|
On June 19 2015 05:13 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 05:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 19 2015 04:40 Penev wrote:
I can't be sure of course but I think the LotV development team is small and left with little resources which limit them to really chance the game and they're hiding that "fact". pure speculation. the fact that the game will be full box price allowed the them to allocate a larger team and more resources than for a $40 expansion pack which requires the base game. Beta tests are the most expensive part of any software development process. This longer beta test makes the entire process more expensive. It also allows the giant company to label it "crunch time" and they can get employees to work 60+ hours per week during the beta test because "its the final step" the fact that you do not need the base game means Blizzard is opening the game up to any one and every one... not just guys who have the base game. these paranoid theories are good for a laugh though. the RTS genre is in decline and has been doing so for many years. There is nothing Blizzard can do about it. I'm sure some people will find a way to blame Blizzard for it though  Oh Jimmy, you're such a troll. Your posting has improved a lot though. Strange, your earlier posts were always drenched with pure speculation and paranoia. Anyway:
FACT: Beta test is most expensive part of software development.
FACT: Game Price is higher than an expansion pack
FACT: Beta test for LotV is longer than any beta test previously for an RTS game Blizzard has made
add a little logic in with that you get my previous post.
this drivel about Blizzard hiding stuff is just LOL.
|
I think one of the biggest missteps of Blizzard was stepping into the ring. That's because they do have the means of making a game--or games--that could satisfy a great majority. That tool is, of course, the editor. It's a function that allows both the developers and the community to create their desired game, provided they have the know-how and the time to do so.
However, by marginalizing the arcade system to such an extent and by taking the reins of the tournament scene, they have effectively shut out most of the opportunities that could arise from players utilizing the editor. Hell, if organizers could capitalize on the editor that would be amazing, but so far that's only limited to interface modding and mapmaking.
It sounds easy to recreate one's own desired game in the editor; it's another to be able to do so. And that's for a very simple reason: the core of Starcraft 2 is a multiplayer game (one can argue the campaign, but that's not what this topic is about). So it doesn't matter if someone creates what they suppose is the Goldilocks balance and design, there wouldn't be anyone to play it without some significant backing and advertisement. That's saying nothing about the pro scene, who by and large ignore these feeble and futile attempts; Starbow and Clan Wars and DH showmatches are extreme exceptions.
Between the fact that no one looks over the good multiplayer stuff buried under popular casual games, and the fact that popular casual games don't necessarily translate to good pro scene material, the arcade is dust when it comes to making drastic changes. And if you want to make small changes, then the question turns to, "why not just play ladder then?"
Unless the game falls out of favor in the esports industry or there's some major paradigm shift, Blizzard ultimately holds the controls over how their game works. That means that, no matter what alternatives we pursue through the editor, the most convenient, most efficient, and most effective method is really to persuade Blizzard to try out changes. After all, as people have mentioned, it's their game, which means it's far easier for them to make modifications than us uncouth, inexperienced fellows.
And if it turns out that it digs Starcraft's grave, well... so be it.
|
On June 19 2015 03:52 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 03:46 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 03:41 Grumbels wrote:On June 19 2015 03:32 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 03:27 Grumbels wrote:On June 19 2015 02:26 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 01:53 Grumbels wrote:
This inability to understand the scope of the DH project is really pathetic. You can not compare LotV economy with double harvesting directly, because one is an entire system while the other is a conceptual change to one aspect of the family of systems including both HotS and LotV. If you prefer LotV over the DH+HotS unit then say so, but don't disparage DH unless you have an actual understanding of the subject matter. Good one. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/482775-a-treatise-on-the-economy-of-sciiThis article directly pits DH against what Blizzard's LotV is trying to do, and it certainly presents DH as an alternative, never talks of combining both. The goal in LotV should be to further increase strategic diversity by adding options while removing as few as possible. This goal is better served through the removal of worker pairing as opposed to introducing half patches and 12 worker starts. If that statement is not a comparison, I don't know what is. The basis of Blizzard's answer to DH is that DH is not worth implementing because DH+HotS isn't that much different from HotS. This was seen as a plus for TL, but a minus for Blizzard, they did want something different for their game. TL's argument with the pretty graphs and fancy math was misguided in that they should have targeted LotV minerals from the get-go. Not HotS. The big mistake for me is that they (you, we? I don't know, lol) didn't test on LotV minerals, to show Blizzard that the 2 visions are indeed compatible, and that DH+LotV is indeed more desirable than HotS, or LotV alone. Probably stems from a pathetic inability to understand the scope of Blizzard's LotV economy, huehue. If you prefer LotV over the DH+HotS unit then say so In conclusion, I would probably prefer DH+LotV over all of HotS, LotV, or DH+HotS, but I can't be sure because no test has been done on that. Yeah, that quote obviously changes nothing because it's one sentence concerning the opinion of TL writers about the LotV economy system (which Blizzard changed a week after, mind you), which is not at all the relevant portion of their article, which is the comparison of different mining systems and the analysis of the benefits of eliminating worker pairing. Suppose LaLush wrote Depth of Micro and later Blizzard added some new unit with an ability to the game, someone might write: "instead of adding yet another unit with an ability they should first look at the fundamentals of unit movement" or something like that. And then a while later you would appear and use this quote to prove that this person was suggesting the removal of this new unit and replacing it with a Depth of Micro-related set of changes. And that's obviously sophistry. People have talked about eliminating worker pairing a million times before, the main advance that the TL article brought was an actual implementation one could rally behind. Blizzard should be aware of the discourse concerning worker pairing, the "badness" of the article that you mentioned in another post is just deflecting the blame away from Blizzard because of your current crusade to whine about people that dare to criticize Blizzard. You damn well know that this article was as much about introducing DH as a fundamental improvement as pushing for the removal of LotV's mineral distribution (the whole "punishing is bad, rewarding is good!" non-sense). Sophistry my ass. I don't see how that changes anything. You have two variables to play with, the mineral reserves and the worker efficiency curves. TL felt that Blizzard's approach was misguided because the worker efficiency is the more fundamental issue with the economy and that should have been the starting point. Zeromus even added that you could combine it with fewer resources per base but that for various reasons they would try to match the HotS economy with their published implementation (proof of concept and all). TL also said that Blizzard simply went too far in lowering the amount of minerals per base, and Blizzard actually toned down the severity of this just a week after the article was published. Nowhere in this story did someone hold a gun to Blizzard's head and tell them: you either change one of those variables, but not the other. You have five seconds or I will pull the trigger... Fair enough. I don't have much else to say. I'm still not convinced I'm wrong though. What makes you like the LotV uneven mineral spread if I may ask? The sudden halving of your income (well, you obviously try to avoid that) looks so gimmicky to me (sorry Otherworld) or, should I say, band aidy to achieve lesser efficiency)? Not talking about mining out faster just the uneven spread.
Worked well enough in WC3
|
|
|
On June 19 2015 04:42 Edowyth wrote:
As for the feedback that Blizzard gives, it seems that they're constantly saying "we're doing stuff!" but they never actually explain "we thought this wasn't the best because of X" with some replays / video so that we can actually SEE that they're really testing these things out and have some great reasoning.
As it is; however, we feel like nothing is ever done because we just don't see it happen.
The person you are trying to convince does not need to show proof as to why they are not convinced. Blizzard saying "We tried it, but we're not interested" is more than what is required of them.
For example, if you asked a woman to have sex with you, and she says she's not interested, that's as much proof as she needs to not have sex with you. And if you're a gaming company and some random poster on a forum goes "LoLs, me smart, do these things I like LoLz" you are not required to follow through on their request no matter how eloquent or uneloquent they were at saying it.
|
On June 19 2015 05:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 05:13 Penev wrote:On June 19 2015 05:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 19 2015 04:40 Penev wrote:
I can't be sure of course but I think the LotV development team is small and left with little resources which limit them to really chance the game and they're hiding that "fact". pure speculation. the fact that the game will be full box price allowed the them to allocate a larger team and more resources than for a $40 expansion pack which requires the base game. Beta tests are the most expensive part of any software development process. This longer beta test makes the entire process more expensive. It also allows the giant company to label it "crunch time" and they can get employees to work 60+ hours per week during the beta test because "its the final step" the fact that you do not need the base game means Blizzard is opening the game up to any one and every one... not just guys who have the base game. these paranoid theories are good for a laugh though. the RTS genre is in decline and has been doing so for many years. There is nothing Blizzard can do about it. I'm sure some people will find a way to blame Blizzard for it though Oh Jimmy, you're such a troll. Your posting has improved a lot though. Strange, your earlier posts were always drenched with pure speculation and paranoia. Anyway: I can't be sure of course "fact" pure speculation. FACT: Beta test is most expensive part of software development. FACT: Game Price is higher than an expansion pack FACT: Beta test for LotV is longer than any beta test previously for an RTS game Blizzard has made add a little logic in with that you get my previous post. this drivel about Blizzard hiding stuff is just LOL.
How one can not understand such a clear post as you replied to is beyond me. Or it's still the first option of course.
|
On June 19 2015 04:48 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 04:40 Fran_ wrote:On June 18 2015 03:53 Brainiak wrote:
Why not listen to the community once for real. Give the community what it wants and not try to do your own work... Sorry, by Starcraft is their own work. They created the brand, it's their job, it's their intellectual property. Listening to community feedback is great, but then they have the absolute right to implement the changes they think are correct. You have the absolute right to not like their work and play another game. Yes, because there are plenty of other RTSs in the spirit of SC, right This is not about "rights" or whatever absurd concepts. This is about lobbying for a better game. And if you want to go down that road, the user of a product have the absolute right to complain about what he feels like are this product's weaknesses.
I completely agree with you. I'm not against giving as much feedback as we possibly can. I personally dislike LotV economy where it stands now, for example, but I recognize they have the right to do what they think is correct with their IP.
|
On June 19 2015 05:42 TMagpie wrote:
The person you are trying to convince does not need to show proof as to why they are not convinced. Blizzard saying "We tried it, but we're not interested" is more than what is required of them.
Blizzard is confused why the community feels as if their suggestions aren't being heard.
If they tried something and decided it wasn't good ... OF COURSE there's no requirement for them to provide quality feedback; however, they specifically say they want to do so.
Providing a simple "show and tell" of what happened when they implemented the change could go a long way to showing everyone that they're really trying hard and have actual logic behind their choices.
Whether you believe they do or do not, it's apparent that the larger portion of the community does not (which is why Blizzard has responded with this post).
My giving suggestions for increased communication shouldn't be offensive to you.
|
i don't know if they will provide a "Show and TEll" but DK promised "we’ll be providing smaller, more frequent updates on current topics to keep the community well informed."
furthermore, he also said "We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. "
let's see if Blizzard fulfills these promises. the 2nd promise sounds like it might require some changes to the SC2 client.
the best way to get a Blizzard employee to reply to you directly is to post messages on the BNet forums because Blizzard controls the moderation and they are probably way more comfortable posting stuff on their home turf.
|
What makes MOBAS and games like Counter Strike so huge is that there are many permutations of what can possibly happen. Counter Strike less so, but rounds are relatively short. These are main determinants of whether something is judged to be entertaining; how much of a surprise it can bring and how time consuming the activity is. And there is also the opportunity to grow in skill level. A unit like the disruptor can help improve a player who has made too many mistakes and it also forces the opposing player to be alert until GG is called. It also requires skill to master – a good opportunity to grow in skill.
With a game like Starcraft, where the amount of permutations will always be relatively limited, to keep things exciting, action (not staring and waiting for buildings to be complete. and determining if the player is spending his money well. that's like watching if someone is a good shopper.) has to be encouraged. Fast action. Or else it will be slow, repetitive action. The devs have been on the right track in this regard. And in other aspects. I’m confused in what the big fuss is about.
|
On June 19 2015 05:13 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 04:48 OtherWorld wrote:On June 19 2015 04:40 Fran_ wrote:On June 18 2015 03:53 Brainiak wrote:
Why not listen to the community once for real. Give the community what it wants and not try to do your own work... Sorry, by Starcraft is their own work. They created the brand, it's their job, it's their intellectual property. Listening to community feedback is great, but then they have the absolute right to implement the changes they think are correct. You have the absolute right to not like their work and play another game. Yes, because there are plenty of other RTSs in the spirit of SC, right This is not about "rights" or whatever absurd concepts. This is about lobbying for a better game. And if you want to go down that road, the user of a product have the absolute right to complain about what he feels like are this product's weaknesses. It is about lobbying for a game which fits the personal needs (which then is perceived as "better".) The developers have to cater to all users. Blizzard actually provides you the tools to create the starcraft gameplay you want. (Of course, learning how to use the map editor takes much more effort than to post into some forums.) If the community would be so smart, we already would have custom mods which make the game better. There is a lot of effort put into One Goal and Starbow. The latter did get some success. Though there is no consensus that it is the better game. Which proves the point that "personal experience / opinion" does not equal "better". Neither does it mean that community input is worthless. (However, many postings are completely out of proportion.)
It's really not. It would actually be impossible to lobby for a game which "fits the personal needs", because lobbying in this case means group/community pressure, and you have "group" in group pressure. I have an idea of what a "StarCraft by OtherWorld" would look like, but I certainly won't even try to lobby for it as it wouldn't be enjoyable by most users.
However there have been multiple opinions expressed by various members of the community, that lead me to think that yes, while my personal opinion does not equal "better" (and I never said so), we can have an objectively (or as objectively as possible) better game than what we have in HotS and more importantly what we have in LotV beta. See LaLuSh's Depth of Micro. See Uvantak's article on economy. See Downfall's Razzia Of The Blizzsters. See ZeromuS' Treatise. See BlackLilium's works on harvesting. And there are plenty others.
You can find this feeling that better is possible in articles like the ones I mentioned, you can find this in declarations by players/casters, you can find this by looking at the current viewer numbers for LotV beta streams [at the time I'm writing this, it's less than 40 across 5 streams], you can even find this in the hateful posts towards Blizz that you can find in this very thread. You can ignore all these signs, you can disregard hateful posts as "haters", but they are the sign that something is wrong. Kill the messenger, reality remains.
On June 19 2015 06:07 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 04:48 OtherWorld wrote:On June 19 2015 04:40 Fran_ wrote:On June 18 2015 03:53 Brainiak wrote:
Why not listen to the community once for real. Give the community what it wants and not try to do your own work... Sorry, by Starcraft is their own work. They created the brand, it's their job, it's their intellectual property. Listening to community feedback is great, but then they have the absolute right to implement the changes they think are correct. You have the absolute right to not like their work and play another game. Yes, because there are plenty of other RTSs in the spirit of SC, right This is not about "rights" or whatever absurd concepts. This is about lobbying for a better game. And if you want to go down that road, the user of a product have the absolute right to complain about what he feels like are this product's weaknesses. I completely agree with you. I'm not against giving as much feedback as we possibly can. I personally dislike LotV economy where it stands now, for example, but I recognize they have the right to do what they think is correct with their IP.
Ah yeah, I don't disagree on that ; ultimately they are the ones who decide what the end product looks like.
|
On June 19 2015 06:38 Antonidas wrote:
What makes MOBAS and games like Counter Strike so huge is that there are many permutations of what can possibly happen. Counter Strike less so, but rounds are relatively short. These are main determinants of whether something is judged to be entertaining; how much of a surprise it can bring and how time consuming the activity is. And there is also the opportunity to grow in skill level. A unit like the disruptor can help improve a player who has made too many mistakes and it also forces the opposing player to be alert until GG is called. It also requires skill to master – a good opportunity to grow in skill.
With a game like Starcraft, where the amount of permutations will always be relatively limited, to keep things exciting, action (not staring and waiting for buildings to be complete. and determining if the player is spending his money well. that's like watching if someone is a good shopper.) has to be encouraged. Fast action. Or else it will be slow, repetitive action. The devs have been on the right track in this regard. And in other aspects. I’m confused in what the big fuss is about.
Shooting and Fighting games have very low permutations on a per fight level. "Did he hit me? did I hit him?" but is only "interesting" in a Best of X system. RTS games are the same way, but people don't judge them like that.
|
Stop bashing Blizzard, SC2 is a great game even though it has it's flaws, and LoTV is on the right track to addressing the most serious problems, notably:
1) Boring early game, just wastes time playing and watching. The main reason that makes me want to play SC2 again.
2) Forcefields now actually can be micro'ed against by Zerg, and Timewarp is no longer as OP.
3) Collosus and immortals nerfed, these were the main cause of the deathball problem.
The balance team were just terrible in WoL, they got slightly better during HoTS, and they are doing a much better job in the start of LoTV. I think all three races are in a pretty decent spot right now, and the top Korean players are showing how high the skill threshold really is and players are still getting better. For the three races, the main deficiencies are being addressed, which are:
1) Terran now has the tools in order to micro Mech and Air units, and do not have to be forced to play bio nearly all the time, and can transition into different compositions late game. (Ghosts still need work though)
2) Zerg has a decent map control and siege unit in Lurker, and ravager gives them versatility and a very high micro skill threshold. Zerg is probably a bit too strong at the moment because of Lurker, Vipers and Ultras.
3) Protoss are no longer forced into deathball or all in style, adepts offer a macro playstyle and disruptors have a very high micro skill threshold when combined with warp prisms. Adepts seem to be pretty strong if used properly, will take time for Protoss to adapt to new playstyle before real balance issues can be deduced.
The main issues the community has as a consensus have been looked at. The dual harvesting proposal is stupid and I wish TL people will just open their eyes and realize that Blizzard's proposal to vary mineral patches is much better and more flexible.
|
On June 19 2015 06:51 WhenRaxFly wrote:
Stop bashing Blizzard, SC2 is a great game even though it has it's flaws, and LoTV is on the right track to addressing the most serious problems, notably:
1) Boring early game, just wastes time playing and watching. The main reason that makes me want to play SC2 again.
2) Forcefields now actually can be micro'ed against by Zerg, and Timewarp is no longer as OP.
3) Collosus and immortals nerfed, these were the main cause of the deathball problem.
The balance team were just terrible in WoL, they got slightly better during HoTS, and they are doing a much better job in the start of LoTV. I think all three races are in a pretty decent spot right now, and the top Korean players are showing how high the skill threshold really is and players are still getting better. For the three races, the main deficiencies are being addressed, which are:
1) Terran now has the tools in order to micro Mech and Air units, and do not have to be forced to play bio nearly all the time, and can transition into different compositions late game. (Ghosts still need work though)
2) Zerg has a decent map control and siege unit in Lurker, and ravager gives them versatility and a very high micro skill threshold. Zerg is probably a bit too strong at the moment because of Lurker, Vipers and Ultras.
3) Protoss are no longer forced into deathball or all in style, adepts offer a macro playstyle and disruptors have a very high micro skill threshold when combined with warp prisms. Adepts seem to be pretty strong if used properly, will take time for Protoss to adapt to new playstyle before real balance issues can be deduced.
The main issues the community has as a consensus have been looked at. The dual harvesting proposal is stupid and I wish TL people will just open their eyes and realize that Blizzard's proposal to vary mineral patches is much better and more flexible.
The dual harvesting proposal is stupid
Blizzard's proposal to vary mineral patches is much better and more flexible.
Explain pls
|
Blizzards PR with SC2 always alerts my troll sensors. Like that guy in Dota that's buying couriers and running them into the opponent whilst chatting to the team that he's totally not doing that and he's trying his best.
I'm convinced the people that are still working on SC2 want to to do their best but I'm guessing they get bare minimum resources to just finish the trilogy and be done with it.
|
The Liberator looks too heavy. It should shed off some armor. And look more aggressive. In siege mode, it should have slightly longer cannons.
|
On June 19 2015 07:22 Saechiis wrote:
Blizzards PR with SC2 always alerts my troll sensors. Like that guy in Dota that's buying couriers and running them into the opponent whilst chatting to the team that he's totally not doing that and he's trying his best.
I'm convinced the people that are still working on SC2 want to to do their best but I'm guessing they get bare minimum resources to just finish the trilogy and be done with it.
They're doing fine.
|
Oh my God, I can't wait to go through this entire thread. There are some ridiculous responses here.
|
There appears to be a schism in the TL community regarding the development of multiplayer. On one side, there are those that believe Blizzard is doing a decent job of handling the development of LotV multiplayer and that the other side should stop bashing the developers and let them do their job.
On the other side of the gap are those that feel Blizzard is not doing a great job, and they are ignoring the community's suggestions.
Of course there are those that stand inside the schism, that have mixed emotions on LotV multiplayer.
I would like to remind everyone that we are still one community, even though the voice is fractured into many. Please stop bashing each other.
I agree that Blizzard hasn't been the most forthcoming with much information, but that doesn't mean they have completely ignored the community. Someone has already listed changes that have come from specifically the community. As well, they have made changes that appear to go against what some in the community wish to be. Blizzard has every right to say "We heard you, but we want to do something else". I don't always agree with them, but that is fine.
Also, to those that say we should leave the developers alone, I say no. We shouldn't leave them alone. They need our feedback, even if they don't agree with it. We shouted to them to change the BL/Infestor and the SH. It took them a long time, but eventually they listened. Without our shouting, Blizzard cannot make the game into something awesome, because we are something awesome.
I know that only a small percentage of the playerbase is concerned about multiplayer. I understand that the campaign will be the driving force for sales. But the true beauty of SC2 is the multiplayer, and it is largely ignored by the greater playerbase. Only we saw MC (hold up let me stop crying for a sec…) drop awesome forcefields or devastate with awesome blinks. All my friends haven't even heard of MC (even though I tried to get them on board). Or watch Innovation (I can never remember where his captilization goes) wreck other terrans with BFH. Or how about Life managing to always sneak in a zergling rush when a depot is down.
But the devs need our feedback to make multiplayer awesome. So please keep shouting that the current economic model is flawed. Let them know the Liberator can set you free or put you in chains. But remember to keep things in perspective. Remember to shout, but be polite.
Don't bash the developers, or call them incompetent because they are slow to change (which they are slow). They don't need your bashing. That just adds to the noise. When providing feedback, dial down on the noise, and dial up on the opinion. Try to hold back on "the community can do a better job" or "fire D Kim/Browder" and lets not forget "X developer does a better job" because none of those comments helps. All it really does is insult Blizzard, and insults don't go far to persuading others to change.
I don't mind if we have a divided voice, but remember we are still one community. No need to bash each other because we can't come to an agreement. Shit, I can't agree with my wife half the time, but I still don't insult her.
|
I can't stand the levels of negativity and hate the SC2 community puts out any more. It makes me feel bad every time I look into one of these threads. Why do you have to be so mad all the time? I'm sure there's a way to communicate in a mannered and positive fashion?
If it's even affecting me as a bystander, I can't even imagine how blizzard devs must feel when they're looking at community "feedback". I would probably start to ignore it.
Which is what I will do as well. I'll ignore/hide any SC2 content on TL.net for some time until after the LotV release. You can thank those asshats in this thread and others who make it unbearable. Bye, I guess...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
