|
So after reading qxc's blog on how the ghost change is the wrong change, I was inspired to write my own matching blog about the Mutalisk change and why I feel it is equally bad.
I wrote my blog entry, it is long and informative, but it will never be posted. When I sat back and thought about it, I found a more important talking point to bring to TL.
Why do we have a Patch Test Server in StarCraft 2?
Wouldn't it be easier to force the next patch upon the ladder and offer up Blizzard approved unit templates for old patch maps?
Wouldn't that be a better solution in general?
Let me explain.
Say Blizzard really likes their ideas for 1.4.3 and they really want to test them out RIGHT NOW. They release 1.4.3 tonight on the live servers. MLG and assembly along with countless online tournaments are scheduled for later this week/weekend and you just screwed over the whole game balance and the players in those tournaments now have to play stage matches with 0 chance to practice with the new changes.
BUT, what if Blizzard also releases a droppable template that adjusts all unit stats to match the previous patch. Now, with only days to spare, tournaments can drop the 1.4.2 unit template into their map and declare "PLAYERS/VIEWERS BEWARE: OUR TOURNAMENT WILL BE RUNNING ON PATCH 1.4.2, NOT THE CURRENT VERSION!"
This would have a few major effects.
Firstly, Blizzard would get meaningful testing on new patches. If everybody who plays the regular ladder HAS to play the new patch, you will get thousands more games played per hour than you ever got in your ghost-town of a patch server.
Secondly, Blizzard gets a lot more feedback. StarCraft is a social game. The first place we would go to complain about the new patch is the community sites, much like I am doing now to complain about this situation. In order to find the best examples of how their change is affecting the game, they would have to look no further than www.teamliquid.net.
Finally, Blizzard wouldn't have to tip-toe around major events in their patch scheduling. If they release a workable unit template that reverts back to the last patch, the burden of patch-timing falls to the tournaments, not Blizzard itself. If they want to play on the old patch because they're unsure of some of the newer changes, they can. If they want to fully embrace the new changes, they can do that too. So long as Blizzard does the legwork of saving their previously done work, they haven't caused themselves any further headaches while simultaneously reducing headaches for everybody else involved, or at worst, keeping them the same.
The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Is 25 damage snipes too harsh of a nerf? Will we ever know until we actually play with it?
Will the +2 range upgrade completely negate Mutalisks in ZvP? We'll have to play it to find out.
Everything we say about an upcoming change is build on nothing but preconceived notions until we play with the game after those changes have been implemented. Unfortunately, even qxc's post amounts to little more than whining about an untested change.
When it comes down to it, the only people given a chance to even play on the patch server are those in North America. Most of those people don't even know about the test realm, let alone how to get set up and log in. Even worse, those people who you really want to play on it (the pros) won't touch it because it does nothing to help them win that next tournament coming up. At least if it were pushed on all the realms, we would typically see the pros play the new patches while they are streaming. Now Blizzard can get their target testers as well as make everybody feel important in the evolution of the game since we have all become contributing members.
TLDR: Test Realms work in MMOs, but seem REALLY out of place in a game like SC2
|
I think that would be really confusing (and there will also be a lot of bad feedback, bronze terran claiming that it makes T3 zerg OP vs. them etc.)
I do like the idea of blizzard releasing maps of future patches (when 1.4.2 is on ladder, have a custom map for 1.4.3) instead of having a test realm.
|
Or, you know, just add LAN.
But your suggestion is actually a good one for tournaments, there were some crazy PvPs after the Immortal range buff in the GSL that turned out to not be so good (but was hilarious indeed).
|
United States3858 Posts
On February 15 2012 11:30 Mobius_1 wrote:
Or, you know, just add LAN.
But your suggestion is actually a good one for tournaments, there were some crazy PvPs after the Immortal range buff in the GSL that turned out to not be so good (but was hilarious indeed).
what does lan have to do with this? seems any time theres any problem at all, people resort to asking for lan
|
On February 15 2012 11:35 johnnywup wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 11:30 Mobius_1 wrote:
Or, you know, just add LAN.
But your suggestion is actually a good one for tournaments, there were some crazy PvPs after the Immortal range buff in the GSL that turned out to not be so good (but was hilarious indeed). what does lan have to do with this? seems any time theres any problem at all, people resort to asking for lan
Because with LAN tournaments can just run off LAN on an old patch and not be subject to Blizzard servers, which was a key point of his blog.
|
Tournaments are already run in custom games, which exist on Battle.net in full functionality. LAN would require using custom maps just as the online mode would. Adding LAN does not add anything to this discussion.
You enter a slippery slope dilemma when you start divorcing tournaments from the current patch cycle, because at that point who's to say that Patch 1.2 is the best patch and will be used in all tournaments from now on? There could be a valid argument for why XYZ is the best patch, but creating a norm of separating the tournaments from the general population would be a problem.
|
At no point did I suggest that it be the norm that tournaments separate themselves from the current patch.
I am simply stating that this allows for tournaments to run on a more stable and known patch under extenuating circumstances.
Many tournaments have already been adversely affected by patch timings in the past year, including GSL finals that happened 1 day after a new patch.
I would assume the vast majority of tournaments would stay with the current patch, but in the case that the timing is inconvenient, a tournament would then have the choice to stick with a slightly dated version of the game for a few days or weeks to finish up their current business rather than changing patches mid swing.
Also, this was only one of the several benefits that patching the live servers would bring.
|
Dear Sirs of the Suggestions Theorycrafting Council,
I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate on my previously post, by which I still stand, but would like to take a more proactive attitude in its advocacy.
One of the major complaints in the original blog post was the patching process upsetting game flow and mechanics and balance strongly to affect tournament play and enjoyment for viewers, and that a system whereby tournaments could use an older version of the game to avoid overly volatile environments and give our players the time to find new strategies, tactics and playstyles better suited to the new patch to provide more entertaining and worthwhile games.
This, I believe, is very similar to what is offered by a lot of software that has a stable release and a beta release, and is prevalent in the gaming world as well, such as represented by Dota Allstars maintaining two releases (at least back when I played), and a lot of other software and websites which allowed users to not be subject forcefully to a new change or at least have a grace period to slowly switch to newer versions.
While the PTR is supposed to fulfill this function, it's current implementation is somewhat limited, and does not incentivise/force players to play on it, therefore limiting the data that Blizzard can gather from it, and correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt top progamers are playing on it with earnest during Test Periods. The OP's solution is to just patch straightaway, but give the retail game the ability to down-patch or stay unpatched so that it can make tournaments run smoother. My argument is that the easiest way to accomplish that is to implement LAN functionality and add in discrete patches that can be applied at the gamer's discretion, or a tool by Blizzard (or a 3rd party) that allows down-patching, given that SC2 already stores previous patches' data in its archives, as demonstrated by its behaviour when viewing replays from older patches.
Moreover, this will also separate tournaments from Blizzard's server downtime, either planned or unplanned, reduce lag, and so on and so forth, as has been discussed by other LAN discussions.
I will now address questions and concerns from the floor.
"You enter a slippery slope dilemma when you start divorcing tournaments from the current patch cycle, because at that point who's to say that Patch 1.2 is the best patch and will be used in all tournaments from now on? There could be a valid argument for why XYZ is the best patch, but creating a norm of separating the tournaments from the general population would be a problem."
Ah yes. An interesting point, sir. However, I'd like to argue that this is prevalent in many other competitive games as well, and should not present a problem for Starcraft 2. In most FPSes, public games are hosted with a lot of players and with all weapons allowed and with perks/killstreak/bonuses enabled where applicable, whereas competitions often ban things and have a much smaller game size. This alone means the experience of a public game and a tournament game are very very different. In RTSes, I do not believe it matters as much either, and they already use different maps to the ladder pool, and MBC once modified WC3 stats to encourage Undead players (though that went badly in the end).
But this is all just theorycrafting, as Blizzard will not give Starcraft 2 LAN due to piracy concerns. I rest my case.
|
I think there is another solution that another company (Riot) has that is more practical. Tournament Realms. This would allow Blizz to push patches live and get the required data on balance concerns, but also allow there to be a place that still has the balance, timing, ect that the pros have been working to compete against/with.
The only concern is that there will be either less or to many people to make this practical. If there are too many people, then the live servers become devoid of the pros/meaningful competition after a certain level. If there are too few people, then it doesn't make for good practice scene (outside of playing against friends/team mates). One solutions is they could give out passes to people who are confirmed to be competing in events within a certain time frame, then reset the accounts after said event. The events would also use the tournament realm, so there could even be better stability than the live servers.
Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
