|
On August 07 2019 20:48 Vision_ wrote:
Sc2 asks to much to his professionnal players. Comparing to others games like Moba or FPS, players need to handle long game with a high APM...
It s not surprising to me Sc2 is dying, i have some issue but i already know community will never accept changes as i know how fans players dislike modifications of their sacred races...
Changes could be done with unit tester to reduce most of the box size units (about 70%), then reducing their speed movement. Then it s logic, first you have to adjust them against units with the biggest range,.. then you have to adjust area damage units. You can also remove the sight of creep tumors in compensation of some tools or mecanics.
I could work on that but i have not enought time for now.
How would that change anything?
And even if, you could just change the overall zoom factor and slow the game down a bit. Same result.
|
that was wholesome - thanks for the good read!
|
On June 07 2019 07:21 feardragon wrote:
Saying a game has been dying for 8 years is about as meaningful as saying a 50 year old that will live to the age of 80 is dying. Yea bad things happen and if you don’t feel the scene is big enough anymore for you then I can respect that. But it just feels weird to phrase it that way with your last paragraph’s call to action for everyone(we) to just memorialize it and bury it like trying to bury a 50 year old because they’re going to “die” eventually at this rate. Maybe ‘ misreading your words as a call to action since I don’t think I’d feel that way if this were just in the personal blog section.
Strong agreed here.
Overall just really no fond of this article. I disagree with the premise (or at least the perspective), and think it's just needlessly, selectively critical and pessimistic.
|
On August 07 2019 20:54 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 20:48 Vision_ wrote:
Sc2 asks to much to his professionnal players. Comparing to others games like Moba or FPS, players need to handle long game with a high APM...
It s not surprising to me Sc2 is dying, i have some issue but i already know community will never accept changes as i know how fans players dislike modifications of their sacred races...
Changes could be done with unit tester to reduce most of the box size units (about 70%), then reducing their speed movement. Then it s logic, first you have to adjust them against units with the biggest range,.. then you have to adjust area damage units. You can also remove the sight of creep tumors in compensation of some tools or mecanics.
I could work on that but i have not enought time for now. How would that change anything? And even if, you could just change the overall zoom factor and slow the game down a bit. Same result.
Same result ?
Comparing zerglings speed on Sc2 and Broodwar is enought to understand my point of view... You can suppose SC2 Zerglings need maybe 8 seconds to cross the map and BW Zerglings need maybe 15 seconds.. That s not a surprise, the sc2 map is smaller with the fastest unit speed parameter. If you only change the zoom factor, it doesn t help on macro game decision, you may save some time with micro and even.... You will have to work on the sight of each units to keep the existing ratio of fog of war with the new camera size.
|
I disagree. So, sponser interest wise SC2 isn't doing good. Without the support of Blizz itself, we wouldn't have something called esport in SC2 - at least nowhere near to the extend we're used to. That's really nothing new.
But it's not caused by SC2 not being a vivid game with a vivid scene with a vivid competition but by other games overshadowing SC2 and thus attract sponsor's interest much more.
But playerbasewise? SC2 is healthy and won't have a severe loss of active players anytime soon. And we actually do have many young talents finding their way into the pro scene. Western competetion in SC2 is still lucrative for young RTS-nerds to commit heavily. And we also have them in Korea but they're just not supported over there. Still some of 'em keep trying. I won't list new talented players again as I did in other threads before. New blood is there, it just has to be fostered. Western competition being on an uprise since region lock (which I falsely damned back then) is a strong proof for that.
Do we have the resources to foster new talent? That's another question. But the sentiment of "There is no young talent" is just wrong.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On August 07 2019 20:54 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 20:48 Vision_ wrote:
Sc2 asks to much to his professionnal players. Comparing to others games like Moba or FPS, players need to handle long game with a high APM...
It s not surprising to me Sc2 is dying, i have some issue but i already know community will never accept changes as i know how fans players dislike modifications of their sacred races...
Changes could be done with unit tester to reduce most of the box size units (about 70%), then reducing their speed movement. Then it s logic, first you have to adjust them against units with the biggest range,.. then you have to adjust area damage units. You can also remove the sight of creep tumors in compensation of some tools or mecanics.
I could work on that but i have not enought time for now. How would that change anything? And even if, you could just change the overall zoom factor and slow the game down a bit. Same result.
SC2 doesn’t have especially long games on average, especially compared to MOBAs.
Slowing the game down in terms of movements speeds etc will just lengthen games. The mechanical requirement for macroing and multitasking will be the same, then it will be a case of the same APM strain, just over longer average periods of time.
Your changes would potentially make it less mentally stressful to play as it’s less fast, but I’ve never heard of pros complaining much about that, it would probably help players playing casually though.
Starcraft is Starcraft, its appeal is its strain and difficulty. There are very few 1v1 games that are big eSports, team games dominate in general, but a certain type of person enjoys going mano o mano in such a mechanically demanding game.
There’s so much to do, and do to relative degrees of execution that nailing that one game where you just straight up outplay someone in a macro game is an individual victory you don’t get from many games nowadays.
|
On August 07 2019 23:55 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 20:54 Harris1st wrote:On August 07 2019 20:48 Vision_ wrote:
Sc2 asks to much to his professionnal players. Comparing to others games like Moba or FPS, players need to handle long game with a high APM...
It s not surprising to me Sc2 is dying, i have some issue but i already know community will never accept changes as i know how fans players dislike modifications of their sacred races...
Changes could be done with unit tester to reduce most of the box size units (about 70%), then reducing their speed movement. Then it s logic, first you have to adjust them against units with the biggest range,.. then you have to adjust area damage units. You can also remove the sight of creep tumors in compensation of some tools or mecanics.
I could work on that but i have not enought time for now. How would that change anything? And even if, you could just change the overall zoom factor and slow the game down a bit. Same result. SC2 doesn’t have especially long games on average, especially compared to MOBAs.
You can t argue with MOBA against SC2 in term of difficulty..
Slowing the game down in terms of movements speeds etc will just lengthen games. The mechanical requirement for macroing and multitasking will be the same, then it will be a case of the same APM strain, just over longer average periods of time.
The in-game strategy will be study if you re slowing the game (with a box size reduction), but it s pretty sure pros players will always use their APM wastefully.. it looks like as our frenchs players pretend too do. Further, your economy isn t change to preserve part of the Builds so it s not a total conversion - You can going deeper if only one side of the game is freeze (macro) isn t it ?
Contrary if you decrease game speed it s like you re increasing hit points but it s not exactly what i mean.
Your changes would potentially make it less mentally stressful to play as it’s less fast, but I’ve never heard of pros complaining much about that, it would probably help players playing casually though.
It s about give to players the chance to breathe between fights.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On August 08 2019 03:48 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 23:55 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 07 2019 20:54 Harris1st wrote:On August 07 2019 20:48 Vision_ wrote:
Sc2 asks to much to his professionnal players. Comparing to others games like Moba or FPS, players need to handle long game with a high APM...
It s not surprising to me Sc2 is dying, i have some issue but i already know community will never accept changes as i know how fans players dislike modifications of their sacred races...
Changes could be done with unit tester to reduce most of the box size units (about 70%), then reducing their speed movement. Then it s logic, first you have to adjust them against units with the biggest range,.. then you have to adjust area damage units. You can also remove the sight of creep tumors in compensation of some tools or mecanics.
I could work on that but i have not enought time for now. How would that change anything? And even if, you could just change the overall zoom factor and slow the game down a bit. Same result. SC2 doesn’t have especially long games on average, especially compared to MOBAs. You can t argue with MOBA against SC2 in term of difficulty.. Show nested quote +
Slowing the game down in terms of movements speeds etc will just lengthen games. The mechanical requirement for macroing and multitasking will be the same, then it will be a case of the same APM strain, just over longer average periods of time.
The in-game strategy will be study if you re slowing the game (with a box size reduction), but it s pretty sure pros players will always use their APM wastefully.. it looks like as our frenchs players pretend too do. Further, your economy isn t change to preserve part of the Builds so it s not a total conversion - You can going deeper if only one side of the game is freeze (macro) isn t it ? Contrary if you decrease game speed it s like you re increasing hit points but it s not exactly what i mean. Show nested quote +
Your changes would potentially make it less mentally stressful to play as it’s less fast, but I’ve never heard of pros complaining much about that, it would probably help players playing casually though.
It s about give to players the chance to breathe between fights.
They’re difficult, they require different skillsets, team coordination being an obvious one. To my knowledge no notable SC player has switched to a MOBA and really succeeded, despite it being a way harder mechanical game, those mechanics don’t translate to an advantage in other games.
I’m not 100% sure what you mean by box size reduction, I do agree that ideally I’d prefer if in SC2 large engagements went slower, I’ve felt that the whole life cycle of the game.
I don’t think it’s a big impediment to the game though.
WC3 has high hit points and slow fights, in WC3 the better players are more dominant on ladder than in either Starcraft. BW has slower engagements but the UI makes controlling everything incredibly difficult.
I don’t think slowing SC2 down will redress a balance between mechanics and strategy and decision making, if anything it will make the game more mechanically demanding, and extend the advantage mechanically good players have over players whose skills may be in good decision making vs pure mechanics.
I would personally like it myself, but I like the mechanical demands of the game.
As it is big engagements and the speed of the game mean past basic positioning and some caster control (outside of bio), engagements can be sufficiently executed with a-moving.
If you slow it down, stuff like optimal target fire from say Collosus or Immortals becomes possible, really good baneling splits in an offensive capacity, more optimal tank target fire, baneling sniping etc, plus a whole ton of other micro tricks.
Again I’d personally like if there was more of that in big engagements, I don’t think changes in this area would be bad for the game.
I do think the skill gap would widen between good mechanical players and other players who might be good strategically.
|
Your analyze is quite good and i would express myself more if i was ok in english understandement.. Especially the comparison with WC3, but it s hard to say without a mod "slowing game of sc2", how every units's behaviour will be..
I think SC2 begins to suffer from the LOL syndrome, each patch can decieve fans cause they feel an unadvantage balance.
Of course, it s easier to say than do it.. and even they showed us units testing videos since 2 or 3 years, i don t think Blizzard can settle down the balance system. Indeed, their effort was amazing but players were also customers and they couldn t satisfied them.
Of course pros players can statisfied themselves with money, but the lack of diversity in Builds is a pain in the ass for viewers and each patch decision can t add no more value on a specific Race Tree Builds, without damaging an other one.
I hope with a such modification (reduce box collision / slow most of the units movement comparing to combat distance units / adjust fire rate / then specific units as Banelings, Colossus...), Players can go on "with working on this 10 years game testing", can go deeper to find new Builds.
|
The biggest reason SC2 died in my opinion is because you could play the e-sport competitors (league, csgo) with friends, and sc2 was strictly 1v1 ladder in the "how to really play"-sense and 2v2 never felt as serious. Playing 1v1 with your bronze friend gets old, going 2v2 with tier 1 rushes every game gets old... Eventually the player base shifts over to a different game. I know I did.
|
France12911 Posts
On August 08 2019 04:48 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 03:48 Vision_ wrote:On August 07 2019 23:55 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 07 2019 20:54 Harris1st wrote:On August 07 2019 20:48 Vision_ wrote:
Sc2 asks to much to his professionnal players. Comparing to others games like Moba or FPS, players need to handle long game with a high APM...
It s not surprising to me Sc2 is dying, i have some issue but i already know community will never accept changes as i know how fans players dislike modifications of their sacred races...
Changes could be done with unit tester to reduce most of the box size units (about 70%), then reducing their speed movement. Then it s logic, first you have to adjust them against units with the biggest range,.. then you have to adjust area damage units. You can also remove the sight of creep tumors in compensation of some tools or mecanics.
I could work on that but i have not enought time for now. How would that change anything? And even if, you could just change the overall zoom factor and slow the game down a bit. Same result. SC2 doesn’t have especially long games on average, especially compared to MOBAs. You can t argue with MOBA against SC2 in term of difficulty..
Slowing the game down in terms of movements speeds etc will just lengthen games. The mechanical requirement for macroing and multitasking will be the same, then it will be a case of the same APM strain, just over longer average periods of time.
The in-game strategy will be study if you re slowing the game (with a box size reduction), but it s pretty sure pros players will always use their APM wastefully.. it looks like as our frenchs players pretend too do. Further, your economy isn t change to preserve part of the Builds so it s not a total conversion - You can going deeper if only one side of the game is freeze (macro) isn t it ? Contrary if you decrease game speed it s like you re increasing hit points but it s not exactly what i mean.
Your changes would potentially make it less mentally stressful to play as it’s less fast, but I’ve never heard of pros complaining much about that, it would probably help players playing casually though.
It s about give to players the chance to breathe between fights. They’re difficult, they require different skillsets, team coordination being an obvious one. To my knowledge no notable SC player has switched to a MOBA and really succeeded, despite it being a way harder mechanical game, those mechanics don’t translate to an advantage in other games. I’m not 100% sure what you mean by box size reduction, I do agree that ideally I’d prefer if in SC2 large engagements went slower, I’ve felt that the whole life cycle of the game. I don’t think it’s a big impediment to the game though. WC3 has high hit points and slow fights, in WC3 the better players are more dominant on ladder than in either Starcraft. BW has slower engagements but the UI makes controlling everything incredibly difficult. I don’t think slowing SC2 down will redress a balance between mechanics and strategy and decision making, if anything it will make the game more mechanically demanding, and extend the advantage mechanically good players have over players whose skills may be in good decision making vs pure mechanics. I would personally like it myself, but I like the mechanical demands of the game. As it is big engagements and the speed of the game mean past basic positioning and some caster control (outside of bio), engagements can be sufficiently executed with a-moving. If you slow it down, stuff like optimal target fire from say Collosus or Immortals becomes possible, really good baneling splits in an offensive capacity, more optimal tank target fire, baneling sniping etc, plus a whole ton of other micro tricks. Again I’d personally like if there was more of that in big engagements, I don’t think changes in this area would be bad for the game. I do think the skill gap would widen between good mechanical players and other players who might be good strategically.
I'm pretty sure HasuObs, LucifroN and Vortix went on to be top HotS players. Korean side I think sCfOu (the guy that did mass barracks marines against NesTea and ended up losing) and probably some others were successful on HotS too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
