|
On September 19 2015 04:49 Jaedrik wrote:
Looks like I won't be purchasing LotV.
Sad, really. The macro mechanics aren't fun unless perfectly automated.
Auto mechanics were complete trash and the worst of both worlds for both improving the flow of the game and keeping mechanical skill level high.
Like if you wanted the worst possible version of sc2, it's the auto mechanics version. No boosters>manual boosters>>>>>>> auto shit
|
I keep posting that the old Blizzard would delay a game this unfinished instead of band-aiding it while rushing it out the door. It seems like they have all but given up on balancing LotV on the pro level while the Kespa players are still playing HotS so they are rushing to release immediately the moment the current season's done in Korea.
I do see the reasoning but they could have just set a release date before the start of next season. That might give them an extra month or two of possible design changes while getting the top Koreans to participate in the beta.
|
On September 19 2015 04:59 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +So, just like auto inject, this was something that we decided to change because the cool factor of having easy access to offensive warp-ins without having teched to something didn’t outweigh the negative perception that it was creating. This is probably one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Worst fucking comparison. How on earth can someone be as stupid and incompetent. Guess I shouldn't expect better from the guy who thought nerfing mines and buffing tanks would add more diversity and maintain balance even though basic logic would tell us otherwise.
I had to reread a lot of what he wrote because it just sounded dumb and it was =\
|
On September 19 2015 04:37 Kyrth wrote:Show nested quote +Zerg
We're now leaning towards the fact that auto inject might not be the direction we want to go in the long-term. The primary reason is we've seen, and will continue to see, perception issues that diminish great Zerg players with arguments such as, "Zerg has no macro to do," or "every Zerg, no matter the skill level, can macro well because it's just all automatic." What it boils down to is we think the gain of having auto inject does not outweigh this negative perception that the change creates.
Well, at least they are up front about their reasoning. I suppose I will just enjoy single player, just like I did with HOTS.
I understand the logic to some degree as well, but my issue with it is that should queen injects really be what defines a good and bad zerg player? Really? Like I get we want to know what makes someone a pro and what doesn't, but I guess either way I'm not that impressed just because some player has memorized to do a key cycle every 45 seconds.
By all means create difficult features to the game that allow the pro players to show their skill. But I just don't equate being good at injects to being good at macro. It isn't the same thing to me. Zerg macro is about managing your bases, when to make drones and when to make units, making the right unit compositions and being able to switch tech paths/units at the right time.
Make the zerg manage their macro and economy in ways that show a combination of intelligence and mechanics, not repetitive acts.
|
On September 19 2015 05:06 GDI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 04:59 Hider wrote:So, just like auto inject, this was something that we decided to change because the cool factor of having easy access to offensive warp-ins without having teched to something didn’t outweigh the negative perception that it was creating. This is probably one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Worst fucking comparison. How on earth can someone be as stupid and incompetent. Guess I shouldn't expect better from the guy who thought nerfing mines and buffing tanks would add more diversity and maintain balance even though basic logic would tell us otherwise. I had to reread a lot of what he wrote because it just sounded dumb and it was =\
Yes: Auto-injects = Reduces learning barrier and makes it possible for players to focus more on micro.
Offensive warp-ins = Reduces defenders advantage, makes the game more volatile, increases learning barrier.
That's almost as different as it can be. Why is David Kim so worried about perception now? Everyone has complained about the lack of tank-based mech being viable for five years, and David Kim doens't give a shit about that.
|
On September 19 2015 04:51 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 04:24 WrathSCII wrote:On September 19 2015 04:18 Big J wrote:
so blizzard lets the community bully them around once more. With these kind of updates... They are literally asking for it. "We saw the poll but screw it, we are keeping things what WE like" That's what every game designer should do, 99% of the community know NOTHING about game design. They think without macro mechanics the game will be better because ... they think so. So if blizzard actually listens to the community and removes mms and once the meta settles it becomes clear that it has made the game completely boring and stale ... guess who gets blamed for it? Surely not the community. As a game designer you have to do what is best for the game. NOT what the community thinks is best for the game.
I agree that it is the designers job to do what is best for the game.
Problem is, with this decision, they did not do what was best for the game, rather they bent to community complaints.
Look at the reasoning they state in this update... they did it because of the "negative perception".... NOT because it was the best design for the game... but because of what people THOUGHT, their PERCEPTION!
Goes to show the problem I've had this whole time... They are aware the design good, they stated it in last weeks update that they know this version is inferior. But they chose to not care about the best design, but try to please those people who are saying negativity and "perceptions" that are not even true!!
Following these last couple months of updates has been so damn frustrating... The primary reason? Because the developers won't even stick with a direction of their game design goals. Of course potential changes need iterations, but these are changes of the design goals and direction of the game. They say one thing then go another... Look at the update before last, talking about their happy with the direction. Now their leaning the other direction because of "negative perception"??? So we go from, the best direction for the game, to worrying about players perceptions.
Wouldn't be half as bad if those perceptions were actually true... but they were false beliefs. So in the end, LotV is going to be a worse designed game, only for false beliefs????
And they wonder why SC2 is not thriving like it should be and losing far more players than they gain...
|
On September 19 2015 05:12 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 05:06 GDI wrote:On September 19 2015 04:59 Hider wrote:So, just like auto inject, this was something that we decided to change because the cool factor of having easy access to offensive warp-ins without having teched to something didn’t outweigh the negative perception that it was creating. This is probably one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Worst fucking comparison. How on earth can someone be as stupid and incompetent. Guess I shouldn't expect better from the guy who thought nerfing mines and buffing tanks would add more diversity and maintain balance even though basic logic would tell us otherwise. I had to reread a lot of what he wrote because it just sounded dumb and it was =\ Yes: Auto-injects = Reduces learning barrier and makes it possible for players to focus more on micro. Offensive warp-ins = Reduces defenders advantage, makes the game more volatile, increases learning barrier. That's almost as different as it can be. Why is David Kim so worried about perception now? Everyone has complained about the lack of tank-based mech being viable for five years, and David Kim doens't give a shit about that.
The real reason auto-injects is horrible is because it does too much for the zerg. It's like giving terran auto mules AND auto-build production buildings. Zerg doesn't have to build a base like terran and protoss; They have to do their entire macro is done with injects, overlords and expanding. When you make injects automatic you're only giving zerg the responsibility of building overlords and expanding which is stupid easy.
Yeah but the way he worded that made me lose faith in the next 2 months and beyond.
|
Goes to show the problem I've had this whole time... They are aware the design good, they stated it in last weeks update that they know this version is inferior. But they chose to not care about the best design, but try to please those people who are saying negativity and "perceptions" that are not even true!!
Something you see in other communities is that when ridiclous arguments are being used by famous people they often become memes.
In League of Legends, there was recently a few pro games who defended their fellow progamer as he had obtained a very low soloque (ladder) rank. Analysts identified him as a weak link due to his low rank but progamers stated that "soloque dind't matter", and this was obviously a retarded argument and has since become a big meme on reddit. I would love to see more of that in the Starcraft community. People shouldn't get away with these nonsensical arguments.
|
On September 19 2015 05:17 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 04:51 Charoisaur wrote:On September 19 2015 04:24 WrathSCII wrote:On September 19 2015 04:18 Big J wrote:
so blizzard lets the community bully them around once more. With these kind of updates... They are literally asking for it. "We saw the poll but screw it, we are keeping things what WE like" That's what every game designer should do, 99% of the community know NOTHING about game design. They think without macro mechanics the game will be better because ... they think so. So if blizzard actually listens to the community and removes mms and once the meta settles it becomes clear that it has made the game completely boring and stale ... guess who gets blamed for it? Surely not the community. As a game designer you have to do what is best for the game. NOT what the community thinks is best for the game. I agree that it is the designers job to do what is best for the game. Problem is, with this decision, they did not do what was best for the game, rather they bent to community complaints. Look at the reasoning they state in this update... they did it because of the "negative perception".... NOT because it was the best design for the game... but because of what people THOUGHT, their PERCEPTION! Goes to show the problem I've had this whole time... They are aware the design good, they stated it in last weeks update that they know this version is inferior. But they chose to not care about the best design, but try to please those people who are saying negativity and "perceptions" that are not even true!!
the people who dislike mms spew just as much negativity and "wrong" perceptions if not more.
|
On September 19 2015 04:55 Ansibled wrote:How are automated macro mechanics 'good design'? It's not so much that automated macro boosters are good design as it is that the current incarnation of macro boosters are inferior design.
The objections go thusly.
#1: A 'good macro', used here to mean the optimization of income and spending, is more powerful, thus more important, than any other skill, strategy and micro being the next two in line, at most levels of play.
So, #2: a player who specializes in macro will likely beat players who have comparable levels of all other skills yet inferior macro.
#3: the macro boosters do exactly as the name implies, thus are directly responsible for this imbalance.
#4: the macro boosters eat up the precious commodity of actions (such as in APM), therefore anyone who wishes to have good macro must sacrifice their micro and (to a lesser extent, for when using macro skill is sufficiently high the use of boosters becomes optimally rote and costs less thought,) strategy.
#5: optimizing the use of boosters is tough because it is a non-intuitive rote that must be ceaselessly hammered to properly learn when to devote thought / actions to the use of boosters and when to devote it to other things.
Therefore, macro boosters are directly responsible for the diminishing of micro and strategy.
Automated macro boosters addresses #4 and #5 primarily, thus is superior.
However, the removal of the macro boosters would address problems #1-3 as well.
But, automated macro boosters provides spectacle and flavor. I believe that problems #1-3 far outweigh the gain from spectacle and flavor.
|
I disagree that the races lose their identity and uniqueness. The races in BW seemed more unique and more solidified in their identities in my opinion. I do think utterly removing the mechanics creates way more work for Blizzard than they are capable of by release though. I still think removing them completely is the best thing for the game in terms of actually making a good solid fun RTS.
|
On September 19 2015 05:24 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 05:17 Spyridon wrote:On September 19 2015 04:51 Charoisaur wrote:On September 19 2015 04:24 WrathSCII wrote:On September 19 2015 04:18 Big J wrote:
so blizzard lets the community bully them around once more. With these kind of updates... They are literally asking for it. "We saw the poll but screw it, we are keeping things what WE like" That's what every game designer should do, 99% of the community know NOTHING about game design. They think without macro mechanics the game will be better because ... they think so. So if blizzard actually listens to the community and removes mms and once the meta settles it becomes clear that it has made the game completely boring and stale ... guess who gets blamed for it? Surely not the community. As a game designer you have to do what is best for the game. NOT what the community thinks is best for the game. I agree that it is the designers job to do what is best for the game. Problem is, with this decision, they did not do what was best for the game, rather they bent to community complaints. Look at the reasoning they state in this update... they did it because of the "negative perception".... NOT because it was the best design for the game... but because of what people THOUGHT, their PERCEPTION! Goes to show the problem I've had this whole time... They are aware the design good, they stated it in last weeks update that they know this version is inferior. But they chose to not care about the best design, but try to please those people who are saying negativity and "perceptions" that are not even true!! the people who dislike mms spew just as much negativity and "wrong" perceptions if not more.
I can agree with that.
But the thing that should matter here is the design of the game. Not peoples perceptions.
If the developers of the game are worried more about perceptions than creating a good, fun, well-designed game, do you think that is a good sign...?
|
On September 19 2015 05:27 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 05:24 Charoisaur wrote:On September 19 2015 05:17 Spyridon wrote:On September 19 2015 04:51 Charoisaur wrote:On September 19 2015 04:24 WrathSCII wrote:On September 19 2015 04:18 Big J wrote:
so blizzard lets the community bully them around once more. With these kind of updates... They are literally asking for it. "We saw the poll but screw it, we are keeping things what WE like" That's what every game designer should do, 99% of the community know NOTHING about game design. They think without macro mechanics the game will be better because ... they think so. So if blizzard actually listens to the community and removes mms and once the meta settles it becomes clear that it has made the game completely boring and stale ... guess who gets blamed for it? Surely not the community. As a game designer you have to do what is best for the game. NOT what the community thinks is best for the game. I agree that it is the designers job to do what is best for the game. Problem is, with this decision, they did not do what was best for the game, rather they bent to community complaints. Look at the reasoning they state in this update... they did it because of the "negative perception".... NOT because it was the best design for the game... but because of what people THOUGHT, their PERCEPTION! Goes to show the problem I've had this whole time... They are aware the design good, they stated it in last weeks update that they know this version is inferior. But they chose to not care about the best design, but try to please those people who are saying negativity and "perceptions" that are not even true!! the people who dislike mms spew just as much negativity and "wrong" perceptions if not more. I can agree with that. But the thing that should matter here is the design of the game. Not peoples perceptions. If the developers of the game are worried more about perceptions than creating a good, fun, well-designed game, do you think that is a good sign...?
They're not worried about perceptions half as much as they're worried about time. They're now bound to nov 10, so expect many things to get far more conservative from now on.
|
So DK, you read all the feedback related and just ignore`em? How careful!
|
On September 19 2015 05:21 GDI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 05:12 Hider wrote:On September 19 2015 05:06 GDI wrote:On September 19 2015 04:59 Hider wrote:So, just like auto inject, this was something that we decided to change because the cool factor of having easy access to offensive warp-ins without having teched to something didn’t outweigh the negative perception that it was creating. This is probably one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Worst fucking comparison. How on earth can someone be as stupid and incompetent. Guess I shouldn't expect better from the guy who thought nerfing mines and buffing tanks would add more diversity and maintain balance even though basic logic would tell us otherwise. I had to reread a lot of what he wrote because it just sounded dumb and it was =\ Yes: Auto-injects = Reduces learning barrier and makes it possible for players to focus more on micro. Offensive warp-ins = Reduces defenders advantage, makes the game more volatile, increases learning barrier. That's almost as different as it can be. Why is David Kim so worried about perception now? Everyone has complained about the lack of tank-based mech being viable for five years, and David Kim doens't give a shit about that. The real reason auto-injects is horrible is because it does too much for the zerg. It's like giving terran auto mules AND auto-build production buildings. Zerg doesn't have to build a base like terran and protoss; They have to do their entire macro is done with injects, overlords and expanding. When you make injects automatic you're only giving zerg the responsibility of building overlords and expanding which is stupid easy. Yeah but the way he worded that made me lose faith in the next 2 months and beyond.
There's that retarded perception he was talking about lmao
Thanks for helping kill auto mechanics at least, despite being clueless
|
On September 19 2015 05:25 Motiva wrote:
I disagree that the races lose their identity and uniqueness. The races in BW seemed more unique and more solidified in their identities in my opinion. I do think utterly removing the mechanics creates way more work for Blizzard than they are capable of by release though. I still think removing them completely is the best thing for the game in terms of actually making a good solid fun RTS.
That is another complaint that wasn't really true in DK's post either.
The main complaints when they removed macro mecahnics was just that Terran needed to be rebalanced. Not the "races identities being ruined".
Also a change like removing macro mechanics means the units themselves can be buffed since the race does not rely on those mechanics. Which would mean a lot of room to improve uniqueness.
Most people agree wtih you that removing them is the best thing for the game.
But this weeks update proves, without a doubt, that they don't care about the best thing for the game. The perception of players is more important.
This is besides the fact that perception is a "short term" thing... and they are doing long term damage by not choosing the best design...
|
This is just so disappointing. All the problems that were there with HoTS still exist in LoTV. Nothing was fixed. The week where they removed macro was the most fun I had playing SC2 and I play terran mostly!! If only they had taken it a bit further and rebalanced it and made zerg macro a little bit more challenging by removing injects altogether...
Now I am just hoping for a community mod to gather steam (Starbow ??!!) and tournaments to use it! But knowing how things work I think players will just move to a different game altogether before that happens...
I think the big achievement here is that Blizzard managed to string people around for 5+ years and milked $100+ from everyone in the process while doing next to nothing! If this game was named anything except Starcraft this would have bombed on the first version itself!!
|
On September 19 2015 04:54 Jaedrik wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 04:51 Charoisaur wrote:That's what every game designer should do, 99% of the community know NOTHING about game design.
They think without macro mechanics the game will be better because ... they think so.
So if blizzard actually listens to the community and removes mms and once the meta settles it becomes clear that it has made the game completely boring and stale ... guess who gets blamed for it? Surely not the community.
As a game designer you have to do what is best for the game. NOT what the community thinks is best for the game. Nice appeal to authority, bro. I cordially disagree. Removing the macro ( edit: ) BOOSTERS, not mechanics, outright is a far superior option to increase the fun for the vast majority than leaving them as they are. Now, if they were perfectly automated we could have the best of both worlds: the spectacle of race flavor and good design. .
Well, DK things keeping macro mechanics is the superior option.
Who should I trust? Some random TL scrub with 25 posts or the lead designer of the uncontested number 1 RTS game for the last five years who single-handely kept the RTS genre alive with his brilliant design decisions and the best balance competitive games have ever seen?
Hard to decide.
|
I fought, I lost, no hard feelings. Bye Starcraft II ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
On September 19 2015 05:21 GDI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2015 05:12 Hider wrote:On September 19 2015 05:06 GDI wrote:On September 19 2015 04:59 Hider wrote:So, just like auto inject, this was something that we decided to change because the cool factor of having easy access to offensive warp-ins without having teched to something didn’t outweigh the negative perception that it was creating. This is probably one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Worst fucking comparison. How on earth can someone be as stupid and incompetent. Guess I shouldn't expect better from the guy who thought nerfing mines and buffing tanks would add more diversity and maintain balance even though basic logic would tell us otherwise. I had to reread a lot of what he wrote because it just sounded dumb and it was =\ Yes: Auto-injects = Reduces learning barrier and makes it possible for players to focus more on micro. Offensive warp-ins = Reduces defenders advantage, makes the game more volatile, increases learning barrier. That's almost as different as it can be. Why is David Kim so worried about perception now? Everyone has complained about the lack of tank-based mech being viable for five years, and David Kim doens't give a shit about that. The real reason auto-injects is horrible is because it does too much for the zerg. It's like giving terran auto mules AND auto-build production buildings. Zerg doesn't have to build a base like terran and protoss; They have to do their entire macro is done with injects, overlords and expanding. When you make injects automatic you're only giving zerg the responsibility of building overlords and expanding which is stupid easy. Yeah but the way he worded that made me lose faith in the next 2 months and beyond.
You obviously don't play Zerg...
Good job supporting arguments about a subject you know nothing about. Try playing both races for awhile and then say that again...
Just the fact that you compare to Terran muling/production of all races shows how "out there" you are. Mules are the easiest and most rewarding of all the MM. Yeah Terran does take some skill to micro properly, but if we're talking straight macro, aside from a few extra upgrades required Terran is actually far easier to macro with than Zerg.
Hence why reverting to HotS mechanics made me now a Terran player. Stuck with Zerg since BW but I'm tired of playing SC2 with mechanics that feel clunky and poorly designed as shit. I rather play a race with mechanics that feel rewarding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
