|
On September 12 2015 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: Kind of a catch-22 isn't it.
You can't predict exactly how initial design decisions will play out in an established e-sports scene.
You can't change design after the e-sports scene establishes itself around the initial design decisions.
¯\_(-_-)_/¯
That's why game designers are taught to be careful how much they change a game based upon complaints. For example, Sakurai once said something along the lines of if he actually listened to the suggestions of players, teh game would be garbage that would only cater to a few characters and/or playstyles.
Designers are supposed to stick by their intended design goals. Feedback is great to see how they are doing along the line with accomplishing those goals. But feedback should only matter if it is relevant to the actual intended design goal. The design itself may change, but the design goals should not change...
Also in game design, it is known that you can not please everyone. But they are trying to please everyone... That is typically a recipe for disaster...
Problem here is now that Blizzard is having second guesses if they should continue creating the best design for this game, or bend to complaints in user feedback.
Successful game designers all know the answer. A change in design goals is extremely alarming. And those who are not game designers only need look at history to see how changing games due to complaints rather than intended design decisions leads to disaster.
I just hope Blizzard actually does what is best for the game... Rather than try to appease everyone. Since this is the final expansion, this decision is going to make or break the future of SC2...
|
It seems that Blizzard wants to take the 'safe bet' and only tweak the macro mechanics so as not to disturb the established e-sports scene. I guess removing or automating macro mechanics will cause a greater stir in the e-sports scene and can be seen as the 'risky bet'.
|
On September 12 2015 06:21 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: Kind of a catch-22 isn't it.
You can't predict exactly how initial design decisions will play out in an established e-sports scene.
You can't change design after the e-sports scene establishes itself around the initial design decisions.
¯\_(-_-)_/¯ That's why game designers are taught to be careful how much they change a game based upon complaints. For example, Sakurai once said something along the lines of if he actually listened to the suggestions of players, teh game would be garbage that would only cater to a few characters and/or playstyles. Designers are supposed to stick by their intended design goals. Feedback is great to see how they are doing along the line with accomplishing those goals. But feedback should only matter if it is relevant to the actual intended design goal. The design itself may change, but the design goals should not change... Also in game design, it is known that you can not please everyone. But they are trying to please everyone... That is typically a recipe for disaster... Problem here is now that Blizzard is having second guesses if they should continue creating the best design for this game, or bend to complaints in user feedback. Successful game designers all know the answer. A change in design goals is extremely alarming. And those who are not game designers only need look at history to see how changing games due to complaints rather than intended design decisions leads to disaster. I just hope Blizzard actually does what is best for the game... Rather than try to appease everyone. Since this is the final expansion, this decision is going to make or break the future of SC2... then again, look at the first release of Final Fantasy 14, and then they re did the game from ground up and it's now a massive success
|
Add scourges to counter air.
|
I like the fact that you are doing feedbacks every weeks/month.
|
On September 12 2015 06:21 Spyridon wrote: Problem here is now that Blizzard is having second guesses if they should continue creating the best design for this game, or bend to complaints in user feedback.
Successful game designers all know the answer. A change in design goals is extremely alarming. And those who are not game designers only need look at history to see how changing games due to complaints rather than intended design decisions leads to disaster.
we all know what that cynical old man Rob Pardo would do. he's sorta the stone cold steve austen of game designers.
DISCLAIMER: big Pardo fan boy here
On September 12 2015 06:21 Spyridon wrote: I just hope Blizzard actually does what is best for the game... Rather than try to appease everyone. Since this is the final expansion, this decision is going to make or break the future of SC2...
the future of SC2 is the same future as every other APM-instense PC-centric RTS game. There is nothing Blizzard can do to alter its fate... they can only delay the inevitable.
|
On September 12 2015 06:32 ROOTFayth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 06:21 Spyridon wrote:On September 12 2015 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: Kind of a catch-22 isn't it.
You can't predict exactly how initial design decisions will play out in an established e-sports scene.
You can't change design after the e-sports scene establishes itself around the initial design decisions.
¯\_(-_-)_/¯ That's why game designers are taught to be careful how much they change a game based upon complaints. For example, Sakurai once said something along the lines of if he actually listened to the suggestions of players, teh game would be garbage that would only cater to a few characters and/or playstyles. Designers are supposed to stick by their intended design goals. Feedback is great to see how they are doing along the line with accomplishing those goals. But feedback should only matter if it is relevant to the actual intended design goal. The design itself may change, but the design goals should not change... Also in game design, it is known that you can not please everyone. But they are trying to please everyone... That is typically a recipe for disaster... Problem here is now that Blizzard is having second guesses if they should continue creating the best design for this game, or bend to complaints in user feedback. Successful game designers all know the answer. A change in design goals is extremely alarming. And those who are not game designers only need look at history to see how changing games due to complaints rather than intended design decisions leads to disaster. I just hope Blizzard actually does what is best for the game... Rather than try to appease everyone. Since this is the final expansion, this decision is going to make or break the future of SC2... then again, look at the first release of Final Fantasy 14, and then they re did the game from ground up and it's now a massive success
Agreed. FF is a great example actually...
What was the reason for that? The initial design goals were poor, the feedback for the game experience was the same.
They re-did their design from the ground up. Then once FF14 re-released and was a success, they stuck with the successful design.
Contrast that to WoL and HotS. WoL had lukewarm reception. Much resistance. Then HotS hugely under-performed in comparison. Now is their 3rd attempt, and their considering going back to the same design that underperformed?
When coming up with the design for LotV, the design decisions should have been made and set. All through beta they did have some design goals: To speed the game up, more action, more micro, removing redundancy. But now... a couple months before release, they should NOT be changing design decisions, or second guessing themselves!
Back to the FF14 example: What do you think would have happened if 1 month before the FF14 re-release, they second guessed themselves, and implemented the vanilla FF14 mechanics?
On September 12 2015 06:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 06:21 Spyridon wrote: I just hope Blizzard actually does what is best for the game... Rather than try to appease everyone. Since this is the final expansion, this decision is going to make or break the future of SC2...
the future of SC2 is the same future as every other APM-instense PC-centric RTS game. There is nothing Blizzard can do to alter its fate... they can only delay the inevitable.
RTS's may be falling off.
But what Blizzard can do, is try to make SC2 the best RTS possible, and the way to do that is to try to make the best design decisions possible. Second guessing their design goals they had all through the beta, and reverting to mechanics they ADMIT are not as good design, is NOT the way to do that!
|
United Kingdom20170 Posts
Macro is back! I am so so so happy. I am totally reinvigorated for LOTV, now. Thank you Blizzard.
So now we have the full force macro mechanics of HOTS even though we're taking 7-10 minute 4'th bases every game. Are we playing starcraft of a 5-minutes-max macrofest where it's not worth it to control any unit because you can just make 30 more of them if you lose 10 while macroing?
I'm @ top 1% mmr on archon and we're still crushing the majority of people with macro, mechanics and multitasking WITHOUT macro stuff in the game. TWO master level opponents can't keep up with that.
Very rarely are games decided by tactics or micro - and people want supply and economy to explode FASTER than it already does? The standard game profile is "well we harassed and expanded earlier and then we won because we were 50 supply up" already. Why make that worse?
Removing macro mechanics doesn't make that much sense in WOL-HOTS - maybe reducing their relevance some. But in LOTV it's a completely different game when your first real expansion is your third base.
Add scourges to counter air.
Why? Viper is the best anti-air unit in the game and zerg doesn't have a particular problem against air in the first 4-7 minutes of the game.
for both complaints i am not even sure that you guys are playing LOTV, there are so many people in HOTS mindset
|
On September 11 2015 03:03 HelloSon wrote:
Zerg Spawn Larva This mechanic is the most difficult because, design-wise, the current version is arguably better, however players are losing a skill they’ve been practicing for years, which isn't ideal. Internally, we’re testing a different version for Zerg. We currently have autocast removed, but it is possible to stack Spawn Larva on a Hatchery. E.g. I can cast Spawn Larva three times on the same Hatchery at the same time, and each one will pop one after another. This might be closer to what we’re looking for: For a top-end pro player to gain the maximum effect of Spawn Larva, he’ll need to be as precise with the casts as he needs to be in HotS, but lower-level players who aren’t close to mastering this technique will have a much easier time with this version.
Because this is such a major change, we’ve been going through major iterations during the beta. We’d like to thank you guys once again for the continued discussions, playtesting, and feedback in this area. This really gives a good example of how we iterate and explore various things internally and it’s cool having everyone be a part of this.Please try to focus your feedback on which version is best for the game, and let us know so that we can make a good decision.
Interesting. I do agree that more testing is better, so yeah; bring on the stacking. I was kinda torn between liking the autocast and hating it, and after having played with it i tended to dislike more than enjoy so lets see how the stacking works; if this will satisfy both newbies with less macro requirements and pros with needing to be precise, then this is definitely a better solution than the autocast.
I like the fact that these community updates are now done so often, and i like that they actually have NOT given up on testing big macro changes.
Very happy with this update, as weird as everything sounds. Embracing change is good
|
On September 12 2015 03:14 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 02:01 Ingvar wrote:I'll just quote Lalush from the other thread because it is one of the best takes on macro boosters I have read in a while. On September 11 2015 21:18 LaLuSh wrote: Removing macro mechanics isn't going to make a dent in how many casuals play SC2. If you make a list of the barriers that keep people from getting into 1v1 multiplayer RTS, you can go on for 2 pages listing genre specific barriers before you get to anything directly design related. Do you think most people know what a-move is? Do you think most people can box select effortlessly and accurately their first times playing an RTS? Do you think most people know they can use shift or control to select multiple buildings or box-select-add more units as opposed to just re-boxselecting every. single. time. ? Do you think most people know to use building hotkeys? Would you like to play a game where you had to repeat the same clicking pattern 300 times every game to repeat the same building action? What about using regular assignable hotkeys as opposed to re-boxselecting everything every single time? How many people have ever played a game where they had to regularly screen switch and keep their attention split between different locations on a map? You can play and enjoy a MOBA without ever screen switching, but can you enjoy an RTS without being comfortable at screen-switching? I could list a million of those and they are all more relevant and bigger barriers than any of the bullshit design decisions we discuss in here. If you are capable in the above and the basics of RTS, I only then do you get to the point where any of this matters.
We act like tweaking macro mechanics matters for Starcraft 2's broader casual accessability. No, it only matters for those who are already comfortable with the RTS genre but aren't very good at the game. It matters in that it feeds into their delusion, where they believe inside each and every one of them resides a latent but repressed strategical genious. The only reason this genious hasn't emerged, of course, is because the button mashing nature of the game. This is also their main stated reason of hating the game. So we reduce some clicks here, add some "meaningful" clicks there. The casuals find they still suck. And in the end of this exercise I'm going to bet we haven't changed the accessability of Starcraft in any measurable way whatsoever. Please accept that you can't hit injects reliably (as I have accepted) and enjoy the game at your level. It is just for fun after all. I almost didn't post this, but after reading that comment, I feel I must reply with another perspective that addresses all ranges of players of RTS games. Subject: Game Lifetime Truths - How to make a video game live longer: Make picking up an Alt Race a possibility. I think everybody wants LotV to be successful and being the last installment, to really push SC2 closer to perfection. This post will be thoughts on what fans, maybe even pros, will need to consider as time goes on with their beloved Starcraft. 1. The older you get, the less time you will have to play a game. Unless you are a pro with no family, this is universally true 99.999% of the time. Would you like to continue to enjoy playing Starcraft 2, 3, 5 years from now? More? 2. The longer you play a game, the higher chance that you will get burned out and want some change. 3. A great change of pace is to pick up a new alt race in an RTS or a new character in a fighting game. This also makes you better at the game (Korean pros do it in SC2). 4. Once you are at a high enough level with your main, picking an Alt is only tolerable if learning the Alt takes a few months at most, maybe 3-4 months max to be at least competent and semi-close to your old level, assuming other skills transfer. Years to relearn is not acceptable. 5. Nobody wants to be at level 10 with their main and then have to play level 2 and 3 guys for 9+ months because they need xxxxx hours to be competent with something critical like basic macro mechanics (advanced macro and multitasking can come with time, you understand me I hope). The level 2 and 3 guys don't want to deal with you either, because they don't understand the parts of the game that you do. Nobody is satisfied. 6. Street Fighter 4 was a great example of this at the pro level. One of the best in the world, Daigo, used to only play one main and never an alt (usually Ryu) for years and years. Then SF4 came around, and while he remained at the top most of the time, the game was easier to master than older versions of Street Fighter. Some people were afraid the game was too easy, but the best guys were still the best. He was able to pick up an alt here and there, and eventually switched to a similar but different character. Making macro mechanics less difficult or critical to winning is the way to succeed here. Make the game fun to pick up an alt race, and the game lives twice as long, provides twice as much enjoyment, and even gives insight into the other race's trials and tribulations which creates a better community.
Actually, separate MMR for your chosen alt races would do more for me in that regards. I enjoy that learning another race is completely refreshing.
|
The macro boosters change was so fucking good, its really sad that because a part of the community was crying so hard (lets face it, after those post on reddit about which korean players DK talked at the summit people were basically calling him a liar and searching for any reason to shit on him) the change was reverted
I also agree with a lot of what other have said, its not about making the game easier (as a multiplayer game the game will ways be as hard as good is your opponent) but make it better and the removal of macro boosters was deffinitively a much better design, LotV is already faster and harder than HotS, both macro and micro wise, this just encourages the build 20 min then attack but with games being slightly faster
|
No one had a problem with the macro mechanics until DK had the brilliant idea of fucking around with them, please stop saying people were begging for them to change.
|
On September 12 2015 08:02 Lexender wrote: The macro boosters change was so fucking good, its really sad that because a part of the community was crying so hard (lets face it, after those post on reddit about which korean players DK talked at the summit people were basically calling him a liar and searching for any reason to shit on him) the change was reverted
I also agree with a lot of what other have said, its not about making the game easier (as a multiplayer game the game will ways be as hard as good is your opponent) but make it better and the removal of macro boosters was deffinitively a much better design, LotV is already faster and harder than HotS, both macro and micro wise, this just encourages the build 20 min then attack but with games being slightly faster
That first bit, don't give two shits about. He-said she-said bullshit.
That last bit, I just disagree with. But keep in mind this caveat: I really only play Archon Mode, so it's a different game. In some ways, AM really enhances the mechanics and problems. Removing Spawn Larva and CB was double-horrible for Terran. Horrible. Unplayable in non-mirror matchups. This put up against the most ridiculous error: automated Spawn Larva. But I disagree that these three abilities are somehow game-defining, game-making, or game-breaking.
Legacy of the Void is already significantly more different than HotS, than Hots was from WoL. They need to listen to the community less, imo, focus on their work, and their designs. There is no objective "better" in your statement, in the way it is being discussed here. Unless we can define better with benchmarking metrics: increased sales, increased viewership, increased active playerbase, etc ...
|
The only thing I didn't like about the new macro mechanics was Zerg auto-injects, and they managed to figure out something worse, queuable injects, hahaha. Really don't know what to think anymore. Either keep the HotS system, or just remove everything completely, I wouldn't go for half measures.
|
United Kingdom20170 Posts
I agree, especially since new chrono is way worse both as a mechanic and how it feels to use as a player.
It's incredibly awkward to cast, adding cooldown just makes that worse. More awkward than previous mechanic.
It's also something that you just have like three of them running for most of the game, it's a 20% speedup so it's not all that notable. Your 27 second adept finishes 4 seconds earlier - it's not powerful enough to give meaningful change to any production tactic, yet it forces blizzard to keep long as hell build times, production times, research times all over the race which make it a pain to play because this mechanic is giving a consistent fairly hidden power boost in a way that nobody on either side cares about.
Please make it relevant and fun to use (WOL+HOTS had that) or just remove entirely and balance protoss to be strong without it existing.
Mules back is a bit of a slap in the face too; I've come to realise in the last hundred games that most of my annoyance when playing against terran is caused by such a simple mechanic. Harassment not being as much as it should, crazy all-ins being possible. Staying ahead in economy while down a base for the entire game - it's just not that fun.
I get the feeling that a lot of terrans would rather have stronger units and such rather than not being able to compete without asymmetric imbalance (weak race buffed by imbalanced economy boosters to the point of being strong again)
New mule is good in some ways - you can harass and pick them off with the autocast - but people can probably manually cast them onto smarter places. When HOTS mule returns, they almost certainly won't be dropping them haphazardly where i can kill them when they have 2-3 mineral lines to choose from the whole game.
|
On September 12 2015 06:09 mishimaBeef wrote: Kind of a catch-22 isn't it.
You can't predict exactly how initial design decisions will play out in an established e-sports scene.
You can't change design after the e-sports scene establishes itself around the initial design decisions.
¯\_(-_-)_/¯ Tbh you just have to gather experience and then sh*t on the pro-scene. Every major change is going to make some people's earnings from the game null, but the game dying because of design decisions that was made at the start and that is clearly bad is going to kill everybody's income from the game.
Dota 2 is a good example, it kills it's meta about once per year.
On September 12 2015 09:27 ZenithM wrote: The only thing I didn't like about the new macro mechanics was Zerg auto-injects, and they managed to figure out something worse, queuable injects, hahaha. Really don't know what to think anymore. Either keep the HotS system, or just remove everything completely, I wouldn't go for half measures. Not sure how serious that post was, first you say that you liked most of the changes, then you say that they should take all those changes back because you didnt like two of them?
I like auto-cast (or an aura) way more than queue as well though, bc queue still requires you to pay attention or have some drawbacks (more queens/hatch). The whole "people have acquired a skill that we arent using if we take the mechanics out"-talk is really unbased. Who cares if people acquired a dog-training-skill, people in two or three years will be thankful not to have to learn this, but instead will be able to concentrate on things that should be more important, like the actual battlefield f.e..
|
United Kingdom20170 Posts
Dota 2 is a good example, it kills it's meta about once per year.
League has a period every off-season where they let everything go to shit and make serious redesigns, for sc2 that period has been in the betas - but that is quite highly limited and does not allow for future design changes.
Having 2-3 months a year to make serious changes and iterate on them every week would be great, IMO.
|
On September 12 2015 09:46 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 09:27 ZenithM wrote: The only thing I didn't like about the new macro mechanics was Zerg auto-injects, and they managed to figure out something worse, queuable injects, hahaha. Really don't know what to think anymore. Either keep the HotS system, or just remove everything completely, I wouldn't go for half measures. Not sure how serious that post was, first you say that you liked most of the changes, then you say that they should take all those changes back because you didnt like two of them? I don't know what is confusing about what I said. I said that their new Zerg mechanics suck, basically, that's not 2 changes. I'd rather have them revert the Zerg changes, and I really don't see why they wouldn't revert Terran and Protoss changes as well in that case (it wouldn't make sense for them to remove only 2 out of 3 macro mechanics).
I'm confused about what they're going for though, and it seems like they are too (50/50 internal team split opinion thing).
|
Please keep the macro mechanics out of the game, and balance around that.
It was the funnest version of the game I have played.
I don't want another HOTS.
|
Remove inject, mules and chrono completely. Re-balance and don't look back.
|
|
|
|