EPTSeason 2 Map Pool Revealed, Season begins May 21st - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12125 Posts
| ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
On May 15 2019 20:57 deacon.frost wrote: The question is who's the target audience. Viewers and casuals? Well, lot of games catered to those and they didn't exactly survived when the HC audience left the game. While HC audience shouldn't be the primary target, it's wise to not piss them too much if you want longevity of the game. If the "viewers want crazy stuff" would be true, we can end up in a situation where almost none plays the game and everyone is watching and I don't think this is desired state for Blizzard's monies. And my question is: do viewers actually like wierd stuff like that? If it is so, what is the percentage? Any stats or numbers to back it up? Who exactly is the SC audience? Is it dominated by hardcore longtime fans who play the game themselves or does it mostly consist of non-player base? Like, we don't actually have the numbers and i doubt blizzard has/care. They just keep throwing stuff at the wall to see if something sticks, and it kinda suits the situation but it should already be obvious by now that map tweaks direction is a deadend. They tried it numerous times and it NEVER ever worked. I'm no expert but common sense tells me viewers generally prefer dynamic, fast paced games with lots of action, with clear, simple rules and gameplay that are easy to grasp. How exactly does slowing field or other wierd counter intuitive mechanics like 5 minerals patches blocking paths contribute to that, i have no clue. If you want me to discribe the most attractive interaction in SC2 that is both interesting to play and watch i would definitely say it's ling/bane muta vs mmm. For me this is the epitome of dynamic/fast-paced and which is most important - clear and simple gameplay. I would rather focus on improving other aspects of the game for them to look like that. But blizzard, as it seems, chose the other path. They, for some reason, think that it's about diversity. Both in playstyles and maps. They keep promoting imbecile unorthodox playstyles like mech and tempests, revamping units from scratch every year (cyclone), keep "innovating" maps and so on. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
I guess I'm going to have to veto it. I had to do the same thing with Stasis a couple seasons back. | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On May 15 2019 21:27 insitelol wrote: And my question is: do viewers actually like wierd stuff like that? If it is so, what is the percentage? Any stats or numbers to back it up? Who exactly is the SC audience? Is it dominated by hardcore longtime fans who play the game themselves or does it mostly consist of non-player base? Like, we don't actually have the numbers and i doubt blizzard has/care. They just keep throwing stuff at the wall to see if something sticks, and it kinda suits the situation but it should already be obvious by now that map tweaks direction is a deadend. They tried it numerous times and it NEVER ever worked. I'm no expert but common sense tells me viewers generally prefer dynamic, fast paced games with lots of action, with clear, simple rules and gameplay that are easy to grasp. How exactly does slowing field or other wierd counter intuitive mechanics like 5 minerals patches blocking paths contribute to that, i have no clue. If you want me to discribe the most attractive interaction in SC2 that is both interesting to play and watch i would definitely say it's ling/bane muta vs mmm. For me this is the epitome of dynamic/fast-paced and which is most important - clear and simple gameplay. I would rather focus on improving other aspects of the game for them to look like that. But blizzard, as it seems, chose the other path. They, for some reason, think that it's about diversity. Both in playstyles and maps. They keep promoting imbecile unorthodox playstyles like mech and tempests, revamping units from scratch every year (cyclone), keep "innovating" maps and so on. everything looking like ling bane muta vs mmm gets old real fast. i find mech and tempest death balls enjoyable. i can appreciate the positioning, precision, decision making, and macro those styles entail. the best games of the year, for me, all entailed either mech and/or a protoss death ball. starcraft is a strategy game first and foremost. action junkies can look somewhere else | ||
|
NinjaNight
428 Posts
On May 22 2019 13:05 BerserkSword wrote: everything looking like ling bane muta vs mmm gets old real fast. i find mech and tempest death balls enjoyable. i can appreciate the positioning, precision, decision making, and macro those styles entail. the best games of the year, for me, all entailed either mech and/or a protoss death ball. starcraft is a strategy game first and foremost. action junkies can look somewhere else Funny you say that because I think this is the most action packed fast paced RTS ever and is relatively low on strategy for a strategy game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23305 Posts
Personal preferences aside I think the pool is too small so they play it too safe, on the other side of that coin there’s usually one decent/classic map that gets removed almost every season to shake it up. Have a slightly bigger pool and have both solid and well-rested balanced maps, with some more interesting curveballs and more vetoes you get basically all the boxes ticked no? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23305 Posts
On May 15 2019 21:27 insitelol wrote: And my question is: do viewers actually like wierd stuff like that? If it is so, what is the percentage? Any stats or numbers to back it up? Who exactly is the SC audience? Is it dominated by hardcore longtime fans who play the game themselves or does it mostly consist of non-player base? Like, we don't actually have the numbers and i doubt blizzard has/care. They just keep throwing stuff at the wall to see if something sticks, and it kinda suits the situation but it should already be obvious by now that map tweaks direction is a deadend. They tried it numerous times and it NEVER ever worked. I'm no expert but common sense tells me viewers generally prefer dynamic, fast paced games with lots of action, with clear, simple rules and gameplay that are easy to grasp. How exactly does slowing field or other wierd counter intuitive mechanics like 5 minerals patches blocking paths contribute to that, i have no clue. If you want me to discribe the most attractive interaction in SC2 that is both interesting to play and watch i would definitely say it's ling/bane muta vs mmm. For me this is the epitome of dynamic/fast-paced and which is most important - clear and simple gameplay. I would rather focus on improving other aspects of the game for them to look like that. But blizzard, as it seems, chose the other path. They, for some reason, think that it's about diversity. Both in playstyles and maps. They keep promoting imbecile unorthodox playstyles like mech and tempests, revamping units from scratch every year (cyclone), keep "innovating" maps and so on. It’s a strategy game, people having to use their brains to play different maps differently is good IMO if it doesn’t break the game. Game is the best it’s ever been in variety of compositions and styles, especially with recent strides in making mech work well against Protoss. I don’t think those map features are unintuitive at all, whether they’re good is another thing entirely. Inhibitor fields slow units, 5 mineral patches you send a worker to clear a path. | ||
|
General_Winter
United States719 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23305 Posts
On May 22 2019 23:32 General_Winter wrote: So performance issues aside, the concept of inhibitor fields isn’t too crazy. It just means that instead of having three attack paths where 2 are long and 1 is short they have three attack paths that are all the same length. How bad are these performance issues anyway? My PC had seen better days when I built it and that’s 7 years ago now | ||
|
billynasty
United States260 Posts
On May 22 2019 15:37 Wombat_NI wrote: I’ve always wanted a few more maps in the pool each season, with more vetoes. It gives more variety and at lesst a few more shots to mapmakers to get their maps used. Personal preferences aside I think the pool is too small so they play it too safe, on the other side of that coin there’s usually one decent/classic map that gets removed almost every season to shake it up. Have a slightly bigger pool and have both solid and well-rested balanced maps, with some more interesting curveballs and more vetoes you get basically all the boxes ticked no? Yep, that would be the logical solution. I've said the same thing before, so have others, but we've never had an official Blizzard response to that idea, (at least that i'm aware of). But it sure seems it'd give more variety every season while also giving the pro players their professional maps as well. Would seem like an obvious win - win to everyone involved, so obvious that its obviously ignored as a solution. | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On May 22 2019 14:18 NinjaNight wrote: Funny you say that because I think this is the most action packed fast paced RTS ever and is relatively low on strategy for a strategy game. I never said starcraft is not action packed and fast paced. All I said was that it is a strategy game, first and foremost. You think that diversifying strategies should take a back seat to making everything look "clear and simple" like action packed mmm vs ling bane muta | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23305 Posts
On May 22 2019 23:49 BerserkSword wrote: I never said starcraft is not action packed and fast paced. All I said was that it is a strategy game, first and foremost. You think that diversifying strategies should take a back seat to making everything look "clear and simple" like action packed mmm vs ling bane muta I don’t even think it’s that clean a style to watch sometimes, if you’re a veteran viewer or player for sure. For casuals or those less familiar with the game the volatility of mine hits might be something it’s hard to get a grasp on vs some other compositions. I do like me some MMM for sure, one of my favourite styles out there. | ||
|
BirdBird
34 Posts
| ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
On May 22 2019 23:49 BerserkSword wrote: I never said starcraft is not action packed and fast paced. All I said was that it is a strategy game, first and foremost. You think that diversifying strategies should take a back seat to making everything look "clear and simple" like action packed mmm vs ling bane muta "Strategy" is just a label on a box. It also has that "R" in it. But the game shouldn't be a hostage of its name or label or some other artificial tag. It should be a game. And the game is all about gameplay. As i said i can only share my personal view on gameplay, i don't know about everyone else, and you can keep that opinion of yours about tempest deathballs being fun and all, but it looks like obvious trolling to me. What's more important, the term "strategy" itself is generally overcomplicated on purpose by people who want to look more intellegent/do not clearly understand it. Strategy is literally every decision you make, good/bad, simple/complicated w/e, everything is strategy. Claiming that mech death balls involve more positioning and decision making is plain wrong, as operating slow death balls is identical to operating fast death balls with one exeption. You actually need to be faster than your opponent. That's just another layer in your skill. People who defend these playstyles are just slowpokes. Sure thing, they try to justify that with something like "i prefer to think not to spam keys mindlessly" backing it up with "its a strategy game after all". But that's a misconception. Starcraft is not that demanding in terms of actual "thinking", don't try to fool yourselves. It's not quantum physics or rocket science. You do not "think" about anything during a match, you just react to what you see according to your game knowledge/game sense/experience you name it. Nothing wrong with adding a speed requirement to that. That's what makes gameplay (in many sports, even in chess that is starcraft often compared to). Like, you don't need to be a new Einstein to spam planetaries all over the map and camp behind them only to move out when you are 200/200 on tanks. Oh look, opponent is trying to flank you! Siege up! He flees! Unsiege! Definitely some 50000 iq gaming here. And that is all that your "strategy" is about. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12125 Posts
Edit> Anyone having similar issues? Maybe I got lucky into my ISP bad time. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On May 23 2019 22:48 deacon.frost wrote: Banned Turbo Cruise, either I have low hw or the game hates me, having lag issues there without ping changes Edit> Anyone having similar issues? Maybe I got lucky into my ISP bad time. As I mentioned a few posts back, I had the same thing. I played a couple more games on that map and they were all the same. It's the map. I had played games on all the other maps without issue before and after I played the games on Turbo Cruise so it wasn't my internet or hardware acting up. There's a fairly substantial performance hit when playing that map versus the other maps. It's too bad because I actually think it's a really neat map. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23305 Posts
On May 23 2019 20:48 insitelol wrote: "Strategy" is just a label on a box. It also has that "R" in it. But the game shouldn't be a hostage of its name or label or some other artificial tag. It should be a game. And the game is all about gameplay. As i said i can only share my personal view on gameplay, i don't know about everyone else, and you can keep that opinion of yours about tempest deathballs being fun and all, but it looks like obvious trolling to me. What's more important, the term "strategy" itself is generally overcomplicated on purpose by people who want to look more intellegent/do not clearly understand it. Strategy is literally every decision you make, good/bad, simple/complicated w/e, everything is strategy. Claiming that mech death balls involve more positioning and decision making is plain wrong, as operating slow death balls is identical to operating fast death balls with one exeption. You actually need to be faster than your opponent. That's just another layer in your skill. People who defend these playstyles are just slowpokes. Sure thing, they try to justify that with something like "i prefer to think not to spam keys mindlessly" backing it up with "its a strategy game after all". But that's a misconception. Starcraft is not that demanding in terms of actual "thinking", don't try to fool yourselves. It's not quantum physics or rocket science. You do not "think" about anything during a match, you just react to what you see according to your game knowledge/game sense/experience you name it. Nothing wrong with adding a speed requirement to that. That's what makes gameplay (in many sports, even in chess that is starcraft often compared to). Like, you don't need to be a new Einstein to spam planetaries all over the map and camp behind them only to move out when you are 200/200 on tanks. Oh look, opponent is trying to flank you! Siege up! He flees! Unsiege! Definitely some 50000 iq gaming here. And that is all that your "strategy" is about. Well no, certain comps do require more decision-making, even more actions than others, or rely on positioning more than others. There’s a huge difference in effectiveness of a good mech engagement when you’ve sieged in smart positions, vs one that isn’t or even worse if it gets caught unsieged. There’s plenty of elements in SC2, focusing on one too hard to the detriment of others just ignores the whole skill set of the game. Taken to extremes and you do get amusing ladder BM if nothing else. For me it’s the type who just copies a build and throws bio and drops at you and then BMs you afterwards because you suck and their race is so mechanically hard, even though you have higher APM. Especially delicious when their bio micro is worse than yours when you play Terran. I do agree that there’s a subset of players who actually don’t have any strategy whatsoever, but complain the game isn’t strategic because their ‘proper’ shit turtling style where they just sit there and do nothing gets punished. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20263 Posts
On May 24 2019 00:03 Ben... wrote: As I mentioned a few posts back, I had the same thing. I played a couple more games on that map and they were all the same. It's the map. I had played games on all the other maps without issue before and after I played the games on Turbo Cruise so it wasn't my internet or hardware acting up. There's a fairly substantial performance hit when playing that map versus the other maps. It's too bad because I actually think it's a really neat map. Getting less performance than other maps in general but not as bad as i expected (1.3, 1.5x worse) noticeable FPS drops scrolling past the inhibitor fields though, even with only 12 workers on the map. The performance limit is still CPU as expected. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12125 Posts
On May 24 2019 02:47 Cyro wrote: Getting less performance than other maps in general but not as bad as i expected (1.3, 1.5x worse) noticeable FPS drops scrolling past the inhibitor fields though, even with only 12 workers on the map. The performance limit is still CPU as expected. I don't see FPS issues per se, from time to time i can see something that could be called as input lag, but pings were fine(from 3k 40 loss) and i didn't see any fps drops. It may be because of my PC. Don't know  | ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On May 24 2019 05:55 deacon.frost wrote: I don't see FPS issues per se, from time to time i can see something that could be called as input lag, but pings were fine(from 3k 40 loss) and i didn't see any fps drops. It may be because of my PC. Don't know try play some commander games first the bubble effect is new a thing in melee mode but not in coop there is a high chance ur problem is a bug and because everyone just vetos it so it s left unknown by blizz | ||
| ||
