|
On June 19 2015 02:26 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
On June 19 2015 03:23 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 03:14 OtherWorld wrote: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
You'd expect Blizzard to understand the contents of that article, it wasn't that complicated, it was just very detailed and it should be. I don't expect game designers to not be able (to be too lazy?) to read a few words. Game design is an enormous endeavour.
|
On June 19 2015 03:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Edit: Eh missed that last edit of yours. I knew I read your name somewhere, yes, you usually don't like what I write :D.
|
On June 19 2015 03:23 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 03:14 OtherWorld wrote: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.
I'm really sorry to expect from game developers (of a RTS game, thus a game based on economy !) to understand an article basic enough for me, non-developer with no knowledge of game economics, to understand it. I think that game developers, who are professionals and who are paid for their job, should be competent enough to at least understand the idea, even if this idea isn't perfectly clear (which was not the case). What's next? When someone with a legit driving license will crash, will you say that the car was too complicated for the driver?
And yeah they have the fate of the game in their hands, which is why we should lobby and pressure for the game we want. Do you think that if we just say 'yes it's really awesome, thank you so much for doing this' to everything they do, they'll suddenly have the idea to make LotV the game it deserves to be?
|
The original article was fine. Since then, about half a dozen graph-filled useless threads have popped up on TL, ideas that could be summarized by a sentence only. It obviously doesn't work. TL organizing a DH tournament was the best idea after that, in my opinion.
|
On June 19 2015 03:32 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +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...
|
On June 19 2015 03:41 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 19 2015 03:38 ZenithM wrote:
The original article was fine. Since then, about half a dozen graph-filled useless threads have popped up on TL, ideas that could be summarized by a sentence only. It obviously doesn't work. TL organizing a DH tournament was the best idea after that, in my opinion.
The original article was fine yet misunderstood. Which, as I already said, means that they either don't have the competency to understand it (not very likely, 'cuz that would mean that they're really bad), or that, for whatever reason, they are strongly persuaded that this isn't the way to go, and then the rest is bad PR management. Thus not surprising to see people whine.
|
On June 19 2015 03:46 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
I would rather like the same overall amount of minerals, but in a smoother decrease (like 100, 100, 90, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, I don't know).
I like the fact that it simultaneously creates smaller battles, and shifts their location over the whole map as the game progresses. As long as the game continues, both players are forced to change their mining locations, which also force them to engage in different locations. So overall, it theoretically makes for a lot of small battles in different parts of the map and I very much like the idea. DH obviously wasn't designed to address that.
I would understand that people don't necessarily like constant small battles though. It's more tactical than strategic, to be sure. It's stressful too, and I'd guess there is not much place for "well thought-out" strategies, in that I agree with the TL elite :D. I just think that there is no strategy in HotS either, or at least it's not strategic enough for me to need to "think" much during a game. It's not chess.
I also think that it creates a lot of potential small macro operations (essentially worker transfers) that raise the mechanical skill cap. In HotS, people just transfer their workers when the base is empty (which usually happens in a very brutal timeframe, so you end up just doing it once). Here ideally you would still continue mining on a half mined out base, so you have to manage your workers more closely. DH probably does a bit of that too though if you expand a lot (which in itself raises the mechanical requirements I guess).
|
with current efficient miners and higher starting SCV count your main base is only at peak mineral production for a few short minutes. i prefer it that way. i like certain mineral patches being 1/2 of other mineral patches.
i can't speak for Masters and up. but, in diamond and below it punishes 1-base-all-in recipes that some players employ game after game.
for the guys taht do that , it makes for a short quick game and you can move on.. and that is good for both the recipe-follower and their opponent.
|
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.
|
On June 19 2015 04:10 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 03:52 Penev wrote: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. I would rather like the same overall amount of minerals, but in a smoother decrease (like 100, 100, 90, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, I don't know). I like the fact that it simultaneously creates smaller battles, and shifts their location over the whole map as the game progresses. As long as the game continues, both players are forced to change their mining locations, which also force them to engage in different locations. So overall, it theoretically makes for a lot of small battles in different parts of the map and I very much like the idea. DH obviously wasn't designed to address that. I would understand that people don't necessarily like constant small battles though. It's more tactical than strategic, to be sure. It's stressful too, and I'd guess there is not much place for "well thought-out" strategies, in that I agree with the TL elite :D. I just think that there is no strategy in HotS either, or at least it's not strategic enough for me to need to "think" much during a game. It's not chess. I also think that it creates a lot of potential small macro operations (essentially worker transfers) that raise the mechanical skill cap. In HotS, people just transfer their workers when the base is empty (which usually happens in a very brutal timeframe, so you end up just doing it once). Here ideally you would still continue mining on a half mined out base, so you have to manage your workers more closely. DH probably does a bit of that too though if you expand a lot (which in itself raises the mechanical requirements I guess).
I like more, smaller skirmishes for sure but those are not created by the uneven mineral spread but by mining out faster (in this case). SC1 had these smaller battles too btw, partly because of inefficient mining I might ad.
Anyway, players will adept to the system and make sure there won't be any sudden lapses in the income. That does ad to the macro game but.. meh really. It's just my opinion I guess but it really feels so gimmicky.
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".
|
On June 18 2015 16:38 Hider wrote:
That's not to say that community members actually know exactly how to balance protoss in a better way, but they know what's fun and what isn't, and David Kim should listen to that and try to make changes that the target group will enjoy.
The difference between working on a mod (like Starbow or something similar) and being lead designer for an AAA company is that the former can make the make the game he would like to play while the latter is paid to make a game that's enjoyable for the audience (not him self). David Kim clearly hasn't understood that concept.
I've written a large post on the SC2 forums addressing the current design state of Protoss in LotV here:
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18121285969
Other than replies to that thread, I'm pretty much done giving them feedback until the end of the Beta. Everything I've said has been ignored in favor of doing exactly the opposite in patches ... whether that's just because they think I'm exactly wrong or some other reason, it's obvious that there's no point in continuing.
LotV Beta is the last hope for a well-designed game, and it's fading fast.
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.
|
On June 19 2015 04:40 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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 
|
On June 19 2015 03:05 nottapro wrote:
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.
Gameplay-wise that could be a good thing. At least I feel (though I am an EU gold league scrub) that there are too many overlaps in units. And too many mechanics are shared by multiple races. Having so many tech choices also makes it harder for new players to get a basic understanding of matchups.
Of course, this is not how an expansion works. An actual redesign can be done with the budget of a new game, not with an expansion. And cutting stuff will probably cause an uproar (I still remember the Carrier petitions.) This is an expansion, there will be new units. That is set.
While this perhaps don't get us the best game possible in theory, SC2 Lotv will be a game which actually comes into existence. Better a less-than-perfect game which is good enough than no game because no-once finances it.
|
Reading what Blizzard is doing, and what they're trying to do, makes me wish them the best. I really want SC2 to be a good game. I want the Blizzard SC2 team to be successful. They're so nice.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm a BW player, btw. I don't play or enjoy or SC2. So now you know my perspective.
|
On June 19 2015 05:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
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.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
