Community Feedback Update - September 18 - Page 8

On September 19 2015 20:18 KeksX wrote:



If SC2 is dead, then wat is AoA?

On September 19 2015 18:15 Musicus wrote:


I agree, I think they found a good solution if they want to keep the macro mechanics. Now just find a way to avoid 10-20 mules on a base at the same time and we are good to go .

On September 19 2015 22:49 -Archangel- wrote:

An opportunity for a fun RTS for people that can only play few games per day.

On September 19 2015 14:25 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I'm stunned at the backpedaling of the Inject Larva change. Completely stunned. Not the fact that it happened, because any experiment can turn out to fail, but the reason why it happened.

I was having a discussion with some friends earlier about the game design behind Starcraft 1. Back in those days, Blizzard operated as a black box. Cross-sections of employees from various departments formed what were called "Strike Teams", and their job was to deliver feedback and suggestions to the designers. The designers, in turn, weighed that feedback and made decisions based upon whether the change made sense or not. One of my friends was on the Starcraft Strike Team and got the Overlord speed reduced from normal to the skycrawling blimp we all know.

The Internet has since evolved as a communication tool. It's faster than ever to post something up on Facebook or Twitter or Reddit, it literally takes seconds. You don't have to take minutes to register on some obscure message board where something may disappear into obscurity, you instead spend a few seconds cobbling something together and vomit it out and tag some company accounts that you know. So, it's a lot more tempting for developers to seek out crowdsourced feedback because it's so readily available -- players are eager to voice their opinions! There's an inherent risk in doing this because the quality of that feedback can vary, and even the most popular ideas can be detrimental to the game experience. That decision is ultimately left up to the designers, as it should be.

I don't know how extensive the Blizzard Strike Teams are anymore. I don't know how heavily their opinions are weighed now compared to in the past. I do know that Blizzard actively reaches out to the community for input, and that's no idle gesture. Would some community member's suggestion to slow SC1 Overlords down to their current speed have gotten the attention of the devs today? Who knows?

The real dangerous precedent that I see is that the Larva Inject backpedal goes a step beyond community influence. The change was reverted because of a perception that may or may not have permanence. When SC2 was in early development, it went through wild shifts until eventually macro mechanics came into being. A lot of the community balked at this decision, calling it needless clicking and a chore -- especially regarding the Inject mechanic. There was a huge uproar about it. Now players can't see the game without it. It's a bizarre situation. If Blizzard had gone through with the Inject change and it made it into the live LotV game, players would have adapted to it. It's what they do. But, because maybe some Zerg players could be possibly ridiculed as unskilled noobs by toxic trolling players, they reverted the change. It's a policy change born from fear, the way I see it. For better or for worse, this never would have happened 20 years ago. Absolutely no chance.

On September 19 2015 14:25 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I'm stunned at the backpedaling of the Inject Larva change. Completely stunned. Not the fact that it happened, because any experiment can turn out to fail, but the reason why it happened.

I was having a discussion with some friends earlier about the game design behind Starcraft 1. Back in those days, Blizzard operated as a black box. Cross-sections of employees from various departments formed what were called "Strike Teams", and their job was to deliver feedback and suggestions to the designers. The designers, in turn, weighed that feedback and made decisions based upon whether the change made sense or not. One of my friends was on the Starcraft Strike Team and got the Overlord speed reduced from normal to the skycrawling blimp we all know.

The Internet has since evolved as a communication tool. It's faster than ever to post something up on Facebook or Twitter or Reddit, it literally takes seconds. You don't have to take minutes to register on some obscure message board where something may disappear into obscurity, you instead spend a few seconds cobbling something together and vomit it out and tag some company accounts that you know. So, it's a lot more tempting for developers to seek out crowdsourced feedback because it's so readily available -- players are eager to voice their opinions! There's an inherent risk in doing this because the quality of that feedback can vary, and even the most popular ideas can be detrimental to the game experience. That decision is ultimately left up to the designers, as it should be.

I don't know how extensive the Blizzard Strike Teams are anymore. I don't know how heavily their opinions are weighed now compared to in the past. I do know that Blizzard actively reaches out to the community for input, and that's no idle gesture. Would some community member's suggestion to slow SC1 Overlords down to their current speed have gotten the attention of the devs today? Who knows?

The real dangerous precedent that I see is that the Larva Inject backpedal goes a step beyond community influence. The change was reverted because of a perception that may or may not have permanence. When SC2 was in early development, it went through wild shifts until eventually macro mechanics came into being. A lot of the community balked at this decision, calling it needless clicking and a chore -- especially regarding the Inject mechanic. There was a huge uproar about it. Now players can't see the game without it. It's a bizarre situation. If Blizzard had gone through with the Inject change and it made it into the live LotV game, players would have adapted to it. It's what they do. But, because maybe some Zerg players could be possibly ridiculed as unskilled noobs by toxic trolling players, they reverted the change. It's a policy change born from fear, the way I see it. For better or for worse, this never would have happened 20 years ago. Absolutely no chance.

On September 19 2015 06:34 pure.Wasted wrote:


Auto-Injects make Zerg easier to macro than Manual Injects, correct? We can argue about the degree to which it makes it easier for years, whether it's too much or too little or Goldilocks fine, but it is easier.

Prepare to have your mind blown.

When David Kim says that he's worried about Zerg seeming too easy to macro... he's actually pussy-footing, bullshitting, PR-ing, whatever you want to call it, his way around saying that in his opinion Zerg becomes unacceptably easy to macro.

We've seen this kind of PR speak before, very recently in fact, concerning the Colossus/Protoss talk at the player summit, where it was revealed that everyone agreed that HotS Protoss was the "slightly easier" race to master. Slightly easier? What the fuck is "slightly"? "While the skill floor is higher by 4.5%, the skill ceiling is lower by 6.2%, which is a 1.7% net loss in complexity"??? I'd love to see the math that resulted in that "slightly."

It means, when we get rid of the kid gloves with which DK feels he must treat his customers, that it is UNACCEPTABLY easy, to a degree that forces them to acknowledge the problem publicly and remove core units and 5-year old playstyles from the game. Does that sound like a slight problem?

Now if you want to debate whether he's right or not, that's a different - and much more fruitful - discussion.

On September 19 2015 16:52 NyxNax wrote:
I am frustrated... DK was happy last week going in their direction, now changes due to community "negative perception"?? What happened to sticking to your guns and doing what was best for the game?? Read the update before last and then read this weeks.

Never seen the community so divided now.. Either no macro boosters, manual or auto. I thought they should have road the middle line or even make a choice between auto and manual. But at the very least, they need to fix mule hammering. Make it so they dont pool or have certain range. Then I honestly dont know what to do about the injects at this point, and im a zerg. Maybe just make it only have to be cast every 90 seconds or something. That way theres less clicks, but still cant forget. Would have to work out how they hatch.

Therefore, we'll be trying out the queuing up version in the next balance update, so please focus on playtesting this change and let us know your thoughts and feedback.

On September 19 2015 14:25 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I'm stunned at the backpedaling of the Inject Larva change. Completely stunned. Not the fact that it happened, because any experiment can turn out to fail, but the reason why it happened.

I was having a discussion with some friends earlier about the game design behind Starcraft 1. Back in those days, Blizzard operated as a black box. Cross-sections of employees from various departments formed what were called "Strike Teams", and their job was to deliver feedback and suggestions to the designers. The designers, in turn, weighed that feedback and made decisions based upon whether the change made sense or not. One of my friends was on the Starcraft Strike Team and got the Overlord speed reduced from normal to the skycrawling blimp we all know.

The Internet has since evolved as a communication tool. It's faster than ever to post something up on Facebook or Twitter or Reddit, it literally takes seconds. You don't have to take minutes to register on some obscure message board where something may disappear into obscurity, you instead spend a few seconds cobbling something together and vomit it out and tag some company accounts that you know. So, it's a lot more tempting for developers to seek out crowdsourced feedback because it's so readily available -- players are eager to voice their opinions! There's an inherent risk in doing this because the quality of that feedback can vary, and even the most popular ideas can be detrimental to the game experience. That decision is ultimately left up to the designers, as it should be.

I don't know how extensive the Blizzard Strike Teams are anymore. I don't know how heavily their opinions are weighed now compared to in the past. I do know that Blizzard actively reaches out to the community for input, and that's no idle gesture. Would some community member's suggestion to slow SC1 Overlords down to their current speed have gotten the attention of the devs today? Who knows?

The real dangerous precedent that I see is that the Larva Inject backpedal goes a step beyond community influence. The change was reverted because of a perception that may or may not have permanence. When SC2 was in early development, it went through wild shifts until eventually macro mechanics came into being. A lot of the community balked at this decision, calling it needless clicking and a chore -- especially regarding the Inject mechanic. There was a huge uproar about it. Now players can't see the game without it. It's a bizarre situation. If Blizzard had gone through with the Inject change and it made it into the live LotV game, players would have adapted to it. It's what they do. But, because maybe some Zerg players could be possibly ridiculed as unskilled noobs by toxic trolling players, they reverted the change. It's a policy change born from fear, the way I see it. For better or for worse, this never would have happened 20 years ago. Absolutely no chance.

On September 20 2015 06:43 Hularuns wrote:
Obviously people complaining about no auto inject are low league players. Not that it's a bad thing. But, hell, the game's hard, deal with it.

On September 20 2015 06:43 Hularuns wrote:
Obviously people complaining about no auto inject are low league players. Not that it's a bad thing. But, hell, the game's hard, deal with it.