StarCraft 2 is Dying and How to Save it

General Discussion
Prev 1 2 3 4 26 Next
AND WE HAVE A WINNER~!!!

Grats mr hex, bravo, bravo
02/16/2013 10:18 AMPosted by HeReTiC
moon landing was staged


true, the american flag on the "moon" was waving in the wind, what wind?
02/16/2013 02:53 PMPosted by SunnyD
Yes someone bought it! Quickly Heretic, post a inflammatory response!

Nooo, I missed it! D:

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/
hahahaha excellent
Still no bites...
02/16/2013 03:20 PMPosted by VIPER
Still no bites...


I think there was supposed to be one bite, but the dude deleted it and no one quoted him.
With all do respect, Heretic

I disagreed with many of your points. For example, if players get a feature to "start over". Bronze leagues won't appreciated getting stomped by masters who decide to "start over" for whatever reason.

Secondly, StarCraft II is designed to be broken down into 3 games because of the way they implement the campaign. Which is one for every race. As far as the idea of releasing a new game every year. I don't think it would be physically possible. Especially since we all know Blizzard spends A LOT of time into each individual game. The campaign can be further broken down, or the new game can only contain multiplayer improvements. But I don't think it will be nearly as refined or exciting to see.

Next, the ability to control multiple units is what can differentiate winning and losing. Especially for the professional players. If we make the game "easy" in that fashion, it will take quite a lot of excitement away.

Introducing a new unit every week is simply not possible. StarCraft is a competitive game in nature and it will be nearly impossible to manage to get a new unit every week without having balance issues. Blizzard is struggling to balance the game without any new units for like 3 years. I can't imagine them managing to balance the game if they introduce a new unit weekly.

The next point is the idea of a F2P game with advantages from paying. This is simply not good for the competitive scene. Most of us wouldn't enjoy getting stomped by colossus since we didn't pay and can't build vikings. It is simply impossible for a game like StarCraft II.
Although I wouldn't mind if the multiplayer becomes F2P while the campaign will require you to pay. I think with a few improvements such as being able to play a specific team game or expand the map base, Starter Edition already does this quite nicely though.

I'm sorry for my bad English, it's not my first language. And of course I may be wrong on what I have said.
Still no bites...


I think there was supposed to be one bite, but the dude deleted it and no one quoted him.

I tried accessing my local internet cache as well as the google one to get a copy of the web page after he posted, but before he deleted it, but to no avail. Too small of a time window :'(

Whatever he posted is now lost in the infinite realm of cyberspace...
With all do respect, Heretic

I disagreed with many of your points. For example, if players get a feature to "start over". Bronze leagues won't appreciated getting stomped by masters who decide to "start over" for whatever reason.

Secondly, StarCraft II is designed to be broken down into 3 games because of the way they implement the campaign. Which is one for every race. As far as the idea of releasing a new game every year. I don't think it would be physically possible. Especially since we all know Blizzard spends A LOT of time into each individual game. The campaign can be further broken down, or the new game can only contain multiplayer improvements. But I don't think it will be nearly as refined or exciting to see.

Next, the ability to control multiple units is what can differentiate winning and losing. Especially for the professional players. If we make the game "easy" in that fashion, it will take quite a lot of excitement away.

Introducing a new unit every week is simply not possible. StarCraft is a competitive game in nature and it will be nearly impossible to manage to get a new unit every week without having balance issues. Blizzard is struggling to balance the game without any new units for like 3 years. I can't imagine them managing to balance the game if they introduce a new unit weekly.

The next point is the idea of a F2P game with advantages from paying. This is simply not good for the competitive scene. Most of us wouldn't enjoy getting stomped by colossus since we didn't pay and can't build vikings. It is simply impossible for a game like StarCraft II.
Although I wouldn't mind if the multiplayer becomes F2P while the campaign will require you to pay. I think with a few improvements such as being able to play a specific team game or expand the map base, Starter Edition already does this quite nicely though.

I'm sorry for my bad English, it's not my first language. And of course I may be wrong on what I have said.


Another bite. Lol.
i cant possibly be the only one that thinks most of this is absurd..
some of this is brilliant, some of this is insanely ridiculous, but I will give you props for the time that you put in to trying to improve the game you like.
u r not the only one, the post is ridiculous ,I think the author is idiot .
Good show, good show. but what about all of Blizzard's nasty ninja nerfs and buffs, and all their useless maintanances that they use as a cover up?
Obama was born in Kenya?
We should direct every "sc is dying" poster to this thread.
10/10 you're my king now
I'm pretty sure this is much less a troll than pure satire, and you can only truly make satire of something you love. This being said, it's weird that people bit on anything at all.

Awesome OP though, > 9/10
Why do you guys worship this fool? His ideas are pretty much attention grab trolling.

As we all know, StarCraft 2 is dying because it isn't the most successful computer game in the world and, without action to fundamentally change it being taken soon, it will fade away and become a part of history.


Would love to see some proof of this. I'm fairly certain that with HOTS intro cinematic and more exposure HOTS has grown in interest in the past few months.

You naysayers who dispute this can hide from the truth all you want--I'm not going to waste my time trying to talk sense into people


Already showing that Heretic cant back up any claims he makes and refuses to do so.
Someone doesn't understand sarcasm/satire when he reads it.
If you're going for a troll then well done 9/10

If you're serious then you're insane and need to be institutionalized.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum