Campaign Creations

Source: Battle.net

I saw this on RockPaperShotgun and my only reaction was why they were nerfing stuff that was ALREADY weak in the game, like Ultralisks which you won't really mass anyway, or OK stuff based on conditional reasons, like Bunkers specifically to avoid Bunker rushes. Zealots and Battlecruisers were prime examples of stuff that didn't need rebalancing even in the original Starcraft.

Siege Tank damage being nerfed is another example of this, with the only possible upside being to force players to rely more on Hellions. It makes them fairly weak even against armored units, their intended target.

What bugs me more is that Blizzard KNOWS that these changes aren't necessary (as they admit with the Ultralisk change) but are still pushing it through instead of implementing what balance changes are supposed to be - providing players with more choices in melee. Zerg simply needs more late-game options and Protoss needs more versatile spells/ground-based units.

You know, I was just thinking about how the posted balance changes in this post hide the fact that this patch won't actually be adding any content... like, say multiplayer saves.

Now now Krazy, don't get ahead of yourself. We still need the features the game was supposed to have in the first place. You know, an online service, an editor, a plot...

I'll settle for one of the three. Hopefully, Blizzard can smooth things out in the next year before HotS comes out which is a pretty good timeline for fixing the game given how large of a staff (and budget).

There are much smaller studios with smaller budgets and staff that have fixed their games in a matter of weeks with a level of community response that is at least mediocre compared to this. We'll see what they do after this patch.

IskatuMesk wrote:Now now Krazy, don't get ahead of yourself. We still need the features the game was supposed to have in the first place. You know, an online service, an editor, a plot...

If you hate this game so freaking much, why do you even bother with it?

That sounds like a beautiful and intellectual inquiry, Johnnythewolf. Just for you, I'll go into the puppy-grinding details of my beloved, infallible logic.

Without really caring for the vagueness of "bothering with it", I'll just cover the three ways I interact with it.

Casting - Konadora recently makes a blog on TL that I agree with 100%. It basically summarizes why it's so hard to get into SC2 as a spectator. The game is fucking boring to watch. There's nothing interesting happening. An individual or two will try to defend the game by saying, "Wait until high-level players start playing", which would be in reference to actual S-class players. But this won't change the fact it's boring to watch.

SC2 is boring to watch by account of the following factors;

* Uninteresting graphics.
* Cheaply done, uncharacteristic sounds.
* "Blob" movement makes it dififcult to discern army strength on the fly, and battles end very quickly.
* Poor map design means largely 1-base gameplay on most Blizzard maps.
* Uninteresting unit design.

Out of these factors, only two can be improved with expansions. The blob movement is a result not of just the pathing engine but of the transition of collision types. SC1 used a grid-type collision, sc2 uses spherical collision like wc3, in addition to formation movement like wc3. Also, the values are much smaller than in wc3. The pathing isn't just "smarter", it's more refined size-wise.

Thus I don't cast predictable, uninteresting high-level games. I cast gimmicky, unusual low and mid-level games unless requested otherwise. But even then it's hard to get the motivation to cast.

SC2 is boring to play by the following factors;

* Everything related to casting
* Horrible imbalance in late-game

Seriously, Terran always wins in an FFA unless he's a bad player or an unforseeable circumstance comes along. Ravens and Vikings are that good.

SC2 is boring to make custom content for on the following factors;

* Everything.


So mister Johnnythewolf, I will now satisfying the burning curiosity in your young heart.

By manner of elimination, why do I bother with this horrible alpha-stage game?

To answer this question, first ask yourself: "What are the alternatives?"

What other RTS games are there that I could mod, cast, and play?

Dawn of war? HAH!
Company of Heroes? DOUBLE HAH!
Command & Conquer? Don't make me laugh!

... Oh wait, that's it.

Now you understand.

SC1 hasn't aged that well either, you know.

I can understand your frustration, as I felt the same way with Bioshock, being a long-time fan of System Shock and all. But I soon realized that bitching about it wouldn't change anything with the released product, so I moved on and started playing different games during my free time.

After all, boycott exists for a reason.

SC1 has aged pretty well, but everyone's moving on now than sc2 has come. If there was no sc2, SC1 would probably live another decade. I've done all I can with sc1 modding and wc3 mapping, so those grounds aren't fertile anymore.

Once Guild Wars 2 and other such games come out I probably will leave sc2 behind, although to say I do a lot with it right now in the first place would be lying. I'm working on something, much to RCX's chagrin, but it won't be public and nor am I investing all of my energy into it.

Uh, Civ 5?

You been forgetting something, Mesk: Age of Wonders, which you modded and played and casted and did somewhat a good job...

AoW 2 is a TBS not RTS.

I can't cast AoW2 when the damn thing won't record.

IskatuMesk wrote:I can't cast AoW2 when the damn thing won't record.

Didn't it work with Guncam for a while?

yes but guncam doesn't work on windows 7