EPTStarCraft 2: What's The Problem - Page 32
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12275 Posts
On September 27 2013 08:08 Destructicon wrote: While you may be correct in that LoL might be closer to chess, since strategy has a greater emphasis then mechanics, I say that LoL is poorer for it. Chess has a greater emphasis placed on strategy and tactics due to its resource, turns, while LoL uses the same resource as BW or SC2, time, but chooses to use it in a way that marginalizes mechanics more then BW or SC2, and this, in my opinion impacts LoL negatively. If there are less things to do in a certain time frame, that could impact the outcome of the game, then it stands to reason there are less correct things to do, and thus there are less ways to spend time on, and, ultimately, this leads to there being less ways to distinguish between great players and truly brilliant ones. You say LoL is better because it has more emphasis on strategy, I say nay, because time and strategy interlocked, RTS is the management of time in a strategical and tactical context, you can't have one without the other, and thus LoL is poorer for it, because there are less ways for good players to distinguish between each other, given that there are less things to juggle in a certain time frame. And while this may come as a contradiction, it doesn't mean that one game can be more enjoyable then another, or that one game is strictly better, fun is a subjective matter, some people may not want to have to juggle several tasks at once, they prefer a more slow paced game. However, LoL is akin more to an action game, which it actually is, a 5 man action team game, and not a real RTS, because the heart and soul of a true RTS, that which makes it shine brightest, was, is and always will be, the management of time and material resources, and a strategical and tactical context. MOBA has a huge strategy side to it as well. read this as an example: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=399107 this isn't even going into depth of laning phrase which is probably what you refer as less way for a better player to shine. well you are wrong. the game is deep right from the pick/ban phrase. Each lane has their own big thing to do. Some players for example, prefer to put pressure onto the opponent while the other might prefer to get the creep instead. Ganking that depends on your lane pick's coordination. when to gank and when to counter gank and when to steal jungle etc. A good player will provide more help to the team by doing the right thing and making less mistake, even right at the beginning of the game. Dota is a good example where snowballing is punished even more. It isn't because they play faster, it is because they do the better things than opponent, whether it is cs, denying, landing lane combo, positioning etc. You talk as if moba doesn't have resource management and time management. The pick and ban alone determines the game length. Dota has a team pick that emphasis on winning the game by pushing asap, and use the gold difference to make a semi carry to carry the mid game to win there. Some heroes are also better at cs and denying due to their attack animation while some are better at landing combos it also has a team pick that emphasis on getting the carry rich to win the game there. League has it as well. They call it objectives. Do you go for another tower after you take down one player? Or do you go for the dragon instead? Do you sac one tower for their tower etc it's all part of efficiency of timing and movement combined with the different characteristic of champions (which again starts at the pick ban phrase). not to mention item picks, the starting items, the counter items to deal with certain heroes, the jukes and combos, items to get when you are behind, skill leveling order etc. Compare this to TvZ bio mine for example, MOBA seems to have a lot more depth. this is partly due to a pre set opening build for RTS game is a optimized one. If you scouted a 2 gas opening from a zerg, you would not expect a hatch first opening due to build optimisation just makes it counter intuitive. The standard metagame build is basically a very well designed build that can provide a good degree of defensive capability and a plan to follow. it even has a standard timing for when to deny creep and put pressure. | ||
|
HuHEN
United Kingdom514 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On September 28 2013 04:17 HuHEN wrote: I don't see anything besides BW elitism here. I enjoy sc2, I enjoy watching it and I enjoy playing it. This negativity is stifling, when I watch sc2, I see better coverage and better games than ever before. When I play sc2, I am constantly amazed by how much it has evolved, the sheer number of options available to me is exciting, the games are fun and action packed, and I can say 99 percent of the time if I lose I was outplayed, or made some key mistake. I understand people loving BW, but if you only ever compare the two, its just silly, sc2 is a different game and its one that many people really like, if you don't then too bad, but I don't see blizzard fundamentally changing it when its still one of the most successful e-sports in the world. Problem being that the evolution of SC2 are artificial, or should I say crafted by patches. Updates of the game by Blizzard decides the current metagame. Hellbats are efficient? Better use them! And then after they get nerfed by Blizzard, it goes to Widow Mine. | ||
|
Dingodile
4132 Posts
On September 28 2013 04:17 HuHEN wrote: I don't see anything besides BW elitism here. I enjoy sc2, I enjoy watching it and I enjoy playing it. This negativity is stifling, when I watch sc2, I see better coverage and better games than ever before. When I play sc2, I am constantly amazed by how much it has evolved, the sheer number of options available to me is exciting, the games are fun and action packed, and I can say 99 percent of the time if I lose I was outplayed, or made some key mistake. I understand people loving BW, but if you only ever compare the two, its just silly, sc2 is a different game and its one that many people really like, if you don't then too bad, but I don't see blizzard fundamentally changing it when its still one of the most successful e-sports in the world. I dont see it thereforce i dont enjoy playing/watching sc2. I feel like nothing has improved since queen buff. Hots units were cool for few weeks and now I wish they should go away except msc. Games dont look difficult and sc2 priorities isnt pleasure-love to watch. macro is pretty boring to watch (micro is more desirable than macro). gamespeed (hp vs dmg) is the another problem, nobody likes if 200 vs 200 takes a 2sec fight. | ||
|
maxtoss
United States1 Post
On September 28 2013 04:59 Dingodile wrote: I dont see it thereforce i dont enjoy playing/watching sc2. I feel like nothing has improved since queen buff. Hots units were cool for few weeks and now I wish they should go away except msc. Games dont look difficult and sc2 priorities isnt pleasure-love to watch. macro is pretty boring to watch (micro is more desirable than macro). gamespeed (hp vs dmg) is the another problem, nobody likes if 200 vs 200 takes a 2sec fight. What are the SC2 haters doing here then? If you like BW so much go watch it, don't watch SC2. I don't go to BW forums and complain about graphics, games being too slow and how I fell asleep watching Flash games. The GSL games last night were great and nothing like you mention, so please stop with the BS. | ||
|
Dingodile
4132 Posts
On September 28 2013 05:23 maxtoss wrote: What are the SC2 haters doing here then? If you like BW so much go watch it, don't watch SC2. I don't go to BW forums and complain about graphics, games being too slow and how I fell asleep watching Flash games. The GSL games last night were great and nothing like you mention, so please stop with the BS. I didnt follow sc:bw but wc3. We are here to talk the sc2 problems, nothing else. Seriously, why does 40 vs 40 takes more time to fight than 200/200? Every fight is better than 200/200. I feel like that everyone (I mean progamer) doesnt like to fight at max supply because of the big afraid to lose (especially PvP). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 28 2013 04:49 Xiphos wrote: Problem being that the evolution of SC2 are artificial, or should I say crafted by patches. Updates of the game by Blizzard decides the current metagame. Hellbats are efficient? Better use them! And then after they get nerfed by Blizzard, it goes to Widow Mine. That's not a problem. It means that blizzard has a job to do: making various options of a race similarily strong. Like HotS PvZ has. Like TvT has. Like WoL TvZ had. It's not a "design problem" per se. It's first and foremost a balance problem. Sure, if Infestors are a universal option that is very strong in all situations (design problem), this can easily cause balance problems (as can be seen in WoL TvZ). But solutions to such problems can be manifold and don't need to include radical design changes, but a simply rebalancing and increase of options against infestor play can do (and did) the trick. It always comes down to the game interaction as a whole, not whether "warp gate is badly designed" or "the pathing doesn't allow units to shine". Those are just parts of the game and "clumped pathing in itself" can be an amazing feature (talking about TvZ micro for example). It's about balancing the game around those core features in ways so that their upsides can shine and their downsides don't come through as often. People have to realize that "options are not viable" because they are underpowered (in certain situations). And not because something is badly designed. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On September 28 2013 05:23 maxtoss wrote: What are the SC2 haters doing here then? If you like BW so much go watch it, don't watch SC2. I don't go to BW forums and complain about graphics, games being too slow and how I fell asleep watching Flash games. The GSL games last night were great and nothing like you mention, so please stop with the BS. Wow ... yet another dumb hater post. Since SC2 seems to be flawless for you you MUST HAVE figured out what I cant ... the "Stalker vs Marine problem". Please tell me why it isnt a problem that you can have a Marine clump with the same total hit points compared to a Stalker clump AND three times the dps ... for the same cost. In BW that wasnt a problem because the unit density was capped at a certain point, but in SC2 the unit density is maximized automatically without micro. Please tell me the logic behind it. | ||
|
ETisME
12275 Posts
On September 28 2013 17:02 Rabiator wrote: Wow ... yet another dumb hater post. Since SC2 seems to be flawless for you you MUST HAVE figured out what I cant ... the "Stalker vs Marine problem". Please tell me why it isnt a problem that you can have a Marine clump with the same total hit points compared to a Stalker clump AND three times the dps ... for the same cost. In BW that wasnt a problem because the unit density was capped at a certain point, but in SC2 the unit density is maximized automatically without micro. Please tell me the logic behind it. it isn't a problem because protoss has given specific counters to deal with clumped high density units and stalkers are not in anyway similar to marine ball in its role. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 28 2013 17:02 Rabiator wrote: Wow ... yet another dumb hater post. Since SC2 seems to be flawless for you you MUST HAVE figured out what I cant ... the "Stalker vs Marine problem". Please tell me why it isnt a problem that you can have a Marine clump with the same total hit points compared to a Stalker clump AND three times the dps ... for the same cost. In BW that wasnt a problem because the unit density was capped at a certain point, but in SC2 the unit density is maximized automatically without micro. Please tell me the logic behind it. 30-40 MM (the red line roughly outlines those; they are the ones that are shooting in the picture): ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nXOWQo1.jpg) Comparison from current TvZ: 15-20 of bio units are actually combating, the rest is holding a position ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jicyuLV.jpg) All together, the whole video looks extremely similar to todays TvZ: a line of Marine+support being collected somewhere, and then moving as one giant deathball from base to base. Covering your Stalker vs Marine stuff in specific: 3marines have roughly similar hitpoints to a stalker but roughly 3-4times the dps. That's why a ball of stalkers/marines has those values. OK, so far I haven't told you anything new I hope. Thing is, same would have happened in Broodwar (as can be seen in the video above); after all, both, marines and dragoons encounter the same pathing/control barriers and therefore, yes, you couldn't pack marines as tightly as SC2 marines, nor could you pack dragoons as tightly as SC2 Stalkers. The real difference is that Dragoon vs Marine never got out of the opening stage (in which the stalker/dragoon is quite strong vs marines due to speed/range relations + shields vs no heal) and therefore we can't see any examples of it apart from unit tests (in which it still turns out like in SC2). Simply because bio was not viable. Going one step further and asking why bio was only viable in TvZ and not in TvP and TvT. Well, you can always nail it down to different things - eg. in the opening stages you could be in trouble against zealots and dragoons and this is of course a problem; yet same is true in SC2 and we see that this problem alone doesn't make bio unviable -, but fact is that Protoss had terrible, terrible splash damage (in the form of reavers, archons and storms) and Terran had terrible, terrible splash damage (in the form of tanks, spidermines and irradiate). And it seems like that against those races, tightly packed bio play wasn't viable, as a single storm could kill 20units in the picture above and splitting and running with bigger balls wasn't as much of an option, as you could only select 12units and units bumping into each other made it very unreliable to have the required split-second micro with bigger armies. Meanwhile Zerg did not have as strong splash options (strong, but not the same as a tankline or reavers with their 8range and 125splash scarabs), only the lurker (which you can kind of avoid sometimes, due to its range/setup) and can be countered very well by science vessels or tanks and the defiler, which couldn't even kill on its own and is again vulnerable to the science vessel. And after all, those two units were some of the most integral parts of ZvT, because of the required splash against bio. | ||
|
MidnightZL
Sweden203 Posts
| ||
|
Zadien
Canada77 Posts
On September 27 2013 00:30 Plansix wrote: What are you talking about "Team Liquid bans sponsors and has them move onto other e-sports."? Are you just making stuff up? Comments: Nq emsey-queered 1 month ago User has been banned for this post. KhaliWear KhaliWear 1 month ago I know, TL admins are lovely creatures. | ||
|
MostGroce
United States104 Posts
I've seen most of the sc2 tournament productions and compared to the league productions they aren't close regarding entertainment. Nobody wants to see an awkward Korean on stage with a translator and a host asking questions as they try and figure out an awkward response. Sc2 got way too into cringe humor. It was extremely embarrassing to watch at times. They also became wayyyyy too politically correct. The reason pros/ casters get popular is their uncensored personality. The league commentators cuss sometimes. Doublelift is a huge troll in front of hundreds of thousands of people. People love that stuff. Meanwhile sc casters thank sponsors every 3rd sentence and just suck every players dick the whole game regardless of who is playing. Nobody wants to see that. Day9 was so popular because he acted like himself on stage unlike every other caster who just puts on a fake face and personality to please sponsors or something. Tasteless also brought his personality to casting. I believe sponsors care more about how many viewers you are bringing in as opposed to whether or not a caster is always politically correct. The initial growth of sc2 was due to a new game with a select few great personalities around it. Day9/ Destiny/ White-ra/ Idra/ SOTG Incontrol (not politically correct Incontrol). Incontrol was the biggest advocate of making the scene into some babytown everyone love everyone kind of thing. I don't know how much of that was him or he was doing that to support EG or what. Nobody goes and looks for politically correct entertainment. It wasn't their job to make the world a better place. People watch to be entertained. That is it. Riot gets that. All the sc2 tournament productions do deserve the benefit of the doubt. They didn't have a whole lot to go by and they didn't have the money Riot does. Blizzard could have worked with pro's/casters a lot more similarly to how riot does. I know I went off topic, but I just don't believe sc2 with the game the way it is couldn't have really lasted much longer than it did. Once the game is figured out it is pretty much the same game to watch over and over again. While even very similar games have differences and that may appeal to the ones playing the game it isn't enough to entertain casual viewers for very long. There are only so many cheeses to keep people entertained. People want to see new strats/ new meta/ new pros/ new casters/ new shit talk/ rivalries. Sc2 was just more of the same over and over again. I really did enjoy it for a while but I believe most people saw this coming. I honestly hope they change like 80 percent of the game in LOTV. There is still hope! | ||
|
ploguidice
United States225 Posts
What scares me is that WCS seems to be destroying the infrastructure that allowed the WoL scene to exist. By injecting huge amounts of money into the scene Blizzard has destroyed all the competition, but they're clearly losing money on WCS and that means this isn't a sustainable model. With the WCS system crowding up the scene it looks like the eSports players not partnered with Blizzard have decided they don't want any part of Starcraft 2 OGN is backing off, MLG has retired Starcraft 2, the NASL was on the verge of becoming a World of Tanks League before Blizzard gave them WCS. When Blizzard inevitably decides that injecting huge amounts of money into the scene is no longer worth it I highly doubt that these players would return to Starcraft, the scene implodes within six months,and best case scenario we'd be looking at Dreamhack, the GSL, and the ESL as the only premiere tournaments that can sustain themselves without Blizzard. | ||
|
XaCez
Sweden6991 Posts
On September 29 2013 00:45 ploguidice wrote: When Blizzard inevitably decides that injecting huge amounts of money into the scene is no longer worth it I highly doubt that these players would return to Starcraft, the scene implodes within six months,and best case scenario we'd be looking at Dreamhack, the GSL, and the ESL as the only premiere tournaments that can sustain themselves without Blizzard. I'm pretty confident that both DreamHack and GOM will put SC2 as 'second priority' behind Dota 2 in 2014. | ||
|
ETisME
12275 Posts
On September 29 2013 00:45 ploguidice wrote: I never got the whole idea that e-sports some how need cussing and political incorrectness to survive. Watch literally any sports cast, you'll get a mostly PG broadcast with some occasional PG-13 thrown in. That's called professionalism, one of the biggest turns offs for my girlfriend is when a caster says "X really RAPED Y in that engagement." That kind of thing actually alienates a big portion of your audience, and that's why you'd never hear it in a sports cast. What scares me is that WCS seems to be destroying the infrastructure that allowed the WoL scene to exist. By injecting huge amounts of money into the scene Blizzard has destroyed all the competition, but they're clearly losing money on WCS and that means this isn't a sustainable model. With the WCS system crowding up the scene it looks like the eSports players not partnered with Blizzard have decided they don't want any part of Starcraft 2 OGN is backing off, MLG has retired Starcraft 2, the NASL was on the verge of becoming a World of Tanks League before Blizzard gave them WCS. When Blizzard inevitably decides that injecting huge amounts of money into the scene is no longer worth it I highly doubt that these players would return to Starcraft, the scene implodes within six months,and best case scenario we'd be looking at Dreamhack, the GSL, and the ESL as the only premiere tournaments that can sustain themselves without Blizzard. I do also agree on the WCS seems to be killing the scene more than it is doing good. there is less streamers, streaming less overall etc. streamers used to be one big part of the community who doesn't have to go pro to be relevant onto the scene. Destiny is one big example. Only Dragon is left here for entertaining streams (for trolling and fun) There are some upsets and story lines but certainly didn't get as big of a factor as we expected. We used to blame tournament oversaturation for low viewership and to some extend, yes there were too many tournaments, but once WCS is established, there is only a few MAJOR tournaments left, what happened to other smaller daily cups for example. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=375742 this blog provided a very simple economic explanation on why we shouldn't limit the supply of tournament. instead we should increase the demand. I expected that demand increase to come with hots, sadly it didn't grow anything but only sustaining the scene. | ||
| ||
