|
Glad Blizzard is responding to the backlash they received in the last couple of day's. + Show Spoiler +We’ve seen a lot of discussion recently on how feedback for Legacy of the Void is being handled. Some are concerned that the feedback being provided isn’t being considered or used. This has come as a bit of a surprise to us, as so many changes that we’ve tested and implemented in Legacy of the Void were from player feedback. Here are some recent examples of how player feedback has impacted our decisions.
The Liberator wouldn’t exist without the community’s input. We originally only had the anti-ground mode as a normal siege range unit. But with the community providing feedback that it overlaps too much with Siege Tanks, we explored a different type of positional unit. And we believe the way the unit turned out is much better due to the help from our community. The chat system improvements that we’re working on right now are mostly based off of community feedback and suggestions. While we can’t promise that we can get to the right place with only one or two passes, we have more changes to this system coming very soon that were influenced by feedback we received last month. We did a pass on sub group priority at the community’s request and we aren’t done just yet. We’ll continue working on it until we know it’s good. Resource suggestions: We’ve fully explored many of the community’s most popular models internally and took time to examine and evaluate the show matches as well. We watched the tournament matches, heard your responses, and we agree that the proposed change was not big enough compared to the Heart of the Swarm model. While we may have ultimately decided to not implement the changes, exploring these types of ideas often helps us explore different areas that can lead to other changes that help the game in the long run. Per community suggestion, we've been exploring various ways to show possible enemy spawn locations per map to help players on new maps where certain spawn locations are disabled. This is something that will go into the beta within the next few patches. Many of the changes being tested are heavily influenced by the community: We split mech upgrades based on feedback that “Terran can almost never go bio in Void.” Now we’re going back the other way by reducing mech upgrade costs now that the majority of community feedback has turned in favor of bio. Ravager changes we’ve seen throughout. We’ve been doing multiple passes internally trying to make the Disruptor max case lower and min case better so that it’s not as all-or-nothing as we’ve heard from the community.
These are only a few examples of the ways the community has directly impacted Legacy of the Void development. That being said, we still need to improve our communication efforts to make these sorts of things clear to everyone. Going forward, we’ll be providing smaller, more frequent updates on current topics to keep the community well informed.
Another topic of discussion that has come up recently, is a “pro player chat” referenced by some players. This was a casual group chat created by the StarCraft II Community Managers as a way to get more direct feedback that could be gathered and passed to devs. While the intentions were good, the format wasn’t the best way to gather feedback. Also, the lack of devs in the chat frustrated some players. 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.
Please keep in mind that while we’ll be increasing our communication across the board, we’d also like to make it clear that even extremely popular suggestions may not always be right for the game. We’ll still discuss and test all of these suggestions internally, but we hope that we can continue to have constructive discussions, even when we disagree.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18132606976#1
|
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!
|
So all I care about is ladder, please add ladder soon Blizzard. T_T
|
We split mech upgrades based on feedback that “Terran can almost never go bio in Void.”
Some are concerned that the feedback being provided isn’t being considered or used. This has come as a bit of a surprise to us Ok, at this point they are officially trolling.
|
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
And we want communication!
9 out of 10 posts/threads are made by people being disrespectful or behaving like angry little kids. I don't know why David Kim even bother to reply.
|
I think it's great that we will get more frequent updates and the pros will have a new way to give feedback to developers (not community managers, real devs!!!). I hope they keep their promises and it could be great.
|
It's not just communication as measured in the quantity of posts they write. But it's the quality. How can they write that we split mech and air upgrades in order to buff bio?
And what about their ebay change: "we didn't feel it made any difference".... And I keep comingback to it, but damage point on units. Why is the default 0.167? Why are they adding more click-buttons spambased abilities when noone wants that. Why didn't they make the Ultralisk faster offcreep with lower modelsize instead of +2 armor. Noone likes the Cyclone, why are they pushing it down on us? Forcefields? Do they really think Forcefields are super fun just because zerg now has a bit more counterplay to it? Colossus? Is this unit receiving a proper redesign?
|
On June 18 2015 03:27 Tiaraju9 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 And we want communication! 9 out of 10 posts/threads are made by people being disrespectful or behaving like angry little kids. I don't know why David Kim even bother to reply. I don't know which race you play. But if for example you are protoss and DK says: "stargate tech isn't really used, so we decided to nerf robo tech so players are more encouraged to build stargate units" how would you feel?
|
Read the explanation of things and it is awesome!!!!!!
Thanks for coming out and explaining thoughts publicly. This sort of communication i think is great and really helps to build hype!!
|
I got away from sc2 because of how blizzard treats its community. They maybe now listen to the feedback but are implementing COMPLETELY STUPID changes to address said feedback. Why not listen to the community once for real. Give the community what it wants and not try to do your own work... Team liquid staff has put a lot of work into the DH model. Everyone was pretty much agreeing with the changes and what did they do? They changed the model from 100/50 to 100/60... -_- Really, blizzard could outsource its staff for starcraft 2 and random tl members would do a better job let alone the tl staff. Anyways valve listens to the feedback on dota 2 and counter strike go. Which is where i will be going after writing this.
|
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.
|
On June 18 2015 03:26 dust7 wrote:Show nested quote +We split mech upgrades based on feedback that “Terran can almost never go bio in Void.” Show nested quote +Some are concerned that the feedback being provided isn’t being considered or used. This has come as a bit of a surprise to us Ok, at this point they are officially trolling.
They're clearly talking about mech's strength relative to bio. If mech is always always stronger then bio, then you're never going to see bio even if bio's viable, because at the highest level you don't play suboptimal styles even if you could win games with them.
It's a sensible response to the statement "we can't play bio because it's worse than mech" rather than "we can't play bio because bio is unplayable".
|
I'm outraged!
I really don't expect Blizzard to do much that will bring me back to SC2. Been playing Starbow for a few days, and am amazing. So far I feel like I have much more unit control, and that my position is important.
Goodbye Blizzard, hello arcade devs.
|
All these recent apologetic Blizzard posts put me in mind of the old "evil or incompetent?" game you can play with virtually any politician. I can never tell with Blizzard, but my guess is that David Kim at least is a true believer.
So just a suggestion to him: if you've created a new unit that you're not really sure about and then you publish it anyway and ask for community feedback, later revisiting the unit based on feedback that rings true to you, -- that's not the same as "listening to the community" and you don't deserve any accolades for this very basic act of utilizing resources which are available to you. It's not comparable to the nearly complete dismissal of the DH and depth of micro articles or the protoss redesign requests.
|
It's an uplifting post to see that Blizzard is willing to spend more time on feedback. It doesn't make me any less skeptical, but it could be a good start to something better.
|
The Liberator wouldn’t exist without the community’s input.
Right off the bat I'm puzzled xD
I don't remember this being the case at all.
|
Jesus the sense of entitlement among some of the SC2 community is unbelievable. Compare LOTV's development to many other games. A publically traded company is delaying the release of the game for a year+ while letting players play for free(I realize the open beta is a ways off, but still). They're being incredibly transparent about their thought process and taking a ton of feedback into account. I don't have beta but LotV already looks like a great, fun, exciting game to watch and play.
90% of other companies would have released a half baked game after a 1 month beta with a day 0 patch plus withhold 25% of the content for a paid DLC pack.
I for one really appreciate the way bliz handling LotV.
|
When I see some community feedbacks, I would rather hope that Blizzard is not listening to us :D
|
Whilest most of us agree with the fact that having combined mech upgs is stupid and was a matter of "special occasion save" in Heart, don't need stupid intelligence-insulting explanations
Why make the "fuss", just say bio needed something and Ghost was added, say that you thought that you thought separated upgrades were better for game depth rather than having a lame excuse
People are known to "cherry pick" things even at good posts rather.. The patches seem nice (though can't tell yet cause I don't have the game) but one thing is certain - it's damn nice to see for a change that Terran tend to mix and play different playstyles rather than MMM all game long every game long, so very GJ at that one
As much as Bio may be interesting to some high-caliber players - it's really lame to see it every game so in a way I'm happy it's not the go-to play ATM.. Sure the Ghost buff for bio sounds like a nice perk to spurr up another possible situational/timing option but again - don't use "weird phrases" to describe obvious stuff
We're happy about LotV (at least I am, can't wait to put my hands on that at least for a while until I find out how much more I suck ) and GL HF
|
|
On June 18 2015 06:06 ObamaToss wrote: Jesus the sense of entitlement among some of the SC2 community is unbelievable. Compare LOTV's development to many other games. A publically traded company is delaying the release of the game for a year+ while letting players play for free(I realize the open beta is a ways off, but still). They're being incredibly transparent about their thought process and taking a ton of feedback into account. I don't have beta but LotV already looks like a great, fun, exciting game to watch and play.
90% of other companies would have released a half baked game after a 1 month beta with a day 0 patch plus withhold 25% of the content for a paid DLC pack.
I for one really appreciate the way bliz handling LotV. But if you compare it to other eSports is absolutely pathetic how Blizzard refuses to acknowledge the community and pro players. Take Brood Lord/Infestor: the unit composition that destroyed interest in SC2. Despite massive community and professional outcry for over 6 months, Blizzard did absolutely nothing to stop it until the damage to SC2's reputation was already done. Now, look at Dota 2. When a hero has been picked more often than it should, it is generally nerfed or changed to compensate. There will be times where a hero is picked for months on end, but it still gets nerfed in the next patch. Just look at how rarely SC2 is patched for balance compared to other games: LoL is patched every 2 weeks or so, and Dota about 3 times a year (but those patches impact nearly every hero in the game). SC2 has been patched twice in the past year, both of which only affect 3-4 units. Every time we hear from Blizzard, its some bullshit about how much they are trying to make the game amazing, even though almost the entire design team is working on the Campaign or Heroes. What's going to happen is LotV will be released, the hype will last for a few months, and SC2 will descend out of the top 5 eSports in the world, all the while Blizzard will keep feeding us the same empty comments they have for the past five years. Blizzard has everything in its power to make LotV amazing, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
|
On June 18 2015 06:06 ObamaToss wrote: Jesus the sense of entitlement among some of the SC2 community is unbelievable. Compare LOTV's development to many other games. A publically traded company is delaying the release of the game for a year+ while letting players play for free(I realize the open beta is a ways off, but still). They're being incredibly transparent about their thought process and taking a ton of feedback into account. I don't have beta but LotV already looks like a great, fun, exciting game to watch and play.
90% of other companies would have released a half baked game after a 1 month beta with a day 0 patch plus withhold 25% of the content for a paid DLC pack.
I for one really appreciate the way bliz handling LotV.
I think it mostly has to do with the fact that people hold Blizzard to a very high standard. Sure, many companies have those problems, but since people want Blizzard to be the best, they are compared to what is done better, such as what has happened in other successful games. Comparing with the lesser companies really doesn't help much, like saying the USA is perfect because it is doing better than 90% of countries. To get better, you compare to what others do better, not by being content with what you have. You strive to be the golden standard in the industry.
Blizzard are doing great things, sure, but they can do better. They have done better. And that is why people are complaining. Complaints can be expressed better, but crying "entitled" because people want stuff to be better isn't helping either.
|
Aaaah, the good old internal testing. The same one that was probably used to come to the conclusion that Daedalus was balanced enough to be played in pro Korean leagues or that the mine nerf + tank buff would bring back Marine/Tank. We're heading in a good direction, I tell ya
|
Here's a suggestion, fix protoss. @_@;; It's so frustrating to play. No one plays LotV because the gameplay is just... not fun/entertaining @_@;;
|
What total nonsense.
Making changes due to play testing results is not the same as responding to community feedback. Every rational person here knows that what SC2 needs is not a few new units and a couple number tweaks. It's a good thing I didn't have any hopes for LotV, or I'd be really disappointed.
|
What does splitting mech upgrades have to do with making bio more viable? These posts always sound like PR fluff rather than people who understand what goes on in the community. Always the "thx for the feedback guys, but we're going to do some stuff you don't agree with, buy our game".
|
On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote: Another topic of discussion that has come up recently, is a “pro player chat” referenced by some players. This was a casual group chat created by the StarCraft II Community Managers as a way to get more direct feedback that could be gathered and passed to devs. While the intentions were good, the format wasn’t the best way to gather feedback. Also, the lack of devs in the chat frustrated some players. 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.
So after FIVE years Blizzard is still (for the first time?) trying to 'investigate better ways' to get pro player feedback in? WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG? Also, Skype chats would be perfectly fine, if the pros are frustrated about the lack of attention from the actual devs THEN PUT SOME THERE? This is typical delaying PR bullshit if you ask me, and - at least for me - actually increases the feeling that they give zero fucks about what the players and pros think.
On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote: Please keep in mind that while we’ll be increasing our communication across the board, we’d also like to make it clear that even extremely popular suggestions may not always be right for the game.
This sums up the attitude of the SC2 devs perfectly imho. They still haven't understood it. It hasn't clicked that they're making the game for these people, for their audience. Not for themselves. If there are extremely popular suggestions that come up over and over again (not necessarily balance-wise but design stuff about the races or UI/BNET 2 etc.) THEN WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT'S NOT RIGHT FOR THE GAME? Incredibly elitist and down-right arrogant behavior there. And that is the core difference between SC2 and Valve for example. That's exactly why this whole discussion got started.
(Sorry for the caps lock there at times, it's frustrating to see something you love be stomped to the ground by this mixture of incompetence and arrogance. If they at least tried their best, I would understand it. But this is just sad. If you're going to be arrogant, you damn better well also be good at it. That doesn't seem to be the case to me.)
|
On June 18 2015 06:06 ObamaToss wrote: Jesus the sense of entitlement among some of the SC2 community is unbelievable. Compare LOTV's development to many other games. A publically traded company is delaying the release of the game for a year+ while letting players play for free(I realize the open beta is a ways off, but still). They're being incredibly transparent about their thought process and taking a ton of feedback into account. I don't have beta but LotV already looks like a great, fun, exciting game to watch and play.
90% of other companies would have released a half baked game after a 1 month beta with a day 0 patch plus withhold 25% of the content for a paid DLC pack.
I for one really appreciate the way bliz handling LotV.
Well put. All though there are room for improvements I feel like the Starcraft team is doing what they can, with what they have. I don't think they are purposely trying to ignore or sabotage anything, thats just silly talk. I am glad they are listening and I hope they continue to, and in an even greater capacity if possible.
|
Unfortunately, the disappointed folks (or just the perpetually angry people) are usually the vocal majority. So that means, once a change is made, the people who like that change are quiet, and the people who don't like that change start talking. Now if Blizzard changes that back, then the original people who liked it, get upset and start talking while the people who are now happy stop. So basically, as usual, there are always people who are disappointed because everyone prefers something different. Blizzard can't please everyone.
|
On June 18 2015 06:02 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:Right off the bat I'm puzzled xD I don't remember this being the case at all.
Personally I didn't want a new Terran unit at all so much as I wanted them to improve current units that weren't being used at all like the Ghost.
When they announced that we'd be getting a new unit from the Starport, the last thing I wanted was an another aoe splash unit!
The Liberator is a terrible unit idea as far as I'm concerned, I think I'd rather have the Herc back.
|
On June 18 2015 03:35 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 03:27 Tiaraju9 wrote: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 And we want communication! 9 out of 10 posts/threads are made by people being disrespectful or behaving like angry little kids. I don't know why David Kim even bother to reply. I don't know which race you play. But if for example you are protoss and DK says: "stargate tech isn't really used, so we decided to nerf robo tech so players are more encouraged to build stargate units" how would you feel?
In LotV the reason few people go bio is because mech is so good it is stupid not to go mech. Nerfing mech (in a tiny tiny way) means some more people might actually try bio.
|
Broodwar was a niche game. SC2 is 5 years old and it is now a niche game. Broodwar is still alive(?) and there will still be SC2 tournaments even if Blizzard stop throwing money away to ungrateful and incompetant foreigners via WCS in a couple of years.
If SC2 ever die I am sure Warcraft 4 or some alternative created through DOTA 2's custom maps will already be a reality.
People should stop moaning and play the game. Moaning won't make people watch it or even play it. Changing everything in the current game for lotv won't make this generation of players change their mind either. The moba crowd is not interested in a hardcore game requiring getting stomped hundreds of times before not feeling like a complete shit when they can have instant gratification while playing games far more popular. Games they can play with their friends.
|
Please. Improvement is just going too slow, no patch so far has been really significant. If you're testing things internally, communicate. And it's not like I trust your internal testings anyway, I remember how the "swarm hosts works great as intended and fulfills its role as a siege breaker, we're pretty happy with the unit".
On June 18 2015 06:31 OtherWorld wrote: Aaaah, the good old internal testing. The same one that was probably used to come to the conclusion that Daedalus was balanced enough to be played in pro Korean leagues or that the mine nerf + tank buff would bring back Marine/Tank. We're heading in a good direction, I tell ya Grist for my mill
|
On June 18 2015 06:57 Para199x wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 03:35 Charoisaur wrote:On June 18 2015 03:27 Tiaraju9 wrote: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 And we want communication! 9 out of 10 posts/threads are made by people being disrespectful or behaving like angry little kids. I don't know why David Kim even bother to reply. I don't know which race you play. But if for example you are protoss and DK says: "stargate tech isn't really used, so we decided to nerf robo tech so players are more encouraged to build stargate units" how would you feel? In LotV the reason few people go bio is because mech is so good it is stupid not to go mech. Nerfing mech (in a tiny tiny way) means some more people might actually try bio.
right, it has nothing to do with bio autolosing once ultras are out.
|
On June 18 2015 06:57 Para199x wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 03:35 Charoisaur wrote:On June 18 2015 03:27 Tiaraju9 wrote: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 And we want communication! 9 out of 10 posts/threads are made by people being disrespectful or behaving like angry little kids. I don't know why David Kim even bother to reply. I don't know which race you play. But if for example you are protoss and DK says: "stargate tech isn't really used, so we decided to nerf robo tech so players are more encouraged to build stargate units" how would you feel? In LotV the reason few people go bio is because mech is so good it is stupid not to go mech. Nerfing mech (in a tiny tiny way) means some more people might actually try bio. The reason people don't go bio in TvZ, which is the matchup everyone's been complaining about, is because the zerg has an easier time getting to the late game vs hots and lurkers, ultras, and cracklings are gods, destroyers of worlds.
Now, people still go bio, but it's like hots TvP, where you desperately try to win in the mid game or you've lost.
If mech is too powerful, identify reasons and nerf it in its own right.
|
Yep, I'm done.
TL introduced me to esports back when SC2 was announced, and I've loved it ever since. I wouldn't presume to call it home, more like the home of friends made late in life, where I felt privileged to be welcome.
I've witnessed amazing moments of individual brilliance on this screen, always with TL in the background. I've cursed imbalance, and cheered it. I've waxed... well, mostly just waxed, on various topics, ideas and suggestions. Sorry about that.
I no longer feel I belong. Or maybe I no longer feel there's something to belong to. I come here every day and every day it's just more shit being poured on the people trying to keep - no, treat this game like it's something worth caring about. And every olive branch Blizzard offers is just so much toilet roll.
Fuck you if you think SC2 has been a catalogue of design errors. I didn't stay up 'till 3am on work nights to watch design errors. I didn't go to bars and go apeshit over design errors, I went apeshit because Bomber didn't disappoint, or because Life found a way. The game is fucking amazing. It's like Rachmaninoff was handed a machine gun instead of a piano.
So, Mr(s) Moderator: a permanent ban, if you would be so kind, boss. It's been a pleasure. I sincerely wish you the best of luck.
User was banned for this post.
|
Mexico2169 Posts
The sc2 community has turned into one of the worst communities I've ever been in, how sad as it used to be the most awesome. So much anger, its sad really.
|
To both previous comments : do you really think what SC2 needs atm is yes men telling Blizzard how LotV is going awesomely and how excited we are to play it ?
It's precisely because the game has been "fucking amazing" and delivered awesome moments for five years that some of us worry about the direction taken and the blatant stagnation of the state of the beta ever since release. And to be frank, that message from DK deserved shit and anger. At first I thought the OP was trolling.
|
There are so many passionate people in this community that want nothing more than to see this game reach every inch of its potential. Take a look back at the start of the beta. Blizzard was making bold moves. Each patch made the game more fun and intricate. All of a sudden the shallow skill ceiling we suffered through with HOTS grew exponentially. This happened in such a short period of time thanks to rapid unique patches. These changes were less about numbers and more about what a player could do mechanically. It reminded us of a game we played that was balanced because of an "attacker vs. defender" dynamic. A phenomenon that exists in few other games. An actual equilibrium existed allowing players to fast expand while their opponents all in'd... and while dmg could be done..... the game continued to play out. At the beginning of the beta players could defend by using gosu micro, well orchestrated reads on their opponent and intelligent unit positioning. This is not the direction the last 3 patches have steered us toward.
The broad stroke changes we enjoyed early on are starting to turn into specific changes to specific units. The plus or minus five second bunker build time is the way HOTS was balanced. This is NOT a healthy or long lasting way to give stability to a strategy game. The fans are sitting in the back seat watching Blizzard driving the wrong way down a one way street. We are not going down this road without kicking out the windows and fighting to turn the car around. We're not going to let this amazing RTS become another Command and Conquer. It's time we called Blizzard out.
The economy change was the start and end of an open dialogue with Blizzard. Their response to our hundreds of highly educated and motivated TL writers explaining DH10 was finally replied to with "We may have decided internally that the economy change will not go through." This response can not be tolerated. They need to be made aware that watching a few show matches and internally testing with five, forty year old coders, does not count as adequate play testing. The so called fan made Liberator is not a healthy addition to this game. Another point and click flyer is the last thing this community wanted. We need to get away from point and click auto casters. Hard counters are for Heath Stone. This community is different. It wants balance through mechanics. An infinite skill ceiling shouldn't be sacrificed to cater to the casual. Listen Blizzard we know you have the balls to make the big changes that need to be made. It is time to stop polishing that statue and break out the chisel.
|
On June 18 2015 07:54 [Phantom] wrote: The sc2 community has turned into one of the worst communities I've ever been in, how sad as it used to be the most awesome. So much anger, its sad really.
Watching the people in charge of something you love continually take 1 step forward, and 2 back hurts. Pain causes people to become angry. Sad is that Blizzard keeps ignoring the majority of the community. They say a lot they are taking advice, I don't believe them anymore. RIP LotV
|
[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]
I really hope they imimplement developers talking to pro players. The potential...
|
Oh god that's embarassing...
|
On June 18 2015 06:06 ObamaToss wrote:Compare LOTV's development to many other games. A publically traded company is delaying the release of the game for a year+ while letting players play for free(I realize the open beta is a ways off, but still). They're being incredibly transparent about their thought process and taking a ton of feedback into account. I don't have beta but LotV already looks like a great, fun, exciting game to watch and play.
90% of other companies would have released a half baked game after a 1 month beta with a day 0 patch plus withhold 25% of the content for a paid DLC pack.
I for one really appreciate the way bliz handling LotV.
Here is a horrible alternative example:
Grey Goo
Developers state, after only a couple short months of BETA, that "feedback was of such good quality, we can just go straight to release"
Result?
That game sucks, and is dead.
The very fact that the Devs on LotV are not rushing the beta is evidence that they are in this for the long term, and don't want a rushed, poorly made game.
|
It's honestly worth a visit to the Grey Goo forums to see how much worse it could be.
While GG was not meant to compete directly with SC2, it was essentially the newest, strongest contender. And people are already asking if updates and servers will discontinue.
We are SPOILED.
|
On June 18 2015 03:53 Brainiak wrote: Really, blizzard could outsource its staff for starcraft 2 and random tl members would do a better job let alone the tl staff.
They already have. Starbow is so much more fun than LotV it's not even funny.
|
I'm surprised that Blizzard even bothered to reply considering the fact that so much of the criticism comes from toxic chronic whingers who won't be happy not matter what Blizzard says or does.
|
Wow... All these reactions feel so toxic and negative. Why would anyone think that the devs are not doing what they think is best for the game. And why would "we've discussed this internally and decided no" not be an appropriate response. They're letting us know they listen and consider our feedback. They don't have to include us in every part or process of development. Please try to bring some positivity to the community. If you read these forums it seems like LotV is the worst game in the history and it would be better to go back to WoL.
Can't we be more like "Thanks for your reaction, we're glad to see you listen to us. But we still think X"
|
Who wrote this statement from the blizzard dev team? He needs to be fired.
|
I just don't think they realize, ok they listened to a few things. Whatever, we want constant feedback from them through some kind of forum and chat system. They're making a worse game.
|
Resource suggestions: We've fully explored many of the community’s most popular models internally and took time to examine and evaluate the show matches as well. We watched the tournament matches, heard your responses, and we agree that the proposed change was not big enough compared to the Heart of the Swarm model. While we may have ultimately decided to not implement the changes, exploring these types of ideas often helps us explore different areas that can lead to other changes that help the game in the long run.
Death knell to double harvest then?
|
The nerd whining that is going on atm in every single game and genre is literally a cancer for gaming overall .
The biggest problem i see ,regardless of some minor imbalances in the game.. is how unforgiving it is.. losing a 30min game in 2 seconds , pushes away casuals , fans , hardcores , professionals.. its not fun.. and they are making it even harder , complicated and faster... with the new spells and units and economy.. that's the scary part i see , i am personally fine.. with things being complicated.. but the majority of the people (casuals) will just stop playing the game more and more.. , i don't think that's good for any game.. they need to get new people to the game.. not scare them or push them away.. its already impossible for new players
|
The kids here really need to take a step back and stop this ridiculous whining. If blizzard were to create the perfect game gifted by god himself, some of you guys would STILL find something to complain about. Honestly I almost think they'd probably be better off creating their own game completely internally rather than be jerked around 100 different directions by community feedback.
|
Sounds like excuses... not solutions. Or maybe they just have a general misunderstanding of the community feedback...
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
The frustration in the community is not without merit. Look at any other competitive game and you see the developers making moves that please the community. Be it Riot with their super-active communication with the community or Valve launching a (functional) custom game system. Instead we get statements like this. I've channeled a lot of my life into BW and now SC2 but now whenever I think about LotV I just feel dejected.
|
Most of the feedback I've seen is the general hate of spellcasters.
And we've only added more spellcasting since. Great.
|
On June 18 2015 10:00 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I'm surprised that Blizzard even bothered to reply considering the fact that so much of the criticism comes from toxic chronic whingers who won't be happy not matter what Blizzard says or does. If they end up talking more with pros and people who are actually able to have intelligent discussions, that'll at least be a good thing to come of it.
But outside of a select few people, they shouldn't even try to listen to "the community" at large. Most of the people who post are 12 year old (no matter their actual age) and are just looking for reasons to throw new tantrums.
They're asking to be constantly informed of every single decision made by the developers, which is not only utterly stupid but would only be used to whine anyway (as seen by the reactions to every single post made by anyone at Blizzard, ever). They're asking for every single of "their" ideas (at least the popular ones, as dictated by Reddit upvotes, because it's known to be a great way to judge the quality of anything) to be implemented in the actual 'public' game, so that *they* can decide if it works the way they want. Which is also utterly stupid. Just as stupid as most of those ideas in the first place.
Let the people who know how to develop games talk with people who know those games intimately (which includes people like Jakatak, Zeromus and Lalush). And just ignore everyone else.
|
On June 18 2015 09:37 AgamemnonSC2 wrote: It's honestly worth a visit to the Grey Goo forums to see how much worse it could be.
While GG was not meant to compete directly with SC2, it was essentially the newest, strongest contender. And people are already asking if updates and servers will discontinue.
We are SPOILED.
1. Is Grey Goo the sequel to the game that created eSports? No? Then who gives a shit about how bad it is? Comparing LotV to GG is like walking into a five star Italian restaurant, finding a rat infestation, and then saying "sure this place could be better, but aren't you glad we're not eating at McDonalds?"
2. Looking at this as a consumer: Legacy of the Void isn't a free balance patch. It's an expansion that's going to retail for $40. If I don't care about the singleplayer, are the fixes in Legacy of the Void worth $40? Heart of the Swarm wasn't. Go back to The Frozen Throne and see how much work Blizzard used to put into an RTS expansion. Completely retooled armor and weapon types, added tons of new creeps, tons of new items, six new buildings, four new heroes, eight new units, Taverns with a half dozen NPC heroes. HOTS added... seven new units. I'm not saying that "more units" is always the answer, I'm saying that all the time that went into creating and balancing those extra units and heroes should now go into retooling the existing units, spells, and mechanics. Now, one solution is to not buy LOTV if I think it's not worth it, another solution is to pester Blizzard to make it worth it, because I'd rather have a great SC2 in my life than not have a mediocre SC2 in my life.
3. Looking at this as an observer: I don't want the pro scene to die any time soon. Ideally, I'd like for the game to start growing again, because then the pro scene would start growing and become self-sustainable, and these are all good things. Now, Blizzard aren't God, they can't know for a fact what will work and what will not work. But I need to see that they give a shit. I need to see them experimenting with stuff and trying crazy things, so I know that even if they fail, they did the best job they could have done. But we're not seeing them experiment. We're not seeing them try crazy things (past the initial resource change). Are they working as hard as they possibly could to make LOTV the best competitive RTS that has ever existed? I don't know. When they give the Ultralisk 50 armor and then give the Ghost a spell that takes away 50 armor from a target unit, and then split mech upgrades because "bio isn't being used enough," I have to wonder how much thought was put into any of these changes by how competent a staff.
|
On June 18 2015 09:37 AgamemnonSC2 wrote: It's honestly worth a visit to the Grey Goo forums to see how much worse it could be.
While GG was not meant to compete directly with SC2, it was essentially the newest, strongest contender. And people are already asking if updates and servers will discontinue.
We are SPOILED.
They can make a decent game or they can continue to hurt the Blizzard brand.
SC had a self sustaining community and custom games for a decade. If they dont make the investment it'll be another hit on Blizzard being special.
|
I have been playing a lot of heroes of the storm and the community is just so much more positive.
It's not even like they don't have a lot of flaws and "missing" features and they even are directly competing against the two biggest esport games but no one goes all negative at all. (just a few complains that you would think people react far worse such as leavers and afk)
I don't know what's wrong with the sc2 community at all. The constant negativity, the expectations, the complains and just the overall toxicity.
|
Can we make Swarm Hosts have the option to spawn larva on creep or in the air, even after the air upgrade has finished? (right now you are forced to spawn locusts in the air which is great for cliffs, but they move slower over creep).
|
On June 18 2015 12:35 ETisME wrote: I don't know what's wrong with the sc2 community at all. The constant negativity, the expectations, the complains and just the overall toxicity.
Starcraft 2 has arguably the highest skill ceiling of all computer games out there. A lot of people simply have no perception of that, and as a result consider their shallow impression of the game as something to be communicated to the balance team - rather than to be explored further.
Also, a lot of people playing the game have much less than ideal mind set for competitive play. Finding yourself to be at fault for the loss is less than satisfying, so people resort to blaming the game design, balance; or in team games - their teammates. CS:GO and Dota 2 have a similarly toxic community, while Heroes of the Storm is purposely limited in game mechanics to make the experience a lot more fun and less challenging. Heroes simply has a lot less things to consider, therefore it is immediately apparent whether you lost due to a person fault or team misplay - with other Moba games, it is a lot more difficult to tell.
|
On June 18 2015 12:35 ETisME wrote: I have been playing a lot of heroes of the storm and the community is just so much more positive.
It's not even like they don't have a lot of flaws and "missing" features and they even are directly competing against the two biggest esport games but no one goes all negative at all. (just a few complains that you would think people react far worse such as leavers and afk)
I don't know what's wrong with the sc2 community at all. The constant negativity, the expectations, the complains and just the overall toxicity.
What if I've thought that Protoss is literally metaphorical shit since 2010, like one of the worst designed things in any video game that I've ever come across in my entire life, and for the last 5 years I've been waiting and praying and hoping for the TFT-scale overhaul that would make the race watchable without swearing at the top of my lungs?
Do you think that over the course of these 5 years my frustration level has gone up or down?
Now, taking into consideration that LOTV is Blizzard's last possible opportunity to make huge changes to the game, is this the time for me (or any dissatisfied player/spectator) to be more or less vocal than ever before?
|
eh, I don't have the time or will to read all the comments on the internet, or know even if that's a somewhat reasonable method to assess what people want in LoTV, but I wonder how much these overly zealous people actually represent the actual majority. That's the problem of this feedback system and being too open to the community. You're going to encounter a lot of bad opinions.
|
On June 18 2015 06:02 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:Right off the bat I'm puzzled xD I don't remember this being the case at all.
You have read every message on the internet?
|
On June 18 2015 10:02 Sjokola wrote: Wow... All these reactions feel so toxic and negative. Why would anyone think that the devs are not doing what they think is best for the game. And why would "we've discussed this internally and decided no" not be an appropriate response. They're letting us know they listen and consider our feedback. They don't have to include us in every part or process of development. Please try to bring some positivity to the community. If you read these forums it seems like LotV is the worst game in the history and it would be better to go back to WoL.
Can't we be more like "Thanks for your reaction, we're glad to see you listen to us. But we still think X"
Yes. They do this for a living. It's reasonable to say the devs have analyzed the game far more than any of us.
|
On June 18 2015 13:22 Antonidas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 10:02 Sjokola wrote: Wow... All these reactions feel so toxic and negative. Why would anyone think that the devs are not doing what they think is best for the game. And why would "we've discussed this internally and decided no" not be an appropriate response. They're letting us know they listen and consider our feedback. They don't have to include us in every part or process of development. Please try to bring some positivity to the community. If you read these forums it seems like LotV is the worst game in the history and it would be better to go back to WoL.
Can't we be more like "Thanks for your reaction, we're glad to see you listen to us. But we still think X" Yes. They do this for a living. It's reasonable to say the devs have analyzed the game far more than any of us. ^^ It's not like they're sitting around ignoring us. They're not taking our feedback and disregarding it just because it's the community. They're not taking good ideas and throwing them out because it's a community idea.
They have reasoning behind what they do based on experience testing and facts that the community doesn't have. They have experience and insight into how to CREATE a game and what makes a game work that the community doesn't have.
To be fair there are people who make good suggestions, and no game is perfect. But I'm a little tired of all the kids backseat developering who think that anything they think up is the best thing for the game and anything blizzard thinks up is crap. It's really become a case of, hey everyone is hating on blizzard, guess I will too. A little criticism is ok, but there are too many people just blindly picking something to hate and taking swings without a proper understanding of things.
What happened to the days when an expansion or game would come out, and the developers would show off some cool stuff in store and people would just go...oooh that looks awesome... can't wait, hope it's really fun in thegame!! #esportsdestroyingesports
|
On June 18 2015 13:06 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 12:35 ETisME wrote: I have been playing a lot of heroes of the storm and the community is just so much more positive.
It's not even like they don't have a lot of flaws and "missing" features and they even are directly competing against the two biggest esport games but no one goes all negative at all. (just a few complains that you would think people react far worse such as leavers and afk)
I don't know what's wrong with the sc2 community at all. The constant negativity, the expectations, the complains and just the overall toxicity. What if I've thought that Protoss is literally metaphorical shit since 2010, like one of the worst designed things in any video game that I've ever come across in my entire life, and for the last 5 years I've been waiting and praying and hoping for the TFT-scale overhaul that would make the race watchable without swearing at the top of my lungs? Do you think that over the course of these 5 years my frustration level has gone up or down? Now, taking into consideration that LOTV is Blizzard's last possible opportunity to make huge changes to the game, is this the time for me (or any dissatisfied player/spectator) to be more or less vocal than ever before? Well then unfortunately you are just putting yourself into a pit where you keep playing a game which has a third what you hated.
It is time to realise that there are almost no alternatives out there, and that is because a huge lack of interest. And blizzard cannot make a sc2 that satisfied every one in the rts genre.
If sc2 was as popular and alive, these so called flaw would have been called "features" of the game and won't be considered as negative.
I have said this a long time ago, go ahead and play alternatives like starbow or even going back to bw. Players are free to choose and sc2 is still the most played somehow. Why keep complaining and playing the game you despise and act as if it's the game's fault
|
On June 18 2015 12:55 NMxSardines wrote:
Starcraft 2 has arguably the highest skill ceiling of all computer games out there. A lot of people simply have no perception of that, and as a result consider their shallow impression of the game as something to be communicated to the balance team - rather than to be explored further.
haha no, brood war has even a higher skill ceiling than sc2.
|
On June 18 2015 10:34 iamkaokao wrote: The biggest problem i see ,regardless of some minor imbalances in the game.. is how unforgiving it is.. losing a 30min game in 2 seconds , pushes away casuals , fans , hardcores , professionals.. its not fun.. and they are making it even harder , complicated and faster... with the new spells and units and economy.. that's the scary part i see , i am personally fine.. with things being complicated.. but the majority of the people (casuals) will just stop playing the game more and more.. , i don't think that's good for any game.. they need to get new people to the game.. not scare them or push them away.. its already impossible for new players
Agree with this 100%. If my experience with the beta is any indication, LotV will chase away everyone in Gold and below. Some may say "who cares?", but that is the majority of a player base that is already rapidly shrinking.
|
On June 18 2015 11:42 Plexa wrote: The frustration in the community is not without merit. Look at any other competitive game and you see the developers making moves that please the community. Be it Riot with their super-active communication with the community or Valve launching a (functional) custom game system. Instead we get statements like this. I've channeled a lot of my life into BW and now SC2 but now whenever I think about LotV I just feel dejected.
If you're one of the people that are still thinking the community is being over dramatic, or whiny read this post (above). This is the sentiment shared by a large majority of people that have defined themselves by starcraft for over a decade. People that are talented enough to be legends at music, sports, shooters, & rts ..... they sacrifice to make room for SC in their life. Right now they are asking themselves a question. Is Legacy worth it.
|
On June 18 2015 13:41 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 13:06 pure.Wasted wrote:On June 18 2015 12:35 ETisME wrote: I have been playing a lot of heroes of the storm and the community is just so much more positive.
It's not even like they don't have a lot of flaws and "missing" features and they even are directly competing against the two biggest esport games but no one goes all negative at all. (just a few complains that you would think people react far worse such as leavers and afk)
I don't know what's wrong with the sc2 community at all. The constant negativity, the expectations, the complains and just the overall toxicity. What if I've thought that Protoss is literally metaphorical shit since 2010, like one of the worst designed things in any video game that I've ever come across in my entire life, and for the last 5 years I've been waiting and praying and hoping for the TFT-scale overhaul that would make the race watchable without swearing at the top of my lungs? Do you think that over the course of these 5 years my frustration level has gone up or down? Now, taking into consideration that LOTV is Blizzard's last possible opportunity to make huge changes to the game, is this the time for me (or any dissatisfied player/spectator) to be more or less vocal than ever before? Well then unfortunately you are just putting yourself into a pit where you keep playing a game which has a third what you hated. It is time to realise that there are almost no alternatives out there, and that is because a huge lack of interest. And blizzard cannot make a sc2 that satisfied every one in the rts genre. If sc2 was as popular and alive, these so called flaw would have been called "features" of the game and won't be considered as negative. I have said this a long time ago, go ahead and play alternatives like starbow or even going back to bw. Players are free to choose and sc2 is still the most played somehow. Why keep complaining and playing the game you despise and act as if it's the game's fault
1. I don't play SC2, I only watch it. 2. BW or Starbow might be better games, but the first is too obscure for Anglophone viewers, while the second is both obscure and doesn't have any high level play (which is what I would tune in for).
If Blizzard said back in 2010 that "this is the game we always wanted to make and everything is working precisely how we envisioned it and this is just a perfect product that needs nothing but the occasional balance tweak," I would have known what I was getting myself into. But they keep dragging this shit out, promising that things will get better.
Look at what's happening with LOTV right now. They WANT to end the deathball shit that was PvX in WOL/HOTS, that's why they nixed the Colossus, that's why they're changing the economy. But Protoss doesn't work that way. We're not seeing the system break down completely yet because Maru isn't playing PartinG in the beta, but once players of that caliber get their hands on the game, we'll see how PartinG plans to defend 5 bases at the same time against a Terran whose Medivacs instantly drop all his units. It's not going to be pretty.
And you know as well as I do what happens then. We're going to get another MSC, another emergency fix-it to a problem that half of the community saw coming from a mile away, but Blizzard put their hands over their eyes while there was still time to make solutions that aren't ass. Maybe they'll make A-moved Adepts even more powerful vs Bio, wouldn't that be exciting?
So why not do the job right, and do it right now, instead of putting it off and hoping things work out? Why not create 5 different reworks of the Protoss race and then unleash them all on the community on 5 different PTRs to see which ideas resonate with the masses and which ones don't? It wouldn't take one guy more than a week of work to do it. It doesn't have to be balanced, the balance comes later. It just has to try to do something.
|
On June 18 2015 13:41 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 13:06 pure.Wasted wrote:On June 18 2015 12:35 ETisME wrote: I have been playing a lot of heroes of the storm and the community is just so much more positive.
It's not even like they don't have a lot of flaws and "missing" features and they even are directly competing against the two biggest esport games but no one goes all negative at all. (just a few complains that you would think people react far worse such as leavers and afk)
I don't know what's wrong with the sc2 community at all. The constant negativity, the expectations, the complains and just the overall toxicity. What if I've thought that Protoss is literally metaphorical shit since 2010, like one of the worst designed things in any video game that I've ever come across in my entire life, and for the last 5 years I've been waiting and praying and hoping for the TFT-scale overhaul that would make the race watchable without swearing at the top of my lungs? Do you think that over the course of these 5 years my frustration level has gone up or down? Now, taking into consideration that LOTV is Blizzard's last possible opportunity to make huge changes to the game, is this the time for me (or any dissatisfied player/spectator) to be more or less vocal than ever before? Well then unfortunately you are just putting yourself into a pit where you keep playing a game which has a third what you hated. It is time to realise that there are almost no alternatives out there, and that is because a huge lack of interest. And blizzard cannot make a sc2 that satisfied every one in the rts genre. If sc2 was as popular and alive, these so called flaw would have been called "features" of the game and won't be considered as negative. I have said this a long time ago, go ahead and play alternatives like starbow or even going back to bw. Players are free to choose and sc2 is still the most played somehow. Why keep complaining and playing the game you despise and act as if it's the game's fault
Wait... did you just say "there are next-to-nil alternatives, but you are free to choose from these few options!"?
|
- Many high-profile personalities such as Artosis, Day9, etc have left the scene - Casters deride the design of SC2 on their personal streams. Even the korean casters sometimes say, "Did you see that DK?" on the official live stream! - Many progamers have retired - Ax.Crank said on his stream he and many other progamers will retire if the game comes out like this, it's just not fun - View numbers are in the shitter - SC2 has been dropped from many high-profile tournaments
All you Blizzard apologists should stop deriding the community and lay the blame where it belongs.
|
The negativity in these response posts is disgusting. Blizzard owes us nothing. We've spent $80 on WoL and HotS combined which provided what's probably been thousands of hours of entertainment playing the game and watching professional tournaments (WCS premier basically being a charity foreign pros in 2015 to attempt to keep the scene alive), and I then proceed to demand answers and for my voice to be heard on every real or perceived balance qualm I have, and demand changes/answers to game/unit design while the next expansion is in beta (and hasn't even been played by the REAL pro players, top Korean players, not foreigners besides a select few that can be counted on one hand). I've been around a lot of different gaming communities over the last ten years. Starcraft players, generally, are the most intelligent and articulate gamers. I've been disappointing, and expect much better feedback than I've been seeing on here. I'm diamond NA, therefore I don't share any of my thoughts on design/balance. I will say that if my future son is smart enough to play Starcraft, and ever responded in such a negative way to a lead game designer who's attempting to openly communicate the state of the multiplayer beta to community members, I would slap the sh*t out of him.
|
Am I the only one who freaking expoldes with anger when i see another blizzard post about "being deeply concerned with your opinion" followed by imbecile comment on how they *cough.. * "designed" liberator with the help of the community. Fucking what? "We made liberator with ground weapon only but suddenly realised (due to feedback (!!!!!) that it overlaps with siege tank (fuck yes you need ~100k people to provide feedback on fucking obvious things, next time they will need feedback to realise they live on earth) and deсided to make it (!!!!!) a valkyrie (what?). This is just pathetic. Some mental desorder is clearly an issue here. The question is how can one design RTS with such a disease.
|
On June 18 2015 14:56 ClaudeSc2 wrote: The negativity in these response posts is disgusting. Blizzard owes us nothing. We've spent $80 on WoL and HotS combined which provided what's probably been thousands of hours of entertainment playing the game and watching professional tournaments (WCS premier basically being a charity foreign pros in 2015 to attempt to keep the scene alive), and I then proceed to demand answers and for my voice to be heard on every real or perceived balance qualm I have, and demand changes/answers to game/unit design while the next expansion is in beta (and hasn't even been played by the REAL pro players, top Korean players, not foreigners besides a select few that can be counted on one hand). I've been around a lot of different gaming communities over the last ten years. Starcraft players, generally, are the most intelligent and articulate gamers. I've been disappointing, and expect much better feedback than I've been seeing on here. I'm diamond NA, therefore I don't share any of my thoughts on design/balance. I will say that if my future son is smart enough to play Starcraft, and ever responded in such a negative way to a lead game designer who's attempting to openly communicate the state of the multiplayer beta to community members, I would slap the sh*t out of him.
1.) Derides community for not living up to expected level of sophistication.
2.) Threatens to beat his children.
I like your style, friend.
|
On June 18 2015 13:20 Antonidas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 06:02 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:The Liberator wouldn’t exist without the community’s input. Right off the bat I'm puzzled xD I don't remember this being the case at all. You have read every message on the internet?
Yes. I am the matrix. -. -
|
On June 18 2015 06:46 whetherbye wrote: Unfortunately, the disappointed folks (or just the perpetually angry people) are usually the vocal majority. So that means, once a change is made, the people who like that change are quiet, and the people who don't like that change start talking. Now if Blizzard changes that back, then the original people who liked it, get upset and start talking while the people who are now happy stop. So basically, as usual, there are always people who are disappointed because everyone prefers something different. Blizzard can't please everyone.
I feel what was said here is more or less true. When people are happy with a product they generally stay quiet and carry on per normal. When they're dissatisfied, they will make a noise and complain. Personally I think it's a no win for blizzard however you look at it but hey at least they are taking thoughts and opinions into consideration. I, for one, am one of these people who tend to not say much at all because I think let them do as they think is reasonable.
Do I have criticism to give them? Yes. I do think that protoss units need some serious reworking and fixes. But I'm not going to go tell them straight up everything sucks. Please redesign the whole race without offering any solutions to what I think the problems are.
Rather than continuously give negative feedback to Blizzard...how about we start of with what we think is working well at the moment followed up by what things should change, why and how to fix it.
I managed of a group of people for a few years in my previous job, if there is anything I learnt it is that people tend to respond better to criticism when you precede it with something positive and something that they do well. If you tell them straight off the bat that they're wrong and they need to fix this this and this...90% of the time that method will have adverse effects and productivity goes down instead of going up.
The Blog posts on here by qxc have, by far, been the most useful information I've seen with regards to the development of LotV. If there is any to take from his blogs, it is the manner in which he conveys his thoughts and ideas.
I very much doubt that LotV is going to be a perfect game; because all of us have different ideas of what perfection is. But I do think that it should be given a chance, at the very least, as the game that Blizzard envisioned.
|
On June 18 2015 14:37 Spect8rCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 13:41 ETisME wrote:On June 18 2015 13:06 pure.Wasted wrote:On June 18 2015 12:35 ETisME wrote: I have been playing a lot of heroes of the storm and the community is just so much more positive.
It's not even like they don't have a lot of flaws and "missing" features and they even are directly competing against the two biggest esport games but no one goes all negative at all. (just a few complains that you would think people react far worse such as leavers and afk)
I don't know what's wrong with the sc2 community at all. The constant negativity, the expectations, the complains and just the overall toxicity. What if I've thought that Protoss is literally metaphorical shit since 2010, like one of the worst designed things in any video game that I've ever come across in my entire life, and for the last 5 years I've been waiting and praying and hoping for the TFT-scale overhaul that would make the race watchable without swearing at the top of my lungs? Do you think that over the course of these 5 years my frustration level has gone up or down? Now, taking into consideration that LOTV is Blizzard's last possible opportunity to make huge changes to the game, is this the time for me (or any dissatisfied player/spectator) to be more or less vocal than ever before? Well then unfortunately you are just putting yourself into a pit where you keep playing a game which has a third what you hated. It is time to realise that there are almost no alternatives out there, and that is because a huge lack of interest. And blizzard cannot make a sc2 that satisfied every one in the rts genre. If sc2 was as popular and alive, these so called flaw would have been called "features" of the game and won't be considered as negative. I have said this a long time ago, go ahead and play alternatives like starbow or even going back to bw. Players are free to choose and sc2 is still the most played somehow. Why keep complaining and playing the game you despise and act as if it's the game's fault Wait... did you just say "there are next-to-nil alternatives, but you are free to choose from these few options!"? The key word you are missing is "almost". Because some people like me don't consider them as a solid candidate as an alternative
|
On June 18 2015 13:06 Antonidas wrote: eh, I don't have the time or will to read all the comments on the internet, or know even if that's a somewhat reasonable method to assess what people want in LoTV, but I wonder how much these overly zealous people actually represent the actual majority. That's the problem of this feedback system and being too open to the community. You're going to encounter a lot of bad opinions.
Look at the overall feedback to any DotA 2 patch ever and tell me how many "bad opinions" you find. Then come back and try to make the same point about how opening up to the community only appeals to negativity. I'm fed up with people thinking that the vast majority of human beings are brainless wankers. Most of the things that are complained about in these forums have been central and major for five years (Chat and CG systems, Protoss, smartcasting, unit behavior, etc.), Blizzard has done NOTHING substantial to put these complains to rest. It's the beta of the last add-on and, as such, the last chance for SC2 to actually become the game it was meant to be. It's only natural that the community becomes more and more agressive.
|
It's not about people being brainless wankers. It's about the large group of kids posting who have no perspective.
|
On June 18 2015 11:42 Plexa wrote: I've channeled a lot of my life into BW and now SC2 but now whenever I think about LotV I just feel dejected.
Bingo. I didn't play or follow BW, but I had more fun with WOL than any other game.
I feel like the real issue here is that Blizzard thinks they can just add or subtract spells and units and their game will be great. But the fundamentals are broken.
The economic system is clearly worn out, and the proposed LOTV economy is forced when it doesn't have to be. Positional play has been dead forever in nearly every match up. Mobile units are far too strong, there is far to many counters to positional units (Vipers, Raven HSM, ect), and the maps are too big. Early aggressive play is dead. The number of viable playstyles is very limited. The game is boring.
And the Liberator is such a slap in the face to everyone who likes the Siege Tank. Such a slap right in the face. First Blizzard nerfed the hell out of the Siege Tank and made maps huge so the Tank sucked while adding in units like Immortal to crush Tanks. Then David Kim said Siege Tanks promoted "boring" play shortly after releasing the Swarm Host. Then we got the Viper with so many spells to screw over Tanks it is ridiculous.
And now they want to do the same thing to they Siege Tank they did to the Carrier when they released the Tempest: make a unit with similar abilities. Such a slap in the face.
They should have fixed the Carrier for HOTS instead of releasing the Tempest, and it took them until the LOTV Beta to realize this. Now just fix the Tank already, and remove all the spells that destroy positional play.
On June 18 2015 14:51 jotmang-nojem wrote: - Many high-profile personalities such as Artosis, Day9, etc have left the scene - Casters deride the design of SC2 on their personal streams. Even the korean casters sometimes say, "Did you see that DK?" on the official live stream! - Many progamers have retired - Ax.Crank said on his stream he and many other progamers will retire if the game comes out like this, it's just not fun - View numbers are in the shitter - SC2 has been dropped from many high-profile tournaments
All you Blizzard apologists should stop deriding the community and lay the blame where it belongs.
See above is the proper response when someone says that we shouldn't be negative, ect... Regardless of how you feel about how good or bad LOTV is, those things are happening and that is bad.
Also, no one is streaming LOTV. When the HOTS beta came out, people switched over very quickly and at this time during the HOTS beta just about every stream was for HOTS. At the moment I write this, there are two people streaming LOTV with 7 viewers. That isn't because LOTV is the greatest game to come out of Blizzard.
And the final slap in the face to fans in general is all this talk about their "internal discussions." They should open their discussions to community, though I'm not sure how much that will help because what is abundantly obvious is they think the battles should come down to LoL micro with the Viper, Ravager, Disruptor, ect... strategy be damned.
SC2 needs a new design team.
|
On June 18 2015 15:47 Bannt wrote: It's not about people being brainless wankers. It's about the large group of kids posting who have no perspective.
Right. I'd argue that defending SC2's design team for the sake of "maturity" is the chief attitude that lacks perspective here. How can anyone who's played the game since release still approve the direction the devs are taking? We've got to make noise now, if ever.
|
Making noise is fine. Making good arguments is fine. But alot of stuff being thrown around is garbage. And the garbage attracts flies. Guess there's not much that can be done about it though. I just wish people would think before they post.
|
There's tons of valid criticism to be levelled at Blizzard.
That doesn't mean that the attitude the community takes is in the slightest justified. The hopeless negativity that plagues it contributes absolutely nothing. What has the continuous complaining done apart from turn people away from this community and the game?
The attitude that things are bad, and therefore I'm justified to join the hate bandwagon to make things worse is one of the most harmful things to the game. Going around calling the devs. retards isn't going to make anything better.
|
On June 18 2015 16:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote: What has the continuous complaining done apart from turn people away from this community and the game?
And where has logical and level headed constructive criticism gotten us with Blizzard?
I'm not saying people need to be toxic, but to argue that it somehow sets us back is totally wrong. Blizzard doesn't listen to us no matter how logical and constructive our ideas are.
The TL strategy purposed economy (double harvesting) is the clearest evidence of this.
|
On June 18 2015 16:10 Bannt wrote: Making noise is fine. Making good arguments is fine. But alot of stuff being thrown around is garbage. Guess there's not much that can be done about it though. I just wish people would think before they post.
Most of the posts I see on TL aren't garbage. One could argue the more agressive ones lack diplomacy but really, these days, Blizzard deserves the outrage. This DKim update is nothing short of revolting.
|
On June 18 2015 16:19 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 16:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote: What has the continuous complaining done apart from turn people away from this community and the game?
And where has the logical and level headed constructive criticism gotten us? I'm not saying people need to be toxic, but to argue that it somehow sets us back is totally wrong. Blizzard doesn't listen no matter how logical and constructive the idea is.
Let's assume that Blizzard doesn't listen to us no matter what, as you seem to think.
What is your complaining for then apart from turning people away from the game?
|
On June 18 2015 16:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 16:19 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 16:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote: What has the continuous complaining done apart from turn people away from this community and the game?
And where has the logical and level headed constructive criticism gotten us? I'm not saying people need to be toxic, but to argue that it somehow sets us back is totally wrong. Blizzard doesn't listen no matter how logical and constructive the idea is. Let's assume that Blizzard doesn't listen to us no matter what as you seem to think. What is your complaining for then apart from turning people away from the game?
Cathartic release for me.
That is exactly what it is. I don't complain because I hate SC2 or the community, I complain because I love SC2.
|
On June 18 2015 16:19 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 16:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote: What has the continuous complaining done apart from turn people away from this community and the game?
And where has the logical and level headed constructive criticism gotten us? I'm not saying people need to be toxic, but to argue that it somehow sets us back is totally wrong. Blizzard doesn't listen to us no matter how logical and constructive the idea is. The TL strategy purposed economy (double harvesting) is the clearest evidence of this.
Let's say i'm a random guy who used to play who is thinking about getting back into it for LotV. I decide to go to TL and check out some threads about how the game is progressing. What do I find? A community that is filled with people complaining and talking shit! Oh no! the game must be horrible, the community has shriveled into a toxic mess. I have to dig to find any good discussion. Guess it's not worth my time, and I certainly don't want to try and join this community.
When in reality, it'll probably be a pretty good/fun game. Maybe not an all time great game, but a pretty damn good game, this is blizzard after all.
The community is VERY important for a game, if we don't strive to keep the community positive and constructive then the game dies that much faster, and the game gets less and less support from blizz/tournament hosting/community figures.
Arguing that a toxic community "doesn't set us back" is a slippery slope, let's not go down that road.
|
On June 18 2015 16:23 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 16:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On June 18 2015 16:19 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 16:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote: What has the continuous complaining done apart from turn people away from this community and the game?
And where has the logical and level headed constructive criticism gotten us? I'm not saying people need to be toxic, but to argue that it somehow sets us back is totally wrong. Blizzard doesn't listen no matter how logical and constructive the idea is. Let's assume that Blizzard doesn't listen to us no matter what as you seem to think. What is your complaining for then apart from turning people away from the game? Cathartic release for me. That is exactly what it is. I don't complain because I hate SC2 or the community, I complain because I love SC2.
I hope you understand the price of your catharsis then.
|
On June 18 2015 14:58 insitelol wrote: Am I the only one who freaking expoldes with anger when i see another blizzard post about "being deeply concerned with your opinion" followed by imbecile comment on how they *cough.. * "designed" liberator with the help of the community. Fucking what? "We made liberator with ground weapon only but suddenly realised (due to feedback (!!!!!) that it overlaps with siege tank (fuck yes you need ~100k people to provide feedback on fucking obvious things, next time they will need feedback to realise they live on earth) and deсided to make it (!!!!!) a valkyrie (what?). This is just pathetic. Some mental desorder is clearly an issue here. The question is how can one design RTS with such a disease.
Dude , you just need to relax.. and just accept that Blizz is doing ok-ish in terms of game development.The fact that they are providing some transparency should be only meet with a pozitive attitude.They don't have to do this....and still they are doing it...for us...the community. IMO LotV will be a great game with or without the negativity that some of us point on Blizz.I don't give a fuck if the Liberator overlaps with the siege tank, or that now it seems "pretty similar" with a valkyrie....it's fucking BETA!!!! From what i've seen from people who where fortunate to have LotV, the game is way more fun than HotS, cause of the insta action you get from the first minute of the game (multiplayer mode). BTW this "mental disorder" you talk about broght you Broodwar,WoL and HotS.The question is how can one(you) play games designed by developers who all suffer from a mental disorder?
PS.What if LotV BETA have a ladder system?.......What if?
|
This sums up the attitude of the SC2 devs perfectly imho. They still haven't understood it. It hasn't clicked that they're making the game for these people, for their audience. Not for themselves
This 100%. Remember all the times David Kim has said Forcefields are fun because they take skill and you can "counter" them by predicting where they wil be casted!. Meanwhile most players want it gone. 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.
|
Why do I even read these anymore...
|
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!
What the fuck is wrong with you? Finally the community gets a response and the first reply in the thread on TL is an insult. So is the third. No wonder Blizz replies only on reddit and their own forums if they just get bullshitted on TL.
|
On June 18 2015 16:50 gkts 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! What the fuck is wrong with you? Finally the community gets a response and the first reply in the thread on TL is an insult. So is the third. No wonder Blizz replies only on reddit and their own forums if they just get bullshitted on TL.
Wait , what? Pointing out something that really doesn't make any sense at all, is now an insult?
|
On June 18 2015 16:38 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +This sums up the attitude of the SC2 devs perfectly imho. They still haven't understood it. It hasn't clicked that they're making the game for these people, for their audience. Not for themselves This 100%. Remember all the times David Kim has said Forcefields are fun because they take skill and you can "counter" them by predicting where they wil be casted!. Meanwhile most players want it gone. 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. David Kim should understand this because of his Computer Science background:
As a developer you can assess the feasibility and cost of various implementation schemes and you might have the necessary skills to execute them. This means you can offer critical feedback to domain experts that desire certain things from your product and help provide guidance to give their requests concrete shape. However, you do not assume to know better than them because you are the developer and they are just the user, that's a faux-pas.
If people don't like forcefield you don't tell them they are wrong for disliking it and you're going to ignore their requests, you should search for solutions instead. To be honest, the fact Blizzard proved largely incapable of this makes me believe that we are not their constituency and they are not accountable to us. (that or incompetence)
|
On June 18 2015 06:06 ObamaToss wrote: Jesus the sense of entitlement among some of the SC2 community is unbelievable. Compare LOTV's development to many other games. A publically traded company is delaying the release of the game for a year+ while letting players play for free(I realize the open beta is a ways off, but still). They're being incredibly transparent about their thought process and taking a ton of feedback into account. I don't have beta but LotV already looks like a great, fun, exciting game to watch and play.
90% of other companies would have released a half baked game after a 1 month beta with a day 0 patch plus withhold 25% of the content for a paid DLC pack.
I for one really appreciate the way bliz handling LotV. I wanted to say this, but you said it better so I just quote you
I have beta access and rarely play HotS anymore because when I have time for Starcraft, I prefer LotV. Even though I get rekt almost every match, it is so much fun. Because of the faster start, having a match is not such a time investment anymore. And it feels great to almost immediately build structures once the game has been started.
One has to get rid of the mindset "How I see/play the game is the correct way". I have much more fun in it to play around with the tech choices and units I have to figure out how to play best for my style, instead of asking Blizzard to change the game to cater to my style.
On June 18 2015 16:33 curutcis wrote: PS.What if LotV BETA have a ladder system?.......What if? Some player would me more concerned with their rank than bother to try out new things.
|
One has to get rid of the mindset "How I see/play the game is the correct way". I have much more fun in it to play around with the tech choices and units I have to figure out how to play best for my style, instead of asking Blizzard to change the game to cater to my style.
This is a good sentiment. It would make a lot of people better gamers even outside of the context lotv design.
|
On June 18 2015 17:42 Grumbels wrote: If people don't like forcefield you don't tell them they are wrong for disliking it and you're going to ignore their requests, you should search for solutions instead. To be honest, the fact Blizzard proved largely incapable of this makes me believe that we are not their constituency and they are not accountable to us. (that or incompetence) I hate force fields as well. I don't like to play with them, against them, or see them in pro streams.
There still could be good arguments in favour of it, even though I am not liking them. It could be that force fields provide the uncertainty required to keep matches tense even if a player is on the losing side, maybe he can get back with some very good force fields or maybe the other player can lose his lead if he builds sentries but places forcefield badly.
I don't know if that is the case. But having the community liking something or not, is not the only argument to be made when designing a game.
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. Remember the time when Protoss disliked the marauders?
|
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.
|
4713 Posts
I'm quite disappointed that they feel the TL proposed economic changes aren't impactfull enough when a look at other Legacy Tournaments will reveal the same thing is true of their own model too.
|
On June 18 2015 18:01 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On June 18 2015 16:21 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 16:19 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 16:13 ZigguratOfUr wrote: What has the continuous complaining done apart from turn people away from this community and the game?
And where has the logical and level headed constructive criticism gotten us? I'm not saying people need to be toxic, but to argue that it somehow sets us back is totally wrong. Blizzard doesn't listen no matter how logical and constructive the idea is. Let's assume that Blizzard doesn't listen to us no matter what, as you seem to think. What is your complaining for then apart from turning people away from the game?
That's quite an assumption, that Blizzard doesn't listen no matter what.
I think that when pro players write "IMBA IMBA IMBA" during their games, when TL pseudo-endorses articles called "ZParCraft II," and the entire community, including casters and other community leaders, bands together in saying that LOTV Beta isn't nearly as experimental as Blizzard promised it would be, Blizzard's ears work just fine, and we get a response on the pronto double posthaste! I can't remember how many times we've 'coincidentally' gotten upcoming patch notes right after a controversial article or interview came out.
The sad truth is that I think it doesn't come down to the soundness of the argument, it comes down to how loud we are in making it. Blizzard doesn't get money out of multiplayer, they lose money on it. What they get is good PR. When we start ruining the PR they're getting, that's when they actually have something to lose, that's when they suddenly start to listen.
I've heard David Kim's SC2 team described as bureaucratic. They're masters of not rocking the boat. The only time they make sweeping changes is when that's the way to stop the boat from being rocked by others.
I don't know what to do with this information. I'm not going to galvanize any public efforts to bash Blizzard in the hopes that it will get David Kim off his ass. But hopefully the community is riled up enough as it is.
|
On June 18 2015 17:48 Bannt wrote:Show nested quote + One has to get rid of the mindset "How I see/play the game is the correct way". I have much more fun in it to play around with the tech choices and units I have to figure out how to play best for my style, instead of asking Blizzard to change the game to cater to my style.
This is a good sentiment. It would make a lot of people better gamers even outside of the context lotv design.
This fact alone is indeed true. But don't forget that LotV does not have a meta yet, so there is no absolute better play style. This is what allow you to get around much more easily. When a meta will be set in (the current direction of) LotV, will you still think the same when you get in the game instant action, and get over-killed for 15 to 20 minutes, thinking you can somehow comeback because it is only 'harass', and then being crushed just the same way in one single battle, because you were expressing your game style?
Also, to everyone comparing LotV to Frothen Throne and BW, don't forget that WIII and SC1 only had one extension, so adding stuff is good and all, but doing so twice will just be useless in itself. If you add to this the fundamental game twists they made back then but not for HotS nor current LotV, this is even worse.
|
On June 18 2015 18:28 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On June 18 2015 06:26 Solar424 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 06:06 ObamaToss wrote: Jesus the sense of entitlement among some of the SC2 community is unbelievable. Compare LOTV's development to many other games. A publically traded company is delaying the release of the game for a year+ while letting players play for free(I realize the open beta is a ways off, but still). They're being incredibly transparent about their thought process and taking a ton of feedback into account. I don't have beta but LotV already looks like a great, fun, exciting game to watch and play.
90% of other companies would have released a half baked game after a 1 month beta with a day 0 patch plus withhold 25% of the content for a paid DLC pack.
I for one really appreciate the way bliz handling LotV. But if you compare it to other eSports is absolutely pathetic how Blizzard refuses to acknowledge the community and pro players. Take Brood Lord/Infestor: the unit composition that destroyed interest in SC2. Despite massive community and professional outcry for over 6 months, Blizzard did absolutely nothing to stop it until the damage to SC2's reputation was already done. Now, look at Dota 2. When a hero has been picked more often than it should, it is generally nerfed or changed to compensate. There will be times where a hero is picked for months on end, but it still gets nerfed in the next patch. Just look at how rarely SC2 is patched for balance compared to other games: LoL is patched every 2 weeks or so, and Dota about 3 times a year (but those patches impact nearly every hero in the game). SC2 has been patched twice in the past year, both of which only affect 3-4 units. Every time we hear from Blizzard, its some bullshit about how much they are trying to make the game amazing, even though almost the entire design team is working on the Campaign or Heroes. What's going to happen is LotV will be released, the hype will last for a few months, and SC2 will descend out of the top 5 eSports in the world, all the while Blizzard will keep feeding us the same empty comments they have for the past five years. Blizzard has everything in its power to make LotV amazing, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
exactly
Though i dont think LotV is worse than HotS, blizzard should listen to the community und react faster. Compared to valve and riot they do poor.
And PLEASE dont create such wierd units like the oracle or the liberator. These are no units of any military system, they are just crazy ideas of game designers (Toss needs harrassment, so here is your harrassment unit.) Better create units according to usual military concepts. - Terran needs something between Viking and BC, something like a corvette or a gunboat. They also need a groundbased anti-air. Thor is a joke anti-air and marine is not anti-air-specialist. - Toss would be nice to have some more "dark"-units, like a dark archon again or some kind of a dark-stalker, dark-phoenix - Zerg would be nice to have "broodlords" like an upgrade for overseers/overlords, that slowly produce Lings/Roaches/Hydras for free. This "Swarm"-concept would be much better than swarmhost-like units.
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On June 18 2015 11:42 Plexa wrote: The frustration in the community is not without merit. Look at any other competitive game and you see the developers making moves that please the community. Be it Riot with their super-active communication with the community or Valve launching a (functional) custom game system. Instead we get statements like this. I've channeled a lot of my life into BW and now SC2 but now whenever I think about LotV I just feel dejected.
I swear sometimes it feels that I play different DotA then everybody. Icefrog releases new set of OP heroes every patch, some changes have to be toned after a couple of weeks because of major imbalance as if there is no internal playtesting, no communication with players about balance whatsoever. Moreover, Valve fucks up tournaments regularly and it takes them years to deliver their promises and port the last heroes (probably because they have no idea what to do after that).
I still think that Icefrog's approach to balance is okay because I understand how hard it is to support the game. But this "Dota has 100x better developers that SC" is ridiculous.
I don't play LoL but it is common knowledge that lots of heroes are unviable in competitive. I guess that tells about level of development. But I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.
|
On June 18 2015 06:31 -Kyo- wrote: Here's a suggestion, fix protoss. @_@;; It's so frustrating to play. No one plays LotV because the gameplay is just... not fun/entertaining @_@;; Speak for yourself, I think the game is great but there's no ladder so no one fucking plays it
|
On June 18 2015 18:42 Bjarne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 06:26 Solar424 wrote:On June 18 2015 06:06 ObamaToss wrote: Jesus the sense of entitlement among some of the SC2 community is unbelievable. Compare LOTV's development to many other games. A publically traded company is delaying the release of the game for a year+ while letting players play for free(I realize the open beta is a ways off, but still). They're being incredibly transparent about their thought process and taking a ton of feedback into account. I don't have beta but LotV already looks like a great, fun, exciting game to watch and play.
90% of other companies would have released a half baked game after a 1 month beta with a day 0 patch plus withhold 25% of the content for a paid DLC pack.
I for one really appreciate the way bliz handling LotV. But if you compare it to other eSports is absolutely pathetic how Blizzard refuses to acknowledge the community and pro players. Take Brood Lord/Infestor: the unit composition that destroyed interest in SC2. Despite massive community and professional outcry for over 6 months, Blizzard did absolutely nothing to stop it until the damage to SC2's reputation was already done. Now, look at Dota 2. When a hero has been picked more often than it should, it is generally nerfed or changed to compensate. There will be times where a hero is picked for months on end, but it still gets nerfed in the next patch. Just look at how rarely SC2 is patched for balance compared to other games: LoL is patched every 2 weeks or so, and Dota about 3 times a year (but those patches impact nearly every hero in the game). SC2 has been patched twice in the past year, both of which only affect 3-4 units. Every time we hear from Blizzard, its some bullshit about how much they are trying to make the game amazing, even though almost the entire design team is working on the Campaign or Heroes. What's going to happen is LotV will be released, the hype will last for a few months, and SC2 will descend out of the top 5 eSports in the world, all the while Blizzard will keep feeding us the same empty comments they have for the past five years. Blizzard has everything in its power to make LotV amazing, but I'm not getting my hopes up. exactly Though i dont think LotV is worse than HotS, blizzard should listen to the community und react faster. Compared to valve and riot they do poor. And PLEASE dont create such wierd units like the oracle or the liberator. These are no units of any military system, they are just crazy ideas of game designers (Toss needs harrassment, so here is your harrassment unit.) Better create units according to usual military concepts. - Terran needs something between Viking and BC, something like a corvette or a gunboat. They also need a groundbased anti-air. Thor is a joke anti-air and marine is not anti-air-specialist. - Toss would be nice to have some more "dark"-units, like a dark archon again or some kind of a dark-stalker, dark-phoenix - Zerg would be nice to have "broodlords" like an upgrade for overseers/overlords, that slowly produce Lings/Roaches/Hydras for free. This "Swarm"-concept would be much better than swarmhost-like units.
no more free units
just tone down the supply of the zerg armies overall and nerf them accordingly. Make them bit cheaper too whiel you are at it.
Zerg army is waaay too supply heavy. Roach and Hydra are 2 sups each opposed to BW's core versatile Hydra which was 1 supply and had great dps.
Sc2 is squishy expensive, supply heavy "meh" unit
|
- Zerg would be nice to have "broodlords" like an upgrade for overseers/overlords, that slowly produce Lings/Roaches/Hydras for free. This "Swarm"-concept would be much better than swarmhost-like units. This would be utterly terrible. Free units are very problematic when it comes to the general economic flow of a game. Once a map is split up, free units are by far the most cost-efficient way of endless army trading. The only thing that counters free units is energy, because it doesn't cost money and gets automatically replenished over time. (which is why SH vs. Raven-Mech was so terrible) While I agree on the fact that zerg doesn't feel as swarmish as it did in BW, there must be other ways to achieve that goal. Basically, you would have to redesign the core units (hydra, roach) in terms of supply, HP and dps. As this would mean a very fundamental change, I highly doubt that it might ever happen.
|
There still could be good arguments in favour of it, even though I am not liking them. It could be that force fields provide the uncertainty required to keep matches tense even if a player is on the losing side, maybe he can get back with some very good force fields or maybe the other player can lose his lead if he builds sentries but places forcefield badly.
Uncertainty is good, but find a fun way to implement it into the game.
|
On June 18 2015 19:06 virpi wrote:Show nested quote +- Zerg would be nice to have "broodlords" like an upgrade for overseers/overlords, that slowly produce Lings/Roaches/Hydras for free. This "Swarm"-concept would be much better than swarmhost-like units. This would be utterly terrible. Free units are very problematic when it comes to the general economic flow of a game. Once a map is split up, free units are by far the most cost-efficient way of endless army trading. The only thing that counters free units is energy, because it doesn't cost money and gets automatically replenished over time. (which is why SH vs. Raven-Mech was so terrible) While I agree on the fact that zerg doesn't feel as swarmish as it did in BW, there must be other ways to achieve that goal. Basically, you would have to redesign the core units (hydra, roach) in terms of supply, HP and dps. As this would mean a very fundamental change, I highly doubt that it might ever happen.
+1 Free units are complete stupidity in an economy-based game. Swarm Host is by a distance the most poorly designed unit I've ever seen in an RTS.
|
Yes. No more free units but cheaper zerg core units. I dont understand why blizzard decided to raise the supply cost of most units in the game. Did they ever give any kind of explanation for this?
|
On June 18 2015 17:18 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 16:50 gkts wrote: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! What the fuck is wrong with you? Finally the community gets a response and the first reply in the thread on TL is an insult. So is the third. No wonder Blizz replies only on reddit and their own forums if they just get bullshitted on TL. Wait , what? Pointing out something that really doesn't make any sense at all, is now an insult?
The think he means calling the dev team stupid and leveling sarcasm at them.
I would agree that the response from blizzard in this thread is a positive response and really something that the community wants (more open clear communication between all parties), and I find it kind of disgusting that many people respond with the same negative rhetoric that has plagued every balance thread as of late.Thank goodness people are speaking out against it and in support of Blizzard. As a community we really do need to check ourselves, especially in the general attitude toward the game and updates.
I've had my share of trolling, and probably some bm, but the shit that's been going on is over the top. * It does NOTHING to help make LOTV a better game. If anything it discourages communication and becomes a droning mantra of tantrum. We are entitled to NOTHING. If you really want someone to listen to you, speak with some reasoning and calm. Constructive criticism and conversation are much more effective. I get the argument that we have to yell so they will hear us, we have to make them listen, etc... It just hasn't been working, so maybe we should try a different approach.
The best diplomatic approach I have seen so far was TL's articles on DH model, and submitting those to Blizzard. All the effort and dedication to explaining that idea to blizzard on behalf of TL I applaud. I had really hoped they would consider that model more, and even run a test of it in the beta. I think that model did plenty! Watching a zerg play against a turtle mech, the zerg gained quite the advantage from over expanding during the turtle period, which then puts a timer on turtle play (which is great in my opinion, there should be a down side to it, it forces expansion from both players and rewards it at the same time. The current model just forces expansion if I understand it correctly).
The second best suggestion I have seen is my own submission to blizzard for different model of the Liberator. This model does away with the current clunky design, and I think most will agree it brings out the true spirit of the unit.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 18 2015 10:00 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I'm surprised that Blizzard even bothered to reply considering the fact that so much of the criticism comes from toxic chronic whingers who won't be happy not matter what Blizzard says or does. I was about to type something like this. If they are truly think they communicate enough, then let the communication talk for itself, and don't bother with the vocal whiners. If they don't think they communicate enough, then do some more proper communication instead of communicating about how much they communicate. >_> I can't see any scenario where trying to argue with the whiners will lead to anywhere good. I've seen this more and more recently, how Blizzard is taking conversation with the whiners, rather than focusing on the game. I mean... I don't see what they are trying to achieve with a post like this. Where do they hope it will lead?
On June 18 2015 08:02 [PkF] Wire wrote: To both previous comments : do you really think what SC2 needs atm is yes men telling Blizzard how LotV is going awesomely and how excited we are to play it ?
It's precisely because the game has been "fucking amazing" and delivered awesome moments for five years that some of us worry about the direction taken and the blatant stagnation of the state of the beta ever since release. And to be frank, that message from DK deserved shit and anger. At first I thought the OP was trolling. Yes, of course the best thing for lotv is an enthusiastic community... A lot of people here seem to agree that sc2 is the best RTS at the moment (bw possible exception), but the community still comes of as a bunch of whiners, which I think is putting new people off. Yeah, things can be done better, but I think we can deliver that feedback in a way that doesn't scare of newcomers as much. We should put more emphasis on the fucking amazing moments, and less on the intellectual proficiency of the SC2 developers.
|
"We are entitled to NOTHING", yeah right. We don't pay for the game, we don't make Blizzard's reputation, we're not the target audience that needs to be pleased. Do they make videogames for the sake of it? They stopped doing that when they became a successful company. Of course we're entitled to something, to everything in fact.
|
On June 18 2015 19:25 CptMarvel wrote: "We are entitled to NOTHING", yeah right. We don't pay for the game, we don't make Blizzard's reputation, we're not the target audience that needs to be pleased. Do they make videogames for the sake of it? They stopped doing that when they became a successful company. Of course we're entitled to something, to everything in fact. The thing that annoys me is that people sign away their rights. They tell us to expect nothing and that we are entitled to nothing, without realizing that unless you demand something you won't get it. There are clear parallels with politics and lobbying and so on. Don't act against your self-interest.
|
On June 18 2015 19:17 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 17:18 HomeWorld wrote:On June 18 2015 16:50 gkts wrote: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! What the fuck is wrong with you? Finally the community gets a response and the first reply in the thread on TL is an insult. So is the third. No wonder Blizz replies only on reddit and their own forums if they just get bullshitted on TL. Wait , what? Pointing out something that really doesn't make any sense at all, is now an insult? The think he means calling the dev team stupid and leveling sarcasm at them. I would agree that the response from blizzard in this thread is a positive response and really something that the community wants (more open clear communication between all parties), and I find it kind of disgusting that many people respond with the same negative rhetoric that has plagued every balance thread as of late.Thank goodness people are speaking out against it and in support of Blizzard. As a community we really do need to check ourselves, especially in the general attitude toward the game and updates. I've had my share of trolling, and probably some bm, but the shit that's been going on is over the top. * It does NOTHING to help make LOTV a better game. If anything it discourages communication and becomes a droning mantra of tantrum. We are entitled to NOTHING. If you really want someone to listen to you, speak with some reasoning and calm. Constructive criticism and conversation are much more effective. I get the argument that we have to yell so they will hear us, we have to make them listen, etc... It just hasn't been working, so maybe we should try a different approach. The best diplomatic approach I have seen so far was TL's articles on DH model, and submitting those to Blizzard. All the effort and dedication to explaining that idea to blizzard on behalf of TL I applaud. I had really hoped they would consider that model more, and even run a test of it in the beta. I think that model did plenty! Watching a zerg play against a turtle mech, the zerg gained quite the advantage from over expanding during the turtle period, which then puts a timer on turtle play (which is great in my opinion, there should be a down side to it, it forces expansion from both players and rewards it at the same time. The current model just forces expansion if I understand it correctly). The second best suggestion I have seen is my own submission to blizzard for different model of the Liberator. This model does away with the current clunky design, and I think most will agree it brings out the true spirit of the unit. + Show Spoiler + I know you are joking, but I think it points to a big part of the problem, which is that everyone think they have great ideas that will instantly solve sc2, making it the BEST. GAME. EVER. Blizzard doesn't take up on any of those ideas (or very few), so everyone agrees that Blizzard is stupid and doesn't listen to the community, while the only thing the community actually agree on are things that don't work, very rarely what should actually be done.
The few constructive suggestions that do get backed by a large fraction of the community are in general considered by Blizzard I think. They definitely thought about double harvest for example, and I don't think we can ask for more than that. And maybe we should give a bit more credit to the professional game developers that work full time on this, than to a bunch of posters that read a suggestion during 10 minutes and make up their mind about how great and flawless this idea is. Ten thousand ants can't be wrong right? So the ideas that get backed by the community are mostly ideas that sound good at a first glance, or ideas that are just presented well, or even presented by popular community entities, not necessarily the more subtle ideas that will actually work out in practice.
|
On June 18 2015 17:18 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 16:50 gkts wrote: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! What the fuck is wrong with you? Finally the community gets a response and the first reply in the thread on TL is an insult. So is the third. No wonder Blizz replies only on reddit and their own forums if they just get bullshitted on TL. Wait , what? Pointing out something that really doesn't make any sense at all, is now an insult?
You can say that without insults, you know? Manners and such? It's also somewhere written on this site that you are supposed to act politely.
|
On June 18 2015 19:52 gkts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 17:18 HomeWorld wrote:On June 18 2015 16:50 gkts wrote: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! What the fuck is wrong with you? Finally the community gets a response and the first reply in the thread on TL is an insult. So is the third. No wonder Blizz replies only on reddit and their own forums if they just get bullshitted on TL. Wait , what? Pointing out something that really doesn't make any sense at all, is now an insult? You can say that without insults, you know? Manners and such? It's also somewhere written on this site that you are supposed to act politely.
When you've been saying the same things for literally five years (I bolded this so you would take a moment to contemplate how long a time five years is), politeness can become a prized and rare commodity.
Here's my Blizzard impression, let me know how accurate it is:
"What?! "The Colossus is a terrible unit"?! My good God, why didn't anyone say something sooner?! Why, this whole time, we thought you guys loved those things! We always thought they were awful. Boy, is this awkward..."
On a more constructive note:
On June 18 2015 19:42 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 19:17 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 18 2015 17:18 HomeWorld wrote:On June 18 2015 16:50 gkts wrote: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! What the fuck is wrong with you? Finally the community gets a response and the first reply in the thread on TL is an insult. So is the third. No wonder Blizz replies only on reddit and their own forums if they just get bullshitted on TL. Wait , what? Pointing out something that really doesn't make any sense at all, is now an insult? The think he means calling the dev team stupid and leveling sarcasm at them. I would agree that the response from blizzard in this thread is a positive response and really something that the community wants (more open clear communication between all parties), and I find it kind of disgusting that many people respond with the same negative rhetoric that has plagued every balance thread as of late.Thank goodness people are speaking out against it and in support of Blizzard. As a community we really do need to check ourselves, especially in the general attitude toward the game and updates. I've had my share of trolling, and probably some bm, but the shit that's been going on is over the top. * It does NOTHING to help make LOTV a better game. If anything it discourages communication and becomes a droning mantra of tantrum. We are entitled to NOTHING. If you really want someone to listen to you, speak with some reasoning and calm. Constructive criticism and conversation are much more effective. I get the argument that we have to yell so they will hear us, we have to make them listen, etc... It just hasn't been working, so maybe we should try a different approach. The best diplomatic approach I have seen so far was TL's articles on DH model, and submitting those to Blizzard. All the effort and dedication to explaining that idea to blizzard on behalf of TL I applaud. I had really hoped they would consider that model more, and even run a test of it in the beta. I think that model did plenty! Watching a zerg play against a turtle mech, the zerg gained quite the advantage from over expanding during the turtle period, which then puts a timer on turtle play (which is great in my opinion, there should be a down side to it, it forces expansion from both players and rewards it at the same time. The current model just forces expansion if I understand it correctly). The second best suggestion I have seen is my own submission to blizzard for different model of the Liberator. This model does away with the current clunky design, and I think most will agree it brings out the true spirit of the unit. + Show Spoiler + I know you are joking, but I think it points to a big part of the problem, which is that everyone think they have great ideas that will instantly solve sc2, making it the BEST. GAME. EVER. Blizzard doesn't take up on any of those ideas (or very few), so everyone agrees that Blizzard is stupid and doesn't listen to the community, while the only thing the community actually agree on are things that don't work, very rarely what should actually be done. The few constructive suggestions that do get backed by a large fraction of the community are in general considered by Blizzard I think. They definitely thought about double harvest for example, and I don't think we can ask for more than that. And maybe we should give a bit more credit to the professional game developers that work full time on this, than to a bunch of posters that read a suggestion during 10 minutes and make up their mind about how great and flawless this idea is. Ten thousand ants can't be wrong right? So the ideas that get backed by the community are mostly ideas that sound good at a first glance, or ideas that are just presented well, or even presented by popular community entities, not necessarily the more subtle ideas that will actually work out in practice.
It's not about "doing the one thing the entire community wants." (Maybe it is in the case of making siege mech viable, and reworking Protoss, but that's about it.) It's about proving to us that they genuinely give a shit, and are doing everything in their power to make this expansion as fun as possible. It's about using the beta to experiment and try different things in the hope that some of them will resonate with the community and turn out to be great ideas.
Why haven't they tried to experiment with any late-game upgrades for Reapers, to make them useful past the scouting stage of the game? Why haven't they tried to experiment with fun new abilities on the Ghost to make it viable in TvT and TvZ, and more than a one-trick pony in TvP? Why haven't they experimented with new abilities on the Raven, for instance to have it function as the mech-Medivac equivalent, an air support caster for a specific playstyle?
Why haven't they tried to rework the MSC to make defending a Protoss base more interesting and challenging than clicking two buttons? Why haven't they experimented with decreasing Protoss's reliance on Forcefields? Why haven't they experimented with different implementations of Warp-In? I could go on, and on, and on, and on.
Experimenting behind closed doors during a beta is dumb, because Blizzard has proven time and again that they do NOT always understand what is best for the game (Colossus, Shredder, Replicator, Warhound, MSC, Swarm Hosts), and that the community really can play a useful role in piecing the design puzzle together over time. We don't know which things they've legitimately tried to experiment with or which ones they couldn't be arsed to even try. We don't know if we would agree with them that the experiment was a failure and was correctly never brought into the beta. We don't know how much effort they're putting into experimenting to make LOTV as good, and deep, and exciting a game as it can be.
All we have is DK saying "don't worry we're doing everything we can, and we're splitting mech and air upgrades so that Bio is used more against Ultralisks which we buffed to make Bio not work in TvZ." It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
|
"What we're shocked to hear you don't like the game now". well this is awkward.
|
Italy12246 Posts
The way Blizzard has handled this beta has been such a major disappointment
|
I was all hype reading the part about the pro player chat until they said it didn't work because there wasn't enough devs in the chat -_-
|
On June 18 2015 22:41 ZackAttack wrote: I was all hype reading the part about the pro player chat until they said it didn't work because there wasn't enough devs in the chat -_- And did you stop reading before the part where they said they're going to do precisely that, putting actual devs in direct contact with the pros?
|
The community is infuriatingly obnoxious. I think they're handling the feedback pretty well, considering it has mostly been of abysmal quality. If I find it bad even on TL, I shudder at the thought of what's going on over there on the official Battle.net forums...
|
On June 18 2015 22:41 ZackAttack wrote: I was all hype reading the part about the pro player chat until they said it didn't work because there wasn't enough devs in the chat -_-
I read it that way too the first time, but after re-reading, I think they meant: "Since we're talking about the chat system: some players want to be able to message devs when they have issues with the game. Alas, if we were to implement this system, we'd be paying our devs to chat for a part of their time instead of coding, Therefore development would slow down and it will be more expensive."
|
Experimenting behind closed doors during a beta is dumb, because Blizzard has proven time and again that they do NOT always understand what is best for the game
I think this is an important quote. Gainining the benefit of the doubt isn't something that comes to free. You need to have a concistent trackrecord of being right before we can trust that Blizzard knows better than the community. But Blizzard has prooved over and over that they have a huge tendency to implement huge design errors.
|
On June 18 2015 20:09 pure.Wasted wrote: Experimenting behind closed doors during a beta is dumb, because Blizzard has proven time and again that they do NOT always understand what is best for the game (Colossus, Shredder, Replicator, Warhound, MSC, Swarm Hosts), and that the community really can play a useful role in piecing the design puzzle together over time.
Rob Pardo fundamentally disagrees with this. He believes in getting the community to test at much later stages of development. Check his resume out some time. We do not know why Blizzard is abandoning Pardo's philosophy. One thing is for damn sure: it works.
as far as crucifying Blizzard for its past mistakes, i fundamentally disagree with this. the creative process requires room for error. I judge them on their final product relative to what other companies can make. its all that matters. i'm happy with Blizzard's RTS games. All of them.
On June 18 2015 20:09 pure.Wasted wrote: We don't know which things they've legitimately tried to experiment with or which ones they couldn't be arsed to even try. We don't know if we would agree with them that the experiment was a failure and was correctly never brought into the beta. We don't know how much effort they're putting into experimenting to make LOTV as good, and deep, and exciting a game as it can be.
the community is a group of consumers and not a group of game designers.
the anonymous "we" can be used to as an excuse for being right about everything a year later on every issue. whatever the question was there are a bunch of people on both sides of the argument.
the level of effort Blizzard puts into a single RTS title is higher than any major dev studio by at least 1 order of magnitude. However, if it is not good enough for you the ultimate weapon is not your posts on TL.Net. Your ultimate weapon is the money in your wallet.
|
On June 18 2015 23:09 Hider wrote:Show nested quote + Experimenting behind closed doors during a beta is dumb, because Blizzard has proven time and again that they do NOT always understand what is best for the game
I think this is an important quote. Gainining the benefit of the doubt isn't something that comes to free. You need to have a concistent trackrecord of being right before we can trust that Blizzard knows better than the community. But Blizzard has prooved over and over that they have a huge tendency to implement huge design errors. I think this is the important part. We want more detailed explanations about their actions, with goals, reasons, pros and cons, etc, because we simply don't trust them to make the right decisions, nor their vision. Things like "we listen" or "fun gameplay" mean nothing at this point with so many bad decisions in their history.
As an example i think of the mech debacle in HOTS where the words were right, make mech viable, but the implementation was disastrous with the Warhound. Why did this happen? Because their vision of what mech should be was completely different to what the players wanted. Had they said from the start that they wanted mobile blob of "mechanical" units instead of positional play, we would have stopped them early, before they wasted resources on terrible unit design and implementation. Looking at how the Cyclone shapes up i fear they still haven't understood this. And this is just one example.
All in all the "we listen" phrase can not be taken to seriously when you see that things that took almost 100% hate since WOL BETA, like Colossus, FF, free units, to short fights, unresponsive units and to many active abilities are still well within the game. The most they could do was nerf some units hoping they won't see to much play (Colossus) or give some counter options (FF breaking).
So no Blizzard, you are not actually listening, you never have in SC2. Or you do listen but are to proud to admit you are wrong and continue to force unwanted things on the players.
|
All these blizzard apologizers are worse than the so called toxic community. Blizzard is a company at the end of the day, if they want to listen and keep good sales, they will do that. If they consider listening to the community a greater expense with little to no benefit, they will NOT listen.
But all of that doesn't mean jack shit. We as the players and potential buyers of this game can give as much feedback as we damn well please.
|
On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:Show nested quote +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 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:Show nested quote +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. i prefer the LotV harvesting model as well. its clear in the blog post Blizzard investigated the DH model... and the blog post makes it clear they are reading the TL.Net Legacy of the Void section within the Starcraft 2 area.
if you go through the Blizzard RTS Team roster their experience with resource gathering models has both breadth and depth.
i say, let 'em do their thing.
|
To give some credit i'll say that David Kim is doing a much better job then Browder.
|
damn more passive aggressive BS from the sc2 dev team, starbow > sc2 in nearly every aspect.. SB's dev team at least gives a fuck about the opinion of the community.. I've had one on one conversations with SB devs where i've been able to actually see and feel their passion for making SB a great game.. the only vibe i have ever gotten from SC2's dev team is "we don't care what you think and we don't care about the legacy of starcraft," be it in early kespa relationship 'cultivation' or these recent posts..
|
On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:Show nested quote +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: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
Why?
Please educate me.
+ Show Spoiler +Logically the LOTV harvesting model is inferior because it reduces the amount of choices a player can make, because he can't stay on X number of bases for as long, he is forced to pump more minerals into expansions at a faster rate to maintain the same economy compared to the WOL/HOTS economies. This makes aggressive all-ins even more risky, and that playstyle has been dying for a long time.
DH does a better job because it rewards people for expanding more, but doesn't punish people for not expanding faster than they currently do in HOTS. There is a difference between expanding more and expanding faster. The whole idea is to break the 3 base economy, so players that take map control can exploit the advantage. With the LOTV model, you also gain an advantage with map control that can be exploited, but players who choose not to try and gain map control are also punished. That punishment restricts choices more than a reward alone. Strategy games are about choices.
Restricting choices without underlying reasoning in general, is bad, though games are great because of what you can't do, not what you can do. Therefore, there must be some great explanation of why the LOTV harvesting model is better.
On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote: 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.
I think your one of the people they shouldn't listen to, because you've provided absolutely no evidence for what you're saying.
This thread is filling up with people with like 20 posts who probably created there account right around the same time Blizzard increased their "community interaction." And oddly all those people are supportive of what Blizzard is doing.
Strange coincidence.
|
On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee 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. Show nested quote +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. + Show Spoiler +Logically the LOTV harvesting model is inferior because it reduces the amount of choices a player can make, because he can't stay on X number of bases for as long, he is forced to pump more minerals into expansions at a faster rate to maintain the same economy compared to the WOL/HOTS economies. This makes aggressive all-ins even more risky, and that playstyle has been dying for a long time.
DH does a better job because it rewards people for expanding more, but doesn't punish people for not expanding faster than they currently do in HOTS. There is a difference between expanding more and expanding faster. The whole idea is to break the 3 base economy, so players that take map control can exploit the advantage. With the LOTV model, you also gain an advantage with map control that can be exploited, but players who choose not to try and gain map control are also punished. That punishment restricts choices more than a reward alone. Strategy games are about choices.
Restricting choices without underlying reasoning in general, is bad, though games are great because of what you can't do, not what you can do. Therefore, there must be some great explanation of why the LOTV harvesting model is better. Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote: 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.
I think your one of the people they shouldn't listen to, because you've provided no evidence for what you're saying. I don't think he actually understand what DH does. Probably just a troll.
|
On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee 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. Show nested quote +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)?
|
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. 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).
|
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
|
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.)
|
On June 19 2015 05:13 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 05:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 19 2015 04:40 Penev wrote: I can't be sure of course but I think the LotV development team is small and left with little resources which limit them to really chance the game and they're hiding that "fact". pure speculation. the fact that the game will be full box price allowed the them to allocate a larger team and more resources than for a $40 expansion pack which requires the base game. Beta tests are the most expensive part of any software development process. This longer beta test makes the entire process more expensive. It also allows the giant company to label it "crunch time" and they can get employees to work 60+ hours per week during the beta test because "its the final step" the fact that you do not need the base game means Blizzard is opening the game up to any one and every one... not just guys who have the base game. these paranoid theories are good for a laugh though. the RTS genre is in decline and has been doing so for many years. There is nothing Blizzard can do about it. I'm sure some people will find a way to blame Blizzard for it though Oh Jimmy, you're such a troll. Your posting has improved a lot though. Strange, your earlier posts were always drenched with pure speculation and paranoia. Anyway:
FACT: Beta test is most expensive part of software development. FACT: Game Price is higher than an expansion pack FACT: Beta test for LotV is longer than any beta test previously for an RTS game Blizzard has made
add a little logic in with that you get my previous post.
this drivel about Blizzard hiding stuff is just LOL.
|
I think one of the biggest missteps of Blizzard was stepping into the ring. That's because they do have the means of making a game--or games--that could satisfy a great majority. That tool is, of course, the editor. It's a function that allows both the developers and the community to create their desired game, provided they have the know-how and the time to do so.
However, by marginalizing the arcade system to such an extent and by taking the reins of the tournament scene, they have effectively shut out most of the opportunities that could arise from players utilizing the editor. Hell, if organizers could capitalize on the editor that would be amazing, but so far that's only limited to interface modding and mapmaking.
It sounds easy to recreate one's own desired game in the editor; it's another to be able to do so. And that's for a very simple reason: the core of Starcraft 2 is a multiplayer game (one can argue the campaign, but that's not what this topic is about). So it doesn't matter if someone creates what they suppose is the Goldilocks balance and design, there wouldn't be anyone to play it without some significant backing and advertisement. That's saying nothing about the pro scene, who by and large ignore these feeble and futile attempts; Starbow and Clan Wars and DH showmatches are extreme exceptions.
Between the fact that no one looks over the good multiplayer stuff buried under popular casual games, and the fact that popular casual games don't necessarily translate to good pro scene material, the arcade is dust when it comes to making drastic changes. And if you want to make small changes, then the question turns to, "why not just play ladder then?"
Unless the game falls out of favor in the esports industry or there's some major paradigm shift, Blizzard ultimately holds the controls over how their game works. That means that, no matter what alternatives we pursue through the editor, the most convenient, most efficient, and most effective method is really to persuade Blizzard to try out changes. After all, as people have mentioned, it's their game, which means it's far easier for them to make modifications than us uncouth, inexperienced fellows.
And if it turns out that it digs Starcraft's grave, well... so be it.
|
On June 19 2015 03:52 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 03:46 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 03:41 Grumbels wrote:On June 19 2015 03:32 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 03:27 Grumbels wrote:On June 19 2015 02:26 ZenithM wrote:On June 19 2015 01:53 Grumbels wrote: This inability to understand the scope of the DH project is really pathetic. You can not compare LotV economy with double harvesting directly, because one is an entire system while the other is a conceptual change to one aspect of the family of systems including both HotS and LotV. If you prefer LotV over the DH+HotS unit then say so, but don't disparage DH unless you have an actual understanding of the subject matter. Good one. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/482775-a-treatise-on-the-economy-of-sciiThis article directly pits DH against what Blizzard's LotV is trying to do, and it certainly presents DH as an alternative, never talks of combining both. The goal in LotV should be to further increase strategic diversity by adding options while removing as few as possible. This goal is better served through the removal of worker pairing as opposed to introducing half patches and 12 worker starts. If that statement is not a comparison, I don't know what is. The basis of Blizzard's answer to DH is that DH is not worth implementing because DH+HotS isn't that much different from HotS. This was seen as a plus for TL, but a minus for Blizzard, they did want something different for their game. TL's argument with the pretty graphs and fancy math was misguided in that they should have targeted LotV minerals from the get-go. Not HotS. The big mistake for me is that they (you, we? I don't know, lol) didn't test on LotV minerals, to show Blizzard that the 2 visions are indeed compatible, and that DH+LotV is indeed more desirable than HotS, or LotV alone. Probably stems from a pathetic inability to understand the scope of Blizzard's LotV economy, huehue. If you prefer LotV over the DH+HotS unit then say so In conclusion, I would probably prefer DH+LotV over all of HotS, LotV, or DH+HotS, but I can't be sure because no test has been done on that. Yeah, that quote obviously changes nothing because it's one sentence concerning the opinion of TL writers about the LotV economy system (which Blizzard changed a week after, mind you), which is not at all the relevant portion of their article, which is the comparison of different mining systems and the analysis of the benefits of eliminating worker pairing. Suppose LaLush wrote Depth of Micro and later Blizzard added some new unit with an ability to the game, someone might write: "instead of adding yet another unit with an ability they should first look at the fundamentals of unit movement" or something like that. And then a while later you would appear and use this quote to prove that this person was suggesting the removal of this new unit and replacing it with a Depth of Micro-related set of changes. And that's obviously sophistry. People have talked about eliminating worker pairing a million times before, the main advance that the TL article brought was an actual implementation one could rally behind. Blizzard should be aware of the discourse concerning worker pairing, the "badness" of the article that you mentioned in another post is just deflecting the blame away from Blizzard because of your current crusade to whine about people that dare to criticize Blizzard. You damn well know that this article was as much about introducing DH as a fundamental improvement as pushing for the removal of LotV's mineral distribution (the whole "punishing is bad, rewarding is good!" non-sense). Sophistry my ass. I don't see how that changes anything. You have two variables to play with, the mineral reserves and the worker efficiency curves. TL felt that Blizzard's approach was misguided because the worker efficiency is the more fundamental issue with the economy and that should have been the starting point. Zeromus even added that you could combine it with fewer resources per base but that for various reasons they would try to match the HotS economy with their published implementation (proof of concept and all). TL also said that Blizzard simply went too far in lowering the amount of minerals per base, and Blizzard actually toned down the severity of this just a week after the article was published. Nowhere in this story did someone hold a gun to Blizzard's head and tell them: you either change one of those variables, but not the other. You have five seconds or I will pull the trigger... Fair enough. I don't have much else to say. I'm still not convinced I'm wrong though. What makes you like the LotV uneven mineral spread if I may ask? The sudden halving of your income (well, you obviously try to avoid that) looks so gimmicky to me (sorry Otherworld) or, should I say, band aidy to achieve lesser efficiency)? Not talking about mining out faster just the uneven spread.
Worked well enough in WC3
|
|
On June 19 2015 04:42 Edowyth wrote:
As for the feedback that Blizzard gives, it seems that they're constantly saying "we're doing stuff!" but they never actually explain "we thought this wasn't the best because of X" with some replays / video so that we can actually SEE that they're really testing these things out and have some great reasoning.
As it is; however, we feel like nothing is ever done because we just don't see it happen.
The person you are trying to convince does not need to show proof as to why they are not convinced. Blizzard saying "We tried it, but we're not interested" is more than what is required of them.
For example, if you asked a woman to have sex with you, and she says she's not interested, that's as much proof as she needs to not have sex with you. And if you're a gaming company and some random poster on a forum goes "LoLs, me smart, do these things I like LoLz" you are not required to follow through on their request no matter how eloquent or uneloquent they were at saying it.
|
On June 19 2015 05:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 05:13 Penev wrote:On June 19 2015 05:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 19 2015 04:40 Penev wrote: I can't be sure of course but I think the LotV development team is small and left with little resources which limit them to really chance the game and they're hiding that "fact". pure speculation. the fact that the game will be full box price allowed the them to allocate a larger team and more resources than for a $40 expansion pack which requires the base game. Beta tests are the most expensive part of any software development process. This longer beta test makes the entire process more expensive. It also allows the giant company to label it "crunch time" and they can get employees to work 60+ hours per week during the beta test because "its the final step" the fact that you do not need the base game means Blizzard is opening the game up to any one and every one... not just guys who have the base game. these paranoid theories are good for a laugh though. the RTS genre is in decline and has been doing so for many years. There is nothing Blizzard can do about it. I'm sure some people will find a way to blame Blizzard for it though Oh Jimmy, you're such a troll. Your posting has improved a lot though. Strange, your earlier posts were always drenched with pure speculation and paranoia. Anyway: I can't be sure of course "fact" pure speculation. FACT: Beta test is most expensive part of software development. FACT: Game Price is higher than an expansion pack FACT: Beta test for LotV is longer than any beta test previously for an RTS game Blizzard has made add a little logic in with that you get my previous post. this drivel about Blizzard hiding stuff is just LOL. How one can not understand such a clear post as you replied to is beyond me. Or it's still the first option of course.
|
On June 19 2015 04:48 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 04:40 Fran_ wrote:On June 18 2015 03:53 Brainiak wrote: Why not listen to the community once for real. Give the community what it wants and not try to do your own work... Sorry, by Starcraft is their own work. They created the brand, it's their job, it's their intellectual property. Listening to community feedback is great, but then they have the absolute right to implement the changes they think are correct. You have the absolute right to not like their work and play another game. Yes, because there are plenty of other RTSs in the spirit of SC, right This is not about "rights" or whatever absurd concepts. This is about lobbying for a better game. And if you want to go down that road, the user of a product have the absolute right to complain about what he feels like are this product's weaknesses.
I completely agree with you. I'm not against giving as much feedback as we possibly can. I personally dislike LotV economy where it stands now, for example, but I recognize they have the right to do what they think is correct with their IP.
|
On June 19 2015 05:42 TMagpie wrote: The person you are trying to convince does not need to show proof as to why they are not convinced. Blizzard saying "We tried it, but we're not interested" is more than what is required of them.
Blizzard is confused why the community feels as if their suggestions aren't being heard.
If they tried something and decided it wasn't good ... OF COURSE there's no requirement for them to provide quality feedback; however, they specifically say they want to do so.
Providing a simple "show and tell" of what happened when they implemented the change could go a long way to showing everyone that they're really trying hard and have actual logic behind their choices.
Whether you believe they do or do not, it's apparent that the larger portion of the community does not (which is why Blizzard has responded with this post).
My giving suggestions for increased communication shouldn't be offensive to you.
|
i don't know if they will provide a "Show and TEll" but DK promised "we’ll be providing smaller, more frequent updates on current topics to keep the community well informed."
furthermore, he also said "We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. "
let's see if Blizzard fulfills these promises. the 2nd promise sounds like it might require some changes to the SC2 client.
the best way to get a Blizzard employee to reply to you directly is to post messages on the BNet forums because Blizzard controls the moderation and they are probably way more comfortable posting stuff on their home turf.
|
What makes MOBAS and games like Counter Strike so huge is that there are many permutations of what can possibly happen. Counter Strike less so, but rounds are relatively short. These are main determinants of whether something is judged to be entertaining; how much of a surprise it can bring and how time consuming the activity is. And there is also the opportunity to grow in skill level. A unit like the disruptor can help improve a player who has made too many mistakes and it also forces the opposing player to be alert until GG is called. It also requires skill to master – a good opportunity to grow in skill.
With a game like Starcraft, where the amount of permutations will always be relatively limited, to keep things exciting, action (not staring and waiting for buildings to be complete. and determining if the player is spending his money well. that's like watching if someone is a good shopper.) has to be encouraged. Fast action. Or else it will be slow, repetitive action. The devs have been on the right track in this regard. And in other aspects. I’m confused in what the big fuss is about.
|
On June 19 2015 05:13 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 04:48 OtherWorld wrote:On June 19 2015 04:40 Fran_ wrote:On June 18 2015 03:53 Brainiak wrote: Why not listen to the community once for real. Give the community what it wants and not try to do your own work... Sorry, by Starcraft is their own work. They created the brand, it's their job, it's their intellectual property. Listening to community feedback is great, but then they have the absolute right to implement the changes they think are correct. You have the absolute right to not like their work and play another game. Yes, because there are plenty of other RTSs in the spirit of SC, right This is not about "rights" or whatever absurd concepts. This is about lobbying for a better game. And if you want to go down that road, the user of a product have the absolute right to complain about what he feels like are this product's weaknesses. It is about lobbying for a game which fits the personal needs (which then is perceived as "better".) The developers have to cater to all users. Blizzard actually provides you the tools to create the starcraft gameplay you want. (Of course, learning how to use the map editor takes much more effort than to post into some forums.) If the community would be so smart, we already would have custom mods which make the game better. There is a lot of effort put into One Goal and Starbow. The latter did get some success. Though there is no consensus that it is the better game. Which proves the point that "personal experience / opinion" does not equal "better". Neither does it mean that community input is worthless. (However, many postings are completely out of proportion.) It's really not. It would actually be impossible to lobby for a game which "fits the personal needs", because lobbying in this case means group/community pressure, and you have "group" in group pressure. I have an idea of what a "StarCraft by OtherWorld" would look like, but I certainly won't even try to lobby for it as it wouldn't be enjoyable by most users.
However there have been multiple opinions expressed by various members of the community, that lead me to think that yes, while my personal opinion does not equal "better" (and I never said so), we can have an objectively (or as objectively as possible) better game than what we have in HotS and more importantly what we have in LotV beta. See LaLuSh's Depth of Micro. See Uvantak's article on economy. See Downfall's Razzia Of The Blizzsters. See ZeromuS' Treatise. See BlackLilium's works on harvesting. And there are plenty others.
You can find this feeling that better is possible in articles like the ones I mentioned, you can find this in declarations by players/casters, you can find this by looking at the current viewer numbers for LotV beta streams [at the time I'm writing this, it's less than 40 across 5 streams], you can even find this in the hateful posts towards Blizz that you can find in this very thread. You can ignore all these signs, you can disregard hateful posts as "haters", but they are the sign that something is wrong. Kill the messenger, reality remains.
On June 19 2015 06:07 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 04:48 OtherWorld wrote:On June 19 2015 04:40 Fran_ wrote:On June 18 2015 03:53 Brainiak wrote: Why not listen to the community once for real. Give the community what it wants and not try to do your own work... Sorry, by Starcraft is their own work. They created the brand, it's their job, it's their intellectual property. Listening to community feedback is great, but then they have the absolute right to implement the changes they think are correct. You have the absolute right to not like their work and play another game. Yes, because there are plenty of other RTSs in the spirit of SC, right This is not about "rights" or whatever absurd concepts. This is about lobbying for a better game. And if you want to go down that road, the user of a product have the absolute right to complain about what he feels like are this product's weaknesses. I completely agree with you. I'm not against giving as much feedback as we possibly can. I personally dislike LotV economy where it stands now, for example, but I recognize they have the right to do what they think is correct with their IP. Ah yeah, I don't disagree on that ; ultimately they are the ones who decide what the end product looks like.
|
On June 19 2015 06:38 Antonidas wrote: What makes MOBAS and games like Counter Strike so huge is that there are many permutations of what can possibly happen. Counter Strike less so, but rounds are relatively short. These are main determinants of whether something is judged to be entertaining; how much of a surprise it can bring and how time consuming the activity is. And there is also the opportunity to grow in skill level. A unit like the disruptor can help improve a player who has made too many mistakes and it also forces the opposing player to be alert until GG is called. It also requires skill to master – a good opportunity to grow in skill.
With a game like Starcraft, where the amount of permutations will always be relatively limited, to keep things exciting, action (not staring and waiting for buildings to be complete. and determining if the player is spending his money well. that's like watching if someone is a good shopper.) has to be encouraged. Fast action. Or else it will be slow, repetitive action. The devs have been on the right track in this regard. And in other aspects. I’m confused in what the big fuss is about.
Shooting and Fighting games have very low permutations on a per fight level. "Did he hit me? did I hit him?" but is only "interesting" in a Best of X system. RTS games are the same way, but people don't judge them like that.
|
Stop bashing Blizzard, SC2 is a great game even though it has it's flaws, and LoTV is on the right track to addressing the most serious problems, notably: 1) Boring early game, just wastes time playing and watching. The main reason that makes me want to play SC2 again. 2) Forcefields now actually can be micro'ed against by Zerg, and Timewarp is no longer as OP. 3) Collosus and immortals nerfed, these were the main cause of the deathball problem.
The balance team were just terrible in WoL, they got slightly better during HoTS, and they are doing a much better job in the start of LoTV. I think all three races are in a pretty decent spot right now, and the top Korean players are showing how high the skill threshold really is and players are still getting better. For the three races, the main deficiencies are being addressed, which are:
1) Terran now has the tools in order to micro Mech and Air units, and do not have to be forced to play bio nearly all the time, and can transition into different compositions late game. (Ghosts still need work though) 2) Zerg has a decent map control and siege unit in Lurker, and ravager gives them versatility and a very high micro skill threshold. Zerg is probably a bit too strong at the moment because of Lurker, Vipers and Ultras. 3) Protoss are no longer forced into deathball or all in style, adepts offer a macro playstyle and disruptors have a very high micro skill threshold when combined with warp prisms. Adepts seem to be pretty strong if used properly, will take time for Protoss to adapt to new playstyle before real balance issues can be deduced.
The main issues the community has as a consensus have been looked at. The dual harvesting proposal is stupid and I wish TL people will just open their eyes and realize that Blizzard's proposal to vary mineral patches is much better and more flexible.
|
On June 19 2015 06:51 WhenRaxFly wrote: Stop bashing Blizzard, SC2 is a great game even though it has it's flaws, and LoTV is on the right track to addressing the most serious problems, notably: 1) Boring early game, just wastes time playing and watching. The main reason that makes me want to play SC2 again. 2) Forcefields now actually can be micro'ed against by Zerg, and Timewarp is no longer as OP. 3) Collosus and immortals nerfed, these were the main cause of the deathball problem.
The balance team were just terrible in WoL, they got slightly better during HoTS, and they are doing a much better job in the start of LoTV. I think all three races are in a pretty decent spot right now, and the top Korean players are showing how high the skill threshold really is and players are still getting better. For the three races, the main deficiencies are being addressed, which are:
1) Terran now has the tools in order to micro Mech and Air units, and do not have to be forced to play bio nearly all the time, and can transition into different compositions late game. (Ghosts still need work though) 2) Zerg has a decent map control and siege unit in Lurker, and ravager gives them versatility and a very high micro skill threshold. Zerg is probably a bit too strong at the moment because of Lurker, Vipers and Ultras. 3) Protoss are no longer forced into deathball or all in style, adepts offer a macro playstyle and disruptors have a very high micro skill threshold when combined with warp prisms. Adepts seem to be pretty strong if used properly, will take time for Protoss to adapt to new playstyle before real balance issues can be deduced.
The main issues the community has as a consensus have been looked at. The dual harvesting proposal is stupid and I wish TL people will just open their eyes and realize that Blizzard's proposal to vary mineral patches is much better and more flexible.
The dual harvesting proposal is stupid
Blizzard's proposal to vary mineral patches is much better and more flexible. Explain pls
|
Blizzards PR with SC2 always alerts my troll sensors. Like that guy in Dota that's buying couriers and running them into the opponent whilst chatting to the team that he's totally not doing that and he's trying his best.
I'm convinced the people that are still working on SC2 want to to do their best but I'm guessing they get bare minimum resources to just finish the trilogy and be done with it.
|
The Liberator looks too heavy. It should shed off some armor. And look more aggressive. In siege mode, it should have slightly longer cannons.
|
On June 19 2015 07:22 Saechiis wrote: Blizzards PR with SC2 always alerts my troll sensors. Like that guy in Dota that's buying couriers and running them into the opponent whilst chatting to the team that he's totally not doing that and he's trying his best.
I'm convinced the people that are still working on SC2 want to to do their best but I'm guessing they get bare minimum resources to just finish the trilogy and be done with it.
They're doing fine.
|
Oh my God, I can't wait to go through this entire thread. There are some ridiculous responses here.
|
There appears to be a schism in the TL community regarding the development of multiplayer. On one side, there are those that believe Blizzard is doing a decent job of handling the development of LotV multiplayer and that the other side should stop bashing the developers and let them do their job.
On the other side of the gap are those that feel Blizzard is not doing a great job, and they are ignoring the community's suggestions.
Of course there are those that stand inside the schism, that have mixed emotions on LotV multiplayer.
I would like to remind everyone that we are still one community, even though the voice is fractured into many. Please stop bashing each other.
I agree that Blizzard hasn't been the most forthcoming with much information, but that doesn't mean they have completely ignored the community. Someone has already listed changes that have come from specifically the community. As well, they have made changes that appear to go against what some in the community wish to be. Blizzard has every right to say "We heard you, but we want to do something else". I don't always agree with them, but that is fine.
Also, to those that say we should leave the developers alone, I say no. We shouldn't leave them alone. They need our feedback, even if they don't agree with it. We shouted to them to change the BL/Infestor and the SH. It took them a long time, but eventually they listened. Without our shouting, Blizzard cannot make the game into something awesome, because we are something awesome.
I know that only a small percentage of the playerbase is concerned about multiplayer. I understand that the campaign will be the driving force for sales. But the true beauty of SC2 is the multiplayer, and it is largely ignored by the greater playerbase. Only we saw MC (hold up let me stop crying for a sec…) drop awesome forcefields or devastate with awesome blinks. All my friends haven't even heard of MC (even though I tried to get them on board). Or watch Innovation (I can never remember where his captilization goes) wreck other terrans with BFH. Or how about Life managing to always sneak in a zergling rush when a depot is down.
But the devs need our feedback to make multiplayer awesome. So please keep shouting that the current economic model is flawed. Let them know the Liberator can set you free or put you in chains. But remember to keep things in perspective. Remember to shout, but be polite.
Don't bash the developers, or call them incompetent because they are slow to change (which they are slow). They don't need your bashing. That just adds to the noise. When providing feedback, dial down on the noise, and dial up on the opinion. Try to hold back on "the community can do a better job" or "fire D Kim/Browder" and lets not forget "X developer does a better job" because none of those comments helps. All it really does is insult Blizzard, and insults don't go far to persuading others to change.
I don't mind if we have a divided voice, but remember we are still one community. No need to bash each other because we can't come to an agreement. Shit, I can't agree with my wife half the time, but I still don't insult her.
|
I can't stand the levels of negativity and hate the SC2 community puts out any more. It makes me feel bad every time I look into one of these threads. Why do you have to be so mad all the time? I'm sure there's a way to communicate in a mannered and positive fashion?
If it's even affecting me as a bystander, I can't even imagine how blizzard devs must feel when they're looking at community "feedback". I would probably start to ignore it.
Which is what I will do as well. I'll ignore/hide any SC2 content on TL.net for some time until after the LotV release. You can thank those asshats in this thread and others who make it unbearable. Bye, I guess...
|
|
On June 19 2015 20:07 Ketch wrote:This is great!
Yeah. Thanks for highlighting this.
|
On June 18 2015 05:18 Pseudorandom wrote: I'm outraged!
I really don't expect Blizzard to do much that will bring me back to SC2. Been playing Starbow for a few days, and am amazing. So far I feel like I have much more unit control, and that my position is important.
Goodbye Blizzard, hello arcade devs. This. I hope starbow takes over soon, its a much better game imo. The economy is leagues ahead of LotV or HotS
|
On June 18 2015 05:18 Grumbels wrote: All these recent apologetic Blizzard posts put me in mind of the old "evil or incompetent?" game you can play with virtually any politician. I can never tell with Blizzard, but my guess is that David Kim at least is a true believer.
So just a suggestion to him: if you've created a new unit that you're not really sure about and then you publish it anyway and ask for community feedback, later revisiting the unit based on feedback that rings true to you, -- that's not the same as "listening to the community" and you don't deserve any accolades for this very basic act of utilizing resources which are available to you. It's not comparable to the nearly complete dismissal of the DH and depth of micro articles or the protoss redesign requests. Also this. Re-tweaking a unit that one one really wants, just so that it is a bad unit instead of completely trash, is not listening to the community. Listening to the community should come before design changes are made, not after to gather feedback from those changes.
|
On June 18 2015 06:06 ObamaToss wrote: Jesus the sense of entitlement among some of the SC2 community is unbelievable. Compare LOTV's development to many other games. A publically traded company is delaying the release of the game for a year+ while letting players play for free(I realize the open beta is a ways off, but still). They're being incredibly transparent about their thought process and taking a ton of feedback into account. I don't have beta but LotV already looks like a great, fun, exciting game to watch and play.
90% of other companies would have released a half baked game after a 1 month beta with a day 0 patch plus withhold 25% of the content for a paid DLC pack.
I for one really appreciate the way bliz handling LotV. They are not delaying the release at all, the beta was always planned, and thus the actual planned release date of the game has not moved at all. I don't know where you get the idea of them being transparent at; after months of the community wondering if they even took a look at the DH method, they finally give us a few sentences saying "oh yeah we tried that internally, we didn't like it, we're not going to use it," doesn't strike me as being very transparent.
Simple market place economics seem to disagree with you on the game looking fun and being exciting to watch.. As of writing this there are 0 streamers streaming the game right now on the featured streams, and it is the 54th most watched game on twitch. HoTs is the 7th. And this is hardly a unique case, I hardly ever see the game pulling in large audiences, which is very different from when the HoTs beta went live a few years ago.
And 90% of other companies could get away with that, which is why they do it. Blizzard will have a hard enough time earning the same amount of money off this game as the last two; there is no way any type of DLC would be viable, especially given the current climate in gaming being vocally anti-DLC (though rts games aren't really conducive to DLC anyways; but the economic point is still valid).
|
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)?
Thanks for the response.
1) Well winning the game requires conflict, so any game in which you compete against someone else creates conflict. So the question is does the game require more conflict? And if so what is the best way to create it without forcing it? Because it could be a choice that is reinforced, not a punishment.
Let's go back to the days where there was conflict, a lot of conflict. What was the difference in WOL in 2011 to HOTS today?
Well, Protoss didn't have the MSC with the press F and click on Nexus to hold timings and scout. Protoss also could warp in units on the high ground. Terran didn't have Widow Mines and early game Reapers (prior to Tech Lab). Zerg couldn't built Spores without an Evo Chamber... ect...
Also maps were a lot smaller. So conflict came naturally, less defensive abilities and smaller maps made for that. You could choose to play macro or all-in back then. Both styles were equally valid, though macro styles had a slight edge. That strategic variety raises the skill ceiling.
And while there were some overpowered all-ins, in general if you lost early because you didn't build units it was because you were greedy.
But Blizzard overnerfed early game aggression for a number of bad reason, and now they just want to try and skip the early game because they made it boring since attacking is pointless. And to create conflict and reduce the defenders advantage later in the game, they've made expanding sooner a requirement.
And that is what the LOTV economy does.
But we've already seen the better system, back in 2011.
2) In order to shift locations of interest, positional play needs to be restored. That is the natural way to shift locations of interest. It might be fast, or it might be slow. There is variety again raising the skill ceiling and keeping the game interesting, rather than the forced shift that is repetitive.
Take PvT. Bio is so much more mobile that anything Protoss can field that is viable that either Protoss is moving across the map to engage the Terran sitting in Bunkers, or Terran is dropping. It is difficult for Terran to take fight in the field versus late game Protoss, and difficult for Protoss to move out until they are totally secure. So as you rightly point out the locations of interest are limited to bases.
But if Siege Tanks were stronger, that would change. The positional game could be played. Just think of a game of TvT with Tank vs Tank that you watched. Think about how the locations of interest naturally changed.
|
In order to shift locations of interest, positional play needs to be restored. T
I think that LOTV economy doesn't in itself remove positional play. But rather its important to understand that unit design and balance must be based around the economy. I think the combination of the 3 following elements could make work an awesome experience:
(1) Strong positional units (2) "Interesting" tools to break a defensive turtling player over time (3) A spread out economy
LOTV does the latter well, but especially lacks the former. It seems as if David Kim and his team thinks that postional units always will result in stale/lame gameplay while in reality it can be interesting if the enemy has tools to slowly break a defensive player as was the case in BW TvZ.
|
On June 21 2015 21:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +In order to shift locations of interest, positional play needs to be restored. T I think that LOTV economy doesn't in itself remove positional play. But rather its important to understand that unit design and balance must be based around the economy. I think the combination of the 3 following elements could make work an awesome experience: (1) Strong positional units (2) "Interesting" tools to break a defensive turtling player over time (3) A spread out economy LOTV does the latter well, but especially lacks the former. It seems as if David Kim and his team thinks that postional units always will result in stale/lame gameplay while in reality it can be interesting if the enemy has tools to slowly break a defensive player as was the case in BW TvZ.
In fairness to David Kim--when they buffed the infestor and queen to increase defensive capabilities Broodfestor happened and there's probably a small sign in his office telling him that he is never allowed to make that happen again. I'd be gun shy too.
But your list is sound--I think that's the same things all games needs (SFIV was a massive improvement to the older Street Fighter games because they followed those rules for example)
|
On June 21 2015 21:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +In order to shift locations of interest, positional play needs to be restored. T I think that LOTV economy doesn't in itself remove positional play. But rather its important to understand that unit design and balance must be based around the economy. I think the combination of the 3 following elements could make work an awesome experience: (1) Strong positional units (2) "Interesting" tools to break a defensive turtling player over time (3) A spread out economy LOTV does the latter well, but especially lacks the former. It seems as if David Kim and his team thinks that postional units always will result in stale/lame gameplay while in reality it can be interesting if the enemy has tools to slowly break a defensive player as was the case in BW TvZ.
Well I wasn't saying that LOTV removes positional play. But playstyle has always been second to the mobile harass and deathball styles of SC2 since release pretty much, in every matchup by TvT, with one exception: Swarm Hosts.
But just like you can design a poorly thought out mobile unit (the Warhound) or harassment unit (the Oracle with it's mineral shield) you can design a poorly though out positional unit, and that is just what the Swarm Host was. Locusts had such long range that options for counter play were limited, and a good player could mitigate the damage they did significantly, leading to attrition fests.
|
I'm getting so bored about the eco discussion, would it be possible to have this discussion in one thread? Now in every thread about lotv we have this discussion. In my opinion it brings a lot of negativity in every thread because the most comments are in the line of eco lotv sucks do it my way etc... This thread goes about the feedback blizzard gave about 6 topics, ONE topic was about eco and here we have 9 pages about the eco :O, Please!!
|
On June 23 2015 11:20 BartCraft wrote: I'm getting so bored about the eco discussion, would it be possible to have this discussion in one thread? Now in every thread about lotv we have this discussion. In my opinion it brings a lot of negativity in every thread because the most comments are in the line of eco lotv sucks do it my way etc... This thread goes about the feedback blizzard gave about 6 topics, ONE topic was about eco and here we have 9 pages about the eco :O, Please!! You're right, but complaining about everyone taking about economy is in a way also talking about economy and not really helping.
What do you think of the other five topics?
|
On June 23 2015 11:20 BartCraft wrote: I'm getting so bored about the eco discussion, would it be possible to have this discussion in one thread? Now in every thread about lotv we have this discussion. In my opinion it brings a lot of negativity in every thread because the most comments are in the line of eco lotv sucks do it my way etc... This thread goes about the feedback blizzard gave about 6 topics, ONE topic was about eco and here we have 9 pages about the eco :O, Please!! It couldn't possibly be because the economy is the most important aspect of an economy based RTS...
|
Cascade Australia. June 23 2015 05:24. Posts 3339 Gift TL+ PM Profile Blog Quote #
You're right, but complaining about everyone taking about economy is in a way also talking about economy and not really helping.
What do you think of the other five topics? I'm really happy that blizzard finally gave some decent feedback on a lot of topics instead of the normal 'we are taking all the suggestions serious and are discussing it internally.' These couple of day blizzard gave some real feedback on why they decide things and how they are approaching the game. I think that is a really positive direction. Especially about the pro chat. I think the pro's are really capable of giving useful feedback. Hopefully Blizzard does it right this time.
KrazyTrumpet United States. June 23 2015 06:53. Posts 2451 Gift TL+ PM Profile Quote #
It couldn't possibly be because the economy is the most important aspect of an economy based RTS... I'm not complaining about the importance of the eco in a rts. I'm complaining about the fact that the eco discussion is being held in every thread about lotv over and over again by mostly the same people. I think it would be better to hold the eco discussion as much as possible in one thread.
|
On June 18 2015 07:54 Umpteen wrote: Yep, I'm done.
TL introduced me to esports back when SC2 was announced, and I've loved it ever since. I wouldn't presume to call it home, more like the home of friends made late in life, where I felt privileged to be welcome.
I've witnessed amazing moments of individual brilliance on this screen, always with TL in the background. I've cursed imbalance, and cheered it. I've waxed... well, mostly just waxed, on various topics, ideas and suggestions. Sorry about that.
I no longer feel I belong. Or maybe I no longer feel there's something to belong to. I come here every day and every day it's just more shit being poured on the people trying to keep - no, treat this game like it's something worth caring about. And every olive branch Blizzard offers is just so much toilet roll.
Fuck you if you think SC2 has been a catalogue of design errors. I didn't stay up 'till 3am on work nights to watch design errors. I didn't go to bars and go apeshit over design errors, I went apeshit because Bomber didn't disappoint, or because Life found a way. The game is fucking amazing. It's like Rachmaninoff was handed a machine gun instead of a piano.
So, Mr(s) Moderator: a permanent ban, if you would be so kind, boss. It's been a pleasure. I sincerely wish you the best of luck.
User was banned for this post.
There are so many people spewing poison on anything SC related without saying those magic 'F' words, and the person who stands out against that gets banned. That's the problem with society these days. I've seen this so many places - person A does something wrong quietly, person B stands up against it vocally, society blames person B, because they don't want to deal with the fact that people, like person A, do bad things. Of course, saying this will probably get a ban too. I remember now why I stopped visiting this site, not that it matters.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 24 2015 21:56 whetherbye wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 07:54 Umpteen wrote: Yep, I'm done.
TL introduced me to esports back when SC2 was announced, and I've loved it ever since. I wouldn't presume to call it home, more like the home of friends made late in life, where I felt privileged to be welcome.
I've witnessed amazing moments of individual brilliance on this screen, always with TL in the background. I've cursed imbalance, and cheered it. I've waxed... well, mostly just waxed, on various topics, ideas and suggestions. Sorry about that.
I no longer feel I belong. Or maybe I no longer feel there's something to belong to. I come here every day and every day it's just more shit being poured on the people trying to keep - no, treat this game like it's something worth caring about. And every olive branch Blizzard offers is just so much toilet roll.
Fuck you if you think SC2 has been a catalogue of design errors. I didn't stay up 'till 3am on work nights to watch design errors. I didn't go to bars and go apeshit over design errors, I went apeshit because Bomber didn't disappoint, or because Life found a way. The game is fucking amazing. It's like Rachmaninoff was handed a machine gun instead of a piano.
So, Mr(s) Moderator: a permanent ban, if you would be so kind, boss. It's been a pleasure. I sincerely wish you the best of luck.
User was banned for this post. There are so many people spewing poison on anything SC related without saying those magic 'F' words, and the person who stands out against that gets banned. That's the problem with society these days. I've seen this so many places - person A does something wrong quietly, person B stands up against it vocally, society blames person B, because they don't want to deal with the fact that people, like person A, do bad things. Of course, saying this will probably get a ban too. I remember now why I stopped visiting this site, not that it matters. This is hilarious. :D if you had read the post to the end, you'd see he asked for a ban. They certainly don't ban for a swear.
Coincidentally, they also have a no-martyr policy, meaning that if you say "I'll probably get banned for this" they'll ban you, no matter what you say otherwise. So well. If you do a fast edit, you may be spared.
|
On June 24 2015 22:05 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2015 21:56 whetherbye wrote:On June 18 2015 07:54 Umpteen wrote: Yep, I'm done.
TL introduced me to esports back when SC2 was announced, and I've loved it ever since. I wouldn't presume to call it home, more like the home of friends made late in life, where I felt privileged to be welcome.
I've witnessed amazing moments of individual brilliance on this screen, always with TL in the background. I've cursed imbalance, and cheered it. I've waxed... well, mostly just waxed, on various topics, ideas and suggestions. Sorry about that.
I no longer feel I belong. Or maybe I no longer feel there's something to belong to. I come here every day and every day it's just more shit being poured on the people trying to keep - no, treat this game like it's something worth caring about. And every olive branch Blizzard offers is just so much toilet roll.
Fuck you if you think SC2 has been a catalogue of design errors. I didn't stay up 'till 3am on work nights to watch design errors. I didn't go to bars and go apeshit over design errors, I went apeshit because Bomber didn't disappoint, or because Life found a way. The game is fucking amazing. It's like Rachmaninoff was handed a machine gun instead of a piano.
So, Mr(s) Moderator: a permanent ban, if you would be so kind, boss. It's been a pleasure. I sincerely wish you the best of luck.
User was banned for this post. There are so many people spewing poison on anything SC related without saying those magic 'F' words, and the person who stands out against that gets banned. That's the problem with society these days. I've seen this so many places - person A does something wrong quietly, person B stands up against it vocally, society blames person B, because they don't want to deal with the fact that people, like person A, do bad things. Of course, saying this will probably get a ban too. I remember now why I stopped visiting this site, not that it matters. This is hilarious. :D if you had read the post to the end, you'd see he asked for a ban. They certainly don't ban for a swear. Coincidentally, they also have a no-martyr policy, meaning that if you say "I'll probably get banned for this" they'll ban you, no matter what you say otherwise. So well. If you do a fast edit, you may be spared.
It's a stupid rule in my opinion.
martyr |ˈmärtər| noun a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs: saints, martyrs, and witnesses to the faith. • a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration: she wanted to play the martyr. • (martyr to) a constant sufferer from (an ailment): I'm a martyr to migraines!
One could make a case for many of the whiners in any given forum, that they are also martyrs. In general it's too subjective for a ban, in my opinion.
PS. you guys should check this out.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/488506-mod-economy-hot-mineral-harvesting
|
To be honest I got bored by StarCraft a good two years ago. I was genuinely hoping something was going to happen to get not only my interest back, but also of my teammates (with whom I've been playing ever since SC:BW). It hasn't happened.
One of the problems was, that (and this is not Blizzard related) there were no teamleagues or clanwars that I know of (except maybe some ESL stuff). The whole community seemed to have been centered around playing only 1v1 tournaments. Everyone just got bored. The whole game was just about 1v1 laddering -.-
A big blizzard problem is imo that they haven't implemented anything of the above into the engine. I mean come on guys. WC3 had an in-built tournament system and you are unable to do this for SC2 after releasing 2 games. Also there is a half-assed Clansystem, which doesn't really allow you to play other teams either. what's the point then?
Just my 2 cents. Back to Dota now.
|
Every single one of my friends stopped playing SC2 because it was too hard. Because laddering was boring to them. Because they cared more about playing games than they cared about mastering mechanics.
And for the most part, websites like Teamliquid simply made them feel like awful people.
|
|
|
|