Rob Zacny

Episode 316: Starcraft II: Legacy of the Void

Recommended Posts

Starcraft II remains one of the most popular Esports, BUT... It's one of the most-streamed games, BUT... the new game mode will attract new players, BUT... listen in to hear what Rob and 3MA's very own Sean Sands think of the Legacy of the Void beta. (Also, learn about Rob's wicked APM.)

 

Listen here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice listen. Some thoughts on why Starcraft II struggles in popularity relative to, for instance, Lords Management games or other similar games. 

 

You got close to what I think is the answer in your discussion when discussing how SC2 is not "rewarding" or fun when it is difficult, but I´d like to zero in on a more particular explanation. The answer I believe is not the skill ceiling or even skill floor per se. Starcraft II is certainly not harder in every way compared to, say, DOTA2 or LoL. For instance, DOTA-ish games rely far more on teamplay than SC2, there is a ridiculous amount of learning to do with regards to abilities, items and champions, and so on.

 

I think that the answer to the question is captured in one word: Multitasking.

 

Humans aren´t very good at multitasking and switching very rapidly between tasks. It´s not something that we´re evolved to do very well, and hence we have to do it "in software" to use a strained graphics card analogy. That in turn means that introducing a lot of multitasking into a game is great for raising the skill ceiling, but it´s also great for making the game feel strangely unrewarding and taxing when you are forced close to your skillcap (and ELO matchmaking ensures that this will happen on ladder).

 

Lords Management games might be difficult in many ways, but their difficulty is more focused on domains where humans are pretty comfortable. This is I believe the primary reason for why SC2 lags relative to games less focused on taxing your multitasking skills.

 

There are other reasons as well, such as the need to find and memorize pretty detailed build orders in order to be competitive even at fairly low levels of play, but I feel that´s pretty secondary.

 

So, TLDR: Heavy reliance on multitasking is not that fun for most people.

 

This also helps explain why the problems of Starcraft are not particular to SC2 - indeed, SC2 is the game that´s doing the best in terms of player base and viewership (by far) in the RTS genre. That´s why this is pretty bad news for SC2 and RTS in general - the issue is not easily fixed without changing the traditional RTS formula radically, and that´s pretty much what DOTA-likes did. 

 

 

PS.

 

Props to Tom Chick for (kind of) pointing this out in his infamous SC2 review. I was way into SC2 at the time and I failed to grasp his point, so kudos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent a full hour(!) writing something brilliant, balanced and clever in this comment section ... and then the text was flushed, probably because I am on Internet Explorer, or autosave function became self-aware and threw my words into the Void!

Let's assume it was worthwhile reading... and I now saved you time, on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great points, Adam. I came away from your post feeling much better about the whole thing. Well done.

 

I bought Starcraft 2 a couple of months ago. My RTS diet previously had largely consisted of Relic games, namely Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2. I played the original SC campaign back in the day before multiplayer was ever something I dreamed of doing, so playing the SC2 campaign is nice, in terms of soaking in the familiar atmosphere and polish. Since I haven't gotten though Wings of Liberty the missions are indeed well designed. 

 

I can't imagine ever touching multiplayer, though. I have some idea of what that would take, and that makes me want it even less. Keeping mental track of a bunch of different timers so I remember to build workers every 20 seconds or whatever the heck it is, or making use of chrono-whatever and injecting hatcheries... bleh. No. Heaven forbid you could queue anything up!  Using the available usability features would be awful. Why is having to build another stupid supply depot every three units a neat thing to do? it isn't.

 

I bet this is satisfying when you get good, because mastery of something hard is always satisfying. I'm sure for the pros it's like conducting an orchestra while playing four of the instruments yourself. Getting there sounds like a horrible chore, and I don't have time for my games to be not fun before they're fun. 

 

Relic RTSs in multiplayer are very challenging and tricky to master, but I didn't find them a chore to learn to play. They were fun from the start onwards, because everything you did was about getting to the core of the genre- getting your little dudes and tanks to have dramatic battles. You're sending out a scout squad to capture a flanking point while setting up defensive guns. You're calling in reinforcements for your retreating units, or pulling back those scouts who ran into unexpected resistance. You're microing a tank to get its frontal armour into the line of fire while its gun keeps firing. No supply counts. No fiddling. 

 

I think Lords Managements are doing something similar by taking the tedious verbs out. Even laning, the chore part of a Lords Management, is inherently fun, since getting your farm on while performing the intricate laning dance with your opposition is comprehensible, enjoyable, and deep. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arathain,

 

I actually hate the thought of playing CoH online cause it always feel like half of the battle is me fighting against the squad mechanics, like watching a squad pathfinding break when near a moving vehicle makes me want to alt + f4 (in fact I usually do).  Both DoW games had squads that were lot more consistent but absence of base building on the second one left me bit cold at low unit count (CoH games also lost me there).

 

For me, biggest draw of RTS (or wargaming in general) is this sense of playing with toy army... like more units the merrier cause it's all about watching swath of little toys doing their thing that I told them to do.  So Relic RTS and all the Lords Managements lose me in that regard... like yes, I have more fun (not much I admit but still a bit) placing supply depot every production cycle than laning or telling a squad in CoH to hold position using certain cover cause it's all about getting more stuff for me.  But supcom sadly lost me cause units in that game react to command too poorly for a game that wasn't really designed with that consideration so it just ended up frustrating the experience despite its hyper focus on volume.  That and design was so bad.  That series could have used lot better thematic design overhauls.

 

Physical dexterity requirement when it comes to SC2 is kind of an odd beast because it's both true but also greatly exaggerated on wrong levels if that makes sense?  Like it's very true that most players are bottlenecked by physical dexterity requirement, but the degree in which they are is misrepresented... like people throw 100+ APM as a thing that you must have to enjoy the game and not be garbage at the game.  I mean I was never great, but I did hit masters (so not garbage) one season as Terran (arguably most APM intensive cause of its production design) with 50 ~ 60 APM.

 

That being said, the dexterity check is definitely on the high end and yes few of things feel too laborious.  I think few major things can be automated to greatly reduce the skillgap from purely dexterous skill check... for example, I think all production (this mostly applies to terran and protoss probes) should be auto-cast-able.  Maybe this changed with LotV's new economy, but in WoL and HotS, there is almost no reason ever to stop building workers unless you are doing some specific early 1-2 base pushes.  Til that timing hits, you might as well have CC or Nexus auto build workers  by default cause that's like half of the skill ceiling for lot of bronze-silver-gold econ players.  Similar thing with zerg creep for example.  Zero reason why creep shouldn't be spreading, but it's little trickier cause creep is tied to tumor so how can that be automated?

 

And I agree with Rob that 1v1 is just not as fun.  I recall my most multiplayer played RTS is Warcraft 3 (not counting custom maps here) and it was mostly in 3v3.  For all the shit that Lords Managements/Lord Management games get about toxic community is, it's better to be with dipshits sometimes than to be mostly alone.  Better team maps alone could bring me back to SC2 multiplayer.  Team games just remove so much of the stress while maintaining almost all of the fun for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 bet this is satisfying when you get good, because mastery of something hard is always satisfying. I'm sure for the pros it's like conducting an orchestra while playing four of the instruments yourself. Getting there sounds like a horrible chore, and I don't have time for my games to be not fun before they're fun. 

 

I feel there are games where you are supposed to be good and where you supposed to be less bad. In, say, Civilization it's fairly easy to learn not to do stupid things. You will still do those - send unguarded settler, built unnecessary building - but those are minor things. You have perfect control of your side and it fulfills your will. Even if you're crap strategist you'll look decent by just not doing stupid things.

 

In RTS like StarCraft you can't hope to control your side on the same level. You will never fulfill your potential. As Protoss I can boost building production ever 25 seconds per Nexus. First half of the game I should constantly produce workers. I have to build buildings and troops on schedule. I have to move those over map. I have to build expansions. I don't believe even Korean gosu on drags has the same level of control over his SC2 race as you have over your race in Civilization - or even Company of Heroes for that matter as this game has relatively low limits on number of units you can have. SC2 is made to be unplayable mess, like Distant Worlds without AI automation.

 

So in multiplayer I can of course win by smart air attack on enemy defenseless land units or by daring expansion in unexpected region. But it always feels like you're barely controlling this mess. Perfectionist and completionist in me suffers for that and wants to use suboptimal strategies like using units with minimal micromanage capabilities (I won't have time for those anyway) and attacking only in big formation (I won't be able to manipulate several armies effectively because I have to maintain economy). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arathain,

 

I actually hate the thought of playing CoH online cause it always feel like half of the battle is me fighting against the squad mechanics, like watching a squad pathfinding break when near a moving vehicle makes me want to alt + f4 (in fact I usually do).  Both DoW games had squads that were lot more consistent but absence of base building on the second one left me bit cold at low unit count (CoH games also lost me there).

 

For me, biggest draw of RTS (or wargaming in general) is this sense of playing with toy army... like more units the merrier cause it's all about watching swath of little toys doing their thing that I told them to do.  So Relic RTS and all the Lords Managements lose me in that regard... like yes, I have more fun (not much I admit but still a bit) placing supply depot every production cycle than laning or telling a squad in CoH to hold position using certain cover cause it's all about getting more stuff for me.  But supcom sadly lost me cause units in that game react to command too poorly for a game that wasn't really designed with that consideration so it just ended up frustrating the experience despite its hyper focus on volume.  That and design was so bad.  That series could have used lot better thematic design overhauls.

I think CoH and DoW justify their low unit counts by having the units themselves be detailed and rich in tactical possibility. Time spent microing would be well rewarded, but since combat was slower than in SC you'd have more success positioning and attacking thoughtfully, rather than being able to do things fast. The challenge comes from being able to manage the whole map at once with the potential for multiple skirmishes- I've heard Relic games described as having a high thought-per-minute barrier rather than an AMP barrier. I loved the no-base approach in DoW2, because it let you spend all your time with what I believe to be the most interestingly designed units in a RTS.* 

 

We're just expressing different, but perfectly legitimate preferences here, of course. 

 

*Seriously, I could write an essay on the Heretics, the basic starter unit of Chaos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and it's interesting divergence of preferences because I was once really into that idea of this lower volume but more detailed tactical game.  And that certainly works for me in turn based games like say, FFT or Xcom (actually it is kind of critical for me that turn based games remain relatively 'small' in control scale).  But real time equivalent of these tactics focused games just doesn't grab me the way that volume-centric ones do.


For me, there is something "primal" about watching ton of tiny things moving that I love about old school RTS (and Total War games to an extent).  Kinda like how watching ant-farm gives me this vibe I also get from playing city builders.  Or looking down at NYC from Empire State Building.

 

I'm emphasizing 'primal' because in the past few years I have learned that I actually enjoy watching huge trees move from strong wind.  Watching all those leaves and branches sway in the breeze and trying to see the whole macro and micro at the same time is joyful and it is shared between that, my toys and RTS games.

 

Another thing close to this is what Husky starcraft was mentioning during his playthrough of HotS campaign about how he loves watching NPCs battling it out in RTS games.  There is something similar going on in there as well.  And it being real time is kinda critical here.

 

Maybe this is exact opposite of what illitarist is talking about.  I just admire the sheer mess of it.  More messier and uncountable, the better.  At the same time individual readability is critical so it's not just pure mess.  It's the kind of mess that forms out of compounding of very basic and readable elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is scope for two different starcraft-like games,

I love building 'sim city' when playing terran, getting tonnes of barracks and addons that pump out infantry at the rate of harvesting resources is really satisfying.

choosing expansion locations and timings is also really challenging and can be satisfying to optimise.

 

then there is the micro/tactical combat aspect of starcraft 2

controlling marines, stalkers and hydralisks is really fun and instantly rewarding unlike the sluggish control of relic style COH units where you suggest things, Starcraft units do exactly what they are told to do. people in silver league love to do mine drops, reaper play, and marine stutter step but fail the macro part of sc2.

The most fun I've had in the LOTV beta is using Adept's shades to dart up the opponents ramp and gain vital information while also making their units dart around to try and stop them and then retreating before they teleport.

 

I think the problem for me as a casual silver league player is managing both at the same time. So I would play user made custom games instead but blizzard made it a popularity contest and that killed the variety of maps available.

I think there is scope for two different RTS games in future, focusing on production or unit control. I see Lords ManagementS as an extreme verion of a unit control RTS (RTT).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure what it is about Starcraft as a whole that has failed to capture my imagination but despite growing up on real-time strategy games I have never really been into playing or watching either the original Starcraft or its sequel. Not like I am particularly fussy towards a certain breed of RTS since I have played, and even spectated in some cases, everything from the Supreme Commander end of the spectrum through to Dawn of War II or World in Conflict end of the spectrum.

 

I still love the genre so I keep feeling like I should be interested in Starcraft to help keep the genre alive in a niche fashion. Guess a lack of friends who are interested in Starcraft contributes to that since I often put hours in to Company of Heroes 2 due to friends. Similar situation when it comes to watching the game, I have more success being engaged in a stream if someone I follow is streaming the game.

 

Definitely prefer playing team games, typically Arranged 2s or 3s, competitively over mano-el-mano (1-vs-1) games. Originally Dawn of War II tried to focus its balance and competitive multiplayer around 3-vs-3 but trying to balance the game so it was balanced competitively for 3-vs-3 as well as the dedicated 1-vs-1 crowd was a headache for Relic. However, there is something about Relic games and their faction design and balancing which means that what works for 1-vs-1 usually falls apart at 3-vs-3 and above anyway.

 

Never really bought into Warcraft either, so I guess Blizzard have been missing out on someone who could on paper be a customer. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what benjerry said about how difficult multitasking is for like 95% of us. I love watching competitive SC2 matches, but actually playing the multiplayer game is totally unappealing to me. DOTA may involve a steep learning curve, but the fact is that even if I'm never even as close to as good a player as any pro DOTA player I know I can pull off some epic move in a game that changes the tide of a game similar to what you see in the pro games. And that's a really powerful moment that makes up for how awful the community might be or whatever. And when I sit down and try to play SC2 it seems impossible for me to envision doing anything remotely similar to what I see in pro games. Without those similar moments at a lower skilled game the capacity for enjoyment diminishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got into StarCraft through watching Korean Brood War matches, so I've always been more of a spectator than a player. While I agree that having a healthy player base is important for any competitive game, I think StarCraft II's success as a spectator sport came in large part from it being possible to get in to simply as a spectator. It is much easier to get an understanding of what's happening and why it's exciting in SCII than it is in DotA2.

The reasons I stopped watching were primarily:

Difficulty in finding someone to root for. I was more of a fan of some Korean players than others, but the truth of the matter is that as great as the games were at times, I never cared as much about Korean vs Korean matchups. The language barrier and their reclusiveness made it hard to be a fan of anything more than their play, and that was not enough for them to stand out sufficiently. There were exceptions of course, but still.

Rooting for foreigners was more exciting because they were the underdogs, but there simply weren't enough success stories and they became fewer as time went on. Things like ThorZaIN winning TSL3 fuelled people's excitement and as it happened less and less that excitement was depleted. It certainly wasn't helped by some of the best players not being fit to be in the limelight.

Another factor for me was the tournament format. SCII tournaments were all weekend affairs that you had to dedicate a ton of time to watch. I found that as I had less time, I tried to pick the matches I wanted to see the most and they would invariably be delayed. From half an hour to one and a half hours, with no clear messaging about what's going on. It's a horrible spectator experience and it never got much better. It was too hard to be a casual fan.

Maybe the biggest reason is that the game got stale. I don't think Blizzard supported the game nearly as well as they could have, especially considering the kind of resources they have. Yes, it's a hard game to balance and you can't fiddle with it too frequently, but leading up to HotS the metagame was absolute crap for over 6 months. I also think there were lingering flaws in the core design of the game that they refused to address. SCII was a good game, but I don't think it was good enough. Things like the Corruptor being an utterly boring unit that simply doesn't fit into the game well, unit clumping drastically changing how powerful splash damage is and making Lancherster's law apply to engagements, the race specific mechanics probably being too dramatically powerful for the good of the game, etc.

I think it's interesting that there were two massive competitive games, Counter-Strike and Brood War, that both had thriving scenes for over a decade with zero balance input (other than maps). Now they both have sequels that are constantly rebalanced while never quite getting there. I don't know how you replicate that, or if you even can, but I don't think SCII got close enough and I doubt LotV will randomly strike gold.

Finally, I think Blizzard screwed up monumentally when it came to BNet 2.0. People joke about it being worse than the 1998 BNet, but it was true. It was awful at launch and I don't think it ever got good. It's not a place that fosters communities, that's why the game is lonely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the new bnet is pretty pooey from user end.  Matchmaking is far better than the old ladder for sure, but otherwise the old bnet with its super simple features actually felt more 'alive'.  Wonder if part of it is simply because old one automatically dropped you into a chat room?  And for a while new custom game thingy was really botched but I can't recall specific details as to why ATM...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked Wings of Liberty, but I wasn't very happy with the story or gameplay in Heart of the Swarm. I hope the Legacy of the Void campaign is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now