|
On August 11 2013 03:35 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 03:22 crms wrote:On August 09 2013 23:23 Esoterikk wrote:
It's up to Blizzard to fix the game on a fundamental level, unfortunately Blizzard is the least likely to do anything because sc2 isn't their main source of income. not as eloquent as needed but basically this. if sc2 was a better game i'd be all up in that shiz. I'm itching for RTS but I can't really fool myself into playing SC2 just because it's 'starcraft' and the only real competitive option. Yup, but income or not I don't think they really see it as something they care about. I highly doubt Valve or Riot went into their games thinking "this won't be big so lets half ass it!" No they found ways to monetize and grow and cultivate and put new, interesting features and content into their games. They spent time, money, and brain-power making it that much better, and with quality will come people willing to pay (...if money is all your after). Blizzard doesn't/hasn't done that at all. They have done nothing but prove 1 of 2 things; they don't care or they're having some serious time/managerial issues within the company and its development process. I'm going to vote a nice mix of both considering the amount we've seen from Blizzard in the content department over 3 years. Compare that to what Valve has done with DOTA2 in about 2 years. At the very least you think Blizzard (which I think is just too much of a stubborn,old kook type of company, the kind that is just too big and too arrogant to get anything done) would see these good ideas and take note, attempt implementations of their own. But they don't, they hide in their offices, do a horrific job of communicating, and apparently get nothing done.
Also LoL was also a freemium product where SC2 was never free and never available on LAN which could make it explode in PC cafes in Korea and China. I would have definetely made SC2 cheaper and or free with a freemium model. Let the competitive players with huge egos spend the money to upgrade and spend money for gold league/GM league access plus accessories .
|
If more people are to watch the streams and follow the tournaments, more people have to play the game.
And this means that the game has to become more *noob* or casual friendly like snobists would say.
If the game should grow this is the only option. People must play and be able to enjoy the game.
If the game is just balanced out and focused on the high levels of play the casuals suffer and will turn their back on the game. This means fewer players, fewer people watching the streams, fewer companies sponsoring e sports, fewer tournaments and less money.
Look at games like LoL or Dota, they are relativ easy to learn and hard to master.
SC 2 is hard to learn and even harder to master. If you are a causal you might even enjoy playing with your friends vs the AI which is really nice in DOTA. If you play against an AI computer in SC 2 it can only win by cheating or doing unhuman micro tricks.
Blizzard should have invested in more possibilities for casuals to spend time in the game, to get achievements, skins, logos whatever. Or give more tech choices for the players from which they could choose or ban from the start of the game and what not. The possibilities are limitless, but Blizzard did not want to do anything new.
|
Look at the international . TI2013 for Dota 2. look at the interest it has drawn because of the ridiculous prize pool that Valve is WILLING to invest to make the game grow. THat was a fundamental problem with Blizzard where they were NOT willing to invest in PRIZE money, create a super tournament that could last 1 month where the best SC2 players would battle like gladiators to gain the glory and money.
THe only real interest in these SC2 tournaments were when the prize money was at least 100K for the first place winner.
If Blizzard had guts and gumption they would make a super tournament where 200K to 500K would be placed to the first place winner in a super tournament once per year. Maybe make it a million. IT would be an open tournment where draws would be placed on qualifications based on continent.
|
To clarify, the prize pool is so big because Valve enabled the community to grow the prize pool by buying compendiums.
SC2L seems to be doing something similar with D-Link (buy routers --> increase prize pool). I wonder if Blizzard has something similar in mind. It will probably always be on a smaller scale than DOTA2 because a F2P MOBA has a huge player pool to feed on (and also draws attention from the Steam store, because Valve).
e: That link is for reference. I'm not actually trying to sell stuff for Valve. I even added an SC2L link!
|
On August 11 2013 03:40 chatuka wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 03:35 Rumpus wrote:On August 11 2013 03:22 crms wrote:On August 09 2013 23:23 Esoterikk wrote:
It's up to Blizzard to fix the game on a fundamental level, unfortunately Blizzard is the least likely to do anything because sc2 isn't their main source of income. not as eloquent as needed but basically this. if sc2 was a better game i'd be all up in that shiz. I'm itching for RTS but I can't really fool myself into playing SC2 just because it's 'starcraft' and the only real competitive option. Yup, but income or not I don't think they really see it as something they care about. I highly doubt Valve or Riot went into their games thinking "this won't be big so lets half ass it!" No they found ways to monetize and grow and cultivate and put new, interesting features and content into their games. They spent time, money, and brain-power making it that much better, and with quality will come people willing to pay (...if money is all your after). Blizzard doesn't/hasn't done that at all. They have done nothing but prove 1 of 2 things; they don't care or they're having some serious time/managerial issues within the company and its development process. I'm going to vote a nice mix of both considering the amount we've seen from Blizzard in the content department over 3 years. Compare that to what Valve has done with DOTA2 in about 2 years. At the very least you think Blizzard (which I think is just too much of a stubborn,old kook type of company, the kind that is just too big and too arrogant to get anything done) would see these good ideas and take note, attempt implementations of their own. But they don't, they hide in their offices, do a horrific job of communicating, and apparently get nothing done. Also LoL was also a freemium product where SC2 was never free and never available on LAN which could make it explode in PC cafes in Korea and China. I would have definetely made SC2 cheaper and or free with a freemium model. Let the competitive players with huge egos spend the money to upgrade and spend money for gold league/GM league access plus accessories .
I saw a great idea early, whether it was in this thread or another about making multiplayer aspects free and campaign and the arcade a monetized service in some capacity. Either way free helps but there is a lot of context to that that I never see anyone explain and it always get it. I have no problem paying for a game, honestly I don't think really any game is worth $50-60 anymore but there are a lot of factors, but what does bother me is paying money for a game and then downloading a free one that has more features, events, and a gross amount of content and items/drop mechanics....pretty much all free.
If Blizzard had SC2 launch with new interesting features, smart and genuinely fun and good additions, I would drop money on it no problem, but they've taken years of development, and my money for nothing in comparison to what Valve has done with DOTA2. How do you justify that at all? I've said it a million times, make a quality product, make an interesting, good invest and people will buy it fairly regardless. But when you see Valve do DOTA2 and all they put into it, trying harder and harder to push limits. While Blizzard just...does nothing but destroy its own eSports image, let alone let the game rot away...it's sad.
|
On August 11 2013 00:55 Sejanus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2013 23:34 IronyDK wrote:On August 10 2013 23:29 kusto wrote:
Unfortunately, these are the reasons why i don't really enjoy watching important games. The randomness kills any significance of this, as i safely can say that on some other day, Bogus 4 - 0 Maru for example. So you dont think Maru just figured out how greedily Innovation plays and punished it? Rather that it was luck and a random win caused by the nature of SC2? You still fail to get it. The reason behind Maru winning is not important for this purpose. Whatever, lets say Maru figured Innovation. I believe that was the case, by the way. It doesn't change a damn thing: the outcome of SC2 is too unpredictable. Maru owning Innovation wasn't an isolated case, and epic story of underdog winning. It was a regular coin toss result in SC2 world. I don't care much why the outcomes are so unpredictable, being it due to "figuring", or "random nature of SC2", or low skill ceiling, or bazillion other reasons or combination thereof. Show nested quote +
Yes, so next time Bogus prepares in such a way that he owns Maru 4 - 0. Completely possible in SC2.
Exactly! It may be fun to watch games like that once in a while, when they are exceptions. But it gets pretty boring pretty fast when every match becomes a rock/paper/scissors or a coin toss or how casters call it "mind games" *yawwn* Show nested quote +
Dumb downed mechanics and flashy plays make the game more boring in my opinion.
SC 2 mechanics are not very complicated, mostly. Let's not pretend there's much complexity in injecting larvas. It's very hard to do right, but it's not complicated and it's not interesting to watch. It's a gimmicky mechanic and must go, in my opinion. Some others are better, but still SC2 doesn't have incredibly complex mechanics so there's not much dumbing down to do. What's important is making them interesting to play and to watch, not to dumb down or up.
How is playing 4 different builds in 4 different maps equal translate to a cointoss scenario?
Maru attacked Innovation 4 different ways, Innovation was unable to stop his assault.
Maru attacked Rain 3 different ways, Rain was unable to stop the assault.
Rain was able to hold off Bomber's 3cc timing attacks, he was not able to hold off Maru's.
Maru beat both Rain and Innovation with heavy macro games, rush builds, and midgame timings. Rain and Innovation not being able to handle different strategies thrown at them is not the fault of the game.
|
On August 11 2013 04:07 Holy_AT wrote:
If more people are to watch the streams and follow the tournaments, more people have to play the game.
And this means that the game has to become more *noob* or casual friendly like snobists would say.
BW wasn't noob friendly and it was a big hit in just one country instead of the international attention SC2 is getting!
....
I don't think that refuted your statement...
|
On August 11 2013 04:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 00:55 Sejanus wrote:On August 10 2013 23:34 IronyDK wrote:On August 10 2013 23:29 kusto wrote:
Unfortunately, these are the reasons why i don't really enjoy watching important games. The randomness kills any significance of this, as i safely can say that on some other day, Bogus 4 - 0 Maru for example. So you dont think Maru just figured out how greedily Innovation plays and punished it? Rather that it was luck and a random win caused by the nature of SC2? You still fail to get it. The reason behind Maru winning is not important for this purpose. Whatever, lets say Maru figured Innovation. I believe that was the case, by the way. It doesn't change a damn thing: the outcome of SC2 is too unpredictable. Maru owning Innovation wasn't an isolated case, and epic story of underdog winning. It was a regular coin toss result in SC2 world. I don't care much why the outcomes are so unpredictable, being it due to "figuring", or "random nature of SC2", or low skill ceiling, or bazillion other reasons or combination thereof.
Yes, so next time Bogus prepares in such a way that he owns Maru 4 - 0. Completely possible in SC2.
Exactly! It may be fun to watch games like that once in a while, when they are exceptions. But it gets pretty boring pretty fast when every match becomes a rock/paper/scissors or a coin toss or how casters call it "mind games" *yawwn*
Dumb downed mechanics and flashy plays make the game more boring in my opinion.
SC 2 mechanics are not very complicated, mostly. Let's not pretend there's much complexity in injecting larvas. It's very hard to do right, but it's not complicated and it's not interesting to watch. It's a gimmicky mechanic and must go, in my opinion. Some others are better, but still SC2 doesn't have incredibly complex mechanics so there's not much dumbing down to do. What's important is making them interesting to play and to watch, not to dumb down or up. How is playing 4 different builds in 4 different maps equal translate to a cointoss scenario? Maru attacked Innovation 4 different ways, Innovation was unable to stop his assault. Maru attacked Rain 3 different ways, Rain was unable to stop the assault. Rain was able to hold off Bomber's 3cc timing attacks, he was not able to hold off Maru's. Maru beat both Rain and Innovation with heavy macro games, rush builds, and midgame timings. Rain and Innovation not being able to handle different strategies thrown at them is not the fault of the game.
You forget, Magpie. There is no strategy in this game. No tactics. No mindgames. Just mass army, fight, and a coin toss...
|
On August 11 2013 04:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 04:07 Holy_AT wrote:
If more people are to watch the streams and follow the tournaments, more people have to play the game.
And this means that the game has to become more *noob* or casual friendly like snobists would say.
BW wasn't noob friendly and it was a big hit in just one country instead of the international attention SC2 is getting! .... I don't think that refuted your statement...
Yea Sc2 is infinitely bigger than BW ever was yet people seem to think the opposite.
|
On August 10 2013 00:19 Foxxan wrote:
I believe the problem is not WCS or any tournament at all,
the problem is sc2
It has so many flaws and right now the game is not in a good shape, everymatchup involving protoss is garbage
for example
Unit composition vs unit composition. The battle can end in an instant and its over.
Zerg cant beat a limit armee of protoss without swarmhosts, thats utterly bad and boring in the long run
Wol was like that for three years but zerg had eventually buffed infestor+broodlord which was also utterly boring and protoss had a really tough time to take that armee head on, so it was reversed there
Blizzard decided to wait, to let someone figure it out even if the unit composition was a discgrace to the name of starcraft and rts in general
THe deathball syndrome, which makes it really hard to
1) Get units outside the deathball to do some small battle/harassment
2) Get many workers (65 is standard, some matchups go higher but in general never over 100)
Get 3base, saturat, now macro up
Thats the standard thing which is terrible terrible terrible
Zerg can stack up over 50+ larva on 3bases with 4hatcheries
Terran can sack the precious Scv (workers) for bigger armee then anyone else because of mule
So many faults, i can name more but cant come up right now
but these are enough
this
User was warned for this post
|
I don´t get DotA if i watch it. They mix player names with Character names and somehow one team determines who will win after 40+ minutes of leveling vs NPCs. I don´t want to learn 1000 champions across Dota2/LoL/Hon.
Starcraft is a game of concentration, precision and skill. You have to determine what is good to do next. And be able to do it. In the OSL final today/yesterday Maru figured out how to beat Rain after two games. And thats the greatness in Starcraft2. The subtle little changes on the highest level that turn out to be amazing for those who know how hard it is.
In Dota even the biggest noob laughs at a "double kill" ot a gank.
SC2 had new features, and a new style that allows epic battle in high numbers CG-limit, (reasonable) more easy macro ( bulding hotkey etc.) With Chrono, inject and mules the games are faster, or dont rely on endless skirmishes.
WoL was really great, until the BL-Infestor dominated PvZ and Terran got nerfed away.
HotS was not what Blizzard could have done !
It was annoying to be honest. Mines/oracles got changed a lot.
But hey they fixed the boring 4gate vs 4gate PvPs and made Mech look more OP vs Zerg, but put the defiler back on.
But there is still Legacy of the Void coming and I hope Blizzard will make it complete, like BW completed sc1.
|
On August 10 2013 00:19 Foxxan wrote:
I believe the problem is not WCS or any tournament at all,
the problem is sc2
I think it's a little of both. And it's not that SC2 is dying. It's just that there is so much potential that is missed, and that's disappointing.
In terms of games, the games are exciting and (mostly) balanced, but many are neither glamorous nor epic due to how SC2 works. There's a difference between:
- Build order + missed scout determines the game immediately.
- Build order + missed scout puts one side at a disadvantage, followed by several minutes of back-and-forth, tactical choices, and positioning, where one side can push their advantage while the other still has a chance to claw their way back.
The first is balanced and sometimes exciting. The latter is epic and makes for legendary battles.
The lack of glamour is a bit of a tragedy in a spectator sport. In a game, it's enough to be balanced, to make the math work. But for spectators, people need their idols, their epic battles, the glamour of rivalries between legends.
A lot of the glamour that people loved in BW and even early-mid WoL is not as evident in the current SC2 scene. Sometimes WCS feels like pros grinding WCS points like WoW dailies, rather than an epic league that culminates at Blizzcon. The talent is split up strategically between regions to maximum point grinding potential.
The last really glamorous tournament was probably MLG Dallas. Most of the top pros at that tournament haven't been seen at international tournaments since then. In more competitive regions, does grinding WCS points leave any time for tournaments? Many tournament regulars seem to be in WCS NA (least competitive region = more time for travel). Code S and OSL are so cut throat that travel during the league season can mean losing your place. I love the WCS games, but I can't help but wonder if WCS is a little too formulaic, as if someone has done the math but forgotten about the spectators.
With recent talk about Grubby & Moon, and TBLS, I realized that a lot of the WC3 and BW glamour comes from legends and rivalries between legends. Players who stayed on top long enough to be memorable and develop rivalries with similar players. It is difficult for this to happen in the current SC2 scene due to the constant turnover at the top due to:
- New expansion + patches
- WoL legends and potential legends falling off or retiring
- Region switching
- Large influx of talented players (KeSPA)
EU top 8 is completely different this season. Last season, Stephano vs. MVP drew a crowd. This season, they're both gone. KR looks like it might be stabilizing and growing new legends. Hopefully some of them stay on top long enough to develop rivalries. The ex-WoL, ex-BW, and ex-WC3 legends give the scene temporary glamour, but for the future perhaps time is the only solution.
|
How is playing 4 different builds in 4 different maps equal translate to a cointoss scenario?
The one case of Maru vs Rain or Maru vs Innovation doesn't show anything by itself. Upsets/Underdog stories do happen everywhere for variety of reasons.
Coin toss is* SC 2 pro scene as a whole. You can hardly predict outcome of any match between two pros. No more than an outcome of a coin toss. Yes if we analyze a particular match we may see very different situations. "Figured out", "learned to outplay", "slumped", "tired after too many tournaments", "didn't learn hots yet" and so on, different valid reasons why someone lost/won even if he shouldn't have (according to predictions and perception of who's a better player). But as a whole it becomes a coin toss, you may never know who wins precisely because there are so many factors influencing it. I hope I made my point clear...
* Every time I say "is" I mean "feels like it is to me". I never did any statistics on it, right. But how the game feels is still very important from viewers perspective. If the game feels too boring/random virtually nobody gonna check statistics or listen to anybody's arguments why it really isn't boring/random, they will just go to watch something else.
But there is still Legacy of the Void coming and I hope Blizzard will make it complete, like BW completed sc1.
Precisely my hopes. Back in WoL I didn't even take the tournaments seriously, it was obviously a very large beta test of SC2, Blizzard had to feel how the game works in the wild before making it into something big, theres no way around it.
|
|
|
4713 Posts
On August 11 2013 04:07 Holy_AT wrote:
If more people are to watch the streams and follow the tournaments, more people have to play the game.
And this means that the game has to become more *noob* or casual friendly like snobists would say.
If the game should grow this is the only option. People must play and be able to enjoy the game.
If the game is just balanced out and focused on the high levels of play the casuals suffer and will turn their back on the game. This means fewer players, fewer people watching the streams, fewer companies sponsoring e sports, fewer tournaments and less money.
Look at games like LoL or Dota, they are relativ easy to learn and hard to master.
SC 2 is hard to learn and even harder to master. If you are a causal you might even enjoy playing with your friends vs the AI which is really nice in DOTA. If you play against an AI computer in SC 2 it can only win by cheating or doing unhuman micro tricks.
Blizzard should have invested in more possibilities for casuals to spend time in the game, to get achievements, skins, logos whatever. Or give more tech choices for the players from which they could choose or ban from the start of the game and what not. The possibilities are limitless, but Blizzard did not want to do anything new.
I think you have it wrong, SC2 is easy to learn but hard to master still. The real problem is there aren't enough opportunities in SC2 to make "big plays" like in MoBAs, things that make you feel amazing when they succeed, it lacks in excitement because of that and it makes it immediately apparent to you that you need to put in a lot of hard work to pull off something great. SC2 lacks the Puck's, Bat riders, Pudges and Storm Spirits of DoTA or the Reavers, Spider Mines, Lurkers of BW.
Hell I'm willing to bet as much as you want that SC2 could be even harder then BW in terms of mechanics, but people would love it to death if they had enough exciting shit to keep them busy and make them feel great when they pull them off. That isn't the case, after a long, hard drawn out game of SC2 you sometimes feel more relieved then happy, it felt like a chore, like work, instead of giving you a huge buzz and make you feel excited, it just drains you. The design team focused too much on balance and too little on excitement and fun factor, they focused too much on ideas that are cool on paper from a design standpoint but are boring as shit in terms of actual gameplay. I'm going to go out on a limb and just say that perhaps SC2 just isn't exciting enough to attract as many viewers as we seek. Balance and fun aren't mutually exclusive it is still possible to have both, as BW proved, as DoTA is proving, its just a lot harder to achieve.
|
1. Make the game free to play
2. Make the game free to play
3. Make the game free to play
The reason BW did so well in Korea and Asia is the same reason LoL is doing well, it was free (because everyone pirated it). Every other reason besides making the game free to play is much less important.
|
On August 11 2013 04:07 Holy_AT wrote:
If more people are to watch the streams and follow the tournaments, more people have to play the game.
And this means that the game has to become more *noob* or casual friendly like snobists would say.
If the game should grow this is the only option. People must play and be able to enjoy the game.
If the game is just balanced out and focused on the high levels of play the casuals suffer and will turn their back on the game. This means fewer players, fewer people watching the streams, fewer companies sponsoring e sports, fewer tournaments and less money.
Look at games like LoL or Dota, they are relativ easy to learn and hard to master.
SC 2 is hard to learn and even harder to master. If you are a causal you might even enjoy playing with your friends vs the AI which is really nice in DOTA. If you play against an AI computer in SC 2 it can only win by cheating or doing unhuman micro tricks.
Blizzard should have invested in more possibilities for casuals to spend time in the game, to get achievements, skins, logos whatever. Or give more tech choices for the players from which they could choose or ban from the start of the game and what not. The possibilities are limitless, but Blizzard did not want to do anything new.
Yep ... basically correct.
Here is where Blizzard made a critical mistake:
Blizzard made the design decision to add unlimited unit selection and super tight unit movement to the game and claimed that this would make the game more "noob friendly". But is this true? Yes you can use your army easier and yes you only have one control group to worry about and yes the "smart group cast" allows you to use spellcasters and unit abilities while you have your whole army selected. But does this help the attacker AND the defender? Not really!
The problem is that the attacker will be looking at his units and the defender only might be looking at his units ... but because the army is concentrated in a small area the response time for the defender needs to be very very low. The classic example is "Banelings vs Marines". For lower level and new players the reaction time is longer and thus they are basically screwed by this general design decision from Blizzard.
A much more noob friendly design is shown in BW, where you can only have 12 units in a control group and the units are spread out while walking anywhere. The defender can prepare for defense by clumping up his army a bit tighter and as a consequence of these two the defender will not lose half his army because he wasnt looking for a second. Yes it is not as easy to control 3-4 control groups compared to just one, but if anyone claims that it is super hard or even "too hard" then he has never ever tried it. Its just something you get used to after a few games.
On August 11 2013 12:14 BuddhaMonk wrote:
1. Make the game free to play
2. Make the game free to play
3. Make the game free to play
The reason BW did so well in Korea and Asia is the same reason LoL is doing well, it was free (because everyone pirated it). Every other reason besides making the game free to play is much less important.
Very stupid ... because there is no way to make any money from SC as a free to play game ... and without money there is no game. If you cant afford a one-time-fee you shouldnt be playing computer games.
|
if blizzard treated SC2 like Valve did Dota 2, maintained the core game and added some minor convenience features it would have been incredible. the failure of basic infrastructure (bnet 2.0) a major shift in game design in philosophy (bw->sc2) and the inability to adapt to the free2play game scene are the biggest failures of SC2.
People still debate to the death about how SC2 is a 'bad' game how BW was better, how the game design is bad etc., you don't hear that about Dota 2. Nobody in their right mind would want to play original Dota over Dota 2. Unfortunately that cannot ever be said for SC2. Next gen sequels should be improvements not 10 steps backwards.
|
Why we might not be at the top:
1) Game is too hard (Steep learning curve, require multitasking/understanding/lots of time invested/outsourced tutorials for optimal builds/timings, very hard to play the game in a relaxed state)
2) Hard entry level (Up-front cost, Main focus being 1v1 thus very little social aspect or can't depend on others)
3) Spectating problems (Upper echelon of gaming is dominated by fairly emotionless Koreans (yes there are exceptions obv.), game needs some background knowledge of the game to understand what's happening, Sometimes need to wait 10-20 minutes before anything significant happens, Needs more spectating options)
4) WCS (Lower-mid tier tournaments effectively shut down, not properly done tournament in its initial stages)
5) Very minimal social aspects. (Chat channels have limited amounts of people and even more limited amount of relevant SC2 talks, interface/UI lack customizability, all major content is outsourced away from official Blizzard forums to team liquid)
|
On August 11 2013 13:12 Rabiator wrote:
If you cant afford a one-time-fee you shouldnt be playing computer games.
It's not that they can't afford it. It's that it's a turn-off. I know a few friends (in their 20's) who only play free games. There are so many out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
