to voice their negativity. i don't think that's ever bad that it's ever that way. it does show that there are some issues if many different people are voicing the same things over and over from their own conclusions.
i am still proud that people hearing that you're a starcraft hardcore immediately get the idea that you're a gamer who pays attention to detail, and all those sorts of positive characteristics.
in many ways, this game has defined me more than all the time i spent with BW, because as late as i was to trying my hand at competitive BW myself, i felt sc2 was going to be my start as did many others. and it showed. lots of people came out of the woodworks or seemingly from the grave. lots of people showed up, cheered, and it really helped to shape how e-sports is like today.
it was such a big thing that mainstream news was starting to interview people and talk about the underground that was e-sports and how it's actually a living being that was more viable than most would think.
a lot of the figures and personalities i see around gaming are instantly recognizable, because they once worked with starcraft before league eventually caught up.
i think this is the mark we made in gaming. even these posts are things you're likely to think back on once you're older, wiser, or pulling from memory.
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
Because BW =/= SC2
Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird.
If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games?
That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better)
No, its not.
For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space.
Different games are different, despite what older players project into it.
Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense
On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:
On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:
On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
There is no way around it.
For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene
You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base.
There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones.
So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either.
If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires
There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid.
The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw.
Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW?
A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be.
I actually don't have a good idea how starcraft looked without broodwar. I would still argue that it is fair to say that broodwar is the version people in general talk about when speaking about the original starcraft and thus it's the version which should be defined as the game which defined what starcraft is. I have absolutely no idea about street fighter because i am not into fighting games at all, but from a very ignorant position it looks close enough to me? As i said details can be different, nobody is arguing for a 1:1 experience. It's about core gameplay, the "feeling" (for a lack of a better word atm), the philosophy behind a gaming series. For the same reason csgo isn't all of a sudden run n gun like call of duty and dota2 still values dota design over "modern moba" design. As i sasid, it is arguable if sc2 is close enough to the original starcraft. Ofc there are examples where this wasn't the case at all, i guess wc3 might be a good example (didn't play that game, or wc2 for that matter, either though. But i am fairly sure that the games are extremely different). So yeah there is absolutely more to it, but i think it isn't that absurd to say that games in a series should usually have the same core design values.
SC2 is literally the ONLY scene I know where people complain that the new game is fucking new. Anyone who plays fighting games will tell you that there is epochs of difference between each fighting game from how things move to how pixels interact. Slapping a 2 or a II or V or whatever to denote a new version of a series tells players it is a new series and not just BW with different graphics.
Well actually there are plenty of stuff that SC2 have done right:
Those are cool concepts that can introduce edge-of-your-seat moments.
But while introducing those concepts, they got rid of reaver/shuttle interaction, defile dark swarm, lurkers (for the first two expos), mutalisk/scourge, vulture harassments, etc.
And they got rid of moving in formation and high ground advantage which would undoubtedly increase more battle actions.
People aren't saying "Oh give us the EXACT same thing!" nor are they saying "No, give us something completely new!"
People were expecting Blizzard to keep the stuff the worked in BW and adding new cool stuff.
This is why BW is still favored by the Koreans vs SC2.
And quite frankly, its a shame that that SC2 couldn't surpass BW.
On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote: Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones.
Because BW =/= SC2
Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird.
If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games?
That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better)
No, its not.
For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space.
Different games are different, despite what older players project into it.
Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense
On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:
On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:
On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote: Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia
You can have nostalgia + new aspects.
And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake.
There is no way around it.
For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene
You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base.
There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones.
So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either.
If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires
There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid.
The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw.
Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW?
A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be.
I actually don't have a good idea how starcraft looked without broodwar. I would still argue that it is fair to say that broodwar is the version people in general talk about when speaking about the original starcraft and thus it's the version which should be defined as the game which defined what starcraft is. I have absolutely no idea about street fighter because i am not into fighting games at all, but from a very ignorant position it looks close enough to me? As i said details can be different, nobody is arguing for a 1:1 experience. It's about core gameplay, the "feeling" (for a lack of a better word atm), the philosophy behind a gaming series. For the same reason csgo isn't all of a sudden run n gun like call of duty and dota2 still values dota design over "modern moba" design. As i sasid, it is arguable if sc2 is close enough to the original starcraft. Ofc there are examples where this wasn't the case at all, i guess wc3 might be a good example (didn't play that game, or wc2 for that matter, either though. But i am fairly sure that the games are extremely different). So yeah there is absolutely more to it, but i think it isn't that absurd to say that games in a series should usually have the same core design values.
SC2 is literally the ONLY scene I know where people complain that the new game is fucking new. Anyone who plays fighting games will tell you that there is epochs of difference between each fighting game from how things move to how pixels interact. Slapping a 2 or a II or V or whatever to denote a new version of a series tells players it is a new series and not just BW with different graphics.
Well actually there are plenty of stuff that SC2 have done right:
Those are cool concepts that can introduce edge-of-your-seat moments.
But while introducing those concepts, they got rid of reaver/shuttle interaction, defile dark swarm, lurkers (for the first two expos), mutalisk/scourge, vulture harassments, etc.
And they got rid of moving in formation and high ground advantage which would undoubtedly increase more battle actions.
People aren't saying "Oh give us the EXACT same thing!" nor are they saying "No, give us something completely new!"
People were expecting Blizzard to keep the stuff the worked in BW and adding new cool stuff.
This is why BW is still favored by the Koreans vs SC2.
And quite frankly, its a shame that that SC2 couldn't surpass BW.
I consider that it is too broad of an statement for you to make.
Viking Transformation, Blink, ForceFields & Flight Boost, all of them heavily constrain map design and metagame development inside said design space. Such mechanics even when interesting from a player perspective are really, really harmful to Map Design & Metagame Development/Balance inside Mapmaking. Saying that these gameplay mechanics "are right on the current itteration" is not a statement I feel is representative of the actual reality on the ground regarding Competitive SC2 Level & Game Design.
There is nothing that annoys me more than people saying "Blizzard should change GAMEPLAY and do this or that. Imbalanced races, etc etc". I can't deal with that amount of idiocy. Are you serious right now? LoL in 2011 was already bigger than any esport or game in history (including BW at its PEAK and SC2 was at its peak in 2011), and has continued to grow. CS:GO, Dota, etc etc all have too. And you think that's because of forcefields or a-move zerg?? How can you not see what those games have in common?
SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends. It is like tennis vs football or basketball - it simply isn't comparable. The top 2-3 tennis players get all the $$ and sponsorships while the rest struggle, but you can pick an MLB or NBA player at random and theyll probably bank 10 million easy.
On the flip side, LoL is fun and social. The learning curve is super low and Riot has physically supported its players. The game is still imbalanced as fuck and players qq all the time. The game ITSELF is the prime source of what determines popularity and appeal, not its rules. Tennis won't have baseball viewership if you say "Ok new rule, alternate serves every point". SC2 as long as it is a 1v1 game, will never be able to compete with League or DotA. Blizzard knows this too and released Heroes of the Storm.
I genuinely can't believe this game has been a steady decline for 5+ years and people are STILL THINKING ITS IMBALANCE GAMEPLAY from Idra and Destiny blaming gameplay 4 years ago to morons in this forum now. Poor David Kim. With fans like this maybe this is what SC2 deserves.
Luxon we already discussed that plenty of times. Most already agree that a contributing factor is the difficulty in SC2 combined with the large number of team games with lower barrier to entry (cost and mastery).
A few do believe that game design is a factor, which it might be, but its difficult to quantify and qualify all the factors involved that push SC2 into decline.
On December 01 2016 16:02 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Luxon we already discussed that plenty of times. Most already agree that a contributing factor is the difficulty in SC2 combined with the large number of team games with lower barrier to entry (cost and mastery).
A few do believe that game design is a factor, which it might be, but its difficult to quantify and qualify all the factors involved that push SC2 into decline.
All these posts I've read for the last 5 years and this thread included are all talking gameplay not its inherent design (being 1v1). Literally the posts before mine are all talking about units or maps or any other irrelevant thing. Those are valid things to discuss among active players, but its completely irrelevant to the decline. No one ever left the game because of a unit. Multiplayer collaboration games are just more fun than 1v1 games. There's nothing to it. Going back to my analogy, thats like arguing over rules of tennis for making it "less enjoyable" than american football or soccer.
On December 01 2016 15:55 luxon wrote: SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends.
people are getting their "big army fights" addiction fix by playing Clash of Clans and Mobile Strike. those options did not exist a few years ago becaus the technology was not there. improved tech has given general consumers so many more choices to get what SC offered in 1999 when chained to a desktop sitting in front of a CRT.
Oh I'm not arguing with you, and I do agree 1v1 are inherently less enjoyable than team games. Just the social aspect alone pushes team games into popularity, while SC2 on the 1v1 ladder feels like a barren wasteland with two people that refuse to speak to each other and can't see each other play a game of chess together.
But without any quantifiable data, we can only make assumptions based on our anecdotal experience.
When I spoke to many friends that bought SC2 WoL, I asked them why they stopped and nearly all of them said its too hard to play. They would rather play a team game with an easier learning curve.
The pinnacle of SC2 is the skill involved in a 1v1 game, but marketing it as such would probably turn off many gamers. Its a conundrum.
Right, but then we should acknowledge and accept that, and not mourn it and question our existence as if our world's gone to hell. It might have been overhyped in the beginning because of a lack of other options/games, but once those came out, those players were bound to leave. And if SC2 is meant to be an esport where people play part-time in weekend tournaments then so be it. I played volleyball semi-professionally and I always was bummed that some more talented athletes went to play basketball. But that's just how it is. I'm not gonna dissect the rules of one sport and compare it to a totally different one to analyze why it's less popular.
On December 01 2016 15:55 luxon wrote: SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends.
people are getting their "big army fights" addiction fix by playing Clash of Clans and Mobile Strike. those options did not exist a few years ago becaus the technology was not there. improved tech has given general consumers so many more choices to get what SC offered in 1999 when chained to a desktop sitting in front of a CRT.
Just as a curious note, I've been looking for a skill intense 1 on 1 for years now. I absolutely want to play something where I feel overwhelmed by required skill and all that.
And I still end up playing more Clash Roayle than SC2. Too often SC2 just felt like a static excercise in not making mistakes and perfecting repetetive mechanical actions rather than two players trying to push each others' skills to the limit.
On December 01 2016 07:09 SwiftRH wrote: i thought firecake was the one that killed sc2 by going 2 hr swarmhost games. IRONY!
Thing people forget is that Swarm Hosts plagued the ladder just as much as tournaments, especially in the EU scene. If anything FireCake showed David Kim the light
SC2 failed because it was simply a cash grab. The single player storyline was a bloated mess without any soul going into 90% of the characters. All that mattered was having lots of missions to justify customers paying $100+ for all the expansions. Tournaments for several years weren't free to watch so the community never grew from sharing. And finally, I think the poor balancing and boring unit design left the hardcore fans passionless and susceptible to switching to MOBAs.
Fortunately, Broodwar is starting to make a come back.
For me the vanilla SC2 and the WoL campaign was most fun. Yesterday I played some WoL ladder 1-1-1ing it ans slay some 30 apm Bronze Nerds.
What should i tell you ? Even when I hit Diamond players the game felt good. I played vs Protoss, checking the chrono spending, checked Pylon counts...and it was pretty chill. I had time to prepare for the fourgate, I had not to gamble because it could have been an oracle, Voidray or prism build... ´My drops were better, because no overcharge, on the other hand, no boost. So it actually mattered that I attacked from 2 sides at once.
TL;DR
To all those who misunderstood Firecakes main point, that the playerbase is the viewerbase, and that no announced Tournaments hurt the PRO scene alone...get some love back for sc2 and play WoL
There were a lot of cool things about SC2, WoL especially. But there were way too many bad changes. Nerfing zealots and buffing marines. Removing lurkers, firebats, and reavers turned out to be bad calls, as evidenced by hellbats, disruptors, and the return of lurkers. Valkyries were removed, necessitating the introduction of liberators when they discovered terran actually needed those valkyries.
Ravens were never as useful as science vessels, hunter-seeker missile has always been a useless and bad irradiate replacement while zerg somehow got the real irradiate with parasitic bomb. And parasitic bomb wouldn't have been needed if they didn't remove plague.
The mothership is just a shitty, one-off arbiter that no one builds. It was protoss' only paltry, inadequate defense against brood lord infestor. Imagine if protoss still had real arbiters. Do you think brood lord infestor would have been the problem it was?
Etc. etc. Look at the tangled mess that was created by deviating too far from Brood War. Meanwhile Counter-Strike is top tier because they decided not to piss off their fanbase and turn the game into CoD or otherwise try to "modernize" it. SC2 really ought to have been titled Starcraft: The Phantom Menace.
On December 02 2016 01:46 Foxxan wrote: I prefer 1v1 games but to me, there are no good out there. So I play teamgames instead right now, still waiting for a 1v1 game that is great.
There hasn't been a good 1v1 game since Capcom vs SNK 2
I mean no offense, but why would I want to look at views of a person who was known for being really BM to other pro gamers and said things that was super offensive to players? I mean that behavior alone should be to some extent why some people got sick of running into people with pure hate towards other people like this. I'm sorry but I can't respect the comments or video of someone that I felt brought negative attention to sc2 also. However, this is my opinion. I hope he's changed from back when he was known for being BM
SC2 we can all agree is declining, but I would say that it is dead. I mean look at the Brood War recent resurgence for increase of tournaments, viewers, and even player base. People would have agreed over a year ago it had no chance of ever getting back to where it was before sc2 release. It's all of a sudden kicking a spark recently. Although, It seems to be mostly sparking in the Korean area the most. I don't understand why people think without Koreans having pro teams that the game is dying. Koreans just tend to have the passion in gaming, and If other countries held this similar passion it would be bigger than Korea has currently made eSports. Korea is just currently one of the only countries that holds solid and deep investments into gaming by multiple companies in the scene. They have enough involve to keep the field competitive and enough teams for leagues and events to stay solid.
a lot of assumptions and bullshit on my part, but--
entertainment as a whole has been less involving on a deeper level. i'm referring more to gaming. you experience enough, play enough and expectations shoot up to unreasonable levels. developers have to get that much more creative because a lot of what the player experiences may very well not last or have an impact as intended. the amount of effort or resources devoted to something tiny and important is a very delicate balancing act and usually comes out as an uneven ratio, effort/time:enjoyment/time. that is, if people are interested enough to play your game in the first place.
i'd really say that a lot of what we enjoyed in earlier games is fueled by nostalgia and discovery, and the lack of that enjoyment is simply that we've grown up. the denominator in the number of gamers in sheer numbers, has multiplied and so has the number of people and jobs for that industry. fulltime creators actually have to churn out games every few years as it's reasonable to expect to make a good living out of it. i'm sure in some ways that relates to how passion projects from renowned and brilliant creators are a lot more scarce.
On December 02 2016 09:02 nanaoei wrote: a lot of assumptions and bullshit on my part, but--
entertainment as a whole has been less involving on a deeper level. i'm referring more to gaming. you experience enough, play enough and expectations shoot up to unreasonable levels. developers have to get that much more creative because a lot of what the player experiences may very well not last or have an impact as intended. the amount of effort or resources devoted to something tiny and important is a very delicate balancing act and usually comes out as an uneven ratio, effort/time:enjoyment/time. that is, if people are interested enough to play your game in the first place.
i'd really say that a lot of what we enjoyed in earlier games is fueled by nostalgia and discovery, and the lack of that enjoyment is simply that we've grown up. the denominator in the number of gamers in sheer numbers, has multiplied and so has the number of people and jobs for that industry. fulltime creators actually have to churn out games every few years as it's reasonable to expect to make a good living out of it. i'm sure in some ways that relates to how passion projects from renowned and brilliant creators are a lot more scarce.
Not really that off the mark. A big part companies and projects getting so big is that they still need jobs after the project is done. Yet, they are still expected to make gains each year and sometimes each quarter. A lot of teams get desperate and just start doing whatever to see if its relevant.
Phone manufacturing Car manufacturing etc...
At some point for best returns you have to outsource the work to a cheaper country to keep up with demands. Not demand, by the way, as in the economic needs of consumers. Literal verbal demands by whiny customers who don't pay for anything but are willing to blast and attack hard working developers for not making everything absolutely perfect and sully the brand's name by their constant "game is ded" mantras.
On December 01 2016 15:55 luxon wrote: There is nothing that annoys me more than people saying "Blizzard should change GAMEPLAY and do this or that. Imbalanced races, etc etc". I can't deal with that amount of idiocy. Are you serious right now? LoL in 2011 was already bigger than any esport or game in history (including BW at its PEAK and SC2 was at its peak in 2011), and has continued to grow. CS:GO, Dota, etc etc all have too. And you think that's because of forcefields or a-move zerg?? How can you not see what those games have in common?
SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends. It is like tennis vs football or basketball - it simply isn't comparable. The top 2-3 tennis players get all the $$ and sponsorships while the rest struggle, but you can pick an MLB or NBA player at random and theyll probably bank 10 million easy.
On the flip side, LoL is fun and social. The learning curve is super low and Riot has physically supported its players. The game is still imbalanced as fuck and players qq all the time. The game ITSELF is the prime source of what determines popularity and appeal, not its rules. Tennis won't have baseball viewership if you say "Ok new rule, alternate serves every point". SC2 as long as it is a 1v1 game, will never be able to compete with League or DotA. Blizzard knows this too and released Heroes of the Storm.
I genuinely can't believe this game has been a steady decline for 5+ years and people are STILL THINKING ITS IMBALANCE GAMEPLAY from Idra and Destiny blaming gameplay 4 years ago to morons in this forum now. Poor David Kim. With fans like this maybe this is what SC2 deserves.
Smash Bros. Melee is a 15 year old game that requires a CRT to play. Going into 2017, some of its top players making over 6 figures, and like all the top play players plus others have sponsors. Sponsors didn't even exist in the scene until TL picked up players a couple years back. This game is extremely hardcore 1v1 with a much higher barrier of entry than SC2. How do you account for it's almost exponential growth from 2013-2016 given what you've said? The biggest tournaments get ~150k concurrent viewers now and this game is played on a fucking gamecube
On December 01 2016 15:55 luxon wrote: There is nothing that annoys me more than people saying "Blizzard should change GAMEPLAY and do this or that. Imbalanced races, etc etc". I can't deal with that amount of idiocy. Are you serious right now? LoL in 2011 was already bigger than any esport or game in history (including BW at its PEAK and SC2 was at its peak in 2011), and has continued to grow. CS:GO, Dota, etc etc all have too. And you think that's because of forcefields or a-move zerg?? How can you not see what those games have in common?
SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends. It is like tennis vs football or basketball - it simply isn't comparable. The top 2-3 tennis players get all the $$ and sponsorships while the rest struggle, but you can pick an MLB or NBA player at random and theyll probably bank 10 million easy.
On the flip side, LoL is fun and social. The learning curve is super low and Riot has physically supported its players. The game is still imbalanced as fuck and players qq all the time. The game ITSELF is the prime source of what determines popularity and appeal, not its rules. Tennis won't have baseball viewership if you say "Ok new rule, alternate serves every point". SC2 as long as it is a 1v1 game, will never be able to compete with League or DotA. Blizzard knows this too and released Heroes of the Storm.
I genuinely can't believe this game has been a steady decline for 5+ years and people are STILL THINKING ITS IMBALANCE GAMEPLAY from Idra and Destiny blaming gameplay 4 years ago to morons in this forum now. Poor David Kim. With fans like this maybe this is what SC2 deserves.
Smash Bros. Melee is a 15 year old game that requires a CRT to play. Going into 2017, some of its top players making over 6 figures, and like all the top play players plus others have sponsors. Sponsors didn't even exist in the scene until TL picked up players a couple years back. This game is extremely hardcore 1v1 with a much higher barrier of entry than SC2. How do you account for it's almost exponential growth from 2013-2016 given what you've said? The biggest tournaments get ~150k concurrent viewers now and this game is played on a fucking gamecube
StarCraft 2 is more popular than Smash, by a lot. In November SC2 had 4.9 million hours watched on Twitch, while Melee had 1.9 million. It is easier to grow when you are small.
Yesterday Melee had 10,000 hours watched, SC2 had 100,000 hours watched, and LoL had 2 million hours watched. So yeah, I can see it competing...
On December 01 2016 15:55 luxon wrote: There is nothing that annoys me more than people saying "Blizzard should change GAMEPLAY and do this or that. Imbalanced races, etc etc". I can't deal with that amount of idiocy. Are you serious right now? LoL in 2011 was already bigger than any esport or game in history (including BW at its PEAK and SC2 was at its peak in 2011), and has continued to grow. CS:GO, Dota, etc etc all have too. And you think that's because of forcefields or a-move zerg?? How can you not see what those games have in common?
SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends. It is like tennis vs football or basketball - it simply isn't comparable. The top 2-3 tennis players get all the $$ and sponsorships while the rest struggle, but you can pick an MLB or NBA player at random and theyll probably bank 10 million easy.
On the flip side, LoL is fun and social. The learning curve is super low and Riot has physically supported its players. The game is still imbalanced as fuck and players qq all the time. The game ITSELF is the prime source of what determines popularity and appeal, not its rules. Tennis won't have baseball viewership if you say "Ok new rule, alternate serves every point". SC2 as long as it is a 1v1 game, will never be able to compete with League or DotA. Blizzard knows this too and released Heroes of the Storm.
I genuinely can't believe this game has been a steady decline for 5+ years and people are STILL THINKING ITS IMBALANCE GAMEPLAY from Idra and Destiny blaming gameplay 4 years ago to morons in this forum now. Poor David Kim. With fans like this maybe this is what SC2 deserves.
Smash Bros. Melee is a 15 year old game that requires a CRT to play. Going into 2017, some of its top players making over 6 figures, and like all the top play players plus others have sponsors. Sponsors didn't even exist in the scene until TL picked up players a couple years back. This game is extremely hardcore 1v1 with a much higher barrier of entry than SC2. How do you account for it's almost exponential growth from 2013-2016 given what you've said? The biggest tournaments get ~150k concurrent viewers now and this game is played on a fucking gamecube
I would argue that SC2 has a much higher barrier of entry than Melee, mostly just by design. Strategy games need so many units, upgrades, tech trees, and abilities to be learned. The basics of fighting games can be figured out fairly quickly after a casual round or two of button mashing.
And plus, it's a lot easier to set up Melee for a much more casual party situation with 4 player fights and everyone playing together from the same screen. Keeping players engaged in the game itself at any level is important for trying to bring them into the competitive scene, even as just spectators.
On December 01 2016 15:55 luxon wrote: There is nothing that annoys me more than people saying "Blizzard should change GAMEPLAY and do this or that. Imbalanced races, etc etc". I can't deal with that amount of idiocy. Are you serious right now? LoL in 2011 was already bigger than any esport or game in history (including BW at its PEAK and SC2 was at its peak in 2011), and has continued to grow. CS:GO, Dota, etc etc all have too. And you think that's because of forcefields or a-move zerg?? How can you not see what those games have in common?
SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends. It is like tennis vs football or basketball - it simply isn't comparable. The top 2-3 tennis players get all the $$ and sponsorships while the rest struggle, but you can pick an MLB or NBA player at random and theyll probably bank 10 million easy.
On the flip side, LoL is fun and social. The learning curve is super low and Riot has physically supported its players. The game is still imbalanced as fuck and players qq all the time. The game ITSELF is the prime source of what determines popularity and appeal, not its rules. Tennis won't have baseball viewership if you say "Ok new rule, alternate serves every point". SC2 as long as it is a 1v1 game, will never be able to compete with League or DotA. Blizzard knows this too and released Heroes of the Storm.
I genuinely can't believe this game has been a steady decline for 5+ years and people are STILL THINKING ITS IMBALANCE GAMEPLAY from Idra and Destiny blaming gameplay 4 years ago to morons in this forum now. Poor David Kim. With fans like this maybe this is what SC2 deserves.
Smash Bros. Melee is a 15 year old game that requires a CRT to play. Going into 2017, some of its top players making over 6 figures, and like all the top play players plus others have sponsors. Sponsors didn't even exist in the scene until TL picked up players a couple years back. This game is extremely hardcore 1v1 with a much higher barrier of entry than SC2. How do you account for it's almost exponential growth from 2013-2016 given what you've said? The biggest tournaments get ~150k concurrent viewers now and this game is played on a fucking gamecube
StarCraft 2 is more popular than Smash, by a lot. In November SC2 had 4.9 million hours watched on Twitch, while Melee had 1.9 million. It is easier to grow when you are small.
Yesterday Melee had 10,000 hours watched, SC2 had 100,000 hours watched, and LoL had 2 million hours watched. So yeah, I can see it competing...
You are cherry picking statistics. Melee's peak concurrent viewership is almost double that of StarCraft II. Melee's prize pools are rising hugely every year, whereas SC2's are plummeting. November has been a lull in Melee action, but during the more happening months, there's a big event almost every weekend. Imagine if we were seeing TY vs Byun 2-3 times per month.
I would argue that SC2 has a much higher barrier of entry than Melee, mostly just by design. Strategy games need so many units, upgrades, tech trees, and abilities to be learned. The basics of fighting games can be figured out fairly quickly after a casual round or two of button mashing.
Sounds like you've never played that game. It takes years just to learn to control your character, much less engage in the strategy part. "The basics" in Melee are the equivalent of things like Muta stacking in BW, which would take years to figure out on your own.
Smash and SC2 are 2 incredibly different games. There is no need to have an epeen war on who's game is harder, nor is there any reason to discuss popularity of both games.
Both have their difficulties and learning curves. Both have an audience. Whose is bigger? I don't care.
On December 01 2016 15:55 luxon wrote: There is nothing that annoys me more than people saying "Blizzard should change GAMEPLAY and do this or that. Imbalanced races, etc etc". I can't deal with that amount of idiocy. Are you serious right now? LoL in 2011 was already bigger than any esport or game in history (including BW at its PEAK and SC2 was at its peak in 2011), and has continued to grow. CS:GO, Dota, etc etc all have too. And you think that's because of forcefields or a-move zerg?? How can you not see what those games have in common?
SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends. It is like tennis vs football or basketball - it simply isn't comparable. The top 2-3 tennis players get all the $$ and sponsorships while the rest struggle, but you can pick an MLB or NBA player at random and theyll probably bank 10 million easy.
On the flip side, LoL is fun and social. The learning curve is super low and Riot has physically supported its players. The game is still imbalanced as fuck and players qq all the time. The game ITSELF is the prime source of what determines popularity and appeal, not its rules. Tennis won't have baseball viewership if you say "Ok new rule, alternate serves every point". SC2 as long as it is a 1v1 game, will never be able to compete with League or DotA. Blizzard knows this too and released Heroes of the Storm.
I genuinely can't believe this game has been a steady decline for 5+ years and people are STILL THINKING ITS IMBALANCE GAMEPLAY from Idra and Destiny blaming gameplay 4 years ago to morons in this forum now. Poor David Kim. With fans like this maybe this is what SC2 deserves.
Smash Bros. Melee is a 15 year old game that requires a CRT to play. Going into 2017, some of its top players making over 6 figures, and like all the top play players plus others have sponsors. Sponsors didn't even exist in the scene until TL picked up players a couple years back. This game is extremely hardcore 1v1 with a much higher barrier of entry than SC2. How do you account for it's almost exponential growth from 2013-2016 given what you've said? The biggest tournaments get ~150k concurrent viewers now and this game is played on a fucking gamecube
StarCraft 2 is more popular than Smash, by a lot. In November SC2 had 4.9 million hours watched on Twitch, while Melee had 1.9 million. It is easier to grow when you are small.
Yesterday Melee had 10,000 hours watched, SC2 had 100,000 hours watched, and LoL had 2 million hours watched. So yeah, I can see it competing...
You are cherry picking statistics. Melee's peak concurrent viewership is almost double that of StarCraft II. Melee's prize pools are rising hugely every year, whereas SC2's are plummeting. November has been a lull in Melee action, but during the more happening months, there's a big event almost every weekend. Imagine if we were seeing TY vs Byun 2-3 times per month.
I would argue that SC2 has a much higher barrier of entry than Melee, mostly just by design. Strategy games need so many units, upgrades, tech trees, and abilities to be learned. The basics of fighting games can be figured out fairly quickly after a casual round or two of button mashing.
Sounds like you've never played that game. It takes years just to learn to control your character, much less engage in the strategy part. "The basics" in Melee are the equivalent of things like Muta stacking in BW, which would take years to figure out on your own.
I mean try looking at the newzoo link, I only gave November as an example because it was the most recent. We can go through the other months if you want.
This includes not just melee, but also smash 4. I'd love to know how this is picking statistics but looking at peak viewership during evo and pretending anyone cares outside of it isn't.
Again it's easy to rise when you have nothing. I'd also be interested in how SC2 prize pools are plummeting.
On December 03 2016 16:46 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Talk about going on a tangent.
Smash and SC2 are 2 incredibly different games. There is no need to have an epeen war on who's game is harder, nor is there any reason to discuss popularity of both games.
Both have their difficulties and learning curves. Both have an audience. Whose is bigger? I don't care.
I agree there isn't much of a reason, but I think it's important people know where SC2 actually stands instead of giving off misinformation. It is solidly the most watched esport outside of the larger games (LoL/CS/HS/DotA) and people are acting like it isn't. Overwatch will probably overtake it through sheer force of playerbase next year though.
On December 01 2016 15:55 luxon wrote: There is nothing that annoys me more than people saying "Blizzard should change GAMEPLAY and do this or that. Imbalanced races, etc etc". I can't deal with that amount of idiocy. Are you serious right now? LoL in 2011 was already bigger than any esport or game in history (including BW at its PEAK and SC2 was at its peak in 2011), and has continued to grow. CS:GO, Dota, etc etc all have too. And you think that's because of forcefields or a-move zerg?? How can you not see what those games have in common?
SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends. It is like tennis vs football or basketball - it simply isn't comparable. The top 2-3 tennis players get all the $$ and sponsorships while the rest struggle, but you can pick an MLB or NBA player at random and theyll probably bank 10 million easy.
On the flip side, LoL is fun and social. The learning curve is super low and Riot has physically supported its players. The game is still imbalanced as fuck and players qq all the time. The game ITSELF is the prime source of what determines popularity and appeal, not its rules. Tennis won't have baseball viewership if you say "Ok new rule, alternate serves every point". SC2 as long as it is a 1v1 game, will never be able to compete with League or DotA. Blizzard knows this too and released Heroes of the Storm.
I genuinely can't believe this game has been a steady decline for 5+ years and people are STILL THINKING ITS IMBALANCE GAMEPLAY from Idra and Destiny blaming gameplay 4 years ago to morons in this forum now. Poor David Kim. With fans like this maybe this is what SC2 deserves.
Smash Bros. Melee is a 15 year old game that requires a CRT to play. Going into 2017, some of its top players making over 6 figures, and like all the top play players plus others have sponsors. Sponsors didn't even exist in the scene until TL picked up players a couple years back. This game is extremely hardcore 1v1 with a much higher barrier of entry than SC2. How do you account for it's almost exponential growth from 2013-2016 given what you've said? The biggest tournaments get ~150k concurrent viewers now and this game is played on a fucking gamecube
StarCraft 2 is more popular than Smash, by a lot. In November SC2 had 4.9 million hours watched on Twitch, while Melee had 1.9 million. It is easier to grow when you are small.
Yesterday Melee had 10,000 hours watched, SC2 had 100,000 hours watched, and LoL had 2 million hours watched. So yeah, I can see it competing...
You are cherry picking statistics. Melee's peak concurrent viewership is almost double that of StarCraft II. Melee's prize pools are rising hugely every year, whereas SC2's are plummeting. November has been a lull in Melee action, but during the more happening months, there's a big event almost every weekend. Imagine if we were seeing TY vs Byun 2-3 times per month.
I would argue that SC2 has a much higher barrier of entry than Melee, mostly just by design. Strategy games need so many units, upgrades, tech trees, and abilities to be learned. The basics of fighting games can be figured out fairly quickly after a casual round or two of button mashing.
Sounds like you've never played that game. It takes years just to learn to control your character, much less engage in the strategy part. "The basics" in Melee are the equivalent of things like Muta stacking in BW, which would take years to figure out on your own.
Why would you call someone out on cherry picking stats when you're doing the same thing?
On December 02 2016 08:38 -StrifeX- wrote: I mean no offense, but why would I want to look at views of a person who was known for being really BM to other pro gamers and said things that was super offensive to players? I mean that behavior alone should be to some extent why some people got sick of running into people with pure hate towards other people like this. I'm sorry but I can't respect the comments or video of someone that I felt brought negative attention to sc2 also. However, this is my opinion. I hope he's changed from back when he was known for being BM
SC2 we can all agree is declining, but I would say that it is dead. I mean look at the Brood War recent resurgence for increase of tournaments, viewers, and even player base. People would have agreed over a year ago it had no chance of ever getting back to where it was before sc2 release. It's all of a sudden kicking a spark recently. Although, It seems to be mostly sparking in the Korean area the most. I don't understand why people think without Koreans having pro teams that the game is dying. Koreans just tend to have the passion in gaming, and If other countries held this similar passion it would be bigger than Korea has currently made eSports. Korea is just currently one of the only countries that holds solid and deep investments into gaming by multiple companies in the scene. They have enough involve to keep the field competitive and enough teams for leagues and events to stay solid.
I think Starcraft 2 got too fast to see "finesse" and strategy. But if you want a high dynamic game, you can turn to MOBA and FPS games, and even experience teamplay.
I was fascinated by single marines being rescued, stalker shots dodged, pixel perfect force fields...Or FlaShs ability to remember when to send a small group of units to deny protoss 3rd Base on marry-go-round. Oh and Grubby`s defense of a hacker that DT-rushed him on TalDarim Altar and was defeatd by godly micro.
now the game is so fast, you really have to look at the macro mistakes to declare the better player. Losing single units almost does not matter, unless its the nerve wrecking TvT or TvP EarlyGame.
I make videos for SC2, specifically for Zerg. I agree with you, the lack of tutorials is a killer. I've been working hard to help change that but as I'm not a very good player myself, I've been hitting a lot of brick walls. If you're willing to pair up or if you can point me in the direction of someone who would be, I'd love to help produce the tutorials you think need to be made. If you choose a topic, I'll do the production of the video. IDK exactly what it would look like but I love this game and I do not want to see it die. I want to help. Please let me know how I can help.
My youtube is youtube.com/misusedshaft if you would like to see my videos before you respond. This is not a spam message. Do not click the link if you do not want to. I want to help.
On December 04 2016 06:23 KT_Elwood wrote: I think Starcraft 2 got too fast to see "finesse" and strategy. But if you want a high dynamic game, you can turn to MOBA and FPS games, and even experience teamplay.
I was fascinated by single marines being rescued, stalker shots dodged, pixel perfect force fields...Or FlaShs ability to remember when to send a small group of units to deny protoss 3rd Base on marry-go-round. Oh and Grubby`s defense of a hacker that DT-rushed him on TalDarim Altar and was defeatd by godly micro.
now the game is so fast, you really have to look at the macro mistakes to declare the better player. Losing single units almost does not matter, unless its the nerve wrecking TvT or TvP EarlyGame.
That is excellent analysis and a great way to put what has happened to SC2. Strategy doesn't matter anymore, it all about who can do more in Real Time.