|
Changing from 12 to 8 is just asking for StarCraft to die faster.
Back when it was changed from 6 to 12, StarCraft II was still in its prime. Even with such a huge adjustment, people were willing to play. At least back then the game was at its peak. Everyone, including me, had to relearn everything from scratch. But since everyone had to, it was like no one was at a disadvantage.
Now, changing from 12 to 8 means everyone has to relearn everything again. But here’s the problem: the game is no longer in its prime. It’s in its twilight years — already half in the grave. A change like this will cause a significant portion of players (maybe 40%?) to simply not want to invest that much effort into relearning the game. So they’ll just say goodbye and quit.
Honestly, instead of doing this, why not just add one new unit per race? Unlike messing with macro mechanics — which increases the learning curve and causes frustration — a new unit would naturally generate countless new playstyles and actually make the game more fun. Veteran players would be eager to explore these high-interest innovations, and new players would also be intrigued. Unit compositions and fighting styles would become more varied. The game’s activity and online player count would likely increase in a fun and exciting way.
|
I heavily disagree with your take.
When LotV released in late 2015 SC2 was nowhere near it's peak anymore, but we saw some resurgence of players with the F2P switch in 2017 and even after that. so the player base proved to stay somewhat stable over the years despite waning support from Blizzard for both the game and the esports eco system.
The way I see it this means two things:
1. For new(er) players that never experienced the old economy and game pace this is the first time they have to "re-learn" the game, which btw I find to be exaggerated and atrocious framing since the only things that will change are build orders scouting and timings, which are relatively small adjustments compared to all the knowledge and skills that will transfer over.
2. For veterans that have been around during the old economy era and are still playing, most of them will adapt again over time, since SC2 seems to be a game they enjoy regardless. While I can understand this frustration in people that feel they are getting robbed of their hard-earned aquired skills (which they are really not), for other people getting the opportunity to figure out, discover and learn things once again is a major part of the fun.
Just speaking for myself here I can tell you that I've always hated the 12 worker change, because it essentially killed the early game, made build orders way less impactful and took a lot of the strategy out of the game once it got figured out due to the accelerated economy. I've played less and less SC2 over the years, not solely because of the change, but it definitely contributed to me losing interest, yet I never quit and still played occasionally even despite all the balance changes and unit reworks over the years, because at the end of the day I still love SC2.
I think your proclaimed 40% exodus is bullshit and you also don't factor in the possibility of returning players that are excited about the game slowing down again.
Regarding the addition of units I'd have a much bigger problem with that since this directly impacts and changes unit interactions, match-up dynamics and is a far more delicate process to balance than a economy change as it simply introduces way more variables to keep in mind. Also with new units as we have seen multiple times in the past there's a strong possibility of role overlap, which might be fine to a certain extent, but as we already have gotten a couple of those over the course of the game's life cycle there's no more gaps to fill really, which then only increases risk of making the game worse or even breaking it vs. very little to no benefit.
Of course you can also make the same argument of not wanting to "re-learn the game" (just that it's unit interactions and build orders vs. timings and build orders this time) here, which then would also threaten to alienate a "significant portion of players" just the same.
While I won't comment on the other PTR changes, the economy change itself is a GOOD thing IMHO, it makes the game emphasize strategy more again and gives back players the ability for more distinguished play styles.
|
Yeah, if this goes through I'm done with sc2. Pro gamers and full time streamers may have time to relearn every build order. I do not
|
On May 29 2026 18:02 Charoisaur wrote:
Yeah, if this goes through I'm done with sc2. Pro gamers and full time streamers may have time to relearn every build order. I do not
First, why didn't you quit with the 12-worker change? Second, how many build orders do you utilize during your ladder play that makes it an insurmountable task to re-learn them? I mean sure, some people will stop playing, others that stopped playing due to other changes might pick it up again, that's just how things go, I guess, can't please everybody.
If I had the option to still play Wings of Liberty with some balance adjustments, I'd be playing that instead, but here we are, aren't we?
|
On May 29 2026 18:18 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 18:02 Charoisaur wrote:
Yeah, if this goes through I'm done with sc2. Pro gamers and full time streamers may have time to relearn every build order. I do not First, why didn't you quit with the 12-worker change?
Because back then I was a student with all the time in the world, today I'm an adult with responsibilities that can't play any more than 5 hours per week
|
On the other hand I think a lot of people already quit the game because it got "stale". This may bring some of those people back.
|
Northern Ireland26903 Posts
I think the 12 worker change partly did what it was meant to in speeding up the game and getting to the phases people enjoyed, but it ended up being at the expense of strategic diversity
I think an 8 worker start may straddle those two lines, but we’ll have to see how it works out
I’m very time limited myself, but I’m interested in trying out the game with such a fundamental shakeup that to a degree resets the playing field
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
