|
On September 15 2009 23:38 WWJDD wrote:
I have an idea about how to force players to use the other abilities of obelisk, command center and queen. Just double the cooldown time of their spells. At some point of time if you are not using the energy that's accumulating in these three entities, you are wasting energy. That should make for some interesting decisions.
I think allot of people are forgeting the point of the macro mechanics.
|
While I can see the point of this article I think it misses a lot, as it has a tunnel vision only looking at the economy. It sure is an advantage to be able to put out more units then the other races, what has to be considering is differences in unit strength.
It simply does not matter if Zerg produces Zerglings twice as fast as Terran produces Marines if they are also twice as weak. Without more information and seeing the full picture this article can not be looked at as anything but a waste of time.
If the Zerg really has a big advantage then we will find out in beta.
|
I don't get what people are saying about the Queen being an exponential boost to your economy and the other two mechanics being a linear improvement.
The way I see it, all three mechanics can lead to a linear increase or an exponential increase: with the queen you get to produce more units, so you can either focus on drones (roughly exponential growth), on combat units (stagnating economy) or you can get a few attack units and a few drones (depending on saturation and your plans for expanding, that can be linear growth, slow exponential growth or growth with diminishing returns).
The same goes for the MULE and the Obelisk: you get extra minerals which you can either invest into expanding and getting more workers (roughly exponential growth), into combat units while cutting workers (stagnating economy) or into getting more combat units while continuing to produce workers and slowly taking new bases (depending on saturation and your plans for expanding, that can be linear growth, slow exponential growth or growth with diminishing returns).
The only two real differences here are numbers (this can easily be balanced) and the fact that Zerg can easily switch back and forth between those three options, whereas Toss and Terran have a harder time with that because they have seperate production facilities for workers and fighting units. This second one will be harder to balance, but the issue in SC1 was very similar, so I trust that Blizzard will figure out a way to balance this. After all we're still in alpha, so there's plenty of time for that.
|
There Were... Other Abilities?
There has been a lot (A LOT) of talk on the forum about the lack of choice between the macro mechanics, and the devastating effects of Terran losing scan. These are unfounded. After playing Starcraft II for 10 games and understanding the mechanics, you will see there is actually no choice. It's an illusion of choice. Given the "choice" between using the MULE and scanning, you will always choose the MULE unless forced otherwise by immediately cloaked units. The return is just too great. Even if I were supply capped, I would bank the MULE minerals while building a supply depot before I used the ability to gain extra supply. You've got to figure the MULE can make a round-trip every 6-8 seconds. And it returns 25-30 minerals every trip (I believe 30 but I'm erring on the safe side). Assuming it stays for 45 seconds (I believe it's actually 60). This yields somewhere between 187 and 300 "extra" minerals per minute. Clearly something that can't be skipped for a convenient scouting scan. This also shows the importance of getting the MULE early, which is a theme common between all the mechanics. The MULE pays for itself in the first minute, after which you are generating around 200 minerals extra every minute. You can see how this compounds.
You may, rarely, use the obelisk's ability to charge mana in a nearby high templar; but at 2 energy for 1 mana, and with your obelisk rarely having more than 25 energy, the options look grim. So you can recharge 12.5 (let's hope they round up to 13!) mana, or boost your probes' mining in case you live the attack. The choice is obvious.
The Queen can... You will never use the Queen for anything other than pumping out a ridiculous amount of larvae.
_____________________________________________________________________________
You are forgetting something. These mechanics were not made for us to choose. They were made for us to USE them. This was a option to add more "return to base" factor and to made advanced players have a difference against noobs in the macro. The other abilities are only a "plus".
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 14 2009 06:14 Zato-1 wrote:
As I said in my previous post, I've read a LOT of interactions between Blizzard and fans. Invariably, there are fans who claim Blizzard dropped the ball / don't understand the problem / don't want to fix the problem because they have a different agenda.
Invariably, those fans are wrong.
This is true. My point is that Blizzard could be doing a lot better job of making it clear that those fans are wrong. The development of SC2 to this point has had quite a few misunderstandings to this point (expansions vs. separate games, single account on Battle.net, requirements for premium maps, and now 1-hatch-queen). A lot of these revolve around simple wording issues on Blizzard's part (the 3-games drama could have been avoided if they had simply called them expansions from the start, the premium maps business could have been avoided if they had called premium content mods instead of maps, and 1-hatch-queen wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is now if Karune had directed his answer at the actual issue).
On September 14 2009 01:16 Archerofaiur wrote:
An appropriate reference point is the decision making involved in making workers vs units in a mined out map.
Time-based decision making for economic gameplay elements is a tricky subject. What exactly qualifies as nessisary? Do I really have decision making with whether I make workers or units? If I do the same thing most of the time at what percentage does the ability lack decision-making? At what level does the ability qualify for autocast?
The thing is, a mined-out map should not be a situation that occurs frequently anyway. It shouldn't even come close to being frequent, because of the sheer length of game required for the map to be mined out. Decisions based on a map getting mined out are decisions that happen far too infrequently to be considered in most games.
On September 17 2009 04:46 Kallahad wrote:
You are forgetting something. These mechanics were not made for us to choose. They were made for us to USE them. This was a option to add more "return to base" factor and to made advanced players have a difference against noobs in the macro. The other abilities are only a "plus".
If this was their only purpose, then they're effectively identical to manual mining, which was what we want to avoid. Why have the macro mechanics at all if they are functionally identical to mechanic that was taken out (and had no balance issues in and of itself)? For the macro mechanics to be worth putting in the game, they have to offer something NEW. This is supposed to be decisions, but it doesn't do that.
|
On September 17 2009 05:05 TheYango wrote:
If this was their only purpose, then they're effectively identical to manual mining, which was what we want to avoid. Why have the macro mechanics at all if they are functionally identical to mechanic that was taken out (and had no balance issues in and of itself)? For the macro mechanics to be worth putting in the game, they have to offer something NEW. This is supposed to be decisions, but it doesn't do that.
Weve looked at this extensively on SCL. Basically there are some very very fundamental things that have to change if you wanted to truly improve macro. The current macro mechanics, while not perfect, are at least slightly better then the old ones. Here was a great post made by Nicol Bolas.
The problem is where Blizzard started from.
The correct way to design a StarCraft 2 would be, not to start with all of StarCraft 1's stuff and poke at it, but to look at the effects of SC1's mechanics. Look at where macro comes from and why it's important. Look at where the skill differential works and what causes it. Most important of all, look at the problems that these mechanics create.
Then, once you understand what SC1 is and how its mechanics create thes effects, throw everything in SC1 away.. Then, design new mechanics that create similar effects, but without the negative effects of the original mechanics.
And when I say everything, I mean everything, right down to minerals, gas, and workers with main buildings. Throw it all out and rebuild it from scratch.
What that means is that the presence of workers must be justified. There must be some reason for them.
For example, in SC1, workers have a number of subsidiary effects beyond their primary designed purpose. They're cheap early-game scouts. They're vital in defend a rush build, or any base attack, really. And, because they're units, they can be susceptible to attacks that only attack units (Psi Storm), thus allowing the enemy to damage a player's economy without having to fully destroy it (kill the main building).
Thus, if some new set of mechanics is going to replace workers, then either those mechanics must have similar effects or they must create similar depth and options. This is one of the problems in more modern RTS's. They dumped workers over resource notes, but doing so also dumped a lot of the subsidiary effects of them without replacing it with added depth.
This also allows you to decide what kind of effects you want in a game to begin with. For example, do you want the player to have to go back to their base like clockwork in the potential middle of combat to perform some task? If you do, is the "clockwork" part necessary, or can it be at a user's wish without irreparable penalty? How often should the "clockwork" part be, and what are the effects of changing the time? Is the "back to your base" part necessary, or can you do it while watching the battlefield? What would the effect of having some mechanics that can be run in the field, but other more-powerful ones that you need to return to your base to do?
If Blizzard had taken this course, a lot of sacred cows might have died.
And hes right. The problem of macro is something the RTS genre has been struggling with for a decade. Its huge and unbelievably complicated. And Starcraft 2 really should have been built from the ground up to solve this problem.
|
United States47024 Posts
Then, once you understand what SC1 is and how its mechanics create thes effects, throw everything in SC1 away.. Then, design new mechanics that create similar effects, but without the negative effects of the original mechanics.
And this is the issue right now. The macro mechanics DON'T avoid the negative effects of manual mining. They still require the rote task of looking at your base and performing the action without requiring any thought. They still punish new players for not doing so. In fact, it's arguable that they currently AMPLIFY the problems of the old mechanics, because the lost minerals from one or two idle workers is much less than the lost minerals from an inactive dark pylon, an un-cast or idle MULE (though multi-casting MULE makes this a bit better) or 4 unused larva.
|
On September 17 2009 05:21 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +
Then, once you understand what SC1 is and how its mechanics create thes effects, throw everything in SC1 away.. Then, design new mechanics that create similar effects, but without the negative effects of the original mechanics.
And this is the issue right now. The macro mechanics DON'T avoid the negative effects of manual mining. They still require the rote task of looking at your base and performing the action without requiring any thought. They still punish new players for not doing so. In fact, it's arguable that they currently AMPLIFY the problems of the old mechanics, because the lost minerals from one or two idle workers is much less than the lost minerals from an inactive dark pylon, an un-cast or idle MULE (though multi-casting MULE makes this a bit better) or 4 unused larva.
Your missing the point. To give you an idea of how big the problem is you have about 30 targeting actions from saturating one mineral line with manual mining. To make macro mechanics that are trully decision making you have to present two or more options. Both options have to be macro based since micro does not compete well with macro. Both of these options need to be viable most of the time. Are you getting a sense for big THIRTY strategic options is? As an example choosing to get a hydralisk den over a spire is one action.
Not only that but all thirty actions need to include position-based decision making. For each decision the player must be choosing a position from multiple locations each with multiple considerations, advantages, disadvantages etc... So lets say you have a base with red minerals on the right and blue minerals on the left. And red minerals make ground units and blue units make air units. You can have the player choose which location he wants to mine from. That is one action. Asking him to repeat this multiple times where the answer is the same choice will nessisitate automation. So yah you can make him choose when he wants to switch from mining red to blue positions but you cant force him to continually choose red with no purpose.
And keep in mind 30 macro actions is just for one mineral fields worth of automing. Toss in other mineral fields, production buildings, queued construction etc.. and you get a sense for just how massive this macro problem has been for designing an RTS. You have to go back and reinvent Dune II. Its such a big problem that the general RTS trend has been to minimize or abandon base building/resources rather then to find a way to make all of macro involve decision making.
|
On September 17 2009 05:41 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2009 05:21 TheYango wrote:
Then, once you understand what SC1 is and how its mechanics create thes effects, throw everything in SC1 away.. Then, design new mechanics that create similar effects, but without the negative effects of the original mechanics.
And this is the issue right now. The macro mechanics DON'T avoid the negative effects of manual mining. They still require the rote task of looking at your base and performing the action without requiring any thought. They still punish new players for not doing so. In fact, it's arguable that they currently AMPLIFY the problems of the old mechanics, because the lost minerals from one or two idle workers is much less than the lost minerals from an inactive dark pylon, an un-cast or idle MULE (though multi-casting MULE makes this a bit better) or 4 unused larva. Your missing the point. To give you an idea of how big the problem is you have about 30 targeting actions from saturating one mineral line with manual mining. To make macro mechanics that are trully decision making you have to present two or more options. Both options have to be macro based since micro does not compete well with macro. Both of these options need to be viable most of the time. Are you getting a sense for big THIRTY strategic options is? As an example choosing to get a hydralisk den over a spire is one action. Not only that but all thirty actions need to include position-based decision making. For each decision the player must be choosing a position from multiple locations each with multiple considerations, advantages, disadvantages etc... So lets say you have a base with red minerals on the right and blue minerals on the left. And red minerals make ground units and blue units make air units. You can have the player choose which location he wants to mine from. That is one action. Asking him to repeat this multiple times where the answer is the same choice will nessisitate automation. So yah you can make him choose when he wants to switch from mining red to blue positions but you cant force him to continually choose red with no purpose. And keep in mind 30 macro actions is just for one mineral fields worth of automing. Toss in other mineral fields, production buildings, queued construction etc.. and you get a sense for just how massive this macro problem has been for designing an RTS. You have to go back and reinvent Dune II. Its such a big problem that the general RTS trend has been to minimize or abandon base building/resources rather then to find a way to make all of macro involve decision making.
Why????
u r just making a point based in something that u believe is rigth. Every new game has it s only path.Wait and u ll see a nice game.
|
On September 17 2009 07:57 lipebra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2009 05:41 Archerofaiur wrote:On September 17 2009 05:21 TheYango wrote:
Then, once you understand what SC1 is and how its mechanics create thes effects, throw everything in SC1 away.. Then, design new mechanics that create similar effects, but without the negative effects of the original mechanics.
And this is the issue right now. The macro mechanics DON'T avoid the negative effects of manual mining. They still require the rote task of looking at your base and performing the action without requiring any thought. They still punish new players for not doing so. In fact, it's arguable that they currently AMPLIFY the problems of the old mechanics, because the lost minerals from one or two idle workers is much less than the lost minerals from an inactive dark pylon, an un-cast or idle MULE (though multi-casting MULE makes this a bit better) or 4 unused larva. Your missing the point. To give you an idea of how big the problem is you have about 30 targeting actions from saturating one mineral line with manual mining. To make macro mechanics that are trully decision making you have to present two or more options. Both options have to be macro based since micro does not compete well with macro. Both of these options need to be viable most of the time. Are you getting a sense for big THIRTY strategic options is? As an example choosing to get a hydralisk den over a spire is one action. Not only that but all thirty actions need to include position-based decision making. For each decision the player must be choosing a position from multiple locations each with multiple considerations, advantages, disadvantages etc... So lets say you have a base with red minerals on the right and blue minerals on the left. And red minerals make ground units and blue units make air units. You can have the player choose which location he wants to mine from. That is one action. Asking him to repeat this multiple times where the answer is the same choice will nessisitate automation. So yah you can make him choose when he wants to switch from mining red to blue positions but you cant force him to continually choose red with no purpose. And keep in mind 30 macro actions is just for one mineral fields worth of automing. Toss in other mineral fields, production buildings, queued construction etc.. and you get a sense for just how massive this macro problem has been for designing an RTS. You have to go back and reinvent Dune II. Its such a big problem that the general RTS trend has been to minimize or abandon base building/resources rather then to find a way to make all of macro involve decision making. Why???? u r just making a point based in something that u believe is rigth. Every new game has it s only path.Wait and u ll see a nice game.
?
Your lack of explaination and worse grammer then me confuses me.
|
On September 17 2009 05:41 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2009 05:21 TheYango wrote:
Then, once you understand what SC1 is and how its mechanics create thes effects, throw everything in SC1 away.. Then, design new mechanics that create similar effects, but without the negative effects of the original mechanics.
And this is the issue right now. The macro mechanics DON'T avoid the negative effects of manual mining. They still require the rote task of looking at your base and performing the action without requiring any thought. They still punish new players for not doing so. In fact, it's arguable that they currently AMPLIFY the problems of the old mechanics, because the lost minerals from one or two idle workers is much less than the lost minerals from an inactive dark pylon, an un-cast or idle MULE (though multi-casting MULE makes this a bit better) or 4 unused larva. Your missing the point. To give you an idea of how big the problem is you have about 30 targeting actions from saturating one mineral line with manual mining. To make macro mechanics that are trully decision making you have to present two or more options. Both options have to be macro based since micro does not compete well with macro. Both of these options need to be viable most of the time. Are you getting a sense for big THIRTY strategic options is? As an example choosing to get a hydralisk den over a spire is one action. Not only that but all thirty actions need to include position-based decision making. For each decision the player must be choosing a position from multiple locations each with multiple considerations, advantages, disadvantages etc... So lets say you have a base with red minerals on the right and blue minerals on the left. And red minerals make ground units and blue units make air units. You can have the player choose which location he wants to mine from. That is one action. Asking him to repeat this multiple times where the answer is the same choice will nessisitate automation. So yah you can make him choose when he wants to switch from mining red to blue positions but you cant force him to continually choose red with no purpose. And keep in mind 30 macro actions is just for one mineral fields worth of automing. Toss in other mineral fields, production buildings, queued construction etc.. and you get a sense for just how massive this macro problem has been for designing an RTS. You have to go back and reinvent Dune II. Its such a big problem that the general RTS trend has been to minimize or abandon base building/resources rather then to find a way to make all of macro involve decision making.
They don't need to have 30 strategic decisions......
Because a truly strategic decision is going to require more attention then a non strategic decision.
This is the reason that macro mechanics must have an incombat use (comsat, transfusion, Proton charge speeding up army)
because combat is more dynamic, and having that link allows it to be strategic AND rapidly changing
|
On September 17 2009 10:51 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2009 05:41 Archerofaiur wrote:On September 17 2009 05:21 TheYango wrote:
Then, once you understand what SC1 is and how its mechanics create thes effects, throw everything in SC1 away.. Then, design new mechanics that create similar effects, but without the negative effects of the original mechanics.
And this is the issue right now. The macro mechanics DON'T avoid the negative effects of manual mining. They still require the rote task of looking at your base and performing the action without requiring any thought. They still punish new players for not doing so. In fact, it's arguable that they currently AMPLIFY the problems of the old mechanics, because the lost minerals from one or two idle workers is much less than the lost minerals from an inactive dark pylon, an un-cast or idle MULE (though multi-casting MULE makes this a bit better) or 4 unused larva. Your missing the point. To give you an idea of how big the problem is you have about 30 targeting actions from saturating one mineral line with manual mining. To make macro mechanics that are trully decision making you have to present two or more options. Both options have to be macro based since micro does not compete well with macro. Both of these options need to be viable most of the time. Are you getting a sense for big THIRTY strategic options is? As an example choosing to get a hydralisk den over a spire is one action. Not only that but all thirty actions need to include position-based decision making. For each decision the player must be choosing a position from multiple locations each with multiple considerations, advantages, disadvantages etc... So lets say you have a base with red minerals on the right and blue minerals on the left. And red minerals make ground units and blue units make air units. You can have the player choose which location he wants to mine from. That is one action. Asking him to repeat this multiple times where the answer is the same choice will nessisitate automation. So yah you can make him choose when he wants to switch from mining red to blue positions but you cant force him to continually choose red with no purpose. And keep in mind 30 macro actions is just for one mineral fields worth of automing. Toss in other mineral fields, production buildings, queued construction etc.. and you get a sense for just how massive this macro problem has been for designing an RTS. You have to go back and reinvent Dune II. Its such a big problem that the general RTS trend has been to minimize or abandon base building/resources rather then to find a way to make all of macro involve decision making. They don't need to have 30 strategic decisions...... Because a truly strategic decision is going to require more attention then a non strategic decision. This is the reason that macro mechanics must have an incombat use (comsat, transfusion, Proton charge speeding up army) because combat is more dynamic, and having that link allows it to be strategic AND rapidly changing
Macro mechanics that have incombat use arnt macro mechanics. They are micro mechanics.
|
On September 17 2009 11:03 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2009 10:51 Krikkitone wrote:On September 17 2009 05:41 Archerofaiur wrote:On September 17 2009 05:21 TheYango wrote:
Then, once you understand what SC1 is and how its mechanics create thes effects, throw everything in SC1 away.. Then, design new mechanics that create similar effects, but without the negative effects of the original mechanics.
And this is the issue right now. The macro mechanics DON'T avoid the negative effects of manual mining. They still require the rote task of looking at your base and performing the action without requiring any thought. They still punish new players for not doing so. In fact, it's arguable that they currently AMPLIFY the problems of the old mechanics, because the lost minerals from one or two idle workers is much less than the lost minerals from an inactive dark pylon, an un-cast or idle MULE (though multi-casting MULE makes this a bit better) or 4 unused larva. Your missing the point. To give you an idea of how big the problem is you have about 30 targeting actions from saturating one mineral line with manual mining. To make macro mechanics that are trully decision making you have to present two or more options. Both options have to be macro based since micro does not compete well with macro. Both of these options need to be viable most of the time. Are you getting a sense for big THIRTY strategic options is? As an example choosing to get a hydralisk den over a spire is one action. Not only that but all thirty actions need to include position-based decision making. For each decision the player must be choosing a position from multiple locations each with multiple considerations, advantages, disadvantages etc... So lets say you have a base with red minerals on the right and blue minerals on the left. And red minerals make ground units and blue units make air units. You can have the player choose which location he wants to mine from. That is one action. Asking him to repeat this multiple times where the answer is the same choice will nessisitate automation. So yah you can make him choose when he wants to switch from mining red to blue positions but you cant force him to continually choose red with no purpose. And keep in mind 30 macro actions is just for one mineral fields worth of automing. Toss in other mineral fields, production buildings, queued construction etc.. and you get a sense for just how massive this macro problem has been for designing an RTS. You have to go back and reinvent Dune II. Its such a big problem that the general RTS trend has been to minimize or abandon base building/resources rather then to find a way to make all of macro involve decision making. They don't need to have 30 strategic decisions...... Because a truly strategic decision is going to require more attention then a non strategic decision. This is the reason that macro mechanics must have an incombat use (comsat, transfusion, Proton charge speeding up army) because combat is more dynamic, and having that link allows it to be strategic AND rapidly changing Macro mechanics that have incombat use arnt macro mechanics. They are micro mechanics.
Well to be more specific, macromechanics need to have a micromechanical Cost. ie I have this 'energy' resource I can use it to boost my production, or I can use it to improve my units in combat
Such that...
MULE=macro ability
v.
Comsat=micro ability
v.
Supply=macro ability
is a macro decision, of managing the resource "OC energy"... do you want to convert that resource into minerals or a combat bonus (or into instant supply)
and
Spawn Larva=macro ability
v.
Creep=probably macro ability sort of on the edge (similar to building defenses)
v.
Transfusion=micro ability
is a macro decision, managing the resource "Queen Energy" [which I would make a management of Zerg Building hp.. which would make it even more macro]
and
Proton Charge=macro [/micro if it applies to other units, and strategic macro if it applies to buildings]
v.
Energy recharge=macro/micro (its like 'repairing' a unit)
v.
Shield Battery=micro (since its only useful In combat if Protoss shields regenerate fast Out of combat)
would also be a macro decision, managing the resource "Obelisk energy" (particularly if that energy is pooled)
Macroing requires watching the level of resources, (minerals, gas, production facilities/larva, Queen/Obelisk/OC energy) and responding to the changing Combat situation by changing how you spend those resources on your troops (moving them around and and doing damage with them being micro)
|
Micro does not compete well with Macro for these mechanics. To understand why you have too look at what the macro mechanics are trying to accomplish.
One of the primary goals of the macro mechanics is to break the player from microing about every 30 seconds. If you allow the player too continue microing often (by making macro and micro equally useful) than you have deminished the effectiveness of your mechanic.
|
On September 17 2009 13:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
Micro does not compete well with Macro for these mechanics. To understand why you have too look at what the macro mechanics are trying to accomplish.
One of the primary goals of the macro mechanics is to break the player from microing about every 30 seconds. If you allow the player too continue microing often (by making macro and micro equally useful) than you have deminished the effectiveness of your mechanic.
If the "ease of use" is part of the balance then it is not, ie
If Spawn Larva is a little more effective than Transfusion, that is OK.... because Spawn Larva is harder to use ('micro break' required). As long as it isn't TOO much better than Transfusion, which is the current situation.
Another important point is that the mechanic should be stackable/queable, sending workers to minerals was "stackable/queuble", if several workers had not been sent you could send them all at once. This way you don't have to go back to your base Exactly every X sec. That is ideal, but you still get the minerals/gas... just later.
|
On September 17 2009 05:05 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2009 06:14 Zato-1 wrote:
As I said in my previous post, I've read a LOT of interactions between Blizzard and fans. Invariably, there are fans who claim Blizzard dropped the ball / don't understand the problem / don't want to fix the problem because they have a different agenda.
Invariably, those fans are wrong. This is true. My point is that Blizzard could be doing a lot better job of making it clear that those fans are wrong. The development of SC2 to this point has had quite a few misunderstandings to this point (expansions vs. separate games, single account on Battle.net, requirements for premium maps, and now 1-hatch-queen). A lot of these revolve around simple wording issues on Blizzard's part (the 3-games drama could have been avoided if they had simply called them expansions from the start, the premium maps business could have been avoided if they had called premium content mods instead of maps, and 1-hatch-queen wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is now if Karune had directed his answer at the actual issue).
Let's say, hypothetically, that Starcraft 2 was not Blizzard's franchise- that it was being developed by, say, Westwood Studios, Electronic Arts, Cavedog Entertainment or Ensemble Studios, which are makers of similar RTS titles such as Dune 2, games from the Command & Conquer series, Total Annihilation and Age of Mythology.
Would you expect these game developers to satisfy your 1-hatch queen balance concerns more fully than Blizzard? I don't think so. In fact, Blizzard is already going above and beyond what most, if not all, game developers do in terms of communication with its fans. Now, I'm the first to recognize they're not doing this just out of the goodness of their hearts- our feedback helps them make a better, long-lasting game, and we help them in terms of publicity through mouth-to-mouth recommendation. We have a vested interest in making sure SC2 is a record-breaking, jaw-dropping, ass-shaking blockbuster, so it's only logical for Blizzard to smile at us, shake our hand, and say, "Thank you. Now, what do you think about this other game feature?"
That said, I think it's a little selfish to expect Blizzard devs to go out of their way to appease the fans, particularly in a matter they never considered to be such a big deal, AND they've already explained in public and on the record why it's not, in fact, imbalanced. Perhaps their explanation wasn't satisfactory to many here- but as I've posted before, this is their game, not a democracy. They make the calls based on their own opinions and the feedback they get- and TL.net is most assuredly not the only source for feedback they have, though perhaps it is one of the better ones. If they think 1-hatch queen is a non-issue, they will treat it as such, and there's little we can do other than state our concerns fully (which Hot_Bid and Chill have done, in great detail and with good argumentation)- that said, the Blizzard devs disagree with us, they've told us why they disagree with us, and that's that.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 17 2009 21:24 Zato-1 wrote:
Let's say, hypothetically, that Starcraft 2 was not Blizzard's franchise- that it was being developed by, say, Westwood Studios, Electronic Arts, Cavedog Entertainment or Ensemble Studios, which are makers of similar RTS titles such as Dune 2, games from the Command & Conquer series, Total Annihilation and Age of Mythology.
Would you expect these game developers to satisfy your 1-hatch queen balance concerns more fully than Blizzard? I don't think so. In fact, Blizzard is already going above and beyond what most, if not all, game developers do in terms of communication with its fans. Now, I'm the first to recognize they're not doing this just out of the goodness of their hearts- our feedback helps them make a better, long-lasting game, and we help them in terms of publicity through mouth-to-mouth recommendation. We have a vested interest in making sure SC2 is a record-breaking, jaw-dropping, ass-shaking blockbuster, so it's only logical for Blizzard to smile at us, shake our hand, and say, "Thank you. Now, what do you think about this other game feature?"
That said, I think it's a little selfish to expect Blizzard devs to go out of their way to appease the fans, particularly in a matter they never considered to be such a big deal, AND they've already explained in public and on the record why it's not, in fact, imbalanced. Perhaps their explanation wasn't satisfactory to many here- but as I've posted before, this is their game, not a democracy. They make the calls based on their own opinions and the feedback they get- and TL.net is most assuredly not the only source for feedback they have, though perhaps it is one of the better ones. If they think 1-hatch queen is a non-issue, they will treat it as such, and there's little we can do other than state our concerns fully (which Hot_Bid and Chill have done, in great detail and with good argumentation)- that said, the Blizzard devs disagree with us, they've told us why they disagree with us, and that's that.
You're missing my point. I know Blizzard sees the problem, and I'm not asking them to do more about it. My point is that they've created a lot of unneeded drama by mis-explaining things to fans. It won't affect the end-game, but it creates pages of unnecessary trolling over a few misspoken words. To use an old example, whether they call the other 2 expansions to SC2 "games" or "expansions" makes no actual difference to the final product, but as there have been plenty of people who have expressed their distaste for it being separate games (some even enough to say they won't buy SC2), it sure as hell would have been good if they had just called them "expansions".
None of their programmers lose any sleep over what Karune or Dustin Browder tell us. The distinction between "map" and "mod" has basically no impact on them, or the objective quality of the final product. Whether Karune gave an unsatisfactory answer or an adequate one doesn't actually change whether or not 1-hatch-queen is balanced. But as that difference could actually gain them or lose them sales, it would be nice if they answered questions clearly and made things a little less ambiguous sometimes. Do they have an obligation to? No. But IMO they could make people a lot less angry without any change to their game.
|
On September 18 2009 07:42 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2009 21:24 Zato-1 wrote:
Let's say, hypothetically, that Starcraft 2 was not Blizzard's franchise- that it was being developed by, say, Westwood Studios, Electronic Arts, Cavedog Entertainment or Ensemble Studios, which are makers of similar RTS titles such as Dune 2, games from the Command & Conquer series, Total Annihilation and Age of Mythology.
Would you expect these game developers to satisfy your 1-hatch queen balance concerns more fully than Blizzard? I don't think so. In fact, Blizzard is already going above and beyond what most, if not all, game developers do in terms of communication with its fans. Now, I'm the first to recognize they're not doing this just out of the goodness of their hearts- our feedback helps them make a better, long-lasting game, and we help them in terms of publicity through mouth-to-mouth recommendation. We have a vested interest in making sure SC2 is a record-breaking, jaw-dropping, ass-shaking blockbuster, so it's only logical for Blizzard to smile at us, shake our hand, and say, "Thank you. Now, what do you think about this other game feature?"
That said, I think it's a little selfish to expect Blizzard devs to go out of their way to appease the fans, particularly in a matter they never considered to be such a big deal, AND they've already explained in public and on the record why it's not, in fact, imbalanced. Perhaps their explanation wasn't satisfactory to many here- but as I've posted before, this is their game, not a democracy. They make the calls based on their own opinions and the feedback they get- and TL.net is most assuredly not the only source for feedback they have, though perhaps it is one of the better ones. If they think 1-hatch queen is a non-issue, they will treat it as such, and there's little we can do other than state our concerns fully (which Hot_Bid and Chill have done, in great detail and with good argumentation)- that said, the Blizzard devs disagree with us, they've told us why they disagree with us, and that's that. You're missing my point. I know Blizzard sees the problem, and I'm not asking them to do more about it. My point is that they've created a lot of unneeded drama by mis-explaining things to fans. It won't affect the end-game, but it creates pages of unnecessary trolling over a few misspoken words. To use an old example, whether they call the other 2 expansions to SC2 "games" or "expansions" makes no actual difference to the final product, but as there have been plenty of people who have expressed their distaste for it being separate games (some even enough to say they won't buy SC2), it sure as hell would have been good if they had just called them "expansions". None of their programmers lose any sleep over what Karune or Dustin Browder tell us. The distinction between "map" and "mod" has basically no impact on them, or the objective quality of the final product. Whether Karune gave an unsatisfactory answer or an adequate one doesn't actually change whether or not 1-hatch-queen is balanced. But as that difference could actually gain them or lose them sales, it would be nice if they answered questions clearly and made things a little less ambiguous sometimes. Do they have an obligation to? No. But IMO they could make people a lot less angry without any change to their game.
It sounds reasonable. And yet when I see it in practice, when through the internet you offer fans a hand, they cry in dismay as to why didn't you give them an arm.
Fan: "Hey guys, look! I can tank as a feral druid/paladin! Sure, I'm no Warrior, but it's pretty neat!"
Blizzard: "You know what, we want to see tanks of all classes be viable. We're introducing Death Knight tanks, and we're making Druids and Paladins just as good as Warriors! Who knows, a raid without Warriors might even be possible!"
Warrior: "WTF Blizzard, way to axe my class."
Druid: "My area threat generation is not as good as the other tanks'!"
Paladin: "My survivability isn't as good as the other tanks'!"
Blizzard: "Ok, we'll work on those issues, we want all tanks to be viable for tanking any encounter!"
Warrior: "Death Knight is too good!"
Death Knight: "No I'm not!"
Paladin: "I still have bad survivability!"
Druid: "My itemization sucks, and my threat rotation is mind-numbingly boring!"
Blizzard: "You know what, Death Knights were too good. We'll nerf them, and buff Paladins."
Death Knight: "WTF now I'm useless. GG Blizzard, you useless retards."
Warrior: "Paladin is too good!"
Paladin: "No I'm not!"
Druid: "WTF no one cares about me. I never get any attention!"
This is a brief history of how the WoW tanking forums have behaved since Blizzard chose to make all tanking classes fairly equal in Wrath of the Lich King. And- this is important- the tanking aspect of WoW has improved vastly because of this change. My point is: when you have the attention of the developers, people who are dissatisfied in some way are much, much more likely to post than those who are more or less content. Without a fairly strict and active moderation of internet forums, no matter how helpful and open the developers are, the fans will always find some fault, no matter how small or fair this criticism is, and there will be pages upon pages of argumentation, insults and trolling.
Could the SC2 devs have made a better job of communicating with the fans? Probably.
Would a better job at communicating with the fans placate the "drama" and trolling? LOL. No.
|
On September 18 2009 09:01 Zato-1 wrote:
Fan: "Hey guys, look! I can tank as a feral druid/paladin! Sure, I'm no Warrior, but it's pretty neat!"
Blizzard: "You know what, we want to see tanks of all classes be viable. We're introducing Death Knight tanks, and we're making Druids and Paladins just as good as Warriors! Who knows, a raid without Warriors might even be possible!"
Warrior: "WTF Blizzard, way to axe my class."
Druid: "My area threat generation is not as good as the other tanks'!"
Paladin: "My survivability isn't as good as the other tanks'!"
Blizzard: "Ok, we'll work on those issues, we want all tanks to be viable for tanking any encounter!"
Warrior: "Death Knight is too good!"
Death Knight: "No I'm not!"
Paladin: "I still have bad survivability!"
Druid: "My itemization sucks, and my threat rotation is mind-numbingly boring!"
Blizzard: "You know what, Death Knights were too good. We'll nerf them, and buff Paladins."
Death Knight: "WTF now I'm useless. GG Blizzard, you useless retards."
Warrior: "Paladin is too good!"
Paladin: "No I'm not!"
Druid: "WTF no one cares about me. I never get any attention!"
LOL that was hilarious! I cant wait till we can do this with SC2.
|
god, I love esports science
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
