|
On November 07 2017 04:05 swissman777 wrote:
Can we pls have changes to WoL and HotS ladder maps? I don't think they have changed in a loooooong while
In order for that to happen, I think people who have been playing WoL would need to become map makers and testers themselves since I doubt the StarCraft 2 team wants to/can dedicate people to making anything for it, and I don't think any of the current map makers want to or, if they do, have enough experience with "modern" WoL to make good maps.
|
On November 07 2017 09:12 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 04:05 swissman777 wrote:
Can we pls have changes to WoL and HotS ladder maps? I don't think they have changed in a loooooong while In order for that to happen, I think people who have been playing WoL would need to become map makers and testers themselves since I doubt the StarCraft 2 team wants to/can dedicate people to making anything for it, and I don't think any of the current map makers want to or, if they do, have enough experience with "modern" WoL to make good maps.
Just simple recycling of old maps would do. I have played HotS for some time after LotV came out and the maps really get old. I don't care if they're balanced or not, just the current limited maps in the ladder pool is really boring and it would be really great if it changed every now and then.
|
On November 07 2017 09:12 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 04:05 swissman777 wrote:
Can we pls have changes to WoL and HotS ladder maps? I don't think they have changed in a loooooong while In order for that to happen, I think people who have been playing WoL would need to become map makers and testers themselves since I doubt the StarCraft 2 team wants to/can dedicate people to making anything for it, and I don't think any of the current map makers want to or, if they do, have enough experience with "modern" WoL to make good maps.
there were plenty of good maps made during the wol and hots times which were never used on ladder and could easily be added. as a mapmaker, i certainly wouldn't mind going through a bunch of old maps on TL and submitting recommendations to blizzard.
|
Fresh meat for Koreans. Only WOL though? are they be putting up for f2p HoTS and LotV as well?
|
On November 07 2017 16:14 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Fresh meat for Koreans. Only WOL though? are they be putting up for f2p HoTS and LotV as well?
well, multiplayer is f2p for all 3, just the campaigns are paywalled
|
On November 06 2017 16:29 david0925 wrote:
I am/was a pretty casual SC1/2 player and I think the biggest things that kept me playing are definitely the campaign and Co-op missions.
I can't say for other games, but I think SC1/2 are very focused around 1v1 as opposed to team games, which is the opposite of what a lot of online game players are looking for. As far as player versus player goes, I don't really have a good answer to this. Ladder anxiety (despite the fact that there is unranked one) is often the number 1 reason players I know shy away from playing the game, and having teammates to fall back on is often the key to game success. Both MOBA and FPS follow this pretty religiously with 5v5s.
I'm really not that optimistic in seeing single player (1v1) growths, but hopefully we'll at least bring people in starting with campaigns and at least into team games (pve or pvp)
I think this really hit the nail on the head.
Ladder anxiety, and the huge complexity of the game is probably the big reasons players didn't get into StarCraft.
Oh, and also the ladder experience felt pretty lonely. They're trying to change that though, with chatrooms and all that.
And free to play is certainly a nice change. Go Blizzard!
|
i like the f2p decision. i paid for Wol, HotS and LotV but i dont mind in anyway... for me it was always logically that i pay mainly for the campaign.
wich didnt change except for WoL...
|
On November 05 2017 21:43 figq wrote:
I agree with an earlier comment that the decline of SC2 wasn't because of price tag. Overwatch has price tag, no problem, huge growth. It's about the difficulty of the game. It's not for everyone and gamers nowadays are bred to be lazy and lame by the modern standards for easier gaming.
Or maybe there are games much more fun out there, while in the past there was not.
That's just how it is. BW was pretty niche in the west too a few years after release, it was only carried by the passion of Korea. And Korea couldn't get as much into SC2, because of too much commitment to BW
Or maybe they didn't find the game fun.
already and because LoL took the average "casual" gamer in Korea. LoL had very aggressive marketing which SC2 didn't have. That's done already, no way to turn back the past. Free to play will bring some new blood to SC2, it will probably not be a reason for return to domination, but it's definitely not bad for the game, by any stretch.
not bad, i might try it out again, probably not though 
|
Hard to picture any new player buying SC2 these days, specialy LotV which is much harder than previous versions. It's a good choice to making it free to play.
I do worry about the legion of hackers that will come to ladder tho.
Also i think people that own LotV should be given at least a portrait and a co-op commander of their choice for supporting this game even when Blizzard took forever to fix adepts, ultras, libs, etc.
|
Since LOTV ladder would be free now, I expect they will soon drop the support for 3 different ladders - one for each expansion.
|
On November 08 2017 02:18 georgir wrote:
Since LOTV ladder would be free now, I expect they will soon drop the support for 3 different ladders - one for each expansion.
Good point. Logically, there is no reason for separate ladders anymore since anyone will be united to F2P ladder.
|
On November 08 2017 03:25 GSTL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 02:18 georgir wrote:
Since LOTV ladder would be free now, I expect they will soon drop the support for 3 different ladders - one for each expansion. Good point. Logically, there is no reason for separate ladders anymore since anyone will be united to F2P ladder.
Some people (a minority to be sure) still want to ladder HotS or WoL though. Blizzard still has to cater to those sick fucks people who think WoL Broodlord/Infestor is the pinnacle of Starcraft.
|
Wol team games are far better than other versions imo.
|
Changes That SC2 Needs For Its Move to F2P
1. For team ranked, 10 first wins is too much, all free accounts should be able to play team ranked without any requirement. There is no reason for any restriction. For 1v1 ranked, it's nowhere near enough to stop smurfs and maphackers. Dota 2, for instance, requires a phone number plus ~150 games (~100 hours of gameplay) to unlock ranked. The 1v1 ranked requirement should be increased. For example, 10 first wins plus 10 hours of gameplay plus a phone number, or spend $10+.
2. Given that the WoL campaign will be free to all, it should be cleaned up, and it's UI should be updated to HotS/LotV standards. Specifically, WoL should have a Master Archive with its own specific button and that works like the HotS/LotV Master Archive. The hero UI should be updated to the HotS/LotV/co-op hero UI. Old unit models in WoL (and HotS), such as the Tal'Darim using normal protoss skins instead of the red-themed skins in LotV should be updated. Nova and Amon in WoL look different than in LotV, Nova Covert Ops. There are other examples.
3. Remove the WoL/HotS/LotV split in the player profiles as everyone will be on LotV when F2P comes out. For example, on the season snapshot, where it says "1v1 Void", it should just say "1v1". In the ladder page, statistics page, and other places, where you need to click WoL/HotS/LotV, this should be removed. The Expansion Level should be determined by the corresponding settings in Options, so WoL, HotS info would not be displayed when LotV is set. No one cares about WoL and HotS info in the profile.
4. Most divisions are filled with inactive players, and this is only going to get worse with F2P. Something needs to be done about inactive players clogging up the ranks. I suggest defining an activity requirement (e.g. 15 games in the last 3 weeks, which is half the GM activity requirement), make a server-wide leaderboard that ranks only active players by default, based on MMR percentile, with a toggle to view it out of all players. This allows people to meaningfully view their skill rating out of active players, rather than their meaningless division rank in a division filled with inactive players. (Note: bonus pool is a terrible activity requirement, since it treats active players who join mid-season like they're inactive.)
5. Game speed should default to fastest for all difficulty levels in campaign and co-op. Game speed affects the entire tempo of gameplay and having non-brutal difficulties set to lower speeds will dupe new F2P players, train them to play at the wrong speed, leaving them unprepared for ladder on fastest, and will require them to relearn how timings feel when they move into brutal or ladder. It has a significant effect.
6. Swann, Zagara, Vorazun, Karax should be purchasable separately, not just as a bundle with LotV. If a F2P player wants any one of these commanders above level 5, instead of paying the usual $5, they would have to pay $25 for all of LotV.
Of course, there are many other changes that would benefit the game, but these 6 changes relate specifically to having a surge of players who will come with F2P, and they should be implemented as soon as possible given that F2P will be released next week.
|
So anyone knows how to upgrade your WoL to HotS for free that they said we can do after 8th of November?
Edit: Ok found the answer on reddit.
Noticed many people (like me) tried to click on the upgrade button on the b.net app Starcraft page, to claim the free HoTs upgrade only to find that goes to the store and asks for a purchase.
Dont click on the upgrade, instead on the top right there should be a gift icon, with an orange dot, click on that and claim the gift.
If you cant find the gift, restart your Battle.net App, or from the dropdown with your name click on check gifts. It should appear.
|
so does the new balance patch go live on Nov 14 too?
|
On November 05 2017 21:43 figq wrote:
Starcraft 2 is a brilliant game that deserved all the money I've given for it. It also took a lot of time for them to incorporate all the cosmetic shop stuff that could allow them to sustain free-to-play. Technically I'm sure all that couldn't have been there from the beginning, because: 1.) They had all kinds of problems from the start, with Battle.net 2.0, performance issues, balance issues etc - they barely managed to fix those, late after launch; so no, they couldn't also have had implemented the cosmetic stuff. There wasn't even any arcade at launch. There wasn't co-op that now drives so many players. Improving the editor to allow arcade community development was a huge project that needed a lot of time to grow. 2.) They didn't have 3 campaigns back then to be able to offer 1 for free and hope to hook some buyers for the other 2 campaigns. 3.) You also need serious anti-cheating tools to protect a free-to-play game, because every ban is a registration away from entering again. I'm sure those tools have evolved a lot since launch and this period of time was needed.
I agree with an earlier comment that the decline of SC2 wasn't because of price tag. Overwatch has price tag, no problem, huge growth. It's about the difficulty of the game. It's not for everyone and gamers nowadays are bred to be lazy and lame by the modern standards for easier gaming. That's just how it is. BW was pretty niche in the west too a few years after release, it was only carried by the passion of Korea. And Korea couldn't get as much into SC2, because of too much commitment to BW already and because LoL took the average "casual" gamer in Korea. LoL had very aggressive marketing which SC2 didn't have. That's done already, no way to turn back the past. Free to play will bring some new blood to SC2, it will probably not be a reason for return to domination, but it's definitely not bad for the game, by any stretch.
I'm very happy that now I can invite anyone to SC2 without having to draw them a complex scheme of what is free and what isn't and what should they buy if they need to also add some specific experience to what is offered for free.
Starcraft 2 is not such a good game, it has design problems that in my opinion are very serious such as deathballs or the disastrous design of some units like the Colossus, Swarmhost, etc. If SC2 is not completely dead it is because no RTS has been launched to compete with it.
|
On November 11 2017 12:15 Hannibaal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2017 21:43 figq wrote:
Starcraft 2 is a brilliant game that deserved all the money I've given for it. It also took a lot of time for them to incorporate all the cosmetic shop stuff that could allow them to sustain free-to-play. Technically I'm sure all that couldn't have been there from the beginning, because: 1.) They had all kinds of problems from the start, with Battle.net 2.0, performance issues, balance issues etc - they barely managed to fix those, late after launch; so no, they couldn't also have had implemented the cosmetic stuff. There wasn't even any arcade at launch. There wasn't co-op that now drives so many players. Improving the editor to allow arcade community development was a huge project that needed a lot of time to grow. 2.) They didn't have 3 campaigns back then to be able to offer 1 for free and hope to hook some buyers for the other 2 campaigns. 3.) You also need serious anti-cheating tools to protect a free-to-play game, because every ban is a registration away from entering again. I'm sure those tools have evolved a lot since launch and this period of time was needed.
I agree with an earlier comment that the decline of SC2 wasn't because of price tag. Overwatch has price tag, no problem, huge growth. It's about the difficulty of the game. It's not for everyone and gamers nowadays are bred to be lazy and lame by the modern standards for easier gaming. That's just how it is. BW was pretty niche in the west too a few years after release, it was only carried by the passion of Korea. And Korea couldn't get as much into SC2, because of too much commitment to BW already and because LoL took the average "casual" gamer in Korea. LoL had very aggressive marketing which SC2 didn't have. That's done already, no way to turn back the past. Free to play will bring some new blood to SC2, it will probably not be a reason for return to domination, but it's definitely not bad for the game, by any stretch.
I'm very happy that now I can invite anyone to SC2 without having to draw them a complex scheme of what is free and what isn't and what should they buy if they need to also add some specific experience to what is offered for free. Starcraft 2 is not such a good game, it has design problems that in my opinion are very serious such as deathballs or the disastrous design of some units like the Colossus, Swarmhost, etc. If SC2 is not completely dead it is because no RTS has been launched to compete with it.
You can say that about any Blizzard RTS. Go look at any other RTS released in the last 5 years and come back and talk about what a disastrous design looks like.
|
If people really want sc2 to rise again, they need to stop this stupid assumption that the game is not hugely played because it's the most difficult of competitive games. It's hard to admit but most players want to have fun in a videogame and they are going to play what game delivers them with the most fun, which it's generally a team based experience.
I've been guilty for years of this dumb mentality, then I realized how much flawed and poor it was
|
On November 11 2017 20:07 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2017 12:15 Hannibaal wrote:On November 05 2017 21:43 figq wrote:
Starcraft 2 is a brilliant game that deserved all the money I've given for it. It also took a lot of time for them to incorporate all the cosmetic shop stuff that could allow them to sustain free-to-play. Technically I'm sure all that couldn't have been there from the beginning, because: 1.) They had all kinds of problems from the start, with Battle.net 2.0, performance issues, balance issues etc - they barely managed to fix those, late after launch; so no, they couldn't also have had implemented the cosmetic stuff. There wasn't even any arcade at launch. There wasn't co-op that now drives so many players. Improving the editor to allow arcade community development was a huge project that needed a lot of time to grow. 2.) They didn't have 3 campaigns back then to be able to offer 1 for free and hope to hook some buyers for the other 2 campaigns. 3.) You also need serious anti-cheating tools to protect a free-to-play game, because every ban is a registration away from entering again. I'm sure those tools have evolved a lot since launch and this period of time was needed.
I agree with an earlier comment that the decline of SC2 wasn't because of price tag. Overwatch has price tag, no problem, huge growth. It's about the difficulty of the game. It's not for everyone and gamers nowadays are bred to be lazy and lame by the modern standards for easier gaming. That's just how it is. BW was pretty niche in the west too a few years after release, it was only carried by the passion of Korea. And Korea couldn't get as much into SC2, because of too much commitment to BW already and because LoL took the average "casual" gamer in Korea. LoL had very aggressive marketing which SC2 didn't have. That's done already, no way to turn back the past. Free to play will bring some new blood to SC2, it will probably not be a reason for return to domination, but it's definitely not bad for the game, by any stretch.
I'm very happy that now I can invite anyone to SC2 without having to draw them a complex scheme of what is free and what isn't and what should they buy if they need to also add some specific experience to what is offered for free. Starcraft 2 is not such a good game, it has design problems that in my opinion are very serious such as deathballs or the disastrous design of some units like the Colossus, Swarmhost, etc. If SC2 is not completely dead it is because no RTS has been launched to compete with it. You can say that about any Blizzard RTS. Go look at any other RTS released in the last 5 years and come back and talk about what a disastrous design looks like.
Nice argument, just because a dead genre hasn't seen any stellar releases recently that means that SC2 is comparable to the genre at its peak 15-20 years ago.
[Insert a bunch of laughing emojis with tears in their eyes here]
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
