|
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
Source
Hey again everyone. We’re back with a brief update from David Kim on a few of the topics that we saw discussed this week, and also to give you a few details on our big upcoming patch!
3.0 Update to HotS
First, we want to talk about the next major patch coming into HotS. It's the major preparation patch that is happening for Legacy of the Void. The patch won't have any balance changes in it, but we are separately trying to decide if the current Balance update test map is needed before Blizzcon. For now, it's looking like the game is in a good enough state where the better player wins matches rather than players winning due to racial strength, but we'll keep a close watch on it to make sure we make the right call.
We are currently working on a list of detailed improvements that will be included with this last major patch for Heart of the Swarm, but we wanted to update you guys on one of the changes now - we will be removing the FFA matchmaking queue from this patch onwards. The reason is quite simple: not enough players have been interested in playing this mode, and so the matchmaking in the FFA queue isn't working properly. Due to the low participation, it's pretty much just random match making like custom games. We don't feel the need to have a matchmaker for a format that doesn't provide much of an improvement in terms of quality of experience compared to custom games. The few players who do play FFA on a regular basis should be able to have a similar quality experience through custom games.
Macro Mechanics
Thank you for your participation and feedback yet again throughout this week. Making a decision in this area is probably the most difficult choice we've ever faced during Starcraft II’s development. Both the community and our development team members have had an evenly split opinion on the topic, and no matter which way we go, there will be an equal number of players that are for and against the decision. Because of this, 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.
With that said, let's talk about where we're at currently in the beta. We like the fact that the current version for Protoss and Zerg keeps the game as difficult as possible for the highest level players out there, while it reduces the clicks and attention needed for everyone else. The Terran’s MULE was clearly the easiest to execute of the three races, and we are noticing there's really not a huge difference in terms of difficulty of execution whether the MULE is automated or not across most skill levels. However, we definitely don't want to lose the interesting strategic choices throughout the Terran game of having to decide between more minerals vs. scouting advantage. We'd like to also to let you know that we will continue to explore potential solutions for late game mass MULE dropping.
Of what we've tried so far, we believe the current version is the best version for Starcraft II, and we'd like to make the decision between this and potentially reverting the changes to HotS. Our team is leaning towards keeping this version right now, but we would love to hear your feedback before making the final decision.
Regarding Protoss and Zerg, the main worry for Protoss is whether the current change is a side-grade and if the old version plays better or not. The main worry for Zerg right now is if the current version makes the game easier at the highest skill level, even though it currently looks like this is most likely a non-issue. Please focus your feedback around these two main points this week, so that we can together make the right decision for the game.
Adept
We definitely heard your feedback and we agree that Adepts warping-in during the early game using Warp Prisms against Terran in the current state is probably too much. However, there has been mixed feedback in terms of whether Adepts are the issue, Warp Prisms are the issue, or both.
With what we know so far, Adepts are most likely the issue. The reason is that if Warp Prisms were OP, they would be OP no matter what unit is warped-in. However, we only see a huge amount of strength with Adept warp-ins. We discussed this topic with many higher level players in the beta this week, and there looks to be a consensus in this thought process. We also don't want to be too quick to judge on new strategy/unit nerfs like this one, because it is often the case that what's new can initially look too powerful. We will first try out a nerf with the Adept, and reevaluate the Warp Prism after trying out the Adept changes.
Therefore, we'd like to do an early game change to the Adept first, and then evaluate the strategy after that. We're currently thinking of either lowering the health of the Adept (if it's just a numbers issue), or changing the Adept's flag to armored (if it turns out to be the case that Terran not having a counter to the Adept at that stage of the game is an issue). We're also continuing to test different stat upgrades for the Adept to replace the current upgrade, so we'll keep you updated on the progress of this going forward as well. We'd like to aim for the next balance update to include this change.
Corruptor
We've decided to not go forward with the change which allowed the Corruptor's ability to be used against units instead of structures.
The main difficulty for this unit was how we wanted an ability that's not powerful for cost, but feels powerful in very specific situations only due to how good the unit is against various air threats. What's currently in the beta looks to be the best recycle for the Corruptor, and it clearly provides awesome, cool moments that make the Corruptor look extremely powerful. At the same time, we don't see players building Corruptors when no counter units are in play, meaning the balance of the ability is most likely in a good spot as well.
We've explored many abilities for this slot, and nothing seems to be nearly as good as the current one in the beta right now.
Ravager Upgrade
The new Ravager upgrade, on the other hand, is something that's not working out well during beta testing. Like many of you have pointed out, this upgrade makes it quite difficult for Terran players to go into mech play due to Ravagers now countering large numbers of mech units. We believe the Ravager without the range upgrade is better for the game because it's much cooler for Zerg players to have to pick and choose the right locations to attack into with Ravagers, and then having to tech switch into a different approach if the Siege Tank/Liberator counts get too high. As things currently are however, Ravagers simply counter Mech play no matter the sizes of the armies.
We also don't like the changed relationship against Lurker lines. Lurkers seem very difficult to use now due to how much the Ravager ability out ranges the Lurker. It was much better when their ranges were equal. We would like to remove this upgrade in the next balance update.
Ghost Snipe Buff
We agree with you guys in that this ability needs to be tuned up in cost-effectiveness, and we'll be looking into it.
Raven Movement Speed Buff
We also agree with the suggestion to increase Raven movement speed, especially in TvZ. The increased rate at which creep spreads and recedes both look to be very fun changes to the game. One issue for Terran, however, is that in the later stages of the game it's too difficult to get the interaction we're looking for of creep constantly going away and being re-spread. A Raven movement speed buff sounds like it could do the trick in terms of getting this cool factor back into the game.
Thanks for all your input and suggestions so far – and be sure to let us know what you think of the questions and topics we posed here. We’re looking forward to reading your thoughts, and we hope you enjoy the additions to come with patch 3.0!
EDIT: Included the source at the top.
|
1) A balance patch before Blizzcon doesn't seem needed at all. HotS is overall a fine game.
2) New chrono is retarded and not at all an improvement over HotS. Revert back to HotS.
3) At least you're aware adepts are a problem. But I think warp prism play will have to be toned down too. Did you think about, I don't know, splitting warp-in and energy power and getting back to 5 sec warp-ins ?
4) Agree on the ravager upgrade diagnosis.
5) Ghost and ravens minor buffs : why not.
Overall a pretty underwhelming patch though. Release is coming so fast and now I feel we're bound to get an unfinished game.
|
On September 26 2015 06:21 [PkF] Wire wrote:
1) A balance patch before Blizzcon doesn't seem needed at all. HotS is overall a fine game.
2) New chrono is retarded and not at all an improvement over HotS. Revert back to HotS.
3) At least you're aware adepts are a problem. But I think warp prism play will have to be toned down too. Did you think about, I don't know, splitting warp-in and energy power and getting back to 5 sec warp-ins ?
4) Agree on the ravager upgrade diagnosis.
5) Ghost and ravens minor buffs : why not.
Overall a pretty underwhelming patch though. Release is coming so fast and now I feel we're bound to get an unfinished game.
It seems to be going in more or less the right direction though. With weekly balance updates LotV could still be the most balanced of the three SC2s at release.
As far as HotS goes it seems like a new map pool might be better than a balance patch.
|
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
|
On September 26 2015 06:24 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:21 [PkF] Wire wrote:
1) A balance patch before Blizzcon doesn't seem needed at all. HotS is overall a fine game.
2) New chrono is retarded and not at all an improvement over HotS. Revert back to HotS.
3) At least you're aware adepts are a problem. But I think warp prism play will have to be toned down too. Did you think about, I don't know, splitting warp-in and energy power and getting back to 5 sec warp-ins ?
4) Agree on the ravager upgrade diagnosis.
5) Ghost and ravens minor buffs : why not.
Overall a pretty underwhelming patch though. Release is coming so fast and now I feel we're bound to get an unfinished game. It seems to be going in more or less the right direction though. With weekly balance updates LotV could still be the most balanced of the three SC2s at release.
HotS was quite good at release, only widow mine and hellbat drops were problems iirc, and they were dealt with rather quickly. I don't think we'll be even close. Things got really bad in HotS after the infamous oracle patch.
As far as HotS goes it seems like a new map pool might be better than a balance patch.
Agree.
|
Of what we've tried so far, we believe the current version is the best version for Starcraft II, and we'd like to make the decision between this and potentially reverting the changes to HotS. Our team is leaning towards keeping this version right now, but we would love to hear your feedback before making the final decision.
Regarding Protoss and Zerg, the main worry for Protoss is whether the current change is a side-grade and if the old version plays better or not. The main worry for Zerg right now is if the current version makes the game easier at the highest skill level, even though it currently looks like this is most likely a non-issue. Please focus your feedback around these two main points this week, so that we can together make the right decision for the game.
You want feedback, here you have it : new versions are counter-intuitive and cumbersome, especially chronoboost. Revert back to HotS with toned down power. Removal could have been great, but you made this move far too late.
|
SoonTM has turned into Too Soon
|
-Remove MULE hammer
-Look at LotV economy again
-Nerf Adept and Warp Prism
-Fix Forcefield
-Fix arcade and custom lobbies
This is the things that need to happen for LotV.
|
In stark contrast to it's predecessors, I'm actually not angry after reading this update. Every point seems mostly reasonable.
I mean there are so many changes I'd LOVE to see that I think would make the game better. Like double harvest economy, mothership/core removal, vastly cheaper ghosts, and complete removal of all macro boosters (including inject). But at this point I'm just satisfied with the game not getting any worse.
In regards to macro mechanics; please no auto-inject. I feel like I'd be happy with pretty much anything else at this point.
|
On September 26 2015 06:40 hitpoint wrote:
I mean there are so many changes I'd LOVE to see. Like double harvest economy, mothership/core removal, vastly cheaper ghosts and inject removal. But at this point I'm just satisfied with the game not getting any worse.
Wow so you've actually given up on the game getting better ? There are so many things that could be easily improved, like the warpgate change, their current bastardized macro mechanics, some of the things you mentioned...
If all we hope when patches are made is that they don't make the game worse, we should just release the game tomorrow.
|
On September 26 2015 06:44 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:40 hitpoint wrote:
I mean there are so many changes I'd LOVE to see. Like double harvest economy, mothership/core removal, vastly cheaper ghosts and inject removal. But at this point I'm just satisfied with the game not getting any worse.
Wow so you've actually given up on the game getting better ? There are so many things that could be easily improved, like the warpgate change, their current bastardized macro mechanics, some of the things you mentioned...
Yes absolutely. I have completely given up on that dream. It doesn't matter how easy the fixes are. It just feels like a pipe-dream at this point, I'm sad to say.
|
I just wish they hadn't ruled out the no-macro mechanics option.
That said, I think the current version for terran and zerg will do, chrono should go back to HoTS however.
|
On September 26 2015 06:45 hitpoint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:44 [PkF] Wire wrote:On September 26 2015 06:40 hitpoint wrote:
I mean there are so many changes I'd LOVE to see. Like double harvest economy, mothership/core removal, vastly cheaper ghosts and inject removal. But at this point I'm just satisfied with the game not getting any worse.
Wow so you've actually given up on the game getting better ? There are so many things that could be easily improved, like the warpgate change, their current bastardized macro mechanics, some of the things you mentioned... Yes absolutely. I have completely given up on that dream. It doesn't matter how easy the fixes are. It just feels like a pipe-dream at this point, I'm sad to say.
That's sad man. I still have a glimmer of hope, even though with release coming closer and closer and meaningful patches indeed not bringing much, that glimmer gets fainter every day. 
On September 26 2015 06:47 TheDougler wrote:
I just wish they hadn't ruled out the no-macro mechanics option.
That said, I think the current version for terran and zerg will do, chrono should go back to HoTS however.
yeah the versions for T and Z look okay enough I'd say, but chrono is definitely not an improvement over HotS.
|
I think they're making a huge mistake by not having as radical a shakeup with macro boosters (they ought to clarify their rhetoric, they're conflating the boosters with the whole of macro).
But they've backed themselves into corners with the ridiculous "make game hard for pros" talk.
Macro in general, too.
What's that about harassment being nerfed the reason for not switching to the obviously superior DH8 or what have you?
Good universal design is more important a fun factor than good balance; I don't care if it'd take a while.
Oh well. Vote with my wallet as it were. Unless, of course, they make design / balance mods with automatch and ladders front and center competitors to standard automatch within the game. That'd be like admitting failure, though.
|
I don't feel like the current form of injects is at all an improvement over the system in HotS. Frankly I'm shocked that this isn't being altered again for the next patch.
|
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.
|
Definitely prefer the new Chrono over the old and the new stacking larva inject over the old.
|
Economy please, economy, why are you so stubborn David, why? Why? Why?
|
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.
|
On September 26 2015 06:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
-Remove MULE hammer
-Look at LotV economy again
-Nerf Adept and Warp Prism
-Fix Forcefield
-Fix arcade and custom lobbies
This is the things that need to happen for LotV.
arcade and custom lobbies... even FF had been an issue since WOL, i lost my hope on those a long time ago T_T
|
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.
|
Everytime if they release Community feedback, I see only complains and complains everywhere. What do you guys expect, everyone has different opinions and there is a big skill difference between them, while most of the lower league people want to keep the macro mechanics, most of the higher league people want to remove it. So let me ask you how would you solve the problem? That they are testing and bringing every week a new patch is good enough. Funny if i get so much hatred and complains I would stop to hear the community and work with the team and progamers to get the best solution. But really some people here should start to stop to blame and complain instead of just give their suggestions to improve the game.
|
I think the corruptor is fine. So, it's a boring unit, big deal. At least it gets used and serves a purpose. Not every unit is going to be super exciting.
In fact, I wish there were more boring units with dumb abilities. That's what starcraft 2 needs. Imagine if we could go back in time and remove forcefield from the sentry, and it became a boring unit that had a weak attack, guardian shield and hallucinate. Blizzard has to buff protoss in a meaningful way that doesn't hinge upon them changing the terrain. Gateway units would become good. MSC might not exist. Protoss would play more like they did in BW. We would have had 5 years of PvAnything being fun to play/watch. It's fun to think about what could have been.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
3) At least you're aware adepts are a problem. But I think warp prism play will have to be toned down too. Did you think about, I don't know, splitting warp-in and energy power and getting back to 5 sec warp-ins ?
"5 sec" was HOTS seconds, so it was like 3.8 of the real seconds that we're on now.
For chrono, well, see my sig. I'm disappointed but not surprised that my favourite version of the game (no mule or chrono) is not being considered any more.
|
On September 26 2015 08:12 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:59 [PkF] Wire wrote: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. the only real problem is specifically with the warp prism warp-in being too strong.
and isn't that problem huge ?
|
On September 26 2015 08:17 hitpoint wrote:
I think the corruptor is fine. So, it's a boring unit, big deal. At least it gets used and serves a purpose. Not every unit is going to be super exciting.
In fact, I wish there were more boring units with dumb abilities. That's what starcraft 2 needs. Imagine if we could go back in time and remove forcefield from the sentry, and it became a boring unit that had a weak attack, guardian shield and hallucinate. Blizzard has to buff protoss in a meaningful way that doesn't hinge upon them changing the terrain. Gateway units would become good. MSC might not exist. Protoss would play more like they did in BW. We would have had 5 years of PvAnything being fun to play/watch. It's fun to think about what could have been.
I agree so so so much.
|
On September 26 2015 08:12 TsogiMaster wrote:
Everytime if they release Community feedback, I see only complains and complains everywhere. What do you guys expect, everyone has different opinions and there is a big skill difference between them, while most of the lower league people want to keep the macro mechanics, most of the higher league people want to remove it. So let me ask you how would you solve the problem? That they are testing and bringing every week a new patch is good enough. Funny if i get so much hatred and complains I would stop to hear the community and work with the team and progamers to get the best solution. But really some people here should start to stop to blame and complain instead of just give their suggestions to improve the game.
How to solve the problem?
Do what is best for the overall game design. That's the game designers job - to give us the most well designed game they are capable of.
If you look at my earlier post, I give specific examples of them not only failing to do this, but they decided to go with an option that according to their own words was an inferior design.
Let me repeat that for you. According to their own words the lead designers went with inferior design because of the perception of some of the community.
How could you defend that? They are failing to do their job... and their reason is "perception"... not even something real or tangible or good for the game. But simply because of false beliefs!!
And now they are switching up and claiming it is what they believe is best for the game? It's too late for that PR bullshit lie. We already have it in writing that David Kim stated this is an inferior design. We already have it in writing that the choice was between the best design of the game or removing a mechanic players have "practiced". We have proof from his own words that his statement is a lie.
Which exposes the true reason for this. The fact that they decided to release the game so soon when it was not ready for a release so soon. Now they have to give up on all the changes they were in the middle of, and all of the changes they said they were happy only 1 month ago, because there is not enough time to rebalance & test & get past QA in a month and a half until release...
|
On September 26 2015 08:34 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 08:17 hitpoint wrote:
I think the corruptor is fine. So, it's a boring unit, big deal. At least it gets used and serves a purpose. Not every unit is going to be super exciting.
In fact, I wish there were more boring units with dumb abilities. That's what starcraft 2 needs. Imagine if we could go back in time and remove forcefield from the sentry, and it became a boring unit that had a weak attack, guardian shield and hallucinate. Blizzard has to buff protoss in a meaningful way that doesn't hinge upon them changing the terrain. Gateway units would become good. MSC might not exist. Protoss would play more like they did in BW. We would have had 5 years of PvAnything being fun to play/watch. It's fun to think about what could have been. I agree so so so much.
I don't know about that, with the current pathfinding a move units are horrible to watch AND play with in sc2.
Just look at roach vs roach.
|
Unfortunately, the greed by Blizzard to have a sellable product at Blizzcon comes at the cost of the game. Just because they may make more money from all the publicity they wont make major changes and then work to rebalance. Shame RIP LOTV.
|
So in the beginning they said they wanted to try out big changes at first and then use the remaining time to fine tune. Well that didn't exactly happen, they tried automating macro mechanics but way too late in the game and now they are months away from a polished game but are still forcing it out on deadline. A company that pushed SC2 WoL release a whole year to finish the game. It's depressing to think why they're not able to push LotV's release back It certainly is ideal timing as far as a professional gaming stand point and all the blizzcon publicity, but I dont think thats why its being forced on that deadline.
|
if you love bw it is hard to love sc2.. because bw was a very good game, i will not say sc2 is a bad game, but is it not so much fun like bw. When 1vs1 in bw become boring or frustating i was playing 2vs2 with my teammate(2vs2 in sc2 not much fun;-/) or playing on hunters free for all, 3vs3 or playing funmaps or chatting in "chatrooms" in Bnet 1.0 the social and fun battle net. The Design for me is a fail from beginning.. take a look at the colossos, i hate this unit, it is ugly and boring, the deathballs, no tactical highground position, the macro mechanics, the 2 seconds fights, and so on.. i hope there is a future for sc2 but its hard to believe.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 26 2015 08:50 NyxNax wrote: So in the beginning they said they wanted to try out big changes at first and then use the remaining time to fine tune. Well that didn't exactly happen, they tried automating macro mechanics but way too late in the game and now they are months away from a polished game but are still forcing it out on deadline. A company that pushed SC2 WoL release a whole year to finish the game. It's depressing to think why they're not able to push LotV's release back
if the economy change is not a big change I don't know what is.
|
On September 26 2015 08:53 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 08:50 NyxNax wrote: So in the beginning they said they wanted to try out big changes at first and then use the remaining time to fine tune. Well that didn't exactly happen, they tried automating macro mechanics but way too late in the game and now they are months away from a polished game but are still forcing it out on deadline. A company that pushed SC2 WoL release a whole year to finish the game. It's depressing to think why they're not able to push LotV's release back if the economy change is not a big change I don't know what is.
Meh kind of, I think the removing macro mechanics is more along the lines of a bigger change, albeit lowering the mineral patches does effect the game a lot, it seems like a less refined change to get what they wanted done in a shorter time(rather than a new economy model). Really my point was that its depressing they are forced to push out an unfinished game, when in the past they would not do that.
|
Gotta love the people that still don't understand mathematics and economy. "Mule hammer" aka Terran dropping mules at distant bases is 100% necessary to be in play versus chrono/larva inject and it's simply the race's game mechanic.
Zerg are imba with insta remaxes late game, 19 larva per hatch, but it's not really an "issue" like a few people try and say. It's simply the way the game fundamentally is and it's fine and even fun in a way.
Protoss are imba with late game mass warp-ins from gateways/warp prisms, and chrono is imba allowing mega fast upgrades from Protoss...but it's their defining mechanic and there's honestly nothing wrong with it either. It works quite well.
Terran are imba with late game "suiciding SCVS" and mass mule drops for econ...AT FIRST GLANCE. But then people that can logically analyze the mathematics of larva inject/chrono realize Terran is only staying approximately even with the other races in economy late game, especially once bases spread out far on the map.
T has always had the weakest late game units, and people also forget in mega late game both P and Z end up suiciding workers just the same as T does . Yes that's right, the other races do it too in mega late game via turning drones into mass spine/spore, and P does the same suiciding Probes in mega late game for that huge deathball.
"Mule hammer" on distant bases barely keeps Terran even with the other races the longer the game goes because the other races still have larva inject/chrono the longer the game goes for worker production. There is nothing wrong with that. People just try and say it's bad because they have huge racial bias instead of looking at the math on how all 3 races operate, or understanding how all 3 races operate late game.
I have played all 3 races at a high level myself and never had an issue with "mule hammers" when off racing vs Terran. This is just a noob player complaint imo @_@
I honestly think people that are still making a big hoopla about macro mechanics for or against...really what you want are big changes to SC2 gameplay to keep the metagame fresh and changing more often, as well as more frequent patches to both balance and things like unit design/abilities.
To be absolutely honest - absolutely not one of you or myself gives a flying fuck about economy changes nor ever will. I don't wake up in the middle of the night having nightmares of income graphs and being unable to load up a game of SC2 because of them ROFL.
What you guys do give a fuck about are awesome gameplay mechanics, units that are fun and rewarding to use, and a metagame that does not sit static for 6+ months at a time in professional play. What most of you guys want is to not see the same 1 rax reaper FE into 3 rax bio into double medivac into 3 base into SCV pull or into same exact thing every goddamn game. Same goes for other races. And the way that changes is with constant patching to balance/gameplay, not with some idiotic poorly thought out mass gutting of macro mechanics and economy.
|
On September 26 2015 09:16 avilo wrote:
Gotta love the people that still don't understand mathematics and economy. "Mule hammer" aka Terran dropping mules at distant bases is 100% necessary to be in play versus chrono/larva inject and it's simply the race's game mechanic.
Zerg are imba with insta remaxes late game, 19 larva per hatch, but it's not really an "issue" like a few people try and say. It's simply the way the game fundamentally is and it's fine and even fun in a way.
Protoss are imba with late game mass warp-ins from gateways/warp prisms, and chrono is imba allowing mega fast upgrades from Protoss...but it's their defining mechanic and there's honestly nothing wrong with it either. It works quite well.
Terran are imba with late game "suiciding SCVS" and mass mule drops for econ...AT FIRST GLANCE. But then people that can logically analyze the mathematics of larva inject/chrono realize Terran is only staying approximately even with the other races in economy late game, especially once bases spread out far on the map.
T has always had the weakest late game units, and people also forget in mega late game both P and Z end up suiciding workers just the same as T does . Yes that's right, the other races do it too in mega late game via turning drones into mass spine/spore, and P does the same suiciding Probes in mega late game for that huge deathball.
"Mule hammer" on distant bases barely keeps Terran even with the other races the longer the game goes because the other races still have larva inject/chrono the longer the game goes for worker production. There is nothing wrong with that. People just try and say it's bad because they have huge racial bias instead of looking at the math on how all 3 races operate, or understanding how all 3 races operate late game.
I have played all 3 races at a high level myself and never had an issue with "mule hammers" when off racing vs Terran. This is just a noob player complaint imo @_@
avilo gets it right. Different races are just different. If we want every race to play the same we could just remove 2 of the races and let all games play with the same race.
edit: also the first time i hear avilo say mass warpins are fine. that deserves respect
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Gotta love the people that still don't understand mathematics and economy. "Mule hammer" aka Terran dropping mules at distant bases is 100% necessary to be in play versus chrono/larva inject
That's a balance concern, not a design concern. Mule is more disruptive to early and midgame than lategame i feel, though some people play lategame with 15 scv's (and now terran army is more supply efficient, that's a potential problem! Ghosts and liberators are extremely good and very supply efficient - terran got away with it in the past because many of their units/comps needed the army supply advantage in order to win)
|
On September 26 2015 09:20 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Gotta love the people that still don't understand mathematics and economy. "Mule hammer" aka Terran dropping mules at distant bases is 100% necessary to be in play versus chrono/larva inject That's a balance concern, not a design concern. Mule is more disruptive to early and midgame than lategame i feel, though some people play lategame with 15 scv's (and now terran army is more supply efficient, that's a problem! Ghosts and liberators are extremely good and very supply efficient)
Mule is not a concern period. Nor is larva inject. Nor is chrono. These are artificially made up "concerns" that people started for some reason and then everyone just randomly jumped on board because what they want are patches and changes made to the game more often.
And no, once again you are blatantly incorrect. Terran army is not more supply efficient in mega late game because the other races do the exact same thing killing their own workers in late game. I do not understand why people for some reason have the misconception it's only Terran that does that with workers.
I know for a fact when i offrace P/Z and when i've played other good late game P/Z players they and myself suicide drones/probes late game to the strongest possible army. Zerg does it by making mass spine/spores with a good bank, and Protoss does it...just by killing their workers at a certain point.
You can actually argue Protoss has the strongest supply efficient army of all 3 races once they have suicided probes down to a bout 5-10 probes because of all of the AOE splash damage. But even then it's relatively fine in HOTS.
|
I honestly just can't believe they aren't addressing the late game mule bullshit. When mule was auto-cast they had a nice solution to it, even through there are MANY solutions to it that are EASY AS FUCK TO EXECUTE.
Is it just me?
|
On September 26 2015 09:26 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 09:20 Cyro wrote:Gotta love the people that still don't understand mathematics and economy. "Mule hammer" aka Terran dropping mules at distant bases is 100% necessary to be in play versus chrono/larva inject That's a balance concern, not a design concern. Mule is more disruptive to early and midgame than lategame i feel, though some people play lategame with 15 scv's (and now terran army is more supply efficient, that's a problem! Ghosts and liberators are extremely good and very supply efficient) Mule is not a concern period. Nor is larva inject. Nor is chrono. These are artificially made up "concerns" that people started for some reason and then everyone just randomly jumped on board because what they want are patches and changes made to the game more often. And no, once again you are blatantly incorrect. Terran army is not more supply efficient in mega late game because the other races do the exact same thing killing their own workers in late game. I do not understand why people for some reason have the misconception it's only Terran that does that with workers. I know for a fact when i offrace P/Z and when i've played other good late game P/Z players they and myself suicide drones/probes late game to the strongest possible army. Zerg does it by making mass spine/spores with a good bank, and Protoss does it...just by killing their workers at a certain point. You can actually argue Protoss has the strongest supply efficient army of all 3 races once they have suicided probes down to a bout 5-10 probes because of all of the AOE splash damage. But even then it's relatively fine in HOTS.
It's because if I play zerg or protoss and kill all my workers, I have no active income.
If I play terran and I kill all my workers, I still have active income late game because I made 10+ command centers with full energy and I mine minerals with mules.
That's the difference.
|
This is my first post ever. I decided to contribute to suggestions of balancing the game as a Huge SC1 fan and a disappointed SC2 fan.
Zerg
I suggest to take out the indestructible units aka nydus worm, decrease its cost/ tech tree and increase its life. this unit can be abused and I have seen it be abused.
Viper anti-air spell does way too much damage and can be spammed. decrease its damage like radiate from SC1.
late game harvester drone upgrade on hive tech to increase mineral uptake so they can compete in late game
Ravagener - remove animation for landing the corrosive bile.
Protoss
adapt switch to armour from light. new upgrade so that its shade can attack but does less damage but takes more damage.
immortals barriers - can set shield to autocast or manual cast.
upgrade for probe - high up on the tech tree. - increase amount of mineral harvested
distruptors - the damage orb can be manually denotated - my also do friendly fire
Terran
Ghost - does more damage via snipe 1.5 sec per shot when cloaked, however, upon reveal returns to base damage. time for shot decreased. give back the lockdown ability
cyclone - decrease cost, upgrade to increase armour (base it similar to goliath)
Thors - return 250mm spell but allow it to do AOE with no stun and 1.5 sec to cast and 1.5 sec to unfreeze thors aka like the odin
battle cruiser - shield barrier spell 100 to activate (aka defensive shield from sci vessel), damage to shields drains BC energy until no more and then does damage.
|
"Terran is only staying approximately even with the other races in economy late game, especially once bases spread out far on the map. " this is a pretty big problem if it allows terran to have 50 supply in army more than the opponent
|
all i will comment is this
quote david kim
Because of this, 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,
(even though we play the game)
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
And no, once again you are blatantly incorrect. Terran army is not more supply efficient in mega late game because the other races do the exact same thing killing their own workers in late game. I do not understand why people for some reason have the misconception it's only Terran that does that with workers.
Terran does it earlier and to far greater effect. It comes into play in games that generally go late and start to touch the supply cap while protoss throwing away most of their workers is something that i have yet to run into in LOTV it hurts them a lot more and it's usually a bad idea to throw away workers and build a stronger blob instead of taking another base or trading units.
|
I'm glad they're keeping the Zerg mechanics as they currently are.
|
Garbage. Removal of the macro boosters made the game so much better. SC2 never was the RTS of my dreams (that's warcraft3) but without the boosters it was a much more enjoyable game. Now I even doubt if I'm going to buy it.
|
Another nail in the coffin for Starcraft 2.
Teamliquid save us, please.
|
On September 26 2015 10:04 adMachine wrote:
all i will comment is this
quote david kim
Because of this, 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,
(even though we play the game)
You do know the sentence continues after the full stop, right? "because clearly, there's not even close to a consensus on this topic."
Though when it comes to progamers there is a consensus -- that auto-injects are an abomination.
|
First, bring HotS marauders back
Then, remove Macro things ALTOGETHER(including injects)
lastly, increase the amount of mining about 6-7.
This is my feedback. Thank you very much for listening, DK!
p.s. we do not need to go bananas, cause there`s nothing we can do about the game.
|
On September 26 2015 09:56 ROOTFayth wrote:
"Terran is only staying approximately even with the other races in economy late game, especially once bases spread out far on the map. " this is a pretty big problem if it allows terran to have 50 supply in army more than the opponent
It's not if the game is balanced around this.
|
"it's looking like the game is in a good enough state where the better player wins matches rather than players winning due to racial strength"
Biggest joke I have ever read in my entire life. Hopefully they at least get lotv right...
|
Ravager change, thank god. I dropped to a 10% win rate vs Zerg after this update.
Snipe and Raven change will also be nice as a bonus, but the Ravager is the only one I cared about. I don't even dislike adepts.
|
On September 26 2015 06:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
-Remove MULE hammer
-Look at LotV economy again
-Nerf Adept and Warp Prism
-Fix Forcefield
-Fix arcade and custom lobbies
This is the things that need to happen for LotV.
seriously forcefields are still problem for some people after 5 years? .. lol
|
At this point I don't even want to give feedback. When 3/4 people are not satisfied with the recent changes, I don't know where this split stuff is coming from. It's like anything we say is being thrown off to the side. The ladder is all Protoss at the moment anyways, I don't even understand where this Terran feedback is coming from. TOP? I think hes the only regular terran laddering in LOTV at the moment. Who knows.
I don't care to watch the Protoss slugfest at blizzcon. I doubt anything will actually be tested. I think the adept damage to light is too high. 2 adepts 1 shot marines/workers, resulting in losing the game to an oracle if you don't build enough marines, i thought was the consensus on the early game problem. If they don't pressure with an oracle and you commit to oracle defense, then you lose to the warp prism harass. If you push out with a reaper, its really hard to hold any pressure, and the scans are needed as mules if you take economic damage.
Blizzard, have your game, I might try overwatch.
|
On September 26 2015 11:14 shin_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
-Remove MULE hammer
-Look at LotV economy again
-Nerf Adept and Warp Prism
-Fix Forcefield
-Fix arcade and custom lobbies
This is the things that need to happen for LotV. seriously forcefields are still problem for some people after 5 years? .. lol
They never stopped being the problem. They are the cause of the Protoss race....being the way it is.
|
"Because of this, 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."
LITERALLY WHAT
There's overwhelmingly high numbers in favor of no macro boosters. What the fuck.
|
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)...
This post! So much passion, so much truth, sadly. Still thanks for writing it down.
|
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)...
Well said man. I made the poll that DK is referencing, and I would like to isolate this 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.
I will try to write this without all caps...... I don't ever remember the community complaining that each of the races lost a bit of identity. That is total crap. The most I remember from that patch is that terran players really needed a buff or a tweak.
ok, I need caps now:
BUT WE DID NOT EVEN GET A SINGLE BALANCE PATCH AFTER THE MACRO REMOVAL!!!!!!!
HOW THE HELL CAN WE KNOW IF IT IS GOOD OR BAD?????
And I am sick and tired of hearing that it is the community that wanted certain changes when it is OBVIOUS that the community is the complete opposite.
AND DON'T TELL ME WE ARE 50/50 ON THE ISSUE!
Ok, sorry. I just hate being told: "We heard what you wanted, thank you for your feedback. Here is the Peach that you have requested." Meanwhile, we have been screaming: "GIVE ME A F'N ORANGE PLEASE!!!!'
|
I don't think the polls are an accurate representation though since most people who are happy with the direction probably aren't posting about it.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On September 26 2015 11:59 DooMDash wrote:
I don't think the polls are an accurate representation though since most people who are happy with the direction probably aren't posting about it.
We have polls showing a bunch of people on both sides - people wanting no macro mechanics vs people wanting full mechanics, people are clearly unhappy on both sides - we still have the polls showing only 20% wanted the game as it is with semi-auto mechanics.
|
First of all thanks for considering our advices to patch the game and for asking us constantly what we think about the changes you want to do.
For me that's clear Adepts are way too strong. And seriously maybe that's secondary for you, but that's also the death of the zealot.
Progamers use everytime the adepts and they show us he is really imba.
Regarding ravagers upgrade I guess that would be better to adjust with lurker range too and that won't allow to counter to well mech.
As Macro Mechanics I would have prefered nothing changes between HOTS and LOTV.
The mass drop mules at the end of the game, is not a big issue imo, in all progamers games we could see in GSL, SSl or WCS, that's doesn't let the terran win everytime, that's just a strategic advantage at a particular moment.
As protoss can warp in a lot of units everywhere to kill secondary bases, without any micro for doing it with zealots or dts, when zergs can switch completely their tec from ground to air and also glings runby could be devastating, especially in addition with a few banelings.
Terran has always to micro the helions and bio. And need to scan all the time to check if zerg change from Broodlords to ultras, or from mass roaches to mutas, to continue to kill obs and dts warp ins and to locate where zerg and protoss armies are and if they take new bases.
And notice in lategame mass mules only provide a mineral boost, which is not as important as that is supposed to be since in lategame the main problem is the gaz especially if the terran plays mech, not the mineral who just allows to make marines and helions.
And with all the pro games I followed during all these years, I never ever seen that gave a substantial advantage to the terran to win every single game. Sometimes that helps a bit, but that s never decisive.
|
I honestly think most of the people who agree dislike the no/auto macro mechanics option haven't actually tried them out for themselves. I used to be very strongly against them until I tried them. Really loved them. Too bad. Here's hoping they get whatever they can correct for Legacy of the Void's release.
|
So HOTS no change (as expected, blizzard won't work on this game now, as even before LOTV they didn't).
ZvP still broken MU with just versatility, no real steady style for zerg, just luck based timing. And P spamming 3 bases blink/sentry everyday without any real counter for zerg.
LOTV :
Adept nerf :sould be done for months.
Ravager : back to useless.
ZvZ : back to stupid turtle lurker war
No nerf to liberator lol, but buff raven.
Nothing about mass carrier.
Overfall it's a huge buff to terran with the adept nerf, seem to be the way of DK releasing SC2 games : make Terran OP at the beginning...
|
On September 26 2015 08:36 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 08:12 TsogiMaster wrote:
Everytime if they release Community feedback, I see only complains and complains everywhere. What do you guys expect, everyone has different opinions and there is a big skill difference between them, while most of the lower league people want to keep the macro mechanics, most of the higher league people want to remove it. So let me ask you how would you solve the problem? That they are testing and bringing every week a new patch is good enough. Funny if i get so much hatred and complains I would stop to hear the community and work with the team and progamers to get the best solution. But really some people here should start to stop to blame and complain instead of just give their suggestions to improve the game. How to solve the problem? Do what is best for the overall game design. That's the game designers job - to give us the most well designed game they are capable of. If you look at my earlier post, I give specific examples of them not only failing to do this, but they decided to go with an option that according to their own words was an inferior design. Let me repeat that for you. According to their own words the lead designers went with inferior design because of the perception of some of the community. How could you defend that? They are failing to do their job... and their reason is "perception"... not even something real or tangible or good for the game. But simply because of false beliefs!! And now they are switching up and claiming it is what they believe is best for the game? It's too late for that PR bullshit lie. We already have it in writing that David Kim stated this is an inferior design. We already have it in writing that the choice was between the best design of the game or removing a mechanic players have "practiced". We have proof from his own words that his statement is a lie. Which exposes the true reason for this. The fact that they decided to release the game so soon when it was not ready for a release so soon. Now they have to give up on all the changes they were in the middle of, and all of the changes they said they were happy only 1 month ago, because there is not enough time to rebalance & test & get past QA in a month and a half until release...
Another problem is who are they exactly designing the game for? If you notice during the Depth of Micro discussion, their arguments were "People won't be able to notice those plays" They are focusing on the twitch viewer rather than the player who will actually play the fucking game. Viewers enjoy seeing oracles and worker harassment, but the player who is getting his workers burned like that hates it. But screw it, we are not here for the fun of the player, we are here to introduce a show to entertain the viewer.
Unless this philosophy changes we will keep seeing horrible designs like the economy / unit clumping /... etc
|
i stopped caring two patches ago. the only reason i didnt cancel my pre-order is that i want lotv for the campaign and for modding.
either starbow or some other mod it will be
|
All I saw was ghost snipe buff!
|
On September 26 2015 15:12 summerloud wrote:
i stopped caring two patches ago. the only reason i didnt cancel my pre-order is that i want lotv for the campaign and for modding.
either starbow or some other mod it will be
I honestly gave up on the LotV direction after todays update. I would be down for mods but theres issues with that...
The main issue with mods like Starbow is no matchmaking... I would be down for a mod if there was actual matchmaking/ladder.
Maybe the thing we should be looking in to for community projects like this is a matchmaking system. I know Blizz does not approve if your mess with the client, but could possibly attempt to match players up outside of game and use something like replay analysis to log results/rankings?
|
"no community consensus on macro mechanics"
YOU'RE A DAMN LIAR DAVID KIM
These updates are bullshit now, plain and simple
|
On September 26 2015 06:21 [PkF] Wire wrote:
1) A balance patch before Blizzcon doesn't seem needed at all. HotS is overall a fine game..
learn to read, bs. it is not a balance patch.
|
i feel like they should aim this as if multiplayer was officially unfinished. multiplayer at this rate will need at least until december. so now we stop with the macro booster changes and start tweaking. no new units anymore, no economy changes, and no more macro discussions. can we get miss chance in here before we cook the cake? icing is coming soon, obviously.
i just want more out of the 1v1 multiplayer than it seems like they do. i think we can all handle more than 2 units. i think we need many more things still missing from brood war. look at what was added as we went along: hellbat, viper (defilier), swarmhost (to be a non-lurker lurker), lurker, liberator is valkyrie...
we need maelstrom and lockdown and irradiate which now zerg has for some reason. dark swarm is a better spell than blinding cloud for both players, but that would require miss chance.
we see shield batteries and possible dark archons and corsairs and reavers all in the previews, as if they will be all over the campaign. the goliath is even in the campaign since WoL and they have to give us the cyclone, which does the same thing, except it is stronger vs ground, which makes it look too versatile.
but zerg gets the lurker? the liberator is a prime example of how there are gaping holes in some of the roles within the units. the liberator's role was given to every race in BW, and clearly terran's was missing. mealstrom and lockdown and shield battery are very important to this game.
most importantly, i feel, is miss chance. dota 2 is not suffering or losing casuals. dota 2 has a better high ground mechanic that starcraft 2. that is a sad situation. starcraft 2's high-ground advantage is exactly that of league of legends and heroes of the storm. that is most disappointing.
|
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.
The polls were pretty clear.
|
On September 26 2015 11:37 AgamemnonSC2 wrote:
Ok, sorry. I just hate being told: "We heard what you wanted, thank you for your feedback. Here is the Peach that you have requested." Meanwhile, we have been screaming: "GIVE ME A F'N ORANGE PLEASE!!!!'
but this one is also orange, with a little red! isn't that an exciting and drastic change? btw this is all the fruit i can sell you. this specific kind only. if you want another kind of fruit, one of my guys might have and orchard of it, but they'll have to go get it for you. if not, you'll have to grow it yourself... oh and nobody else sells fruit anymore except me. it's all just vegetables and seafood.
so who's with me, let's make a starbow-like real sc2 we all wanted within DotA 2. the grandfather of glorified custom gaming can only have a destiny that mirrors it's own birth... we will make the custom starcraft game of the future... inside of DotA 2.
|
Don't worry Day9 will still release Atlas!
|
Just underwhelming... Everything will be better with an extended beta period where lots of BIG changes to the game can and will be tested, they said.
Community summit was a big promotional act, yet I tried to believe and get my hopes up, but looking of what this game has become... Sorry to say, but looking at the different stages of this beta, LotV has become more dissapointing week by week. I really liked the community updates and it's probably my own fault to think the way Blizzard handles things was gonna change, but I think I'll stay with HotS till release, as it's more fun to play, maybe they could give HotS players automated tournaments with the upcoming patch, cause that is what I've enjoyed the most in beta so far.
|
As much as I'm kind of disappointed with the last couple of updates, I feel that everyone who is screaming "Now I won't play go burn in Hell David" need to remember..
That HOTS was a total mess when it first came out, and through the Koreans giving us an actual metagame and multiple balance patches has stabilized into an awesome and balanced RTS.
|
On September 26 2015 17:05 -Archangel- wrote: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. The polls were pretty clear.
The polls... And how many people voted in the polls ? Last time I checked it was few hundreds... This hardly represents a majority.
|
If Blizzard won't remove the MM - which I'd strongly favour, as most people do - then at least allow queens to inject multiple times without having to wait for the inject-animation to end and give them limited inject range, to prevent wandering queens. This is really annoying!
|
What commnity want is not always good for the game,because community is filled with stupid guys.
GJ Blizzard,I respect your decision.
BTW idk why everyone says "community want macro mechanics to be removed". At least I'm not,and when MM removal patch was out,a lot of community player complained about MM removal,especially Zerg/Terran player.
|
On September 26 2015 09:16 avilo wrote:Gotta love the people that still don't understand mathematics and economy. "Mule hammer" aka Terran dropping mules at distant bases is 100% necessary to be in play versus chrono/larva inject and it's simply the race's game mechanic. Zerg are imba with insta remaxes late game, 19 larva per hatch, but it's not really an "issue" like a few people try and say. It's simply the way the game fundamentally is and it's fine and even fun in a way. Protoss are imba with late game mass warp-ins from gateways/warp prisms, and chrono is imba allowing mega fast upgrades from Protoss...but it's their defining mechanic and there's honestly nothing wrong with it either. It works quite well. Terran are imba with late game "suiciding SCVS" and mass mule drops for econ...AT FIRST GLANCE. But then people that can logically analyze the mathematics of larva inject/chrono realize Terran is only staying approximately even with the other races in economy late game, especially once bases spread out far on the map. T has always had the weakest late game units, and people also forget in mega late game both P and Z end up suiciding workers just the same as T does . Yes that's right, the other races do it too in mega late game via turning drones into mass spine/spore, and P does the same suiciding Probes in mega late game for that huge deathball. "Mule hammer" on distant bases barely keeps Terran even with the other races the longer the game goes because the other races still have larva inject/chrono the longer the game goes for worker production. There is nothing wrong with that. People just try and say it's bad because they have huge racial bias instead of looking at the math on how all 3 races operate, or understanding how all 3 races operate late game. I have played all 3 races at a high level myself and never had an issue with "mule hammers" when off racing vs Terran. This is just a noob player complaint imo @_@ I honestly think people that are still making a big hoopla about macro mechanics for or against...really what you want are big changes to SC2 gameplay to keep the metagame fresh and changing more often, as well as more frequent patches to both balance and things like unit design/abilities. To be absolutely honest - absolutely not one of you or myself gives a flying fuck about economy changes nor ever will. I don't wake up in the middle of the night having nightmares of income graphs and being unable to load up a game of SC2 because of them ROFL. What you guys do give a fuck about are awesome gameplay mechanics, units that are fun and rewarding to use, and a metagame that does not sit static for 6+ months at a time in professional play. What most of you guys want is to not see the same 1 rax reaper FE into 3 rax bio into double medivac into 3 base into SCV pull or into same exact thing every goddamn game. Same goes for other races. And the way that changes is with constant patching to balance/gameplay, not with some idiotic poorly thought out mass gutting of macro mechanics and economy.
I've never seen P or Z sacrificing probes/drones except when the map starts to be mined out which pretty much happens once in a blue moon. T always do it from 3rd or 4th base and on. WTH are you talking about? I don't think it is fair to assume that Z doing it to bypass the 200 pop limitation is the same since they are effectively paying building (or their cancellation) to do it. T has free active income without workers unlike the other races. Stop bullshitting you way around. And then we may discuss if this is an issue, an OK race design or whatever (I personnaly don't think it is an issue, but man does it anger me to read such bs even coming from you).
Nope T does not have the weakest late game units. On the contrary, the fact that mech can kinda still stand despite the slug pace of its production proves how strong it is. The "issue" of T -if that is worth calling it an issue- is production capability. Lategame T can never produce as fast as the other races, P has almost the same issue with non-gateway units except Chronoboost somewhat saves the day.
You sure seem to struggle with bias and math for someone who mocks others for it.
I don't know maybe we could have a lategame upgrade which allows SCVs to be assigned to factories/starports to have them build faster. That way T has a way out to build faster in lategame and they are still forced to keep their SCVs and Mule hammer is still there for people who likes it.
|
Another problem is who are they exactly designing the game for? If you notice during the Depth of Micro discussion, their arguments were "People won't be able to notice those plays" They are focusing on the twitch viewer rather than the player who will actually play the fucking game. Viewers enjoy seeing oracles and worker harassment, but the player who is getting his workers burned like that hates it.
Yeh this is exactly why I have been saying for a while how David Kim doesn't understand what his job actually is. His job isn't to create the most "fun to watch game". His job is to create a game that is fun to play. The esport-side of the equation should be viewed as marketing for the actual product (playing the game).
The main priority should thus always be to make a game that is fun to play and the secondary objective is to make a game that is fun to watch.
But even then, I don't think Oracles are fun at all to watch. Moving shot is a ton more exciting, but David Kim also misunderstood the depth of micro suggestions by Lalush on several levels. Since then he has at least acknowledged this by fixing the bug that made air units not have proper moving shot.
|
|
|
On September 26 2015 16:10 nubHunter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:21 [PkF] Wire wrote:
1) A balance patch before Blizzcon doesn't seem needed at all. HotS is overall a fine game.. learn to read, bs. it is not a balance patch.
The patch won't have any balance changes in it, but we are separately trying to decide if the current Balance update test map is needed before Blizzcon. For now, it's looking like the game is in a good enough state where the better player wins matches rather than players winning due to racial strength, but we'll keep a close watch on it to make sure we make the right call.
= we're not pushing out a patch now, but we may before Blizzcon. I just said I think this wouldn't be a good idea.
Who needs to learn to read now ?
|
On September 26 2015 19:22 Horiken wrote:
BTW idk why everyone says "community want macro mechanics to be removed".
Cause everyone -as you mentioned- says that they want MM to be removed.
Also, many Z&T players complained because of the balance, not of the removed MM.
|
On September 26 2015 17:51 jpg06051992 wrote:
As much as I'm kind of disappointed with the last couple of updates, I feel that everyone who is screaming "Now I won't play go burn in Hell David" need to remember..
That HOTS was a total mess when it first came out, and through the Koreans giving us an actual metagame and multiple balance patches has stabilized into an awesome and balanced RTS.
HotS was infinitely more balanced and solid at release. Granted hellbats and widow mines were strong, but I remember having an awesome time in the first months of HotS. LotV on the other hand... Things like bastardized macro mechanics, awkward warpgate change, useless new units and attacker advantage (warp prism or invincible Nydus) won't change overnight. And I didn't even mention the overwheming balance concerns.
|
On September 26 2015 19:40 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Another problem is who are they exactly designing the game for? If you notice during the Depth of Micro discussion, their arguments were "People won't be able to notice those plays" They are focusing on the twitch viewer rather than the player who will actually play the fucking game. Viewers enjoy seeing oracles and worker harassment, but the player who is getting his workers burned like that hates it. Yeh this is exactly why I have been saying for a while how David Kim doesn't understand what his job actually is. His job isn't to create the most "fun to watch game". His job is to create a game that is fun to play. The esport-side of the equation should be viewed as marketing for the actual product (playing the game). The main priority should thus always be to make a game that is fun to play and the secondary objective is to make a game that is fun to watch. But even then, I don't think Oracles are fun at all to watch. Moving shot is a ton more exciting, but David Kim also misunderstood the depth of micro suggestions by Lalush on several levels. Since then he has at least acknowledged this by fixing the bug that made air units not have proper moving shot.
what is fun to play and to watch is often the same.
Things like BL/infestor, blink era, swarmhosts, oracles etc are both horrible to watch and to play while tvz bio mine vs ling bane muta is extremely fun to play and to watch. I can't think of a single thing in the game that is fun to watch but not to play.
|
Mules: The problem would be solved if for example only 3 mules are allowed to be on the map. When they die u can call max. 3 mules again, but never more. It would prevent the known "mule hammer" where u call 10 mules and get a huge economy boost (you theoretically "only" have a 15 worker advantage and terran finally has to watch out for their energy to spend it consistantly like chrono for protoss in HotS).
Chrono: Back to HotS, good players that take care of their energy and spend it consistantly should get an advantage because of their better macro.
Larva: My idea is to introduce a function for queens that make u choose between auto inject and manual inject (the ability can be choosen like autorepair for SCVs). If you choose auto inject, the queen injects for example every minute, but if you choose manual inject you have to inject by your own, but queens can inject every 30 seconds. The result is that players with good macro should get a benefit because they invest a lot of APM into injects (which isnt that easy) and players with a bad macro and low APM shouldnt have a hard time. Instead of having no injects, they can take the auto inject ability, they wont have a lot of larva but they wont be overwhelmed. Beginners wont have a hard time and good players will still get a benefit for their investment of APM into macro.
Adepts: The unit requires no brain currently, you basically build adepts vs EVERY ground unit. Nerfing the damage of adepts is a must, that needs to happen asap.
|
If they really hit a balance patch for HotS just before Blizzcon then i give up on SC2. That's the most retarded idea ever
|
On September 26 2015 21:03 BlackCompany wrote:
If they really hit a balance patch for HotS just before Blizzcon then i give up on SC2. That's the most retarded idea ever
The swarm host one hit during WCS/GSL season. hitting before blizzcon would be very careful by comparison...
|
On September 26 2015 21:03 BlackCompany wrote:
If they really hit a balance patch for HotS just before Blizzcon then i give up on SC2. That's the most retarded idea ever
Why? If the players have enough time to play on the blizzcon patch i don't see a problem (i am not saying that we NEED a patch)
|
On September 26 2015 21:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 21:03 BlackCompany wrote:
If they really hit a balance patch for HotS just before Blizzcon then i give up on SC2. That's the most retarded idea ever Why? If the players have enough time to play on the blizzcon patch i don't see a problem (i am not saying that we NEED a patch)
If they give them enough time it could be okay (altough i would prefer if they didn't) but since they haven't even decided if they want to do a patch i can see this taking some time.
On September 26 2015 21:07 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 21:03 BlackCompany wrote:
If they really hit a balance patch for HotS just before Blizzcon then i give up on SC2. That's the most retarded idea ever The swarm host one hit during WCS/GSL season. hitting before blizzcon would be very careful by comparison...
Oh yeah that one was fun too
|
Well yeah i can see that, two weeks wouldn't be enough :D
|
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
|
On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D
|
Remove macro mechanics morons!
|
The macro mechanics are here to stay, and while I think none at all was better, this is good too. I say let's change chrono back to HOTS and get moving with some balance changes.
|
On September 26 2015 22:45 Little-Chimp wrote:
The macro mechanics are here to stay, and while I think none at all was better, this is good too. I say let's change chrono back to HOTS and get moving with some balance changes.
yeah I think that's the best solution given how little time we're given.
|
I think giving adepts armored is the right move, since it will distinguish them them from zealots again and give the zealots the role as a tank vs maurauders and stuff back too.
|
Russian Federation66 Posts
Remove idiotic nobrain musthave macro mechanics.
Let players to bouild workers and collect minerals with them. That's make resourses highly valuable - players must invest them into workers to get them back later. Not just MULE, MULE, MULE for nothing. Just rebalance starting production and unit's stats. Also remove extra depot - it's design creepled too.
Let players build hatcheries for larva. Morph extra drones? Morph lingz/queen? Morph Hatchery? Make players to decide. Just improve static defence or unit's stats.
Let them build fast forges for upgrades etc. Later blink? Later colossus? Just balance around it. If it's needed.
|
On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D
Atlas is going to be amazing and genre-revolutionizing if only half of their ambitions work out. sad that we dont hear about it these days.
|
On September 26 2015 20:31 chillaful wrote:
Mules: The problem would be solved if for example only 3 mules are allowed to be on the map. When they die u can call max. 3 mules again, but never more. It would prevent the known "mule hammer" where u call 10 mules and get a huge economy boost (you theoretically "only" have a 15 worker advantage and terran finally has to watch out for their energy to spend it consistantly like chrono for protoss in HotS).
Chrono: Back to HotS, good players that take care of their energy and spend it consistantly should get an advantage because of their better macro.
Larva: My idea is to introduce a function for queens that make u choose between auto inject and manual inject (the ability can be choosen like autorepair for SCVs). If you choose auto inject, the queen injects for example every minute, but if you choose manual inject you have to inject by your own, but queens can inject every 30 seconds. The result is that players with good macro should get a benefit because they invest a lot of APM into injects (which isnt that easy) and players with a bad macro and low APM shouldnt have a hard time. Instead of having no injects, they can take the auto inject ability, they wont have a lot of larva but they wont be overwhelmed. Beginners wont have a hard time and good players will still get a benefit for their investment of APM into macro.
Adepts: The unit requires no brain currently, you basically build adepts vs EVERY ground unit. Nerfing the damage of adepts is a must, that needs to happen asap.
No, that breaks mules again and thus Terran, and thus leads to rebalancing CB and injects. Not going to happen.
Mules are essential for recovery. If mid to late game as Z I lose a lot of drones then IF I have the minerals and IF I have the larva I can pop 20 or more new workers. As T, IF I have energy I can call down at most 3 Mules and then slowly build new workers one at a time from each CC?
And if I have 4 or 5 CCs, do I just spam scans and call down depots? It removes the tension of whether to mule or scan.
A limit to the number of mules per base, or a reduction in efficiency when there are many, or a limit to the call down radius, or a mule must return to the CC that it was called down from would be better.
|
Macro Mechanics
Thank you for your participation and feedback yet again throughout this week. Making a decision in this area is probably the most difficult choice we've ever faced during Starcraft II’s development.
Now this is where it becomes quite obvious that this hole "macro mechanics" stuff was just bullshit to buy time until the beta is over. We all know that this is the final expansion and we all know that changes after that will almost exclusively on tuning balance. So rather than say rip of protoss bandages like PO and FF and actually redesign protoss early game, they decided to test some stuff, realize that they would have to rebalance vast majoritys of the game without these mechanics (especially terran) and just went back to hots for the most part. Now that seems like the perfect way to burn through the final month of design changes to me. At least they are still looking to nerf mules, I'd prefer to see them removed but that seems to be off the table until starcraft 3...
The reason is that if Warp Prisms were OP, they would be OP no matter what unit is warped-in.
This on the other hand is just painful to read. You know you guys had me back when you made inject manual again so I can actually have fun playing zerg again, but this sentence seems like something a kid from elementary school would write. Maybe Blizzard should pay for some logic classes for dk and his team. This is not how it works at all and makes me question their qualification for their jobs once again. Of course it's not OP when you warp in any unit, you could have instant warp ins add a discount and quicker cool down and it wouldn't be OP with all unist. Warping 10 sentries into your opponents base will always be suck unless you block a ramp.
In all seriousness, 2 sec warp ins need to be adjusted. I'd personally just give warp prisms something in between 2 and 16 to maintain their role as the new proxy pylon as the old one needs a gate to be viable now, but having 3 different warp in times is probably something they look upon as too complicated (you know like putting tournament maps into the ladder pool was back in 2011...). So I'd either give the warp prism 16 second warp ins by default and add an upgrade to buff warp in speed (feel free to combine this with the speed upgrade if you wish), or make phase mode or w/e the warp in mode is called an upgrade so the warp prism acts like a shuttle early game and becomes a proxy pylon later on.
Obviously adepts will have to be nerfed as well. And I'm saying actually nerfed, not the bullshit you did with the marauder where you buffed/adjusted other areas to compensate. Changing it to armored is not the solution. Almost all protoss units are armored already and I don't think there needs to be another unit that gets crushed by marauders. Nerf the adept both in hp and damage and replace the shield upgrade with a damage/attack speed/range upgrade and we should be good. While you are at it, I like the idea of giving stalkers some sort of templar archive upgrade that boost their damage/attack speed/range to make them less awful in the lategame, you could even combine it with an upgrade for adepts. SC2 already lacks upgrades imo, especially protoss and the templar archive only has 1 upgrade anyway.
Ghost/Raven buff seems fine, I personally got very exited when Flash build a Raven to clear creep at the end of wol and I'd be sick to see that become the standard. Ghost buff is also fine.
Another sad part about this is their 3.0 "preview". I'd imagine this is the one where they change the UI and hopefully implement any form of skinning. As lotv is the final expansion I'd hope for them that they'll implement some form of micro transactions, at least if they want to ever make any cash from sc2 again. Even skins for the ingame ui would be fine, unit sounds are also a thing that's very easy to implement (given I used to play with bw unit sounds before 1.5). Skins would be best, but they seem to stick to their bullshit excuse. Just add a graphic setting called "disable unit skins" for players with low-end hardware and there is no excuse to not implement skins. But instead of talking about any of that, or at least showing a screenshot of the new main menu, you tell us that FFA matchmaking will be removed. WOW!
|
Skins please. Kick ass warhammer like ones for my infantry, cool tyrannid ones for my Zerg. And Protoss? Well maybe some clown costumes 😀
Seriously, I have nearly 200 games on my steam account now (damn sales) but only regularly play SC2. If the game does not suck then I would happily spend 100 or more bucks on skinning all my shit.
|
On September 26 2015 18:11 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 17:05 -Archangel- wrote: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. The polls were pretty clear. The polls... And how many people voted in the polls ? Last time I checked it was few hundreds... This hardly represents a majority.
It represents people that visit TL often which are some of the most loyal starcraft fans. TL is well known as a more hardcore community and if its poll was for removal of macro boosters you can be sure all the bronze, silver and gold players not playing sc2 anymore would love to play it without them as well.
|
On September 27 2015 00:07 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 18:11 Pr0wler wrote:On September 26 2015 17:05 -Archangel- wrote: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. The polls were pretty clear. The polls... And how many people voted in the polls ? Last time I checked it was few hundreds... This hardly represents a majority. It represents people that visit TL often which are some of the most loyal starcraft fans. TL is well known as a more hardcore community and if its poll was for removal of macro boosters you can be sure all the bronze, silver and gold players not playing sc2 anymore would love to play it without them as well.
At least that reasoning fits your narrative
|
On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
Try Act of Aggression
|
On September 26 2015 10:04 adMachine wrote:
all i will comment is this
quote david kim
Because of this, 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,
(even though we play the game)
Yea I noticed this as well, I don't much or any faith in what they think is good for the game these days. I'm just basing this off pasted decisions they've made, the lack of willingness to address longstanding issues, and lack of transparency about how they feel and what their really doing.
|
On September 26 2015 20:27 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 19:40 Hider wrote:Another problem is who are they exactly designing the game for? If you notice during the Depth of Micro discussion, their arguments were "People won't be able to notice those plays" They are focusing on the twitch viewer rather than the player who will actually play the fucking game. Viewers enjoy seeing oracles and worker harassment, but the player who is getting his workers burned like that hates it. Yeh this is exactly why I have been saying for a while how David Kim doesn't understand what his job actually is. His job isn't to create the most "fun to watch game". His job is to create a game that is fun to play. The esport-side of the equation should be viewed as marketing for the actual product (playing the game). The main priority should thus always be to make a game that is fun to play and the secondary objective is to make a game that is fun to watch. But even then, I don't think Oracles are fun at all to watch. Moving shot is a ton more exciting, but David Kim also misunderstood the depth of micro suggestions by Lalush on several levels. Since then he has at least acknowledged this by fixing the bug that made air units not have proper moving shot. what is fun to play and to watch is often the same. Things like BL/infestor, blink era, swarmhosts, oracles etc are both horrible to watch and to play while tvz bio mine vs ling bane muta is extremely fun to play and to watch. I can't think of a single thing in the game that is fun to watch but not to play.
Yeh I agree, but the issue is when David Kim uses rhetorical tricks to defend certain flawed gameplays. Like we should keep xx mechanic because it differentiates bad players from good players or that it creates awesome moments.
That's typically related to esports or at least it's not related to the fun'ness experience.
But clearly watching people inject is boring whereas it's more interesting to watch them micro units.
|
meanwhile, ive (re)discovered the insane fun of dota 2
|
On September 27 2015 01:58 xtorn wrote:
meanwhile, ive (re)discovered the insane fun of dota 2
Thats great for you, but that post is not any better than the ded gaem jokes on reddit.
|
Does anyone else feel that marketing and money is dictating the creation of this game again, rather than creating something intended to be epic? So far LotV is a good game, but it does not feel that these changes will have as much staying power as they need to.
I have serious concerns that their ear is turned to earning money and ending the Starcraft II trilogy on a "decent" note than to work with the community to create something they can continue to have a mutually beneficial relationship to. Unlike Brood War, Blizzard has maintained their control of SC2, so there is no doubt they could continue to monetize on tournaments into the future if the game were to stay strong the way BW did.
Based on size and cost of tournaments for LoL, Dota2 vs those for SC2, however, I think they may be considering this a lesser investment and letting it go. This makes me uncomfortable in supporting their decision by purchasing LotV at release - I don't want to show Blizzard that I am willing to accept a marginally better product when the next one I may get is five years out. (If they ever make a Starcraft 3, which at this point I have heard nothing.)
I am not a pro, I am just diamond, so I don't speak to balance issues specifically (I know what I want to have, but that isn't objective.) But watching and listening to pro streams, I hear consensus on changes like removal of macro boosters which are nearly unanimous. The games by pros that I've watched during removal of macro boosters were some of the most interesting I've seen in the months before and after, even though they weren't top level play. I can't chalk that up to just being new units or new build orders, because since LotV started shifting economy and introducing new units, the build orders have been up in the air from time to time and the game's pace has changed several times.
I registered an account for TL today after years of lurking to say that I am boycotting LotV. As much fun as lurkers look to play, I don't want to support folding to marketing pressures over real game design efforts in a game series that I've loved since a child. I can get my fun from UMS and my depth of play from Starbow without LotV. I am simply too shaken by the inconsistent decision-making by the design team and the sudden shift of gears from a strong consensus by pros on pertinent issues to just settling down on balance testing for a release 45-odd days away.
|
On September 27 2015 02:07 [poe]minnek wrote:
Does anyone else feel that marketing and money is dictating the creation of this game again, rather than creating something intended to be epic? So far LotV is a good game, but it does not feel that these changes will have as much staying power as they need to.
I have serious concerns that their ear is turned to earning money and ending the Starcraft II trilogy on a "decent" note than to work with the community to create something they can continue to have a mutually beneficial relationship to. Unlike Brood War, Blizzard has maintained their control of SC2, so there is no doubt they could continue to monetize on tournaments into the future if the game were to stay strong the way BW did.
Based on size and cost of tournaments for LoL, Dota2 vs those for SC2, however, I think they may be considering this a lesser investment and letting it go. This makes me uncomfortable in supporting their decision by purchasing LotV at release - I don't want to show Blizzard that I am willing to accept a marginally better product when the next one I may get is five years out. (If they ever make a Starcraft 3, which at this point I have heard nothing.)
I am not a pro, I am just diamond, so I don't speak to balance issues specifically (I know what I want to have, but that isn't objective.) But watching and listening to pro streams, I hear consensus on changes like removal of macro boosters which are nearly unanimous. The games by pros that I've watched during removal of macro boosters were some of the most interesting I've seen in the months before and after, even though they weren't top level play. I can't chalk that up to just being new units or new build orders, because since LotV started shifting economy and introducing new units, the build orders have been up in the air from time to time and the game's pace has changed several times.
I registered an account for TL today after years of lurking to say that I am boycotting LotV. As much fun as lurkers look to play, I don't want to support folding to marketing pressures over real game design efforts in a game series that I've loved since a child. I can get my fun from UMS and my depth of play from Starbow without LotV. I am simply too shaken by the inconsistent decision-making by the design team and the sudden shift of gears from a strong consensus by pros on pertinent issues to just settling down on balance testing for a release 45-odd days away.
Sadly I already pre-purchased it ...
I don't really like the direction multiplayer is going but even if the game turn out to be even worse than HotS...
...at least the campaign looks good and with allied command I might persuade some friends to start to play some starcraft, especially if Blizzard decide to include allied command as the F2P (or playable if a paid player invite a friend) part of the game
So I think LotV will still worth my money.
|
I really like where Legacy beta is right now (played about 30 games since the latest patch).
From a Zerg's perspective I think Adept early game need nerfing and protoss lategame need buffing a bit. But I like where the macro mechanics are at, and the game overall is pretty solid from what I've played.
I think I'm finally ready to leave HOTS and move over to Legacy fully now, so good job blizzard in stabilising the beta.
|
On September 27 2015 01:58 xtorn wrote:
meanwhile, ive (re)discovered the insane fun of dota 2
I'm not sure what this has to do with this thread. Seems like a totally unrelated thought
|
On September 27 2015 02:01 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 01:58 xtorn wrote:
meanwhile, ive (re)discovered the insane fun of dota 2 Thats great for you, but that post is not any better than the ded gaem jokes on reddit.
it's just my way of saying i expected a little more from this update
|
The hate on this thread is epic ... my goodness.
|
Armored Adepts would be completely unvaiable against marauders and stalkers.
When the upgrades for the adept are changed then this unit should be balanced.
Also I made the experiences that the high damage per second rate of stimmed Terran bio with Medivac support wins against the slow damage per second rate of adepts.
Furthermore the Adept is looking light and not armored.
And armored Adepts would overlap with Stalkers.
No protoss will ever build an armored adept when they can build instead a stalker which has more attack range, has more mobility and movement speed, deals more damage per second, can shot air units and has the ability to teleport with blinkmicro.
Please just keep the adept light armored and viable.
|
Macro Mechanics always have been a part of Starcraft 2 and should stay in the expansion Starcraft 2 Legacy of the void too!
Do not change a running system!
But the beta macro mechanics are also nice
|
On September 27 2015 08:00 Powerfusion wrote:
Armored Adepts would be completely unvaiable against marauders and stalkers.
When the upgrades for the adept are changed then this unit should be balanced.
Also I made the experiences that the high damage per second rate of stimmed Terran bio with Medivac support wins against the slow damage per second rate of adepts.
Furthermore the Adept is looking light and not armored.
And armored Adepts would overlap with Stalkers.
No protoss will ever build an armored adept when they can build instead a stalker which has more attack range, has more mobility and movement speed, deals more damage per second, can shot air units and has the ability to teleport with blinkmicro.
Please just keep the adept light armored and viable.
The adept needs changing, the upgrades will not do it. The problem is early game, once T has stim and Medivacs then the Adepts are a little too weak, but in the early game they are god awfully strong.
Blizz needs to nerd their early strength, e.g. armoured or less HP, but buff their later game.
LotV is slowly getting into an OK state, but it is slow and I think they have focused too much on the error in trial and error.
|
i love how advocates on both sides of the macro-mechanics debate are claiming that in reality everyone wants macro-boosters altered according to their side's viewpoints.
On September 26 2015 06:21 [PkF] Wire wrote:
1) A balance patch before Blizzcon doesn't seem needed at all. HotS is overall a fine game.
2) New chrono is retarded and not at all an improvement over HotS. Revert back to HotS.
3) At least you're aware adepts are a problem. But I think warp prism play will have to be toned down too. Did you think about, I don't know, splitting warp-in and energy power and getting back to 5 sec warp-ins ?
4) Agree on the ravager upgrade diagnosis.
5) Ghost and ravens minor buffs : why not.
Overall a pretty underwhelming patch though. Release is coming so fast and now I feel we're bound to get an unfinished game.
to provide some perspective..
when u factor inflation SC1 was double the price of LotV.
the Academy was $200.
i think marine range was 200/200.
zergling rushes were unstoppable by terran because larva production was too fast
the bugs in SC1 upon release were so bad .. i'd say it was infested ...
http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/tough-times-on-the-road-to-starcraft
it was bad man.. bad.
the company didn't call itself Chaos and then switch to Blizzard fer nuttin.
|
Man, this doesn't feel like Blizzard releasing an expansion for their game. It feels like EA releasing a new version of Madden. The SC2 team just approached both the HotS and LotV expansion betas in a cowardly manner, clearly way too afraid of making any big changes. They just wanted to introduce new units while creating the least amount of work possible to rebalance the game.
And this feels like the first ever Blizzard game where they prioritized a release date over the gameplay to this degree. There were clearly some people in the dev team with grand ideas on how to improve the game but got overruled by the lazy ones.
|
On September 27 2015 12:03 andrewlt wrote:
Man, this doesn't feel like Blizzard releasing an expansion for their game. It feels like EA releasing a new version of Madden. The SC2 team just approached both the HotS and LotV expansion betas in a cowardly manner, clearly way too afraid of making any big changes. They just wanted to introduce new units while creating the least amount of work possible to rebalance the game.
And this feels like the first ever Blizzard game where they prioritized a release date over the gameplay to this degree. There were clearly some people in the dev team with grand ideas on how to improve the game but got overruled by the lazy ones.
That's a BIG stretch man. While I wish they were more bold with changes, madden is its own thing when it comes to that.
While I'm not happy with some things, I think LOTV is shaping up to be better than HOTS.
If I personally seem bitchy its cause removing the MM felt like a really positive change they only gave a little time to test and then yanked. I personally was having fun before and after they removed the MM. After the revert I'm just not enjoying the game as much.
I'm still keeping my preorder, I still think LOTV will be a great game and better than HOTS. I just wish the campaign story was on BW level. Really enjoyed the WOL story, HOTS was meh... I think this will be better than hots, but if its epic that would make me really happy. Nice and dark like BW
|
I still believe the best thing for the game, the best thing for the vast majority of players that are not the top pros, is the automatization of the macro mechanics. That entry barrier that involves repetitive boring steps helps no one and only artificially makes the game hard.
Keep the mechanics so you do not have to rebalance the game, and just make it automatic, Auto-mules, auto-inject, auto-chrono, higher level play will get better with more focus free for strategy, engagements and harrass. And normal level, the level most people play the game, will be easer and more rewarding.
Please return the automatic mechanics or just remove them. A perception problem on thinking zerg is "too easy" is not a real game problem, protoss has always been easy and the game still kept on going. And latter when the game gets better on the micro and strategy aspects that perception will be gone.
Game macro is difficult enough with keeping constant production, worker spread and avoiding supply block that not even top pros do all that perfectly. These serve as enough macro differentiation between lower and top level players.
|
On September 27 2015 12:03 andrewlt wrote: It feels like EA releasing a new version of Madden. The SC2 team just approached both the HotS and LotV expansion betas in a cowardly manner, clearly way too afraid of making any big changes. They just wanted to introduce new units while creating the least amount of work possible to rebalance the game.
EA charges full box price for each new edition of Madden. LotV is only $40 USD. Madden NFL now comes with a slew of tacked on microtransactions as well. So far, with Blizz you just buy the box and go.
http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-one/dlc/madden-nfl-16-ultimate-team-2200-points/123241
EA's last entry into the RTS genre was C&C4. How's that goin' ?
Comparing EA to Blizzard is silly.
|
that raven speed buff lol. pretty sure it's only going to make ravens more elusive in end game sky death ball comps
|
If the execution of terran mule is easy then automate it because it's boring and adds unnecessary clicks to the game. I liked the no-macro booster option but since you don't get enough time to rebalance from Blizzard management then automate it.
|
The biggest problem with macro mechanics are that they artificially speed up the game and the time when you max out when there is no reason to. In Hots you could max out around 12 minutes and in Lotv around 6-7. The game could easily be slowed down by removing macro mechanics and changing hard counters like immortal vs roach. There would be so much room for harass and outplaying your opponent, you wouldn't max out in 6 minutes and the battles would last longer.
|
Of what we've tried so far, we believe the current version is the best version for Starcraft II, and we'd like to make the decision between this and potentially reverting the changes to HotS. Our team is leaning towards keeping this version right now, but we would love to hear your feedback before making the final decision.
People have given plenty of feedback about MM. I don't think honestly Blizzard needs any more feedback - it's clear they have selective hearing. I think it's pretty fruitless to keep giving opinions. Nov 10 is coming soon anyway.
|
On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D
first time i hear from it, sounds cool :o
|
The biggest problem with macro mechanics are that they artificially speed up the game and the time when you max out when there is no reason to. In Hots you could max out around 12 minutes and in Lotv around 6-7
This is easily adressed by either increasing the supply maximum or reducing supply cost of units.
If you want to minimize the snowball effect it's actually very important that the income rate/base-ratio is high. Otherwise it's gonna result in one battle --> GG.
In BW workers kept scaling so you could have very high income late game, but early and mid game were often times quite passive. With LOTV economy, the BW solution isn't possible and thus it's an absolute must that the income rate (throughout the entire game) is super high.
Reaching the supply maximum is however a seperate issue.
|
WP is the problem, If you move out on ..finishing stim or getting 2 medevacs... a single 200 Mineral WP can hold you back, even with no units in it. It has toe potential to warp in 6-8 Zealots or adepts or whatever, + what ever it is carriing already.
in 1:1 zealots/adepts kill Marines and Marauder pretty easy, not to mention what 4 adepts do to a mineral line.
So you have to go back, completely removing the chance of doing damage to a teching Toss.
|
Blizzard: "we've decided to make it faster"
Pretty much the solution to everything.
You could probably just reduce all unit movement speed a flat 10-15% and instantly improve the game.
Of the new units lurker and ravenger are fine but the rest stink. Adepts in current form will frustrate so many players that they will be nerfed in the first patch. Disrupter - why not have just added the reaver? No infestor rework. Cyclone not interesting, liberator could be ok but we know it will get nerfed too.
They went down such a good path like 2 patches ago and then it's like they were told Nov 10, panicked and just made HotS 2.0.
We never got to truly test macro mechanics with no mule, no chrono, no injects.
I hope they are willing to still make some bigger changes post release but I doubt it.
|
On September 27 2015 18:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +The biggest problem with macro mechanics are that they artificially speed up the game and the time when you max out when there is no reason to. In Hots you could max out around 12 minutes and in Lotv around 6-7 This is easily adressed by either increasing the supply maximum or reducing supply cost of units. If you want to minimize the snowball effect it's actually very important that the income rate/base-ratio is high. Otherwise it's gonna result in one battle --> GG. In BW workers kept scaling so you could have very high income late game, but early and mid game were often times quite passive. With LOTV economy, the BW solution isn't possible and thus it's an absolute must that the income rate (throughout the entire game) is super high. Reaching the supply maximum is however a seperate issue.
Actually you can't reduce supply cost of units or increase the maximum supply, because a lot of the players do not have computers or internet connection that could handle the increase well enough.
I do not also agree with your conclusion that the income rate/base-ratio needs to be high. The game already has deathball vs deathball -> one battle = GG. We had less of the problem when the macro boosters were removed because people weren't able to max as easily. The game was more strategical and the individual units were more important. You are always going to lose the game if you decisively lose a big fight.
Also, the late game income would be same for Protoss & Zerg. So I can't see why there would be any effect on the remax. I guess lack of chrono would cause minor delay for the Protoss players, but nothing major. Especially if the power units had a slightly reduced build time.
|
On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D
How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery?
They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9.
People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone.
|
On September 27 2015 21:18 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery? They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9. People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone.
then people would have to admit blizzard does a fantastic job.
|
On September 27 2015 21:18 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery? They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9. People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone.
Well i am not sure if Artillery will be able to produce a good product on the technical side of things, but i have more faith in the design choices because i think Day9 knows what he is doing (moreso than blizzard's design team)
Maybe the end product will still suck because the people working on atlas aren't as capable, that is the most likely scenario tbh, but i just hope that won't be the case because LOTV is incredibly disappointing to me.
And no, why should i lower my expecations for a rts game? It's really simple, if i don't like the product i won't play (and maybe watch) it, idc if it is from blizzard, valve, riot or anyone else.
|
but i have more faith in the design choices because i think Day9 knows what he is doing (moreso than blizzard's design team)
What makes you say that?
And no, why should i lower my expecations for a rts game? It's really simple, if i don't like the product i won't play (and maybe watch) it, idc if it is from blizzard, valve, riot or anyone else.
You already lowered them, just not for Blizzard. Otherwise you wouldn't say the things you just said. You have 0 reason to believe Atlas will be good since they gave you nothing but talking.
Maybe Atlas will turn out to be great and the best RTS ever, but right now it's just a company that was trying to ride off of a hypewave around HTML5 and failed to deliver so far.
|
On September 27 2015 01:58 xtorn wrote:
meanwhile, ive (re)discovered the insane fun of dota 2
Until you realise how annoying it is to rely on team mates to play good as well. SC2 always wins out but dota is fun too.
|
On September 27 2015 21:18 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery? They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9. People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone.
Day9 has shown much more understanding of SC2 and gamedesign than David Kim. Maybe DK has depth that he cannot/must not/doesn't not want to show. But his commentaries on SC2 are not very satisfying to me.
And I give Artillery the benefit of the doubt because of that one blog in which they wrote about solving core problems of RTS designs and testing all sorts of shit (they gave the example of a unit respawn mechanic). Meanwhile the other developer studios just sit there and advertise each of their rushed, no-funding, 2-week beta RTS games with "look how classic of an RTS game this is. You will feel like playing a 1995 game in 2015. Also, this is for the casual players, we don't want to go big. Look how sluggish this unit moves, it's perfect. You can't do shit with it. Now it's all about the strategy!!!!!"
|
On September 27 2015 21:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 21:18 KeksX wrote:On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery? They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9. People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone. Day9 has shown much more understanding of SC2 and gamedesign than David Kim. Maybe DK has depth that he cannot/must not/doesn't not want to show.
What!? You think all those mechanics, tactics and scenarios analysed by Day9 are there by accident? "Oh hey turns out SC2 has incredible depth, and I was just making up units with my dice set."
No, sorry, this is just wrong. SC2 was designed by a very talented team and the only reason Day9 could've made such an incredibly good series (credit where credit is due) is that they are great game designers. Not all David Kim obviously, but all of the team. Including Dustin "Destructible Rock" Browder and all the jokes.
The reason we still are watching and playing this game is that these guys are really darn good.
But his commentaries on SC2 are not very satisfying to me.
Communication is sadly something Blizzard isn't very good at, but just because they don't talk about everything doesn't mean that they don't do it. If Game Designers would talk about everything they do, people would go apeshit since there are just SO many things people have to consider.
Also it's always tough if to develop an already established game that is set to release really really soon. Also Game Devlopment is not always just about what makes the best games for a big company. It's also about "What costs less money?" depending on the circumstances.
And I give Artillery the benefit of the doubt because of that one blog in which they wrote about solving core problems of RTS designs and testing all sorts of shit (they gave the example of a unit respawn mechanic). Meanwhile the other developer studios just sit there and advertise each of their rushed, no-funding, 2-week beta RTS games with "look how classic of an RTS game this is. You will feel like playing a 1995 game in 2015. Also, this is for the casual players, we don't want to go big. Look how sluggish this unit moves, it's perfect. You can't do shit with it. Now it's all about the strategy!!!!!"
See this is exactly what I mean. Because Blizzard is so bad at communication, better communication makes you lower your standards.
Artillery made a blog post you agree with and then you're all about him, even though they did nothing more than the companies you complained about.
Be realistic. When it comes down to facts, Artillery has nothing more to offer than all the rest. They even have yet to show any real gameplay in public.
|
The "big changes in LOTV" are starting to look like warpin got changed, a mineral patch was nerfed and a couple units were added. That being said, archon mode rocks so even with how conservative the changes were I still love the game.
|
On September 27 2015 21:57 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 21:48 Big J wrote:On September 27 2015 21:18 KeksX wrote:On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery? They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9. People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone. Day9 has shown much more understanding of SC2 and gamedesign than David Kim. Maybe DK has depth that he cannot/must not/doesn't not want to show. What!? You think all those mechanics, tactics and scenarios analysed by Day9 are there by accident? "Oh hey turns out SC2 has incredible depth, and I was just making up units with my dice set." No, sorry, this is just wrong. SC2 was designed by a very talented team and the only reason Day9 could've made such an incredibly good series (credit where credit is due) is that they are great game designers. Not all David Kim obviously, but all of the team. Including Dustin "Destructible Rock" Browder and all the jokes. The reason we still are watching and playing this game is that these guys are really darn good.
No I don't think that. But it would be incredible easy to improve the game at this point with 5years of knowledge. Ignorant opinions on stuff like damage point and plainly boring units designs... dat corruptor comment, wtf? That's all they can come up with? Give me an hour and I can come up with tons of more exciting abilities than peeing on buildings.
Shrugging of problems like mule-hammers or 200supply remaxes with "we hope it won't happen in LotV" and branding bad gameplay as "exciting and unique". + Show Spoiler +Did you see the WCS S1 finals video in which he talked about how he loved the mirror matchups, because they are so unique? Lol yeah, PvP and ZvZ are probably the most hated matchups by lightyears. If Starcraft only consisted of those two matchups, noone would play the game. That's how bad the gamedesign is in parts of the game. You have a 33% chance that the game is plain crap.
I really like this game, and I think Dustin Browder despite his obstinacy in certain questions was an amazing game designer for WoL. But HotS and LotV have not made any real progress. One could easily take the final state of WoL, make a hugeass balance patch like DotA does and get a game better than HotS and LotV combined, without any of the new units. + Show Spoiler +Probably in parts because of the amount of new units... A wise game designer once said that they want to make a game with a minimum amount of units. And they won't release 2more units per expansion. Maybe they will even remove some units. Dustin Browder. But they have basically abandoned that road completely at this point.
Communication is sadly something Blizzard isn't very good at, but just because they don't talk about everything doesn't mean that they don't do it. If Game Designers would talk about everything they do, people would go apeshit since there are just SO many things people have to consider. Also it's always tough if to develop an already established game that is set to release really really soon. Also Game Devlopment is not always just about what makes the best games for a big company. It's also about "What costs less money?" depending on the circumstances.
I can only judge them by what they communicate. And that's in parts horseshit. If they don't want to get judged like that they should try to make an effort. Again, pointing back to the most recent horseshit I already highlighted above, the corruptor ability, if their communication literally says the best recycle for the Corruptor, a unit that was identified in 2011 to be boring by Dustin Browder, then my opinion about those guys falls pretty fast.
On September 27 2015 21:57 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +And I give Artillery the benefit of the doubt because of that one blog in which they wrote about solving core problems of RTS designs and testing all sorts of shit (they gave the example of a unit respawn mechanic). Meanwhile the other developer studios just sit there and advertise each of their rushed, no-funding, 2-week beta RTS games with "look how classic of an RTS game this is. You will feel like playing a 1995 game in 2015. Also, this is for the casual players, we don't want to go big. Look how sluggish this unit moves, it's perfect. You can't do shit with it. Now it's all about the strategy!!!!!" See this is exactly what I mean. Because Blizzard is so bad at communication, better communication makes you lower your standards. Artillery made a blog post you agree with and then you're all about him, even though they did nothing more than the companies you complained about. Be realistic. When it comes down to facts, Artillery has nothing more to offer than all the rest. They even have yet to show any real gameplay in public.
I always trust in blizzard to make a good game. They did. But they probably are putting rocks in their own way at this point with SC2, trying to not change the game while trying to change the game. Their vague talks about "the next RTS game" they plan to make have sounded much more inspired than their plans for SC2. It sounds like they have ideas, but they can't or don't want to implement them in SC2.
Oh and btw Day9 has made a name for himself on Youtube and as a gaming-personality. Whether this makes him a great gamedesigner I don't know, but I also don't know if we can say that David Kim is a good game designer for what SC2 is. The awesome parts of it seem to date back before he was the big man in charge.
|
On September 26 2015 08:29 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 08:12 -NegativeZero- wrote:On September 26 2015 06:59 [PkF] Wire wrote: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. the only real problem is specifically with the warp prism warp-in being too strong. and isn't that problem huge ?
it's easy to adjust the warp prism warp-in independently of the actual warpgate. aside from that, the warpgate mechanic is significantly better than it used to be.
|
Big J I know where you're coming from, I'm plenty disappointed from Blizzard myself.
But you cannot deny that they are great Game Designers. The problems we have with them are at such an incredibly high level, 99% of the players out there won't even know what those mean.
Those type of standards is something no other company can uphold at this time when it comes to RTS.
Oh and btw Day9 has made a name for himself on Youtube and as a gaming-personality. Whether this makes him a great gamedesigner I don't know, but I also don't know if we can say that David Kim is a good game designer for what SC2 is. The awesome parts of it seem to date back before he was the big man in charge.
I think working on a great game and being responsible for a lot of it's best feats is more credibility/qualification than "being a personality.".
|
On September 27 2015 23:16 KeksX wrote:But you cannot deny that they are great Game Designers. The problems we have with them are at such an incredibly high level, 99% of the players out there won't even know what those mean. Haha, a lot of people would argue with that. To me it seems extremely naive, but perhaps you are right. Maybe they are on the whole new level, nobody else understand the game or what's fun.
|
On September 28 2015 00:13 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 23:16 KeksX wrote:But you cannot deny that they are great Game Designers. The problems we have with them are at such an incredibly high level, 99% of the players out there won't even know what those mean. Haha, a lot of people would argue with that. To me it seems extremely naive, but perhaps you are right. Maybe they are on the whole new level, nobody else understand the game or what's fun.
Are we playing and enjoying this game for 5 years now or are we not?
Or are you here because the game is so incredibly bad?
|
After playing several games on the current patch I can say for sure that SC2 never has been that little fun to me since release of WoL! I actually consider quitting 1v1 multiplayer, as everything feels so fast paced, unforgiving and coin-flippy ...
|
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol.
|
On September 28 2015 00:13 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 23:16 KeksX wrote:But you cannot deny that they are great Game Designers. The problems we have with them are at such an incredibly high level, 99% of the players out there won't even know what those mean. Haha, a lot of people would argue with that. To me it seems extremely naive, but perhaps you are right. Maybe they are on the whole new level, nobody else understand the game or what's fun.
Yes, for the most part the vocal crowd of self-proclaimed game design experts don't understand the game. Blizzard has made some really great changes recently, like the new Photon Overcharge alone gives Protoss so much extra flexibility and depth, but most people only seem to care about Blizzard making the game easier so that mechanics will stop blocking their strategical genius from shining through, which they think they possess.
|
I think working on a great game and being responsible for a lot of it's best feats is more credibility/qualification than "being a personality.".
How do you know the game is great? Aren't you just guessing?
But you cannot deny that they are great Game Designers. The problems we have with them are at such an incredibly high level, 99% of the players out there won't even know what those mean.
Game-design is about the 99%. There is a huge misconception that game-design is about esports, whereas it's about making an expereince that is fun the target audience (the 99%).
So when people don't enjoy playing the game it's a sign that they are not good game-designers.
|
On September 28 2015 01:47 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I think working on a great game and being responsible for a lot of it's best feats is more credibility/qualification than "being a personality.". How do you know the game is great? Aren't you just guessing?
I'm talking about SC2 Design Team(specifically David Kim) vs Day9. I know that SC2 is great because I, and many others, have been enjoying it for 5 years now.
But you cannot deny that they are great Game Designers. The problems we have with them are at such an incredibly high level, 99% of the players out there won't even know what those mean
Game-design is about the 99%. There is a huge misconception that game-design is about esports, whereas it's about making an expereince that is fun the target audience (the 99%).
So when people don't enjoy playing the game it's a sign that they are not good game-designers.
I'm not talking about eSports. I'm not doing eSports. You're not doing eSports. No one but a few hundred players are doing eSports. However there's a ton of players out there enjoying 1v1 ladder. There are 100k+ people watching tournaments, and all of those are enjoying the work of the SC2 Game Design team.
|
Ｉ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｈｏｐｅ Ｂｌｉｚｚａｒｄ ｇｏｅｓ ｂａｃｋ ｔｏ ＨｏｔＳ Ｃｈｒｏｎｏ Ｂｏｏｓｔ
|
On September 27 2015 21:41 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +but i have more faith in the design choices because i think Day9 knows what he is doing (moreso than blizzard's design team) What makes you say that? Show nested quote +
And no, why should i lower my expecations for a rts game? It's really simple, if i don't like the product i won't play (and maybe watch) it, idc if it is from blizzard, valve, riot or anyone else.
You already lowered them, just not for Blizzard. Otherwise you wouldn't say the things you just said. You have 0 reason to believe Atlas will be good since they gave you nothing but talking. Maybe Atlas will turn out to be great and the best RTS ever, but right now it's just a company that was trying to ride off of a hypewave around HTML5 and failed to deliver so far.
Day9 sometimes talks about gamedesign on his stream and back then in his dailys (about rts design in general)
I really liked these thoughts and rts philosophies. Obviously this doesn't mean that he can create a great game, but right now i have hope that he can.
And no i didn't lower any expectations, we just don't know much about atlas, as soon as there is an actual alpha/beta to play and i see the gameplay i can comment further on it.
Right now there is just hope (partly because of day9, but also because it might be the only competetive rts we will get in a long time)
I like sc2, but as Big J said i also think that it could be EASILY made a lot better because the basis is pretty good. The details aren't though and this is exactly what makes the difference in the end.
|
However there's a ton of players out there enjoying 1v1 ladder. There are 100k+ people watching tournaments, and all of those are enjoying the work of the SC2 Game Design team.
Well there aren't 100K concurrent viewers anymore (maybe at blizzcoN). But the number of esport viewers means nothing when it comes do being a good designer or not. The designers job is to make the company he is working for the most amount of money (over the longer haul). You do that by making a game that is fun to play. David Kim hasn't been capable of that.
And when it comes to esports, I don't agree that the design team has done anything impressive when it comes to making the game more fun to watch
The RTS genre in inheriently a more interesting genre to watch as an esport than MOBA's and thus the player-to-viewer ratio is higher. So given the conditions, it's also obvious that Blizzard has an easier time making a viewerfriendly game than Riot/Valve has with LOL/DOTA.
Let's look at some criterias for good design below:
- Great micro interactions - Thus are very limited. Most micro interactions are pretty terrible.
- Diversity - Sc2 has awfull diversity.
- Comeback potential? Isn't very high. We seldomly see back-and-fourth games as many games are snowbally.
- Lots of action? I guess Blizzard has "solved" this by overbuffing harass units, but it's not really difficult to do that. What is difficult is rewarding different types of early/midgame aggressive tools with lots of counterplay that feels fun for both players. Blizzard hasn't been capable of that.
I know that SC2 is great because I, and many others, have been enjoying it for 5 years now.
So let's assume - hypothetically - that Sc2's active multiplayer active playerbase is twice of what it actually is. What adverb would you then use to describe David Kim's design skill?
You already set the bar pretty high by using the term "great"?
I would only use great to someone who really succeeded in making an easy-to-learn difficult to master game with great micro interactions, a ton of diversity and lots of back-and-fourth games.
What David Kim is mediocore. He is definitely not worse than the average redditor or TL dude but his trackrecord isn't good and his comments/articles show alot of flaws in his methodology.
|
The RTS genre in inheriently a more interesting genre to watch as an esport than MOBA's and thus the player-to-viewer ratio is higher. So given the conditions, it's also obvious that Blizzard has an easier time making a viewerfriendly game than Riot/Valve has with LOL/DOTA
I don't see why this should be true at all 
|
On September 28 2015 02:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +The RTS genre in inheriently a more interesting genre to watch as an esport than MOBA's and thus the player-to-viewer ratio is higher. So given the conditions, it's also obvious that Blizzard has an easier time making a viewerfriendly game than Riot/Valve has with LOL/DOTA I don't see why this should be true at all
It's easier to identify skill in an RTS. Microing multiple units at once is difficult and seperates players.
And viewers want to be impressed by seeing pro players make sick moves. In MOBA's it requires some very complicated hero design for that to be the case.
|
On September 28 2015 02:33 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +However there's a ton of players out there enjoying 1v1 ladder. There are 100k+ people watching tournaments, and all of those are enjoying the work of the SC2 Game Design team. Well there aren't 100K concurrent viewers anymore (maybe at blizzcoN). But the number of esport viewers means nothing when it comes do being a good designer or not. The designers job is to make the company he is working for the most amount of money (over the longer haul). You do that by making a game that is fun to play. David Kim hasn't been capable of that.
Then why are you and all the other whiners here when the game isn't fun to play?
Whether you like it or not. SC2 has been extremely succesful, it's the uncontested #1 RTS game 5 years straight and has an active player base of 200-300k people five years after its release. How many games have been this succesful?
If you don't enjoy the game then that's fine but don't assume that all other people agree with your sentiments.
The majority of players find sc2 incredibly fun to play otherwise it wouldn't have been this succesful.
And you only get a succesful game by having a brilliant fantastic game designer which DK is.
|
On September 28 2015 02:42 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 02:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:The RTS genre in inheriently a more interesting genre to watch as an esport than MOBA's and thus the player-to-viewer ratio is higher. So given the conditions, it's also obvious that Blizzard has an easier time making a viewerfriendly game than Riot/Valve has with LOL/DOTA I don't see why this should be true at all It's easier to identify skill in an RTS. Microing multiple units at once is difficult and seperates players. And viewers want to be impressed by seeing pro players make sick moves. In MOBA's it requires some very complicated hero design for that to be the case.
Meh, it is almost NEVER possible to identify any skill if you didn't play the game yourself. You simply have no idea how hard something is to execute.
So i really doubt your explanation is sound.
The advantage mobas have (team games in general) is that all the action on the map is done by a lot of players, which makes it a lot easier to enforce i guess.
Obviously the game design of mobas (with creeps and lanes) helps a ton.
Sc2 doesn't have any real way to enforce action which is why we oftentimes have turtle games.
LoL actually does an impressively BAD job enforcing action considering that it is a moba, ironically people watch it regardless.
|
Meh, it is almost NEVER possible to identify any skill if you didn't play the game yourself. You simply have no idea how hard something is to execute
Yeh sure, I am talking about it for players who have played the game. When you can see units being moved around, it's quite visually. However, when the skillcap is related to some strategic or timingspecific it becomes a ton harder for the average person to be impressed.
Like it's no coincidence that Heroes of the Storm viewernumbers are still below that of Starcraft, even though the game has a ton of action. The issue is that as viewer you just see five players clashing together and spamming abilities, which is something that every rank 1 player can do (mechanically speaking).
When it comes to watchability for people who have not played the game I think both MOBA's and RTS suffer a lot. FPS games have a bit of an advantage here and obvious sportsgames (fifa/madden) are the easiest to sell to a broader audience.
The advantage mobas have (team games in general) is that all the action on the map is done by a lot of players, which makes it a lot easier to enforce i guess.
Obviously the game design of mobas (with creeps and lanes) helps a ton.
Sc2 doesn't have any real way to enforce action which is why we oftentimes have turtle games.
I don't think there is a fundamental difference between the RTS and the MOBA genre in that regard. I think RTS games could (and will have in the future - * Project Atlas *) an objective focus that rewards players for going out on the map to be aggressive.
The fact that Starcraft wasn't designed in mind to be a "next-generation" RTS, but rather continued on with the 90s version of building a base and doing nothing for the first 5-10 mins is imo just another indication that these aren't brilliant designers. Brilliant designers sets trends and innovates because they understand what the future consumer/gamer appreciates.
Then why are you and all the other whiners here when the game isn't fun to play?
Good thing this is a discussion forum and I am not playing the game while writing.
Which reminds me, why are you here when you think the game is fun to play? Why not play the game?
Yes I know, logic is a bitch and sometimes your doublestandards bites you.
Whether you like it or not. SC2 has been extremely succesful, it's the uncontested #1 RTS game 5 years straight and has an active player base of 200-300k people five years after its release. How many games have been this succesful?
Again you are setting the bar high. If 200-300k numbers are EXTREMELY SUCCESFUl. What is Dota then? What is LOL? What is WOW.
FYI, Starcraft is the least succesful Blizzard franchise.
Seriously man, get your adjectives under control.
The majority of players find sc2 incredibly fun to play otherwise it wouldn't have been this succesful.
The majority of Dota players think Dota is better than LOL and thus DOTA must be better than LOL according to your logic.
Please start thinking twice about the actual implications of what your saying before you write. This is getting tiring.
And you only get a succesful game by having a brilliant fantastic game designer which DK is.
I just listed some criterias for good design where he clearly hasn't done a great/fantastic job. Your not even commenting on that but just repeating your nonsense logic. Your just making selfulfilling statements over and over to proove your nonsense logic.
|
On September 28 2015 03:07 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Then why are you and all the other whiners here when the game isn't fun to play? Good thing this is a discussion forum and I am not playing the game while writing. Which reminds me, why are you here when you think the game is fun to play? Why not play the game?
So why do you go to a forum of a game you don't play and talk shit? I don't go to the LoL forums either and say how bad the game is and only noobs play that.
Again you are setting the bar high. If 200-300k numbers are EXTREMELY SUCCESFUl. What is Dota then? What is LOL? What is WOW.
FYI, Starcraft is the least succesful Blizzard franchise.
Seriously man, get your adjectives under control.
So every game except LoL and Dota is a failure? And you can't compare games from different genres. The RTS market is not as big anymore so it's very impressive that sc2 could maintain such a high player and viewer count.
I just listed some criterias for good design where he clearly hasn't done a great/fantastic job. Your not even commenting on that but just repeating your nonsense logic. Your just making selfulfilling statements over and over to proove your nonsense logic.
I think the criteria of a random TL guy are pretty worthless compared to the criteria of the lead designer of the biggest RTS for the last 5 years.
|
You guys demonize David Kim as if he could do whatever he wanted. He's probably the most understaffed lead designer in modern times. Not all his design choices are design choices; he has to ship this game in 2 months!
When WOL and HotS came, he was NOT in charge. There's a lot of mess to clean.
You can bash Blizzard all you want, but attacking DK personally is unfair.
That said...
Come one Blizzard, wtf! Don't rush this shit!
|
On September 28 2015 02:33 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I know that SC2 is great because I, and many others, have been enjoying it for 5 years now. So let's assume - hypothetically - that Sc2's active multiplayer active playerbase is twice of what it actually is. What adverb would you then use to describe David Kim's design skill? You already set the bar pretty high by using the term "great"? I would only use great to someone who really succeeded in making an easy-to-learn difficult to master game with great micro interactions, a ton of diversity and lots of back-and-fourth games. What David Kim is mediocore. He is definitely not worse than the average redditor or TL dude but his trackrecord isn't good and his comments/articles show alot of flaws in his methodology.
I'm not tying this to numbers, I just expressed the fact that a significant portion of players are enjoying this game for 5 years straight which in my eyes is great.
"Great" is not an objective term you can tie to some arbitrary scale and I'm not sure why you want me to do that.
Of course this is largely a subjective opinion but there are some undeniable facts as well.
I would only use great to someone who really succeeded in making an easy-to-learn difficult to master game with great micro interactions, a ton of diversity and lots of back-and-fourth games.
What has SC2 been for you? I like to anti-circlejerk about SC2 as much as the next guy, but all of the things you mentioned are definitely a part of SC2, maybe more and less depending on what time of meta/patch/expansion you look at, but SC2 is definitely not a boring, monotone game with only onesided matches.
Anyway, I'm not going to go down the route of trying to nitpick things. Blizzard's design team has many many flaws, but they still have developed the game I've loved for the past 5 years and to say that that is "mediocre" would simply be a lie. You are around since 2010 as well, Hider. Either you love mediocrity or you're being dishonest with yourself.
|
What has SC2 been for you? I
Well when I got into Sc2 I used to be obsessed about trying to improve. When you are focussed on improving you think less about whether the core gameplay is fun or not.
However, today I really just wanna play a game more casually, and now all of the design flaws of the game becomes obvious because it's so hard to get into some of the fun parts of the game (which are great micro interactions).
Specifically regarding macromechanics, I don't really feel them as much as - say someone like TB - because I spend enough time to practice them and thus I can actually focus on micro. So the exact issue I am talking about is not actually as relevanta for me as it is for a lot of other people.
The RTS genre still has gigantic potential imo and it's why I am very interested in this from a design discussion.
I think Project Atlas has a lot of the right ideas, but RTS design is very complicated with lots of factors to take into account. So even if they get one or two areas correct, the game might still not work out.
Most importantly for me is how the micro will feel in the game. If micro interactions are fun and have a high skillcap, I think the game could be really succesful.
Blizzard's design team has many many flaws, but they still have developed the game
The thing that stands out to me for Starcraft compared to other RTS games is that the game doesn't run in slow motion. I don't know why every RTS game designer think its interesting to have units that take 4 minutes to get from one side of the map to another.
More importantly, units in slowmotion typically aren't very microable. Like Imagine stimmed marines at 1.5 movement speed... Pretty limited how you could micro those units.
I also don't think Starcraft is a bad game or that David Kim sucks, however I feel the multiplayer experience is mediocre.
|
On September 28 2015 03:57 Hider wrote:Well when I got into Sc2 I used to be obsessed about trying to improve. But when you - later on in life - try to play it casually, all of the design flaws of the game becomes obvious because it's so hard to get into some of the fun parts of the game (which are great micro interactions). The RTS genre still has gigantic potential imo and it's why I am very interested in this from a design discussion.
That is something I can completely agree with on all terms. But that doesn't take away from the overall experience or makes the game mediocre in my eyes.
|
@"the dead RTS market": I need to point out that this is a perception that is not shared everywhere, because many people consider MOBAs strategy games. Which makes sense, both from looking at the origin of MOBAs (or ARTS as it used to be called) as well as the similar playerbase.
The MOBA's as we know them today are spiritual successors of RTS games like Warcraft or even furtherback Herzog Zwei, not just due to DotA's origin in WC3, but because creating a fantasy strategy game with very heavy focus on unit management was one of the original Warcraft intentions, in contrast to other RTS games of that time. MOBA's merely take that to the next level.
TLDR: The RTS market isn't dead. The popular RTS subgenre at the moment is MOBA and one could argue that the genre is stronger than ever. It's the traditional/classic RTS games that cannot keep up, but the playerbase for RTS games is out there.
|
Macro Mechanics
Thank you for your participation and feedback yet again throughout this week. Making a decision in this area is probably the most difficult choice we've ever faced during Starcraft II’s development. Both the community and our development team members have had an evenly split opinion on the topic, and no matter which way we go, there will be an equal number of players that are for and against the decision. Because of this, 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.
?
+ Show Spoiler +Poll: Happy with Sept. 17 macro changes?Yes to all? (25) 9% No to all? (225) 80% Only to Zerg (7) 2% Only to Protoss (9) 3% Only to Zerg (0) 0% Only to Z and P (8) 3% Only to Z and T (4) 1% Only to P and T (4) 1% 282 total votes Your vote: Happy with Sept. 17 macro changes? (Vote): Yes to all?
(Vote): No to all?
(Vote): Only to Zerg
(Vote): Only to Protoss
(Vote): Only to Zerg
(Vote): Only to Z and P
(Vote): Only to Z and T
(Vote): Only to P and T
Poll: Which Version of Macro Boosters have you had the most Fun with?No Macro Boosters (Chrono, Mule, Inject Removed) (1029) 61% Fully Manual Macro (aka. HOTS Macro Boosters) (415) 24% Semi-Auto Macro (Current Patch) (252) 15% 1696 total votes Your vote: Which Version of Macro Boosters have you had the most Fun with? (Vote): Fully Manual Macro (aka. HOTS Macro Boosters)
(Vote): No Macro Boosters (Chrono, Mule, Inject Removed)
(Vote): Semi-Auto Macro (Current Patch)
|
On September 28 2015 03:59 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 03:57 Hider wrote:What has SC2 been for you? I Well when I got into Sc2 I used to be obsessed about trying to improve. But when you - later on in life - try to play it casually, all of the design flaws of the game becomes obvious because it's so hard to get into some of the fun parts of the game (which are great micro interactions). The RTS genre still has gigantic potential imo and it's why I am very interested in this from a design discussion. That is something I can completely agree with on all terms. But that doesn't take away from the overall experience or makes the game mediocre in my eyes.
Well let me specifiy: It's mediocre relative to how good it could have been.
If for instance the game had great diversity, then I might argue that the game is decent.
If it also had both great divesity and great micro interaction, I would say the designers and the game were great.
If it had a low learning curve on top of that, I would argue that the designers are absolutely fantastic.
But given all of the flaws and unusued potential, it's hard for me to give the designers a grade better than mediocre/average.
|
@"the dead RTS market": I need to point out that this is a perception that is not shared everywhere, because many people consider MOBAs strategy games. Which makes sense, both from looking at the origin of MOBAs (or ARTS as it used to be called) as well as the similar playerbase.
I also think it makes a ton of sense to put MOBA's into the RTS category. The reason is that I imagine that future RTS games will get much closer to that of MOBA's.
For instance imagine an objective focussed RTS game - like Project Atlas seem to be - with a focus on micro over macro.
What are the actual differences between that and a game like Heroes of the Storm?
In heroes of the storm there are AI monsters that attacks towers, but is that really a major difference? Couldn't we imagine that a future A-RTS could have some type of similar mechanic that protected your units when trying to push down an enemy position (similar to how minions work in MOBA's)?
So overall, I think the only real difference is that you typical just control one hero in a MOBA whereas you control multiple units in an RTS.
And even that might not also be a strict difference. If a future MOBA attempts to create a bit more "micro"-heroes (as Lost Vikings), will we still call it a MOBA then?
So I think that as the genres move closer to each other (as MOBAs move away from last-hitting) and RTS games moves towards less macro and more objective-focus, that MOBA's and RTS will be considered siblings rather than cousins.
|
I don't think RTS and MOBAs are anything alike and I don't think they are moving closer together.
|
On September 28 2015 04:20 Ansibled wrote:
I don't think RTS and MOBAs are anything alike and I don't think they are moving closer together.
Sick argumentationen that demonstrates you spend alot of time reading about Project Atlas.
/sarcasm.
And if you don't think Project Atlas (or that type of RTS game is the future) then you basically declare the genre dead since the old classical "macro-style" RTS has been tested and isn't working.
|
So overall, I think the only real difference is that you typical just control one hero in a MOBA whereas you control multiple units in an RTS.
Yep and i don't see why mobas would want to increase the heroes which require multitasking tbh. There already are these heroes in dota and typically these are the ones who are barely picked. People in general don't like multitasking.
|
Yep and i don't see why mobas would want to increase the heroes which require multitasking tbh. There already are these heroes in dota and typically these are the ones who are barely picked. People in general don't like multitasking.
Doens't neccasarily have to be multitasking, but could just be micro. I think MOBA's will and should do it as a long as its not something that's forced down onto the players.
Imagine if you could pick "control multiple heroes/units" at once as a strategical option in the customization proces of the hero.
I don't see any downside to that. Rather I just see it as a way to diversify the game while significantly increasing the skillcap.
|
RTS and MOBAs are completely different genres, only brought together by the fact that the interface and control comes from it being the spawn of a UMS map for WC3. Gameplay-wise MOBAs have more in common with the duelling interface of Diablo than an RTS like SC2, with single unit control, items and neutral mobs.
On September 28 2015 04:25 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 04:20 Ansibled wrote:
I don't think RTS and MOBAs are anything alike and I don't think they are moving closer together. And if you don't think Project Atlas (or that type of RTS game is the future) then you basically declare the genre dead since the old classical "macro-style" RTS has been tested and isn't working.
Genres of games have waves of popularity. In the late 90s and early 00s RTS's were super popular, but gradually declined when the market was oversaturated; this doesn't mean the genre is dead however. You can take a look at roguelikes and tactical squad-games for genres that suddenly reappeared from being basically stone dead for years, it just takes some good games to reignite passion for it. I mean lets face it, the last great RTS before SC2 was basically WC3, 7 years prior - noone has really bothered trying out the market after the decline in popularity about a decade ago. That the only big RTS being played is going in the micro direction due to current popularity of MOBAs means very little for how the genre will evolve since there's really nothing to compare with.
|
Genres of games have waves of popularity. In the late 90s and early 00s RTS's were super popular, but gradually declined when the market was oversaturated; this doesn't mean the genre is dead however. You can take a look at roguelikes and tactical squad-games for genres that suddenly reappeared from being basically stone dead for years, it just takes some good games to reignite passion for it.
Yes, that's what I basically am saying. I am saying that gamedesigners need to make RTS games that appealrs to the current gaming audience, and that is definitely doable. But people don't enjoy mindless APM spams like macro and they don't enjoy an extremely high knowledge-learning barrier. Rather RTS games needs to focus more on micro interactions.
RTS and MOBAs are completely different genres, only brought together by the fact that the interface and control comes from it being the spawn of a UMS map for WC3. Gameplay-wise MOBAs have more in common with the duelling interface of Diablo than an RTS like SC2, with single unit control, items and neutral mobs.
Well first of all, the RTS genre and MOBA's are closer related than the FPS genre and MOBA/RTS's. I definitely felt that when I started playing MOBA's I had a huge advantage due to my click-accuracry being much higher than that of other newbies whereas I don't have such an advantage in games like CoD and CS:Go.
That makes MOBA and RTS related as cousins. The question is what will happen in the future? Will they move further or closer to each other?
As I wrote, the expected future focus on micro interactions of the RTS genre and the objective focus of the MOBA-genre will move the RTS and MOBA genre to brothers and sisters rather than cousins. Both genres will be about moving out on the map to secure an objective, and that objective will grant the team (player) an advantage.
Classical "build-a-base and spend lots of time macroing"-RTS games will die (or have already died) post LOTV. No game developer is gonna see any potential in that subgenre.
However, there is possibilites for the A-RTS genre, since previous A-RTS games have been ridicilously slow without any focus on micro interactions. As a consequence, they haven't been succesful.
But I believe that if competent designers works on such a project, they could potentially create a relatively easy-to-learn game with a high skillcap.
Thus in maybe 5-10 years there won't be a bigger difference between the most prominent RTS's and MOBA's than the difference between an A-RTS (I guess like Company of Heroes? or perhaps Warcraft 3) and a game like Starcraft 2 today.
|
Because of this, 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
WTF?
This whole debacle where they tried macro mechanic changes and convinced us they were actually looking at changes only to revert them all back right before release totally stinks. They didn't give zeromus a chance, and they probably never intended to change macro mechanics but only string us along.
|
On September 28 2015 03:57 Hider wrote:
Well when I got into Sc2 I used to be obsessed about trying to improve. When you are focussed on improving you think less about whether the core gameplay is fun or not.
However, today I really just wanna play a game more casually, and now all of the design flaws of the game becomes obvious because it's so hard to get into some of the fun parts of the game (which are great micro interactions).
Blizzard already made a game for you. They call it Heroes of the Storm, you should try. Its free and you can even play with your friends!
|
On September 28 2015 06:30 Tiaraju9 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 03:57 Hider wrote:
Well when I got into Sc2 I used to be obsessed about trying to improve. When you are focussed on improving you think less about whether the core gameplay is fun or not.
However, today I really just wanna play a game more casually, and now all of the design flaws of the game becomes obvious because it's so hard to get into some of the fun parts of the game (which are great micro interactions). Blizzard already made a game for you. They call it Heroes of the Storm, you should try. Its free and you can even play with your friends!
No they didn't, and I said this many times by now: The skillcap in that game is too low.
It's one of the biggest misconceptions in the community: That the skillcap exists to satisfy the top players.
No the skillcap is needed for the regular/decent player who wants to look up to pro's and be inspired by them.
That doesn't mean, however, that the regular player wants to spend many hours to attempt to get as good as the pro's. But he is interested in improving his skills without "going all in on it".
If you look at a game like League of Legends there are tons of silver-plat players who play all of the "high skil champs", even though they aren't very good of them.
Why is that the case? Because they like the feeling of outplaying their opponent, and they want to spend a bit of time learning the game to get better at those champions.
The least played champs in League of Legends - across all skill levels - are the easiest/simplest champions, which unfortunately is the types of designs Blizzard has implemented into Heroes of the Storm.
Check out my elaboration on the subject in this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/493914-the-irony-of-skill-ceiling-discussions?page=2
|
On September 28 2015 06:30 Tiaraju9 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 03:57 Hider wrote:
Well when I got into Sc2 I used to be obsessed about trying to improve. When you are focussed on improving you think less about whether the core gameplay is fun or not.
However, today I really just wanna play a game more casually, and now all of the design flaws of the game becomes obvious because it's so hard to get into some of the fun parts of the game (which are great micro interactions). Blizzard already made a game for you. They call it Heroes of the Storm, you should try. Its free and you can even play with your friends!
why play a game that matches your interests when you can play a game instead that isn't for you but enables you to complain the shit out of the forums how everything about the game sucks and the game developers are incompetent?
|
1 where I can download replays of lotv?
2 In LOTV is good strategy to use Bio Ball + liberators?
3 LOTV have collector's edition? and when it will be available?
4 where i can to download a replays from pro players (lotv and hots)?
5 TY
|
On September 28 2015 06:51 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 06:30 Tiaraju9 wrote:On September 28 2015 03:57 Hider wrote:
Well when I got into Sc2 I used to be obsessed about trying to improve. When you are focussed on improving you think less about whether the core gameplay is fun or not.
However, today I really just wanna play a game more casually, and now all of the design flaws of the game becomes obvious because it's so hard to get into some of the fun parts of the game (which are great micro interactions). Blizzard already made a game for you. They call it Heroes of the Storm, you should try. Its free and you can even play with your friends! why play a game that matches your interests when you can play a game instead that isn't for you but enables you to complain the shit out of the forums how everything about the game sucks and the game developers are incompetent?
Seriosuly, what goes on your mind when you start writing. You've seen my previous threads where I advocated for the easy-to learn difficult to master approach and specifically mentioned Heroes of the Storm as a failure.
This concept is so simple, and I repeated it many times. No way you cannot have seen it by now, but yet you still seem imcapable of understanding it.
Let me give you an example. In the thread I referenced, I wrote this:
In a game like Heroes of the Storm, the expected win/rate of a highly skilled soloq player who plays against inferior opponents might be 55%-60%, whereas in other MOBA's it could be 60-65%. In a similar situation, the expected win/rate in CS GO might be 70%......
In order to motivate decent players to get even better, they need to be convinced that further investment into the game is worth it, and that's where a high skillcap is neccasary.
And you responded with this:
^this 100%
.
And now you forgot what my stance is? (and the above situation wasn't the only time I commented on Heroes of the Storm. I done that multiple times).
How on earth can the easy-to-learn difficult to master concept be so difficult for you to understand? I am genuinly curiois. My theory is that you are either incredibly unintelligent or simply intentionally trolling now. (probably a combination).
|
On September 28 2015 06:56 vAntD wrote:
1 where I can download replays of lotv?
2 In LOTV is good strategy to use Bio Ball + liberators?
3 LOTV have collector's edition? and when it will be available?
4 where i can to download a replays from pro players (lotv and hots)?
5 TY
1. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Replay_Websites. I doubt there are many good LotV ones up yet though.
2. At this stage it seems so, though nobody is close to figuring out the game yet, and the game is still going to be patched a lot.
3. Yes, it'll be available at launch, google for it and you can see what it includes.
4. Most pro players don't upload their replays. Some tournaments do though, including IEM, Dreamhack and WCS. Look through here and you'll see some: http://www.teamliquid.net/forumsearch.php?q=replays. They're all HotS, if you want to learn LotV you should watch streamers (check the right-hand sidebar and pick someone of your race).
5. TY is a strong player but unfortunately didn't make Blizzcon because he lost vs Byul in SSL and KT Rolster didn't want to send him to Dreamhack despite his strong proleague and invidual league performance this year. (:p)
|
where i can download the replays of dremhack stockholm?
|
A lot of page 10 on the "macro RTS" and the success of MOBAs is exactly what drove me to Company of Heroes 2.
I got sick of the boring macro and bad game design, CoH2 is a lot more intimate and micro-sensitive, lots of positioning etc. dare I say more like Brood War than SC2?
In some ways.
There are some bad things, it needs optimization and STILL DOESN'T HAVE CUSTOM HOTKEYS AFTER ALL THIS TIME, but through a COMMUNITY EFFORT we 'fought back' against lead designer Quinn Duffy and got the RNG bullshit plane crashes severely nerfed, stupid tank crits RNG saving them from death redesigned into fun things, and are getting flame RNG and AoE wiping squads RNG ALL pretty much fixed.
|
I was thinking what if blizzard where to make balance changes with 2v2 in mind on a map like Cactus valley with all possible matchups in mind?
Everything extreme would have to be nerfed, gateway allins, turbovacs, mutas because the possible of doing it 2x on one player.
At the same time it wouldn't be possible to play defensive with out being on the map incase you need to help your allie.
I think the changes that would be required would cause a lot of the unforgiving factors to go away having a huge positive effect on 1v1.
And ofcourse the current 2v2 is bad (and has always been). The balance is terrible and maps are so boring with how all of them have the share main base thing.
|
Bisutopia19214 Posts
On September 28 2015 08:11 Gullis wrote:
I was thinking what if blizzard where to make balance changes with 2v2 in mind on a map like Cactus valley with all possible matchups in mind?
Everything extreme would have to be nerfed, gateway allins, turbovacs, mutas because the possible of doing it 2x on one player.
At the same time it wouldn't be possible to play defensive with out being on the map incase you need to help your allie.
I think the changes that would be required would cause a lot of the unforgiving factors to go away having a huge positive effect on 1v1.
And ofcourse the current 2v2 is bad (and has always been). The balance is terrible and maps are so boring with how all of them have the share main base thing.
What if blizzard added units/abilites/changes for 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4? Especially 4v4. I was just thinking about that today. Thought I'd add it.
|
I'm still annoyed by cannon rushers and cancer mech, but after 2 weeks without playing, i'm sort of enjoying SC2 again.
|
So every game except LoL and Dota is a failure? And you can't compare games from different genres. The RTS market is not as big anymore so it's very impressive that sc2 could maintain such a high player and viewer count.
See you alreay make this to be about black and white. I say Starcraft is not a huge succes and you imply that I them must think that Starcraft is a huge failure. Which is ridiclous because I used the term mediocre/average repediately in this discussion to get rid of the black/white thing. Again, THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE.
So why do you go to a forum of a game you don't play and talk !@#$%^&*? I don't go to the LoL forums either and say how bad the game is and only noobs play that.
Because you don't play LOL and have no idea about MOBA-design. I played thousands of hours playing Starcraft, and I understand the target group very well, and I have - most likely - spent more time assessing Starcraft from a gamedesign perspective than anyone else here.
Isn't it quite obvious why that comparison makes no sense? Wouldn't you have realized that if you thought before you wrote?
Ironically, it's also worth noting that what you shouldn't do in a debate is harassing people by implying that TL is only a place for people who love David Kim and everything about Starcraft. Everyone who shares a different opinion isn't allowed to be here according to you and you will start harassing them. See I don't do that, and neither should you if you had any type of moral standards + if you THOUGHT BEFORE YOU WROTE.
I think the criteria of a random TL guy are pretty worthless compared to the criteria of the lead designer of the biggest RTS for the last 5 years.
Appeal to authority fallacy. I presented my arguments, but apparently you lack the skillset to argue yourself. That's okay, I don't think stupid people aren't allowed to be on TL, but that still doesn't justify flawed logic.
Just some advice: THINK BEFORE you write.
TLDR:
Think before you write. You clearly have some huge bias and just spew out nonsense and strawmans without doing any type of research or tryng to understand the counterparts position.
Given your obvious ignorance, please don't respond to me before you actually do a bit of research on topics like target group, what a discussion is, what easy to learn difficult to master means, and how to set up argments without using bad rhetorical tricks.
Thanks in advance.
|
On September 28 2015 09:27 Hider wrote:
See you alreay make this to be about black and white. I say Starcraft is not a huge succes and you start to talk about huge failure. Which is ridiclous because I used the term mediocre/average repediately in this discussion to get rid of the black/white thing. Again, THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE.
Blizzard did a nice job of getting as much cash as they could from a genre whose core audience is not being replaced. The payoff in RTS is big army on big army engagements and that is now the domain of Clash of Clans and Game of War. This is what 12-17 year olds are playing which is why every baseball game i watch i see nothing but Kate Upton and Game of War commercials... like non-fucking-stop. 12-17 years are not attached to their PCs the way the TL.Net 20-something crowd was when they were 12-17 (me included). Now kids ( and lots of adults ) are playing Clash of Clans and Game of War on their tablets. In 2000 the only way u can have really cool looking massive army fights is on a giant desktop PC with 4 cooling fans.
Also, the general PC player is bored of teh fundamentals of the RTS genre. Much like arcade players got bored of dot-eating maze games in the 1980s. The games got better and the popularity declined. Just because a game is better does not mean it can stem the overall tide of general boredom of what the game is all about. SC2 is squarely in that predicament.
forces outside of ATVI's control made it impossible for SC2 to be a huge financial success.
That said, in terms of revenue it probably made more money than SC1 because most copies were sold after it was a $20 BattleChest at BestBuy and GameStop.
|
wont be playing now that i see the economy is still #automated. sad days
|
On September 28 2015 16:46 Ozmodeus wrote:
wont be playing now that i see the economy is still #automated. sad days
What do you mean by automated. What.
|
On September 28 2015 16:46 Ozmodeus wrote:
wont be playing now that i see the economy is still #automated. sad days
its not automated atm
|
Of course economy is automated. But I don't think that is what he meant.
|
On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol.
The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days...
|
On September 28 2015 16:54 Brutaxilos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 16:46 Ozmodeus wrote:
wont be playing now that i see the economy is still #automated. sad days What do you mean by automated. What.
Workers go to mine minerals right after building, what else :D :D
|
On September 26 2015 06:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
-Remove MULE hammer
-Look at LotV economy again
-Nerf Adept and Warp Prism
-Fix Forcefield
-Fix arcade and custom lobbies
This is the things that need to happen for LotV.
Remove Mothership Core and Mothership, period. Unique heroic unit doesn't belong to the multiplayer game mode.
|
On September 28 2015 18:10 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 06:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
-Remove MULE hammer
-Look at LotV economy again
-Nerf Adept and Warp Prism
-Fix Forcefield
-Fix arcade and custom lobbies
This is the things that need to happen for LotV. Remove Mothership Core and Mothership, period. Unique heroic unit doesn't belong to the multiplayer game mode.
Oh and also less abilities on each units, and maybe even less units also
|
On September 28 2015 18:08 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol. The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days...
While the Starbow guys have shown that they have talent, you keep forgetting that a lot of the game design has been laid out for them. Game Design is much more than just thinking of units or abilities.
People keep simplifying Game Design but it's one of the most difficult things you could do. Every button, every click, every audiovisual cue, every hint, every mechanic is planned, laid out and implemented with the help of Game Designers. Nothing is "just there" and it has to be designed.
Making a map for Starcraft 2, even with your own units, is just requiring work in a small portion of the Game Design.
So I think it's not possible to make a valid judgement on whether or not the Starbow guys are better than Blizzard guys, because they are relying on Blizzard's work. Even if you think Starbow is the better SC2, it's still a ton of Blizzard's work going in.
So I think the Starbow guys are good, but their work doesn't take away from Blizzard's work at all.
|
While the Starbow guys have shown that they have talent, you keep forgetting that a lot of the game design has been laid out for them
More relevant, Starbow hasn't had succes with any new ability, newplaystyle (bio still isn't viable TvP) or any new unit. Each time they have deviated slightly from BW it hasn't worked out.
Archangel is just as much a fanboy when he praises the Starbow crew as those who blindly praises Day9.
|
are any of the match ups ending up with mass air? One of my biggest fears and probably one of the only things that would make me stop playing
|
Nobody here is "praising day9", i just said i have hope because i think his design philosophies are sound.
Obviously that doesn't mean that Atlas will automatically be a good game, but hey as i said before, it's pretty much the only chance left as far as i can tell.
|
On September 28 2015 18:08 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol. The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days...
This seems like an odd statement. Surely you know he is on the team for Atlas, an RTS in development right now. Or are you just saying that because they haven't unveiled the game yet--beyond their NDA-protected internal testers--that he hasn't done anything? Just a weird statement.
Someone above me mentioned an important element of the changing industry: the PC is going away. And by "going away" I mean, "going away for the general public." Essentially, it has already been replaced by mobile devices (i.e., phones, tablets, etc ...). The PC will never truly go away, but will be relegated to the hobbyist and enthusiast crowds.
|
I hope SC3 turns out a better game, too late for SC2. All the additional new basic units in SC2 are disappointments for me. Adept, Sentry, Marauder, Roach. They all feel that they do not belong the race and frustrating to play against.
|
never would have pre ordered if i knew macro would be so shit and automated. GG
|
On September 29 2015 04:03 Ozmodeus wrote:
never would have pre ordered if i knew macro would be so shit and automated. GG
Probably never would have complained about it if they didn't change it either.
|
Gg leaning towards dead game again,, Jus keep it alive enough for pro players not to complain,, good work kim
User was banned for this post.
|
On September 28 2015 18:49 Ketch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 18:10 TedCruz2016 wrote:On September 26 2015 06:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
-Remove MULE hammer
-Look at LotV economy again
-Nerf Adept and Warp Prism
-Fix Forcefield
-Fix arcade and custom lobbies
This is the things that need to happen for LotV. Remove Mothership Core and Mothership, period. Unique heroic unit doesn't belong to the multiplayer game mode. Oh and also less abilities on each units, and maybe even less units also
The unit abilities is what takes Blizzard RTS games and puts them heads and shoulders above all the other RTS games out there. It gives the games personality and is much more fun.
I feel so strange sometimes enjoying the hell out of abilities on units in Starcraft 2, BW, and Warcraft 2. Am I seriously in the minority here, or is it just the need to vent? Marines without stim, siegetanks without siegemode, lurkers without burrow, stalkers without blink, high templar without storm... I mean hold up. Those are the things that make the game interesting. If you don't have that, you really just mostly have identical units on each race's side with slightly skewed numbers so you can say they are different.
|
On September 29 2015 04:46 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 18:49 Ketch wrote:On September 28 2015 18:10 TedCruz2016 wrote:On September 26 2015 06:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
-Remove MULE hammer
-Look at LotV economy again
-Nerf Adept and Warp Prism
-Fix Forcefield
-Fix arcade and custom lobbies
This is the things that need to happen for LotV. Remove Mothership Core and Mothership, period. Unique heroic unit doesn't belong to the multiplayer game mode. Oh and also less abilities on each units, and maybe even less units also The unit abilities is what takes Blizzard RTS games and puts them heads and shoulders above all the other RTS games out there. It gives the games personality and is much more fun. I feel so strange sometimes enjoying the hell out of abilities on units in Starcraft 2, BW, and Warcraft 2. Am I seriously in the minority here, or is it just the need to vent? Marines without stim, siegetanks without siegemode, lurkers without burrow, stalkers without blink, high templar without storm... I mean hold up. Those are the things that make the game interesting. If you don't have that, you really just mostly have identical units on each race's side with slightly skewed numbers so you can say they are different.
The question is how many units need abilities. SC2 has always had non-ability units as core units, with ability units sprinkled in (Zealot, Roach, Colossus, and I would argue Stim bio (1 stim button once every 6 seconds is not much APM). Ability units are sprinkled in to show skill and do disproportionate damage when employed correctly (Siege tanks, Templar, OG Infestors). The problem with LOTV is that abilities are being added that have low impact and on core units that compete with specialist units (Reaper grenade, Liberator is huge APM sink to use right, Ravager, Adept). These additional, low impact, high APM abilities on core units takes away from the skillful employment of high impact ability usage.
The worst offender in my mind is the new Protoss orb unit. Each attack has to be cast and microed, but then there is this whole other protoss army of Adepts, Templar, and Sentries, whose abilities will go simply unused as the Reaver balls are controlled. Only an AI has enough APM to actually case all those abilities optimally.
Or consider a Terran bio force of Ghosts, Medivacs, Bio, and Liberators. The ghosts have all kinds of active abilities, of which only EMP is going to be used. The bio needs to be stimmed. The liberators need to be leap frogged. The medivacs should be boosted around and lifting units over force fields and walls. There are way too many abilities there and even top Korean pros are only going to use a few of those abilities (EMP, Stim, and perhaps preplaced liberators).
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Reaper grenade, Liberator is huge APM sink to use right, Ravager, Adept
disruptor and immortal too with removed colossus
The worst offender in my mind is the new Protoss orb unit
yes :D
ideal army used to be in many cases, zealot/colossus/immortal/sentry (with only the sentry having any ability) and stalker support. You could put the first group on one hotkey and stalkers on another and never have to tab between abilities.
Now it's like zealot/disruptor/adept/sentry/immortal and stalkers or phoenix for AA support
disruptor only attacks with ability which needs to be controlled carefully to avoid wasting them and counter the counter-micro
adept shade is quite important to use sometimes
sentry abilities are important
immortal shield needs to be carefully micro'd to avoid them being focused down, if you put it on autocast they're not nearly as good because people take a marine/stalker and shoot every immortal once to trigger it
phoenix/stalker needs to move and blink/lift
It's actually very demanding even for a pair of masters players even when you ignore macromanagement - it's the same on terran side with marine marauder medivac liberator ghost. People do it but nowhere near optimally
Only an AI has enough APM to actually case all those abilities optimally.
It's largely a problem of multiple simultaneous control. I fire a few reaver balls and then while they are in the air, the most important thing in the game to do is make sure that they hit well. Deselecting the balls mid-flight to do any kind of complex other commands would be silly (given the lack of time to do so, difficulty reselecting etc). That does mean that you spend about 2 to 3 seconds controlling only 5% of your army units, though - and when you're done that, you probably spend 2-3 seconds more controlling the next 5% of your army while everything else is amoved
|
I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all.
|
I had a few game yesterday but it wasn't enough to fully judge yet, I do feel like the macro is a bit good now, I recall the game playing a LOT like BW when there were no mules. That's how I felt anyways.
|
On September 28 2015 23:55 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 18:08 -Archangel- wrote:On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol. The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days... This seems like an odd statement. Surely you know he is on the team for Atlas, an RTS in development right now. Or are you just saying that because they haven't unveiled the game yet--beyond their NDA-protected internal testers--that he hasn't done anything? Just a weird statement. Someone above me mentioned an important element of the changing industry: the PC is going away. And by "going away" I mean, "going away for the general public." Essentially, it has already been replaced by mobile devices (i.e., phones, tablets, etc ...). The PC will never truly go away, but will be relegated to the hobbyist and enthusiast crowds.
The PC has been proclaimed dead so many times now, it's never going to happen. Mobile devices are an addition, not a replacement.
Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst.
On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all.
It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now.
|
On September 29 2015 23:44 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 23:55 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 28 2015 18:08 -Archangel- wrote:On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol. The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days... This seems like an odd statement. Surely you know he is on the team for Atlas, an RTS in development right now. Or are you just saying that because they haven't unveiled the game yet--beyond their NDA-protected internal testers--that he hasn't done anything? Just a weird statement. Someone above me mentioned an important element of the changing industry: the PC is going away. And by "going away" I mean, "going away for the general public." Essentially, it has already been replaced by mobile devices (i.e., phones, tablets, etc ...). The PC will never truly go away, but will be relegated to the hobbyist and enthusiast crowds. The PC has been proclaimed dead so many times now, it's never going to happen. Mobile devices are an addition, not a replacement. Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst. Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all. It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now.
Didn't say the PC was dead, nor do I agree with those who say the PC is dead. I was very specific. It's still a robust and profitable industry, of course, and will be for some time. The demographic is demonstrably changing. I'm a marketing professional by trade, and this has been an area of great interest to me. Mobile devices (still PCs, technically. The correct term is "Desktop computer", but that's besides the point) are absolutely a replacement for the Desktop PC for a growing percentage of the general population. For some they are supplementary devices, but for an important and growing demographic segment, they are the primary device.
As for the Day9 bit: just weird to see such a cynical, borderline negative positions. It's my opinion that he's a clear choice to have on the team, if you're designing a competitive RTS. I mean, why wouldn't the community at large have confidence in his contributions?
|
On September 30 2015 01:07 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 23:44 KeksX wrote:On September 28 2015 23:55 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 28 2015 18:08 -Archangel- wrote:On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol. The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days... This seems like an odd statement. Surely you know he is on the team for Atlas, an RTS in development right now. Or are you just saying that because they haven't unveiled the game yet--beyond their NDA-protected internal testers--that he hasn't done anything? Just a weird statement. Someone above me mentioned an important element of the changing industry: the PC is going away. And by "going away" I mean, "going away for the general public." Essentially, it has already been replaced by mobile devices (i.e., phones, tablets, etc ...). The PC will never truly go away, but will be relegated to the hobbyist and enthusiast crowds. The PC has been proclaimed dead so many times now, it's never going to happen. Mobile devices are an addition, not a replacement. Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst. On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all. It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now. Didn't say the PC was dead, nor do I agree with those who say the PC is dead. I was very specific. It's still a robust and profitable industry, of course, and will be for some time. The demographic is demonstrably changing. I'm a marketing professional by trade, and this has been an area of great interest to me. Mobile devices (still PCs, technically. The correct term is "Desktop computer", but that's besides the point) are absolutely a replacement for the Desktop PC for a growing percentage of the general population. For some they are supplementary devices, but for an important and growing demographic segment, they are the primary device. As for the Day9 bit: just weird to see such a cynical, borderline negative positions. It's my opinion that he's a clear choice to have on the team, if you're designing a competitive RTS. I mean, why wouldn't the community at large have confidence in his contributions?
By your logic, progamers should make great game designers, right? The one thing Day9 has got going for him is his knowledge of the game + the ability to communicate his thoughts decently. That doesn't mean that his original thoughts are qualified to make good game design, though. Game Design is a craft, a craft he neither has learned nor has any prior experience with (or did he develop any games prior to this?).
However that is assuming he even is a game designer. I for one think he has more of a QA role where the team develops stuff and he is at charge of judging whether it is good or not.
The other topic is too off-topic for this thread though. Let's just agree to disagree on this for the sake of this thread.
|
Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst.
There are a lot of things to like about him though:
- He has tons of experience with games. Both on a more casual level and competittive level. Most "competetitive games" often time falls into the trap of elitism. Day9 isn't one of them.
- He is very analytical. Unlike David Kim whom clearly lacks analytical skills (I can go back through his track-record to expand upon this claim if anyone disagrees with this statement).
- He has a ton of experience with the specific genre he is working on. He is not just a former FPS player who is going to work on an RTS game.
Thus out of all the famous community members, I actually think Day9 is the most likely guy to do a good job. That, however, doesn't mean that Atlas will be a great job since there are alot of other variables in place.
|
I'm not saying that Day9 is not a great person or anything, I'm a fan of his work, I'm just saying that those things alone don't qualify him to be a good Game Designer (they are certainly good traits to have - but there's much more).
If you applied to any game company stating that you "play a lot of games and have an analytical mindset" you'd be laughed at and sent away. Day9 has a lot of things going for him and I can see why the guys from Atlas trust him, but you're clearly showing fan-bias here. Especially your comment about David Kim.
|
On September 30 2015 01:19 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 01:07 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 29 2015 23:44 KeksX wrote:On September 28 2015 23:55 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 28 2015 18:08 -Archangel- wrote:On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol. The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days... This seems like an odd statement. Surely you know he is on the team for Atlas, an RTS in development right now. Or are you just saying that because they haven't unveiled the game yet--beyond their NDA-protected internal testers--that he hasn't done anything? Just a weird statement. Someone above me mentioned an important element of the changing industry: the PC is going away. And by "going away" I mean, "going away for the general public." Essentially, it has already been replaced by mobile devices (i.e., phones, tablets, etc ...). The PC will never truly go away, but will be relegated to the hobbyist and enthusiast crowds. The PC has been proclaimed dead so many times now, it's never going to happen. Mobile devices are an addition, not a replacement. Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst. On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all. It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now. Didn't say the PC was dead, nor do I agree with those who say the PC is dead. I was very specific. It's still a robust and profitable industry, of course, and will be for some time. The demographic is demonstrably changing. I'm a marketing professional by trade, and this has been an area of great interest to me. Mobile devices (still PCs, technically. The correct term is "Desktop computer", but that's besides the point) are absolutely a replacement for the Desktop PC for a growing percentage of the general population. For some they are supplementary devices, but for an important and growing demographic segment, they are the primary device. As for the Day9 bit: just weird to see such a cynical, borderline negative positions. It's my opinion that he's a clear choice to have on the team, if you're designing a competitive RTS. I mean, why wouldn't the community at large have confidence in his contributions? By your logic, progamers should make great game designers, right? The one thing Day9 has got going for him is his knowledge of the game + the ability to communicate his thoughts decently. That doesn't mean that his original thoughts are qualified to make good game design, though. Game Design is a craft, a craft he neither has learned nor has any prior experience with (or did he develop any games prior to this?). However that is assuming he even is a game designer. I for one think he has more of a QA role where the team develops stuff and he is at charge of judging whether it is good or not. The other topic is too off-topic for this thread though. Let's just agree to disagree on this for the sake of this thread.
I bet the Desktop / Mobile debate would be fun and interesting! I bet we would end up agreeing on most of it though, and yeah, doesn't belong in this thread. Good call.
The Day9 bit. For a moment, I was confused. Thought, "wait, who is praising his game design?! I'm not ..." Then I looked through the nested quotes, and yeah. I'm with you on this. Stating that Day9 is a better game designer than David Kim is clearly just a ridiculous position to take. So many here at TL and Bnet like to shit on Kim and I think it's largely unfair. No matter what, he is the game designer for Starcraft 2 right now, and that is a pretty fucking high accolade on your CV (resume).
Per the team credits on Atlas' website, Day9 is one of three game designers for Atlas, and there is one associate game designer (four designers total). My whole drive is that, while we can't judge him as a game designer yet, we can certainly bestow a deserved amount of confidence in him. I'm confident. I would want him on my team, and I'm sure Atlas is thrilled to have him on theirs. I sensed what felt like undue negativity, but if you're specifically talking about the Day9 vs. Kim thing, yeah. I'm with you.
|
On September 30 2015 02:45 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 01:19 KeksX wrote:On September 30 2015 01:07 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 29 2015 23:44 KeksX wrote:On September 28 2015 23:55 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 28 2015 18:08 -Archangel- wrote:On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol. The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days... This seems like an odd statement. Surely you know he is on the team for Atlas, an RTS in development right now. Or are you just saying that because they haven't unveiled the game yet--beyond their NDA-protected internal testers--that he hasn't done anything? Just a weird statement. Someone above me mentioned an important element of the changing industry: the PC is going away. And by "going away" I mean, "going away for the general public." Essentially, it has already been replaced by mobile devices (i.e., phones, tablets, etc ...). The PC will never truly go away, but will be relegated to the hobbyist and enthusiast crowds. The PC has been proclaimed dead so many times now, it's never going to happen. Mobile devices are an addition, not a replacement. Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst. On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all. It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now. Didn't say the PC was dead, nor do I agree with those who say the PC is dead. I was very specific. It's still a robust and profitable industry, of course, and will be for some time. The demographic is demonstrably changing. I'm a marketing professional by trade, and this has been an area of great interest to me. Mobile devices (still PCs, technically. The correct term is "Desktop computer", but that's besides the point) are absolutely a replacement for the Desktop PC for a growing percentage of the general population. For some they are supplementary devices, but for an important and growing demographic segment, they are the primary device. As for the Day9 bit: just weird to see such a cynical, borderline negative positions. It's my opinion that he's a clear choice to have on the team, if you're designing a competitive RTS. I mean, why wouldn't the community at large have confidence in his contributions? By your logic, progamers should make great game designers, right? The one thing Day9 has got going for him is his knowledge of the game + the ability to communicate his thoughts decently. That doesn't mean that his original thoughts are qualified to make good game design, though. Game Design is a craft, a craft he neither has learned nor has any prior experience with (or did he develop any games prior to this?). However that is assuming he even is a game designer. I for one think he has more of a QA role where the team develops stuff and he is at charge of judging whether it is good or not. The other topic is too off-topic for this thread though. Let's just agree to disagree on this for the sake of this thread. I bet the Desktop / Mobile debate would be fun and interesting! I bet we would end up agreeing on most of it though, and yeah, doesn't belong in this thread. Good call. The Day9 bit. For a moment, I was confused. Thought, "wait, who is praising his game design?! I'm not ..." Then I looked through the nested quotes, and yeah. I'm with you on this. Stating that Day9 is a better game designer than David Kim is clearly just a ridiculous position to take. So many here at TL and Bnet like to shit on Kim and I think it's largely unfair. No matter what, he is the game designer for Starcraft 2 right now, and that is a pretty fucking high accolade on your CV (resume). Per the team credits on Atlas' website, Day9 is one of three game designers for Atlas, and there is one associate game designer (four designers total). My whole drive is that, while we can't judge him as a game designer yet, we can certainly bestow a deserved amount of confidence in him. I'm confident. I would want him on my team, and I'm sure Atlas is thrilled to have him on theirs. I sensed what felt like undue negativity, but if you're specifically talking about the Day9 vs. Kim thing, yeah. I'm with you.
You know, for a very long time I gave DK the benefit of the doubt. But during this last month or so, I can honestly see for myself why people are upset.
Yes, since he hs a designer on SC2 that DOES mean something.,,
But what should the primary job of the game designer be? To give us the best damn game design he is capable of!
This is where he shoots himself in the foot. He admit to giving us inferior design because of the perceptions of some people in the community.
We can talk about his accolades for being a designer on SC2 all we want. But when it comes down to it, according to his own admission, the game DESIGNER, is not giving us the best DESIGN he is capable of. I wrote up about this earlier in this same topic we are in now.. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/495458-community-feedback-update-september-25?page=2#21
This is besides the fact that every single time they make a choice AGAINST what the community wants, he blames the reason for the changes on the community with the same old "as many of you have pointed out"... If you are asking for community input, then doing the opposite of what the community feedback states (example: 80% AGAINST the current patch), it is a slap in the face to then blame the community.
Another example:
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.
Yeah sure... Right after saying "We don't agree", blame the community for not making the changes. Even though the polls show overwhelmingly that the community wants the mechanics removed...
It has all been a facade. He is dishonest with us. He blames us for his own & his teams decisions. He admits to not giving us the best design because of community perception (when the people in that community were the minority). Then when the community overwhelmingly is in favor of something, goes against that.
How can anyone claim that is not a complete fail for a game designer?
|
On September 30 2015 03:22 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 02:45 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 30 2015 01:19 KeksX wrote:On September 30 2015 01:07 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 29 2015 23:44 KeksX wrote:On September 28 2015 23:55 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 28 2015 18:08 -Archangel- wrote:On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol. The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days... This seems like an odd statement. Surely you know he is on the team for Atlas, an RTS in development right now. Or are you just saying that because they haven't unveiled the game yet--beyond their NDA-protected internal testers--that he hasn't done anything? Just a weird statement. Someone above me mentioned an important element of the changing industry: the PC is going away. And by "going away" I mean, "going away for the general public." Essentially, it has already been replaced by mobile devices (i.e., phones, tablets, etc ...). The PC will never truly go away, but will be relegated to the hobbyist and enthusiast crowds. The PC has been proclaimed dead so many times now, it's never going to happen. Mobile devices are an addition, not a replacement. Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst. On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all. It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now. Didn't say the PC was dead, nor do I agree with those who say the PC is dead. I was very specific. It's still a robust and profitable industry, of course, and will be for some time. The demographic is demonstrably changing. I'm a marketing professional by trade, and this has been an area of great interest to me. Mobile devices (still PCs, technically. The correct term is "Desktop computer", but that's besides the point) are absolutely a replacement for the Desktop PC for a growing percentage of the general population. For some they are supplementary devices, but for an important and growing demographic segment, they are the primary device. As for the Day9 bit: just weird to see such a cynical, borderline negative positions. It's my opinion that he's a clear choice to have on the team, if you're designing a competitive RTS. I mean, why wouldn't the community at large have confidence in his contributions? By your logic, progamers should make great game designers, right? The one thing Day9 has got going for him is his knowledge of the game + the ability to communicate his thoughts decently. That doesn't mean that his original thoughts are qualified to make good game design, though. Game Design is a craft, a craft he neither has learned nor has any prior experience with (or did he develop any games prior to this?). However that is assuming he even is a game designer. I for one think he has more of a QA role where the team develops stuff and he is at charge of judging whether it is good or not. The other topic is too off-topic for this thread though. Let's just agree to disagree on this for the sake of this thread. I bet the Desktop / Mobile debate would be fun and interesting! I bet we would end up agreeing on most of it though, and yeah, doesn't belong in this thread. Good call. The Day9 bit. For a moment, I was confused. Thought, "wait, who is praising his game design?! I'm not ..." Then I looked through the nested quotes, and yeah. I'm with you on this. Stating that Day9 is a better game designer than David Kim is clearly just a ridiculous position to take. So many here at TL and Bnet like to shit on Kim and I think it's largely unfair. No matter what, he is the game designer for Starcraft 2 right now, and that is a pretty fucking high accolade on your CV (resume). Per the team credits on Atlas' website, Day9 is one of three game designers for Atlas, and there is one associate game designer (four designers total). My whole drive is that, while we can't judge him as a game designer yet, we can certainly bestow a deserved amount of confidence in him. I'm confident. I would want him on my team, and I'm sure Atlas is thrilled to have him on theirs. I sensed what felt like undue negativity, but if you're specifically talking about the Day9 vs. Kim thing, yeah. I'm with you. You know, for a very long time I gave DK the benefit of the doubt. But during this last month or so, I can honestly see for myself why people are upset. Yes, since he hs a designer on SC2 that DOES mean something.,, But what should the primary job of the game designer be? To give us the best damn game design he is capable of! This is where he shoots himself in the foot. He admit to giving us inferior design because of the perceptions of some people in the community. We can talk about his accolades for being a designer on SC2 all we want. But when it comes down to it, according to his own admission, the game DESIGNER, is not giving us the best DESIGN he is capable of. I wrote up about this earlier in this same topic we are in now.. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/495458-community-feedback-update-september-25?page=2#21This is besides the fact that every single time they make a choice AGAINST what the community wants, he blames the reason for the changes on the community with the same old "as many of you have pointed out"... If you are asking for community input, then doing the opposite of what the community feedback states (example: 80% AGAINST the current patch), it is a slap in the face to then blame the community. Another example: 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. Yeah sure... Right after saying "We don't agree", blame the community for not making the changes. Even though the polls show overwhelmingly that the community wants the mechanics removed... It has all been a facade. He is dishonest with us. He blames us for his own & his teams decisions. He admits to not giving us the best design because of community perception (when the people in that community were the minority). Then when the community overwhelmingly is in favor of something, goes against that. How can anyone claim that is not a complete fail for a game designer?
Whoa. Firstly, I appreciate your passion. You clearly care a great deal. I think many of us here at TL have a visceral connection to the success of Starcraft 2.
With that said, your position is rather hyperbolic and perhaps more than a little bit unfair. I'll touch on a few of the points.
TL is not the Starcraft 2 community
I love it here. It's a very popular team and website, and clearly a premier destination for the elite Starcraft 2 community aficionado. But, any poll done here is completely selective, unscientific, and might be interesting to look at, but should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It would be a lapse in judgement to make the leap that a TL poll is somehow representative of the SC2 community at large, including the progamers. So I'd caution against claiming to know the heartbeat of the SC2 community.
I'm sure Blizzard has given him a job description
You're quick to assume what his roles and responsibilities are, but lets be careful here. We all answer to someone. As an artist myself, and professional--as many of us here probably are--no art is every truly finished, only abandoned (DiVinci). In other words: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Misunderstanding
I do not think he blames the community for their design decisions. I think he knows he's walking on eggshells with a community known to be--how to say this nicely?--rather intense with their feedback; so he guards his positions carefully. I'd argue that in doing so he loses some of the authority of his position, and some of the potential eloquence in his delivery is lost.
He was straight up: we saw some polls. We disagree. He then peppered in with the "as some of you noted" bit, and agreed. That's definitely not blame, lol. It's just not very eloquent either. I'd argue he'd be better off just saying, "We saw your polls. Thanks. We disagree." The more you explain, the more you open yourself up to vehement and detailed opposition.
Accusations
You have accused David Kim of being a liar, and intentionally misleading the community he is designing for. That's hardcore, man. Why go to that extreme?
Anyway ... I see people saying they won't buy the game because of three abilities. Three abilities that have been core to gameplay since Wings of Liberty. Core to every tournament since that has been amazing, and epic ... it all just feels so dramatic and unnecessary. My two cents.
|
I'm not happy with the design of SC2. But David Kim doesn't OWE me anything. He makes a product, and if I like it I buy it. In a theoretical world anyway. But with preorders existing, I've already bought it. I feel a little bit entitled to have my say on how the game is developed (except not really anymore) because I've put money in the game. To add to the complexity, the whole beta/feedback community outreach aspect increases the sense of ownership, not only in the product, but in the design of the product.
I got over it back in WoL. Putting so much of my heart into something I had no control over was just kind of destructive. If David Kim wants a mule hammer centric game, that's what he gets to make. If he wants certain unit compositions to be unbeatable so the game rerolves around all-ining before enough time passes, that's what he gets to make. I can't control any of it. So I have to accept it. It's stupid, and bad design, and etc. etc. But it's out of my control. The truth is the game will be what they make it to be, not what I want it to be. Anything else is just false expectation that lets me down.
So my choice is to not play, or try to have fun despite the flaws. Right now I'm having fun, and despite its flaws, it's a welcome diversion. I don't expect it to last for too long, and then I'll not play again. That's the problem with e-sports as opposed to regular sports. In basketball, for instance, you have only yourself to look to to train and improve. If the rules are modified, its the same for everyone. In a video game, one team will get wings and the other team will get speed shoes. Or maybe have to spray down the court with slime or something. Things are uneven and awkward and always changing. It might be more interesting, but it's less of a sport to compete in. An even playing field is the prerequisite to sport. Hence the phrase "sporting chance".
|
On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all.
It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now.[/QUOTE]
I meant huge balance wise. Balance is just totally off atm, and with one patch every two weeks until the 10th of november the end product will barely be playable. I know they said they would be pretty active with balancing and monitoring after release, but I can't help thinking that this is not good for SC2 (after all, this is the final chance) and that all of those problems could have been avoided with
1) less "let's try to appeal to the community" changes like the warpgate change, which in the end probably creates more problems than it solves issues.+ Show Spoiler +(unlike splitting warp-in and energy power)
2) making the macro mechanics change right at the beginning instead of messing up the last months of the beta. The removal could have been great, and I think it would have been if the first version of the beta had it and the game had been balanced around that.
3) and better overall direction and game design philosophy, but we can't ask for too much.
So yeah, hoping the next patch aim at solving issues in simple ways, not convoluted ones. Elegance and logic, at last.
|
On September 30 2015 03:52 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 03:22 Spyridon wrote:On September 30 2015 02:45 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 30 2015 01:19 KeksX wrote:On September 30 2015 01:07 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 29 2015 23:44 KeksX wrote:On September 28 2015 23:55 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 28 2015 18:08 -Archangel- wrote:On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol. The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days... This seems like an odd statement. Surely you know he is on the team for Atlas, an RTS in development right now. Or are you just saying that because they haven't unveiled the game yet--beyond their NDA-protected internal testers--that he hasn't done anything? Just a weird statement. Someone above me mentioned an important element of the changing industry: the PC is going away. And by "going away" I mean, "going away for the general public." Essentially, it has already been replaced by mobile devices (i.e., phones, tablets, etc ...). The PC will never truly go away, but will be relegated to the hobbyist and enthusiast crowds. The PC has been proclaimed dead so many times now, it's never going to happen. Mobile devices are an addition, not a replacement. Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst. On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all. It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now. Didn't say the PC was dead, nor do I agree with those who say the PC is dead. I was very specific. It's still a robust and profitable industry, of course, and will be for some time. The demographic is demonstrably changing. I'm a marketing professional by trade, and this has been an area of great interest to me. Mobile devices (still PCs, technically. The correct term is "Desktop computer", but that's besides the point) are absolutely a replacement for the Desktop PC for a growing percentage of the general population. For some they are supplementary devices, but for an important and growing demographic segment, they are the primary device. As for the Day9 bit: just weird to see such a cynical, borderline negative positions. It's my opinion that he's a clear choice to have on the team, if you're designing a competitive RTS. I mean, why wouldn't the community at large have confidence in his contributions? By your logic, progamers should make great game designers, right? The one thing Day9 has got going for him is his knowledge of the game + the ability to communicate his thoughts decently. That doesn't mean that his original thoughts are qualified to make good game design, though. Game Design is a craft, a craft he neither has learned nor has any prior experience with (or did he develop any games prior to this?). However that is assuming he even is a game designer. I for one think he has more of a QA role where the team develops stuff and he is at charge of judging whether it is good or not. The other topic is too off-topic for this thread though. Let's just agree to disagree on this for the sake of this thread. I bet the Desktop / Mobile debate would be fun and interesting! I bet we would end up agreeing on most of it though, and yeah, doesn't belong in this thread. Good call. The Day9 bit. For a moment, I was confused. Thought, "wait, who is praising his game design?! I'm not ..." Then I looked through the nested quotes, and yeah. I'm with you on this. Stating that Day9 is a better game designer than David Kim is clearly just a ridiculous position to take. So many here at TL and Bnet like to shit on Kim and I think it's largely unfair. No matter what, he is the game designer for Starcraft 2 right now, and that is a pretty fucking high accolade on your CV (resume). Per the team credits on Atlas' website, Day9 is one of three game designers for Atlas, and there is one associate game designer (four designers total). My whole drive is that, while we can't judge him as a game designer yet, we can certainly bestow a deserved amount of confidence in him. I'm confident. I would want him on my team, and I'm sure Atlas is thrilled to have him on theirs. I sensed what felt like undue negativity, but if you're specifically talking about the Day9 vs. Kim thing, yeah. I'm with you. You know, for a very long time I gave DK the benefit of the doubt. But during this last month or so, I can honestly see for myself why people are upset. Yes, since he hs a designer on SC2 that DOES mean something.,, But what should the primary job of the game designer be? To give us the best damn game design he is capable of! This is where he shoots himself in the foot. He admit to giving us inferior design because of the perceptions of some people in the community. We can talk about his accolades for being a designer on SC2 all we want. But when it comes down to it, according to his own admission, the game DESIGNER, is not giving us the best DESIGN he is capable of. I wrote up about this earlier in this same topic we are in now.. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/495458-community-feedback-update-september-25?page=2#21This is besides the fact that every single time they make a choice AGAINST what the community wants, he blames the reason for the changes on the community with the same old "as many of you have pointed out"... If you are asking for community input, then doing the opposite of what the community feedback states (example: 80% AGAINST the current patch), it is a slap in the face to then blame the community. Another example: 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. Yeah sure... Right after saying "We don't agree", blame the community for not making the changes. Even though the polls show overwhelmingly that the community wants the mechanics removed... It has all been a facade. He is dishonest with us. He blames us for his own & his teams decisions. He admits to not giving us the best design because of community perception (when the people in that community were the minority). Then when the community overwhelmingly is in favor of something, goes against that. How can anyone claim that is not a complete fail for a game designer? Whoa. Firstly, I appreciate your passion. You clearly care a great deal. I think many of us here at TL have a visceral connection to the success of Starcraft 2. With that said, your position is rather hyperbolic and perhaps more than a little bit unfair. I'll touch on a few of the points. TL is not the Starcraft 2 communityI love it here. It's a very popular team and website, and clearly a premier destination for the elite Starcraft 2 community aficionado. But, any poll done here is completely selective, unscientific, and might be interesting to look at, but should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It would be a lapse in judgement to make the leap that a TL poll is somehow representative of the SC2 community at large, including the progamers. So I'd caution against claiming to know the heartbeat of the SC2 community. I'm sure Blizzard has given him a job descriptionYou're quick to assume what his roles and responsibilities are, but lets be careful here. We all answer to someone. As an artist myself, and professional--as many of us here probably are--no art is every truly finished, only abandoned (DiVinci). In other words: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. MisunderstandingI do not think he blames the community for their design decisions. I think he knows he's walking on eggshells with a community known to be--how to say this nicely?-- rather intense with their feedback; so he guards his positions carefully. I'd argue that in doing so he loses some of the authority of his position, and some of the potential eloquence in his delivery is lost. He was straight up: we saw some polls. We disagree. He then peppered in with the "as some of you noted" bit, and agreed. That's definitely not blame, lol. It's just not very eloquent either. I'd argue he'd be better off just saying, "We saw your polls. Thanks. We disagree." The more you explain, the more you open yourself up to vehement and detailed opposition. AccusationsYou have accused David Kim of being a liar, and intentionally misleading the community he is designing for. That's hardcore, man. Why go to that extreme? Anyway ... I see people saying they won't buy the game because of three abilities. Three abilities that have been core to gameplay since Wings of Liberty. Core to every tournament since that has been amazing, and epic ... it all just feels so dramatic and unnecessary. My two cents.
I know the TL poll is not everyone playing SC2, but the comments DK made were regarding those polls. The official forums were the same deal. And it's not like Blizzard has a survey going around for people in the beta. That's where they get the feedback from.
It's more than the poll as well, if you read my older post. It's about the fact that they claimed they were HAPPY with the direction of mechanics, followed by a release date announcement that was surprisingly soon, followed by week later folding to "negative perception". A complete switch. That leaves the community feeling misdirected. Is that a surprise? Did they not direct us towards one thing for a couple months, tell us they were happy, then suddenly abandon it???
And his "as you have pointed out" comments are more than just pointing out things. It's PR speak. And every time he talks about the community "pointing things out" that is a harsh conflict with what was REALLY happening at the time. When people removed the macro mechanics, the word going around was "I like it, but the game should have been rebalanced before this!". Very few people were complaining about the races "losing their essence". That was straight PR speak to cover up the real reasons for not doing it, which by the common denominator of all the recent happenings lately being the release date in a month and a half.
Lets also not forget about him claiming that all the pros were behind the removal of macro mechanics... When he got called out for stating that and being misleading by the pros themselves. He wants to remove macro mechanics, blames the pros, then when he decides to revert, acts like it is "listening to the community" when the community was overwhelmingly asking for the opposite...
This is besides the fact of shady situations that whole time. For example, patching the macro mechancis back in with a message of "no community update this week". Then a few days later, "DK managed to write us up some feedback updates from overseas!". But then in this feedback update it is talking about "doing this in the next update" as if the changes were not implemented before then??? That does not add up. Obviously the post was written BEFORE the update, and blizzard chose to not release it at first, then somehow it appears out of nowhere after all the negative responses.
When it comes to responsibilities, it went from balance designer to lead designer. So yes I'm sure he has more of a specialized role. But he is also the lead designer in charge of working with the community. And I completely stand by my belief that he has failed in this role.
There is also a double standard in his comments, which makes the misdirection obvious. When an overwhelming amount of community want no macro mechanics "we do not agree, we're staying with this". But when a much smaller minority of the community is complaining about "nonexistent macro" they do changes because of "negative perception"??? Not because of anything that has to do with balance, or even FACTS and REALITY, but perception??? Really??? We are making major design decisions that have a major affect on the game based on perception??? Not only is that a double standard from how they treat the community on other issues, but that is a complete absolute failure of a move for a lead designer to make... ESPECIALLY after giving players a taste of how it was without the mechanics, and most of the players who tried it overwhelmingly behind removal of them.
Why even have these community feedback updates, if the feedback doesn't matter?
And you asked, why accusations against him? I provided more than accusations. Look at the link I provided in my last post. I quote his own words. He contradicts himself. He ignores the overwhelming majority of feedback and tells us that our feedback was in a direction it was not. He tells us they are happy with the direction and then reverts the changes once they schedule a release date. Then he tells us they believe the choice they made is the "best move for the game" when a couple weeks earlier he described that change as inferior design...
Now was it his "intent" to mislead us? Possibly. Probably a decent chance of it by his conflicting statements. But I am not positive about that.
What am I 100% positive about? 2 things:
That he is a poor game designer for even CONSIDERING making changes based upon perception rather than reality.
That he is horrible at public relations and the community would have been much happier in the end if they never did this whole switch of directions this last month, because every since then it has been a PR nightmare, and this makes it obvious that what we are being told is smoke and mirrors to hide the real issues.
You know people were VERY happy with his community feedback updates, not always agreeing, but you continuously seen people saying how they "really appreciate knowing what Blizzard is thinking". Then look how the feedback changes as soon as they decided to re-implement the macro mechanics... Now in less than 1 month, the community is in an uproar, feels misled, lied to, and has lost complete trust in Blizzard and DK. Again.
And your last paragraph, about people saying they will not buy the game? Because it's more than just the game they are giving us at this point. They have told people they were going to work with the community for months, asked for our feedback, told us they were happy, and then reverted the changes. It makes all the feedback feel utterly pointless. And by doing that, Blizzard as a brand, has lost trust. I personally was HAPPY by the removal of macro mechanics and the direction they were going so I preordered the game to get in to beta. Now they removed that, and I will be honest, if I could get a refund I would. That was the pretense as to why I became interested enough to play again. They told me they were happy with the direction!!! They did not even ask for feedback anymore on the macro mechanics! Then once the community became comfortable with the changes, they reverted it.
They already took my money then changed directions. Why would I trust them enough to want to give them any more money? Why would I recommend anyone else to give them money? Honestly to all the people saying they are not sure if they should get the game or not, I say be VERY cautious. I do not blame them. I support them. Because I was happy with the direction the game was going when I bought it. I am not now.
|
I never thought it was possible, but blizzard found ways to make protoss even more gimmicky, even more reliant on the mothershipcore and give them even stronger warpgate rushes. Well played blizzard, well played!
|
On September 30 2015 07:09 Big J wrote:
I never thought it was possible, but blizzard found ways to make protoss even more gimmicky, even more reliant on the mothershipcore and give them even stronger warpgate rushes. Well played blizzard, well played!
The irony is so thick you couldn't cut it with a knife.
As for me, the state of the game is so poor in LotV that I'm not even looking to get it until it goes on sale so I can do the campaign -- and not expecting to touch multiplayer at all.
Almost a year ago, when I wrote this (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/15142514694), I had hopes that there might be something to look forward to with Legacy ... if only they paid attention to the pleas for interesting gameplay.
Now, I'm just depressed. I'll keep paying attention till at least the end of the beta, but I don't hold much hope for a map-control (non-death-ball) strategic playstyle for Protoss in LotV.
|
On September 30 2015 07:09 Big J wrote:
I never thought it was possible, but blizzard found ways to make protoss even more gimmicky, even more reliant on the mothershipcore and give them even stronger warpgate rushes. Well played blizzard, well played!
What's the problem with making a race reliant on a unit that you can only make one of in the early game? The new Overcharge is amazing and gives Protoss the flexibility they need with the new economy and game-pace. Sounds like people just like to whine because they decided it 'doesn't belong in StarCraft' for some stupid arbitrary reason.
|
Spyridon, I feel bad not responding to your entire post, but I really feel that this is becoming too much of a "you say, I say" discussion without any substance.
Let's just assume for a minute that what you say is true - do you think that this could be entirely NOT Kim's fault, but instead be about company politics and the fact that the game releases in little over a month? And a $50k tournament coming up, too?
There's only one first impression. If Legacy's first impression is "unbalanced, gimmicky and unfinished" the game loses a lot of reputation. The incredibly high balance is one of it's main selling points regarding multiplayer.
Of course, for us hardcores that will probably all buy the game anyway, it doesn't matter whether or not the game is balanced in the beginning and Blizzard being bold is more important. For new players watching the game closely now but still not being sold it does matter, though.
@TimeSpiral:
Per the team credits on Atlas' website, Day9 is one of three game designers for Atlas, and there is one associate game designer (four designers total). My whole drive is that, while we can't judge him as a game designer yet, we can certainly bestow a deserved amount of confidence in him. I'm confident. I would want him on my team, and I'm sure Atlas is thrilled to have him on theirs. I sensed what felt like undue negativity, but if you're specifically talking about the Day9 vs. Kim thing, yeah. I'm with you.
I can agree with your sentiment about Day9 in general and why Atlas would love to have them on his team to help out. So I think we pretty much agree
|
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
|
On September 30 2015 17:31 shin_toss wrote:
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
Then what is the point of all those feedback if it's end destination is the trash can?
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On September 30 2015 17:41 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 17:31 shin_toss wrote:
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
Then what is the point of all those feedback if it's end destination is the trash can?
Not every feedback, no matter how positively is accepted, will be accepted. It is usually a feedback done by minority of players.
I still don't understand why they don't have a questionnaire in the game itself. Like every 20 games you have to answer some questions about actual beta, that's how it's done in other industries(like food testing - you eat it and then you fill the form about the food). I don't understand how this beta actually works at all, since you don't have to give any feedback at all.
|
On September 30 2015 17:41 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 17:31 shin_toss wrote:
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
Then what is the point of all those feedback if it's end destination is the trash can?
they're not suppose to follow every cry and whiners on bnet forums and TL . lot of people on forums these fast few months just make these threads and try to make non-problem a problem.. and there you go.. you have the bandwagon going on.
|
On September 30 2015 18:10 shin_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 17:41 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 17:31 shin_toss wrote:
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
Then what is the point of all those feedback if it's end destination is the trash can? they're not suppose to follow every cry and whiners on bnet forums and TL . lot of people on forums these fast few months just make these threads and try to make non-problem a problem.. and there you go.. you have the bandwagon going on.
If the customer complains about a product having an issue, how can you call it "non-problem" when the one who uses the product calls it a "problem" I understand that you are having your way about it, but also the others have the right to have their voice heard.
It is not like there are multiple opinions on many many different things. They all can be brought down to:
1. MM are bad.
2. Economy is bad.
3. Harassment is way too strong.
4. Too many "activate to work" stuff going on.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On September 30 2015 18:22 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 18:10 shin_toss wrote:On September 30 2015 17:41 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 17:31 shin_toss wrote:
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
Then what is the point of all those feedback if it's end destination is the trash can? they're not suppose to follow every cry and whiners on bnet forums and TL . lot of people on forums these fast few months just make these threads and try to make non-problem a problem.. and there you go.. you have the bandwagon going on. If the customer complains about a product having an issue, how can you call it "non-problem" when the one who uses the product calls it a "problem" I understand that you are having your way about it, but also the others have the right to have their voice heard. It is not like there are multiple opinions on many many different things. They all can be brought down to: 1. MM are bad. 2. Economy is bad. 3. Harassment is way too strong. 4. Too many "activate to work" stuff going on.
If 20k people play the game and only 3k complains, who do you want to listen to? ,-)
That's what I mentioned about the questionnaire in the game for everyone playing beta. Otherwise they don't know the reason. I stopped playing beta and they haven't asked me why I stopped. Is it because I don't like it? Is it because the game lags? Is it because I like more HotS? They don't know, they can only guess(actually it is lagging for me and I like HotS more).
|
On September 30 2015 18:27 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 18:22 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 18:10 shin_toss wrote:On September 30 2015 17:41 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 17:31 shin_toss wrote:
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
Then what is the point of all those feedback if it's end destination is the trash can? they're not suppose to follow every cry and whiners on bnet forums and TL . lot of people on forums these fast few months just make these threads and try to make non-problem a problem.. and there you go.. you have the bandwagon going on. If the customer complains about a product having an issue, how can you call it "non-problem" when the one who uses the product calls it a "problem" I understand that you are having your way about it, but also the others have the right to have their voice heard. It is not like there are multiple opinions on many many different things. They all can be brought down to: 1. MM are bad. 2. Economy is bad. 3. Harassment is way too strong. 4. Too many "activate to work" stuff going on. If 20k people play the game and only 3k complains, who do you want to listen to? ,-) That's what I mentioned about the questionnaire in the game for everyone playing beta. Otherwise they don't know the reason. I stopped playing beta and they haven't asked me why I stopped. Is it because I don't like it? Is it because the game lags? Is it because I like more HotS? They don't know, they can only guess(actually it is lagging for me and I like HotS more).
I completely agree with you on the questionnaire part. But there is a general rule. If there is a single customer complained. That means there are at least hundred annoyed as that customer but did not rise their voice.
Many people don't post on TL / BNET, but that does not mean they are completely enjoying the current status of those issues.
|
On September 30 2015 09:18 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 07:09 Big J wrote:
I never thought it was possible, but blizzard found ways to make protoss even more gimmicky, even more reliant on the mothershipcore and give them even stronger warpgate rushes. Well played blizzard, well played! What's the problem with making a race reliant on a unit that you can only make one of in the early game? The new Overcharge is amazing and gives Protoss the flexibility they need with the new economy and game-pace. Sounds like people just like to whine because they decided it 'doesn't belong in StarCraft' for some stupid arbitrary reason.
Because the unit design is crap. Recall, especially for 50energy is stupid. You're rarely out of position and you shouldn't ever lose a combat when you are attacking.
New overcharge. You call it amazing, I call it complete crap. Its main application is to break the opponent's ramp.
Edit: And of course blizzard can do whatever they want. I'm fully OK with that and share the stance that it is their game. That doesn't mean I won't raise my voice when they are doing stuff that I feel is wrong. Or not doing stuff that I feel would improve the game.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On September 30 2015 18:35 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 18:27 deacon.frost wrote:On September 30 2015 18:22 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 18:10 shin_toss wrote:On September 30 2015 17:41 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 17:31 shin_toss wrote:
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
Then what is the point of all those feedback if it's end destination is the trash can? they're not suppose to follow every cry and whiners on bnet forums and TL . lot of people on forums these fast few months just make these threads and try to make non-problem a problem.. and there you go.. you have the bandwagon going on. If the customer complains about a product having an issue, how can you call it "non-problem" when the one who uses the product calls it a "problem" I understand that you are having your way about it, but also the others have the right to have their voice heard. It is not like there are multiple opinions on many many different things. They all can be brought down to: 1. MM are bad. 2. Economy is bad. 3. Harassment is way too strong. 4. Too many "activate to work" stuff going on. If 20k people play the game and only 3k complains, who do you want to listen to? ,-) That's what I mentioned about the questionnaire in the game for everyone playing beta. Otherwise they don't know the reason. I stopped playing beta and they haven't asked me why I stopped. Is it because I don't like it? Is it because the game lags? Is it because I like more HotS? They don't know, they can only guess(actually it is lagging for me and I like HotS more). I completely agree with you on the questionnaire part. But there is a general rule. If there is a single customer complained. That means there are at least hundred annoyed as that customer but did not rise their voice. Many people don't post on TL / BNET, but that does not mean they are completely enjoying the current status of those issues.
Well that's it, Blizzard don't know the actual ratio. It;s reinventing the wheel again
|
On September 30 2015 18:27 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 18:22 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 18:10 shin_toss wrote:On September 30 2015 17:41 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 17:31 shin_toss wrote:
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
Then what is the point of all those feedback if it's end destination is the trash can? they're not suppose to follow every cry and whiners on bnet forums and TL . lot of people on forums these fast few months just make these threads and try to make non-problem a problem.. and there you go.. you have the bandwagon going on. If the customer complains about a product having an issue, how can you call it "non-problem" when the one who uses the product calls it a "problem" I understand that you are having your way about it, but also the others have the right to have their voice heard. It is not like there are multiple opinions on many many different things. They all can be brought down to: 1. MM are bad. 2. Economy is bad. 3. Harassment is way too strong. 4. Too many "activate to work" stuff going on. If 20k people play the game and only 3k complains, who do you want to listen to? ,-) That's what I mentioned about the questionnaire in the game for everyone playing beta. Otherwise they don't know the reason. I stopped playing beta and they haven't asked me why I stopped. Is it because I don't like it? Is it because the game lags? Is it because I like more HotS? They don't know, they can only guess(actually it is lagging for me and I like HotS more).
If 20k play the game, 3k complain, and 500K other people in the target group don't purchase the game in the first place. Then you need to understand why only 20K people seems interested in purchasing and playing the game.
The complaints from the 3k people is effectively free customer surveys. That's something that you pay for in order industries.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On September 30 2015 19:26 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 18:27 deacon.frost wrote:On September 30 2015 18:22 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 18:10 shin_toss wrote:On September 30 2015 17:41 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 17:31 shin_toss wrote:
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
Then what is the point of all those feedback if it's end destination is the trash can? they're not suppose to follow every cry and whiners on bnet forums and TL . lot of people on forums these fast few months just make these threads and try to make non-problem a problem.. and there you go.. you have the bandwagon going on. If the customer complains about a product having an issue, how can you call it "non-problem" when the one who uses the product calls it a "problem" I understand that you are having your way about it, but also the others have the right to have their voice heard. It is not like there are multiple opinions on many many different things. They all can be brought down to: 1. MM are bad. 2. Economy is bad. 3. Harassment is way too strong. 4. Too many "activate to work" stuff going on. If 20k people play the game and only 3k complains, who do you want to listen to? ,-) That's what I mentioned about the questionnaire in the game for everyone playing beta. Otherwise they don't know the reason. I stopped playing beta and they haven't asked me why I stopped. Is it because I don't like it? Is it because the game lags? Is it because I like more HotS? They don't know, they can only guess(actually it is lagging for me and I like HotS more). If 20k play the game, 3k complain, and 500K other people in the target group don't purchase the game in the first place. Then you need to understand why only 20K people seems interested in purchasing and playing the game. The complaints from the 3k people is effectively free customer surveys. That's something that you pay for in order industries.
Ehm, I don't believe that 500k people won't buy the game, the game is mostly bought for SP anyway. 1.1m of copies HotS was sold during first 2 days of the release and the ladder wasn't overcrowded because big part of it was for SP.
And I made up the 20k number, please don't use it this way, I just wanted to point out the ratio, it is probably more shifted to the group of "don't care/satisfied". (my guess would be 10:1, but I played the nice guy with 6:1)
|
On September 30 2015 16:27 KeksX wrote:
Spyridon, I feel bad not responding to your entire post, but I really feel that this is becoming too much of a "you say, I say" discussion without any substance.
Let's just assume for a minute that what you say is true - do you think that this could be entirely NOT Kim's fault, but instead be about company politics and the fact that the game releases in little over a month? And a $50k tournament coming up, too?
There's only one first impression. If Legacy's first impression is "unbalanced, gimmicky and unfinished" the game loses a lot of reputation. The incredibly high balance is one of it's main selling points regarding multiplayer.
Of course, for us hardcores that will probably all buy the game anyway, it doesn't matter whether or not the game is balanced in the beginning and Blizzard being bold is more important. For new players watching the game closely now but still not being sold it does matter, though.
I do think it may be Blizzards fault for the release date. There is actually a lil bit of evidence to support this being true, considering they did not release his community update, even though the update shows it was written BEFORE the patch, until there was an uproar about the patch.
That still does not change that they are being dishonest with us on the real reason, which makes the community updates a facade at this point.
On September 30 2015 18:08 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 17:41 WrathSCII wrote:On September 30 2015 17:31 shin_toss wrote:
Lol @ people mad at Kim and Blizz because it didnt go the way they wanted and thinks that they are more qualified than people at Blizzard. It's their game, yes community feedback is important But it shouldn't be changing everytime a TL member creates a thread about SC2 not being fun, Macro boosters are bad, this unit is blah blah etc etc.
Then what is the point of all those feedback if it's end destination is the trash can? Not every feedback, no matter how positively is accepted, will be accepted. It is usually a feedback done by minority of players. I still don't understand why they don't have a questionnaire in the game itself. Like every 20 games you have to answer some questions about actual beta, that's how it's done in other industries(like food testing - you eat it and then you fill the form about the food). I don't understand how this beta actually works at all, since you don't have to give any feedback at all.
Of course not all feedback will be accepted, but for more than a month they focused almost every single feedback question on the macro mechanics specifically, and the massive amounts of feedback was straight ignored. If they are going to ask for feedback, say they are happy with the direction, and then revert everything, is it a surprise that the community feels like they wasted all that time?
David Kim was the specific person who came to us asking for feedback as well. He was the person who told us they were happy with the direction they were going. And he was the person who then came to us and told us reasons they reverted that did not make sense with everything else. So of course the community is pissed at him. Now might it be Blizzards fault? Sure, it might. But all that means is they made him the fall guy so that their brand takes less of a loss and the responsibility falls on his shoulders.
And why don't they have a questionnaire? I wondered the same thing, but the only reason that makes sense is that this is not really about feedback. Our feedback did not matter anyway when they asked for it.
On September 30 2015 18:10 shin_toss wrote:
they're not suppose to follow every cry and whiners on bnet forums and TL . lot of people on forums these fast few months just make these threads and try to make non-problem a problem.. and there you go.. you have the bandwagon going on.
I agree with this statement, but they have proven they do NOT follow this rule. Because if that were truly the case, they would not be giving the reason of "negative perception" as the reason for doing their design updates...
And the community was not the ones to make a non-problem a problem. They were the ones who asked us for feedback, and after we gave feedback for months it got ignored. We seen the same poll results they did, and they came up with drastically different conclusions from those reports than reality presented. They let us get a taste of the game without macro mechanics, the majority of the community that was polled liked it (and not just on TL) and then they took it away. I would say that is the developers making a non-problem a problem.
Many of the problems people discuss now, like game-ending harassment, active abilities, those can be changed in balance patches after the game releases. The true reason these issues are being brought up now is because the community is unhappy with the direction of the game as a whole, so the "little issues" are more bothersome. And lets be real, the straw that broke the camels back - macro mechanics - are something that will not be changing after release. So now you have the majority of the community that voted against this, all very unhappy.
You shouldn't be blaming the community for feeling how they do. Shouldn't be defending DK either since, regardless if this is Blizzards responsibility or not, he has contradicted himself and went back on his word a number of times, and put words in to the communities & pro players mouth that were never said. If Blizzard made him the fall guy, then why should we give him a break? That just makes all of them assholes with him as the face leading them in the negative path this game has been going for years...
On September 30 2015 18:27 deacon.frost wrote:
If 20k people play the game and only 3k complains, who do you want to listen to? ,-)
That's what I mentioned about the questionnaire in the game for everyone playing beta. Otherwise they don't know the reason. I stopped playing beta and they haven't asked me why I stopped. Is it because I don't like it? Is it because the game lags? Is it because I like more HotS? They don't know, they can only guess(actually it is lagging for me and I like HotS more).
That's not the situation we have here. If 20k people play the game and are ASKED FOR FEEDBACK, and 3k respond with an overwhelming percentage for one side, who do you want to listen to?
Yes they should have had a questionaire. The fact that they didn't doesn't make the communtiy wrong. That makes the developers wrong, and more of a reason as to why you should not be defending them or coming up with rationalities for them. And if they can only "guess" on the feedback, what train of thought would lead to them guessing the opposite of what the forum communities (the only place they allowed us to give feedback) asked for???
If they do not know what people really want, it's noones fault by Blizzards. And if they only give us forums as the single way for us to give feedback then ignore the forums, that's noones fault by Blizzards either. Whether you blame DK or not is up to if you blame Blizzard as a whole, or the team in charge of SC2 specifically.
Blizzard games are not where they used to be, but SC2 is by far the series of theirs that is hurting the most... Even D3 as bad as it was, is in a much better place than SC2 is now. And SC2 came out BEFORE D3 did. Yet they still have not repaired their reputation and it has only plummeted since release...
On September 30 2015 18:35 WrathSCII wrote:
Many people don't post on TL / BNET, but that does not mean they are completely enjoying the current status of those issues.
Exactly. It's not like this beta is huge anyway. Most nights at peak hours there's only ~200-250 games going on in LotV... There is not even that many people that PLAY the beta. So the amount who gave feedback are probably much higher than suspected, considering the number of feedback from players who actually played the beta.
|
On September 30 2015 05:49 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 03:52 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 30 2015 03:22 Spyridon wrote:On September 30 2015 02:45 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 30 2015 01:19 KeksX wrote:On September 30 2015 01:07 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 29 2015 23:44 KeksX wrote:On September 28 2015 23:55 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 28 2015 18:08 -Archangel- wrote:On September 28 2015 01:34 Tiaraju9 wrote:
Day9 is better game desigmer than David Kim. These feedbacks threads are hard to read these days lol. The Starbow guys are better game designers than DK. Day9 has done shit zero so far. Once he has something to show then you can talk about his game design qualities. Fanboys these days... This seems like an odd statement. Surely you know he is on the team for Atlas, an RTS in development right now. Or are you just saying that because they haven't unveiled the game yet--beyond their NDA-protected internal testers--that he hasn't done anything? Just a weird statement. Someone above me mentioned an important element of the changing industry: the PC is going away. And by "going away" I mean, "going away for the general public." Essentially, it has already been replaced by mobile devices (i.e., phones, tablets, etc ...). The PC will never truly go away, but will be relegated to the hobbyist and enthusiast crowds. The PC has been proclaimed dead so many times now, it's never going to happen. Mobile devices are an addition, not a replacement. Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst. On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all. It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now. Didn't say the PC was dead, nor do I agree with those who say the PC is dead. I was very specific. It's still a robust and profitable industry, of course, and will be for some time. The demographic is demonstrably changing. I'm a marketing professional by trade, and this has been an area of great interest to me. Mobile devices (still PCs, technically. The correct term is "Desktop computer", but that's besides the point) are absolutely a replacement for the Desktop PC for a growing percentage of the general population. For some they are supplementary devices, but for an important and growing demographic segment, they are the primary device. As for the Day9 bit: just weird to see such a cynical, borderline negative positions. It's my opinion that he's a clear choice to have on the team, if you're designing a competitive RTS. I mean, why wouldn't the community at large have confidence in his contributions? By your logic, progamers should make great game designers, right? The one thing Day9 has got going for him is his knowledge of the game + the ability to communicate his thoughts decently. That doesn't mean that his original thoughts are qualified to make good game design, though. Game Design is a craft, a craft he neither has learned nor has any prior experience with (or did he develop any games prior to this?). However that is assuming he even is a game designer. I for one think he has more of a QA role where the team develops stuff and he is at charge of judging whether it is good or not. The other topic is too off-topic for this thread though. Let's just agree to disagree on this for the sake of this thread. I bet the Desktop / Mobile debate would be fun and interesting! I bet we would end up agreeing on most of it though, and yeah, doesn't belong in this thread. Good call. The Day9 bit. For a moment, I was confused. Thought, "wait, who is praising his game design?! I'm not ..." Then I looked through the nested quotes, and yeah. I'm with you on this. Stating that Day9 is a better game designer than David Kim is clearly just a ridiculous position to take. So many here at TL and Bnet like to shit on Kim and I think it's largely unfair. No matter what, he is the game designer for Starcraft 2 right now, and that is a pretty fucking high accolade on your CV (resume). Per the team credits on Atlas' website, Day9 is one of three game designers for Atlas, and there is one associate game designer (four designers total). My whole drive is that, while we can't judge him as a game designer yet, we can certainly bestow a deserved amount of confidence in him. I'm confident. I would want him on my team, and I'm sure Atlas is thrilled to have him on theirs. I sensed what felt like undue negativity, but if you're specifically talking about the Day9 vs. Kim thing, yeah. I'm with you. You know, for a very long time I gave DK the benefit of the doubt. But during this last month or so, I can honestly see for myself why people are upset. Yes, since he hs a designer on SC2 that DOES mean something.,, But what should the primary job of the game designer be? To give us the best damn game design he is capable of! This is where he shoots himself in the foot. He admit to giving us inferior design because of the perceptions of some people in the community. We can talk about his accolades for being a designer on SC2 all we want. But when it comes down to it, according to his own admission, the game DESIGNER, is not giving us the best DESIGN he is capable of. I wrote up about this earlier in this same topic we are in now.. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/495458-community-feedback-update-september-25?page=2#21This is besides the fact that every single time they make a choice AGAINST what the community wants, he blames the reason for the changes on the community with the same old "as many of you have pointed out"... If you are asking for community input, then doing the opposite of what the community feedback states (example: 80% AGAINST the current patch), it is a slap in the face to then blame the community. Another example: 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. Yeah sure... Right after saying "We don't agree", blame the community for not making the changes. Even though the polls show overwhelmingly that the community wants the mechanics removed... It has all been a facade. He is dishonest with us. He blames us for his own & his teams decisions. He admits to not giving us the best design because of community perception (when the people in that community were the minority). Then when the community overwhelmingly is in favor of something, goes against that. How can anyone claim that is not a complete fail for a game designer? Whoa. Firstly, I appreciate your passion. You clearly care a great deal. I think many of us here at TL have a visceral connection to the success of Starcraft 2. With that said, your position is rather hyperbolic and perhaps more than a little bit unfair. I'll touch on a few of the points. TL is not the Starcraft 2 communityI love it here. It's a very popular team and website, and clearly a premier destination for the elite Starcraft 2 community aficionado. But, any poll done here is completely selective, unscientific, and might be interesting to look at, but should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It would be a lapse in judgement to make the leap that a TL poll is somehow representative of the SC2 community at large, including the progamers. So I'd caution against claiming to know the heartbeat of the SC2 community. I'm sure Blizzard has given him a job descriptionYou're quick to assume what his roles and responsibilities are, but lets be careful here. We all answer to someone. As an artist myself, and professional--as many of us here probably are--no art is every truly finished, only abandoned (DiVinci). In other words: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. MisunderstandingI do not think he blames the community for their design decisions. I think he knows he's walking on eggshells with a community known to be--how to say this nicely?-- rather intense with their feedback; so he guards his positions carefully. I'd argue that in doing so he loses some of the authority of his position, and some of the potential eloquence in his delivery is lost. He was straight up: we saw some polls. We disagree. He then peppered in with the "as some of you noted" bit, and agreed. That's definitely not blame, lol. It's just not very eloquent either. I'd argue he'd be better off just saying, "We saw your polls. Thanks. We disagree." The more you explain, the more you open yourself up to vehement and detailed opposition. AccusationsYou have accused David Kim of being a liar, and intentionally misleading the community he is designing for. That's hardcore, man. Why go to that extreme? Anyway ... I see people saying they won't buy the game because of three abilities. Three abilities that have been core to gameplay since Wings of Liberty. Core to every tournament since that has been amazing, and epic ... it all just feels so dramatic and unnecessary. My two cents. I know the TL poll is not everyone playing SC2, but the comments DK made were regarding those polls. The official forums were the same deal. And it's not like Blizzard has a survey going around for people in the beta. That's where they get the feedback from. It's more than the poll as well, if you read my older post. It's about the fact that they claimed they were HAPPY with the direction of mechanics, followed by a release date announcement that was surprisingly soon, followed by week later folding to "negative perception". A complete switch. That leaves the community feeling misdirected. Is that a surprise? Did they not direct us towards one thing for a couple months, tell us they were happy, then suddenly abandon it??? And his "as you have pointed out" comments are more than just pointing out things. It's PR speak. And every time he talks about the community "pointing things out" that is a harsh conflict with what was REALLY happening at the time. When people removed the macro mechanics, the word going around was "I like it, but the game should have been rebalanced before this!". Very few people were complaining about the races "losing their essence". That was straight PR speak to cover up the real reasons for not doing it, which by the common denominator of all the recent happenings lately being the release date in a month and a half. Lets also not forget about him claiming that all the pros were behind the removal of macro mechanics... When he got called out for stating that and being misleading by the pros themselves. He wants to remove macro mechanics, blames the pros, then when he decides to revert, acts like it is "listening to the community" when the community was overwhelmingly asking for the opposite... This is besides the fact of shady situations that whole time. For example, patching the macro mechancis back in with a message of "no community update this week". Then a few days later, "DK managed to write us up some feedback updates from overseas!". But then in this feedback update it is talking about "doing this in the next update" as if the changes were not implemented before then??? That does not add up. Obviously the post was written BEFORE the update, and blizzard chose to not release it at first, then somehow it appears out of nowhere after all the negative responses. When it comes to responsibilities, it went from balance designer to lead designer. So yes I'm sure he has more of a specialized role. But he is also the lead designer in charge of working with the community. And I completely stand by my belief that he has failed in this role. There is also a double standard in his comments, which makes the misdirection obvious. When an overwhelming amount of community want no macro mechanics "we do not agree, we're staying with this". But when a much smaller minority of the community is complaining about "nonexistent macro" they do changes because of "negative perception"??? Not because of anything that has to do with balance, or even FACTS and REALITY, but perception??? Really??? We are making major design decisions that have a major affect on the game based on perception??? Not only is that a double standard from how they treat the community on other issues, but that is a complete absolute failure of a move for a lead designer to make... ESPECIALLY after giving players a taste of how it was without the mechanics, and most of the players who tried it overwhelmingly behind removal of them. Why even have these community feedback updates, if the feedback doesn't matter? And you asked, why accusations against him? I provided more than accusations. Look at the link I provided in my last post. I quote his own words. He contradicts himself. He ignores the overwhelming majority of feedback and tells us that our feedback was in a direction it was not. He tells us they are happy with the direction and then reverts the changes once they schedule a release date. Then he tells us they believe the choice they made is the "best move for the game" when a couple weeks earlier he described that change as inferior design... Now was it his "intent" to mislead us? Possibly. Probably a decent chance of it by his conflicting statements. But I am not positive about that. What am I 100% positive about? 2 things: That he is a poor game designer for even CONSIDERING making changes based upon perception rather than reality. That he is horrible at public relations and the community would have been much happier in the end if they never did this whole switch of directions this last month, because every since then it has been a PR nightmare, and this makes it obvious that what we are being told is smoke and mirrors to hide the real issues. You know people were VERY happy with his community feedback updates, not always agreeing, but you continuously seen people saying how they "really appreciate knowing what Blizzard is thinking". Then look how the feedback changes as soon as they decided to re-implement the macro mechanics... Now in less than 1 month, the community is in an uproar, feels misled, lied to, and has lost complete trust in Blizzard and DK. Again. And your last paragraph, about people saying they will not buy the game? Because it's more than just the game they are giving us at this point. They have told people they were going to work with the community for months, asked for our feedback, told us they were happy, and then reverted the changes. It makes all the feedback feel utterly pointless. And by doing that, Blizzard as a brand, has lost trust. I personally was HAPPY by the removal of macro mechanics and the direction they were going so I preordered the game to get in to beta. Now they removed that, and I will be honest, if I could get a refund I would. That was the pretense as to why I became interested enough to play again. They told me they were happy with the direction!!! They did not even ask for feedback anymore on the macro mechanics! Then once the community became comfortable with the changes, they reverted it. They already took my money then changed directions. Why would I trust them enough to want to give them any more money? Why would I recommend anyone else to give them money? Honestly to all the people saying they are not sure if they should get the game or not, I say be VERY cautious. I do not blame them. I support them. Because I was happy with the direction the game was going when I bought it. I am not now.
Dude ... I'll not be party to this sort of rhetoric anymore. Good luck! And in all seriousness, with this bit, just request a refund. You pre-ordered a game. You didn't partner with Blizzard. I'm almost certain that you'd be able to get your money back if you demonstrated dissatisfaction with your transaction.
On September 30 2015 16:27 KeksX wrote:@TimeSpiral: Show nested quote +Per the team credits on Atlas' website, Day9 is one of three game designers for Atlas, and there is one associate game designer (four designers total). My whole drive is that, while we can't judge him as a game designer yet, we can certainly bestow a deserved amount of confidence in him. I'm confident. I would want him on my team, and I'm sure Atlas is thrilled to have him on theirs. I sensed what felt like undue negativity, but if you're specifically talking about the Day9 vs. Kim thing, yeah. I'm with you. I can agree with your sentiment about Day9 in general and why Atlas would love to have them on his team to help out. So I think we pretty much agree
Glad we could clear that up, lol : )
|
Exactly as predicted. A split opinion in the community allows them to do whatever they want. They take it as "50% of players will be okay with that!" rather than "50% of players will be terribly discontent". The right solution for the players was to delay the release, nothing else than that.
|
On October 01 2015 02:20 ZenithM wrote:
Exactly as predicted. A split opinion in the community allows them to do whatever they want. They take it as "50% of players will be okay with that!" rather than "50% of players will be terribly discontent". The right solution for the players was to delay the release, nothing else than that.
I do not believe they even intended to release it now.
They have always said this beta was going to be much longer than the other betas, and it ended up being around 6 months, same as hots (maybe 1 month longer?).
Plus even the digital preorder page says "*Game is due for release before March 20, 2016.".
And they were sticking with the direction they were going through the whole beta. That is, up until the release date announcement. Then everything changed...
Plus they would not have attempted big changes so late in beta if it was planned to end so soon...
Now it is around the same beta length as usual, and as soon as the release date as announced, they revert everything, and community satisfaction is split all goes to shit.
And it just so happens that the release date is right at blizzcon...
My guess? They planned on another big announcement but that got delayed, and they needed something as filler for Blizzcon... SC2 only one that can fill in that space.
|
On October 01 2015 02:20 ZenithM wrote:
Exactly as predicted. A split opinion in the community allows them to do whatever they want. They take it as "50% of players will be okay with that!" rather than "50% of players will be terribly discontent". The right solution for the players was to delay the release, nothing else than that.
how would a delayed release change this situation? It would still be "50% of players will be okay with that, 50% of players will be terribly discontent".
|
On October 01 2015 02:56 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2015 02:20 ZenithM wrote:
Exactly as predicted. A split opinion in the community allows them to do whatever they want. They take it as "50% of players will be okay with that!" rather than "50% of players will be terribly discontent". The right solution for the players was to delay the release, nothing else than that. how would a delayed release change this situation? It would still be "50% of players will be okay with that, 50% of players will be terribly discontent".
Did you not notice that the change of direction happened precisely after they announced the release date?
Everything since the release date has been rushed, or scrapped.
|
I honestly laugh at all those guys back then in HotS Beta, who were saying things like "Let's wait until LotV to have a complete game" or "This Beta means nothing, issues are only temporary and there is still one more expansion to go."
No, it just got worse with more bandaids, gimmicks and changes out of the blue which no one ever asked for and lead to even more problems.
|
Adept
We definitely heard your feedback and we agree that Adepts warping-in during the early game using Warp Prisms against Terran in the current state is probably too much.
Probably?!! you think guys?!! The problem with this game that the development team never really admits they make shitty decisions sometimes .. and rather than fixing the problem directly, they have to keep dancing around the real answer for the problem for a few patches until they finally fix the darn thing! for me it's frustrating to keep hoping they actually would listen to the community and level up to the expectations of the fans of this game .. I have endured it throughout WoLs ridiculous phases .. throughout HoTS craziness and I will NOT go through that again .. I have beta access since forever and at the moment I won't open it even if they gave me money for it .. I'm fine with my HoTS at the moment .. I will NOT buy this game or encourage anyone to buy it unless I feel they will be welling to admit they missed up and that they are seriously committed to fixing it right no matter how huge or small the change needed is .. I know for sure I mean nothing to them or compared to the whole fan base .. but still it's my final decision till I feel some improvement there ..
|
After playing several more matches, I have to say that the game is just too fast atm! There is no joy in playing, it's become a pure stress-test at any level! Just go and watch TLO's stream for example: this isn't just concentration and devotion in his face, as it was in Hots, it's pure red-faced terror! I'm pretty sure this game will burn-out high level players en masse and scare away the casuals in an instant! Masochists gonna love it though!
|
It definitely plays faster, but I love that. Always action! It can lead to some quite "sloppy" games since there are always so much to do, but that also raises the bar and the better player is more likely to win. That is, if they can get it balanced.
|
On October 01 2015 02:56 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2015 02:20 ZenithM wrote:
Exactly as predicted. A split opinion in the community allows them to do whatever they want. They take it as "50% of players will be okay with that!" rather than "50% of players will be terribly discontent". The right solution for the players was to delay the release, nothing else than that. how would a delayed release change this situation? It would still be "50% of players will be okay with that, 50% of players will be terribly discontent".
Obviously not delay and do nothing in the meantime :D. I mean delay and try to come up with something more satisfactory than half-assed macro mechanics. They should have tried with no macro mechanics a bit more than that, they gave up too easily.
Edit: Eh my bad, no need to revive that thread :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
