EPTStarCraft II: Competitive Multiplayer– Panel Recap - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
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. I said what I said. People responded directly to me. That gives me the right to respond directly to them. Best thing you can do when hear something you don't like: ignore it. If you don't want to hear me say anything, don't speak to me. And if you want to celebrate the Five Goals of the Future that Blizzard did..n't lay out, be my guest. I don't care what you do with your life at all. And you shouldn't care what I do with mine, but you guys really love telling me what to do even giving me relationship advice in this thread. But I'll keep doing what I want, because I don't care what you think of me. The only thing that matters is how I see myself and I'm fine with how this has gone down. So let's go back to talking about Starcraft and Blizzard and not me. | ||
|
ETisME
12489 Posts
I generally think sc2 ladder is really awesome already, can't wait to see the new changes | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
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. There's a fundamental misconception people like you make. You make these condescending posts on the basis that we're bashing SC2 out of hatred for the game. You could not be farther from the truth. If I truly didn't care for the game and just wanted it to die, I wouldn't say anything, and neither would anybody else. It's doing a fine job of this without my help. We'd have better things to do. When you take a series that is so beloved as Starcraft is, and run it into the ground, yeah, people are going to get more pissed off than they would about some other game. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JnusU7h.png) As an exercise, I often randomly check the live streams for SC2 and BW, and you'd be surprised how often it's like this. We criticize Blizzard so much because we love this game, and most of all we adore what it has the potential to become. It follows that we become outraged when we see them do what they're doing to SC2. We see them intentionally make changes to the game that make it a more frustrating exprience. We see them talk about transparency in development and, in the same breath, explain their design choices with the vague non-answer of "we found in testing". We see them talk about how much they work with the community, yet for every good suggestion they tested there were 10 more that got left in the lurch. Meanwhile they continue to push design schemes that break the very foundation of what makes SC2 a great game - it's warping into a new experience entirely. That upsets me. And when I voice my displeasure at what I'm seeing, there's always that clutch of people that tell me to go away if I don't like the game, completely oblivious to why I'm saying what I'm saying. So I can be the sunshine, and BronzeKnee and the rest can be whatever they please. Let them be. | ||
|
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
Having said that, I've enjoyed playing SC as of late and will probably buy LotV. My main qualms are with the spectator side of things, where its almost painful to sit and watch timing attacks into a "fortified" position succeed again and again. It's an absolute tragedy when we see some of the best players in the world playing 8 minute games which are decided by massing blink stalkers and throwing them at the other player. However, this looks like it's gonna be fixed eventually with the introduction of the Lurker and Liberator, but maybe David Kim should look at adding a high-ground advantage as well. | ||
|
NasusAndDraven
359 Posts
On November 08 2015 13:39 [Phantom] wrote: Because contrary to what most people seemed to believe they announced a lot of support for lotv so the game will still be relevant and not be left to die for a while "if blizzard said good things about starcraft, that must mean good things are to come." Time will tell, but you are really naive if you believe stuff just because people profiting from it said so. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 08 2015 18:36 craz3d wrote: Bronzeknee is right. This is nothing but a PR stunt intended to hook more players into buying the game. Of course, I can't fault the Starcraft2 team for trying, because they've got to make as many sales as possible. However, if the last 5 years are anything to go by, all the flashy design choices intended to hook non-RTS players will remain in the game long after said players have stopped playing. Having said that, I've enjoyed playing SC as of late and will probably buy LotV. My main qualms are with the spectator side of things, where its almost painful to sit and watch timing attacks into a "fortified" position succeed again and again. It's an absolute tragedy when we see some of the best players in the world playing 8 minute games which are decided by massing blink stalkers and throwing them at the other player. However, this looks like it's gonna be fixed eventually with the introduction of the Lurker and Liberator, but maybe David Kim should look at adding a high-ground advantage as well. well, they obviously wouldn't announce huge things at the MP panel. we are just coming out of a beta and they did all those community feedback threads to tell us what they are intending. still a bit disappointed that they dont let me choose matchups on unranked. split MMR doesnt help me skip ZvZ or TvP, though it's obviously an improvement | ||
|
Athenau
570 Posts
And if you want to celebrate the Five Goals of the Future that Blizzard did..n't lay out, be my guest. I don't care what you do with your life at all. Wat. They're right at the top of the page: Throughout our multiplayer redesign, we’ve had five major goals: -More action -Faster pacing with less downtime -A balance of micro needs across the races -Variety in types of micro -Major redesigns to existing core mechanics | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
If only they had a properly designed game made around 1997 that they could use for inspiration... Oh, wait. LotV still seems as dull as ever and it is sad that after getting into scbw in 2008 - 11 years after its release - and playing it for over 2 years, sc2 made me quit it 6 months after release and I still see no reason to return. Luckily I will at least be able to save some money. On November 08 2015 21:10 Athenau wrote: Wat. They're right at the top of the page: Earlier than 3 days before release, he meant. | ||
|
Athenau
570 Posts
Earlier than 3 days before release, he meant. Why does that matter? I mean, complain if you don't agree with the goals, or if you think that the changes they made were incongruent with those goals, but complaining that they're summarizing their approach in what's clearly meant to be a retrospective of the beta (among other things) is asinine. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16859 Posts
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. considering the resources allocated to the RTS team they are doing a great job. the very best, top-of-the-industry game designers don't work on RTS games any more and haven't for years. the very best are spending their energies in areas that make real money. is Gabe Newell fighting tooth-and-nail with Blizzard to make the best RTS game?.no, billionaire Gabe has better things to do... i'm picking up my Steam Controller on Tuesday. what about Bobby Kotick? is he coming up with an ingenious revenue model to bring in more cash from the RTS genre for ATVI? no Big Bad Bob has got better things to do.... like finding new ways to squeeze parents for another Billion dollars in Skylanders toys that will eventually be lost by 10 year old whiney brats. Rest assured the parents will be back at GameStop to re-buy every lost plastic "action" figure. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On November 08 2015 21:12 Shikyo wrote: In my opinion, this is a complete joke. The ladder system was heavily criticized way back in 2010. I agree that the leageue-system is pretty silly. It should be mentioned though, that the underlying match making algorithm is excellent, and always has been (except that detour with repeated decay). Just that you don't see it. :/ Hopefully the new fluffy thing they want to wrap the MMR up in will be a bit more true to the MMR than the leage+rank+points+bonus pool we had before, but I am not convinced from what I heard.... | ||
|
Fliparoni
205 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On November 08 2015 21:10 Athenau wrote: Wat. They're right at the top of the page: Re-read what you quoted... Throughout our multiplayer redesign, we’ve had five major goals: Had is past tense. They had five major goals throughout the LOTV beta. Future implies, quite literally, in the future. Nevermind the fact those goals differed greatly from the set of goals they originally stated at the beginning of the beta (in the blog I linked in my first post in this thread)... ...They titled a subsection "Five Goals for the Future", and then say nothing about those "future" goals, just rehash what they did. Even if they wanted to use those same goals from before, it doesn't make any sense. "In addition, we redesigned core aspects of the game." How is that a goal for the future? If I am to lay out my goals for the future of my life, I'm not just gonna list all my past achievements and call it a day. And can we continue to expect them to redesign core aspect of the game after LOTV release? Blizzard has never done that before. Anyway, as someone mentioned, their writing would be have been graded harshly in high school, because it is terrible. This isn't rocket science. If any of the people I supervised wrote that crap, I'd call them in immediately. It is an unacceptable for my organization to come across like that. That isn't good communication with customers because it isn't clear. Makes you wonder how they communicate internally. Don't accept this garbage. Expect more. | ||
|
Athenau
570 Posts
Nevermind the fact those goals differed greatly from the set of goals they originally stated at the beginning of the beta (in the blog I linked in my first post in this thread.) I don't see the drastic difference. The emphasis was (and still is) on "more action" and "more micro". If anything, the original goals are better articulated--the "five goals" can be boiled down to two--but they don't diverge significantly from the originals. Then, they title a subsection Five Goals for the Future, and then say nothing about new goals. Even if they wanted to use those same goals from before, they only listed information about 4 of them Because, obviously, they're the same goals. That's why each paragraph corresponds to on of the "five goals" listed above. . And how often do we really need to have a major redesign of core mechanics? Unless what you think they've done so far constitutes a "major redesign", redesigning core mechanics is still a valid goal. They've said they're open to large design changes in the live game, so no inconsistency there. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
 . | ||
|
Dingodile
4135 Posts
On November 09 2015 02:01 Musicus wrote: 10 subdivisions and combining all master leauges and GM into one sounds awesome .This was more than necessary as we have seen in HotS. Quitting the game was the logic consequence after promoting into GM ~2weeks ago. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On November 09 2015 02:00 Athenau wrote: I don't see the drastic difference. The emphasis was (and still is) on "more action" and "more micro". If anything, the original goals are better articulated--the "five goals" can be boiled down to two--but they don't diverge significantly from the originals. If you ever find yourself in goal driven environment where you have to work as a team, you'll realize how important clear goals are, and how important achieving those goals are. This is especially true in software design. Not everything in life can and should be done in a willy nilly fashion. According to what the Blizzard team has said between these two blogs, they missed a substantial amount of the goals. How did they do in more harassment options? How about incentives to go on the offense? And improve weaker design units and abilities? They didn't mention those things, I guess they weren't issues? That should have been communicated. So they completed four at of seven original goals? Oh, and we got a major redesign of core mechanics thrown on top that the Blizzard apparently didn't see as important at the start. Four of seven? We're looking at 57% here. That's an F. And that isn't me judging them. I didn't set those goals. That is them judging themselves. I'd say they diverge quite a bit, but that doesn't really matter if you're going to willy nilly this. I'm glad the LoL team doesn't willy nilly this stuff. On November 09 2015 02:00 Athenau wrote: Because, obviously, they're the same goals. That's why each paragraph corresponds to on of the "five goals" listed above. Riddle me this, how can you achieve a future goal in the past? If I was going to list my goals for the future, would you expect me to rehash achievements from my past? | ||
|
Athenau
570 Posts
If you ever find yourself in goal driven environment where you have to work as a team, you'll realize how important clear goals are, and how important achieving those goals are. This is especially true in software design. Please, I'm a programmer, don't bother lecturing me on design or the importance of planning. By the standards of the average corporate communication, that recap is a paragon of clarity. Nitpicking the wording is a colossal waste of everyone's time. Criticize the goals, criticize the process, or criticize the outcome. Criticizing the text when the intent is perfectly clear is pointless. According to what the Blizzard team has said between these two blogs, they missed a substantial amount of the goals. Yeah, you _could_ make that unjustified inference. Or, you could apply Occam's Razor and realize that it's more likely that they didn't bother to reread the original (more detailed) post when they wrote this one. How did they do in more harassment options? How about incentives to go on the offense? And improve weaker design units and abilities? They didn't mention those things, I guess they weren't issues? I don't know, how did they do? Well, we have a comprehensive list of the changes made in the beta so far, and we have a few months worth of VODs and replays to look at. So...instead of pointless speculation about whether Blizzard thinks they hit the mark, you could...argue about the actual data? So they completed four at of seven original goals? Oh, and we got a major redesign of core mechanics thrown on top that the Blizzard apparently didn't see as important from the start. Sure, the macro mechanics thing was badly mismanaged. They should've put that in the beginning, and committed to balancing the game without the mechanics. I'd be the last person to say the beta, or what came out of it, was perfect. I don't even agree with all of Blizzard's goals. But for all their faults, inconsistency isn't one of them. Riddle me this, how can you achieve a future goal in the past? If I was going to list my goals for the future, would you expect me to rehash achievements from my past? If you don't believe you've achieved your goals, then it's perfectly acceptable to list them for the future. Obviously. Edit: So it's not so much "rehashing achievements" as saying "these are my goals, this is what I've done already". If anything, you should be complaining about Blizzard not talking specifics (as opposed to creating new goals) about what they're working on going forward. | ||
|
JacobShock
Denmark2485 Posts
| ||
| ||
