EPTAnd that's a good thing; the entire reason to do a closed or open beta in development of a game is to get constructive feedback. Giving feedback on TL is legitimate, too; Blizzard almost certainly keeps tabs on feedback from TL, and even if they didn't, good discussion of feedback here will almost certainly benefit the discussion on the Battle.net forums.
But there's an important note in there that's easy to miss: the entire reason to do a beta stage is to get constructive feedback. And that's where forums tend to fail you. Because if you tell a group of people on the internet to have a discussion, they'll do it. But if you tell them to have a useful discussion, your odds are considerably lower.
Consider feedback like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W6yxV.png)
Mines didn't make him fly his broodlords into a corner with zero corruptor support.
From the player perspective, this is perfectly reasonable feedback. Because thinking as a player, what happened? Mines were too powerful, so you lost. Your win rate is too negatively affected by the addition of mines, so Blizzard should adjust it to address the issue.
But think for a moment from a designer's perspective. What, exactly, is the issue you're facing? Does the mine have too much health, so it can't properly be punished for running into battle and burrowing in the face of its enemies? Does it come out too fast, so proper defenses for a widow mine push can't be out yet? Is it too cheap, so widow mine armies consistently beat you on resources, even if they would be fine elsewhere.
From a designer's perspective, feedback like "widow mine op" is almost completely useless. In general you'd like to keep track of balance information, but without some information on why its imbalanced, or exactly what about the challenges presented by the widow mine make it inordinately difficult to beat, the feedback really hasn't contributed anything of worth.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n7q41.png)
"Widow mines totally negate mutalisk harassment" might be a more constructive form of feedback.
As I glance at the HotS forum right now, there is (predictably) a thread regarding nerfing the widow mine. + Show Spoiler + So let's glance at some of the feedback provided there:
On October 12 2012 03:44 captainwaffles wrote:
Okay so its no secret the widow mines are too strong with current numbers, but thats fine, numbers are malleable. The purpose of this thread is too discuss how the widow mine should be nerfed to make it a balanced but still useful unit.
The cost and supply are fine I don't think that needs any touching.
Okay so its no secret the widow mines are too strong with current numbers, but thats fine, numbers are malleable. The purpose of this thread is too discuss how the widow mine should be nerfed to make it a balanced but still useful unit.
The cost and supply are fine I don't think that needs any touching.
That started so promisingly. The premise is about looking past straight balance issues and getting into what design changes would be best. But then the very first sentence providing specific feedback is a totally unsupported assertion.
Unsupported assertions are a clear indicator of non-constructive feedback. If you believe something is true, you presumably have reasons for it (whether they are legitimate or not). Those reasons are the parts that Blizzard cares about. If, perhaps, you were an expert on matters regarding Starcraft, Blizzard would be a little more willing to take your word as gospel without asking for supporting evidence, but even then, the feedback isn't very valuable.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w5IWD.png)
"Its explosions are too awesome" is also not constructive feedback.
On the other hand, take an example from captainwaffles' very same post:
Right now the widow mine is basically a hellion in terms of HP, it is very tanky, we have hellions for this role, the mine doesn't need to soak as much damage as it does now, considering the damage it deals. I propose a health reduction to 50 HP and see how that feels, I would not go any lower than 30.
This is useful feedback. Speaking to the role of a unit, redundancy with other units, etc. is a design concern. Whether that feedback is true or not is another matter, and probably differs depending on who you ask. But Blizzard can sort out the truth of the matter themselves. The main thing is that you've gotten useful, constructive feedback.
Out of the same thread:
On October 12 2012 03:51 Grendel wrote:
Imo range is fine.
What I think is needed: like you said hit points. But also:
- Burrow time increased
- Reduced splash to 35
- Unable to detect cloaked units.
I think with these parameters altered it would be a good unit.
Imo range is fine.
What I think is needed: like you said hit points. But also:
- Burrow time increased
- Reduced splash to 35
- Unable to detect cloaked units.
I think with these parameters altered it would be a good unit.
The entire post is assertion. All of these things may be true; it may even be that implementing each of these changes would be the absolutely optimal design for the unit. But the feedback is not really useful; as far as Blizzard is concerned, Grendel is an expert at neither game design nor defeating Beowulf, so his opinions are worth nothing without evidentiary support.
To be fair to Grendel, let's take another example from one of his posts from another thread:
On October 11 2012 04:58 Grendel wrote:
Regarding Warpgate tech, while interesting, I really would wish if they just made it so that gateway armies would be produced FASTER than warpgate armies, instead of the other way around. That way both techs would still be viable (warpgate for the harassment, gateway for the normal producing of army). Ground units could be balanced accordingly then.
Regarding Warpgate tech, while interesting, I really would wish if they just made it so that gateway armies would be produced FASTER than warpgate armies, instead of the other way around. That way both techs would still be viable (warpgate for the harassment, gateway for the normal producing of army). Ground units could be balanced accordingly then.
This is constructive criticism. Using gateways as gateways is, in current SC2, completely useless. There is room here for Blizzard to make improvements; and from the fact that gateways can turn back into warpgates, it seems like Blizzard might have at some point intended for gateways to be somewhat useful even when warpgate tech is out.
Conclusion:
Making constructive criticisms is hard work. You have to find evidence for your claims (ideally supported by replays). You need to think from a designer's perspective about your claims, even though the player perspective is probably a lot more natural to you. And when you're merely a poster on a forum, maybe you're not inclined to put that much time and effort into what you say. I understand that; I'm sure if someone wanted to go through my posting history they could find some flagrant examples of completely worthless comments.
But I think many people post on HotS forums because they honestly want their feedback to make a difference. They care about Starcraft, and they want it to be a better game. In which case I hope they'll try to take a second look at their posts, and consider whether what they're saying is really constructive. Because the more constructive feedback Blizzard gets in the beta, the more information they'll have about this game, the more informed decisions they can make, and ultimately, the better Starcraft will be.
