|
Having 20 post forwarded to the developers is greater an interruption that you maybe think. You don't need only time to actually write a reply, you have to think about it. In most cases you can only explain why the suggestion will not be implemented. This is frustrating for both the developer and the questioner.
But let's say Blizzard's SC2 team would reply to 20 community suggestions each week. There would still be the complaint that Blizzard is not listening enough, and/or that they have no clue (because they deny such brilliant suggestions.)
So earlier today I also talked to my father who work at software development for a Human Ressource system. His job is comparable to the "design"-job at Blizzard since he tells the programmers what they should do to make the program great.
Anyway, he has daily contact with customers and if 2-3 of them says XX is a problem, then they are very likely to work on it within the nearby future. The customers are clearly aware that their feedback is taking serious and is being worked on.
This seems to be the exact opposite approach of what Blizzard is doing. Again, noone is suggesting that the exact solutions of community members should be implemented, but its ridiclous that we still have Forcefields, Colossus and lack of positional play 5 years into the development of Sc2.
|
On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success.
You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII.
Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW.
Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test.
I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all.
However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well.
|
On June 16 2015 02:53 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 20:09 pure.Wasted wrote:On June 15 2015 15:59 BronzeKnee wrote:
In all seriousness though, it isn't my fault Blizzard put so many air units into the game, as I agree, they are in general bad for the game. But they did, and rendering so many useless in a matchup is just bad game design. And it isn't theoretical, many units go unused in TvP because of Vikings. It's not your fault at all. It's on Blizzard, as if everything else they screwed up in this game. If they want all those air units to be useful in conjunction with one another, they need to find a way to give them dynamic interplay, and some sort of relationship to the terrain they glide past. The Liberator is the unit that comes closest to looking like an air unit you want to design compositions around... aand it's Terran. Lol. Seriously, Protoss is just fucked. There's nothing concrete or coherent about the race, just a bunch of half baked ideas duct taped together by FFs, RoboBAOE, and the MSC. Now that the Liberator is a thing, I'd be all for anti-Protoss air duties being split between those two units, so long as those units are made interesting enough to deserve countering. The original sin is still putting the goliath's anti-air attack on an air unit. It removed the entire dynamic of a more cost efficient unit having to navigate terrain versus a bunch of less cost efficient units being able to fly around. But no, Blizzard just loves hard counters. This ghost thing seems like a bandaid to the ultralisk oopsie.
Goliath? More efficient unit? You serious? What dynamic are you taling about?
The many introductions of core units in SC2 (Marauders, Roaches, Immortals, VoidRays, Muta regeneration) would just trash Goliaths. Don't you notice? Basic ground armies are far more powerful than their BW counterparts, even marines got huge buff. In such a place, the BW goliath would be in a very bad position because countering them on ground would be easy. Goliaths would be in a very bad place. They took Goliath's stats and ported them to a Viking, that is able to transform
There is basically one reason on why Vikings feel so bad as AA, and it's their Anti-Colossus design paired with the bad move-shot micro posibilities of air units in SC2. But on raw stats, a well designed Viking will possibly be stronger than Goliaths for sure, and far easier to mass (Reactors).
Problem is that ground mode is 100% clunky, so it is shit on ground. But air mode is only 50% clunky.
What it really fueled Mech in BW is spider mines, not Goliaths. With a strong core unit like Vultures with their spider mines protecting tanks, any Mech play would feel far more powerful. Replacing Vultures was in fact a fail. They could have just balanced spider mines (damage was pretty broken and in SC2 is very easy to mass basic units for Terran) and go.
|
Goliath? More efficient unit? You serious?
He doesn't mean compared to the Viking, but compared to the air unit it is fighting against. (e.g. Goliaths are cost effective vs Carriers/Mutas, but has mobility disadvantage).
And in my opinion, it makes more sense for the anti-armored AA unit to be on the ground and the anti-light AA to be in the air. Vikings (with proper moving shot) can be quite fun vs Mutas and Phoenix, but is a boring shiftclick focus fire unit vs Carriers/BCs and also prevent too much "interesting" stuff such as Overlord drops and Warp Prism.
|
On June 16 2015 04:58 Hider wrote:He doesn't mean compared to the Viking, but compared to the air unit it is fighting against. (e.g. Goliaths are cost effective vs Carriers/Mutas, but has mobility disadvantage). And in my opinion, it makes more sense for the anti-armored AA unit to be on the ground and the anti-light AA to be in the air. Vikings (with proper moving shot) can be quite fun vs Mutas and Phoenix, but is a boring shiftclick focus fire unit vs Carriers/BCs and also prevent too much "interesting" stuff such as Overlord drops and Warp Prism.
IMAO their range/speed is a very unpolished design. Because they in fact ported Goliath values to SC2, very close in terms of speed and upgraded range (since they moved the unit to Starport). You can't give an air unit the stats of a ground one so easily, because it's a big design gap.
Current Adept suffers from the same problem. They changed a key aspect of the unit (weapon efficiency) by removing the upgrade even without experimenting much with it, and they haven't changed the weapon values at all, even if one of the problems is low-damage efficiency. Instead of doing the obvious modification according to a change that modified the initial design of the unit, they went with another change completely different.
(Adept 1.0) :With relatively low HP (60/80) and big damage efficiency and limited speed (2.5) you make an infantry unit that is strong vs infantry because of damage supperiority but sensitive to splash damage sources (Hellion/Hellbat/Tank/Baneling) which is something relatively uncommon for Protoss units.
Adept 2.0 With almost the highest HP per supply in the game (90/140) and low damage efficiency you make an infantry unit that works against infantry and the units it is designed to counter, but at the same time you make them very resistant to splash damage.
That clearly shows (in my opinion) how lacking is the reasoning behind those changes. For example, instead of generic resistance you give Adepts burst damage resistance (projectile disipation, special shield, shield armor... whatever) you can keep it strong vs Bio/ling/Hydra/ but weak to splash. Is that so hard to think of something like this? (and this is something very simple to induce)
|
On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well.
I don't understand you at all.
Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist.
In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink.
|
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability.
|
On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability.
I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game.
|
On June 16 2015 08:38 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability. I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game.
Curious. Is this because army production is streamlined sooner? What if Blizz combined DH with half-patch--would that make a better game?
|
On June 16 2015 05:26 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well. I don't understand you at all. Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist. In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink.
See, this is really what's standing in the way of constructivity in the community. The idea that "we are the scientists"--we are the smart professionals who have figured all this stuff out, while Blizzard/anyone who disagrees with the current community zeitgeist is the "creationists" who desperately try to resist our overwhelming knowledge.
And you know what? It's total bullshit. I've been following this game since its announcement all the way through alpha and now three betas, and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. Not only that, but Blizzard has constantly changed the game massively in response to community feedback throughout the life of this game, starting from the very, very early alpha. From the initial "aesthetics complaints" that made the game look the way it does now, to the very existence of macro mechanics, to map sizes, to the fact that mech is actually viable now in lots of matchups, through the current LotV emphasis on micro, Blizzard has been insistently trying to please the community and has generally responded to the predominant ideas floating through the community's collective head. And you know what? A large percentage of the things that this community complains about actually originate in community feedback. The reason why BL/Infestor happened is because everyone in the community was convinced the Infestor was a garbage unit during Beta and so got Fungal Growth buffed significantly and repeatedly--and when Blizzard tried to introduce a projectile on it during WoL beta, the community essentially threw a fit until it was changed back. Passive mech play was a direct result of the constant, overwhelming pushing of mech by the community for years upon years. These are only a few examples of many.
LotV itself is practically a direct response to community feedback. More micro, more multitasking, more expansions...these are all directly out of the community's collective head. LotV at this point is not perfect, and there's certainly a need for constructive criticism--but random declarations of doom are not constructive criticism.
Don't get me wrong; the community has improved the game significantly. And there are a lot of really smart fellows in the community, including the folks on the TL strategy team. But the SC2 community as a whole simply is not, and never has been, some genius-level collection of RTS scientists with the magical key to making the game perfect trying to patiently explain it to a bunch of stupid creationist game designers.
More than this, if the community and Blizzard going to have any kind of positive and constructive interactions that actually lead to real improvements to the game, it has to be based on some amount of mutual respect. You can't have a constructive conversation with people whom consider to be moral and intellectual imbeciles--nor with people who consider you such. For this to happen, the SC2 community needs to collectively get over itself.
|
On June 16 2015 12:17 Captain Peabody wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 16 2015 05:26 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well. I don't understand you at all. Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist. In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink. See, this is really what's standing in the way of constructivity in the community. The idea that "we are the scientists"--we are the smart professionals who have figured all this stuff out, while Blizzard/anyone who disagrees with the current community zeitgeist is the "creationists" who desperately try to resist our overwhelming knowledge. And you know what? It's total bullshit. I've been following this game since its announcement all the way through alpha and now three betas, and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. Not only that, but Blizzard has constantly changed the game massively in response to community feedback throughout the life of this game, starting from the very, very early alpha. From the initial "aesthetics complaints" that made the game look the way it does now, to the very existence of macro mechanics, to map sizes, to the fact that mech is actually viable now in lots of matchups, through the current LotV emphasis on micro, Blizzard has been insistently trying to please the community and has generally responded to the predominant ideas floating through the community's collective head. And you know what? A large percentage of the things that this community complains about actually originate in community feedback. The reason why BL/Infestor happened is because everyone in the community was convinced the Infestor was a garbage unit during Beta and so got Fungal Growth buffed significantly and repeatedly--and when Blizzard tried to introduce a projectile on it during WoL beta, the community essentially threw a fit until it was changed back. Passive mech play was a direct result of the constant, overwhelming pushing of mech by the community for years upon years. These are only a few examples of many. LotV itself is practically a direct response to community feedback. More micro, more multitasking, more expansions...these are all directly out of the community's collective head. LotV at this point is not perfect, and there's certainly a need for constructive criticism--but random declarations of doom are not constructive criticism. Don't get me wrong; the community has improved the game significantly. And there are a lot of really smart fellows in the community, including the folks on the TL strategy team. But the SC2 community as a whole simply is not, and never has been, some genius-level collection of RTS scientists with the magical key to making the game perfect trying to patiently explain it to a bunch of stupid creationist game designers. More than this, if the community and Blizzard going to have any kind of positive and constructive interactions that actually lead to real improvements to the game, it has to be based on some amount of mutual respect. You can't have a constructive conversation with people whom consider to be moral and intellectual imbeciles--nor with people who consider you such. For this to happen, the SC2 community needs to collectively get over itself.
Buffing mech and making unpopular units more popular are essentially what blizzard did most of the time (whether it was community feedback or not). Either way they were bandage fixes, and easy ones, you just change stats on units and abilities. However, there were great suggestions for overall game design concerning micro, macro, defender's advantage, highground mechanics and etc. Which weren't really addressed at all. They say they did it internally, I don't buy this shit, even if they did most likely they did it halfheartedly, otherwise they should've put in beta or PTR.
Lets look at LoL. They also do bandage fixes, buffing-nerfing some champions or items based on their popularity/unpopularity. But they also totally revamp whole game, each season. Change jungle, map, objectives. And it is not because the game sucks, but they truly believe that there is no end to perfection and small changes doesn't cut it.
Overall I think SC2 dev team are just out of clue what to do with the game, and they have problem grasping what community really wants.
|
On June 16 2015 12:17 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 05:26 bo1b wrote:On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well. I don't understand you at all. Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist. In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink. See, this is really what's standing in the way of constructivity in the community. The idea that "we are the scientists"--we are the smart professionals who have figured all this stuff out, while Blizzard/anyone who disagrees with the current community zeitgeist is the "creationists" who desperately try to resist our overwhelming knowledge. And you know what? It's total bullshit. I've been following this game since its announcement all the way through alpha and now three betas, and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. Not only that, but Blizzard has constantly changed the game massively in response to community feedback throughout the life of this game, starting from the very, very early alpha. From the initial "aesthetics complaints" that made the game look the way it does now, to the very existence of macro mechanics, to map sizes, to the fact that mech is actually viable now in lots of matchups, through the current LotV emphasis on micro, Blizzard has been insistently trying to please the community and has generally responded to the predominant ideas floating through the community's collective head. And you know what? A large percentage of the things that this community complains about actually originate in community feedback. The reason why BL/Infestor happened is because everyone in the community was convinced the Infestor was a garbage unit during Beta and so got Fungal Growth buffed significantly and repeatedly--and when Blizzard tried to introduce a projectile on it during WoL beta, the community essentially threw a fit until it was changed back. Passive mech play was a direct result of the constant, overwhelming pushing of mech by the community for years upon years. These are only a few examples of many. LotV itself is practically a direct response to community feedback. More micro, more multitasking, more expansions...these are all directly out of the community's collective head. LotV at this point is not perfect, and there's certainly a need for constructive criticism--but random declarations of doom are not constructive criticism. Don't get me wrong; the community has improved the game significantly. And there are a lot of really smart fellows in the community, including the folks on the TL strategy team. But the SC2 community as a whole simply is not, and never has been, some genius-level collection of RTS scientists with the magical key to making the game perfect trying to patiently explain it to a bunch of stupid creationist game designers. More than this, if the community and Blizzard going to have any kind of positive and constructive interactions that actually lead to real improvements to the game, it has to be based on some amount of mutual respect. You can't have a constructive conversation with people whom consider to be moral and intellectual imbeciles--nor with people who consider you such. For this to happen, the SC2 community needs to collectively get over itself.
I've never understood why groups that play a specific video game have been grouped together since ~ 2009 or so, nor have I understood why since that time there has always been, without fail, a group of pretentious people who put themselves above the "community" and speak out as a voice of reason (Always to denigrate the community that they associate themselves with, while simultaneously siding with the game designer of course).
In any event, pointing out problems that have happened before and the results they lead to as being the "communities" fault when without fail they were the result of a band aid fix, or the result of stupid unit design. Like in what way is fungal growth, or the immortal in general, or warp gates in there current state an example of "good game design"?
What even is good game design? Can anyone answer that? Because it seems like an alarming large percentage of people disagree with that ever so malleable concept.
In any event, I would suggest that speaking to people who are concerned over the direction of the game that they have likely spent years playing, or they're concerned over the careers of the people they have spent years watching, or they're concerned over having a sizable number of people left in this "community" when all is said and done, with such a high handed, self righteous approach is unlikely the way to get people to see things your way. Perhaps it is you that needs to get over yourself.
|
On June 15 2015 20:10 [F_]aths wrote:
When an amateur suggests how to do something in which I have professional experience, it is in most cases wrong on so many levels. Even though it appears to be reasonable to other amateurs. They just don't know all the implications. That does not mean I consider myself brilliant or a mastermind. There is still a very, very large gap in the level of understanding an issue.
On June 16 2015 12:43 bo1b wrote:
and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on.
And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS Beta panned out... if I knew what the kark I was doing... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2-hots/378373-how-to-make-mech-and-stargate-play-viable
October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "Furthermore, when dropped from Medivacs Hellbats easily wipe out a mineral line in a few shots with it's wide arc of fire. Think pre-nerf Blue Flame Hellions!"
July 11, 2013 - Patch 2.0.9: Hellbat attack damage decreased from 18 + 12 vs. light to 18.
October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "The solution is reduce the cooldown of the Siege Tank from 3.00 to 2.25-2.50"
November 11th, 2013 - Patch 2.0.12: Siege Mode attack period decreased from 3.0 to 2.8.
October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "First, remove hardened shields"
March 31 2015 - Patch 2.5.0 - Removed Hardened Shield Ability.
Now I am not anything special, large parts of the community wanted these changes for long before I suggested them. It's just really sad it took Blizzard so long to catch on, and sad they had to try all their terrible ideas first.
Blizzard has shown a clear inability to grasp and predict what will happen when they make changes. The Hellbat is by far my favorite example. They knew what happened with BFH, but they ignorantly repeated that, despite myself and many other amateurs in the community who saw that coming 10 miles away warning them. I specifically warned them 9 months before the patch came out nerfing the Hellbat that it would be BFH all over again.
And before that, they had spent all this time and money and effort on the Warhound, a factory Marauder that was a boring A-move unit. Terribly designed. It never should have escaped the designers head, but it made it to paper and then into the game. Blizzard spent a lot of money developing that trash idea.
That isn't good work. That isn't what we should expect. They are not acting professional. And sadly, there are so many other examples.
EDIT: Actually my favorite was when Blizzard talked about the Swarm Host was going to be a mid-game unit that allowed Zerg to be aggressive and finish people off when they got ahead... and we know how that turned out.
|
I agree, btw you meant to write in Captain Peabody instead of bo1b in the quote
|
On June 16 2015 08:38 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability. I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game.
I've played quite a few games of DH and my only thought about it is that the benefit of splitting workers among more bases isn't drastic enough!
|
And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS
Well, let's see about that. Some quotes from the post you linked to:
Unfortunately the Tempest doesn't do it's job, and the Vortex remains the only effective method for stopping a late game Zerg army.
But why use the Carrier to counter Broodlords and not the Tempest? First, the Tempest simply doesn't have the DPS necessary to deal effectively with Broodlords, even with it's +30 damage upgrade
And that is why putting the Medic back into the game (with a cost around 25/50) is the solution. The Terran early game depends heavily on the raw power of Bio units to give power to their attacks, or to help them stay alive. If we added the Medic into the mix, we could slightly reduce the durability of unupgraded Marines in the early game because they could be healed
Thus, we can't simply buff the Siege Tank without risking early Tank/Marine or Tank/Marine/Banshee pushes becoming too powerful. The only option then, is to nerf the Marine.
Thus, a Bio player could easily incorporate Hellbats into their builds and we have the same problem we ran into with Marines being combined with Mech units. And the fact that Hellbats can be healed due to their Biological status just exacerbates the problem, and I've seen a lot of players simply adding Hellbats into Terran Bio, which leaves Protoss with even fewer options to deal with MMMGV + Hellbat because Zealots aren't nearly as effective even when the only upgrade the Hellbats have is Blue Flame.
Tbh, your post doesn't really support your idea that Blizzard should listen more to the community given how you ended up being wrong with alot of your assesments.
But anyway, it's ofc always easy to comment in hindsight, and balance is indeed very hard to make predictions on. While I also made a decent amont of wrong balance-predictions (e.g. I didn't think Vikings could reliably counter Vipers), I don't remember ever being wrong about a gameplay-prediction. For instance, I had no problem predicting that Ravens and Swarm Hosts would lead to mass turtle back in HOTS beta (and yes it was also fairly easy to see that mech still wasn't viable TvP).
|
On June 16 2015 12:17 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 05:26 bo1b wrote:On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well. I don't understand you at all. Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist. In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink. See, this is really what's standing in the way of constructivity in the community. The idea that "we are the scientists"--we are the smart professionals who have figured all this stuff out, while Blizzard/anyone who disagrees with the current community zeitgeist is the "creationists" who desperately try to resist our overwhelming knowledge. And you know what? It's total bullshit. I've been following this game since its announcement all the way through alpha and now three betas, and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. Not only that, but Blizzard has constantly changed the game massively in response to community feedback throughout the life of this game, starting from the very, very early alpha. From the initial "aesthetics complaints" that made the game look the way it does now, to the very existence of macro mechanics, to map sizes, to the fact that mech is actually viable now in lots of matchups, through the current LotV emphasis on micro, Blizzard has been insistently trying to please the community and has generally responded to the predominant ideas floating through the community's collective head. And you know what? A large percentage of the things that this community complains about actually originate in community feedback. The reason why BL/Infestor happened is because everyone in the community was convinced the Infestor was a garbage unit during Beta and so got Fungal Growth buffed significantly and repeatedly--and when Blizzard tried to introduce a projectile on it during WoL beta, the community essentially threw a fit until it was changed back. Passive mech play was a direct result of the constant, overwhelming pushing of mech by the community for years upon years. These are only a few examples of many. LotV itself is practically a direct response to community feedback. More micro, more multitasking, more expansions...these are all directly out of the community's collective head. LotV at this point is not perfect, and there's certainly a need for constructive criticism--but random declarations of doom are not constructive criticism. Don't get me wrong; the community has improved the game significantly. And there are a lot of really smart fellows in the community, including the folks on the TL strategy team. But the SC2 community as a whole simply is not, and never has been, some genius-level collection of RTS scientists with the magical key to making the game perfect trying to patiently explain it to a bunch of stupid creationist game designers. More than this, if the community and Blizzard going to have any kind of positive and constructive interactions that actually lead to real improvements to the game, it has to be based on some amount of mutual respect. You can't have a constructive conversation with people whom consider to be moral and intellectual imbeciles--nor with people who consider you such. For this to happen, the SC2 community needs to collectively get over itself.
I literally love you...sorry to come on so strongly, but your post is awesome.
|
On June 16 2015 15:46 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 08:38 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability. I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game. I've played quite a few games of DH and my only thought about it is that the benefit of splitting workers among more bases isn't drastic enough!
Really? Because what I've heard mostly is that cheeses and all-ins are just stronger because 8 workers per base is pretty much optimal. That is quite a big nerf to Zerg already that have shitty units and can't get their economy going in the early game fast enough before Terran or Protoss timing arrives.
I've read a lot of "live reports" of these games and they were mostly cheeses and all-ins.
Also, reading comments on this page, people don't seem that happy about it, and feel like that economy is almost the same as in HOTS except in the early game where it grows faster.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On June 16 2015 16:36 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 15:46 Qwyn wrote:On June 16 2015 08:38 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability. I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game. I've played quite a few games of DH and my only thought about it is that the benefit of splitting workers among more bases isn't drastic enough! Really? Because what I've heard mostly is that cheeses and all-ins are just stronger because 8 workers per base is pretty much optimal.
That is incredibly false and misinformed. 8 workers are better than with Blizzard's economy, but it's still awful income compared to 16.
The DH Open games had cheese and allins because that's kind of how most DH Opens tend to go.
|
What is going on with all the "my balance thoughts are SO MUCH BETTER then your balance thoughts" posts?
Is this really what this thread should be used for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
