kind of sad, because i LOVE competitive RTS games and i followed SC2 since release and it's fallen a long way. blizzard could literally release a steaming turd (which SC2 most definitely is not, it's their best by far imo) and it'd still make it into that realm, so i don't think this is really saying much, if anything it just kind of proves that sc2 is a tiny tiny draw compared to other blizzard games and the top multiplayer steam competitive games (dota, cs, pubg/h1z1).
TL DR: Game is not dead, just could have been in a much better place if Blizzard's Community managers listened to the community, Or at least understand the landscape of gaming at the time of making decisions.ĭota usually peaks at 800-900k, 500-600k (as pictured) is like the daily low iircīut yeah, it'd be in top 20 still, but there's a huuuuuuuuuge drop off after the top few games, anything can make it into the top 20. Which in turn made alot leave to the Moba Scene, or the FPS scene that grew astonishingly large ~1.5 years after the MOBA scene took over. The Constant "Meme-ing" of "DeadGame" was literally an exacerbated example of the community becoming irritated that they aren't being listened to by the community managers. The game it self is not dead, nor will it be til another great RTS comes out, assuming it'll be WC4 before people start switching entirely. They later realized their mistakes, but never fully fixed the issue(They simply needed to charge for the content, and allow online multiplayer ladder to be free, while implementing skins, voicepacks, etc. Also the cost of entry was ~$60 to play, where at the time LoL was starting Season 1 of LCS. The relevance of how Blizzard handled WCS has a huge effect on the competitive scene. In short, while I'd love to see a 2v2-focused RTS from Blizzard-or anyone else with the chops to do it well-I don't hold out hope for good balance unless there's only one faction. And in a three-faction (21 matchups, 6 ally combinations) environment? I don't think anyone can properly balance that. You can argue that the ally interactions bring your count up to nine, not six. But two factions in 2v2 already has six matchups, and you have to account for how races interact with each other as allies, not just as enemies. Four factions in a 1v1 yields 10 matchups, which is why WC3's balance was so, uh, delicate. It's hard enough to balance three factions for 1v1 because there are six potential matchups. Conversely, most wins were because the matchup was very favorable.Īnd matchups are really the issue here. Most losses were because my laptop blue screened or the matchup was unfavorable.
Very few 2v2 players were actually good enough to outright beat us-those who were tended to play 1v1-and the ones who could were all above us on the ladder. The faction imbalances really shined through, as did cheese strats like resource pooling, Moon Well litter, and The Cube. We were both Random players-because it was way more fun-and our chances of winning depended on what races we rolled and what races the enemy rolled. My college roommate and I were in the Top 20 on the NA server, but that was based on team level which itself was less about win rate and more about volume of games played. I played WC3 2v2 at a decently high level and it varied widely. r/wow /r/diablo /r/hearthstone /r/heroesofthestorm /r/overwatch
Same- and similar-topic submissions that exceed 4 per top 25 Promotional submissions that exceed "2 per 1 per 1"ĭuplicate results posts for the same individual match will be removed.
To hide spoilers use format: (/spoiler) ( details)ĭeceptive links to shock sites, malware, etc
#Starcraft 2 editor make doodad see through verification
Green verification check mark guide and verified users list Use the "Filters" menu across the top to tailor the content here. Chat on discord PiG with a story of a community member's struggles Weekly help a noob thread
0 kommentar(er)
