i REALLY hope that the game is not 2 dimensional and has carbot style…
Reputation parasitism, reputation leeching or credibility leeching is a legal term regarding marketing. It refers to when one advertiser uses another brand's good reputation to market his own product.[1]
this isnt reputation parasitism
No I get that. I get that it allows people to have an easier time getting introduced to the mechanics.
But I agree with this idea. It’s better than making the ladder experience change based on rank. Instead, just have a tutorial that actually teaches useful skills. The existing tutorial for SC2 incredibly insufficient for conveying what you have to consider on the ladder.
probably just going to continue giving toss free wins
2 Likes
It’s hard to not take jabs at you when you label someone sexist and misogynist by misinterpreting his post.
The attraction is the feeling of wanting to know more about object/person/animal etc. Wher love is a feeling of wanting to be with, protect and care for another person.
So attraction is not Love, but love is attraction.
Example:
Women are attracted to handsome men, cute animals and kids but it’s doesn’t mean they will sacrifice themself for them.
And the same is with men
Men are attracted to beautiful women and fast/fancy cars but it’s doesn’t mean they will sacrifice themself for them.
1 Like
like it or not, lowering the skill floor is 100% necessary to making the game more popular.
Starcraft being extremely difficult is fun to WATCH for most people. For a lot of the same audience, they are not fun to PLAY, and until you can draw more people into the game being exclusionary “elitist” is the worst thing you can do.
I don’t have the data for this, but I’d be willing to wager SC2 has higher ratio of people that only watch (or only play team/coop/campaign) compared to other popular games/e-sports.
3 Likes
The concept is a good idea, but I do think that it was executed poorly in practice and needed a few changes. The practice league has its place though IMO, I just think it needed a little more work.
Agree with this too. But at the same time, you also have to leave some stuff to learn as well. Obviously it can’t teach you build orders aside from maybe the most basic of Builds. But while it needs to teach you some stuff, it should also leave some things for you to discover.
StarCraft is as “realistic” as Star Wars.
i love how everyone is focusing on the woman part… good lord people. grow up, that’s not the issue.
ROFL
Dude are you serious or this is sarcasm? Or you are 16 years old?
That’s easy to explain:
-
StarCraft have plenty of easy-to-execute hard-to-hold “strategies” (aka “cheeses”). And that holds all the way up to GM: if you watch streams of GM players you can see how a lot of them rage when they loose to cheese of a player who is 10x worse than them in the game.
Its much much worse in low leagues because in order to execute cheese one must learn very simple BO but to in order to be able to hold cheeses player must learn how to scout ~dozen of cheeses per match-up, how to react properly and on top of that his micro must be perfect as well.
It is absolutely possible to scout cheese, to react properly but still loose the game because cheeses in SC2 are simply too strong. -
Blink and you miss it losses. There are many interactions in the game that can cost you the game immediately no matter how far ahead you was if you are looking at the wrong point during the wrong time. Examples of such interactions are Disruptor ball shots, banelings rolling into your not splitted army, zerg attacking your sentry-colossus, zealot warp-in on main, etc. Loosing the game because you wasn’t watching at your army during the wrong second is frustrating and you can’t be watching at your army 100% of time.
-
Certain unit compositions require disproportionate amount of micro from opposing player to win. The number one is carrier-HT-Tempest of course. Loosing the game to player with 10x less APM is frustrating.
-
BO losses. This mostly applies to medium leagues where player learned actual BOs. Quite often you have to commit to build before your opponent does and by random luck his build might hard-counter yours and that’s it - you’ve lost the game.
-
Finally, lack of come-back mechanics. Game is balanced around win rates, but it is not balanced around win rates in early - mid - late game. What I mean is that if you screw up in early-mid game in TvZ than that’s it - you’ve lost the game. And “screing up” means “not killing a whole bunch of drones” with you harass/push. Even though Zerg haven’t done you any damage you’ve already lost the game in 9 out of 10 cases.
3 Likes
YES!
Excited to see what they do for me and you and you too.
Money is behind them.
I’m optimistic no matter the entity name.
Realistic in the sense of naturalism, sc2 is just a bit cartooned with some humans on juice but the rest is pretty fine.Not realistic would be Jim raynor being 3m tall or all characters having anime eyes and colorful funky hairstyles or body proportions.
I see that you are too young to understand the intricacies of human emotions, so this old man hopes that you don’t end up learning the hard way topic presented today.
You’re just out of touch, boomer.
The problem is most old-timers like me have no idea what you talking about regarding the skill floor. I played multiple games from FPS, RPG, RTS to turn base strategy and I never felt that the skill floor of the game is to high to fight competitively.
And yet young people say RTS are hard.
I don’t know how well you play since you post on an account with no game history, but in order for a game to be popular you need to have a low barrier of entry. This is one of the many reasons that mobile games are so successful.
I’m not saying we should sacrifice the RTS genre to that extend, but at least giving a game a lower floor for people to test out the waters will be fine.
This is also why the game will also need a team dedicated to it to work on strictly team games. You don’t need to sacrifice 1v1 for it but you need to treat team games more seriously than Blizzard has with WC3 or SC2, even if you need a different template, because the ability to play with friends is huge in retaining players.
1 Like
There is something about Blizz games that make them want to be the esport game that all play for years. And if they won’t do it and they cant be trusted (better not) leave it to Dreamhaven, the people one can trust if they want to make a new such title.
Anything else i dont care really… Then again it’s not only Blizz, some switch to LoL, I dont like mobas to do so much. But yes, if DH want to make something, there should be people to follow. No need to spend more than already 10 years on the same game… like how it is now with sc2.
A new RTS needs to really offer the reward of difficulty
- needs to be complex if not like SC2’s unforgiving at least war3’s not any less
- needs to have micro and macro as decisive (Blizz RTS games are made for it and it is the core of this game what makes them competitive)
- like war3/sc2 have average 15-20 min games
- no turn based
- can have heroes or without heroes
- can be multiplayer only
- can be derived from existing war3 lore or entirely new
Possible type:
1)HoMM as multi races, maybe hard to balance but adds even more complexity
Or
-
I imagine like I have one fave RTS from AoE type, I was fan of Empire earth. If they can turn a SC2/War3 complexity game into a game with Ages and make 20-min game out of this wow, that would be ideal.
-
Or take Dune 2/2K and make it big like sc2/war3, acquire the old talents from ea