| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
geokilla
Canada8220 Posts
This is a fantastic article on why the 12 worker start is not necessarily a good change for the game. Everyone should read it and share what you think about the 12 worker start compared to the previous 6. Some highlights: *Shortened early game *Resource ratio at the start *Faster worker saturation *Lower opportunity cost of strategic decisions *Less discriminating early game choices *Shallower strategic interactions | ||
|
yubo56
685 Posts
I agree with the article, and TL's own "ode to 6 pool" or whatever, I just think it's interesting that both Harstem and terrancraft have brought this up recently | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On January 24 2020 09:36 yubo56 wrote: I'm somewhat surprised this is gaining traction again after 3+ years in the game. Not that we shouldn't change it, if it's bad, but there have seemingly been far fewer complaints about it until very recently. I agree with the article, and TL's own "ode to 6 pool" or whatever, I just think it's interesting that both Harstem and terrancraft have brought this up recently Beasty as well mentioned it recently. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
these same people would just find something else to bitch about if you gave them 6 worker start. same old blah blah blah from people who dislike the game because they never went pro but can't just give it up and play something else what passes for "analysis" on this community is just someone writing 5000 words where they repeatedly restate an opinion. people will listen to anything if it makes them feel like they have special knowledge. that's why the terrible, useless "welcome to zparcraft" thread lasted for like 2 years | ||
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic611 Posts
1-reduce workers 2-stop the meta shifting (it doesn't belong to games like SC2 where u need to develop a path and learn by the book your strategies) 3-stop trying to make all the units useful, BW had few units that were there for some purpose but they were not actually use other some specific scenarios. 4-bring back Terrain advantage like in BW and the miss hit we had before 5-units should stack less or be less like in a burble. | ||
|
freelifeffs
97 Posts
| ||
Waxangel
United States33122 Posts
On January 24 2020 10:18 brickrd wrote: it's just people getting tired of the game and hallucinating that fiddling with the worker start will make the overall experience better these same people would just find something else to bitch about if you gave them 6 worker start. same old blah blah blah from people who dislike the game because they never went pro but can't just give it up and play something else what passes for "analysis" on this community is just someone writing 5000 words where they repeatedly restate an opinion. people will listen to anything if it makes them feel like they have special knowledge. that's why the terrible, useless "welcome to zparcraft" thread lasted for like 2 years ...But essentially you just said "MY opinion is that YOUR opinion is wrong" while providing no elaboration or direct refutation of his points. Even if you think the guy's reasoning is flawed and repetitive, at least he made an attempt to explain it  Anyhow, just to expand on my response to Max on Twitter—I'm not really concerned about the 'objective' increase or decline in strategic depth due to 12 worker start. But I do think that from the viewpoint of a fan watching the game, pro-level SC2 feels more uniform and less diverse. Like, even a fairly casual fan in WoL could count the number of bases a player had and deduce how they game would play out. Also, it eas easier for them get a simple understanding of a player's traits (e.g. 'PuMa likes to all-in in PvT so he goes for 1-base 1/1/1. Mvp likes to macro so he goes for a fast command center.'). What's the present day difference between TY and Maru in playstyle? I'm sure Terran pros could elaborate in exquisite detail, but I think the rest of us would struggle to make even a generalization. Anyway, I still think it's just a matter of individual taste. While I kinda thought it was awesome that PuMa bulldozed Protoss players with a one-base all-in, I'm sure lots of other people thought that kind of 'variety' fucking sucked. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16526 Posts
On January 24 2020 09:32 geokilla wrote: https://terrancraft.com/2020/01/23/faster-is-not-better-the-effects-of-increasing-starting-worker-count/ This is a fantastic article on why the 12 worker start is not necessarily a good change for the game. Everyone should read it and share what you think about the 12 worker start compared to the previous 6. Some highlights: *Shortened early game *Resource ratio at the start *Faster worker saturation *Lower opportunity cost of strategic decisions *Less discriminating early game choices *Shallower strategic interactions I think AlphaStar has exposed SOME of this. AlphaStar wins on macro so much. AlphaStar elects to spend more time on macro than most GM players. However, AlphaStar has also demonstrated that there are some very interesting early game choices and early game aggression tactics that humans have chosen to ignore or they were just not innovative enough to create themselves. On January 24 2020 15:05 Waxangel wrote: Anyway, I still think it's just a matter of individual taste. While I kinda thought it was awesome that PuMa bulldozed Protoss players with a one-base all-in, I'm sure lots of other people thought that kind of 'variety' fucking sucked. Naniwa occasionally competed in low level tournaments. The only way it was worth his time was to 4 gate everyone. LOL. I watched him 4-gate his way to a $1000 tournament win in a record low amount of time. It was a pride swallowing siege for many of his decorated europian opponents. Sentry, Stalker, Zealot is all he needed ... who needs all these other stupid units? Here is Blizzard spending years trying to build "Chess 2.0" and Naniwa turned it into Checkers.  | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
Personally I like that the change sped up the game and that it in general got rid of a lot of turtle styles however there are parts i dislike as well. Specifically when I read the part in the piece about mineral vs gas income I felt that maybe the game could have been improved further by tweaking the gas income, making it possible for workers to either mine more gas or for more workers to mine gas from one geyser effectively. While zerg pretty much keeps their options open after the 6-12 worker change terran specifically get hampered in their possible builds. Because you start with so many workers and the gas mining is limited you can use the gas you can mine to be aggresive/harassing and still afford getting eco and maybe even tech. Investing more into aggression and harassment is innefficient because the units you need are limited by gas meaning you get minerals over to expand. I'm not great at builds but what I am trying to say is that it feels like there are few viable build paths and the game state usually ends up in a similar state. Sure a mid game were players need multiple bases that therefore are weak to harassment or attacks sounds hectic and fun both for Viewers and players but what we get is many games that look similar. Also because you are so spread out a slight missposition can lose you a game. Terran doomdrop, protoss WP, zerg nydus not to mention dedicated pushes. You need to be able to defend all the Heavy hitting attacks that can hit your main base (vulnerable underbelly) while also being able to defend stright up attacks on your third or fourth. This is also why I feel scouting in some ways are more important now because since you are more spread out it is more important for you to know exactly were you opponents army are. Scouting is at least as important as Before the difference is that the scouting you need to do is a need that is more constant, where is your army and where are you going. Tech scouting was easier because you didn't need to do it as often and the repercusions of a mistake while big was hitting you later | ||
Ziggy
South Korea2105 Posts
Nonetheless, a good takeaway for future RTS games | ||
|
INWRifle
5 Posts
This means that tournaments have to plan for tournament days to go on for about an hour or more-ish, there will be more cheeses and early-game shenanigans, or there'll be less matches played. | ||
|
Anoss
21 Posts
3 years ago, i was explaining the same thing. I start to did some new tournament with 6 harversters instead of 12, to show people that it was much better (6 start), then i created "Powered" who was a 6 start with a new balance and some new units. And i remember, everybody here was laughing.. sadly. 3 years later, we can see easily that was a bad idea, and even with some good paper like this, there is still some people who are thinking it's a matter of taste (hi Waxangel) which is not. This is math that's all And this was all the problem with TL since the beginning , you can write the best explanation ever, if you are not "some one in TL", your idea will be dodge, like Wax is doing now "this a matter of taste" even if you are writing 30 pages on the subject to explain each part of the idea. My popcorn is empty, i have to go, good work terrancraft.com, you are totally right, but don't expect to be fully understand, a lot of people here are in bad faith just to keep the head up, sadly. They will never say you are right, cause if you are right, that's means they were wrong from the start, impossible to imagine for all these people who think themselves so intelligent | ||
|
Agh
United States896 Posts
The better direction would be to look at what makes the game fun to play and less frustrating, like fight and engagement times. Nothing like Spending over 10 minutes and having a game be decided in less than 5 seconds. On January 24 2020 15:05 Waxangel wrote: Anyway, I still think it's just a matter of individual taste. While I kinda thought it was awesome that PuMa bulldozed Protoss players with a one-base all-in, I'm sure lots of other people thought that kind of 'variety' fucking sucked. I still have distinct memories playing David Kim on my 2nd account. We're both random and whenever I got T against his P I told him "you know what's coming" and It always ended the same. I don't fault players like MMA and Puma for playing the way they did but looking back on everything the state of the game was atrocious. I just see that on the same level as 3 range queens vs 5 range hellions, not to mention og roaches, etc. Those types of fundamental shortcomings in overall game design compounded and ended up shaping the product we have today. I always found it amusing that when players voiced what was simply un-fun or frustrating to deal with while playing the issues brought up were almost unanimous. Even better when some were both not only being on the receiving end of X, but also while executing it. Rather than directly axing or addressing those scenarios the effort was always made to band-aid adjust around it, sometimes looking to a completely unrelated unit to address a forced design issue. Main offenders (just an example 2 from each race [not necessarily current iterations]) Window mines & Liberators, Disruptors & Tempests, Swarm Hosts & Brood lords. Obviously list could go on to include past states of Adepts, Infestors, etc - but to circle back to the point would the game have lost anything if these units were omitted? And to go deeper than that if the unit is introduced to address something, why not look towards the issue rather than trying to build around it? Didn't want to go off on too much of a tangent but the issue is entirely bigger than a simple worker adjustment. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
1: On January 24 2020 18:54 Shuffleblade wrote: [...] Sure a mid game were players need multiple bases that therefore are weak to harassment or attacks sounds hectic and fun both for Viewers and players but what we get is many games that look similar. Also because you are so spread out a slight missposition can lose you a game. Terran doomdrop, protoss WP, zerg nydus not to mention dedicated pushes. You need to be able to defend all the Heavy hitting attacks that can hit your main base (vulnerable underbelly) while also being able to defend stright up attacks on your third or fourth. This is also why I feel scouting in some ways are more important now because since you are more spread out it is more important for you to know exactly were you opponents army are. Scouting is at least as important as Before the difference is that the scouting you need to do is a need that is more constant, where is your army and where are you going. Tech scouting was easier because you didn't need to do it as often and the repercusions of a mistake while big was hitting you later The end of HotS had almost only macro games and 6 worker start. The meta was shifting away from the early aggression.  TaeJa was a great player, beating almost everyone outside of the Korean borders. In the second season of 2014 WCS America,  Pigbaby beat TaeJa 3-0 with a crowd chanting "observer". I think that Pigbaby's unusually thorough scouting was what beat TaeJa so easily.This implies that scouting has been important for quite some time. It might be a shifting meta that makes it even more important in a greater degree than the game's inherent steering into macro games. 2: On January 24 2020 19:56 Anoss wrote: Hi (grabbing popcorn) 3 years ago, i was explaining the same thing. I start to did some new tournament with 6 harversters instead of 12, to show people that it was much better, then i created Powered (6 workers start too). Everybody here was laughing.. sadly. 3 years later, there is still some people who are thinking it's a matter of taste (hi Waxangel !) which is not. 12 start was just stupid, and it's so funny now i'm out of this business to see influent people like Wax who still trying to dodge the global idea. So let's write it again : You are wrong Wax and it's ok. and this is all the problem with TL since many years, you can write the best explanation, if you are not "some one in TL", your idea will be dodge, like Wax is doing now "this a matter of taste". No this is math. If you don't get it, that's mean you are not thinking enough and if you don't want think enough and understand the problem, don't speak then. My popcorn is empty, time to go, good work terrancraft.com, you are totally right, but don't expect to be fully understand, a lot of people here are are in bad faith just to keep the head up I have read your threads with 6 worker start and 9 worker start. I do not agree with your assessment. The game allows for some more variety of early aggression, true, but that is at the cost of other things. At the end of HotS, the early aggression was an alternative to macro which was seldom used in professional matches. Macro games dominated the meta. Nowadays, the early aggression is often proxy. My experience finds small difference between HotS aggression and LotV proxy. HotS had more all-ins, but that's about it. The biggest downside of having fewer workers is the game duration. Fewer workers gives longer games. This is important for several reasons: 1. As a player, I have time for fewer games whenever I play. I like playing more games instead of longer games. 2. The extra time is in the early game, the part which is the most static of all the games parts. This leads to: 2a. As a player, if you like the early game best you will have more fun. Everybody else will like the game a bit less. 2b. As a professional player, you will spend more time with the part of the game that you already know best. This will hamper your overall skill development as you'll need even more time to practice. Overall, this leads to longer games where the extra time is uninteresting and the professionals will not be as good as playing the game. More "boring" stuff and worse players is not good for spectators. I also have a question to Anoss. What is this "math" that you mentioned? Care to explain? | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On January 24 2020 18:54 Shuffleblade wrote: This is a very complicated topic and i seriously Believe there is no "right" or "wrong" here merely different opinions. What I mean is that the things the article repeatedly mentions as bad effects are only bad in his or her opinion, they are not objectively bad. + Show Spoiler + Personally I like that the change sped up the game and that it in general got rid of a lot of turtle styles however there are parts i dislike as well. Specifically when I read the part in the piece about mineral vs gas income I felt that maybe the game could have been improved further by tweaking the gas income, making it possible for workers to either mine more gas or for more workers to mine gas from one geyser effectively. While zerg pretty much keeps their options open after the 6-12 worker change terran specifically get hampered in their possible builds. Because you start with so many workers and the gas mining is limited you can use the gas you can mine to be aggresive/harassing and still afford getting eco and maybe even tech. Investing more into aggression and harassment is innefficient because the units you need are limited by gas meaning you get minerals over to expand. I'm not great at builds but what I am trying to say is that it feels like there are few viable build paths and the game state usually ends up in a similar state. Sure a mid game were players need multiple bases that therefore are weak to harassment or attacks sounds hectic and fun both for Viewers and players but what we get is many games that look similar. Also because you are so spread out a slight missposition can lose you a game. Terran doomdrop, protoss WP, zerg nydus not to mention dedicated pushes. You need to be able to defend all the Heavy hitting attacks that can hit your main base (vulnerable underbelly) while also being able to defend stright up attacks on your third or fourth. This is also why I feel scouting in some ways are more important now because since you are more spread out it is more important for you to know exactly were you opponents army are. Scouting is at least as important as Before the difference is that the scouting you need to do is a need that is more constant, where is your army and where are you going. Tech scouting was easier because you didn't need to do it as often and the repercusions of a mistake while big was hitting you late It all comes down to the question if we(as the SC2 community) value more strategy or mechanics. For years I've seen "bigger APM means better player" logic everywhere, praising mechanics and lowering strategic choices impact(BTW this means less BO losses!). So I think that this is what Blizzard saw and why they updated to the 12 worker start why making the game less strategic. Which was IMO demonstrated the best by the early PvP state of kamikaze balls/blink state which moved me from the SC2 for almost a year(yeah, the first 2 games were exciting, then it got boring). I am more on the strategy side of the crowd that's why I play less and watch less(it's not just the "other" reasons I'm not gonna mention here). I was against it in the beta, I was against it at the launch and I am against 12 workers even now. It's not like the 12 worker start removed the off topic banter at the start(it did, for a while) | ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
**Silence** PS : adding three workers : 3 x 12 = 36 seconds, with a big tournament (and overlaps between games), you can maybe multiply by 30.. or maybe 50.. so ? it s only about 20 minutes in a day ?? (and i m quite cautious).. In fact without a legit analysis it s difficult to conclude if LoTV is faster (like most of LoTV games plays with maximum workers - go 70 workers) Blizzard wants to make game faster, but it might have done a different result.. This thread should be renamed to : "Less Quality is faster" - Isn t it ? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24128 Posts
I think there is strategic homogenisation to a degree yes. The early game is more stable in general. The tech paths are less distinct as you pick them up faster, so yeah I agree there. On the other hand the strategic variety side is overstated somewhat as I think it overestimates how much was actually scoutable. My memory is of a lot of blind rock/paper/scissors scenarios in the early game that were really frustrating to both play and watch. The old 1/1/1 you’d arrive at a depot wall and have to blindly decide if it was coming or not, and prepare accordingly and for a period people would fake out. It only really died when Protoss figured 1 gate expands and the maps got better. Or proxy oracle builds where Terrans had to blindly throw down turrets, or die, or be behind if the Protoss wasn’t doing that if they did prepare for it. PvP has had its rock/paper/scissor periods on robo/twilight/stargate too. Having those extra workers and your tech coming up quicker does homogenise things, but it does eliminate more of the ‘I picked the wrong tech I lose’ early game scenarios too. So I think the article makes good points and makes them well, I think it does underestimate the information component in making sound strategic choices and how that actually played out in previous iterations. Plus, in general strategic homogeneity will occur eventually in any RTS that has been played professionally for a decade, people will eventually figure out the optimal ways of playing. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On January 24 2020 21:39 Wombat_NI wrote: To my taste there is both truth here and it also misses the mark in some ways too. I think there is strategic homogenisation to a degree yes. The early game is more stable in general. The tech paths are less distinct as you pick them up faster, so yeah I agree there. On the other hand the strategic variety side is overstated somewhat as I think it overestimates how much was actually scoutable. My memory is of a lot of blind rock/paper/scissors scenarios in the early game that were really frustrating to both play and watch. The old 1/1/1 you’d arrive at a depot wall and have to blindly decide if it was coming or not, and prepare accordingly and for a period people would fake out. It only really died when Protoss figured 1 gate expands and the maps got better. Or proxy oracle builds where Terrans had to blindly throw down turrets, or die, or be behind if the Protoss wasn’t doing that if they did prepare for it. PvP has had its rock/paper/scissor periods on robo/twilight/stargate too. Having those extra workers and your tech coming up quicker does homogenise things, but it does eliminate more of the ‘I picked the wrong tech I lose’ early game scenarios too. So I think the article makes good points and makes them well, I think it does underestimate the information component in making sound strategic choices and how that actually played out in previous iterations. Plus, in general strategic homogeneity will occur eventually in any RTS that has been played professionally for a decade, people will eventually figure out the optimal ways of playing. The "bag of protoss bullshit" is no longer a term used in every single thread about a game that included a protoss. The frustration on build order losses was very big in the community. There were more than 10 people complaining in a discussion of 15 people. The build order losses was not even something I considered anyomore. I needed this article to be reminded of them. They were especially bad in the case of TvP. Roughly speaking there were 4 outcomes: a) Oracle and oracle defense -> terran survived and protoss plays from behind b) Oracle and no defense -> terran either dead or soon to be dead c) Oracle defense and no oracle -> terran plays from behind d) No oracle, no defense -> terran a bit ahead This time of SC2 was not very fun to watch TvP in. The other match ups were great, though. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20277 Posts
| ||
|
Jan1997
Norway671 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16526 Posts
There were a lot of C&Cers on the SC2 team at the time. Browder still had SC2 under his umbrella of power and he came from making Red Alert 2. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
Less downtime and fewer build order losses make laddering and watching the game much more enjoyable. Further, it's great for tournament running. Besides, we still have lots of variation in early builds. It's not like that got destroyed, just made slightly less extreme (which I personally think is a good thing). | ||
|
rwala
271 Posts
So there are real trade-offs, and it does come down more or less to taste. Personally as more of a fan/viewer than a player, I'm happy for the truncated early game and incentivized aggression. I mean, FFS, even the pro casters have nothing to say for like the first 2-3 mins, and a lot of them are GM players themselves who understand the game at a very high level. Even when playing, I'd be glad to further reduce my average game times, but it's not like we haven't had epic 25+ games min in LotV. Even the Maru examples are questionable, not just because many (most?) of those cheeses turned into macro games, but also because it's not clear to me that those cheeses are the product of the economy changes rather than patch dynamics and him just being ridiculously fast (otherwise why didn't/doesn't everyone copy him with the same degree of success, and why doesn't he continue to do it at the same rates as he did in 2018?). It's kind of ridiculous to try to reduce this question to math, especially with a game like Starcraft. Anyone making that argument should play some Chess or Go and then come back to this conversation. The critical role that micro and multi-tasking play in SC2 add so much more nuance to the game design question than can be accomplished with pure math. I do think there could have been, and still could be, additional changes that would get at the concerns that prompted the LotV economy changes, perhaps without creating some of the complaints pointed out in the article. But that's a longer convo  On January 24 2020 15:05 Waxangel wrote: ...But essentially you just said "MY opinion is that YOUR opinion is wrong" while providing no elaboration or direct refutation of his points. Even if you think the guy's reasoning is flawed and repetitive, at least he made an attempt to explain it Anyhow, just to expand on my response to Max on Twitter—I'm not really concerned about the 'objective' increase or decline in strategic depth due to 12 worker start. But I do think that from the viewpoint of a fan watching the game, pro-level SC2 feels more uniform and less diverse. Like, even a fairly casual fan in WoL could count the number of bases a player had and deduce how they game would play out. Also, it eas easier for them get a simple understanding of a player's traits (e.g. 'PuMa likes to all-in in PvT so he goes for 1-base 1/1/1. Mvp likes to macro so he goes for a fast command center.'). What's the present day difference between TY and Maru in playstyle? I'm sure Terran pros could elaborate in exquisite detail, but I think the rest of us would struggle to make even a generalization. Anyway, I still think it's just a matter of individual taste. While I kinda thought it was awesome that PuMa bulldozed Protoss players with a one-base all-in, I'm sure lots of other people thought that kind of 'variety' fucking sucked. | ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
On January 24 2020 15:05 Waxangel wrote: But I do think that from the viewpoint of a fan watching the game, pro-level SC2 feels more uniform and less diverse. Like, even a fairly casual fan in WoL could count the number of bases a player had and deduce how they game would play out. I m sure most of players defending a slight reduction of workers are playing the Terran race (because it is the Build Order race). Admitting uniformity has been increased with LoTV is a huge mistake, nothing is more annoying than uniformity, also if the units design is built upon diversity. Then, despite the fact some people are not convinced by a slight reduction of workers, all "Build Order" of Terran needs to take two gas asap (without any delay between raffinery construction).. Somehow, it s dumb as the "three starting zerg bases", it s the reciprocity, a mandatory way to play sc2..... But if 2020 is similar to 2018 and 2019, then this kind of people can realize how uninstall SC2 and install BW,.. Indeed, there s only one gas on Starcraft : BroodWar !!! | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
the killing is too fast, every 200/200 fight melts in 3sec. Each race has +4 amor upgrade. | ||
|
Hunta15
United States81 Posts
All of the games cheeses such as pool first, proxy 2 rax, etc can still be done. | ||
|
outscar
2831 Posts
| ||
|
holpa
3 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24128 Posts
| ||
|
outscar
2831 Posts
On January 25 2020 09:28 holpa wrote: "You always knew". Thats hilarious. Like this opinion covered as "Fact" proves anything Says the 1 post guy out of nowhere without reading after comma "at least for me" part which is hilarious. | ||
|
holpa
3 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
On January 24 2020 20:37 Agh wrote: Worker change won't solve the root of what the article wants it to. It's one of those 'think you do, but you don't' things. The better direction would be to look at what makes the game fun to play and less frustrating, like fight and engagement times. Nothing like Spending over 10 minutes and having a game be decided in less than 5 seconds. . No problem you think you say ? no you don t do... It s not hard to get what you wanna : - open editor - double the firerate duration of all units, - adjust life of workers to get less harassement due to their vulnerability against new more painfull skirmish - adjust spells duration Taddaaaaa !!! You don t do things  Okay it s me...I counted fans who disagree giving arguments and there are very few (brickrd, Drfilip, JimmyRaynor, Rwala,..).. I m now convinced by "agh arguments" : - It s more important to change duration of fights allowing players to have fun than reverse back to the "9 workers"... In certain way, i have to agree cause we must ask impossible things to make it possible.. (by the community, a bunch of programmers can easily rebuild the duration of spells, submitting changes along their work, of course all these changes has to be seriously tought and organized) Reversing to 9 workers doesn t matter to Blizzard cause they don t dare (with a business point of view) to change the habits of PGM... But now there are more and more players who dislike the actual meta economics system. | ||
|
M3t4PhYzX
Poland4140 Posts
On January 25 2020 15:51 holpa wrote: "You always knew for me". Like YOUR opinion wasnt wrong for YOU? This is getting better and better Private Message by Scar: stfu dumbass go troll somewhere else you dont even make sense go back to kindergarten. you guna get baned soon so bye loser xD Th Also: "The slower the game, the more popular": Where are all the viewer for Brood War? if Bli$$ard supported BW as much as it was supporting SC2 infrastructure for 8-9 years i bet BW would be much, much popular then SC2 is now. Especially in korea sadly, BW never got the support SC2 got from Bli$$ard and whatever support BW got from the korean scene, Bli$$ard killed it in 2012 (took around 5 years to rebuild it to a decent level that it is on now - see Sonic Starleagues and then Afreeca Star Leagues). So that's a silly thing to ask. | ||
|
True_Spike
Poland3410 Posts
12 *might* be too much, perhaps slowing the early game down a bit would be fine as well, but I wouldn't want to revert back to WoL/HotS economy. | ||
|
mounteast0
59 Posts
Firstly, the change to higher starting worker count does eliminate some "old" builds, it also allows new builds, for example, in WoL / Hots, there is no quick 3rd hatch / BC / tempest rush opening because there is no way to get to there without dying if you play against decent opponent. These opening are only available because of the increased starting worker count. Secondly, the higher tier units will get used more. SC2 is designed on the ground that every unit has its counter, the counter may in higher or lower tier, while in some other RTS, the higher tier unit will almost always slaughter the lower tier unit. This is the design philosophy, some might like it, some might not, but it cannot regard this is "wrong design". For example thor can be countered by zerglings, marine can counter tempest. In SC2, if you cannot get to those higher tier unit fast, those unit will have a low use rate and "wasted". One example is Ultra, we meme Ultra as a game losing unit, it probably have some merit in it, but if we think about it a little bit more, the "real reason" might just be that most of the game have already won or lost before Ultra hit the field. If we keep the starting worker low, the same might happen to each and every high tier unit, except those death ball, or "gg unit". Convergent build might be bad for pro for a moment, however they have already found the solution in the form of double scouting. Previously the worker went in, see a build, they will instantly know what is coming, and no need to do follow up scout. However, at current state, they just have to scout periodically, which is why we see overlord and overseer, hallucination flying into the opponent base again and again. This promote player interaction in the form of scouting and scout denial. This is obviously a little harder (in terms of mechanics), but it would be difficult to prove it is worse objectively. This post is getting a bit too long, may be I will stop here for the moment.  | ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
On January 25 2020 23:38 True_Spike wrote: I am absolutely in favour of increasing the number of starting workers. 12 *might* be too much, perhaps slowing the early game down a bit would be fine as well, but I wouldn't want to revert back to WoL/HotS economy. Why not give a chance to less workers when the map is smaller ? Answer from ZigguratofUr : On January 26 2020 00:53 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The distinction has often been hard to pin down, but maps aren't just about their dimensions. Ideally the distinction between standard and macro is as more about ease of expansion and layout than just the numbers. In practice that hasn't so much been the case admittedly. Historically, a macro map is defined more about the layout and the ease of expansion while a "standard map" looks a less closed one. So the question is why this layout is more important than "an adapted number of workers regarding the size of the map". Why don t give a try with a new type of map ? It looks good timing as Blizzard introduce new type of map : "RUSH MAP"? Then, the definition of maps are really ambiguous, standard map size (15000 to 17000) is overlapping a lot with macro map (16000 to 18000).. The rush map are about 14000 to 16000 - it could be restricted < 15000 and adapted to 9 workers.. | ||
|
Steelghost1
43 Posts
On January 25 2020 06:00 Hunta15 wrote: As a Zerg player the only difference between a 12 worker start and a 6 worker start is that I can make my natural hatchery at 48 seconds into the game compared to the 2 minutes 5 seconds. These times are not completely accurate since the game clock was changed; however, the point still stands. Reducing the starting worker count will not do anything beneficial to the game: all it does is make the most boring part of the game take longer. All of the games cheeses such as pool first, proxy 2 rax, etc can still be done. If you really think this then I´m sorry to tell you that you are wrong. The math has been done, tested and explained. Zerg economy and larva mechanic rely on snowballing via massification of workers at the start, starting with 12 workers directly buffed zerg early game economy and it is not just a matter of when you put your hatchery. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7982 Posts
On January 24 2020 19:56 Anoss wrote: Hi (grabbing popcorn) 3 years ago, i was explaining the same thing. I start to did some new tournament with 6 harversters instead of 12, to show people that it was much better (6 start), then i created "Powered" who was a 6 start with a new balance and some new units. And i remember, everybody here was laughing.. sadly. 3 years later, we can see easily that was a bad idea, and even with some good paper like this, there is still some people who are thinking it's a matter of taste (hi Waxangel) which is not. This is math that's all And this was all the problem with TL since the beginning , you can write the best explanation ever, if you are not "some one in TL", your idea will be dodge, like Wax is doing now "this a matter of taste" even if you are writing 30 pages on the subject to explain each part of the idea. My popcorn is empty, i have to go, good work terrancraft.com, you are totally right, but don't expect to be fully understand, a lot of people here are in bad faith just to keep the head up, sadly. They will never say you are right, cause if you are right, that's means they were wrong from the start, impossible to imagine for all these people who think themselves so intelligent Don't hide your personal opinion behind the word "math". There is no math for subjectivity. If you can't come to terms with the fact that people have different opinions about something which doesn't have an objective truth (and 6v12 workers does not have a true objective answer), then you need to take a step back and calculate your own situation. | ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
As the size difference is none significant and had never been modified since a long time, we can conclude overall that "Build Orders" were more impacted by the layout of a map on WoL and HoTS, than actually, with the "12-workers economy system" (snowball economy - go to 70 workers fact). Also, It s a loss of strategic wealth which can be identify as a part of uniformity loss. Players are naturally promoted whatever the map to play a macro style... | ||
|
Hunta15
United States81 Posts
On January 26 2020 01:16 Steelghost1 wrote: If you really think this then I´m sorry to tell you that you are wrong. The math has been done, tested and explained. Zerg economy and larva mechanic rely on snowballing via massification of workers at the start, starting with 12 workers directly buffed zerg early game economy and it is not just a matter of when you put your hatchery. I frankly don't care if you think I'm wrong. 12 workers is better for the game because it gets the player into the more interesting parts of the game quicker. The game is fine with it, and it's most likely going to stay that way. | ||
|
Steelghost1
43 Posts
On January 26 2020 07:36 Hunta15 wrote: I frankly don't care if you think I'm wrong. 12 workers is better for the game because it gets the player into the more interesting parts of the game quicker. The game is fine with it, and it's most likely going to stay that way. 12 workers is worse because it completely trivializes deep strategical choices and the implications that they used to have in this game. It is almost mandatory that you get a third early into the game and tech paths are not a big commitment anymore. Opening build orders, which were a very strong mindgame/gamble/decisions in itself have diminished in number. Styles have become more generalized and players are not able to show their strengths/weaknesses the same way they could during Wol and HoTS. Midgame play and tactics are not as prevalent anymore because almost always you will get to have some kind of lategame army, specially if you are zerg. No, almost every high level player or pro that has spoken out about this on streams/forums etc agree that 12 workers was a very big reason as to the game failing to retain the number of users that it had during HOTS. Playerbase and viewership numbers already spoke for themselves during the initial months of LOTV, a lot of people left permanently or for a time because they were angry the economic model took this current direction. I lean to believe that you are most probably a low level player or your knowledge about starcraft 2 during its Wol or Hots days is limited. The argument that 12 workers is better because "speed ups boring early game" is, at best, a lame excuse that David Kim came up with (as if the reason the game was not as popular was because you had 3 mins of little action) and, at worst, plain stupid. It completely destabilizes a lot of strategical and tactical options this marvelous game could possibly have. But anyway, not that you care or anyone at Blizz does, they are specialists at screwing things up and almost never acknowledging their mistakes. Such a great company that used to be the pinnacle of imagination and creativity, delivering high quality and memorable products, that is blatantly incompetent at balancing or understanding what makes their game great. 12 Workers was a mistake, maybe a change was needed, but doubling the amount of workers did more overall harm than it did good. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
holpa
3 Posts
| ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
On the other hand I really appreciate being able to play more games in the same block of time with out really having a degraded experience. Having every game take 3 minutes less is really nice, especially since those 3 minutes were 90% of the time the exact same. At this point I think things are just to far along for blizzard to ever consider changing worker start count since its so fundamental to balance and so many things get shifted around by a change like this. So conversations about it are more interesting then productive. The current economy system is here to stay. | ||
|
hangfive
Germany6 Posts
Was fascinated both by playing and watching SC2. Then LotV came -everything was new- but noProblem for me- i was also New. 4 1/2years forward>> i can play now. .but i try to play like bomber.teaja.polt intheir prime with focus on MMM.Needles to say. .the gamespeed sucks for me now. .It took me some time to find out if its only me with my not Maru-Apm or is it the game. For a year now i accepted that LotV just isnt my expansion. . i would have done well in WoL or HotS. So my ladder aspirations arent that high anymore. . highDiamond with dips into Masters is okay .I can live witthat. But what saddens me is. . i ve lost interest in watching current Tournaments. Everything looks the same now. In the last 12months I spend more time watching SCVODArchives on Twitch then todays tourneys. | ||
|
ZombieGrub
United States692 Posts
On January 26 2020 10:35 Steelghost1 wrote: 12 workers is worse because it completely trivializes deep strategical choices and the implications that they used to have in this game. It is almost mandatory that you get a third early into the game and tech paths are not a big commitment anymore. Opening build orders, which were a very strong mindgame/gamble/decisions in itself have diminished in number. Styles have become more generalized and players are not able to show their strengths/weaknesses the same way they could during Wol and HoTS. Midgame play and tactics are not as prevalent anymore because almost always you will get to have some kind of lategame army, specially if you are zerg. No, almost every high level player or pro that has spoken out about this on streams/forums etc agree that 12 workers was a very big reason as to the game failing to retain the number of users that it had during HOTS. Playerbase and viewership numbers already spoke for themselves during the initial months of LOTV, a lot of people left permanently or for a time because they were angry the economic model took this current direction. I lean to believe that you are most probably a low level player or your knowledge about starcraft 2 during its Wol or Hots days is limited. The argument that 12 workers is better because "speed ups boring early game" is, at best, a lame excuse that David Kim came up with (as if the reason the game was not as popular was because you had 3 mins of little action) and, at worst, plain stupid. It completely destabilizes a lot of strategical and tactical options this marvelous game could possibly have. But anyway, not that you care or anyone at Blizz does, they are specialists at screwing things up and almost never acknowledging their mistakes. Such a great company that used to be the pinnacle of imagination and creativity, delivering high quality and memorable products, that is blatantly incompetent at balancing or understanding what makes their game great. 12 Workers was a mistake, maybe a change was needed, but doubling the amount of workers did more overall harm than it did good. I would really like to see any sources on the middle paragraph there. Every pro has said 12 workers is a big reason for the game failing to retain users? What? And a lot of people left permanently? Our perspectives must've been SUPPPER different, because I remember a lot of excitement and hope for what LotV would bring. And most everyone agrees that LotV is the best step-up for SC2, with only the occasional '12 workers is baddddd' thread popping up here and there. I for one am convinced stuff like this thread is what comes out of wearing nostalgia goggles, but I'll admit to that being a personal opinion not shared by everyone. If you don't like the 12 workers start, great. But your whole post just reeks of having your own personal opinion and then blanketing it over everything and everyone. | ||
|
A.Alm
Sweden508 Posts
| ||
|
vg162
6 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
1. There is a sense of calm to starting with 4 or 6 workers. It means that your number of options at the start of the game is very constrained, loosening only after some time. If you've made your peace with this, you might have come to tolerate or enjoy the quiet. You can do a couple of rote actions at the start that you've done a million times before and see the pacing of the game catch up organically only as you build up. Whether you appreciate this or not depends on many different factors and is probably quite personal. I personally don't mind the quiet, similarly I never minded the early game of WC3 where you slay creeps and build up your hero levels. But too much player comfort gets a bit dangerous, they shouldn't get too safe in their shell. It's a battle to the death and not a cooperative game, hence you should force the player to come to terms with this reality by taking them out of their comfort zone, creating gameplay that organically flows to create conflict. But this creates a lot of stress for players as well, I think it's a very delicate art. 2. Actual competitive gameplay only takes place as you are forced to make decisions and interact with your opponent. Blizzard specifically seeks to standardize their competitive games, such that every time you play the ladder you can do so in responsible 15-20 minute chunks. No drawn out stalemates, no instant rushes to ravage your base at the outset of the game. This also works better for e-sports. Tournaments want to be able to deliver content and control downtime. For that to happen the game has to be reliable and the pressure is on developers to create experiences where you can fire off the signal and then the players go at it. This is about efficient design, you analyze the early game and discover it doesn't score well on some sort of excitement metric, therefore you eliminate it since you can't meaningfully change it. 3. It seems only natural that players become nostalgic about something so iconic as the proxy rush or zerg rush. It's something that's always been part of the game, but kind of randomly it's just been cut out because of some Blizzard directive. I guess you suddenly look at the game and don't recognize it anymore, something that I imagine is true especially for older players. And it's not like the community had no voice in it, but it's always been pretty easy for Blizzard to listen only when it's convenient for them to do so and they're always more likely to be true to their own agenda and priorities, as well as to the demands of content producers, rather than to some vague notion of the integrity of the game or the cumulative needs of the players. So personally I don't think it's too bad, it's just something that makes sense given the environment of a game which is at the mercy of Blizzard and tournament play. Dreams can be manufactured. We don't wait for the perfect game to materialize out of thin air and to be presented fully whole by loyal custodians. Instead Blizzard contorts and distorts it until it fits their purposes, even if that means cutting off the early game. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On January 26 2020 23:22 A.Alm wrote: Agreed. I quit SC2 because of this change. It just kinda erased the early and mid game. Also when i look at pro players now in LoTV, they all play kinda the same. There's not really a diversion in strategy i feel. In WOL/HOTS players had their unique playing style atleast to some degree. In a lot of sense, yeah, even players are now less unique. | ||
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
But in the sc2 community, the feeling I get is that unless you're top 1% you should literally kill yourself before you even attempt to consider thinking of criticising the game. Even if you're top 1%, your criticism will probably be met with 'whatever, you aren't a top korean pro' or some shit like that. | ||
|
LHK
204 Posts
On January 27 2020 03:02 ihatevideogames wrote: As your 'average player and viewer', I can confirm I left the game because of 12 worker start and overall speed of the game significantly increasing. It's like all those old memes that made fun of the game being 'korean clicking simulator' and 'whoever clicks faster wins' coming true. But in the sc2 community, the feeling I get is that unless you're top 1% you should literally kill yourself before you even attempt to consider thinking of criticising the game. Even if you're top 1%, your criticism will probably be met with 'whatever, you aren't a top korean pro' or some shit like that. I just wish the game was designed in a way that makes it as good of a game as it can be, regardless of the implications. I know pro's livelihoods are in the balance of such things, but I'd rather the approach be to just make it a wonderful GAME and not completely niche for the top .0001%. Heroes of the storm faced this problem. The game was a hell of a lot of fun at the start. Then with the pro scene, the game got increasingly more and more stale because everything was balanced or designed around the tip top pro's. Now that the pro scene is dead the developers have focused on simply making the game fun and enjoyable. I'd rather have the latter approach, as I am not a pro and never will be. No current pro will say they want the game to change in this way - Day[9] said a long time ago if pro's had their way, the game would be the most boring, stale crap in the world with extremely boring maps and the game being 100% the same every time. Lastly, I was one of those people who played the WOL and HOTS ladders a LOT - I was playing the day they shut them down. I wouldn't mind LOTV doing whatever it wants if I could still play the previous versions I enjoyed more. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On January 27 2020 03:02 ihatevideogames wrote: But in the sc2 community, the feeling I get is that unless you're top 1% you should literally kill yourself before you even attempt to consider thinking of criticising the game. Even if you're top 1%, your criticism will probably be met with 'whatever, you aren't a top korean pro' or some shit like that. There has been a certain subset of this community that has been toxic in this manner since the game came out. These people have essentially decided that it is better to belittle others than allow them to talk about issues they have with the game. They don't seem to understand that people don't give a shit about being GM in a game that isn't fun to play in the first place or that discussions involving constructive criticism aren't a bad thing. Even in this thread there have been several dismissive posts in this manner and it sucks. On January 27 2020 03:52 LHK wrote: I just wish the game was designed in a way that makes it as good of a game as it can be, regardless of the implications. I know pro's livelihoods are in the balance of such things, but I'd rather the approach be to just make it a wonderful GAME and not completely niche for the top .0001%. Heroes of the storm faced this problem. The game was a hell of a lot of fun at the start. Then with the pro scene, the game got increasingly more and more stale because everything was balanced or designed around the tip top pro's. Now that the pro scene is dead the developers have focused on simply making the game fun and enjoyable. I'd rather have the latter approach, as I am not a pro and never will be. No current pro will say they want the game to change in this way - Day[9] said a long time ago if pro's had their way, the game would be the most boring, stale crap in the world with extremely boring maps and the game being 100% the same every time. Lastly, I was one of those people who played the WOL and HOTS ladders a LOT - I was playing the day they shut them down. I wouldn't mind LOTV doing whatever it wants if I could still play the previous versions I enjoyed more. Strongly agreed on pretty much all points. | ||
|
Models
Canada88 Posts
| ||
|
franzji
United States581 Posts
Twitter thread (click around his tweets to see all his responses to the terrancraft guy, poor terrancraft) | ||
|
serendipitous
Canada195 Posts
| ||
|
sneakyfox
8216 Posts
First one by Neuro: https://terrancraft.com/2020/01/27/commentary-by-neuro-on-faster-is-not-better/ | ||
|
sneakyfox
8216 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On January 31 2020 00:06 sneakyfox wrote: Terrancraft are running some debate articles with responses from other people. First one by Neuro: https://terrancraft.com/2020/01/27/commentary-by-neuro-on-faster-is-not-better/ I like the fact Neuro thinks more or less the same as myself. I feel touched. | ||
|
Kovaz
Canada233 Posts
I think it's because the mid-game is so short now (especially the early mid-game), and that's where all the variety happens. Every PvZ eventually wants to converge to 4 bases with immortal-chargelot-archon-storm, but there are so many possible permutations before that checkbox is filled out. I think it's a real shame it's so easy to go from "I have a few things that I want" to "I have all of the things that I want". I want to see Protosses defending a third base with just robo tech because they're not sure they can afford to tech storm. Or harassing with phoenixes for 5+ minutes because their army isn't big enough to take the third. Or delaying robo tech to afford storm. Or any number of different things. My takeaway from watching a game used to be: "So that's how a 1 gate expand plays out against a tank push", or "so that's why twilight openings can't punish a 3 hatch before pool." Whereas now I rarely feel that I learned about something new, and the takeaway is always just execution: "Oracle only got 2 kills" or "Lost the warp prism." It probably rewards the better player more consistently, but I find myself less entertained. | ||
|
BabelFish1
186 Posts
Because that's what's going to happen...and we already have enough cheese/allins. I think that going back to 6 workers now would be a death knell for the game and while some people would love it, I suspect the vast majority wouldn't. The issue StarCraft 2 has is multiplicative. We have a stagnant meta because players at the top rarely innovate. It's the same standard builds over and over and over. To change this you need someone to lead by example. I thunk AlphaStar did this by showing pros some new tools to use that they had never considered before. Next we have some seriously questionable balance decisions. Right now the game is decent...but letting Infestor Broodlord dominate the game again and doing nothing to stop it until year end...was a huge mistake. I don't think StarCraft 2 will survive another incident of wanton imbalance. Luckily those incidents are pretty rare. Then we move on to their design mandate being all over the place...it's not consistent at all. On one side, we're officially in nerfing Observers because they're "frustrating" territory yet if we're nerfing "frustration" then why is the only frustrating thing being nerfed the Observer? Widow Mine drops are infinitely more frustrating, yet those haven't ever been nerfed. That's not me saying I want things to be nerfed due to frustration, my point is the opposite. You NEVER nerf things out of frustration because in a high skill game, that's part of the skill ceiling; dealing with frustrating crap. Finally, this forced meta shift nonsense has got to stop. Unless Blizzard's statistic tools are showing a single build being used so often it's literally defining an entire meta, then if it aint broke...don't fix it. This is how we end up with imbalances, unnecessary changes and we're starting to see some balance issues already. Thors gibbing all air is one issue, as an example and has lead to some fairly overpowered mech play recently which while does have counters, those counters are basically named Viper and Disruptor. Because nothing else works with the Thor's support units mixed in. So instead of looking for things to blame for why StarCaft 2 isn't as good as it usually is, maybe we should start asking ourselves a hard question; is the balance team doing a good job...and if not, is there a constructive, civil way to communicate to them what they're doing wrong? | ||
|
Dedraterllaerau
113 Posts
Starting with 12 workers makes it way 2 easy to get away with cheese even doh you get scouted. If you scout with 6 worker and you spot a proxy build you have time to counter it properly instead of having to guess what kind of proxy it is and is he cutting workers or not while doing it. 5 workers will also balance out the income advantage snowball that Zergs can get away with these days because their scouting info is so insane that at high level they safely get away with mad droning which even acts as a counter to harass itself if the Terran or Protoss does not get a an absurd amount of drone kills. (do not try to counter argument, Terran and Protoss can not make workers out of their barracks and gateways to compensate for failing to defend worker harass well) I feel like I am the only one who thinks its okay that Zerg can lose 20 drones and still have a shot at the game, while if protoss loses 7+ probes at the same in game time the game is basicly over and everyone knows it, just listen to the high level commentators. At the end of the day its about viewer and player preference(faster action) vs a good meta and easier game to balance (6 workers > 12 workers) But new cheeses we have not seen yet may become a problem, like I can imagine some super fast 3xravager builds into droning can be super annoying. Another thing I just remembered as Im rambling, the 6 worker start makes it easier 2 put pressure on zerg earlier in the game to control the zerg mad droning, at current meta as Protoss for example you choose macro harass build or you choose 2 base all inn that is the only thing that is gonna happen and it will be stargate 99,9999999% of the time. | ||
|
Dedraterllaerau
113 Posts
On January 24 2020 21:57 Drfilip wrote: The "bag of protoss bullshit" is no longer a term used in every single thread about a game that included a protoss. The frustration on build order losses was very big in the community. There were more than 10 people complaining in a discussion of 15 people. The build order losses was not even something I considered anyomore. I needed this article to be reminded of them. They were especially bad in the case of TvP. Roughly speaking there were 4 outcomes: a) Oracle and oracle defense -> terran survived and protoss plays from behind b) Oracle and no defense -> terran either dead or soon to be dead c) Oracle defense and no oracle -> terran plays from behind d) No oracle, no defense -> terran a bit ahead This time of SC2 was not very fun to watch TvP in. The other match ups were great, though. I believe you losing to oracles in the past is the one single reason you are writing this and defending oracle was figured out back then and would be even easier to defend than in the past due to game changes and increase in player knowledge. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On January 31 2020 03:58 BabelFish1 wrote: 6 workers was too slow. I mean, yes, 6 workers gives you more room to see deviation in the meta but what realistic deviation are you expecting to see? More cheese? More allins? Because that's what's going to happen...and we already have enough cheese/allins. I think that going back to 6 workers now would be a death knell for the game and while some people would love it, I suspect the vast majority wouldn't. The issue StarCraft 2 has is multiplicative. We have a stagnant meta because players at the top rarely innovate. It's the same standard builds over and over and over. To change this you need someone to lead by example. I thunk AlphaStar did this by showing pros some new tools to use that they had never considered before. Next we have some seriously questionable balance decisions. Right now the game is decent...but letting Infestor Broodlord dominate the game again and doing nothing to stop it until year end...was a huge mistake. I don't think StarCraft 2 will survive another incident of wanton imbalance. Luckily those incidents are pretty rare. Then we move on to their design mandate being all over the place...it's not consistent at all. On one side, we're officially in nerfing Observers because they're "frustrating" territory yet if we're nerfing "frustration" then why is the only frustrating thing being nerfed the Observer? Widow Mine drops are infinitely more frustrating, yet those haven't ever been nerfed. That's not me saying I want things to be nerfed due to frustration, my point is the opposite. You NEVER nerf things out of frustration because in a high skill game, that's part of the skill ceiling; dealing with frustrating crap. Finally, this forced meta shift nonsense has got to stop. Unless Blizzard's statistic tools are showing a single build being used so often it's literally defining an entire meta, then if it aint broke...don't fix it. This is how we end up with imbalances, unnecessary changes and we're starting to see some balance issues already. Thors gibbing all air is one issue, as an example and has lead to some fairly overpowered mech play recently which while does have counters, those counters are basically named Viper and Disruptor. Because nothing else works with the Thor's support units mixed in. So instead of looking for things to blame for why StarCaft 2 isn't as good as it usually is, maybe we should start asking ourselves a hard question; is the balance team doing a good job...and if not, is there a constructive, civil way to communicate to them what they're doing wrong? Cheese and all ins were easier to defend on the 6 worker start side though You had more time to properly react and you could have scouted earlier. Nowadays even if you go early you scout late. Defending all-ins/cheeses is an argument for 6 worker start IMO. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria810 Posts
On January 31 2020 04:55 deacon.frost wrote: Cheese and all ins were easier to defend on the 6 worker start side though You had more time to properly react and you could have scouted earlier. Nowadays even if you go early you scout late. Defending all-ins/cheeses is an argument for 6 worker start IMO.How is it an argument for 6 workers when you have enough time to send a worker to build proxy gateway/barracks? | ||
|
BabelFish1
186 Posts
On January 31 2020 06:28 SC-Shield wrote: How is it an argument for 6 workers when you have enough time to send a worker to build proxy gateway/barracks? Exactly, except now cheeses would be even stronger. You'd have to scout no building, stay a while to see if it's just slightly delayed while scouting tons of proxy locations because not scouting what cheese, means more build order losses. Build order losses are very, very bad. With 12 workers, you can scout it late or not scout it at all and still have a chance, if your reactions are up to par and you have a relatively safe build. Going back to a 6 workers start would be really, really bad from a gameplay perspective but also from a viewer perspective, hell, even a casting perspective unless you like casters who basically get to do a podcast for the 1st 5 minutes of the game instead of 2-3. | ||
|
Steelghost1
43 Posts
On January 26 2020 19:38 ZombieGrub wrote: I would really like to see any sources on the middle paragraph there. Every pro has said 12 workers is a big reason for the game failing to retain users? What? And a lot of people left permanently? Our perspectives must've been SUPPPER different, because I remember a lot of excitement and hope for what LotV would bring. And most everyone agrees that LotV is the best step-up for SC2, with only the occasional '12 workers is baddddd' thread popping up here and there. I for one am convinced stuff like this thread is what comes out of wearing nostalgia goggles, but I'll admit to that being a personal opinion not shared by everyone. If you don't like the 12 workers start, great. But your whole post just reeks of having your own personal opinion and then blanketing it over everything and everyone. Ok I guess I should clarify, thanks for replying ZG. Note that I wrote that "almost (not all) every high level player or pro that has spoken out about this worker start change (meaning the ones that did bother taking the time to talk/rant/discuss about this in public forums, streams, etc...) is very clearly against it. This was an issue that was already mentioned and ignored by Blizzard since the very beginning and all throughout BETA (including in several high profile posts in this very own site). The discussion kept going on until the launch of LoTV and even afterwards. Example: https://tl.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/490539-12-worker-start-is-ultimately-bad-for-the-game ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6a855dv.jpg) Why is it that with all the excitement and hope for what LoTV was supposed to bring viewership numbers went down to last period of HOTS levels (and not even) in just 6 months? Blizzard told us that getting quicker into mid game would make this game less boring and more interesting (thus more entertaining, no? which obviously = more popular). If the game was so much fun and improved upon the weak points of Heart of the Swarm, if expectations were so high then why did high profile pros such as Rain, Jaedong, Flash and many more leave? Why did Proleague stop, why did all this giant eSport ecosystem built around the game just disappear? Just because of Life´s matchfixing scandal or some oldschoolers feeling like going back to Brood War? I find that as a partially correct but weak excuse that just ignores the main underlying problem: Blizzard´s abysmal game management and balancing philosophy, which should directly include the 12 worker change that people were already calling out from day 1. Simply put, a lot of us believe that Starcraft Legacy of The Void is not as fun as the previous iterations of the game. The opinion of players that do not reach a certain skill level in this hard game (difficult to draw a line, but around mid to high diamond I would say) should not be taken into consideration when trying to choose a balance/design change. These people have very limited mechanical, real-time analysis ability or understanding of how build orders, tech choices, macro and micro all glue together in order to form a clear strategical or tactical picture. The problem these players have more than their higher level counterparts is that their losses in games can basically be boiled down to getting supply blocked, not having constant worker production and not spending their money. Now, when it comes to better players that are master and above (and here the skill gap is also quite huge, difference being that it shows in the control of small details, optimal adjustments and actual decision-making skills) we can see what the actual metagame, openings and playstyles are in LoTV compared to HOTS and WOL. What do we have? One or two standardized opening build orders, less experimentation, less compositional variety, almost mandatory scouting and teching up... remember the days where you were not forced to scv/probe scout every game? Back when players would have to make a meaningful early game choice by deciding whether they went 3 hatch before pool or nexus first and they would get either rewarded or punished for it (Hyun vs Naniwa game 5 IEM New York)? When players would try to mindgame each other and when tech was an actual long-term commitment that you were stuck with? Yeah, I personally take that game over anything anything LOTV has offered me. To me it felt like each player had more of a soul of its own and they would fit their playstyle to what they thought their strengths were. Maru was a collossus and nexus sniper, sOs tricked his opponents with weird plans, Bomber played greedy and beat you by outproducing having insane marine control. To me it feels like nowadays all we get is macromonsters playing the same game over and over again, with the same viable tactics, same viable units, same everything all the time. Yes ZombieGrub, our perspectives are indeed super different. "And most everyone agrees that LotV is the best step-up for SC2" I would also want a source for this coming from you, because I think that as a caster (and a good one IMO, don´t get me wrong) who made a name for herself during the last years of HOTS and the beginning stages of LoTV, as a person that goes to events, surrounds herself with remaining sc2 pros and depends on the survival of this game in order to get an income, then of course you would claim that. But what do the statistics show? How often or how likely is it that doing what you do you meet with people that lost their interest in Sc2? Who is more likely to be more active on sites like TL or Reddit defending this game, someone who decided to leave or those that remain because they like this game? You are conditioned to be positive about the state of Sc2 and yet threads of users complaining about 12 worker start appear every now and again. Nostalgia goggles? Sure, but there also exist very legitimate concerns which can be measured with objective parameters that could potentially signal that, indeed, 12 worker start was an overall mistake for this game. I wish I had the time and resources to conduct a research, perhaps someone in TL could someday come up with an extensive polling system in which active and retired pros, former and current players gave their opinion on which economic system they preferred and why. Results could be surprising and we would definitely be able to, if not finally solve the enigma, have a little bit more clarity. It just baffles me, that one of the biggest gaming franchises ever has remained so stagnant and mediocre in comparison to the rest of eSports titles. And while yes, it is true that SC2 is less appealing to the mainstream due to complexity and solo player focus, but we should not act as if the direction Blizzard chose for Starcraft has not buried much of the perceived potential this game actually had. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16526 Posts
As video game genres age people play them less. Technology improves giving consumers new choices that were previously not possible. The consumer moves on to the next new and shiny thing that has new game mechanics and features that were not possible only a few years earlier. Ms Pacman was a far better game than Pacman. Yet it generated less then 1/4 of the money Pacman did and Ms Pacman died fast and it died ugly. The entire genre was going down. The consumer had moved on. Ms Pacman is 1 of dozens if not hundreds of examples. of good games that died before worse games died in the same genre ... because the entire genre was tanking. You discuss how ZombieGrub can't see the forest through the trees. That is a fair theory to float out there. Maybe she can't. However, maybe you can't see the forest through the trees either. I'd say SC2 is in a similar position that Ms. Pacman was in when it was released. SC2 was released just as RTS was starting to decline. Similarly, Ms Pacman hit the arcades just as the Dot Eating Maze Game genre was starting to die. It didn't matter that MsPacman was a far better game than Pacman. The consumer was moving away from the entire genre. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On January 31 2020 06:28 SC-Shield wrote: How is it an argument for 6 workers when you have enough time to send a worker to build proxy gateway/barracks? Because you have enough time to send the scout? You can scout at 6(although it's very bad), 9, 12, 15 (as P) with various degree of success, if you pylon scout(9) you are safe against every cheese the enemy can throw at you. 2 base cheeses/all-ins are you scouting them properly. The argument is that with 6 worker scout you have EASIER defense against early game shenanigans... (unless you play Maru  )With the 12 worker start you scout late this every time | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
Actually, it's not true there is a MU where things are not scripted, where every units/cimposition BO are viable =ZvZ. It's awful that symetric balance is much better than asymetric balance for Zerg. There were some fresh air when they added T1 drop, for the first time since WOL, you could do something different than droning. Of course it was rapidly removed, and now every zerg units needs two upgrades/hive to be played, to be sure Zerg can't be anything than Terran's punching ball during the whole game. | ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
On January 31 2020 18:10 Tyrhanius wrote: 12 workers start didn't change anything. I open hatch first in every MU since WOL, i defend bunker rush/early pool/photon rush/proxy since WOL (what changed is just with shield battery, photon rush are stronger and can transition into proxy immortal/WP, and are nearly unconterable if the protoss manage to set up, i can't do anything than defending until 3 bases saturation with the same set of units : zerglings, queens, spores. Mid game is mostly defending push on creep, and the game really start at 7-0min, the rest is just scripted and you can't do anything except trying not to lose, but you can't really do anything else than having the highest workers number to try to win. Actually, it's not true there is a MU where things are not scripted, where every units/cimposition BO are viable =ZvZ. It's awful that symetric balance is much better than asymetric balance for Zerg. There were some fresh air when they added T1 drop, for the first time since WOL, you could do something different than droning. Of course it was rapidly removed, and now every zerg units needs two upgrades/hive to be played, to be sure Zerg can't be anything than Terran's punching ball during the whole game. I think you re miss reading something.. the 12 workers subject is about sc2 scene (including viewers), not about casual or hardcore gamers... Without transition, The number of starting workers will only shift some building sequence ? isn t it ? some BO could relive ? As community is divided, would not it be wiser to experiment a new kind of game in period (inside test in-game-mode) ? I mean, there s no problem for Blizzard to let the 'facts / experimentation' decide, without some real feedback they cannot afford to ignore that... | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On January 31 2020 16:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Just because a game loses popularity doesn't mean its a bad game. The entire RTS genre is sinking. This is similar to the dot eating maze game genre sinking in popularity when at one point it was the #1 genre in the entire world. As video game genres age people play them less. Technology improves giving consumers new choices that were previously not possible. The consumer moves on to the next new and shiny thing that has new game mechanics and features that were not possible only a few years earlier. Ms Pacman was a far better game than Pacman. Yet it generated less then 1/4 of the money Pacman did and Ms Pacman died fast and it died ugly. The entire genre was going down. The consumer had moved on. Ms Pacman is 1 of dozens if not hundreds of examples. of good games that died before worse games died in the same genre ... because the entire genre was tanking. You discuss how ZombieGrub can't see the forest through the trees. That is a fair theory to float out there. Maybe she can't. However, maybe you can't see the forest through the trees either. I'd say SC2 is in a similar position that Ms. Pacman was in when it was released. SC2 was released just as RTS was starting to decline. Similarly, Ms Pacman hit the arcades just as the Dot Eating Maze Game genre was starting to die. It didn't matter that MsPacman was a far better game than Pacman. The consumer was moving away from the entire genre. I think I've read posts of you saying that the RTS genre is sinking ever since 2012. So why does interest in SC2 and BW go up and down, why do people buy the remastered editions? Why do all recent RTS games suck? You can't just repeat this point over and over again, that in this day and age the RTS genre is too old fashioned. There is still war, isn't there? People want to play war games. you have a ton of strategy games that sell for a decent amount. Complex ones too, in general games have been getting more complex and difficult in many ways. More likely than that RTS is just dead is that nobody dares to compete with Blizzard. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On January 31 2020 19:49 Grumbels wrote: I think I've read posts of you saying that the RTS genre is sinking ever since 2012. So why does interest in SC2 and BW go up and down, why do people buy the remastered editions? Why do all recent RTS games suck? You can't just repeat this point over and over again, that in this day and age the RTS genre is too old fashioned. There is still war, isn't there? People want to play war games. you have a ton of strategy games that sell for a decent amount. Complex ones too, in general games have been getting more complex and difficult in many ways. More likely than that RTS is just dead is that nobody dares to compete with Blizzard. Considering Blizzard's SC2 isn't exactly a very innovative game maybe it's just an issue of Blizzard? We can talk about Total War and its success. The last release sold over 1m copies in a week. Doesn't look to me like the RTS is dying. Maybe, just maybe, people are not interested in the e-sport nonsense... In the end the biggest revolutions SC2 gave us over SC1 are: - multi building selections - auto-working workers - unlimited unit selection Oh. My. God. The RTS genre was changed, what a bold move. (I wanted to write nobody was expecting this but considering the BW players - they were probably not expecting this )Edit> in the case somebody wouldn't notice - the old AoE II had these things, not sure about MBS, but still, 2/3. And if my memory wasn't so bad I would say even AoE 1 had this, but that's like 15 years I played it. So there goes the "innovation" | ||
|
ZombieGrub
United States692 Posts
On January 31 2020 14:42 Steelghost1 wrote: Ok I guess I should clarify, thanks for replying ZG. Note that I wrote that "almost (not all) every high level player or pro that has spoken out about this worker start change (meaning the ones that did bother taking the time to talk/rant/discuss about this in public forums, streams, etc...) is very clearly against it. This was an issue that was already mentioned and ignored by Blizzard since the very beginning and all throughout BETA (including in several high profile posts in this very own site). The discussion kept going on until the launch of LoTV and even afterwards. Example: https://tl.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/490539-12-worker-start-is-ultimately-bad-for-the-game Why is it that with all the excitement and hope for what LoTV was supposed to bring viewership numbers went down to last period of HOTS levels (and not even) in just 6 months? Blizzard told us that getting quicker into mid game would make this game less boring and more interesting (thus more entertaining, no? which obviously = more popular). If the game was so much fun and improved upon the weak points of Heart of the Swarm, if expectations were so high then why did high profile pros such as Rain, Jaedong, Flash and many more leave? Why did Proleague stop, why did all this giant eSport ecosystem built around the game just disappear? Just because of Life´s matchfixing scandal or some oldschoolers feeling like going back to Brood War? I find that as a partially correct but weak excuse that just ignores the main underlying problem: Blizzard´s abysmal game management and balancing philosophy, which should directly include the 12 worker change that people were already calling out from day 1. Simply put, a lot of us believe that Starcraft Legacy of The Void is not as fun as the previous iterations of the game. The opinion of players that do not reach a certain skill level in this hard game (difficult to draw a line, but around mid to high diamond I would say) should not be taken into consideration when trying to choose a balance/design change. These people have very limited mechanical, real-time analysis ability or understanding of how build orders, tech choices, macro and micro all glue together in order to form a clear strategical or tactical picture. The problem these players have more than their higher level counterparts is that their losses in games can basically be boiled down to getting supply blocked, not having constant worker production and not spending their money. Now, when it comes to better players that are master and above (and here the skill gap is also quite huge, difference being that it shows in the control of small details, optimal adjustments and actual decision-making skills) we can see what the actual metagame, openings and playstyles are in LoTV compared to HOTS and WOL. What do we have? One or two standardized opening build orders, less experimentation, less compositional variety, almost mandatory scouting and teching up... remember the days where you were not forced to scv/probe scout every game? Back when players would have to make a meaningful early game choice by deciding whether they went 3 hatch before pool or nexus first and they would get either rewarded or punished for it (Hyun vs Naniwa game 5 IEM New York)? When players would try to mindgame each other and when tech was an actual long-term commitment that you were stuck with? Yeah, I personally take that game over anything anything LOTV has offered me. To me it felt like each player had more of a soul of its own and they would fit their playstyle to what they thought their strengths were. Maru was a collossus and nexus sniper, sOs tricked his opponents with weird plans, Bomber played greedy and beat you by outproducing having insane marine control. To me it feels like nowadays all we get is macromonsters playing the same game over and over again, with the same viable tactics, same viable units, same everything all the time. Yes ZombieGrub, our perspectives are indeed super different. "And most everyone agrees that LotV is the best step-up for SC2" I would also want a source for this coming from you, because I think that as a caster (and a good one IMO, don´t get me wrong) who made a name for herself during the last years of HOTS and the beginning stages of LoTV, as a person that goes to events, surrounds herself with remaining sc2 pros and depends on the survival of this game in order to get an income, then of course you would claim that. But what do the statistics show? How often or how likely is it that doing what you do you meet with people that lost their interest in Sc2? Who is more likely to be more active on sites like TL or Reddit defending this game, someone who decided to leave or those that remain because they like this game? You are conditioned to be positive about the state of Sc2 and yet threads of users complaining about 12 worker start appear every now and again. Nostalgia goggles? Sure, but there also exist very legitimate concerns which can be measured with objective parameters that could potentially signal that, indeed, 12 worker start was an overall mistake for this game. I wish I had the time and resources to conduct a research, perhaps someone in TL could someday come up with an extensive polling system in which active and retired pros, former and current players gave their opinion on which economic system they preferred and why. Results could be surprising and we would definitely be able to, if not finally solve the enigma, have a little bit more clarity. It just baffles me, that one of the biggest gaming franchises ever has remained so stagnant and mediocre in comparison to the rest of eSports titles. And while yes, it is true that SC2 is less appealing to the mainstream due to complexity and solo player focus, but we should not act as if the direction Blizzard chose for Starcraft has not buried much of the perceived potential this game actually had. I appreciate you taking the time to make a fair post. I am of the opinion that the end of HotS/LotV was also the downfall of RTS (or rather, the growth of every other Tier 1 esport we currently have) and has nothing to do with the game quality, but again, perhaps that is only an opinion. It's cool that my post got such discussion but the actual point of my post was to remind people not just blindly blanket opinions as facts. You say a couple of pros posted on TL to critique the 12 workers - I remember that, but it was a small portion that was known for being generally critical (which is not a bad thing!). The post I quoted initially came off as very 'this is how it is cuz I say so' and that is what I had issues with. Please, discuss away and share opinions. | ||
|
xelnaga_empire
621 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
I mean, even best terrans who are representating sc2 in Korea are lazy about the game and to my point of view, Special was the best foreigner able to deal with korea. Who will we send now ? | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16526 Posts
On January 31 2020 19:49 Grumbels wrote: I think I've read posts of you saying that the RTS genre is sinking ever since 2012. So why does interest in SC2 and BW go up and down, why do people buy the remastered editions? Why do all recent RTS games suck? You can't just repeat this point over and over again, that in this day and age the RTS genre is too old fashioned. There is still war, isn't there? People want to play war games. you have a ton of strategy games that sell for a decent amount. Complex ones too, in general games have been getting more complex and difficult in many ways. More likely than that RTS is just dead is that nobody dares to compete with Blizzard. It remains a valid point. So its worth repeating. As far as BW and SC2 still selling copies goes... Pacman Championship Edition still sells as well. Hell Pacman Championship Edition was developed 20+ years after Ms. Pacman came out. This doesn't mean the Dot Eating Maze Game genre is the dominant video game genre in the world though. I think its important to realize the level of success Starcraft and the RTS genre enjoyed. As cool as the Starcraft franchise is.. it still has not hit $1 billion in revenue. So even at its peak.... Starcraft was never really some amazing mainstream hit. | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On February 01 2020 00:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote:So even at its peak.... Starcraft was never really some amazing mainstream hit. All starcraft games are on the list of best selling pc-games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On February 01 2020 00:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote: It remains a valid point. So its worth repeating. As far as BW and SC2 still selling copies goes... Pacman Championship Edition still sells as well. Hell Pacman Championship Edition was developed 20+ years after Ms. Pacman came out. This doesn't mean the Dot Eating Maze Game genre is the dominant video game genre in the world though. I think its important to realize the level of success Starcraft and the RTS genre enjoyed. As cool as the Starcraft franchise is.. it still has not hit $1 billion in revenue. So even at its peak.... Starcraft was never really some amazing mainstream hit. Sometimes you should use sources for your claims, because SC2 is one of the best selling games. EVER. Total War is a great selling series, the last launched game overtook Twitch for a while, sold 1m of copies in a week. The genre is not as dead as you claim it to be. If you mean RTS e-sport - that's a completely different topic IMO and shouldn't be listed as "RTS are falling down", Zombie in the upper posts is writing the same thing but she writes e-sport here and there so it's clear she doesn't mean the genre itself RTS genre was never the pinacle of games IMO. That was FPS, but since I come from FPS background it may be my social bubble Anyway, I think I should stop to defend RTS genre in this thread as I am getting OT. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16526 Posts
On February 01 2020 01:02 deacon.frost wrote: Sometimes you should use sources for your claims, because SC2 is one of the best selling games. EVER. Total War is a great selling series, the last launched game overtook Twitch for a while, sold 1m of copies in a week. The genre is not as dead as you claim it to be. If you mean RTS e-sport - that's a completely different topic IMO and shouldn't be listed as "RTS are falling down", Zombie in the upper posts is writing the same thing but she writes e-sport here and there so it's clear she doesn't mean the genre itself RTS genre was never the pinacle of games IMO. That was FPS, but since I come from FPS background it may be my social bubble Anyway, I think I should stop to defend RTS genre in this thread as I am getting OT. As of 2017 ATVI has 8 Billion dollar franchises. Starcraft is not one of them. https://investor.activision.com/static-files/bbfd4b49-bf78-40bd-aefe-3467f211844b They are Crash Bandicoot, Skylanders, Overwatch, Call of Duty, Diablo, World Of Warcraft, Candy Crush and Guitar Hero. The first 2 billion dollar franchises were Space Invaders and Pacman and they achieved this in 1981. So billion dollar video game franchises have been around for 40 years. Its not like a billion dollar seller is some new phenomenon. The Starcraft franchise has been around 20+ years and it has yet to hit 1 billion in total revenue. Therefore, SC2 is not one of the best selling games EVER. When any franchise becomes a billion seller the publisher always screams this great news everywhere because they want investors to buy stock which increases the value of the stock. The increase in the value of the stock is usually tied to executive compensation. I love the RTS genre, however, in the interests of objectivity I must go by the #s and not by how I feel. Otherwise , I'd put myself in a place where I can't see the forest through the trees. Taken from an historical perspective over the 45 year video game industry the RTS genre is a niche market. Hell its a niche within ATVI itself never mind the entire video game industry. | ||
|
GoSuNamhciR
124 Posts
In short, I think its a massive redesign that I doubt blizzard will do, they seem to be stepping down support of every game not up (in terms of developers), I hope I'm wrong because I would love to see a change done here. | ||
|
Hunta15
United States81 Posts
On February 01 2020 02:29 GoSuNamhciR wrote: I did a post on this years ago when LOTV came out, and everything I stated then is true now. I don't like the 6 worker start though, I would suggest something in the middle like 12. Of course changing worker starting numbers changes the entire economy of the game and will effect each race differently. For example terrans build workers the slowest so by having a slower increasing worker count at a lower worker starting count your economy might fall behind the other 2 races as the % you are down is larger. You may also need to tone down the scouting capability of each race if you slow the game down, as in LOTV most ways of scouting were buffed due to the sped up game. In short, I think its a massive redesign that I doubt blizzard will do, they seem to be stepping down support of every game not up (in terms of developers), I hope I'm wrong because I would love to see a change done here. You want to change the amount of starting workers to 12? Your post is funny. | ||
|
kramvti
73 Posts
On January 31 2020 21:24 deacon.frost wrote: Considering Blizzard's SC2 isn't exactly a very innovative game maybe it's just an issue of Blizzard? We can talk about Total War and its success. The last release sold over 1m copies in a week. Doesn't look to me like the RTS is dying. Maybe, just maybe, people are not interested in the e-sport nonsense... In the end the biggest revolutions SC2 gave us over SC1 are: - multi building selections - auto-working workers - unlimited unit selection Oh. My. God. The RTS genre was changed, what a bold move. (I wanted to write nobody was expecting this but considering the BW players - they were probably not expecting this )Edit> in the case somebody wouldn't notice - the old AoE II had these things, not sure about MBS, but still, 2/3. And if my memory wasn't so bad I would say even AoE 1 had this, but that's like 15 years I played it. So there goes the "innovation" Heart of the swarm did this in 2 days. Legacy did it in 1 day. | ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
On February 01 2020 02:29 GoSuNamhciR wrote: I did a post on this years ago when LOTV came out, and everything I stated then is true now. I don't like the 6 worker start though, I would suggest something in the middle like 12. Of course changing worker starting numbers changes the entire economy of the game and will effect each race differently. For example terrans build workers the slowest so by having a slower increasing worker count at a lower worker starting count your economy might fall behind the other 2 races as the % you are down is larger. You may also need to tone down the scouting capability of each race if you slow the game down, as in LOTV most ways of scouting were buffed due to the sped up game. In short, I think its a massive redesign that I doubt blizzard will do, they seem to be stepping down support of every game not up (in terms of developers), I hope I'm wrong because I would love to see a change done here. On February 01 2020 02:32 Hunta15 wrote: You want to change the amount of starting workers to 12? Your post is funny. ** Taunt spotted ** This isn t a huge redesign of the game, to me it s nearly a detail, i have done videos showing terrans build order with 9 workers and it s pretty oiled (take a look if you want : https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/554922-videos-with-9-workers) Some sarcastics people (me ?) could say it only adress changes only if you succeed more oftenly all-in with 42 workers (exactly ?? ahaha) than with 70 workers.. And every impacted strategies depending on these 'specific build order' used in mid-game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24128 Posts
How much of the variety people refer to in Wings/HoTS to an extent things being figured out about the game? How do the new units influence things too? Wings I recall did have a more exciting divergent early game, although that could be frustrating too. But it was rather compositionally monotonous after that, especially in its earlier phases. Then there’s how the eco changes affect the races differently, where the power spikes are etc, my brainnnn. But yeah been interesting. I wonder what people’s broad strokes kind of ideal would look like, specifics aside. I’d like more early game skirmishing, maybe a little more aggression friendly provided the ability to scout it out with a safe opener is there, and a more extended back-and-forth mid game with trading and fighting for territory. I guess like classic TvZ can be. The lategame definitely does feel like it arrives a bit quickly and some of the more problematic unit compositions dwell in that phase of the game. | ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
this is the first time that Blizzard is late. | ||
|
LHK
204 Posts
https://terrancraft.com/2020/02/01/commentary-by-negativezero-on-faster-is-not-better/#more-6354 | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24128 Posts
On February 02 2020 01:21 LHK wrote: the third commentary article, this one by negativezero, has been posted. https://terrancraft.com/2020/02/01/commentary-by-negativezero-on-faster-is-not-better/#more-6354 Pretty interesting read, I wish more media outlets followed the model of publishing an article and then 3 responses to said article. Might help the news space! | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16526 Posts
On January 31 2020 21:24 deacon.frost wrote: We can talk about Total War and its success. The last release sold over 1m copies in a week. Doesn't look to me like the RTS is dying. RTS is no where near as popular as it was from 1999 to 2006. Many major RTS studios have closed down and been replaced by nothing. C&C, SC, and Warcraft are the top 3 RTS franchises by far and they now bring in very little money and the player base is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago. Its nice that Total War had a million copy seller. I don't think this means RTS is on the rise though. Is the Total War franchise an RTS any way? It is definitely an Action//Strategy type franchise. Action//Strategy titles will always have some kind of niche market... but I don't think they are rising in popularity. Is there any RTS franchise that has hit a billion in revenue yet? I wouldn't say every Total War game strictly speaking qualifies as an RTS. Even still.... Total War is 20 years old ... has it hit a billion in revenue yet? Getting back to my original point though. A game's decline in popularity doesn't necessarily mean its a bad game. The declining player base of LotV does not prove its a bad game. Support for LotV has been incrementally declining for a few years now and its a 5 year old game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24128 Posts
On February 02 2020 02:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote: RTS is no where near as popular as it was from 1999 to 2006. Many major RTS studios have closed down and been replaced by nothing. C&C, SC, and Warcraft are the top 3 RTS franchises by far and they now bring in very little money and the player base is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago. Its nice that Total War had a million copy seller. I don't think this means RTS is on the rise though. Is the Total War franchise an RTS any way? It is definitely an Action//Strategy type franchise. Action//Strategy titles will always have some kind of niche market... but I don't think they are rising in popularity. Is there any RTS franchise that has hit a billion in revenue yet? I wouldn't say every Total War game strictly speaking qualifies as an RTS. Even still.... Total War is 20 years old ... has it hit a billion in revenue yet? Getting back to my original point though. A game's decline in popularity doesn't necessarily mean its a bad game. The declining player base of LotV does not prove its a bad game. Support for LotV has been incrementally declining for a few years now and its a 5 year old game. Judging based on franchises seems a rather dubious way to judge the popularity of a game or the genre it resides in. Blizzard could have put out a Starcraft 4, or a Warcraft 6 and then no doubt they enter that billion dollar club, or close to it. Plus nowadays you can make more money off one whale than you can from 20 users buying a retail product. Is the game with one guy spending 1000 dollars on skins more vibrant than one with 20 users buying a game at 50 dollars? I would accept that RTS absolutely is a niche genre these days, but plenty of games can still be hits. The entire market is much bigger. Even the heavyweights of my youth like Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Blizzard games. Those numbers aren’t crazy numbers. They’re pretty damn moderate by modern standards. The problem isn’t that x is a niche, it’s that big developers don’t want to make money, they want to make all the money and have a Fortnite/League level game. And games of that type and monetisation do not suit RTS as a genre particularly well. Also modern gamers don’t actually have classic RTS games to get into the genre. I’m sure there are good ones but I mean a real AAA polished game. For sake of argument say EA actually put money into making a good CnC game. Let’s say Valve made a really good RTS game. Blizzard didn’t botch Reforged and announced a new RTS game. There’s no room for it? It’s not a genre like point and click adventures that was superseded by technology (and even then Telltale did well for a while) The Doom reboot showed an appetite for old-school esque FPS gameplay that was lapped up by new players sick of pseudo-military shooters. It did extremely well. It was new for people not exposed to a more fast paced FPS, and it was a return to that style for those of us raised in it. That’s just a different take on FPS. What would the appetite for a whole generation of gamers for an entire genre they hadn’t really experienced if it was done well? | ||
|
Steelghost1
43 Posts
On February 02 2020 01:21 LHK wrote: the third commentary article, this one by negativezero, has been posted. https://terrancraft.com/2020/02/01/commentary-by-negativezero-on-faster-is-not-better/#more-6354 Great article, very well thought out and documented for how short it is, this is the kind of feedback and analysis Blizzard and game developers in general should follow and take into consideration. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16526 Posts
On February 02 2020 02:58 Wombat_NI wrote: Judging based on franchises seems a rather dubious way to judge the popularity of a game or the genre it resides in. my over all point was... when the genre declines ... it doesn't matter how great of a Pac-man type game you've made. It will never be any where near as popular as when the genre was hot. The consumer has already moved on. | ||
|
BabelFish1
186 Posts
On February 01 2020 16:41 Vision_ wrote: All balance patchs since 2017 were released in january... this is the first time that Blizzard is late. That's probably because they're discussing what on earth is the problem and how to fix it. Because it's pretty evident there's a problem currently. Zerg greed is a problem and smacking down Zerg compositions is going to ultimately lead to an underpowered race, they have to find and address the root cause for Zerg snowballing too fast, too safely. Then we have to look at mech in it's current state, why is it performing so well? Is it that the Thor buff made it too powerful or is it that other races lack counters, outside of Disruptors and Vipers/Swarm Hosts? Finally the balance team has to think about Protoss; Protoss are not in a good spot right now and are more gimmicky than ever, partially because of buffs to other races and partially because of nerfs to Protoss itself. This one they seemingly have a huge issue with and I firmly believe that when it comes to Protoss, the balance team just don't know how to handle the race. I mean as evidence, they nerfed Observers out of "frustration" and then significantly nerfed Charge despite Charge nor Observers being a balance issue. I mean, realistically, over the last year we've seen constant Protoss nerfs, some of which were totally justified, some of which were not without Protoss leading the pack in win rates or utterly dominating tournaments...that's a huge red flag, right there. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24128 Posts
On February 02 2020 04:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote: my over all point was... when the genre declines ... it doesn't matter how great of a Pac-man type game you've made. It will never be any where near as popular as when the genre was hot. The consumer has already moved on. My point was you don’t have to. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24128 Posts
| ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On January 31 2020 21:24 deacon.frost wrote: Considering Blizzard's SC2 isn't exactly a very innovative game maybe it's just an issue of Blizzard? We can talk about Total War and its success. The last release sold over 1m copies in a week. Doesn't look to me like the RTS is dying. Maybe, just maybe, people are not interested in the e-sport nonsense... In the end the biggest revolutions SC2 gave us over SC1 are: - multi building selections - auto-working workers - unlimited unit selection Oh. My. God. The RTS genre was changed, what a bold move. (I wanted to write nobody was expecting this but considering the BW players - they were probably not expecting this )Edit> in the case somebody wouldn't notice - the old AoE II had these things, not sure about MBS, but still, 2/3. And if my memory wasn't so bad I would say even AoE 1 had this, but that's like 15 years I played it. So there goes the "innovation" yeah AoE2 has MBS as well^^ | ||
|
RealityTheGreat
China564 Posts
| ||
|
hangfive
Germany6 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
848 Posts
- Workers (to know overall cost) - Combat units (comparing to number of workers) - Buildings and infrastructures, upgrades (comparing to workers + combat units) This graph settings must be done with ordered percentage (of course) and describes the minerals spent along the game. Describing repartition of income in pro games could help to adjust the economy models (cause you will be able to smooth the curve to a clever repartition, ie more proportional). any volunteers ? | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
To be honest, ever since LotV was launched the game just doesn't feel the same anymore. I don't enjoy playing it and I don't enjoy watching it. There is no excitement for me when watching games anymore. I truly don't know what it is. Is it the worker count change ? Is it the new units? All I know is, it doesn't feel like SC anymore | ||
|
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
On July 05 2020 18:51 AssyrianKing wrote: Thank God someone mentioned it ! To be honest, ever since LotV was launched the game just doesn't feel the same anymore. I don't enjoy playing it and I don't enjoy watching it. There is no excitement for me when watching games anymore. I truly don't know what it is. Is it the worker count change ? Is it the new units? All I know is, it doesn't feel like SC anymore I think it's you, rather than the game. I "came back" to watching and playing in present-day LoTV having ignored it because I thought it was stupid, and the game is so much better than HoTS ever was. The games are much more complicated (more player interaction, more harass, more fights) and it feels like the quick acceleration into big economies and big armies make it much more difficult to play perfectly, meaning that you have to prioritise, which makes the personal style of the player come out more. It feels a bit like BW in that sense, which I like. | ||
|
Snakestyle11
191 Posts
More minerals and gas in main and natural enables more come back potential, and in todays meta its not like its good to turtle on 2 base forever, you get destrroyed by 6-8 gas economy. What it does is if you fall behind, give you a little bit more time to secure a third before it becomes unrecoverable. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
On July 05 2020 19:35 neptunusfisk wrote: I think it's you, rather than the game. I "came back" to watching and playing in present-day LoTV having ignored it because I thought it was stupid, and the game is so much better than HoTS ever was. The games are much more complicated (more player interaction, more harass, more fights) and it feels like the quick acceleration into big economies and big armies make it much more difficult to play perfectly, meaning that you have to prioritise, which makes the personal style of the player come out more. It feels a bit like BW in that sense, which I like. To be quite honest, I have tried many times to try and enjoy watching the game. I love Starcraft and I want to continue loving it. This only happened once LotV as released. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Big Brain Bouts
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
3D!Clan Event
WardiTV Spring Champion…
SC Evo Complete
Bellum Gens Elite
Hatchery Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
