|
your Country52797 Posts
![[image loading]](http://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/blog_header/z8/Z89Q2P47AFZM1446696874067.jpg)
Our StarCraft II Multiplayer Panel just wrapped up at BlizzCon 2015! This panel covered our goals for StarCraft II multiplayer going forward, and also discussed how community feedback has helped shape many of the upcoming changes we have planned.
Below, we’ve included a complete breakdown on everything we discussed in the panel.
Reviewing Multiplayer
Lead Multiplayer Designer David Kim opened up the panel by discussing 1v1 StarCraft II multiplayer and what makes it unique among other game modes like Campaign, Co-op Missions, Archon Mode, and the Arcade. Whereas these other modes are meant to be more accessible to players, 1v1 multiplayer has one of the highest skill-ceilings, if not the highest, of any current game. While we’ve added new game modes that are either collaborative or team-based experiences and serve as excellent areas for more casual players to begin playing StarCraft II, the panel focused more on our goals for improving certain mechanical aspects of the game particularly as it relates to 1v1 multiplayer.
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
Five Goals for the Future
More action was a core pillar that aimed to promote skirmishes, harassment, and attacks regardless of a player’s unit composition. A great example of this is the new Protoss unit Adept. These units can be built very early on, have the Psionic Transfer ability to quickly move in and disrupt mineral lines of opponents, and can two-shot workers – making them great units to go on the offense from the start of the game. More action is also reflected throughout Legacy of the Void in economic changes, macro changes, and new unit additions.
Faster Pacing birthed the concept of starting with more workers. We wanted to remove periods of the game where players had little opportunity to exert their prowess, and the economic build-up time from 6 to 12 workers was a perfect example of that.
Another desire is for Legacy of the Void to be less about the size of your army and more about engaging frequently and effectively. For this to happen, micro needs to be a vital aspect of all army compositions. To promote this dynamic, we designed units like the Ravager, Disruptor, Adept, and Cyclone. As we added more opportunities to micro with each of the three races, it was important that we made sure the types of micro joining StarCraft II were different enough, while remaining true to the feel of each race.
In addition, we redesigned core aspects of the game. Such changes included revamps to the game’s economy, racial macro mechanics, and all-in strategies. For example, in Legacy of the Void, when a player intends to win solely on the back of a warp-in strategy, it will require a greater investment to achieve the same levels of aggression as in Heart of the Swarm.
While we’ve made many changes in Legacy of the Void, we haven’t made them alone. As Senior Technical Designer Aron Kirkpatrick explained, we’ve had one of the most passionate gaming communities helping us.
The Feedback Process
At the start of our long beta for Legacy of the Void, we began regularly asking players for more feedback. As Kirkpatrick explained during the panel, this made a huge difference in the quality of improvements we made to the game as the beta progressed.
Out of all the games out there, StarCraft II’s community isn’t just passionate—this community pioneered eSports as we know it. Highlighting the competitive aspects of StarCraft II is deeply engrained into the community, and that passion for excellent gameplay was utilized in creating Legacy of the Void through consistently seeking input from our players.
We’re very proud of how our passionate community focuses on constructive feedback and we want to involve them more closely in our development process. With this in mind, Kirkpatrick asked our audience: “how do you get everyone involved in a process as complex as game development?”
Community Informed Design
In designing Legacy of the Void, we became much more transparent. Through sharing our internal design discussions and having more two-way communication, more valuable discussions emerged which significantly improved our development process.
We’ve also held several community summits that have been very helpful in gathering thoughts and sentiments from the personalities and players who represent and advocate for the community.
Harnessing Player Feedback
After gathering and listening to feedback, we began to implement it. The Disruptor, for instance, received a lot of feedback early-on that it was “too binary”; it wildly wiped out an opponent’s army with its attack, or failed spectacularly.
We mentioned in a post that we wanted the unit to survive more but deal less damage, and the community gave amazing feedback resulting in changes. This approach occurred with many other units—even yielding a new unit altogether: the Terran Liberator. As a result of the feedback we received, we feel the Liberator is currently one of the most interesting units in the game.
Large-scale economic changes, as well as changes to Protoss warp-in tactics, were also a result of listening to community feedback. With the community's help, we made additional changes to stabilize the game and make it more fun for everyone.
More Communication Helps
Our macro-mechanics changes were met with mixed-response, yet the community provided consistent feedback as we made adjustments to our approach. We hope the changes we landed on feel more fair as a result of this feedback, and preserve what people like about macro and its importance to high-level play.
Open communication also helped with feedback on early-game army scaling. When we reduced the effectiveness of macro mechanics, this created a more lengthy early game for skirmishes to take place. Most of the feedback we got showed that people enjoyed when skirmishes were frequent but brief, and that this created a better flow through the stages of the game—so we value the feedback we received on this topic.
Aron Kirkpatrick closed by saying that open communication will still continue after launch, but will be focused more on balance than design. Concerning the beta, we achieved a lot thanks to the proactive discussions that took place with the community.
Upcoming Ladder Changes
Next, Game Designer Aaron Larson took the mic to discuss upcoming changes that we’re exploring for the ladder system. He first highlighted how we saw huge benefits from collaborating with the community in the beta, so we want to keep that collaboration going as we develop post-launch features for Legacy of the Void. Right now, we believe we’re in a place where we have a concept that we’d like to reveal and hear your feedback on.
In the past, we’ve seen consistent feedback that players desire more transparency on the ladder. With that in mind, we’re aiming to help players better understand how they stack up against others. For example, the medal system easily lets you compare your Gold rank against someone else’s Silver rank. However, within the same league, the skill of a rank 54 Gold may be vastly different than a rank 60 Gold in a different division.
More Descriptive Ranking
Our goal is to have a system that accommodates a broad variety in skill levels while being more descriptive. A Masters player will often want to know exactly where they’re ranked in the region, so the system should provide a lot of meaning and context. However, if someone is ranked in a much lower division, like a Bronze player, what they really want to know is “Am I getting better at the game?”
With our goals clearly laid out, Senior Game Designer Alex Sun then went on to talk about the ideas we’ve developed to improve the ladder system.
When you think about player rank, he said, it’s helpful to think of the player population in terms of top, middle, and lower tiers. About 80 percent of players fall in the middle tier, with another 10 percent falling into Grandmaster and Master, and the remaining 10 percent in Bronze.
The way we’ve divided these players has been somewhat problematic. The Grandmaster league, for instance, doesn’t necessarily have the most skilled players. More egregiously, once players have been placed into a league, promotions or demotions are extremely rare, making improvements extremely difficult to recognize.
Addressing Ladder Issues
To solve the above issues, we’re making changes to how the leagues function. Currently, we plan on combining all of the Grandmaster and Master league divisions into one. In this new large division, the top 200 player are Grandmaster players. However, if you make it to the top, you can't rest on your laurels, because those below you can easily bump you out! This will allow the competitive experience to remain active in this tier of players.
Players in the middle and lower tiers want to know how close they are to advancing, and so our current solution is for each league to have 10 subdivisions to more clearly define a player’s skill. This means that if you’re a Gold 1 player, you’re among the best Gold players in the world and are close to reaching the Platinum tier. Divisions also won’t have a player cap – so if you’re ranked as Silver 5, you know you belong there because of your skill level, and not simply because another division has filled up. Finally, since rank isn’t currently indicative of skill, we’re looking at different ways of awarding points so that participation matters less than skill.
Breaking Out of Bronze
For players in the lowest league, improving is inevitable with practice and we want those improvements to be quickly reflected in your rank. In Wings of Liberty, about 20 percent of players were Bronze, so even if you were drastically improving in your skill you were still stuck in the lowest division. With ten subdivisions, it should become clear that you’re improving because you’ll begin moving up through subdivisions that have clear meaning.
We also plan to reduce the overall size of Bronze, since the difference in skill between someone at the bottom versus the top of Bronze is comparable to the difference in skill between the bottom of Silver and the top of Platinum.
That concludes our recap of our Multiplayer Panel. Are you looking forward to the changes above? What did you think of the philosophies presented by the team? Let us know in the comments!
Source
|
Bisutopia19257 Posts
Great work guys. Such a kick ass sc2 staff for getting this together.
|
The idea of 10 sub-divisions is fantastic!!! The ladder system, that once seemed amazing, has become outdated. This should be much more accurate and encouraging for players. Will it be as before, that you can't move down ranks in season? I worry the easier movement among ranks will add ladder anxiety to some players if that is the case. However, I can already tell that this will be more fun for me  )
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50362 Posts
On a tangent...
I always wondered if they should do separate balance for 1v1 and 2v2+above, like team games be their own separate game altogether you know, but then it'd be like learning 2 different games and nobody likes that but it would be an interesting approach.
|
United States12237 Posts
So what this is going to mean is a ladder that looks very much like Heroes of the Storm, in my estimation. However, instead of 50 ranks of equal size, the size of the LotV subdivisions would depend on the targets for each league. If we were to apply the existing Heart of the Swarm distribution to this new layout, we would see something like this:
Bronze 1-10 (0.8% per subdivision)
Silver 1-10 (2% per subdivision)
Gold 1-10 (3.2% per subdivision)
Platinum 1-10 (2% per subdivision)
Diamond 1-10 (1.8% per subdivision)
Then Master+GM at the top, covering the rest.
Now obviously, we're not gonna have the same distribution since Master+GM is going to be the top 10% with Bronze being "smaller" (does that mean the 10% they used as a bucket example, which would be smaller than WoL?) to some degree.
What's interesting about this is that in the current ladder, we know roughly what the rating ranges for each league are. Each league covered roughly 200-250 rating, and each game against a same-skill opponent nets 16 rating. If we were to subdivide by 10, that would mean a promotion into a new subdivision almost every game (for reference, this is roughly the pace at which ranks increase in Heroes of the Storm).
What that also means is that there is no way that the current points system will remain intact. The current division system is organized by points, but points are a little weird. Early in a season when the bonus pool is low, most of your points will come from just winning games. Late in a season, bonus pool can compose 75-80% of your points, and bonus pool is primarily an activity measurement. Points also only carry over your bonus pool when you get promoted, and that could affect how rankings appear after a promotion. They mentioned in the post that they want to change the proportion of activity to skill, which either means a change to the accrual rate of the bonus pool, how the bonus pool is applied to points, or possibly the removal of bonus pool altogether in favor of a different activity system.
I'm going to make a further prediction here and say that demotions will return, at least for subdivisions.
Overall, some very cool stuff and I'm really excited about it. This is labeled "post-launch" content which means it will probably be patched in a little later, but hopefully that happens soon.
|
On November 07 2015 12:45 BLinD-RawR wrote:
On a tangent...
I always wondered if they should do separate balance for 1v1 and 2v2+above, like team games be their own separate game altogether you know, but then it'd be like learning 2 different games and nobody likes that but it would be an interesting approach.
No, Don't think that's a good way to do it. You could have army A beating army B handily in 1on1 mode, but the exact same fight go the other way around in 2on2... What a mess if you play a bit of both.
I think 2on2 balance can be achieved by maps.
In the 1on1 mapmaking scene, there is a pretty strong consensus in how you need to have the main, natural and third laid out in terms of distance and defendability. People have understood how 1on1 maps can look and still make for good balanced games. In 2on2 maps, it's hugely variable... Sometimes you get a completely safe natural and easily defended third, sometimes one of the players will have to take a 180 degrees open base towards the opponents as natural, and a third base is also a third base of your opponents. Sometimes your natural is a gold base, sometimes you get rocks blocking you from your opponents like the old beginners maps. It's completely random, and I didn't even mention 3on3 or 4on4 maps. I think this variability is due to the 2on2 mapmakers not understanding what layouts make for good and balanced 2on2 games. If only the top 2on2(+) competitive players could stop with their childish bickering (that's all I hear from them on TL) and team up with the mapmakers to actually figure out how a good balanced 2on2 map should look like, I think 2on2 would be in a great state.
|
On November 07 2015 11:55 The_Templar wrote:
-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
Five Goals for the Future
...
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 14:18 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 11:55 The_Templar wrote:
-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
Five Goals for the Future
... 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 goals, and the these five goals were the 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. 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." "You're right David, so we should setup some retroactive goals, then say we have Five Goals for the Future" "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?
Yeah, I reacted the same way a bit... If they indeed had these goal all along, why not tell the community that is supposed to help meet these goals? I have been thinking the same a few times during the beta in general, that if they only had been more clear with their large-scale goals, people could put their efforts to much more targeted solutions. I don't necessarily think that they made them up now afterwards though, even though they may not have been as pronounced all the way from the start.
Well, I'm sure they'll let us know what the new five goals are for the first content patch.
+ Show Spoiler +3 days before the content patch is out.
|
I'm taking this "panel" talk with a grain of salt . After all , it's blizzcon and he must look good.
|
On November 07 2015 14:43 Cascade wrote:
I don't necessarily think that they made them up now afterwards though, even though they may not have been as pronounced all the way from the start.
]
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.
|
Happy with what I heard about ladder transparency, and the LoL/CSGO style divisions, but where was this years ago?
|
I am excited for lotv a little bit more after these announcements.
Edit: Wrong thread with abathur quotes
|
On November 07 2015 15:18 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 14:43 Cascade wrote:
I don't necessarily think that they made them up now afterwards though, even though they may not have been as pronounced all the way from the start.
] 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.
To be fair, they've been talking about more action, interesting micro, less downtime and things on that list in their comments and patch notes. I think many people would have guessed a similar list from the official blizzard posts. So yeah, I do think that that the things on the list have been guiding their process, whether it was explicitly written down on their whiteboard or not. I wish they had made the list known to the community earlier though.
|
Finally they're adding together the master divisions into one. It never made sense to me why they would hide your global rank with the division system.
|
It's going to be awkward to release new ranked not at the start of LotV, how will the seasons function then, will MMR change or it will be the same?
|
On November 07 2015 17:18 TheScriptan wrote:
It's going to be awkward to release new ranked not at the start of LotV, how will the seasons function then, will MMR change or it will be the same?
I guess the MMR will stay unchanged. The hidden ranking and matchmaking has been working really well throughout sc2 imo, except for that messup with MMR-decay. I think this is just a slightly different layer of cosmetics on top of the true MMR.
|
More action, faster pacing... Always more and faster... Haven't they understood yet that the More & Faster mentality is what hindered SC2's success?
|
Fixing ladder doesn't help if it is based on a broken game right now
|
I really really like the changes to the ladder system. 5 years to late but still great.
|
On November 07 2015 13:32 Excalibur_Z wrote:
So what this is going to mean is a ladder that looks very much like Heroes of the Storm, in my estimation. However, instead of 50 ranks of equal size, the size of the LotV subdivisions would depend on the targets for each league. If we were to apply the existing Heart of the Swarm distribution to this new layout, we would see something like this:
Bronze 1-10 (0.8% per subdivision)
Silver 1-10 (2% per subdivision)
Gold 1-10 (3.2% per subdivision)
Platinum 1-10 (2% per subdivision)
Diamond 1-10 (1.8% per subdivision)
Then Master+GM at the top, covering the rest.
Now obviously, we're not gonna have the same distribution since Master+GM is going to be the top 10% with Bronze being "smaller" (does that mean the 10% they used as a bucket example, which would be smaller than WoL?) to some degree.
What's interesting about this is that in the current ladder, we know roughly what the rating ranges for each league are. Each league covered roughly 200-250 rating, and each game against a same-skill opponent nets 16 rating. If we were to subdivide by 10, that would mean a promotion into a new subdivision almost every game (for reference, this is roughly the pace at which ranks increase in Heroes of the Storm).
What that also means is that there is no way that the current points system will remain intact. The current division system is organized by points, but points are a little weird. Early in a season when the bonus pool is low, most of your points will come from just winning games. Late in a season, bonus pool can compose 75-80% of your points, and bonus pool is primarily an activity measurement. Points also only carry over your bonus pool when you get promoted, and that could affect how rankings appear after a promotion. They mentioned in the post that they want to change the proportion of activity to skill, which either means a change to the accrual rate of the bonus pool, how the bonus pool is applied to points, or possibly the removal of bonus pool altogether in favor of a different activity system.
I'm going to make a further prediction here and say that demotions will return, at least for subdivisions.
Overall, some very cool stuff and I'm really excited about it. This is labeled "post-launch" content which means it will probably be patched in a little later, but hopefully that happens soon.
Having sub-leagues representing different percentages of players depending on the league is kind of weird. They should probably make them equal with the exception of possibly Bronze and Master.
The bonus pool should be removed, and inactivity should be dealt with in another way. One idea is to kick inactive players off the ladder so that your sub-league tends towards the MMR measure for % of active players only, while maintaining the inactive player's rank on both their profile page and a filtered view of the division list (which now lists everyone in the sub-league into 1 big division) and marked as inactive.
As you've pointed out, not having demotions can lead to people jumping up several sub-leagues in a small number of games. So it's easily possible for people to fluke out higher sub-leagues than they deserve and be locked in. This means that there should be demotions, it doesn't necessarily mean that Blizzard won't keep the points system unchanged.
There is still the question of how promotion and demotions will actually work under the proposed ladder revamp, and whether or not they are symmetric as opposed to being biased against demotions. Will it change? The smaller each sub-league is, the more likely it is that players flip-flop between sub-leagues, leading to erratic promotion and demotion (which is one reason why a continuous rating is superior, it avoids the fanfare associated with promotions and demotions). How will Blizzard deal with this? One possibility is instead of using MMR to determine the sub-league, use a moving average of MMR (this filters out short-run fluctuations), or even a moving average of the 20% (say) quantile of the MMR distribution (that is the point where there's a 80% chance that your MMR is greater than it).
|
Thinking more about the overall SC2 news out of Blizzcon has actually made me a lot more hopeful than I expected.
While Blizzard hasn't fixed SC2 (i.e. fixing its broken ladder system, creating a sustainable business model to support the game for the foreseeable future), they have taken many steps in the correct direction.
The ladder revamp, episodic campaigns, selling cosmetics and mods are all really positive steps that need to be built on.
|
Hmm... I do not know much about LoL, but this ladder system sounds very familiar. Doesn't LoL work like that? If I am wrong, can someone tell me the difference? Thx!
|
On November 07 2015 14:18 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 11:55 The_Templar wrote:
-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
Five Goals for the Future
... 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?
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, moron.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Was there any talk about the current WCS system, or any mention at all? I missed the later panel.
|
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.
Kim said some general things but today they will talk about wcs 2016
|
Great points. Hopefully this won't take too long to implement.
|
On November 08 2015 00:19 TronJovolta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 14:18 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 07 2015 11:55 The_Templar wrote:
-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
Five Goals for the Future
...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? 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.
Lolz, hey go easy on this guy. I think it is understandable, people being upset with Blizzard.
I completely agree with his comments on the "Five goals for the future of sc2." They didn't mention anything about goals, instead they just gave some kind of weird recap on changes they made. That's just basic writing, that subtitles describe the content of what follows, which that didn't.
The statement reminded me of something I wrote in grade school before I understood what a rough draft was 
I'm not so upset anymore as I really like some of the changes and announcements blizzard has made as of late. I think LOTV will be a really good game and it can become amazing with the right support going forward.
Starting to feel the hype.
|
I am so hype about the subdivisions
|
On November 07 2015 14:18 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 11:55 The_Templar wrote:
-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
Five Goals for the Future
... 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?
What really pisses me off is that after Blizzard releases a bunch of announcements, all of which are positive, there are people ignoring all that and finding something to be pissed of about. At which point you have to admit, at least to yourself, that your only goal in reading this updates is to find something to rage about. I don't have to be all sunshine and rainbows all the time but when they reveal all the great improvements they did and we had so many great games as we did and you still can't find a smile, maybe it's time for you to move on.
|
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 07 2015 15:18 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 14:43 Cascade wrote:
I don't necessarily think that they made them up now afterwards though, even though they may not have been as pronounced all the way from the start.
] 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.
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.
|
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 04:05 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.
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 04:24 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
Good you moved on, then please don't be the guy who keeps calling your ex after the break up to tell her how little you care, the only one this reflects poorly on is you.
|
On November 08 2015 05:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 04:24 ShambhalaWar wrote: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.
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. 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.
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.
|
On November 08 2015 07:07 Nazara wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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
You are not even attempting to use logic..
You agree that they have managed to improve action, which makes it a success, but then somehow not doing it in another way makes it only a partial success, can you please elaborate on how that works?
Again, you yourself is saying that they made it easier to go on the offensive, which is the stated goal, but even though they achived their goal they still failed because you didn't like the way they did it?
Again, you are agreeing they manage to create more micro oportunities and then you state that that's not valid because medivacs have boost, which does require micro..??
And people like the faster pacing, whos complaining? Except the same people on this site who does nothign but complain regardless..
You can't praise them for doing something good because someone asked them to do it? Jeez
|
Good intentions. Let's see what actually happens.
|
On November 08 2015 07:55 ddayzy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 05:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On November 08 2015 04:24 ShambhalaWar wrote: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.
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. 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. 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.
Well why do you think that yesterday was "truly a great day for Starcraft" ?
|
Mexico2170 Posts
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
|
On November 08 2015 04:24 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
I am really looking forward to the ladder change.
I generally think sc2 ladder is really awesome already, can't wait to see the new changes
|
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 +
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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
|
In my opinion, this is a complete joke. The ladder system was heavily criticized way back in 2010 and now that they fix it(to a worse version than something like iccup has had for ages), they talk of it as a feature. Then all the talk about faster pace and more action when they have a game full of unbelievable dull and uninspired units, fixing aspects people were complaining about all the way back in 2010.
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:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +
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
Earlier than 3 days before release, he meant.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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....
|
You guys and all your silly details. I have one very simple criteria that I use that dictates whether I play a game: am I having fun? If yes I play. If not then I don't play. And since 2010, up to and including the lotv beta, Ive more or less been having a tremendous amount of fun playing sc2 and so I still play. Nothing that they've announced for sc2 at this blizzcon detracts from that.
|
On November 08 2015 21:10 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +
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
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.
|
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.
|
10 subdivisions and combining all master leauges and GM into one sounds awesome .
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
Wow, just such wow. Well done, Blizzard. I really really like the ladder ideas.
|
On November 09 2015 02:29 Athenau wrote:
If you don't believe you've achieved your goals, then it's perfectly acceptable to list them for the future. Obviously.
I didn't expect you to the answer my loaded questions and you didn't. But if Blizzard listed those goals again because they didn't achieve their goals with LOTV, then you've offered a far more damning criticism of LOTV than I did. If you didn't intend to do that, then just stop dancing around semantically and say their post was a mess. You can like LOTV and the direction SC2 is going and still think that post is a mess.
And the fact is, they didn't create new goals.
|
But if Blizzard listed those goals again because they didn't achieve their goals with LOTV, then you've offered a far more damning criticism of LOTV than I did.
No? It's only "damning" if you create a false dichotomy. In other words, the only two outcomes are total success or complete failure and they failed, end of story, no further improvement possible. If you view balance and design as ongoing and iterative, the future isn't nearly so bleak.
I'd much rather Blizzard acknowledge and commit to necessary change then prematurely declare victory. They set some goals, they've made some progress, they're going to try and make more progress in the future. Nothing terribly controversial about that.
If you didn't intend to do that, then just stop dancing around semantically and say their post was a mess.
You're in no position to accuse anyone of playing semantic games.
|
gm and all master leagues in one? This will be a huge division won't it?
|
On November 09 2015 06:15 GGzerG wrote:
gm and all master leagues in one? This will be a huge division won't it?
Gm and master league in 10. They'll be a lot smaller than before, except gm, but gm wasn't a proper league to start with.
|
I'm baffled that this conversation even exists. The last time I saw a customer interested in a business' listed goals was literally never. Goals are something that middle management comes up with, includes in powerpoints, and designers go "oh that's nice, keep doing your job restating the obvious".
Literally everything listed in both their goals a year ago and the ones in the powerpoint last weekend are common sense.
Anyone who thinks that that powerpoint slide served any purpose other than to pad out the presentation is fooling themselves. They certainly wouldn't have included it if they thought for a second that people could manage to get -upset- over it.
I mean -really-, GOALS?! It's not even part of the game; it's words on a powerpoint presentation!
|
On November 09 2015 03:54 Athenau wrote:
You're in no position to accuse anyone of playing semantic games.
So please then, without any semantic games answer the question:
If you asked me to list my goals for the future, would you expect me to rehash achievements from my past?
Because that is exactly what they did. They talked about how great the Adept is, talked about how the starting work change is good, talked about new units, ect... they discussed achievements. Not things they did pretty good on, but might improve, they talked about solid achievements.
Achievement - Noun: something accomplished, especially by superior ability, special effort, great courage, etc.; a great or heroic deed: his remarkable achievements in art.
You answered this question before by ignoring (semantics again...) the key word achievement, just like you ignored the word "had" when they were talking about future goals.
And that should pretty much end this.
On November 09 2015 14:12 dcemuser wrote:
I mean -really-, GOALS?! It's not even part of the game; it's words on a powerpoint presentation!
Yes Allen Iverson, we are talking bout PRACTICE!
If you can't even set goals and follow through with them, how do you expect to do anything more complicated productively? It isn't like the community asked for goals (as far as I can tell), they just came out with them and they set them. Then they can't even follow them. Why do you blame me for that, the messenger? These weren't business goals by the way.
You know who can do what they say when it comes to goals? The League of Legends team, look at their brilliant design blogs. And look where LoL is compared to SC2. Proof is always in the pudding, just like a build in SC2.
But that kind of attitude regarding goals is exactly why Michael Jordan has 6 rings and Allen Iverson has none. Don't think so? Ask Mike. He knew how important it was to set real goals, not fake business goals that no one at your company cares about. The fact your company wastes time with worthless words on a powerpoint says something.
https://www.providentnj.com/education-insights/business/the-michael-jordan-playbook-of-goal-setting
Have you ever looked at your professional peers and rankled with jealousy, wondering why they are being showered with rewards and recognition, snagging bonuses, earning promotions, generally succeeding and you are not?
It’s because they set better goals than you do.
"I'm a firm believer in goal setting. Step by step. I can't see any other way of accomplishing anything." - Michael Jordan
The measure of any person is whether or not they can do what they say they will do. That is the best way to judge people.
|
god imagine the devastation you will feel if you are unable to climb out of bronze 10
|
I used to be in Bronze. But then I made it to high Masters. I set goals.
Now I play LOL, and I'm in Platinum. I'll make it to Diamond. By setting goals.
|
I don't get what's bothering you, bronzeknee.
They said they had 5 goals in mind when doing the beta which they had achieved to some degree and they will continue trying to meet what they set the goal as in future.
Pretty logical for me.
|
They said they had five goals... after they said they had seven. And one of those five wasn't in the original seven...
Now if you don't mind Blizzard pulling the wool over your eyes that isn't a problem. If you don't mind Blizzard changing their goals, that is fine, but to me it is telling that they set such poor goals in the first place they had to change them. If you think setting goals is for stupid people that is fine too.
But goal setting is an important skill that as I mentioned with MJ, is common among the greats in any arena in life. Blizzard obviously isn't good at it, but people who don't understand goal setting will have no problem that. As another poster said "we're talking about goals" which I laughed when I read because it reminded me of when Allen Iverson said "we're talking about practice."
But a lot of people here are just Blizzard apologists. And no matter what Blizzard does, Blizzard can't be wrong. That is fine too, even logical to me because I know people get duped all the time.
User was warned for this post
|
You answered this question before by ignoring (semantics again...) the key word achievement, just like you ignored the word "had" when they were talking about future goals.
Your whole, ridiculous argument is semantics. Accusing me of playing games is chutzpah of the highest order.
If you asked me to list my goals for the future, would you expect me to rehash achievements from my past?
This is a stupid question, because no one is asking you anything. We're talking about a document that already exists, which lists the goals in the very first section, not someone asking someone else a question in isolation, without any context.
As such, going into more detail about what they've already done in the next section is a natural follow-up.
Go re-read this portion of my post. It's not that difficult:
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.
If you're going to criticize the form, do it right. What's wrong with the "Five Goals for the Future" section isn't that they talk about what they've already done in service of those goals, it's that they're missing the part about what they're working on going forward.
They said they had five goals... after they said they had seven. And one of those five wasn't in the original seven...
It's obvious to anyone who can read that the "new" five goals are congruent with the original goals, since they boil down to "more action" and "more micro". There's no discrepancy there that needs to be attributed to malice or even intent. Of course I've addressed this already, but you like to ignore answers that you find inconvenient:
Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 09 2015 17:28 BronzeKnee wrote:
They said they had five goals... after they said they had seven. And one of those five wasn't in the original seven...
Now if you don't mind Blizzard pulling the wool over your eyes that isn't a problem. If you don't mind Blizzard changing their goals, that is fine, but to me it is telling that they set such poor goals in the first place they had to change them. If you think setting goals is for stupid people that is fine too.
But goal setting is an important skill that as I mentioned with MJ, is common among the greats in any arena in life. Blizzard obviously isn't good at it, but people who don't understand goal setting will have no problem that. As another poster said "we're talking about goals" which I laughed when I read because it reminded me of when Allen Iverson said "we're talking about practice."
But a lot of people here are just Blizzard apologists. And no matter what Blizzard does, Blizzard can't be wrong. That is fine too, even logical to me because I know people get duped all the time.
Well let's be honest, your argument is as pointless as saying it isn't blizzard, it is blizzard sc2 team and go on arguing about the importance of how you can't even differentiate a team and a company etc and how the importance of the correct definition in every day aspect.
And I don't think setting goals are for stupid people, where did you even get the vibe?
|
On November 09 2015 03:18 BronzeKnee wrote:
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.
Funny how you are making such a big deal about them "not listing any new goals", when your reading comprehension has failed you and you completely are twisting what they said.
They stated the panel focused on their goals. They stated doing their whole multiplayer design for LotV they have focused on 5 goals. They listed those 5 goals.
Then the next section is titled "Five Goals for the Future". Nowhere does this state they are going to be creating 5 new goals. They already listed the 5 goals directly before they said that! They are simply stating that those 5 goals are for the future, meaning they are intended to make SC2 a better game going in to the future.
Nowhere did they state they are making "5 new goals". That is your assumption that you built off things have never said. That is not their bad, that is YOUR bad.
If you want to make assumptions that is fine, if you want to be pissed off at them because your unhappy with their direction that is fine too. But if you want to make a big deal about something that you clearly misinterpreted, and accuse them of saying things they never said, you are just making yourself look like a fool, not them.
|
This feels like being negative for the sake of it at this point...
|
Nowhere did they state they are making "5 new goals". That is your assumption that you built off things have never said. That is not their bad, that is YOUR bad.
Partially this seems to stem from a misunderstanding on what goals are like in a business context. You don't evaluate success in goals the way bronzeknee seems to think. You don't "accomplish" big goals, you improve on them but there is always room for improvement. (Unless of course there is a number in the goal, if there is you damn well better accomplish it ) but apart from that Goals are often vague and unattainable but you'd break them up to smaller objectives that align with that goal and use those to measure your success. So if your goal is to increase early game skirmishes, a measurable objective for that is "add a new core Protoss unit that has harass potential but isn't useless later in the game." Looking back bliz can see the adept and conclude they made progress on their original goal.
|
United States12237 Posts
The "Blizzard had/didn't have goals" tangent ends here. There are tons of other and far more interesting/relevant topics to pick from the OP.
|
I think I said this in another thread but I'm beyond excited for the 1-10 subdivisions. I know I don't really have the time/skill/motivation to grind back up to Masters. But every so often I get the itch to play SC2 again and I can move from Plat to Diamond in just a few weeks. So for me the grind really ends there because the gulf between a Diamond and Masters player, I feel, is pretty large. But now with Diamond 1-10 I can set more reasonable goals of "Get Diamond4 this season" and "Get Diamond3" for my next season goal. Previously it was just "Get in Diamond and your rank doesn't even matter."
|
On November 10 2015 02:34 Tenks wrote:
I think I said this in another thread but I'm beyond excited for the 1-10 subdivisions. I know I don't really have the time/skill/motivation to grind back up to Masters. But every so often I get the itch to play SC2 again and I can move from Plat to Diamond in just a few weeks. So for me the grind really ends there because the gulf between a Diamond and Masters player, I feel, is pretty large. But now with Diamond 1-10 I can set more reasonable goals of "Get Diamond4 this season" and "Get Diamond3" for my next season goal. Previously it was just "Get in Diamond and your rank doesn't even matter."
Good point.
I am not going to attempt to play competitive in LotV. I do not want to get burned out. With WoL I tried to move to the top, and it made the game very stressful, and if i was not able to practice for 2 or 3 days then my skill level dropped dramatically.
In LotV beta, I did not "try" to compete, and turns out I did not have any issues with skill dropping without practice. Sometimes I didn't play for a week, yet still felt fresh and functional once I did have a chance to play.
You know what? That was one of the big issues separating SC2 from SC/BW for me. SC/BW I was able to play with friends kinda like a party game, we would be "passing the keyboard" taking turns with online matches, not play for awhile then play again like it was NP. SC2 was not like that for me. The urge to compete felt more forced, the things you had to be aware of, scout, and watch out for was much higher in number. Felt like the "routine" had many more steps you had to always keep in ur mind.
So I was quite shocked to play LotV, only having a fraction of the amount of play time these days, and not be having any issues. I'm not sure what exactly changed either, although the shorter games probably has something to do with it.
And I came in to the game extremely rusty, not playing HotS for a long time. I was surprised that even my first days in beta, there were many players just as bad as me. And I was also surprised that just playing casually and not trying to compete, I seen myself ranking up from league to league and felt the improvement, without any of the stress.
So now the new rank system will probably work along with that nicely. It's great to feel progression, even if it is in small baby steps.
In earlier SC2 versions, if you didn't put in all that work, it felt basically like it's not worth it to play, you will "never be able to compete". But now.... In the end, I'm hoping the "feeling" I get from LotV will stay this way. That feeling where I can actually play StarCraft like a "regular game" without grinding my ass off trying to practice and compete every second of the day, and still progress, and more importantly, have fun.
I don't know if I will ever work my way up to Masters without investing more time/effort, but if things are the same as they were in beta, I'm fairly confident I will be able to function in Diamond. And tbh that is all I could ask for out of SC2 these days with my schedule.
Hoping for the best!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JnusU7h.png)
