|
|
On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote:
What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither
A) a sign of weakness
B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error.
The response sounds like a big "thanks but no thanks".
|
Alsoo it looks like they don't understand the proposed changes..  .
In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
This is simply not true, assuming they have the same amount of workers. Yes the 4 base player with 8 workers on each base will have more income than the 2 base player with 16 workers on each base, but it's nowhere near double.
|
On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote:
What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither
A) a sign of weakness
B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error.
I think they are professionals in gamedesign and if they feel they need more time testing the current model, it is a good action to take.
|
On April 22 2015 06:11 Sn0_Man wrote:
Well I briefly had hope for this expansion...
However every time blizzard posts a statement more of it drifts away
What? They address everything the community is complaining about with statements. Maybe their solutions don't match up with what TL would want, but they at least seem to care, which is a good start. Remember that there is still a long time before LotV release, so if we continue to push for cool changes, they might try them.
Honestly what more do you want, that they just say "Yes, Master Community, right away!". It's not an collaborative design, dude, it's still their game, leave them time to think about design changes.
|
On April 22 2015 06:20 Musicus wrote:Alsoo it looks like they don't understand the proposed changes.. . Show nested quote +In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base) This is simply not true, assuming they have the same amount of workers. Yes the 4 base player with 8 workers on each base will have more income than the 2 base player with 16 workers on each base, but it's nowhere near double.
Its basically a yeah we noticed your feedback but we are too proud to admit that it might work.
On April 22 2015 06:21 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote:
What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither
A) a sign of weakness
B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error. I think they are professionals in gamedesign and if they feel they need more time testing the current model, it is a good action to take.
But they also thought the swarmhost was in a good place and exciting in 2013. and now we are 2015 and the unit is undergoing huge changes because most people dislike it. So they may be called "professionals" but they also do mistakes and this is the place where they get the most negative criticism because it has the most caring community.
|
So basically... "thanks, but no thanks" without further consideration? Is this because they want to come up with things like that themselves or because they genuinely dislike the idea?
Worker pairing is bad.
|
On April 22 2015 06:14 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote:
What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither
A) a sign of weakness
B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error. The response sounds like a big "thanks but no thanks".
Maybe. They have said multiple times that it's going to be a very long beta, and it sounds like they're up for trying different things. If the reception to the new economy is negative, maybe they'll give double harvesting a shot. Or maybe I just have too high hopes for the new expansion.
|
I don't think he fully gets the math.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On April 22 2015 06:21 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote:
What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither
A) a sign of weakness
B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error. I think they are professionals in gamedesign and if they feel they need more time testing the current model, it is a good action to take.
I think that is the definite and by far best approach to balance and design in the live, tournament-version game. The game that many people making their living playing. I do not, however, agree that extreme caution and conservatism are desirable traits in game designers supposedly open to suggestions and doing their best to make their upcoming game the best it can be. I'm in favor of caution in HotS, I'm against caution in the LotV beta. I would like them to go wild.
|
So they effectively remove substantial portion of the top 20% players from the HOTS ladder!???? TIME TO GRIND MY PROMOTION LIKE NEVER BEFORE!!!
|
Huge respect for coming out and being open with us on the topic. Honestly, I don't want to downplay this at all because it gives me really good feels.
That being said, unless I fucked this up, DK didn't use the numbers very well.
Assuming 32 workers mining minerals (16 per base on 2 base, 8 per base on 4) the difference in income is about 200 minerals per minute (1400 and 1600 roughly), right? So that's a 12.5% increase in mineral income, not 100%. But correct me if I'm wrong, math isn't my strong suit.
I understand he might be talking about 16 workers mining on all bases, but I don't personally think that's a useful scenario for two reasons. The first is because the four basing player would have 64 workers mining. Assuming he has 12 workers mining gas, that's 76 supply instead of the 66ish that's considered an optimal balance. So not only is he therefore using lower tech units with lower upgrades (which precipitate inefficient trades, which is ok to an extent) but he has a smaller army to boot. The math on how much an army size advantage effects efficiency is pretty staggering, because fights snowball so quickly. So it might be the case that he's not even benefiting from his larger economy at that moment, hard to say. It's certainly not a cut and dry 100% advantage regardless of which way it tips.
The second reason (which is related, as far as worker count and army size is concerned) is that unless we assume they have the same number of workers we have to ask how the 4 basing player suddenly got 25 workers ahead of their opponent. As the game unfolds in real time, that could only realistically be the result of negligence on the turtling player's part or a pretty substantial skill gap between the players. Not a great example.
A much more plausible example is the 1644 minerals per minute the 2 basing player would mine with 48 workers mining minerals, having cut workers at max saturation, as opposed to the 2592 (that's rounding down .25 of a worker) minerals per minute the 4 basing player would have if he went up to the optimal 57 workers mining.
That's just under a 37% difference, which sounds like the middle ground to me.
+ Show Spoiler +Sorry if I got something wrong, doing this at work super sneaky like
|
Like I can't even understand how they can say
In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base)
after looking at that graph?
![[image loading]](/staff/ZeromuS/Economy/1v2b16wDH.png)
Is it really that hard to understand? Since when is 900 double as much as 700?
On 2 bases vs 4 bases the math stays the same... 1800 is not 2x1400. It's not even close. So there are only two conclusions, they either did not look at the article carefully enough or they don't get it. Not sure which is more worrying, but this statement is just shocking.
|
On April 22 2015 06:33 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 06:21 [F_]aths wrote:On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote:
What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither
A) a sign of weakness
B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error. I think they are professionals in gamedesign and if they feel they need more time testing the current model, it is a good action to take. I think that is the definite and by far best approach to balance and design in the live, tournament-version game. The game that many people making their living playing. I do not, however, agree that extreme caution and conservatism are desirable traits in game designers supposedly open to suggestions and doing their best to make their upcoming game the best it can be. I'm in favor of caution in HotS, I'm against caution in the LotV beta. I would like them to go wild.
I think that they should at least try to get a little more information on their current system and try tweaking before abandoning it completely for something else. that just my personal thoughts though
|
On April 22 2015 06:42 Musicus wrote:Like I can't even understand how they can say Show nested quote +In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base) after looking at that graph? Is it really that hard to understand? Since when is 900 double as much as 700? On 2 bases vs 4 bases the math stays the same... 1800 is not 2x1400. It's not even close. So there are only two conclusions, they either did not look at the article carefully enough or they don't get it. Not sure which is more worrying, but their statement is just shocking.
haha way to one up me.
Edit:+ Show Spoiler +kidding, by the way. That graph should be here.
And yeah, it's a little disturbing that he gave that in his response. He's a smart guy, he knows the difference.
|
Let's make things clear: Blizzard DOES take community suggestions seriously. Last year, they completely changed a test map that ultimately became a balance patch because of pro and community feedback. They were prepared to solve the Blink problem by smacking down Blink cooldown heavily until pro players and community members said "this isn't the right way to solve the problem, decrease MSC vision range instead". And they did, and it helped. As much as it might hurt the popular narrative of "Blizzard doesn't care about the fans QQ", the response that we got was based on them looking at a well-written and thorough community suggestion, dissecting it, examining it in-house, and determining how that jives with the intent of the expansion.
A lack of heaps of praise and immediate implementation =/= A complete dismissal of a proposal
|
On April 22 2015 06:44 robopork wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 06:42 Musicus wrote:Like I can't even understand how they can say In the community suggestion model the 2nd player will have near double the econ advantage (due to it being pretty easy to fully saturate every base) after looking at that graph? Is it really that hard to understand? Since when is 900 double as much as 700? On 2 bases vs 4 bases the math stays the same... 1800 is not 2x1400. It's not even close. So there are only two conclusions, they either did not look at the article carefully enough or they don't get it. Not sure which is more worrying, but their statement is just shocking. haha way to one up me. Edit: + Show Spoiler +kidding, by the way. That graph should be here. And yeah, it's a little disturbing that he gave that in his response. He's a smart guy, he knows the difference.
Yeah I went the easy way by just showing the graph, your post was solid! 
And I'd like to believe that he gets it/they get it and they are smart enough to understand it. But then the only conclusion left would be that they didn't read the freaking article, at least not thoroughly.
|
I doubt Blizzard really cares about this tbh.
They wanna do their economy (map change) cause reasons.
I would argue that you don't even have to test different economies, it's really just math in the end.
You have to decide what should be important in your game, the general philosophy and then decide on the economy.
Units and balance changes are dependant on which economy model you choose.
Blizzard likes the new LOTV "economy" cause it is basically the same as in HOTS as long as you (can) expand every time you need for a 3 base economy.
Which means they don't have to change the Hots unit much at all.
With a real different economy (different in the mining rates) the whole game is different, could it still work with it? Yeah maybe, but the chance you have to invest a lot more time into changing units is a lot bigger.
Blizzard simply doesn't intend to go through that (or they cannot, the result is the same)
|
On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote:
What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither
A) a sign of weakness
B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error.
The current model hasn't been adequately tested though. While Blizzard is excessively conservative jumping from model to model without exploring each thoroughly isn't healthy either.
|
|
|
On April 22 2015 05:14 Zealously wrote:
What I think they might not understand is that testing something new as per community suggestion is neither
A) a sign of weakness
B) in any way permanent
They say the model is worth further consideration, but I really think it means they're too conservative to take the leap of faith. They have nothing to lose by taking that leap. If the model works and is popular then they have stumbled upon a gold mine, and if it isn't they can just as easily revoke the change and keep fiddling with their current model.
I just don't see the value in being so careful during a beta test designed to create the best game possible through trial and error.
My thoughts exactly unfortunately
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
