EPTWhat I'm trying to say is that because BW was so hard, it was very limited to who could actually play the game, but because SC2 is easier many more people can play and that is a big reason why it has shown popularity in the west like it has
As HOTS will be coming out very soon I find it important to address an issue that has been talked about relentlessly amongst the TL forums. Countless threads compare this game to its beautifully established predecessor and find absolutely every negative comparison they can find. Ease of gameplay and just being able to '1A' to victory, rather than selecting 12 units at a time to attack, has sparked a universal debate that will most likely go on for a long time still.
I, for one, am on the side that Starcraft 2 is a much, MUCH easier game than BW after playing both, strategically (most likely due to the time it had to develop) but more importantly, mechanically. Is this bad? This is the question I am asking, and I for one think that it is the most important aspect of the game.
THE CONS
What are the cons of being easy to play? For the sake of professionals, it is almost heartwrenching. Lets face it, the game has a much higher luck rewarding system than BW, and we have seen many top players fall to lesser ones based on just that. The skill ceiling is not as high (yet, in WoL) which puts starcraft in a bad light when being regarded as a sport. If you don't have to work hard to reach the top, then starcraft as a sport looks a bit... 'iffy'.
So being an easy game (relatively) does have its down sides as i listed above (as well as the normal ladder game where someone obviously below your skill level beats you...) but through HOTS and the newer expansions, there will be many more units, as well as more technical units like the lurker and defiler clones for zerg (forgot their names) and the game will inevitably get harder. But the question is, do we really want this? Of course the majority would say yes, but read on...
THE PROS
The biggest pro of all is that you are reading this right now. Yes you! Because the chances are that the person who I am most likely talking to is not a hardcore BW fan that makes up about 5% of the SC2 population, but the other 95% that was drawn into the game, and most importantly, stayed. Why has SC2 overtaken BW by absolute miles and changed the landscape of gaming in the west dramatically (I am excluding SK here)
It is because the relative simplicity of the game has allowed others to join in on the fun. In BW it was a harder game yes, but that forced it to be a game for the minority, not the masses. Not many people played it like they do now, and I believe it is because of the simplicity of the game. TL has grown beyond belief, to the point that threads just get to big to read after a day, and it is because the average person can be hooked on the game and enjoy playing it without having to select workers manually every single god damn time!
The ease of the game has brought the masses, and I think that making it harder will benefit the pros, but decrease the overall player base. What do you think?
TL DR
The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
See this guy gets what i'm on about! thank you
+ Show Spoiler +
On January 24 2012 11:35 AxelTVx wrote:
if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.
But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.
if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.
But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.
Poll: Should the game continue to get harder?
Yes the game should continue to become harder (1029)
74%
It should stay at around the same level (251)
18%
ofc it should get harder, you are dumb (116)
8%
1396 total votes
It should stay at around the same level (251)
ofc it should get harder, you are dumb (116)
1396 total votes
Your vote: Should the game continue to get harder?
(Vote): Yes the game should continue to become harder
(Vote): It should stay at around the same level
(Vote): ofc it should get harder, you are dumb
You know its a good post when you cant even read the whole thing without taking a drink break
+ Show Spoiler +
On January 25 2012 19:39 Big J wrote:
Honestly... I don't like that comparison. Look at ballsports: Everyone plays with the same rules (no "race" principle), everyone plays on the same pitch (no "map" principle), everyone plays with a ball.
Yet I would argue that at least in some ballgames the skilldifference between players/teams does matter at least the same as in in SC2 or BW or frisbee games.
Based on those indicators:
-) market value differences of players/teams
-) winrates (e.g: FC Barcelona had a 79% winrate in 2010/11 in spain - no KO-sytem, which would "artificially" raise the winrate of a team to 100% if they became champion!)
But I get what Day9 tried to argue with it, but I also remember the part in which he said: "right now, it feels like this, but this may change with the metagame" and the other part where he said "in BW this was because the units did not do what you wanted them to do, unless you were babysitting them".
Also because I don't want to be always the guy who just says: "you are looking at the wrong things when you try to find ways to improve SC2", I'd like to give my opinion on what (in my eyes) could be done to further improve SC2 without breaking with fundamental game mechanics, or changing the game to broodwar 2.0:
a) slow down macro:
-) larva injects should go down by 25-50% in efficientness
-) mules (or Terran mineral units) should be nerfed (not removed: mule/scan duality is awesome)
-) If the Nexus gets more powerful in HotS, they should also increase it's cost
-) higher warpgate cooldowns and production cooldowns on Terran/Protoss unit production
-) more "stepping stones" for low-mid tier units (possibly for small costs): like roach, roach+burrow, roach+speed, roach+burrow movement, or marine, marine+shield, marine+stim, marine+medivac; all without buffing the "endversion" of those units:
e.g: mutalisk glaive worm upgrade, sentry guardian shield upgrade, T2 Adrenalin Glands for zerglings (combined with less larva), hellion battleform upgrade
b) Unit buffs/nerfs
-) (very) small speednerfs and firespeed nerfs on most units
-) (very) small buffs/upgrades for units that are hard to mass
c) strengthen micro abilities:
-) more micro abilities like blink and burrow or lift, instead of raw firepower/health/speed/range balancing.
-) burrow to T1, if it doesn't break the balance too much; better burrow regeneration for roaches, maybe a similar hydralisk upgrade/ability
-) better methods to targetfire. (Maybe something like "shift+a"-attack on a unit forces all your units to fire at the next unit of that type, with all its consequences: overkill, units running towards the enemy line to attack the next such target - but on the other end the reward for being able to make your marauders shoot only stalkers and your marines shoot only zealots while kiting.)
d) other stuff:
-) smaller detection radius - single dts/banshees and infestors and few roaches are just not worth the risk right now
-) more timing interactions like zealots+1 vs zergling+0, marines with stim vs banelings without speed etc. - a little bit of additional brain tools to fool around with
-) maybe more "morphs" for zerg, so that small amounts of units have more value
-) better scouting options - if I know better what my opponent is doing, I can be more sure of wether I want to engage/harass or not.
What should that stuff do?
a): Mostly to take money out of the game and to give players more time to work with the units they have (more poking and multitasking). Also to make the forming of huge armies a little harder overall. If only 16zerglings pop out at once instead of 20, I can poke more. If only 8drones pop out at once, the time until he can afford units again is longer. If a nexus costs more, expansions are later and Protoss has to work with less money. (same for mules)
Stepping stones take out more money as well and force more complex builds, while not influencing the general unit balancing too much.
I also think that taking out money takes out reactivness, therefore rewards the player that actively finds ways to trade efficiently.
b) slower units with less firepower means longer combats means more time to reposition. But I'm talking VERY small changes (like 1%).
Hard to mass units (Ultralisk, Broodlord, Carrier/BC/Tempest, Mothership, Raven) are a little too limited by passive costs. 20min broodlords if and only if my opponent allows me to play in this way are just too late to really base a concrete gameplan around. But if half of the broodlords at 16min would already be a useful tool, people could experiment with smaller broodlord attacks of less bases. (or just implement an extra raven etc.)
c) I think that speaks for itself. Due to the AI of SC2 being good, the basic stuff doesn't need so much babysitting anymore. Instead there should be more rewarding "babysitting" options... But without just being an extra APM-consuming tool, like "just make hardened shields an activated ability, so you have to spam it". I'm thinking stuff like blink (not just pure combat strenghtening and even in combat somewhat optional: you don't want to blink micro too hard, if you need your blink to chase opponents, and you don't want to blink everything into marauders...). Maybe some "flash out" ability to protect protoss casters, but with the downside of them not being useable for the next X seconds. Maybe some form of viking transformation "abuse" to avoid shots. Maybe an egg upgrade, that makes zerg units hide in highly armored eggs and block movement, when on creep.
d) explanations given
Final note: Of course everything has to be balanced out. But with HotS having a beta and a volatile phase anyways, there would be room for such changes without influencing WoL or professional play.
Honestly... I don't like that comparison. Look at ballsports: Everyone plays with the same rules (no "race" principle), everyone plays on the same pitch (no "map" principle), everyone plays with a ball.
Yet I would argue that at least in some ballgames the skilldifference between players/teams does matter at least the same as in in SC2 or BW or frisbee games.
Based on those indicators:
-) market value differences of players/teams
-) winrates (e.g: FC Barcelona had a 79% winrate in 2010/11 in spain - no KO-sytem, which would "artificially" raise the winrate of a team to 100% if they became champion!)
But I get what Day9 tried to argue with it, but I also remember the part in which he said: "right now, it feels like this, but this may change with the metagame" and the other part where he said "in BW this was because the units did not do what you wanted them to do, unless you were babysitting them".
Also because I don't want to be always the guy who just says: "you are looking at the wrong things when you try to find ways to improve SC2", I'd like to give my opinion on what (in my eyes) could be done to further improve SC2 without breaking with fundamental game mechanics, or changing the game to broodwar 2.0:
a) slow down macro:
-) larva injects should go down by 25-50% in efficientness
-) mules (or Terran mineral units) should be nerfed (not removed: mule/scan duality is awesome)
-) If the Nexus gets more powerful in HotS, they should also increase it's cost
-) higher warpgate cooldowns and production cooldowns on Terran/Protoss unit production
-) more "stepping stones" for low-mid tier units (possibly for small costs): like roach, roach+burrow, roach+speed, roach+burrow movement, or marine, marine+shield, marine+stim, marine+medivac; all without buffing the "endversion" of those units:
e.g: mutalisk glaive worm upgrade, sentry guardian shield upgrade, T2 Adrenalin Glands for zerglings (combined with less larva), hellion battleform upgrade
b) Unit buffs/nerfs
-) (very) small speednerfs and firespeed nerfs on most units
-) (very) small buffs/upgrades for units that are hard to mass
c) strengthen micro abilities:
-) more micro abilities like blink and burrow or lift, instead of raw firepower/health/speed/range balancing.
-) burrow to T1, if it doesn't break the balance too much; better burrow regeneration for roaches, maybe a similar hydralisk upgrade/ability
-) better methods to targetfire. (Maybe something like "shift+a"-attack on a unit forces all your units to fire at the next unit of that type, with all its consequences: overkill, units running towards the enemy line to attack the next such target - but on the other end the reward for being able to make your marauders shoot only stalkers and your marines shoot only zealots while kiting.)
d) other stuff:
-) smaller detection radius - single dts/banshees and infestors and few roaches are just not worth the risk right now
-) more timing interactions like zealots+1 vs zergling+0, marines with stim vs banelings without speed etc. - a little bit of additional brain tools to fool around with
-) maybe more "morphs" for zerg, so that small amounts of units have more value
-) better scouting options - if I know better what my opponent is doing, I can be more sure of wether I want to engage/harass or not.
What should that stuff do?
a): Mostly to take money out of the game and to give players more time to work with the units they have (more poking and multitasking). Also to make the forming of huge armies a little harder overall. If only 16zerglings pop out at once instead of 20, I can poke more. If only 8drones pop out at once, the time until he can afford units again is longer. If a nexus costs more, expansions are later and Protoss has to work with less money. (same for mules)
Stepping stones take out more money as well and force more complex builds, while not influencing the general unit balancing too much.
I also think that taking out money takes out reactivness, therefore rewards the player that actively finds ways to trade efficiently.
b) slower units with less firepower means longer combats means more time to reposition. But I'm talking VERY small changes (like 1%).
Hard to mass units (Ultralisk, Broodlord, Carrier/BC/Tempest, Mothership, Raven) are a little too limited by passive costs. 20min broodlords if and only if my opponent allows me to play in this way are just too late to really base a concrete gameplan around. But if half of the broodlords at 16min would already be a useful tool, people could experiment with smaller broodlord attacks of less bases. (or just implement an extra raven etc.)
c) I think that speaks for itself. Due to the AI of SC2 being good, the basic stuff doesn't need so much babysitting anymore. Instead there should be more rewarding "babysitting" options... But without just being an extra APM-consuming tool, like "just make hardened shields an activated ability, so you have to spam it". I'm thinking stuff like blink (not just pure combat strenghtening and even in combat somewhat optional: you don't want to blink micro too hard, if you need your blink to chase opponents, and you don't want to blink everything into marauders...). Maybe some "flash out" ability to protect protoss casters, but with the downside of them not being useable for the next X seconds. Maybe some form of viking transformation "abuse" to avoid shots. Maybe an egg upgrade, that makes zerg units hide in highly armored eggs and block movement, when on creep.
d) explanations given
Final note: Of course everything has to be balanced out. But with HotS having a beta and a volatile phase anyways, there would be room for such changes without influencing WoL or professional play.
