3 ms·
I've always held that their patch/balance style is what ultimately killed SC2's scene compared to SC1. Just look at how many balance patches were required from
by TheCapn 5y ago
I've always held that their patch/balance style is what ultimately killed SC2's scene compared to SC1. Just look at how many balance patches were required from SC2 vs. what they applied in SC1.
While neither game is perfect IMO, letting the game mature without micromanaging it was a very important aspect of SCBW's success. Instead of mucking with units on a monthly basis they let things simmer and ultimately let balance be achieved through proper map design used in the competitive scene.
In my personal opinion one of the biggest faults with SC2 was their unit design philosophy. The idea that every unit was viable or had some special unlock created a balance nightmare. Its been years since I played either game competitively (played iCCup in BW / Collegiate StarLeague for SC2:WoL) but I remember always feeling like the game had too much "gotcha" in it that SCBW never had. Didn't scout proxy reapers? gg. Didn't scout fast void? gg. Didn't scout x? gg. It was too much rock-paper-scissors where missing one piece of intel was death while SCBW wasn't entirely the same. Taking the Terran/Protoss matchup for example you'd typically expect the early game to be vulture+tank vs. zealot+goon where if the terran player just a-moved into the protoss it was guaranteed loss, but microing the vulture and tanks gave you the chance and arguably the upperhand where the skill of the either player determined the outcome. SC2 didn't have that to the same extent.
- dragontamer 5y agoThat sounds more like a symptom as opposed to the underlying problem. A large number of patches isn't necessarily a bad thing, but an unstable meta is definitely bad. So SC2 starts off with SCV-auto split, no more manual splitting at the start of the game (all players now can play the first 5-seconds of every game like a pro: no practice needed anymore) But then muscle-memory people wanted an edge, so they added MULEs / Spawn Larva / Chronoboost, giving players a muscle-memory / simple timer countdown to play with. Etc. etc. Just back-and-forth changes like that was the real problem. The general balance patches had no idea for the final metagame they were actually going for. Did Blizzard want a game that rewarded manual effort (Juggle MULEs?)? Or did they want a game where manual-effort was minimized (Auto-Worker Split?) In the end: Blizzard wanted both, even if the two designs contradicted each other. You really can't please both groups of players, but by switching back and forth between the two designs, they only really pissed off both camps over the long term.
- fighterpilot 5y agoI'm not sure I agree, the balance for pro level has almost no bearing on lower leagues who suck. I think the reason people stopped playing is that it's really really hard (tiring) and it's not a team based game and can get quite lonely.
- dragontamer 5y agoEven in Starcraft:Brood War days, it was common to learn from stronger players by playing 2v2 (where Strong+Weak player goes up against Strong+Weak player). Starcraft 2 added "Archon Mode", where you can 2vs1 (Weak+Weak player vs Strong player), controlling the same team. There were far more opportunities to play teams in Starcraft2 than Brood War. And the 2v2 was always an option in Starcraft 2 anyway.
- fighterpilot 5y agoIt's still a lonely experience. Social and player discovery was badly done. 2v2 play was lonely too, it doesn't feel like a team game when you're getting rushed 2v1 at 8:00 clock time and your teammate is far away building their early econ. Compare that feeling to DoTA or counter strike which really feel like team games and not like two 1v1s that happen to be on the same map