|
TLDR
Riot has shown the willingness to aggressively patch their game, completely redesigning champions and items from the ground up. This adds some interesting changes to the metagame and keeps players and viewers on their toes. There's always something new and exciting around the corner.
Why doesn't Blizzard take a similar approach? We've already adopted a couple successful LoL concepts: LCS (WCS), the experience/leveling system (adds incentive to play for many players, probably moreso casual gamers). Why not adopt the aggressive patching concept as well, and hopefully avoid the stagnant metagame issues we're consistently plagued with?
------
Have any of you been watching the LoL World Championship?
It's everything we've ever wanted out of WCS (which isn't really a surprise since WCS is a direct ripoff of LCS anyway). NA teams, EU teams, SEA teams, all showing that they can compete with (and BEAT) the Korean teams. The Koreans still seem to have the upper hand, but they don't have that 'unbeatable aura' that Korean SC2 players seem to have.
I mean no disrespect to LoL, but part of this is probably due to the lower mechanical skill ceiling of LoL compared to SC2; foreigner mechanics aren't far behind, if not equal to, Korean mechanics.
The team aspect also seems to play into this. There's a lot of strategy that goes behind picks/bans and team compositions. In many ways, the team with the better strategy can overcome the team with better mechanics.
Unfortunately, none of this really relates to SC2. Our game, as an esport, is played 1v1 and we have a pretty damn high skill ceiling (not nearly as high as BW, which is probably THE reason top foreigners can compete with Koreans in SC2).
So why am I saying this, then?
I think there's actually one more piece to this puzzle. Ultimately, I think it's the biggest reason we're seeing an even playing field between the regions at Worlds. It's the reason LoL continues to have a fresh professional scene and huge metagame shifts. And it can be applied to SC2:
Massive, game-changing patches.
Yep. It's that simple.
Riot has shown that they aren't afraid to completely rework items and champions at any moment. I don't follow the LoL pro scene too closely, but Worlds seems to be one of the first tournaments (if not the first) to use the 3.10 patch which made Trinity Force a pretty desirable item, among several other pretty big changes.
Changing ONE item alone completely changed the way the LoL metagame works. We're watching players and teams learn and adapt to this change, in real time, in what is basically the equivalent of WCS Blizzcon.
Yes, the game has completely changed at the pro level before one of the biggest LoL tournaments to date. And nobody is really complaining. [It should be noted that Riot doesn't use the latest patch in tournaments, so the patch didn't completely blindside the players. They did have a chance to play it before Worlds, but I think these are the first televised/competitive matches with the patch.]
Blizzard wants to take a hands-off approach and let the players take time to solve the metagame woes themselves. As we've seen, this creates a fairly stagnant metagame. And as we've seen from most top Koreans, to be the best you need to hammer down a handful of strategies and simply execute them better than anyone else. There's no justification for creative play because the strategy is already mapped out pretty well.
So what happens if you FORCE the players to learn something new?
Apparently you get a wealth of fresh gameplay, new viable strategies, new teams/players emerging. And if you refuse to adapt to the changes, you're obviously going to be left behind. There's a REASON to try new things in LoL. There's a reason to WATCH LoL matches because there's a good chance you'll see something new.
What is Blizzard so afraid of?
The only real innovation comes from leagues trying new, wacky maps (Fruitland, anyone?) to spice up the gameplay a little bit.
We need more than that, though. We need redesigned units/abilities, more nerfs/buffs to encourage new strategies and ideas.
Think about it. When did SC2 have the most buzz? Mid 2010 and early 2013; WoL/HotS beta and shortly after release. The "Renaissance of Strategy." We were all experimenting with build orders, unit compositions, strategies. When can I safely expand on this map, with this race, in this matchup? Where should I build my buildings? When should I scout? What all-ins can I get away with? There were so many questions to answer, and it was FUN to try and find the answers.
Well.. we've had the answers for 3 years now. We need some new questions.
There have certainly been some big changes along the way, but they are few and far between. The infamous "Queen Patch" is a good example -- it completely changed the way the game was played and created new strategies (although I personally think that was a step in the wrong direction because it effectively made "Turtle Zerg" the go-to strategy, which is pretty boring from a spectator/esport point of view. Maybe I should have picked a different example).
The recent proposed balance changes are a step in the right direction. We need bigger changes and we need them more often. Obviously the changes shouldn't be made willy-nilly and should have some reasoning behind them. But we need changes to keep this game fresh and interesting.
Maybe Blizzard should add some 6m1g maps to the ladder pool and see how they play out?
Maybe nerf damage/buff HP like everyone has been talking about?
Please, Blizzard. Do SOMETHING different.
It's hard to stay passionate about something that insists on being stagnant and unoriginal.
  
|
BW went for years without major changes and peaked in popularity 2008/2009 when it was quite stable (or stangnant depending on your perspective). You can't just compare a 10 player game with bans to a 1v1 where changes have to be more thought out and incremental. The game is still fun to play and watch, go play LoL if you think SC2 is so boring.
|
Canada11195 Posts
I don't think consistent, massive patch changes would work. It's too late for that. Beta is where they should have tinkered with the economy and movement. SC has crazy timing attacks that simply don't exist in LoL due to towers that keeps the game going and averages at least 20-30 min games if not more. One massive balance change and suddenly one race is rofl-stomping everybody with new, abusive rushes.
You need the game to stablize so you can actually figure out if what you have done is working.
|
I would like to see quality of life patches, yes. But not changes for the hell of it. Unfortunately, these game breaking changes you desire (sure I do too) will have to wait for LOTV, if at all.
And dude, if you haven't been paying attention, there are still questions, and sure as hell still answers. Players don't experiment nearly as often as they could. And in the most difficults MUs, players will find answers out of necessity.
|
Know what another really popular game is? Call of Duty.
Clearly SC2 needs to have FPS controls. And dogs, can't forget about dogs.
|
On September 24 2013 10:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Know what another really popular game is? Call of Duty.
Clearly SC2 needs to have FPS controls. And dogs, can't forget about dogs.
You can't forget Pac-Man.
Oh wait, we already have Stim...
|
Baa?21242 Posts
There are 3 Asian teams in the semifinals, and the one western team got there in a west-vs.-west quarterfinals. Not really sure if that proves how beatable Asians are...
|
you can't have people going to "the new OP" if its only available for 1/3 of the players
|
@Scarecrow
I think you're missing a huge amount of what I'm trying to say here.
Of course you can't directly compare the two games. I indirectly admitted that in my first paragraphs.
I mean no disrespect to LoL, but part of this is probably due to the lower mechanical skill ceiling of LoL compared to SC2; foreigner mechanics aren't far behind, if not equal to, Korean mechanics.
The team aspect also seems to play into this. There's a lot of strategy that goes behind picks/bans and team compositions. In many ways, the team with the better strategy can overcome the team with better mechanics.
Unfortunately, none of this really relates to SC2. Our game, as an esport, is played 1v1 and we have a pretty damn high skill ceiling (not nearly as high as BW, which is probably THE reason top foreigners can compete with Koreans in SC2).
I think your BW example is good on the surface, but it has underlying issues. I honestly think Blizzard got lucky with BW -- they abandoned it in a strange state of perfect imperfections. The glaring design flaws actually all worked together to make an already difficult game even MORE difficult to master.
It also existed in a time when people were seemingly less fickle and jaded. If a new game was made today with the amount of problems BW had in its prime, I feel it would be eaten alive. Blizzard needs to adapt if it wants to succeed.
And I'm only saying this because I want SC2 to succeed. My praise of LoL doesn't mean I don't love SC2. SC2 is a beautiful game and it saddens me when I see other games making brilliant moves to not only improve their game design and overall gameplay, but make it a better esport. Meanwhile, SC2 seems to be stuck in place.
I'm not one of the doomsday people saying SC2 is dying, but it damn sure isn't growing at the rate that it could and should be growing at.
@Falling
@Qwyn
I probably didn't make my opinion clear enough. When I say "massive changes," I mean "massive compared to what we normally see." I think the Queen Patch example is the best way to explain it. It didn't give Queens the ability to launch nukes or anything crazy; it just buffed their ground attack range from 3 to 5. But it COMPLETELY changed the way Zergs could play. It doesn't have to be a 250% damage buff to Marines for it to be a "massive change."
Changing Trinity Force in LoL wasn't exactly a "massive change," but it added some new strategies and ideas. It's not like they're groundbreaking, mind-blowing ideas; it obviously all revolves around using Trinity Force as a core item. But it's something that wasn't happening last week, the week before that, the week before that, etc. It's fresh, it's different, it's interesting to watch unfold.
And I think both of you are falling into the same trap. Why do we HAVE to wait for an expansion to make significant changes to a game? It's NOT too late to change the game. I don't understand this logic at all. Why should we wait 2-3 years to make changes that can be made now?
Again, I want to reiterate that I'm not implying that changes need to be made for the sake of making changes ("Obviously the changes shouldn't be made willy-nilly and should have some reasoning behind them"). There are plenty of things that can be made within reason that can incentivize new strategies, new unit comps, new ideas.
@Carnivorous Sheep
I like how you use the word "Asians" as if it's interchangeable with "Koreans" in this discussion. How exciting would it be to see a Chinese (or any other non-Korean Asian) player in the semifinals of a major SC2 tournament?
|
On September 24 2013 10:16 z0rz wrote:Have any of you been watching the LoL World Championship? It's everything we've ever wanted out of WCS (which isn't really a surprise since WCS is a direct ripoff of LCS anyway). NA teams, EU teams, SEA teams, all showing that they can compete with (and BEAT) the Korean teams. The Koreans still seem to have the upper hand, but they don't have that 'unbeatable aura' that Korean SC2 players seem to have. I mean no disrespect to LoL, but part of this is probably due to the lower mechanical skill ceiling of LoL compared to SC2; foreigner mechanics aren't far behind, if not equal to, Korean mechanics. The team aspect also seems to play into this. There's a lot of strategy that goes behind picks/bans and team compositions. In many ways, the team with the better strategy can overcome the team with better mechanics. Unfortunately, none of this really relates to SC2. Our game, as an esport, is played 1v1 and we have a pretty damn high skill ceiling (not nearly as high as BW, which is probably THE reason top foreigners can compete with Koreans in SC2). So why am I saying this, then? I think there's actually one more piece to this puzzle. Ultimately, I think it's the biggest reason we're seeing an even playing field between the regions at Worlds. It's the reason LoL continues to have a fresh professional scene and huge metagame shifts. And it can be applied to SC2: Massive, game-changing patches. Yep. It's that simple. Riot has shown that they aren't afraid to completely rework items and champions at any moment. I don't follow the LoL pro scene too closely, but Worlds seems to be one of the first tournaments (if not the first) to use the 3.10 patch which made Trinity Force a pretty desirable item, among several other pretty big changes. Changing ONE item alone completely changed the way the LoL metagame works. We're watching players and teams learn and adapt to this change, in real time, in what is basically the equivalent of WCS Blizzcon. Yes, the game has completely changed at the pro level before one of the biggest LoL tournaments to date. And nobody is really complaining. [It should be noted that Riot doesn't use the latest patch in tournaments, so the patch didn't completely blindside the players. They did have a chance to play it before Worlds, but I think these are the first televised/competitive matches with the patch.] Blizzard wants to take a hands-off approach and let the players take time to solve the metagame woes themselves. As we've seen, this creates a fairly stagnant metagame. And as we've seen from most top Koreans, to be the best you need to hammer down a handful of strategies and simply execute them better than anyone else. There's no justification for creative play because the strategy is already mapped out pretty well. So what happens if you FORCE the players to learn something new? Apparently you get a wealth of fresh gameplay, new viable strategies, new teams/players emerging. And if you refuse to adapt to the changes, you're obviously going to be left behind. There's a REASON to try new things in LoL. There's a reason to WATCH LoL matches because there's a good chance you'll see something new. What is Blizzard so afraid of? The only real innovation comes from leagues trying new, wacky maps ( Fruitland, anyone?) to spice up the gameplay a little bit. We need more than that, though. We need redesigned units/abilities, more nerfs/buffs to encourage new strategies and ideas. Think about it. When did SC2 have the most buzz? Mid 2010 and early 2013; WoL/HotS beta and shortly after release. The "Renaissance of Strategy." We were all experimenting with build orders, unit compositions, strategies. When can I safely expand on this map, with this race, in this matchup? Where should I build my buildings? When should I scout? What all-ins can I get away with? There were so many questions to answer, and it was FUN to try and find the answers. Well.. we've had the answers for 3 years now. We need some new questions. There have certainly been some big changes along the way, but they are few and far between. The infamous "Queen Patch" is a good example -- it completely changed the way the game was played and created new strategies (although I personally think that was a step in the wrong direction because it effectively made "Turtle Zerg" the go-to strategy, which is pretty boring from a spectator/esport point of view. Maybe I should have picked a different example). The recent proposed balance changes are a step in the right direction. We need bigger changes and we need them more often. Obviously the changes shouldn't be made willy-nilly and should have some reasoning behind them. But we need changes to keep this game fresh and interesting. Maybe Blizzard should add some 6m1g maps to the ladder pool and see how they play out? Maybe nerf damage/buff HP like everyone has been talking about? Please, Blizzard. Do SOMETHING different. It's hard to stay passionate about something that insists on being stagnant and unoriginal.
Let you mentioned, look at what a slight change in the Queen and Overlords did to the metagame. It isn't as applicable to LoL because of picks and bans and teams rotating first pick. Even in LoL, you can see there is an issue with blue side being at an advantage.
|
Right, changes that made massive impacts in the way the game is played. That's my point. There should be more of those.
Again, I'm aware that you can't completely compare every aspect across the two games. But you CAN compare SOME aspects of the games. Surely you guys are able to at least see that much.
ALL MARINES SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY POTIONS AND TRINITY FORCE BECAUSE IT'S COOL IN LEAGUE OF LEGENDS HERP DERP.
I'm saying Riot isn't afraid to change something about the way gameplay/strategy/metagame plays out. The players are clearly capable of adapting to the changes because they're, you know, really good at what they do. And it's clearly creating an exciting spectacle.
Why is Blizzard so afraid to do the same?
And, perhaps more importantly, why is the community so afraid of it?
|
While I don't think that blizzard should patch for the sake of making big chances to the game, I do think that they absolutely should have been patching more aggressively. SC2 has had long, long stages where the game is just stale and boring. Blizzard shouldn't be afraid to act quickly to stop this. I think it's far better to make the game interesting first, then make the game balanced. Going the other way around like what Blizzard has done might seem like the best option for competitive play, but it's really not. In the short term it will be better, but in the long term it will kill the game. It sucks to make a big balance patch and then have one race dominate a tournament or two afterwards, but that issue is better than having a permanently stale game.
I'm glad to see the recent proposed changes that David Kim posted, but I think that he could do more. Serious changes to units are in order to make SC2 a more interesting game. Blizzard has played SC2 far too safe, probably because of how successful BW was with a small amount of patching. SC2 isnt BW, and it has been struggling since BL/infestor at the end of WOL. It is still struggling, even with HOTS. They need to aggressively rework units that are problematic or mediocre. Swarm Hosts, Colossus, Oracles, Hellbats, etc. Rework them!
|
On September 24 2013 11:39 z0rz wrote:
Right, changes that made massive impacts in the way the game is played. That's my point. There should be more of those.
Again, I'm aware that you can't completely compare every aspect across the two games. But you CAN compare SOME aspects of the games. Surely you guys are able to at least see that much.
ALL MARINES SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY POTIONS AND TRINITY FORCE BECAUSE IT'S COOL IN LEAGUE OF LEGENDS HERP DERP.
I'm saying Riot isn't afraid to change something about the way gameplay/strategy/metagame plays out. The players are clearly capable of adapting to the changes because they're, you know, really good at what they do. And it's clearly creating an exciting spectacle.
Why is Blizzard so afraid to do the same?
And, perhaps more importantly, why is the community so afraid of it?
Because racial balance in a non-symmetrical game is a very big deal.
For games like LoL and DotA the biggest "balance" issue is when a hero/champion is either banned or played in every single match, which makes for a stale metagame.
For a game like SC2, a major game imbalance means that 2/3rds of your player-base gets screwed over.
|
You can't really compare SC2 to LoL in terms of "what Blizzard should do". There's literally just too much wrong with that for me to explain here without ending up writing my own blog.
|
I have complained about the lack of communication and the complete lack of upgrades and patches from Blizzard before.
Destiny has said it the best, the hots hype factor died down after a week because the game was pretty much figured out by then.
This shouldn't happen to the expansion of the SC game, BW changed SC1 forever.
The infestor change in WoL was one of the biggest raising moment for SC2, just look at spanishwa icefisher guide out numbering all the big hots TL guides combined.
think about how many micro tricks were there:
infestors drop (rare)
burrow harass
neural parasite
high ground fungal on their workers
infested terran bomb on tanks
it wasn't until infestor broodlord was discovered that the decline in viewership came (which is also when blizzard stopped patching "aggressively".
It's good that blizzard is taking care of their patching, but it also is leading to a stale game.
It is harder to balance a RTS because for moba you can still use other champions in substation for any big nerf of one champion. Still, I would like to see Blizzard trying. That spore patch especially just shows how scared blizzard is at patching anything at all
|
On September 24 2013 11:30 z0rz wrote:@Scarecrow I think you're missing a huge amount of what I'm trying to say here. Of course you can't directly compare the two games. I indirectly admitted that in my first paragraphs. Show nested quote +I mean no disrespect to LoL, but part of this is probably due to the lower mechanical skill ceiling of LoL compared to SC2; foreigner mechanics aren't far behind, if not equal to, Korean mechanics.
The team aspect also seems to play into this. There's a lot of strategy that goes behind picks/bans and team compositions. In many ways, the team with the better strategy can overcome the team with better mechanics.
Unfortunately, none of this really relates to SC2. Our game, as an esport, is played 1v1 and we have a pretty damn high skill ceiling (not nearly as high as BW, which is probably THE reason top foreigners can compete with Koreans in SC2). I think your BW example is good on the surface, but it has underlying issues. I honestly think Blizzard got lucky with BW -- they abandoned it in a strange state of perfect imperfections. The glaring design flaws actually all worked together to make an already difficult game even MORE difficult to master. It also existed in a time when people were seemingly less fickle and jaded. If a new game was made today with the amount of problems BW had in its prime, I feel it would be eaten alive. Blizzard needs to adapt if it wants to succeed. And I'm only saying this because I want SC2 to succeed. My praise of LoL doesn't mean I don't love SC2. SC2 is a beautiful game and it saddens me when I see other games making brilliant moves to not only improve their game design and overall gameplay, but make it a better esport. Meanwhile, SC2 seems to be stuck in place. I'm not one of the doomsday people saying SC2 is dying, but it damn sure isn't growing at the rate that it could and should be growing at. @Falling @Qwyn I probably didn't make my opinion clear enough. When I say "massive changes," I mean "massive compared to what we normally see." I think the Queen Patch example is the best way to explain it. It didn't give Queens the ability to launch nukes or anything crazy; it just buffed their ground attack range from 3 to 5. But it COMPLETELY changed the way Zergs could play. It doesn't have to be a 250% damage buff to Marines for it to be a "massive change." Changing Trinity Force in LoL wasn't exactly a "massive change," but it added some new strategies and ideas. It's not like they're groundbreaking, mind-blowing ideas; it obviously all revolves around using Trinity Force as a core item. But it's something that wasn't happening last week, the week before that, the week before that, etc. It's fresh, it's different, it's interesting to watch unfold. And I think both of you are falling into the same trap. Why do we HAVE to wait for an expansion to make significant changes to a game? It's NOT too late to change the game. I don't understand this logic at all. Why should we wait 2-3 years to make changes that can be made now? Again, I want to reiterate that I'm not implying that changes need to be made for the sake of making changes ("Obviously the changes shouldn't be made willy-nilly and should have some reasoning behind them"). There are plenty of things that can be made within reason that can incentivize new strategies, new unit comps, new ideas. @Carnivorous Sheep I like how you use the word "Asians" as if it's interchangeable with "Koreans" in this discussion. How exciting would it be to see a Chinese (or any other non-Korean Asian) player in the semifinals of a major SC2 tournament?
SC2 is dying in China while LoL is growing in China.
It is not because of "meta changes" that China is doing well.
|
On September 24 2013 12:31 ninazerg wrote:
You can't really compare SC2 to LoL in terms of "what Blizzard should do". There's literally just too much wrong with that for me to explain here without ending up writing my own blog.
i feel the same exact way. Op you cant compare the two games.
|
@trias_e
Exactly. The Broodlord/Infestor era went on FAR too long and, in my opinion, caused irreparable damage to the SC2 scene (not only in terms of tournament viewership and overall enjoyment of the game, but by fostering a community that accepts this stagnation as "normal").
@WolfintheSheep
To be frank, that's a really weak argument. If a change needs to be made, a change needs to be made. If a unit is too powerful, nerfing it will "screw over" people that play that race. But in reality, the game is approaching a more balanced, enjoyable state. If you want to be good, you should be willing to adapt.
And as I mentioned before, I think the most prosperous and exciting times for SC2 were during the "learning" phases, when we were trying brand new things without really knowing the outcome. Changing the way units work and interact can recreate these exciting moments, albeit in much smaller instances. We can't bring the hype of beta back, but we can at least try to keep the game fresh and interesting.
SC2 isn't dying, but many players feel like it's approaching a dead-end and have no hope or desire to stick around as it quickly goes nowhere.
@ninazerg
@tognix
In some ways you're right, there are many aspects that can't be compared between the games. I already outlined a few of those. But you absolutely CAN compare them in other ways. When the discussion is about the willingness to aggressively patch a game vs a hands-off approach, fair comparisons can be made.
I feel like you guys either aren't reading what I'm saying or are completely missing the point altogether. I'm not talking about major financial decisions here like switching to a F2P model, or trying to compare differing game mechanics like teamwork and picks/bans which obviously don't exist in SC2. I'm talking about the frequency and the impact of something both companies ALREADY DO: balance patches. More specifically, balance patches that promote new strategies and gameplay.
Riot shows a willingness to completely redesign champions and items when they feel it is needed. Blizzard, however, wants the community to come up with their own solutions to the problems which were obviously created by Blizzard's poor design in the first place. Our solution to Broodlord/Infestor in WoL? All-in. Avoid late game vZ if you want to win. It's *a* solution, but it's not a *good* solution.
Edit: I'd also like to point out that SC2 has adopted the basic LCS format from LoL (we call it WCS) as well as the experience/leveling system to presumably give new/casual players a fun little "side quest" to play for while grinding out ladder games. The leveling system isn't unique to LoL, but I think it's safe to say LoL's success had something to do with Blizzard's decision to implement these ideas in SC2.
Clearly someone at Blizzard feels like the games can be compared. There's a lot Blizzard cam learn from Riot, whether we want to admit it or not.
|
On September 24 2013 15:45 z0rz wrote:
@WolfintheSheep
To be frank, that's a really weak argument. If a change needs to be made, a change needs to be made. If a unit is too powerful, nerfing it will "screw over" people that play that race. But in reality, the game is approaching a more balanced, enjoyable state. If you want to be good, you should be willing to adapt.
And as I mentioned before, I think the most prosperous and exciting times for SC2 were during the "learning" phases, when we were trying brand new things without really knowing the outcome. Changing the way units work and interact can recreate these exciting moments, albeit in much smaller instances. We can't bring the hype of beta back, but we can at least try to keep the game fresh and interesting.
SC2 isn't dying, but many players feel like it's approaching a dead-end and have no hope or desire to stick around as it quickly goes nowhere.
Wolf's probably got the strongest argument in this thread. Changes are made (hellbats/spores) but the sort of wholesale stuff you're talking about is ridiculous in a game with 3 races when we've already got relatively good balance. You talk like bringing back beta levels of instability would be a good thing... For all the talk of sc2 dying, what you're suggesting would probably kill it off competitively. Save major changes for LotV. You say players should be willing to adapt but there's a vast difference between changing something in LoL (which is auto-balanced by picks and bans) to changing something in SC2 where you only have access to 1/3 of the units/options. If something is broken a race will simply lose that mu at a horrific rate (think worse than 1/1/1/). You're looking at the learning phases of the game through rose-coloured glasses. I distinctly remember terrible games early on in WoL and HotS where commentators start talking about how the quality of games will get better as players work out the game. The quality was pretty atrocious in those times and there were far more 1 sided stomps. The longer the game develops without major changes the more stable it becomes, producing more back and forth. Games like DRG vs Innovation and some of the matches at WCS S2 finals (MC vs JD, Taeja vs Innovation) are a testament to how far the matches have come in terms of entertainment from the beta. I don't know about you but i'm really looking forward to next season's proleague and feel the game's far from a dead end.
|
Again, you're either not reading what I'm saying or completely missing my point. Not once did I imply that we would see higher level gameplay by mixing up the metagame. That was never my point.
I distinctly remember terrible games early on in WoL and HotS where commentators start talking about how the quality of games will get better as players work out the game. The quality was pretty atrocious in those times and there were far more 1 sided stomps.
Terrible games still happen. One-sided stomps still happen. And brilliant games happened during the beta times. There's no weight to this argument either way.
Also, players were experimenting with a LOT of new changes all at once during beta and early release. We know what everything does now, so simply changing the way Thors or Carriers work isn't going to suddenly send the metagame back to the Wild West beta-esque madness. Do you really think MC vs JD would have been less entertaining if Carriers were changed in a way that made them a viable unit? Give me a break.
I think you took my reference to the beta a little too literally. I was referring to the hype that surrounded beta because we had something new and interesting to witness. I'm not suggesting that we change so many things in SC2 all at once that it becomes a modern beta.
Also, NO NO NO NO NO to the "wait until LotV" mindset. NO.
NO.
NO.
That's so incredibly lazy and brainless that it blows my mind that people are actually even considering that a reasonable argument. LotV is 2-3 years away. And what happens after LotV is released? Are we just done? No more updates? Nothing cool ever again? We shouldn't be happy that Blizzard only seems to become involved with their product when they have a new game to sell.
We can't really compare LoL to SC2 as far as adding content -- SC2 can't simply introduce a new champion every 4 weeks or whatever the timeline is. But still, as I've said before, Riot will provide a FREE GAME with massive gameplay/champion/item redesigns when they are needed.
Why is it acceptable for a game that costs money to give LESS attention to its product than a F2P game? Why am I expected to pay for rebalance/redesign (as far as I know, Mothership still has Vortex in WoL, which is probably the most hated spell in all of SC2. Completely unacceptable design IMO) when other games not only do a better job of it, but do it for no cost?
Again, I'm going to reiterate and write it in bold because people will probably misunderstand what I'm saying here and twist my arguments even more if I don't make this clear. I like SC2 and I don't regret paying for it. It's a great game. And I'm NOT saying SC2 should add new units or skins every other day (although new portraits would be cool and super easy to do). But a game that costs money should at least KEEP UP with the involvement of a company's free-to-play game.
How about fixing/redesigning one unit that needs it every month or two? Want some examples?
-Make Carriers useful.
-Make Mothership useful.
-Make Mothership Core, Queens, Terran Bio a little less useful.
-Make Mech a little more useful, especially against Protoss.
-Find a way to involve Ghosts in bio compositions in the early/mid game.
-Make Neural Parasite useful or replace it with something else.
-Make Blinding Cloud easier to see, especially for spectators. Can't believe this hasn't been done yet. Although a minor problem, it's still inexcusable.
-Maybe bring back the old Infested Terran egg health/armor but increase the energy cost. It would probably be extremely difficult, but Zergs could use this to trigger Widow Mine hits to do friendly fire damage against a Terran player's own army, and it would obviously be useful against Tanks like it was before. Maybe have the eggs take up more space so they can be used as a forcefield of sorts.
-Make Thors useful. The one thing they really counter, Mutas, can easily counter THEM by magic boxing. Maybe give them a split-shot attack vs. air (say, 5 projectiles) with each one having a small radius AoE and program it so the projectiles' AoE damage doesn't overlap against clumped Mutas. This way small amounts of Thors can still do solid damage to clumped Mutas AND can at least take out or damage a handful of Mutas if they get magic boxed.
-Maybe change Widow Mines so that they emit a slowing pulse every X seconds rather than dealing massive single target damage AND decent AoE damage. I feel like the size/duration/cooldown of the slowing pulse could easily be balanced with the cost of the Mine and would keep the unit useful in all matchups. It wouldn't create as many game-over-if-you-misclick-one-time anticlimactic moments, and would still be useful as an economy harassment tool (again, wouldn't completely change a game by instantly killing 15+ workers, but would still cause economic damage by slowing worker movement).
I could keep going. There are SOOOOO many ways to make SC2 more interesting and dynamic.
Why are we content with not trying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
