|
On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. There are 2 main things that LotV's system does and that DH does not: 1) it inherently creates conflict 2) it shifts the locations of interest on the map at a fast pace My first point is more of a matter of taste: I'd like something that forces me to always hunger for my next base and forces me to fight over it all over the map at a quick pace. DH doesn't do that. In the end, it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital, and as the turtling player, it's "alright" that the other player has more bases, not fatal. It's half-assed. I believe my second point is very strong. Starcaft 2's combat is not so interesting that you can just rely on the same battles being played out the same way on the same locations of the same maps constantly. It becomes very stale after a while, and most of the map remains unused as far as combat goes, with only a handful of "crazy games" running long enough that you indeed fight over rare expands. DH is a smart model that scales nicely and all, should probably be considered when paired with the LotV minerals, but in the end it's just too much like HotS in that it's too stable: race X will take the same 3 bases, race Y will take the same 5 (or 6-7, doesn't change anything) bases, and there you have it, the game will play out from there for 30 minutes, with Y trying to attack X's second base because it's the obviously easier spot to attack. It's only logical, if bases don't deplete, the same one will always be targeted, so you'll always see the same combat situations. Why would you attack anywhere else than the best spot to attack (which doesn't change, because the base remains there for a long time)?
Those two points could easily be achieved with DH? DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing to create a higher incentive to expand/ have more expansions.
|
On June 19 2015 00:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of DH -I'm pretty OK with HotS model. But I think any model that makes agressively expanding vital is just fundamentally wrong because it limits the variety of gameplay you can use. Defensive playstyles based on tech should be possible (the tech/eco/army trifecta, where currently tech is rather fucked).
Ideally it should be possible, I agree. I think we're past what is fundamentally is wrong or right in RTS though, Starcraft 2 doesn't really obey the Great Book of TL's fundamental RTS principles, if there are any.
For example, tech units and combat aren't that interesting that you can just rely on battles to carry the enjoyment of the game. I think it has to move on the map.
On June 19 2015 01:00 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. There are 2 main things that LotV's system does and that DH does not: 1) it inherently creates conflict 2) it shifts the locations of interest on the map at a fast pace My first point is more of a matter of taste: I'd like something that forces me to always hunger for my next base and forces me to fight over it all over the map at a quick pace. DH doesn't do that. In the end, it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital, and as the turtling player, it's "alright" that the other player has more bases, not fatal. It's half-assed. I believe my second point is very strong. Starcaft 2's combat is not so interesting that you can just rely on the same battles being played out the same way on the same locations of the same maps constantly. It becomes very stale after a while, and most of the map remains unused as far as combat goes, with only a handful of "crazy games" running long enough that you indeed fight over rare expands. DH is a smart model that scales nicely and all, should probably be considered when paired with the LotV minerals, but in the end it's just too much like HotS in that it's too stable: race X will take the same 3 bases, race Y will take the same 5 (or 6-7, doesn't change anything) bases, and there you have it, the game will play out from there for 30 minutes, with Y trying to attack X's second base because it's the obviously easier spot to attack. It's only logical, if bases don't deplete, the same one will always be targeted, so you'll always see the same combat situations. Why would you attack anywhere else than the best spot to attack (which doesn't change, because the base remains there for a long time)? Those two points could easily be achieved with DH? DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing to create a higher incentive to expand/ have more expansions.
That's why I said that DH could be paired with LotV's mineral distribution. The thing is: TL doesn't want that and thinks it's bad, it wants its 12 ever-producing expansions, for that "I'm a macro god" feel. I think TL is mistaken :D
I still shudder at those "time compression kills strategy" OPs. Yes it does, but it doesn't matter when the game wasn't really strategic to begin with. I'll take a fun a-bit-too-mindless game over a boring pretentiously strategic one.
|
What strucks me the most they (blizzard) still believe they're doing ok job. Meanwhile pros are retiring or going back to broodwar. They had five years to evolve and polish the game, yet didn't make any significant improvement. Just admit that you failed and resign peacefully.
|
On June 19 2015 01:01 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 00:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of DH -I'm pretty OK with HotS model. But I think any model that makes agressively expanding vital is just fundamentally wrong because it limits the variety of gameplay you can use. Defensive playstyles based on tech should be possible (the tech/eco/army trifecta, where currently tech is rather fucked). Ideally it should be possible, I agree. I think we're past what is fundamentally is wrong or right in RTS though, Starcraft 2 doesn't really obey the Great Book of TL's fundamental RTS principles, if there are any. For example, tech units and combat aren't that interesting that you can just rely on battles to carry the enjoyment of the game. I think it has to move on the map. Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 01:00 Penev wrote:On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. There are 2 main things that LotV's system does and that DH does not: 1) it inherently creates conflict 2) it shifts the locations of interest on the map at a fast pace My first point is more of a matter of taste: I'd like something that forces me to always hunger for my next base and forces me to fight over it all over the map at a quick pace. DH doesn't do that. In the end, it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital, and as the turtling player, it's "alright" that the other player has more bases, not fatal. It's half-assed. I believe my second point is very strong. Starcaft 2's combat is not so interesting that you can just rely on the same battles being played out the same way on the same locations of the same maps constantly. It becomes very stale after a while, and most of the map remains unused as far as combat goes, with only a handful of "crazy games" running long enough that you indeed fight over rare expands. DH is a smart model that scales nicely and all, should probably be considered when paired with the LotV minerals, but in the end it's just too much like HotS in that it's too stable: race X will take the same 3 bases, race Y will take the same 5 (or 6-7, doesn't change anything) bases, and there you have it, the game will play out from there for 30 minutes, with Y trying to attack X's second base because it's the obviously easier spot to attack. It's only logical, if bases don't deplete, the same one will always be targeted, so you'll always see the same combat situations. Why would you attack anywhere else than the best spot to attack (which doesn't change, because the base remains there for a long time)? Those two points could easily be achieved with DH? DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing to create a higher incentive to expand/ have more expansions. That's why I said that DH could be paired with LotV's mineral distribution. The thing is: TL doesn't want that and thinks it's bad, it wants its 12 ever-producing expansions, for that "I'm a macro god" feel. I think TL is mistaken :D
The truth is (always) in the middle. I personally would have bases mine out faster than in HotS but slower than in LotV (my opinion obviously being the truth  ).
But this has nothing to do with DH, that's just something separate. I can't imagine anyone being against removing worker pairing tbh. It creates an extra dynamic you don't HAVE to take.
|
On June 19 2015 01:09 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 01:01 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 00:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of DH -I'm pretty OK with HotS model. But I think any model that makes agressively expanding vital is just fundamentally wrong because it limits the variety of gameplay you can use. Defensive playstyles based on tech should be possible (the tech/eco/army trifecta, where currently tech is rather fucked). Ideally it should be possible, I agree. I think we're past what is fundamentally is wrong or right in RTS though, Starcraft 2 doesn't really obey the Great Book of TL's fundamental RTS principles, if there are any. For example, tech units and combat aren't that interesting that you can just rely on battles to carry the enjoyment of the game. I think it has to move on the map. On June 19 2015 01:00 Penev wrote:On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. There are 2 main things that LotV's system does and that DH does not: 1) it inherently creates conflict 2) it shifts the locations of interest on the map at a fast pace My first point is more of a matter of taste: I'd like something that forces me to always hunger for my next base and forces me to fight over it all over the map at a quick pace. DH doesn't do that. In the end, it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital, and as the turtling player, it's "alright" that the other player has more bases, not fatal. It's half-assed. I believe my second point is very strong. Starcaft 2's combat is not so interesting that you can just rely on the same battles being played out the same way on the same locations of the same maps constantly. It becomes very stale after a while, and most of the map remains unused as far as combat goes, with only a handful of "crazy games" running long enough that you indeed fight over rare expands. DH is a smart model that scales nicely and all, should probably be considered when paired with the LotV minerals, but in the end it's just too much like HotS in that it's too stable: race X will take the same 3 bases, race Y will take the same 5 (or 6-7, doesn't change anything) bases, and there you have it, the game will play out from there for 30 minutes, with Y trying to attack X's second base because it's the obviously easier spot to attack. It's only logical, if bases don't deplete, the same one will always be targeted, so you'll always see the same combat situations. Why would you attack anywhere else than the best spot to attack (which doesn't change, because the base remains there for a long time)? Those two points could easily be achieved with DH? DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing to create a higher incentive to expand/ have more expansions. That's why I said that DH could be paired with LotV's mineral distribution. The thing is: TL doesn't want that and thinks it's bad, it wants its 12 ever-producing expansions, for that "I'm a macro god" feel. I think TL is mistaken :D The truth is (always) in the middle. I personally would have bases mine out faster than in HotS but slower than in LotV (my opinion obviously being the truth ). But this has nothing to do with DH, that's just something separate. I can't imagine anyone being against removing worker pairing tbh. It creates an extra dynamic you don't HAVE to take.
I think Blizzard maybe has this idea that either this makes their balance work for the past 2 years go to shit instantly (it's costly to rebalance the game if you add DH I would guess), or DH is not intuitive enough for "new" players or something (as if there were new players :D).
Personally, I agree with you, integrating DH could only be good. What I don't understand is why TL is so against LotV's system, and why it officially presented DH as a contender system to David Kim. A much stronger case could have been made if DH had been tested extensively with HotS AND with LotV minerals (which Blizzard obviously wants to keep).
|
I'd much rather they get rid of WCS and inject the money into SC2 development. When both the dev teams and the foreign scene are on lifelines I'd much rather they focus on one of them.
|
On June 18 2015 18:38 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 18:28 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2015 18:01 Grumbels wrote:On June 18 2015 17:52 [F_]aths wrote:
Let's assume, force fields get cut and Protoss gets rebalanced. Then other things which are disliked, get into the focus. There will be always some things which are disliked.
I agree, you might get into a vicious cycle of improving the game and that would be bad. Would the game really improved if you remove / change anything solely based upon what is considered imbalanced / not fun / bad gameplay by some vocal community parts? From the vocal communities point of view: yes, it probably will. Counter question: Would the game really degrade if you remove / change anything solely based upon what is considered imbalanced / not fun / bad gameplay by some vocal community parts?
In my professional experience as part of the technical support of a software developing company, users almost always want to see things which they already know and are not very willing to experiment.
If the company would always cut stuff user's complain (and implement the things asked for) we would develop a product which already exists.
Of course it is not a black or white issue.
|
On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Community especially the ones that are playing the beta currently are scrubs, like awful, like no Koreans, as in nobody good enough to even consider their opinion relevant to design or balance (Before Kyo chimes in with "wait guys I'm not bad" thank you in advance for your higher level analysis Kyo it's good to have a GM's opinion in the beta right now) I've had and posted my complaints about unit design (Cyclone I despise you) I really don't understand what people want, Blizzard (for all of their failings) have spent waay more time on SC2 then any other company has spent on an RTS that's even remotely close in terms of skill ceiling and fun. Too many aggressive backseat developers in these threads, while I don't agree with every balance change or patch change, the DH craze is a prime example that the community kinda just doesn't understand the implications of half of the things they ask for and that if the balance team wants a good game they should NOT listen to 99% of what is posted on these forums. Bring on the flames, "Waah Blizzard didn't live up to my expectations" then go play another damn game, Heroes is actually decently fun on that note lol
Just a reminder, but TL backed DH A LOT.
Multiple articles, analysis, and a tourney I believe. While I had a hard time digesting the points of the article (probably because I don't have a background in math and I've only been masters once) I thought I could see some of these advantages of DH shine in longer games.
As a zerg playing against a turtle player is hell. Late game zerg is shit in hots, its like throwing eggs against a brick wall, you can throw as many as you want. I believe I saw the model offer an advantage to zerg by allowing them expand aggressively against a terran turtle player. I believe the game I watched was between Scarlett and Ruff, on a DH show match (the bacon infinity one, I'm not going to look it up). To me that feels like a change that puts a timer on turtle play and give zerg more of a chance in hots. Zerg is stronger in LOTV so i don't know how that plays out there, but people have put A LOT of thought and work into this model, and please back your statements up with some substance if you're going to make a post blasting people for believing in this model.
Consider this constructive feedback for you and blizzard,
Please tell us what is bad about the model?
If Blizzard would just explain one thing about why the model they have is preferred, I think maybe the community would be swayed. Or not... but at least there would be a statement about why they are doing what they do. This is what I would like to see in the theme of open communication. Maybe it isn't the best model? Ok, I would prefer the best model for the best possible outcome of a game. But if nobody helps me understand what the best model is, likely I will stick to the best belief in my head as of now. What I think is best based on my understanding.
I think rewarding expansion, especially past 3 bases is an amazing idea.
|
On June 19 2015 01:01 ZenithM wrote:
That's why I said that DH could be paired with LotV's mineral distribution. The thing is: TL doesn't want that and thinks it's bad, it wants its 12 ever-producing expansions, for that "I'm a macro god" feel. I think TL is mistaken :D
I still shudder at those "time compression kills strategy" OPs. Yes it does, but it doesn't matter when the game wasn't really strategic to begin with. I'll take a fun a-bit-too-mindless game over a boring pretentiously strategic one.
A good point to show people only see what they wan't to see.
All of the TL guys that worked in DH never EVER said it shouldn't be paired with LotV economy OR that it was the ultimate solution.
They said all DH did was give incentive to expand past 3 bases to help against turtle play, nothing more.
And for the record they DID say pairing DH with LotV model was probably the best solution.
|
On June 19 2015 01:15 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 01:09 Penev wrote:On June 19 2015 01:01 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 00:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of DH -I'm pretty OK with HotS model. But I think any model that makes agressively expanding vital is just fundamentally wrong because it limits the variety of gameplay you can use. Defensive playstyles based on tech should be possible (the tech/eco/army trifecta, where currently tech is rather fucked). Ideally it should be possible, I agree. I think we're past what is fundamentally is wrong or right in RTS though, Starcraft 2 doesn't really obey the Great Book of TL's fundamental RTS principles, if there are any. For example, tech units and combat aren't that interesting that you can just rely on battles to carry the enjoyment of the game. I think it has to move on the map. On June 19 2015 01:00 Penev wrote:On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
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. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. There are 2 main things that LotV's system does and that DH does not: 1) it inherently creates conflict 2) it shifts the locations of interest on the map at a fast pace My first point is more of a matter of taste: I'd like something that forces me to always hunger for my next base and forces me to fight over it all over the map at a quick pace. DH doesn't do that. In the end, it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital, and as the turtling player, it's "alright" that the other player has more bases, not fatal. It's half-assed. I believe my second point is very strong. Starcaft 2's combat is not so interesting that you can just rely on the same battles being played out the same way on the same locations of the same maps constantly. It becomes very stale after a while, and most of the map remains unused as far as combat goes, with only a handful of "crazy games" running long enough that you indeed fight over rare expands. DH is a smart model that scales nicely and all, should probably be considered when paired with the LotV minerals, but in the end it's just too much like HotS in that it's too stable: race X will take the same 3 bases, race Y will take the same 5 (or 6-7, doesn't change anything) bases, and there you have it, the game will play out from there for 30 minutes, with Y trying to attack X's second base because it's the obviously easier spot to attack. It's only logical, if bases don't deplete, the same one will always be targeted, so you'll always see the same combat situations. Why would you attack anywhere else than the best spot to attack (which doesn't change, because the base remains there for a long time)? Those two points could easily be achieved with DH? DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing to create a higher incentive to expand/ have more expansions. That's why I said that DH could be paired with LotV's mineral distribution. The thing is: TL doesn't want that and thinks it's bad, it wants its 12 ever-producing expansions, for that "I'm a macro god" feel. I think TL is mistaken :D The truth is (always) in the middle. I personally would have bases mine out faster than in HotS but slower than in LotV (my opinion obviously being the truth ). But this has nothing to do with DH, that's just something separate. I can't imagine anyone being against removing worker pairing tbh. It creates an extra dynamic you don't HAVE to take. I think Blizzard maybe has this idea that either this makes their balance work for the past 2 years go to shit instantly (it's costly to rebalance the game if you add DH I would guess), or DH is not intuitive enough for "new" players or something (as if there were new players :D). Personally, I agree with you, integrating DH could only be good. What I don't understand is why TL is so against LotV's system, and why it officially presented DH as a contender system to David Kim. A much stronger case could have been made if DH had been tested extensively with HotS AND with LotV minerals (which Blizzard obviously wants to keep).
Because Blizzard's LotV system (the uneven spread of minerals) tries to achieve the same thing: Have worker efficiency lessened. But, in my opinion, in a too abrupt, chaotic way. Them trying this (and having TL come up with a work around) seems to indicate they can't really remove worker pairing? Or maybe just stubbornness because it'll mean they'd go back to theSC1model? Not sure..
|
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.
|
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-scii
This 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.
|
true,
its definitely an EITHER-OR.
On June 19 2015 02:26 ZenithM wrote:
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.
someone should try it out.
thing is you'll start off with a few inefficient miners right at the start of the game.
DK definitely left the door open to Blizzard doing more testing of different ideas.
|
On June 19 2015 02:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
[...]
DK definitely left the door open to Blizzard doing more testing of different ideas.
That's the problem though, I don't think they did  . Maybe if we took another angle and re-presented a good economic model again in a super-convincing way, they could re-evaluate their stance, but I'm not sure the community is up for that anymore. Reading this thread, the community sounds pissed.
|
I feel bad for Blizzard, they have so many units and abilities stuffed in this game that no one understands it. The design team has an impossible task of polishing a bloated game, while the expansion demands that they add more. Blizzard is one of the best game designers in the world, if they are struggling, you can be guaranteed its a harder problem than it looks.
In my opinion. The Game needs deep cuts. At least a 1/3 of the units, abilities and upgrades would be better off removed. Then the remaining units polished, simplified and made more responsive to movement commands.
|
On June 19 2015 02:59 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 02:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
[...]
DK definitely left the door open to Blizzard doing more testing of different ideas. That's the problem though, I don't think they did . Maybe if we took another angle and re-presented a good economic model again in a super-convincing way, they could re-evaluate their stance, but I'm not sure the community is up for that anymore. Reading this thread, the community sounds pissed.
Re-evaluate their stance? How? What is your "super-convincing way"? They answered to the in-depth article that was the Treatise by showing that they didn't understand it, which means either that they are really not competent or that they just don't want to listen, whatever you'll throw at them.
Then they gave no answer to Plexa's additional (but unnecessary if you understand the original article) explanation.
Then a few weeks/months later, they say that they "tested it internally". Considering that their internal testing allowed things like Daedalus 1.0, Queen patch, Mine nerf patch, Warhound in HotS beta, etc, let me have doubts concerning the quality level of their internal testing.
What do we take from all that? Either the devs are straight-up bad at their job, or they have way too much pride to even try externally a community suggestion, or they have one precise goal in mind, one game they want to make, and that game is clearly not what the community wants, thus they don't give a shit about testing different ideas.
No wonder the community sounds pissed.
|
On June 18 2015 03:24 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +We split mech upgrades based on feedback that “Terran can almost never go bio in Void.” I've never heard so much stupidity. So the solution to encourage players to go bio is making mech even worse so nothing else than bio is viable. brilliant!
+1 !!!!!!!!!!!!
|
On June 19 2015 03:15 bObA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 03:24 Charoisaur wrote:We split mech upgrades based on feedback that “Terran can almost never go bio in Void.” I've never heard so much stupidity. So the solution to encourage players to go bio is making mech even worse so nothing else than bio is viable. brilliant! +1 !!!!!!!!!!!!
You should read the next sentence where they're going for a more middle of the road solution by making the mech upgrades cheaper.
|
On June 19 2015 02:59 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 02:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
[...]
DK definitely left the door open to Blizzard doing more testing of different ideas. That's the problem though, I don't think they did . Maybe if we took another angle and re-presented a good economic model again in a super-convincing way, they could re-evaluate their stance, but I'm not sure the community is up for that anymore. Reading this thread, the community sounds pissed.
Blizzard can just do it on their own.
The knowledge and experience the Blizzard staff on the RTS team has with resource gathering models dwarfs any other team of guys any where. including in here. they prolly all have bonus money riding on the success of LotV.
i've said this before and i'll say it again.
let DK and his gang do their thing.
The 1st Picasso painting prolly looked really weird when it was only 80% done. Had he taken "a community survey" by "leading art experts" on the merits of his creation he probably would've quit.
in living memory of Rob Pardo, just let Blizzard do their thing.
if it totally sucks balls there is always the MOD Kit or Heart of the Swarm.
|
On June 19 2015 03:14 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 02:59 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 02:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
[...]
DK definitely left the door open to Blizzard doing more testing of different ideas. That's the problem though, I don't think they did . Maybe if we took another angle and re-presented a good economic model again in a super-convincing way, they could re-evaluate their stance, but I'm not sure the community is up for that anymore. Reading this thread, the community sounds pissed. Re-evaluate their stance? How? What is your "super-convincing way"? They answered to the in-depth article that was the Treatise by showing that they didn't understand it, which means either that they are really not competent or that they just don't want to listen, whatever you'll throw at them. Then they gave no answer to Plexa's additional (but unnecessary if you understand the original article) explanation. Then a few weeks/months later, they say that they "tested it internally". Considering that their internal testing allowed things like Daedalus 1.0, Queen patch, Mine nerf patch, Warhound in HotS beta, etc, let me have doubts concerning the quality level of their internal testing. What do we take from all that? Either the devs are straight-up bad at their job, or they have way too much pride to even try externally a community suggestion, or they have one precise goal in mind, one game they want to make, and that game is clearly not what the community wants, thus they don't give a shit about testing different ideas. No wonder the community sounds pissed.
If they didn't understand the article, the article was bad, not "in-depth". I can also write stuff complicated enough that no one here will understand it, but if I need to convince you, that's not the way to proceed.
They are the one with the fate of our game in their hands, so the smart way would have been to adapt the explanations to the little dumb-dumbs. But yeah, easier to just cry in this thread.
That being said, I wish there was a better way to voice our feedback. As it is, it's just a bunch of internet boards posting at random, we would need something more formal, like this:
https://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
