Community Feedback Update - September 18

On September 19 2015 04:18 Big J wrote:
so blizzard lets the community bully them around once more.

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.

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.

On September 19 2015 04:55 Ansibled wrote:How are automated macro mechanics 'good design'?

First of all, we would like to point out that we saw the poll and posts relating to macro mechanics this week, and we'd like to thank you for the discussions.

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.

On September 19 2015 04:58 Mementoss wrote:

Or maybe it's because it was tested and the majority of people (not whiney terrans) enjoyed it much better.

I haven't been able to get back into the game since they put them back in. ( compared to playing 25 games ish a week during th beta otherwise)

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.

On September 19 2015 04:59 Hider wrote:


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.

On September 19 2015 04:37 Kyrth wrote:


Well, at least they are up front about their reasoning. I suppose I will just enjoy single player, just like I did with HOTS.

On September 19 2015 05:06 GDI wrote:


I had to reread a lot of what he wrote because it just sounded dumb and it was =\

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.

On September 19 2015 05:12 Hider wrote:


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.

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!!

On September 19 2015 04:55 Ansibled wrote:How are automated macro mechanics 'good design'?

On September 19 2015 05:24 Charoisaur wrote:


the people who dislike mms spew just as much negativity and "wrong" perceptions if not more.

On September 19 2015 05:27 Spyridon wrote:


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 05:25 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.

On September 19 2015 05:21 GDI wrote:


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.

On September 19 2015 05:37 Charoisaur wrote:

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.

On September 19 2015 05:43 DinoMight wrote:
TEAM LIQUID DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL STARCRAFT PLAYERS

Sure, we are a very vocal community. But I have several friends in Masters who watch pro games all the time and who literally NEVER COME HERE.

A couple of polls here doesn't mean that Blizzard is foresaking their user base.

Blizzard will produce the game the way they want, and you will probably keep playing it. I don't see the point of these "that's it, I'm done with Blizzard forever" posts. You're obviously not, if you're here debating changes to the beta version of a game on a fucking SC2 forum.

The fact that DK is even concerned about the community is great. That he reads TL is even better. But don't feel like he owes you anything.

SC2 is still by a very very very wide margin the best RTS out there and that's not going to change whether macro mechanics are in the game, automatic, manual, or not..


Personally I don't think the macro mechanics are that big of an issue. I'd rather they just leave them as they are in HotS and fix the rest of the multiplayer. If I REALLY wanted to complain about something it would be about how there is still no benefit to being on more than 3 bases at a time (you just mine out bases faster, that's all).

On September 19 2015 04:37 Kyrth wrote:


Well, at least they are up front about their reasoning. I suppose I will just enjoy single player, just like I did with HOTS.

On September 19 2015 05:31 Spyridon wrote:


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...

On September 19 2015 06:03 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:


Well put! I also remember the main complaint being that Terran was at a disadvantage. That's why I assumed that the next patch would be a buff to Terran.

Instead we got Automated Macro.

On September 19 2015 06:16 TheWinks wrote:
Do people honestly believe that auto-inject vs auto chrono/mule implementations doesn't make the game disproportionately easier for zerg?

I see the Supreme Commander macro route as an inevitability in the face of auto-inject and in the words of the balance team it didn't "feel like StarCraft II anymore." And I agree with them if they went that route.

Take a glance through http://nios.kr/sc2/global/1v1/hots/ and click through the various leagues and you'll find that zerg mechanics are not holding back low skilled players relative to their terran/protoss counterparts as well. If anything auto-inject would make that even worse! That's why I think Supreme Commandercraft would happen as a natural result.

On September 19 2015 06:20 Spyridon wrote:

And by Blizzards own description, they are not doing this to make it "easier" or "harder". If it was about that, and Zerg really was easier in the end, they could make changes accordingly to balance that out. That is a balance decision, not a design decision.

There are major design issues with the MM, which is actually BESIDE many balance issues with MM as well... They are overall unhealthy for the game, both with design and balance, among other things.

On September 19 2015 06:20 Spyridon wrote:


If that were the case, wouldn't GM have been flooded with Zerg players wehn Zerg was automated? If you checked in the last few days there's actually relatively few Zerg in GM...

And by Blizzards own description, they are not doing this to make it "easier" or "harder". If it was about that, and Zerg really was easier in the end, they could make changes accordingly to balance that out. That is a balance decision, not a design decision.

There are major design issues with the MM, which is actually BESIDE many balance issues with MM as well... They are overall unhealthy for the game, both with design and balance, among other things.

TEAM LIQUID DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL STARCRAFT PLAYERS

Sure, we are a very vocal community. But I have several friends in Masters who watch pro games all the time and who literally NEVER COME HERE.

On September 19 2015 06:38 Hider wrote:


What a nonsensical example? So the master leaugers who do not visit Teamliquid represent Starcraft players?

Last time I checked master leaguers were only a small minority.

The point is that you shouldn't look at the minority numbers at all. You should look at the bigger pictures and thus who potentially could play Sc2 more regularly if the game design was improved. On the other hand if you make changes based on "perception" of the minority you'll never make progress.

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.

On September 19 2015 06:06 Spyridon wrote:


Yeah that's another frustrating thing about all of this...

They CHOSE to go with their own decision of what they think is best, regardless of feedback. And regardless of the obvious fact that the REAL complaints were about Terran needing re balancing (which should be expected when their mechanic and production are heavily mineral based).

Yet in this case, they choose to go with the community perception, rather than what they think is best.

So in one event they go with what they think is best, the other the complete opposite and go with what the community perception is. What is the common denominator here? The changes they choose to go with are what requires the least development time. Right after they announce the release date in under 2 months...

The double-standard makes it obvious what is really going on here..

On September 19 2015 06:46 Zealously wrote:


It's far from impossible that dedicated fans of the game have ideas that are as valid as those of the game designers themselves. Education and position do not automatically correlate to expertise, even though it's very comfortable to assume that they do.

I absolutely do not think that every poster on TL is a better fit for designing and balancing SCII than Kim and his team are -- in fact, I consider most posters that would pass themselves off as experts to be way out there -- but the idea that they are better designers by merit of simply being designers also cannot stand.

On September 19 2015 06:44 Fran_ wrote:Bye, please close the door when you exit.

I'm happy they are bringing back macro mechanics and I really enjoy the community updates. I'm convinced they have the absolute right to have their opinion and make decisions that are not popular, after they read the feedback.

On September 19 2015 07:06 Jaedrik wrote:
Aww, you didn't quote my whole post.

I'll lock the door on my way out. May need to break in through the window later.
Of course, they have the absolute right to their opinions, and the sovereign right to make whatever decision concerning their game they wish for it is their property, however it does not mean they are correct.
They are in grave error about the merits of the design and flavor of the macro boosters (not mechanics).

After many discussions, we realized that, at the root of it, it boils down to this: Are we chasing the best design for each of these mechanics or is taking away a skill that players have been practicing for years better for the game in the long-term?

What it boils down to is we think the gain of having auto inject does not outweigh this negative perception that the change creates.

On September 19 2015 07:16 Big J wrote:Both of you are wrong if you think that blizzard's opinion is that the game is better with the HotS macro boosters. They literally said that their opinion is that there can be better designs, e.g. automated injects. But the community is bullying them with catchphrases like "zerg macro too easy" so that they cannot go through with it.

Sources:

On September 19 2015 07:16 Big J wrote:


Both of you are wrong if you think that blizzard's opinion is that the game is better with the HotS macro boosters. They literally said that their opinion is that there can be better designs, e.g. automated injects. But the community is bullying them with catchphrases like "zerg macro too easy" so that they cannot go through with it.

Sources:

On September 19 2015 04:18 Big J wrote:
so blizzard lets the community bully them around once more.

On September 19 2015 04:06 WrathSCII wrote:
Source


First of all, we would like to point out that we saw the poll and posts relating to macro mechanics this week, and we'd like to thank you for the discussions. We don't agree with the idea that macro mechanics should be completely removed. When we tried this, and many of you pointed this out, each of the three races lost a bit of their identity and uniqueness.

On September 19 2015 07:29 Endymion wrote:
if they could be bullied DH would be in the game (or at least in the beta), i don't think they were bullied

On September 19 2015 07:14 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
I can't believe we're going back to a far worse MULE system. Great, so now we go back to Terran not needing workers in the late game and being able to drop MULE hammers on new bases. I can't believe they think this is superior design.

I wasn't totally sold on the new macro boosters, but the fact that they are just defaulting back to HotS and saying "we know this isn't great design but its the best we can do" is so disappointing and makes me worry about who's hands this game is in. We have a month left in beta and there are SETTLING FOR MEDIOCRE DESIGN.

On September 19 2015 08:03 Garemie wrote:
"First of all, we would like to point out that we saw the poll and posts relating to macro mechanics this week, and we'd like to thank you for the discussions. We don't agree with the idea that macro mechanics should be completely removed."


HAHAHA.

Blizzard. We've tried all three options now. Now that we've seen all of them, we (majority) agree that NO macro boosters was the best option. Going back to a previous idea isn't necessarily a bad idea. Please give it another chance.

On September 19 2015 08:03 Garemie wrote:
Blizzard. We've tried all three options now. Now that we've seen all of them, we (majority) agree that NO macro boosters was the best option. Going back to a previous idea isn't necessarily a bad idea. Please give it another chance.

On September 19 2015 08:03 Garemie wrote:
"First of all, we would like to point out that we saw the poll and posts relating to macro mechanics this week, and we'd like to thank you for the discussions. We don't agree with the idea that macro mechanics should be completely removed."


Blizzard. We've tried all three options now. Now that we've seen all of them, we (majority) agree that NO macro boosters was the best option. Going back to a previous idea isn't necessarily a bad idea. Please give it another chance.

On September 19 2015 06:38 TimeSpiral wrote:


David Kim is a senior game designer, at the top of his industry, working for one of the most prestigious outfits in the world. He and his team are much, much more sophisticated than everyone on this forum. If that does not apply to you, immediately submit your resume/CV to Blizzard and see what happens.

We're fortunate to be members of the beta, and our thoughts and experience and valuable to them, but this entitled grandiosity that we're somehow a better game designer than Kim and his team is utterly delusional.

On September 19 2015 08:54 Garemie wrote:



But its their own fault time is running out. The game doesn't need to launch next month.

On September 19 2015 08:21 Ansibled wrote:

I somehow doubt that the secret to the success of LotV lies in macro boosters vs no macro boosters.

On September 19 2015 08:42 CheRRyKiTTy wrote:


No, no and no.

The difference here is that Blizzard Dev team is much more capable of building a working game out of someone's vision than the average team liquid posters. There is no way to guarantee the vision they have chosen to pursue is better than the vision the community has. When you create art it maybe years of your lifeblood poured into the project and most of the people want to create something unique. The community on the other hand wanted a game that would be a spiritual successor to Broodwar. Instead we got a great RTS, but very different from what people would have visioned.

-Macro boosters make the game a race to 200/200, an issue that the original Starcraft did not really have. This was really an unforeseen issue when the game first released. The maps were too small and the metagame was far too primitive to make any conclusions about the effect of the macro mechanics on the actual gameplay. Currently the game is balanced around the macro mechanics so removing them proved to be too much work for the dev team.

-Space control has traditionally been very weak. Tanks were nerfed, Lurker did not exist for a long time, instead the game was centered around more fluid unit movement, this combined with the 200/200 race creates deathball metagame which probably nobody likes. The problem yet again is the fact the game was designed on maps like Metalopolis, Steppes of war, Scrap Station. If you have to make a game that works on these maps, the area control units can't be very strong. However, when you are creating a game for larger maps like the modern Starcraft maps which actually have a rush distance more than 20 seconds you need slow/stationary units that are capable of controlling the space against larger forces.

-Protoss units and abilities that prevent micro, Force fields, colossi, latest offender adepts all prevent opponent from doing counter micro in large battles. Force field and colossus are such god damn cool ideas that I can understand why a developer who came up with them would want to keep them in the game. Yeah, the idea is cool, it's not good, but force field was of course the protoss way of defending the base when the rush distances were ridiculously short. Colossus deathball on the other hand proved to be a lot less efficient when both players were doing builds that would be considered all-ins or even cheeses in the modern metagame. When people finally figured out how problematic they were... Well, too late.

Blizzard development team is much better at building a game than any of us on the forum, but I would argue that their game design is not in this situation the best. I don't really fault them for the WoL design, I might have fallen into the exactly same traps. I feel in HotS they made pretty good job of improving upon WoL. Now in LotV they had a chance to correct the mistakes they made when they really did not know how exactly the game would play out. They even faked an interest in doing dramatic changes to make the game better. Then, they reverted everything, told us the game would be released in 2 months and gave us community feedback which completely lacks any depth.

So don't tell me the Blizzard Dev team is absolutely the best development team working on the game.

On September 19 2015 08:42 CheRRyKiTTy wrote:
So don't tell me the Blizzard Dev team is absolutely the best development team working on the game.

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.

On September 19 2015 11:44 xTJx wrote:
LotV = HotS with 12 workers start. Nice "new" game blizzard.

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 14:04 Little-Chimp wrote:
Lol at some people actually thinking blizzard "pretended" to make big changes like they tried to fool everybody.

Could you be any more dramatic or retarded. They definitely were trying, they just ran out of time it seems.

On September 19 2015 17:30 KT_Elwood wrote:
I Love the new patch and the slight tweaks. I can not understand how anyone was truly happy with "auto inject".

On September 19 2015 17:50 WrathSCII wrote:



What part of "No inject" you don't understand? No one wants auto inject. They don't want inject at all.

On September 19 2015 17:30 KT_Elwood wrote:
I Love the new patch and the slight tweaks. I can not understand how anyone was truly happy with "auto inject".

On September 19 2015 14:22 ShambhalaWar wrote:
My biggest problem with this patch, is that late game mule has ALWAYS been a problem... that they addressed last patch in a very graceful way... So why revert that and then not address it at all?

I'm just gonna come out and say it... that's fucking ridiculous.

There are plenty of ways to deal with it, many listed in these forums. For example, a casting radius for the CC.

Done... that fucking simple. Jesus fucking christ lol. Just fucking do something about it... Like one fucking day of code and you win the grand prize. No test needed, because everyone knows it's excessive as fuck

Blizzard, I love your games... I love that you made 3 sc2 games and I hope one day there is an sc3.

But this whole process... I just don't understand. It's a beta for our feedback, but then I'm pretty sure nobody wanted late game mule hammer. You fix, but then unfix and leave the worst part of it (which is clearly fixable, not even much effort required). At least just come out in your weekly statement and say, "we like the mule hammer, we will keep it." That is at least something I can logically understand, even if I can't get behind it.

On September 19 2015 14:04 Little-Chimp wrote:
Lol at some people actually thinking blizzard "pretended" to make big changes like they tried to fool everybody.

Could you be any more dramatic or retarded. They definitely were trying, they just ran out of time it seems.

On September 19 2015 04:36 Clonester wrote:
Teamgames:
Just introduce push-to-talk like in CS:GO

Yes, that can be very annoying with random teammates just like in CS:GO. But with a easy "mute this guy"-option, this problem is mostly fixed. Pinging is just a gimmick, give us a easy to use option to talk with out teammates. Or the chaos in RTs continues.

I know there is Ptt in the game, but nobody every uses it: muting is complicated, it is hidden deep in the systems and I have never found one else using it. Now they make new ping systems instead of pushing the players for talking with each other.

And for F-Word-sake stop queeing random teams against premade teams. You did not due this in Warcraft III over 10 years ago, why do you do this in Starcraft II since 5 years. It is one of the greatest killing point for casual team games. And yes, 1v1 competitive is just not for everybody, 4v4 scene in Warcraft was gigantic, in SC II its much worse: RT vs premades, the stupid maps, zero communication...

David, do it!

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 19:59 KeksX wrote:



Bringing in balance whine into this isn't going to do anything.

On September 19 2015 20:18 KeksX wrote:



If SC2 is dead, then wat is AoA?

On September 19 2015 20:18 KeksX wrote:



If SC2 is dead, then wat is AoA?

On September 19 2015 20:17 -Archangel- wrote:
Sc2 dead game to people with lives.

On September 19 2015 10:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:

Blizzard has the best RTS development team in the world. No RTS development team is better... no team is even close.

the absolute best game designer guys on the planet are working on stuff that makes real money.. like more than 9 figures ...stuff like WoW , GTA5, and D3

On September 19 2015 21:43 oGsTOP wrote:
For example, offensive warp-ins was not something that was unbeatable, and it wasn’t a strategy that allows low skilled players to beat pro players on a consistent basis. In Protoss matchups, we saw better players winning games. However, it has been seen by players and our community as a strategy that just makes Protoss play gimmicky and less skillful.

it's joke, do you think that? really? ya honestly terran can defense warp-ins use to viking mine marine turret and bunker but if protoss dont play warp-ins how can terran win? they just make robotics and than make third nexus but terran player should make viking turret etc. that is problem if one strategy over power really hard to defense other thing i played lotv really many time that is true , warp prism is over power now blizzard must nerf that

On September 19 2015 21:17 Klowney wrote:


They are the best because they made an average rts without any competition? They didn't make a single new/unique thing in sc2.

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.

On September 20 2015 09:02 K)Vincent wrote:


sorry but if you still mid master after 4 years then you understand nothing of this game...

On September 20 2015 09:02 K)Vincent wrote:


sorry but if you still mid master after 4 years then you understand nothing of this game...

On September 20 2015 09:02 K)Vincent wrote:


sorry but if you still mid master after 4 years then you understand nothing of this game...

On September 20 2015 10:07 K)Vincent wrote:

yes I am gm, after 2 years of playing and I want an hard game like BW was, not an easy game

On September 19 2015 16:43 sd_andeh wrote:


Amazing how divided the community is.

I for one wouldn't like macro mechanics being automated. It feels like cheating even, to me. And then there are people like you, most likely bronze-silver players who loves the idea of having everything automated for them so they can only focus on their army. But I really think that's the wrong direction, as on the highest level, two professional players focusing only on their army will be a very bad thing. On that level, player's micro mechanics and positioning are close to flawless, which means you need other mechanics in the game to separate the two and actually determine who the better player is.

You have to realize that good players WANT to do more things than just control their army. StarCraft is beautiful that way - there's ALWAYS something you can do better/faster. Macro mechanics help that further, raising the skill ceiling and helps the better player actually show that he is better.

I wonder, a year ago, would people like you not purchase the next expansion if everything wasn't automated? Isn't that a very new concept? I mean the sentence sounds really really weird to me. "I won't purchase LotV unless the macro mechanics are fully automated". That sounds so uber weird to me.

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 09:26 pure.Wasted wrote:


That's not true, though.

Hypothetical scenario time:

Let's invent a brand new WarCraft RTS, Humans vs Orcs. Humans have units and buildings, and Orcs don't. The way Humans win the game is by having perfect macro for twenty minutes straight. The way Orcs win the game is at the end of that twenty minutes, they flip a coin. If the coin comes up heads, Orcs win. If the coin comes up tails, Orcs lose.

Now make Humans really really hard to play. Often Humans will fail to macro properly (50/50) and often Orcs' coinflip will come out tails (50/50), giving us a perfect 50/50 winrate.

Our hypothetical game is perfectly balanced. But it's horrendously designed, because, apart from not being any fun at all, playing Humans takes a shitton of skill, while playing as an Orc doesn't take any skill at all.

Balance CANNOT make up for shitty game design. It's that sort of thinking that actually got us into a lot of the problems we have in SC2 5 years down the line.

"We'll just make a MSC unit that has three one-button solutions for everything that's wrong with the Protoss race!" We all know how that turned out. Photon Overcharge - it doesn't matter how skilled the Protoss is or the Terran is, for the next minute, the Terran cannot attack the Protoss. Recall - it doesn't matter how skilled the Protoss is or the Zerg is, the Protoss can get all of his units out of any surround at the click of a button. Binary outcomes at the touch of a button.

First you make the game mechanically sound. Then you balance it into 50/50 form. Never the other way around. All we've had from WOL to the end of HOTS* was professional 50/50ing, but the game was never mechanically sound across the board to start, and the 50/50 bullshit has just exasperated existing problems, because now that Blizz really wants to fix those problems, what are they supposed to do with the band-aid solutions already in the game? Are they just supposed to remove the MSC? Completely retool it? It's a shitton of extra work, and they don't want to be doing it, so they don't.

*with exception of WMs (more or less successful at forcing Zerg mechanical response) and Oracles (total failure at forcing Protoss not to deathball, because the deathball didn't get any weaker).

On September 20 2015 11:14 NKexquisite wrote:
I like the thought that one TL poll should be the end all, be all on a balance issue... If the game were balanced purley on TL polls, well... LOL

On September 20 2015 11:09 CptMarvel wrote:


Excellent post. Excellent.
Though while most of SC2 has been a complete failure design-wise (and that should come as undeniable to anyone who's played the game since the beginning) they did get some things right tbh. I think the whole Terran race wasn't subject to that many problems over the years and has always been fun to play/watch. Zerg and Protoss have however ranged from barely decent (Zerg most of the time) to god awful horrendous (Protoss all the time). I don't know what to say anymore. I, like a lot of RTS-accustomed people, have been soundly complaining about the game's design ever since 010 and NOTHING substantial has happened. I stopped playing two years ago and have since watched SC2 dig its own grave. I had high hopes for LotV when it was announced but the way Blizzard handled this beta is, I'm afraid, the nail in the coffin.
Oh how this company has fallen...

On September 20 2015 10:03 ROOTFayth wrote:
did you buy HOTS?

On September 20 2015 11:09 CptMarvel wrote:


Excellent post. Excellent.
Though while most of SC2 has been a complete failure design-wise (and that should come as undeniable to anyone who's played the game since the beginning) they did get some things right tbh. I think the whole Terran race wasn't subject to that many problems over the years and has always been fun to play/watch. Zerg and Protoss have however ranged from barely decent (Zerg most of the time) to god awful horrendous (Protoss all the time). I don't know what to say anymore. I, like a lot of RTS-accustomed people, have been soundly complaining about the game's design ever since 010 and NOTHING substantial has happened. I stopped playing two years ago and have since watched SC2 dig its own grave. I had high hopes for LotV when it was announced but the way Blizzard handled this beta is, I'm afraid, the nail in the coffin.
Oh how this company has fallen...

On September 20 2015 15:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:


ATVI and Blizzard are doing just fine.

the nail in the coffin would be extending the development cycle and putting more resources into something that is not even going to make $0.1 Billion in revenue no matter what they do.

the dumbest thing Blizzard could do is put its best guys and more resources into the financial black hole that is the RTS genre. the executive producer in an interview at WCS stated that he doesn't see anything from Blizzard replacing SC2 for at least 10 years. steering resources away from the financial black hole that is the RTS genre is a smart move.

Blizzard is slowly and consistently pulling back from the genre. There isn't much demand.

1994 - WC1, 1995 - WC2 , 1998 - SC1 , 2002 - WC3 , 2010 - SC2
no replacement for SC2 until 2025 at the earliest.

Blizzard isn't "falling" .. Blizzard is leaving.

On September 20 2015 10:07 K)Vincent wrote:

yes I am gm, after 2 years of playing and I want an hard game like BW was, not an easy game

On September 20 2015 18:04 K)Vincent wrote:


hots, I play for TES, so? Honestly a guy who is stucked in mid master for 4 years saying "I want auto-inject" hurts my ears... no offence

look at mobas for example, the most successful one is Dota2

but about prize pools

I don't want an user-friendly game like Blizzard did with Heroes of the storm that is a fail game

On September 20 2015 18:09 K)Vincent wrote:
is just my opinion guys, I wany an hard game... I don't want an user-friendly game like Blizzard did with Heroes of the storm that is a fail game... look at mobas for example, the most successful one is Dota2, the hardest one... and I'm not talking about twitch viewers but about prize pools. Honestly a guy saying "I'm not low league, I stuck in mid master from 4 years and I complain cause I want auto-inject" is one of those players that Blizzard shouldn't hear

On September 20 2015 20:04 CptMarvel wrote:


I somewhat agree with you on elitism but :
1. LoL is arguably more successful than DotA2
2. You come off as a douchebag

On September 20 2015 20:44 FLuE wrote:

At the least make queen inject a one button mechanic where you hit inject and queen injects closest hatchery.

On September 20 2015 20:46 [PkF] Wire wrote:

I kinda like this idea. I wonder if you can put it into practice without too many problems.

On September 20 2015 21:00 Big J wrote:

If you go back to old inject... nothing easier than that. No clue why anyone who was against autoinject wouldnt be againt that for the exact same reasons though.

On September 20 2015 21:02 [PkF] Wire wrote:

thing is it's not the same, you still have to perform the cycle and time it well. I think it would be a best of both worlds solution.

On September 20 2015 21:08 Big J wrote:

You dont have to switch screens so it's supereasy to do with a queen controlgroup, the queen is still playing the game for you automatically by performing a targetsearch+walk+cast action. So regardless whether one hated it for the "difficulty reason" or the "automation is catagorically bad reason", both are in full effect here.i guess difficultywise its ever so slightly harder than fully automated.

On September 20 2015 21:17 [PkF] Wire wrote:

I fall into the category of guys that really disliked the full automation, because the player was literally not involved anymore. It's not the same here. Everyone keeps saying how easy it is to produce continuously as T even during huge battles, but we still see production gaps in the best players' tabs. I would at least like that solution to be tested.

On September 20 2015 21:25 Big J wrote:

You made the queen like one makes a hatch, gateway, barracks, reactor. That was your involvement.
But Im not a fan of altering inject mechanically while not following the reasoning why you target it to begin with. Though that solution is one of the closest to removing it without removing it.

Everyone keeps saying how easy it is to produce continuously as T even during huge battles, but we still see production gaps in the best players' tabs

On September 20 2015 21:57 FLuE wrote:


The point I think any why this isn't a bad solution is that you still have to remember to do it, and ultimately that is what macro is mostly about, remembering to do it. The actual clicking with mbs etc isn't that hard for any race really when you get down to it. I don't find a solution like this much different than say smartcast.