StarCraft II: Competitive Multiplayer– Panel Recap - Page 2

On November 07 2015 14:18 BronzeKnee wrote:


You know what really pisses me off? Is that they came up with these crappy goals after they changed stuff! We didn't know these were the goals clearly before the LOTV Beta, we all thought the goals were here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/16654945/legacy-of-the-void-multiplayer-preview-11-8-2014.

Our feedback could have been better and more focused if we knew the goals they said were the goals weren't the real goals, and that these five goals were the real goals.

And what are these Five Goals for the Future? They wrote this heading and then... nothing... they talked about how great the Adept is, and then forgot about the heading and their blog wandered aimlessly. I can't even make this up.

My guess is the conversation that led to this blog went something like this:

"Uhh David we should do some goals. Pick things that we know the community will like, like the LoL developers do, and then work toward those goals and report on the progress"

"But we have no idea what we are doing Aron. We made some goals, then we forgot about them."

"You're right David, so we should setup some retroactive goals, then say we have Five Goals for the Future. People probably forgot about those old goals like we did anyway."

"But we don't have any goals for the future Aron."

"Well David, we don't have to clearly outline what those five goals are to make people think we have new goals. Just write the heading in a blog and after we've randomly changed a bunch things, we can talk about how we met five goals with community help! And we'll blame any miscommunication on the fact is was just a blog..."


Do people really still buy the BS they try to sell?

On November 08 2015 00:29 Ctone23 wrote:
Was there any talk about the current WCS system, or any mention at all? I missed the later panel.

On November 08 2015 00:19 TronJovolta wrote:


You are one bored motherfucker. All you do is bitch about SC2 on this forum, in extreme length and detail. Save yourself some time and find a game you like better, you fucking moron.

On November 07 2015 14:18 BronzeKnee wrote:


You know what really pisses me off? Is that they came up with these crappy goals after they changed stuff! We didn't know these were the goals clearly before the LOTV Beta, we all thought the goals were here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/16654945/legacy-of-the-void-multiplayer-preview-11-8-2014.

Our feedback could have been better and more focused if we knew the goals they said were the goals weren't the real goals, and that these five goals were the real goals.

And what are these Five Goals for the Future? They wrote this heading and then... nothing... they talked about how great the Adept is, and then forgot about the heading and their blog wandered aimlessly. I can't even make this up.

My guess is the conversation that led to this blog went something like this:

"Uhh David we should do some goals. Pick things that we know the community will like, like the LoL developers do, and then work toward those goals and report on the progress"

"But we have no idea what we are doing Aron. We made some goals, then we forgot about them."

"You're right David, so we should setup some retroactive goals, then say we have Five Goals for the Future. People probably forgot about those old goals like we did anyway."

"But we don't have any goals for the future Aron."

"Well David, we don't have to clearly outline what those five goals are to make people think we have new goals. Just write the heading in a blog and after we've randomly changed a bunch things, we can talk about how we met five goals with community help! And we'll blame any miscommunication on the fact is was just a blog..."


Do people really still buy the BS they try to sell?

On November 07 2015 15:18 BronzeKnee wrote:


Well, either they made them up now and the other goals were lies, or they communicated nothing in roughly a year from originally setting the goals I linked in my post above to these goals.

On November 08 2015 04:05 BronzeKnee wrote:
You guys want to pat them on the back when they do good, but not punish em when they do something wrong. That isn't the way this should be done (or the way kids should be raised). I didn't say they should set Five Goals for the Future, they did! So why blame me when they don't? I'm just the messenger.

If Blizzard does a good job, I'll be the first to commend them, I did for years. But if Blizzard messes stuff up, I'll be the first to call em out. I hope I don't have to do that for years.

On November 08 2015 04:24 ShambhalaWar wrote:


I'm feeling the other people in this thread as well.

If you all got is the negative, you spoke it, now peace out and let people celebrate.

Or say something positive.

On November 08 2015 04:03 scbwsc2 wrote:
They've been stressing more action, more small engagements, and working on the economy for the past several months in their community updates. Maybe they didn't spell it out for you explicitly in a list format, but it doesn't take a genius to see what their priorities were.

Also, Blizzard gave you a free preview of a game, and took time to communicate with the community about what it wants. Instead of constantly hating on them, maybe you should try to focus on the positives? Or if you're hell-bent on believing that everyone in Blizzard is a lying, money-loving spawn of Satan, maybe you should go play something else like CS:GO and stop poisoning the forums with your negativity.

On November 08 2015 03:49 BronzeKnee wrote:
I've already moved on. I come back to check out how SC2 is doing and see if anything has changed with the Blizzard design team in terms of communication and such. But I'm fed the same BS they've always tried to spoon feed me. I don't see how this announcement is positive when it doesn't make sense.

"Ok we've got Five Goals for the Future now we are going to tell the community..."

"Goal #1 ..." (crickets chirping)

"Nevermind, the Adept is really awesome isn't it. Now let's talk about how we copied the LoL ladder... I mean the great new ladder system."

It is just a joke, I laugh when I read what they write. So what do you really expect, is anyone surprised that WOL was the pinnacle of SC2? They can't even set five goals after they tell us they are going to set five goals. When did game design become peewee T-ball where everyone gets a trophy no matter how poorly they do?

Hold people accountable for what they say they are going to do, at the very least. When are you, and this community in general, going to do that?

If you love this game and can overlook all that, great. But I love this game much more than you then, because I know how much better it could be if we didn't overlook that. And I want SC2 to reach it's potential.

On November 08 2015 05:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote:

The forum's purpose is not just to celebrate Blizzard, what are you trying to do telling someone to "peace out" with justified negative opinions ? Lots of people share them. You can celebrate, he can criticize.

Blizzard's positive attitude is superficial. All they do (by they I mean the company) seems to serve only one purpose : maximizing short term $ in shareholders' pockets with the lowest risk. And doesn't it show ? They sell you virtual tickets even just to see those "panels" where they announce you they will sell skins (with little doubt breaking visual and sound coherence in the game). Lots of words saying nearly nothing, making the smallest promises and calling "perfect" sloppy choices or aditions that bring little to a shaky game that needs a lot of change. They give you the impression they care a lot, the game is great and there is a future for strong competitive value that doesn't exist mostly just out of money and hype, and you just applaud while trying to shut down negative voices who warn as they stopped believing the marketing lies. They just bought time again cause they are just talking to you, otherwise they wouldn't sell tickets to see the panel it would be a free announcement, so they have nearly nothing for you you didn't know even though in that community post not long ago they said "look at this panel for the future don't worry about the beta closing like this" (and you have to pay for it lol...). Of course they're not going to say "well we're just not going to do anything anymore" but they're just going "sure we'll keep patching", what makes you believe the direction will be any good ? You may end up left alone in a small competitive community with dreams of a future that never comes while Blizzard milks the game as much as possible drawing people from MOBA's with a medal and trophy rewarding ladder system and possibly balance/design changes aimed at making the game easier for people who don't play too much RTS so they play a bit and buy some skins. They will always keep making you believe the goal is for the game to get better, but there are different marketing goals behind what they do to the game than making it deeper and better, and it really shows.

You can celebrate all you want, but if you develop an attitude of bashing people who criticize I think it will only accelerate the disbanding of your community.

But am I just bashing positivity...........? well I'm not telling you to peace out.
When you justify and explain why you like things it is interesting.

On November 08 2015 07:07 Nazara wrote:

They didn't work for months on the economy. They just did it one day, and never considered trying alternative methods of achieving the same goal with a better design. From the poll I made, only 20% agree with their economy model. Most people want Brood War-like worker scaling (Double Harvesting or Hot Mineral Harvesting at 43% together), and 25% wants to revert back to HotS economy model. Even though only really small portion of people voted, the trend was steady right from the start. So no, you cannot congratulate them on the economy changes.
They had to give us free preview, imagine what state would they ship the game if there was no semi-open beta? They needed the playerbase to find out which of their ideas are completely broken.


So what about the goals they have set for themselves on the 11/8/2014 (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/16654945/legacy-of-the-void-multiplayer-preview-11-8-2014)?
- More action.
This is somehow achieved. Obviously deleting the early game and rushing everyone straight into mid-game with 12 worker start will increase action. But there are other ways of achieving the same thing.
Removing PO will increase the action. Nerfing the Queen's ground range by 1 will increase the action. Removing Supply Depot requirement for Barracks will increase the action. Making FF destructible will increase the action.
With half patches everyone is expanding quickly, or at least pressured to do so. Where are the 1 base builds, which are all about the action? They are so all-inish now, that if you don't pull them off, might as well type gg.
Partial success

- More harassment options.
Options are good. The strength is not, and most people agree on that.
Fail

- Incentives to go on the offense
They gave example of low risk Medivac dropping. This is complete opposite of what people want - it means that you need to be simply a better player to deny and control drops, because the Medivac Boost allows you to drop anywhere, at any time, with next to no risk.
Fail

- Micro opportunities on both sides
"Create more significant counter-micro opportunities and reduce the number of situations where one player’s ability to micro matters far more than their opponent's."
I doesn't matter if your micro is better if your opponent uses Medivac Boost to save his units. Same with 7 range Warp Prism. Fungal Growth is harder to pull off, but doesn't mean that if it hits, you can do any counter micro. Same goes for Force Field (Ravager is an exception), Abduct, EMP, Feedback, Marauders Concussive Shells and many more.
Fail

- Army vs Army Micro
"If micro doesn’t matter that much, battles are less interesting. Legacy of the Void aims to make micro much more important throughout a battle so that the results of a battle are more dependent on a player's ability to execute commands during combat."
Battles still last seconds, even as there are more abilities to use, you won't be able to use them all. Ability micro is also less interesting then simple movement/focus fire types of micro.
Partial success

- Differentiate player skill better
This one is better, there is more abilities, games pace is galloping, so yes, there is more room to differentiate players, even as the way they do it is controversial.
Success

- Improve weaker design units/abilities
"Units like the Corruptor and Battlecruiser will have more utility overall. Legacy of the Void will seek to ensure that units can always affect a battle in different and meaningful ways."
Corruptor is a disaster, if they wanted to give it more utility. Battlecruiser? Maybe we will see some more of it, but maybe we won't - abilities like Feedback still counters it.
Fail

4 Fails, 2 partial successes, and 1 success.

Current goals, for which they praise themselves, different then the ones above?
-Faster pacing with less downtime
-A balance of micro needs across the races
-Major redesigns to existing core mechanics

People complain about the faster pacing. They haven't done any major redesigns to core mechanics, the ones they've done are minor.
You also cannot praise them for finally improving the ladder system. After 5 years of asking for improvements this is the least that they can do

On November 08 2015 07:55 ddayzy wrote:


This is why the liquid community is looked down on. When you manage to turn what was truly a great day for Starcraft into something to whine about then, let's be honest here, you are only reading through the updates to find something to complain about. Like I said, it does not have to be all sunshine but if you manage to turn yesterday into something negative you are trying way to hard to see the negative.