|
On February 25 2026 04:51 DR wrote:
PvT just has become broken around midmasters. Terran got no harassoptions anymore. Toss can expand freely while also pressuring harcore with mass gateways...chargelots and prism...unplayable on this level. Just sucks that Terrans are still winning tourneys have been winning for decades.......
Terran has literally hundreds of harass options.
Sounds like you hit your personal ceiling there is all.
|
Oh, these devotees of everything old and “good,” who remember only the positives and ignore the downsides. Maybe I should remind you how random the game was with 6 starting workers? If you guessed the build wrong, at best you played from behind — and at worst you just lost outright. I don’t know about you, but to me randomness is not what a skill-based game needs. Not to mention other drawbacks, like the fact that every game started with two minutes of AFK time where all you did was build workers. Not exactly exciting for an esports title.
The arguments that the game has lost elements of strategy are partly true, but that’s not because of the number of starting workers — it’s because of terrible unit design. The most obvious example is the Oracle, which in PvZ can practically do everything at once. It harasses, scouts, and defends. That level of versatility is unacceptable for healthy gameplay. One poorly designed unit has nearly killed the strategic depth of an entire matchup. Add to that the bad design of Zerg — namely that they have only one ground unit that can shoot air, and overly versatile Queens — and you get a very sad situation. Terran has the same problem with diminished strategic depth, just for a different reason. Yes, they have many openings, but essentially they all boil down to Factory → Starport. And that’s because there simply aren’t other tech buildings. Terran doesn’t really need to think about which tech path to take, since those two buildings concentrate the entire technological potential of the race. Terran always builds a Factory and a Starport by default and, if necessary, just adds units from them. What strategy are we even talking about?
In the end, to make the game feel alive, we shouldn’t invent abstract, ephemeral concepts — we should simply work on it and develop it. Release bold patches, regularly shift the meta, add and remove units if necessary, give each race at least one additional building and move part of their tech potential there. No other measures will revive SC2 or change anything. Everyone brings up SC1 as an example, saying it hasn’t been updated for decades and everything is fine. But in reality, nothing is fine — the game was simply lucky to freeze in a more successful meta than SC2. That doesn’t make it alive. So only Blizzard can revive the game, but since SC2 is not economically viable as a project, that’s unlikely to happen.
|
On February 24 2026 04:46 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +If you revert this, the game becomes popular again especially for the casual crowd, if you don't do this the game will continue to all-time lows, with zero possibility of a come back. In what universe do some of you live where one singular change magically makes a game "popular again"? If they would reverse the worker-change tomorrow (which on its own is a terrible idea anyway), that would literally do nothing. It's not like a million players anxiously check the SC2 patchnotes every day to look how the current status of the game is. The only people who care about that stuff are the people that are already playing or atleast engaging with the game/scene anyway. I think the only time I can remember an ingame change actually made a game much more popular again was in Diablo 3, when they introduced the Loottable 2.0 that finally fixed Diablos horrifyingly bad Loot System, but if I recall, that change was either introduced with Reaper of Souls or came shortly afterwards. But beyond that: You cannot make a game popular again by changing a purely gameplay-related thing. You can make a game popular again with a lot of patches and exciting announcements, not with very specific changes. Legacy of the Void got released at the end of 2015. If someone disliked the worker change so much he quit the game shortly after, that guy hasn't cared about SC2 in 10 years now. How can anyone think someone like that would read the news "worker-change reverted" and go "oh wow, I will totally play SC2 ladder again now!". That guy is currently teaching his kid math ffs and hasn't time for SC2 anymore. And it is even more ludicrous to believe that there are kids out there who would totally pick up SC2 instead of Fortnite if they would just half the amount of starting workers. Like...seriously? SC2 is in decline because it is a fucking old game. And don't give me the shit about "uhhhhhh, look at BW! Look at WC3! Look at AoE 2!" They all do sooooo great!" Yes, they do...relatively speaking. But are we all pretending like each of these games didn't go through a fucking long drought before they returned? I know BW never went fully away in Korea, but no one else ever cared about it until SC:R got released. And even thought Reforged was a shitshow, it had massive impact on the revitalisation of WC3. And AoE 2 is effectively still an "active" game with new DLCs every year, so that is hardly a fair comparison. SC2 might just have the unfortunate problem that it is the pinnacle of RTS developement and not much else has happened since it release, so we might never get a SC2:R, because there isn't much to remaster about the game in the first place. I would say everything about it is pretty much still state of the art.
I gave you a link to look at the player numbers. People clearly did NOT like the game upon LoTV launch. It was more of a matter of " well this is what they did so let's stomach it until they fix it " which they never did, thus resulted in the players numbers we have today, which by the way are still performing on a much better level than the other games you mentioned.
The universe we live in, is one that says we're tired of the game not having stratgey and defenders advantage being too strong to make anything other than having 4 expos by the 4 minute mark or you simply can't play the game.
This is terrible design for a casual experience, and it's annoying for a high level experience because it creates a stale game, were if you are not copy/pasting pro builds you simply can't perform.
Which by the way this only scrapes the surface with things that are wrong about the game, it's only a small portion of things that need to change to get players truly back into it. From the interface bugs, terrible ladder system, and abysmal match making system that's been ruined by alt accounts, just to name a few.
|
https://nonapa.com/teams
Looking clearly at these statistics, if you take account the covid pandemic, then the season 42, 46,47 and 49 are representative of the loss of players.
So 2020 and 2021 (despite the work done during covid for keep sc2 healthy) have been the nail in the coffin of SC2.
|
On March 03 2026 10:47 ProTech wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2026 04:46 Balnazza wrote:If you revert this, the game becomes popular again especially for the casual crowd, if you don't do this the game will continue to all-time lows, with zero possibility of a come back. In what universe do some of you live where one singular change magically makes a game "popular again"? If they would reverse the worker-change tomorrow (which on its own is a terrible idea anyway), that would literally do nothing. It's not like a million players anxiously check the SC2 patchnotes every day to look how the current status of the game is. The only people who care about that stuff are the people that are already playing or atleast engaging with the game/scene anyway. I think the only time I can remember an ingame change actually made a game much more popular again was in Diablo 3, when they introduced the Loottable 2.0 that finally fixed Diablos horrifyingly bad Loot System, but if I recall, that change was either introduced with Reaper of Souls or came shortly afterwards. But beyond that: You cannot make a game popular again by changing a purely gameplay-related thing. You can make a game popular again with a lot of patches and exciting announcements, not with very specific changes. Legacy of the Void got released at the end of 2015. If someone disliked the worker change so much he quit the game shortly after, that guy hasn't cared about SC2 in 10 years now. How can anyone think someone like that would read the news "worker-change reverted" and go "oh wow, I will totally play SC2 ladder again now!". That guy is currently teaching his kid math ffs and hasn't time for SC2 anymore. And it is even more ludicrous to believe that there are kids out there who would totally pick up SC2 instead of Fortnite if they would just half the amount of starting workers. Like...seriously? SC2 is in decline because it is a fucking old game. And don't give me the shit about "uhhhhhh, look at BW! Look at WC3! Look at AoE 2!" They all do sooooo great!" Yes, they do...relatively speaking. But are we all pretending like each of these games didn't go through a fucking long drought before they returned? I know BW never went fully away in Korea, but no one else ever cared about it until SC:R got released. And even thought Reforged was a shitshow, it had massive impact on the revitalisation of WC3. And AoE 2 is effectively still an "active" game with new DLCs every year, so that is hardly a fair comparison. SC2 might just have the unfortunate problem that it is the pinnacle of RTS developement and not much else has happened since it release, so we might never get a SC2:R, because there isn't much to remaster about the game in the first place. I would say everything about it is pretty much still state of the art. I gave you a link to look at the player numbers. People clearly did NOT like the game upon LoTV launch. It was more of a matter of " well this is what they did so let's stomach it until they fix it " which they never did, thus resulted in the players numbers we have today, which by the way are still performing on a much better level than the other games you mentioned. The universe we live in, is one that says we're tired of the game not having stratgey and defenders advantage being too strong to make anything other than having 4 expos by the 4 minute mark or you simply can't play the game. This is terrible design for a casual experience, and it's annoying for a high level experience because it creates a stale game, were if you are not copy/pasting pro builds you simply can't perform. Which by the way this only scrapes the surface with things that are wrong about the game, it's only a small portion of things that need to change to get players truly back into it. From the interface bugs, terrible ladder system, and abysmal match making system that's been ruined by alt accounts, just to name a few.
You are missing the point. It's not about what is popular or what isn't. It is also not about what is working or fun and what isn't.
You are not getting "players truly back into it". You will not get 2019 or whatever back. Period.
|
On March 03 2026 22:55 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 10:47 ProTech wrote:On February 24 2026 04:46 Balnazza wrote:If you revert this, the game becomes popular again especially for the casual crowd, if you don't do this the game will continue to all-time lows, with zero possibility of a come back. In what universe do some of you live where one singular change magically makes a game "popular again"? If they would reverse the worker-change tomorrow (which on its own is a terrible idea anyway), that would literally do nothing. It's not like a million players anxiously check the SC2 patchnotes every day to look how the current status of the game is. The only people who care about that stuff are the people that are already playing or atleast engaging with the game/scene anyway. I think the only time I can remember an ingame change actually made a game much more popular again was in Diablo 3, when they introduced the Loottable 2.0 that finally fixed Diablos horrifyingly bad Loot System, but if I recall, that change was either introduced with Reaper of Souls or came shortly afterwards. But beyond that: You cannot make a game popular again by changing a purely gameplay-related thing. You can make a game popular again with a lot of patches and exciting announcements, not with very specific changes. Legacy of the Void got released at the end of 2015. If someone disliked the worker change so much he quit the game shortly after, that guy hasn't cared about SC2 in 10 years now. How can anyone think someone like that would read the news "worker-change reverted" and go "oh wow, I will totally play SC2 ladder again now!". That guy is currently teaching his kid math ffs and hasn't time for SC2 anymore. And it is even more ludicrous to believe that there are kids out there who would totally pick up SC2 instead of Fortnite if they would just half the amount of starting workers. Like...seriously? SC2 is in decline because it is a fucking old game. And don't give me the shit about "uhhhhhh, look at BW! Look at WC3! Look at AoE 2!" They all do sooooo great!" Yes, they do...relatively speaking. But are we all pretending like each of these games didn't go through a fucking long drought before they returned? I know BW never went fully away in Korea, but no one else ever cared about it until SC:R got released. And even thought Reforged was a shitshow, it had massive impact on the revitalisation of WC3. And AoE 2 is effectively still an "active" game with new DLCs every year, so that is hardly a fair comparison. SC2 might just have the unfortunate problem that it is the pinnacle of RTS developement and not much else has happened since it release, so we might never get a SC2:R, because there isn't much to remaster about the game in the first place. I would say everything about it is pretty much still state of the art. I gave you a link to look at the player numbers. People clearly did NOT like the game upon LoTV launch. It was more of a matter of " well this is what they did so let's stomach it until they fix it " which they never did, thus resulted in the players numbers we have today, which by the way are still performing on a much better level than the other games you mentioned. The universe we live in, is one that says we're tired of the game not having stratgey and defenders advantage being too strong to make anything other than having 4 expos by the 4 minute mark or you simply can't play the game. This is terrible design for a casual experience, and it's annoying for a high level experience because it creates a stale game, were if you are not copy/pasting pro builds you simply can't perform. Which by the way this only scrapes the surface with things that are wrong about the game, it's only a small portion of things that need to change to get players truly back into it. From the interface bugs, terrible ladder system, and abysmal match making system that's been ruined by alt accounts, just to name a few. You are missing the point. It's not about what is popular or what isn't. It is also not about what is working or fun and what isn't. You are not getting "players truly back into it". You will not get 2019 or whatever back. Period.
I'm fully aware that the game won't get 2019 numbers, the OP is asking a specific question which ties into what we are talking about.
If you want a popular RTS you'll need to change the core of the game from 1v1 to team-game based, since the environment of E-Sports and casual play in general, has moved heavily to team-game based games.
This is the part that SG missed, and pretty much every future RTS development team will miss as far as I can see. Trying to re-create Seoul South Korea Broodwar isn't going to work with the trajectory of how gaming in evolving in general so we'll need an innovative dev team to understand this, and capitalize on it.
|
So the Team-Game Player advocates for team-based gameplay...shocker?
1v1 for RTS being the Gold-Standard is fine. As other games have proven, if you can't have a full-team experience (4v4 and upwards), it is better to stick with 1v1. I'm not even sure if there is a popular Esports that is mainly 2v2?
I will always agree that Clanwars are more exciting than Solo Tournaments (so essentially, Proleague > GSL), but that's not something you fix with game-design.
|
On March 04 2026 01:45 Balnazza wrote:
So the Team-Game Player advocates for team-based gameplay...shocker?
1v1 for RTS being the Gold-Standard is fine. As other games have proven, if you can't have a full-team experience (4v4 and upwards), it is better to stick with 1v1. I'm not even sure if there is a popular Esports that is mainly 2v2?
I will always agree that Clanwars are more exciting than Solo Tournaments (so essentially, Proleague > GSL), but that's not something you fix with game-design.
I disagree.
Tournaments are always more engaging than leagues. More to lose. Now if there were a team tournament than I agree. Team > Solo
1v1 has the highest "pressure" and "ladder anxiety levels" therefore I think if you like to or need to attract a lot of (casual) players, team-based games are the way to go.
To topic:
Balance at the top seems fine: Hero is winning stuff, Maru/ Clem are winning stuff, Serral is winning stuff.
For the level just below it seems T>P>Z just ever so slightly and mainly cause late game Terran is a bit busted (Ghost/ Lib and Mules)
|
On March 06 2026 01:13 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2026 01:45 Balnazza wrote:
So the Team-Game Player advocates for team-based gameplay...shocker?
1v1 for RTS being the Gold-Standard is fine. As other games have proven, if you can't have a full-team experience (4v4 and upwards), it is better to stick with 1v1. I'm not even sure if there is a popular Esports that is mainly 2v2?
I will always agree that Clanwars are more exciting than Solo Tournaments (so essentially, Proleague > GSL), but that's not something you fix with game-design. I disagree. Tournaments are always more engaging than leagues. More to lose. Now if there were a team tournament than I agree. Team > Solo 1v1 has the highest "pressure" and "ladder anxiety levels" therefore I think if you like to or need to attract a lot of (casual) players, team-based games are the way to go. To topic: Balance at the top seems fine: Hero is winning stuff, Maru/ Clem are winning stuff, Serral is winning stuff. For the level just below it seems T>P>Z just ever so slightly and mainly cause late game Terran is a bit busted (Ghost/ Lib and Mules)
Team-games are naturally more appealing, because you have less anxiety, can play better with friends, the Esports generates more hype and what not. But that doesn't mean it is the solution for RTS.
|
On March 06 2026 04:54 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2026 01:13 Harris1st wrote:On March 04 2026 01:45 Balnazza wrote:
So the Team-Game Player advocates for team-based gameplay...shocker?
1v1 for RTS being the Gold-Standard is fine. As other games have proven, if you can't have a full-team experience (4v4 and upwards), it is better to stick with 1v1. I'm not even sure if there is a popular Esports that is mainly 2v2?
I will always agree that Clanwars are more exciting than Solo Tournaments (so essentially, Proleague > GSL), but that's not something you fix with game-design. I disagree. Tournaments are always more engaging than leagues. More to lose. Now if there were a team tournament than I agree. Team > Solo 1v1 has the highest "pressure" and "ladder anxiety levels" therefore I think if you like to or need to attract a lot of (casual) players, team-based games are the way to go. To topic: Balance at the top seems fine: Hero is winning stuff, Maru/ Clem are winning stuff, Serral is winning stuff. For the level just below it seems T>P>Z just ever so slightly and mainly cause late game Terran is a bit busted (Ghost/ Lib and Mules) Team-games are naturally more appealing, because you have less anxiety, can play better with friends, the Esports generates more hype and what not. But that doesn't mean it is the solution for RTS.
This is not mutually exclusive. Take Tennis for example: The pinnacle is obviously 1v1. Mano e mano!
Casual fun is playing 2v2 though. Ever been to a tennis court facility on a sunny sunday?
|
Less SC2 viewers. Huh, weird. It's like people don't wanna see Protoss all the time in games...shout out to the balance council.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
On March 07 2026 13:34 Phattyasmo wrote:
Less SC2 viewers. Huh, weird. It's like people don't wanna see Protoss all the time in games...shout out to the balance council.
Yea can't believe they cancelled EWC just when the game has became more balanced than it has ever been! Do saudis not like endless PvPs or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
