|
we believe it's important to do what's best for the game in this situation, rather than going for a change that everyone wants, because clearly, there's not even close to a consensus on this topic.
If DK was going to do what is best for the game, then why the hell are you choosing the option for macro mechanics that with his own words said was an inferior design??
And if 79% of the community that was unhappy with the last patch is not a consensus... I don't know what is...
Just more PR bullshit, instead of the truth: It has nothing to do with what is "best" for the game, and everything to do with the release date being in 1.5 months and not even enough time to rebalance the current units let alone a new macro economy...
+ Show Spoiler +On September 26 2015 06:55 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:24 -Archangel- wrote:
I wasn't expecting much but still got disappointed. And it is hilarious how he is lying about community being split even. Not it is not, not even an elitist stronghold like TL was split even so which side do you think it was skewed toward? because i definitely saw a lot of people fighting for both opinions, on here and on reddit.
It is skewed in many ways, and these last few updates put an exclamation point on it. Went from a few updates back "we are happy with the direction of removal of the macro mechanics" to "release date in under 2 months", to all of a sudden "We are split between the direction of the macro"... then
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?
Zerg Spawn Larva
This mechanic is the most difficult because, design-wise, the current version is arguably better, however players are losing a skill they’ve been practicing for years, which isn't ideal. "
Then...
"What it boils down to is we think the gain of having auto inject does not outweigh this negative perception that the change creates."
We went from new design direction they were pleased with, to a release date very soon, to all of a sudden unhappiness with their direction, using the COMMUNITY PERCEPTION as the reason for changes, rather than any balance or design decisions...
Now they are acting like they chose the current method because it is "best for the game"? That quote for Zerg Spawn Larva, and the quote before it, shows this to be a lie. It shows they chose a decision that they KNOW is not an improvement, and blame it on the community.
But if you look at polls, only 25% of the community actually wanted it like this. The majority of the community wanted macro mechanics REMOVED!
What did they say about that??
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.
Again, they blame the COMMUNITY, even though the situation they describe was far from the truth. The community ENJOYED the changes, and the only complaints were that the races (esp terran) needed to be rebalanced.
So let's get this straight... They decide to re-implement manual macro mechanics because of the 25% of the community that wanted manual mechanics and had a "negative perception"... Yet when the 60%+ that want no macro mechanics are unhappy, they stick to their guns???
They contradict themselves. They "listen to the complaints" and "care about the negative perception" when it is ~25% of the community, but 60%+ of the community who has a negative perception gets ignored? Or how about the 79% that disapproved of their most recent patch, their negative perception don't matter? What gives?
What is the common denominator here?
Answer: All of their choices result in the least amount of balance work before release. That's the damn truth. Plain and simple. Everything they say in these community updates is just PR bullshit, and based off "facts" that are not even true. From the reason for their direction of beta suddenly changing, to bending to the will of a small portion of the community while ignoring the majority of the community, to ignoring the feedback of the tests, to the decisions to put perceptions ahead of good game design. It's all PR bullshit...
I had high hopes about SC2 with LotV, and now they have shown a glaring example of why SC2 will not thrive again. They don't give a shit about giving us the best design possible. They remind everyone exactly why people do not like DK. They lie to us. And unlike the Blizzard of old, they rather release a game early to grab money ASAP, rather than delay until the game is ready (which used to be their motto)...
|
Adepts getting armored feels like a bit of a weird way to approach the issue.
It just forces Terran to get Marauders if they want to stay alive.
The available openings in TvP already have to take the possibility of Oracles, Blink and DT into account, each of which requires very a different unit/build to respond to. Making Adepts armored would just add another one by forcing only Marauders.
I'd rather see a more general reduction in stats so that there's less pigeon holing in the early game.
Just make it so Adepts do a little less damage to Light, bit more damage to everything else and possibly reduce their shields a bit so that they armor damage more quickly.
|
Please someone tell me they can make economy changes after the game is released... PLEASEEE tell me they can save this game. 12 starting workers? Cumbersome Chrono boost? Uneven mineral patches with still 3 base cap? Terrible new units and abilities? Pleassssee tell me they can fix this
|
On September 26 2015 07:00 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +we believe it's important to do what's best for the game in this situation, rather than going for a change that everyone wants, because clearly, there's not even close to a consensus on this topic. If DK was going to do what is best for the game, then why the hell are you choosing the option for macro mechanics that with his own words said was an inferior design?? And if 79% of the community that was unhappy with the last patch is not a consensus... I don't know what is... Just more PR bullshit, instead of the truth: It has nothing to do with what is "best" for the game, and everything to do with the release date being in 1.5 months and not even enough time to rebalance the current units let alone a new macro economy...
yeah honestly that's just political wash. A bit disheartening, I expected them to really go hammer on work for the last month to release a good game, while it seems they're just going to focus on repeating they're doing what they think is best and doing the marketing.
|
On September 26 2015 07:02 WhaleOFaTale wrote:
Please someone tell me they can make economy changes after the game is released... PLEASEEE tell me they can save this game. 12 starting workers? Cumbersome Chrono boost? Uneven mineral patches with still 3 base cap? Terrible new units and abilities? Pleassssee tell me they can fix this
Oh ye of remaining faith.
|
On September 26 2015 07:02 WhaleOFaTale wrote:
Please someone tell me they can make economy changes after the game is released... PLEASEEE tell me they can save this game. 12 starting workers? Cumbersome Chrono boost? Uneven mineral patches with still 3 base cap? Terrible new units and abilities? Pleassssee tell me they can fix this
what's your problem with the current economy. I think it's the best thing DK has come up so far. really makes the game more dynamic. DK is truly a genius.
By the way, revert chronoboost to HOTS, remove tank drops, revert warpin to HOTS and fix the balance problems( adept, liberator, ultras, parasitic bomb, carriers, broodlords,lurkers) then we might have an excellent game.
|
Remove tank drop and increase tank damage.
|
On September 26 2015 07:01 Thezzy wrote:
Adepts getting armored feels like a bit of a weird way to approach the issue.
It just forces Terran to get Marauders if they want to stay alive.
The available openings in TvP already have to take the possibility of Oracles, Blink and DT into account, each of which requires very a different unit/build to respond to. Making Adepts armored would just add another one by forcing only Marauders.
I'd rather see a more general reduction in stats so that there's less pigeon holing in the early game.
Just make it so Adepts do a little less damage to Light, bit more damage to everything else and possibly reduce their shields a bit so that they armor damage more quickly.
In this case adepts would be countered just like stalkers are. Same response.
|
The part about the corruptor made me cry and lose all hope for lotv/sc2 , gg
|
On September 26 2015 07:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The part about the corruptor made me cry and lose all hope for lotv/sc2 , gg
uuuhh yeah, DK talking about "awesome, cool moments" is always dangerous.
|
On September 26 2015 07:16 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 07:02 WhaleOFaTale wrote:
Please someone tell me they can make economy changes after the game is released... PLEASEEE tell me they can save this game. 12 starting workers? Cumbersome Chrono boost? Uneven mineral patches with still 3 base cap? Terrible new units and abilities? Pleassssee tell me they can fix this By the way, revert chronoboost to HOTS, remove tank drops, revert warpin to HOTS and fix the balance problems( adept, liberator, ultras, parasitic bomb, carriers, broodlords,lurkers) then we might have an excellent game.
spot on, maybe not excellent, but at least decent and worth of SC2
|
On September 26 2015 07:00 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +we believe it's important to do what's best for the game in this situation, rather than going for a change that everyone wants, because clearly, there's not even close to a consensus on this topic. If DK was going to do what is best for the game, then why the hell are you choosing the option for macro mechanics that with his own words said was an inferior design?? And if 79% of the community that was unhappy with the last patch is not a consensus... I don't know what is... Just more PR bullshit, instead of the truth: It has nothing to do with what is "best" for the game, and everything to do with the release date being in 1.5 months and not even enough time to rebalance the current units let alone a new macro economy... + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:55 -NegativeZero- wrote:On September 26 2015 06:24 -Archangel- wrote:
I wasn't expecting much but still got disappointed. And it is hilarious how he is lying about community being split even. Not it is not, not even an elitist stronghold like TL was split even so which side do you think it was skewed toward? because i definitely saw a lot of people fighting for both opinions, on here and on reddit. It is skewed in many ways, and these last few updates put an exclamation point on it. Went from a few updates back "we are happy with the direction of removal of the macro mechanics" to "release date in under 2 months", to all of a sudden "We are split between the direction of the macro"... then Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +Zerg Spawn Larva
This mechanic is the most difficult because, design-wise, the current version is arguably better, however players are losing a skill they’ve been practicing for years, which isn't ideal. " Then... Show nested quote +"What it boils down to is we think the gain of having auto inject does not outweigh this negative perception that the change creates." We went from new design direction they were pleased with, to a release date very soon, to all of a sudden unhappiness with their direction, using the COMMUNITY PERCEPTION as the reason for changes, rather than any balance or design decisions... Now they are acting like they chose the current method because it is "best for the game"? That quote for Zerg Spawn Larva, and the quote before it, shows this to be a lie. It shows they chose a decision that they KNOW is not an improvement, and blame it on the community. But if you look at polls, only 25% of the community actually wanted it like this. The majority of the community wanted macro mechanics REMOVED! What did they say about that?? Show nested quote +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. Again, they blame the COMMUNITY, even though the situation they describe was far from the truth. The community ENJOYED the changes, and the only complaints were that the races (esp terran) needed to be rebalanced. So let's get this straight... They decide to re-implement manual macro mechanics because of the 25% of the community that wanted manual mechanics and had a "negative perception"... Yet when the 60%+ that want no macro mechanics are unhappy, they stick to their guns??? They contradict themselves. They "listen to the complaints" and "care about the negative perception" when it is ~25% of the community, but 60%+ of the community who has a negative perception gets ignored? Or how about the 79% that disapproved of their most recent patch, their negative perception don't matter? What gives? What is the common denominator here?
Answer: All of their choices result in the least amount of balance work before release. That's the damn truth. Plain and simple. Everything they say in these community updates is just PR bullshit, and based off "facts" that are not even true. From the reason for their direction of beta suddenly changing, to bending to the will of a small portion of the community while ignoring the majority of the community, to ignoring the feedback of the tests, to the decisions to put perceptions ahead of good game design. It's all PR bullshit... I had high hopes about SC2 with LotV, and now they have shown a glaring example of why SC2 will not thrive again. They don't give a shit about giving us the best design possible. They remind everyone exactly why people do not like DK. They lie to us. And unlike the Blizzard of old, they rather release a game early to grab money ASAP, rather than delay until the game is ready (which used to be their motto)...
halleluja! 1+
totally agree
|
On September 26 2015 06:55 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:24 -Archangel- wrote:
I wasn't expecting much but still got disappointed. And it is hilarious how he is lying about community being split even. Not it is not, not even an elitist stronghold like TL was split even so which side do you think it was skewed toward? because i definitely saw a lot of people fighting for both opinions, on here and on reddit.
Me as well, but I think after they removed the macro boosters I saw more people switch sides and like the change of no macro boosters. That has been the only time when a patch/community update was released people say "omg wtf is he thinking", and then after playing it changing their mind and agreeing it was a good change. Then to only have it reverted.
|
On September 26 2015 07:30 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 07:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The part about the corruptor made me cry and lose all hope for lotv/sc2 , gg uuuhh yeah, DK talking about "awesome, cool moments" is always dangerous.
I mean srsly, if that ability is the best they can come up with for the corruptor, they simply suck at their job.
There isn't much more to say.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 26 2015 07:00 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +we believe it's important to do what's best for the game in this situation, rather than going for a change that everyone wants, because clearly, there's not even close to a consensus on this topic. If DK was going to do what is best for the game, then why the hell are you choosing the option for macro mechanics that with his own words said was an inferior design?? And if 79% of the community that was unhappy with the last patch is not a consensus... I don't know what is... Just more PR bullshit, instead of the truth: It has nothing to do with what is "best" for the game, and everything to do with the release date being in 1.5 months and not even enough time to rebalance the current units let alone a new macro economy... + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:55 -NegativeZero- wrote:On September 26 2015 06:24 -Archangel- wrote:
I wasn't expecting much but still got disappointed. And it is hilarious how he is lying about community being split even. Not it is not, not even an elitist stronghold like TL was split even so which side do you think it was skewed toward? because i definitely saw a lot of people fighting for both opinions, on here and on reddit. It is skewed in many ways, and these last few updates put an exclamation point on it. Went from a few updates back "we are happy with the direction of removal of the macro mechanics" to "release date in under 2 months", to all of a sudden "We are split between the direction of the macro"... then Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +Zerg Spawn Larva
This mechanic is the most difficult because, design-wise, the current version is arguably better, however players are losing a skill they’ve been practicing for years, which isn't ideal. " Then... Show nested quote +"What it boils down to is we think the gain of having auto inject does not outweigh this negative perception that the change creates." We went from new design direction they were pleased with, to a release date very soon, to all of a sudden unhappiness with their direction, using the COMMUNITY PERCEPTION as the reason for changes, rather than any balance or design decisions... Now they are acting like they chose the current method because it is "best for the game"? That quote for Zerg Spawn Larva, and the quote before it, shows this to be a lie. It shows they chose a decision that they KNOW is not an improvement, and blame it on the community. But if you look at polls, only 25% of the community actually wanted it like this. The majority of the community wanted macro mechanics REMOVED! What did they say about that?? Show nested quote +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. Again, they blame the COMMUNITY, even though the situation they describe was far from the truth. The community ENJOYED the changes, and the only complaints were that the races (esp terran) needed to be rebalanced. So let's get this straight... They decide to re-implement manual macro mechanics because of the 25% of the community that wanted manual mechanics and had a "negative perception"... Yet when the 60%+ that want no macro mechanics are unhappy, they stick to their guns??? They contradict themselves. They "listen to the complaints" and "care about the negative perception" when it is ~25% of the community, but 60%+ of the community who has a negative perception gets ignored? Or how about the 79% that disapproved of their most recent patch, their negative perception don't matter? What gives? What is the common denominator here?
Answer: All of their choices result in the least amount of balance work before release. That's the damn truth. Plain and simple. Everything they say in these community updates is just PR bullshit, and based off "facts" that are not even true. From the reason for their direction of beta suddenly changing, to bending to the will of a small portion of the community while ignoring the majority of the community, to ignoring the feedback of the tests, to the decisions to put perceptions ahead of good game design. It's all PR bullshit... I had high hopes about SC2 with LotV, and now they have shown a glaring example of why SC2 will not thrive again. They don't give a shit about giving us the best design possible. They remind everyone exactly why people do not like DK. They lie to us. And unlike the Blizzard of old, they rather release a game early to grab money ASAP, rather than delay until the game is ready (which used to be their motto)...
Id like to add a bit on to that, when he reverted the changes back, I think some of the reason is not only the time, but that hes also listening to a few professionals opinions far above anyone elses. I could be wrong but thats what it seems to me. I think your right, deadline being #1.
|
On September 26 2015 07:36 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 07:30 Charoisaur wrote:On September 26 2015 07:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The part about the corruptor made me cry and lose all hope for lotv/sc2 , gg uuuhh yeah, DK talking about "awesome, cool moments" is always dangerous. I mean srsly, if that ability is the best they can come up with for the corruptor, they simply suck at their job. There isn't much more to say.
Well, at least it's an improvement over the "+20% damage debuff, single target, with long cooldown" corruption, right? That had to be the dumbest ability ever conceived.
|
nothing about invincible nydus + queens btw ?
|
Besides the adept and ravager nerfs a disappointing update start to end. I guess that's it, the game will ship with 2more units per race, balance tweaks and a new map standard.
|
Why does the corruptor need to change so much? How is it different than any Brood War unit that target only air (Devourer)? Or did people complain about the Devourer as well?
|
On September 26 2015 06:59 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:57 Espartaquen wrote:
Economy please, economy, why are you so stubborn David, why? Why? Why? no more time. Give up on that, they're not changing the eco. I think sadly they think their warpgate change is great too.
how is the warpgate change bad? it's not perfect, but it provides the bonus to defender's advantage that people have always been wanting. the only real problem is specifically with the warp prism warp-in being too strong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
