|
On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:
Ladder play is not tournament play. You also cannot just bring something into the game because it sounds good. If you ever had something to do with the development of a larger software project, you know what you do when you have a working solution. You don't just add something or change something. It has to be well thought-out. You need to consider future implications. One false step in the project can cost you A LOT in the future.
There is a reason why everything is so slow: You need to document all changes and need to make sure that they don't do any harm. In the software development, a fast solution often is a costly solution which sooner or later requires large part to be replaced by newly written code.
I'm not going to address the majority of your post, because other people have. But I want to talk about what I just quoted from you and ramp blockers.
Now you better check yourself on this logic before you wreck yourself...
1. Starcraft 2 is the same for ladder and tournament play.
2. Part of how Blizzard balances the game is done by looking at ladder data.
3. The absence of ramp blockers skews the data against Zerg, as Terran and Protoss players can block the ramps for easy wins. Heck, I beat ROOTFitzy in the Custom Map TL Open by walling off his ramp on Ohana... these kind of strategies are easy to pull off and have a high win percentage, even if you play someone much better than yourself.
4. Blizzard is balancing the game for both ladder and tournament play based partially on data that is skewed against Zerg due to ramp blocking strategies.
So Blizzard is balancing their game based on skewed data. What happens on ladder effects how the game is balanced, which effects tournament play. So much for being well thought out...
On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:
If you could make clear points, you would not have to resort to such "facts"
So is that clear enough for you? Is what I said not fact? And to top it off, we very recently received ramp blockers in HOTS... Why did it take so long? How long did Blizzard have to think about it?
And regarding everything being well thought-out... Entomb was not well thought out, it was a terrible spell that allowed a Bronze league player harass as well as a Grandmaster. It was skilless and not fun. And the community said it from the start. Blizzard should have listened and never implemented it.
But they did. Then they realized what everyone knew, that it was terrible. And they had to remove it. So much for being well thought out...
But you're right. I don't understand the process that Blizzard uses to balance the game. But I don't think it is because it is too scientific for me and they are too smart for me. I don't think so at all based on what they've done...
|
On November 22 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:
But you're right. I don't understand the process that Blizzard uses to balance the game. But I don't think it is because it is too scientific and they are too smart for. I don't think so at all based on the results and what they've done...
It's not scientific or objectively "smart", but it has reasoning and it makes sense.
Blizzard has been very open with their thought processes, even more so than during the WoL beta, and none of their changes have come off as unexpected to me. There are clear reasons for why they choose implement what they do. Whether or not those changes are good or not, is an entirely different ball game, but you can't say that it's "random".
|
I wasn't arguing that it is random. His argument was that just because I couldn't understand Blizzard's logic or reasoning in their balance changes, doesn't mean they are bad.
On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:
Just because you don't understand Blizzards thoughts behind it doesn't mean that they don't understand it. It just means that you don't understand what a team of highly professional and experienced game developers had in mind.
Take a field of any profession, let it be music theory or geological field trip. There will be A LOT were you don't understand the reasoning, even though you are able to hear music and to see a geological conglomeration of sediments.
Unfortunately that argument falls flat on it's face when Blizzard does something like comes up with Entomb, gets criticized for it being a bad idea, implements it anyway, then has to remove it because it was in fact a bad idea. I may not understand their logic or reasoning, but I know it was a bad idea, and obviously they realize it now too.
Or to use his analogy, I am in music theory class with the professionals that I don't understand telling them their music sucks for reason X and to stop working on it. They don't agree and keep working on it, but then they realize later that it does suck for reason X and have to stop working on it. They should have listened to reason X from the start...
Sure makes those professionals look bad huh... and in this case the community had good reasons of why Entomb was a bad idea and those reasons were shared with Blizzard. And it just so happens those were the very same reasons that Blizzard cited as to why they removed Entomb after so much testing.
Now, I will argue that the process they use is bad and the proof is in the pudding. It isn't so much that they are releasing units or abilities that don't work after testing, it is the fact the units and abilities they have been releasing are bad ideas before they are even tested. Entomb and the Replicant are prime examples, as I pointed out in my first post on the first page.
Before you test anything scientifically, you should make sure it passes the logic test in your head. In other words, if you don't think mixing water and gasoline will make Kool-Aid, why test it in real life? Your time is better spent testing things that make sense.
So if you think up a skilless, one click harass spell in hopes that it will make the game more fun to play while addressing an issue, why test it? Skilless spells aren't fun to begin with, and you don't need to test that to know it.
|
On November 22 2012 14:56 BronzeKnee wrote:
It isn't so much that they are releasing units or abilities that don't work after testing, it is the fact the units and abilities they have been releasing are bad ideas before they are even tested.
It feels like the new units are coming in top-down from internal "game jams" Blizzard is doing for crazy ideas instead of working bottom-up to fix each race and incorporate new pieces as they go.
|
On November 22 2012 15:05 tpir wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 14:56 BronzeKnee wrote:
It isn't so much that they are releasing units or abilities that don't work after testing, it is the fact the units and abilities they have been releasing are bad ideas before they are even tested.
It feels like the new units are coming in top-down from internal "game jams" Blizzard is doing for crazy ideas instead of working bottom-up to fix each race and incorporate new pieces as they go.
Well said. I really think SC2 needs a better design team. They are trying to reinvent the wheel here, instead of simply making it roll smoother.
|
On November 22 2012 15:06 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 15:05 tpir wrote:On November 22 2012 14:56 BronzeKnee wrote:
It isn't so much that they are releasing units or abilities that don't work after testing, it is the fact the units and abilities they have been releasing are bad ideas before they are even tested.
It feels like the new units are coming in top-down from internal "game jams" Blizzard is doing for crazy ideas instead of working bottom-up to fix each race and incorporate new pieces as they go. Well said. I really think SC2 needs a better design team. They are trying to reinvent the wheel here, instead of simply making it roll smoother.
My comparison for their way of doing it comes from Lord of the Rings, where they come across some beautiful caves in Rohan and Gimli says that dwarves would come and visit them and that they would improve them by taking a small chip every decade or so. Blizzard on the other hand seems to have created SC2 with a lot of dynamite in the cave of BW only taking a few remnants after the blast. We now see the problems coming out of it.
In todays code A morning cast Wolf said something like "Stalker and Marine have the same dps", BUT if you compare them as a clump of units the Marines come out on top, because they can stack much tighter than the Stalkers. This will give them an edge the bigger the stacks get and probably makes up a lot of the weakness which Stalkers seem to have. If only Blizzard would understand ...
|
On November 22 2012 03:35 gingerfluffmuff wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 03:09 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 02:13 gingerfluffmuff wrote:On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:On November 21 2012 02:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Fact is, Blizzard doesn't understand the game, evidenced by the ever changing roll that Warhounds, Tempests and Oracles have had.. If you could make clear points, you would not have to resort to such "facts". Just because you don't understand Blizzards thoughts behind it doesn't mean that they don't understand it. It just means that you don't understand what a team of highly professional and experienced game developers had in mind. Take a field of any profession, let it be music theory or geological field trip. There will be A LOT were you don't understand the reasoning, even though you are able to hear music and to see a geological conglomeration of sediments. On November 21 2012 02:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Now it isn't all bad, some new units are great and enhance the game. But given the fact Blizzard took way too long to make simple changes in WOL to address the imbalance (we just recently got ramp blockers in HOTS, how long did it take them to figure this out, how long was the community asking for it, how long did tournaments use them?) . Another "fact". Ladder play is not tournament play. You also cannot just bring something into the game because it sounds good. If you ever had something to do with the development of a larger software project, you know what you do when you have a working solution. You don't just add something or change something. It has to be well thought-out. You need to consider future implications. One false step in the project can cost you A LOT in the future. There is a reason why everything is so slow: You need to document all changes and need to make sure that they don't do any harm. In the software development, a fast solution often is a costly solution which sooner or later requires large part to be replaced by newly written code. Mate, you need to chill. Game developing isnt rocket science, the frame for sc2 exists since BW. Blizz is also part of Acti, which is a company with shareholders to please, thats the main reason why sc2 is split in 3 parts i guess. There were valid points mentioned: 1) It seems too many on TL that Blizz has no clear vision for the races, so random units/upg are tested. 2) The lacking map pool and changes in the maps (like removing rocks, adding depots) done by premier leagues (GSL/MLG) --> The ladder is used to get better and compare with other people. It doesnt make sense that i cant use the same builds/maps showed by the pros. What appears random to us can be the process of a thorough, well reasoned debate within the team. How can you tell the difference? Do you actually think they approach the game like a schoolwork project and try out random things? Tournaments are for the few pros. The ladder has to be attractive for all players. Things like neutral depots make the game more complicated. That doesn't mean that they don't belong to ladder, but it is a factor which has to be considered. The pros of course cannot really prepare for tournaments with ladder play but the ladder is not intended to do that anyway. Its nice for you to defend Blizz, but you neither got any proof that the changes are not random (more or less). My Economical Standpoint(is this even an english word): Do the absolut minimum to not drive all players away, so that the expansions are going to sell. Say "we are working on the balance" and hype the expansion. I would do the same if i would be CEO, cause i wouldnt give a shit about posters like you and me. Being pylon/bunker - walled in aint so funny, i wouldnt call the games attractive. I hope your not playing zerg, saying stuff like this would make me believe your are chopping wood in wood league. Quite pointless our discussion is i guess, at least we are gaining posts.
I feel you apply reasonable arguments so I don't feel the discussion itself pointless even though we have no way to determine what Blizzard exactly does.
If I hear Dustin Brodwer or David Kim talking, I feel that they are well-informed and care about the game. Of course it could be that they just play their role. Of course both are working for a company which has to make money, last year Blizzard laid off a lot of guys and Blizzard is also known for having rather small teams anyway (I don't know how much the development team were affected or if just community managers were laid off.)
Some things in the past showed imo that they did some things they didn't have to. They improved the graphics engine and the "low" setting ground textures after the game was launched. During Wol beta they included bane morphing and spire morphing animations even though it was not really demanded by the gamers. They are still working on Wol balance even though their goal is to sell the expansion.
I assume that the point is, that those steps don't pay off at first but generate trust. Seing Blizzard still working on Wol eases your mind because we expect an effort to polish Hots, too – even though Lotv is still to come.
I do play zerg by the way, but with Hots and unranked ladder I do play cheese a bit offrace.
|
On November 22 2012 15:26 Rabiator wrote:
In todays code A morning cast Wolf said something like "Stalker and Marine have the same dps", BUT if you compare them as a clump of units the Marines come out on top, because they can stack much tighter than the Stalkers. This will give them an edge the bigger the stacks get and probably makes up a lot of the weakness which Stalkers seem to have. If only Blizzard would understand ...
A tight ball of marines renders them vulnerable to storms, fungals and siege tank shots. While it is a bit easier to make a marine ball than to fight it with AOE damage, every race has its pros. Zerg for example has it way easier to remax and can try to use bane landmines to force the terrans to build a raven or waste scans.
Just yesterday I lost a game versus marines. But I didn't reflect on how Blizzard could 'fix' this but rather what I could have done better to get my banes connecting properly.
|
On November 22 2012 18:45 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 03:35 gingerfluffmuff wrote:On November 22 2012 03:09 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 02:13 gingerfluffmuff wrote:On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:On November 21 2012 02:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Fact is, Blizzard doesn't understand the game, evidenced by the ever changing roll that Warhounds, Tempests and Oracles have had.. If you could make clear points, you would not have to resort to such "facts". Just because you don't understand Blizzards thoughts behind it doesn't mean that they don't understand it. It just means that you don't understand what a team of highly professional and experienced game developers had in mind. Take a field of any profession, let it be music theory or geological field trip. There will be A LOT were you don't understand the reasoning, even though you are able to hear music and to see a geological conglomeration of sediments. On November 21 2012 02:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Now it isn't all bad, some new units are great and enhance the game. But given the fact Blizzard took way too long to make simple changes in WOL to address the imbalance (we just recently got ramp blockers in HOTS, how long did it take them to figure this out, how long was the community asking for it, how long did tournaments use them?) . Another "fact". Ladder play is not tournament play. You also cannot just bring something into the game because it sounds good. If you ever had something to do with the development of a larger software project, you know what you do when you have a working solution. You don't just add something or change something. It has to be well thought-out. You need to consider future implications. One false step in the project can cost you A LOT in the future. There is a reason why everything is so slow: You need to document all changes and need to make sure that they don't do any harm. In the software development, a fast solution often is a costly solution which sooner or later requires large part to be replaced by newly written code. Mate, you need to chill. Game developing isnt rocket science, the frame for sc2 exists since BW. Blizz is also part of Acti, which is a company with shareholders to please, thats the main reason why sc2 is split in 3 parts i guess. There were valid points mentioned: 1) It seems too many on TL that Blizz has no clear vision for the races, so random units/upg are tested. 2) The lacking map pool and changes in the maps (like removing rocks, adding depots) done by premier leagues (GSL/MLG) --> The ladder is used to get better and compare with other people. It doesnt make sense that i cant use the same builds/maps showed by the pros. What appears random to us can be the process of a thorough, well reasoned debate within the team. How can you tell the difference? Do you actually think they approach the game like a schoolwork project and try out random things? Tournaments are for the few pros. The ladder has to be attractive for all players. Things like neutral depots make the game more complicated. That doesn't mean that they don't belong to ladder, but it is a factor which has to be considered. The pros of course cannot really prepare for tournaments with ladder play but the ladder is not intended to do that anyway. Its nice for you to defend Blizz, but you neither got any proof that the changes are not random (more or less). My Economical Standpoint(is this even an english word): Do the absolut minimum to not drive all players away, so that the expansions are going to sell. Say "we are working on the balance" and hype the expansion. I would do the same if i would be CEO, cause i wouldnt give a shit about posters like you and me. Being pylon/bunker - walled in aint so funny, i wouldnt call the games attractive. I hope your not playing zerg, saying stuff like this would make me believe your are chopping wood in wood league. Quite pointless our discussion is i guess, at least we are gaining posts. I feel that you actually apply reason so I don't feel the discussion itself pointless even though we have no way to determine what Blizzard exactly does. If I hear Dustin Brodwer or David Kim talking, I feel that they are well-informed and care about the game. Of course it could be that they just play their role. Of course both are working for a company which has to make money, last year Blizzard laid off a lot of guys and Blizzard is also known for having rather small teams anyway (I don't know how much the development team were affected or if just community managers were laid off.) I do play zerg by the way, but with Hots and unranked ladder I do play cheese a bit offrace.
I hope that i am wrong and that your feeling is right, cause i really enjoyed playing sc2. For me the game got too stale and i stopped playing. (i play zerg too, but the lack of unit options in the matchups is sooo limited). I still watch GSL cause its awesome and TL is a really good community.
After the d3 fiasko i think our beloved blizz north is gone forever. I will wait for hots to be sold and see, but never again i am gonna buy a blizz game at release.
|
On November 22 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:
Ladder play is not tournament play. You also cannot just bring something into the game because it sounds good. If you ever had something to do with the development of a larger software project, you know what you do when you have a working solution. You don't just add something or change something. It has to be well thought-out. You need to consider future implications. One false step in the project can cost you A LOT in the future.
There is a reason why everything is so slow: You need to document all changes and need to make sure that they don't do any harm. In the software development, a fast solution often is a costly solution which sooner or later requires large part to be replaced by newly written code. I'm not going to address the majority of your post, because other people have. But I want to talk about what I just quoted from you and ramp blockers. Now you better check yourself on this logic before you wreck yourself... 1. Starcraft 2 is the same for ladder and tournament play. 2. Part of how Blizzard balances the game is done by looking at ladder data. 3. The absence of ramp blockers skews the data against Zerg, as Terran and Protoss players can block the ramps for easy wins. Heck, I beat ROOTFitzy in the Custom Map TL Open by walling off his ramp on Ohana... these kind of strategies are easy to pull off and have a high win percentage, even if you play someone much better than yourself. 4. Blizzard is balancing the game for both ladder and tournament play based partially on data that is skewed against Zerg due to ramp blocking strategies. So Blizzard is balancing their game based on skewed data. What happens on ladder effects how the game is balanced, which effects tournament play. So much for being well thought out...
You are making some assumptions here.
Blizzard also watches pro tournaments. They use ladder data to see the win rates through all skill levels. Anectotes like beating Fitzy doesn't really proof a point beside ladder play doesn't equal to tournament play.
Since the maps are different, SC2 is not really the same for ladder and tournament play.
On November 22 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:
If you could make clear points, you would not have to resort to such "facts" So is that clear enough for you? Is what I said not fact? And to top it off, we very recently received ramp blockers in HOTS... Why did it take so long? How long did Blizzard have to think about it? And regarding everything being well thought-out... Entomb was not well thought out, it was a terrible spell that allowed a Bronze league player harass as well as a Grandmaster. It was skilless and not fun. And the community said it from the start. Blizzard should have listened and never implemented it.But they did. Then they realized what everyone knew, that it was terrible. And they had to remove it. So much for being well thought out... But you're right. I don't understand the process that Blizzard uses to balance the game. But I don't think it is because it is too scientific for me and they are too smart for me. I don't think so at all based on what they've done...
Not everyone knew that Entomb was terrible. Some voiced their opinion against it and were proved to be right. But had they to offer a better idea? The current oracle is possible because of Blizzard's willingness to makes mistakes. Mistakes like the warhound, not to mention the shredder, replicant and other units. If you are so good that you do everything right without a mistake, you are either goodly or you doesn't do anything.
I also wonder if you understand the concept of alpha and beta versions and if you really criticize Blizzard for trying out something which was viewed negatively by some.
|
On November 22 2012 05:26 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 03:23 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 02:40 Rabiator wrote:On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:On November 21 2012 02:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Fact is, Blizzard doesn't understand the game, evidenced by the ever changing roll that Warhounds, Tempests and Oracles have had.. If you could make clear points, you would not have to resort to such "facts". Just because you don't understand Blizzards thoughts behind it doesn't mean that they don't understand it. It just means that you don't understand what a team of highly professional and experienced game developers had in mind. Take a field of any profession, let it be music theory or geological field trip. There will be A LOT were you don't understand the reasoning, even though you are able to hear music and to see a geological conglomeration of sediments. Rofl ... clear points have been given soooo many times already and yet Blizzard ignores them. Here are a few of my favorites: 1. Deathball sucks and is caused by tight unit movement, unlimited unit selection and an increased production speed (compared to BW) .... fix is easy: remove production boosts, limit unit selection and force-spread units while moving. I think Blizzard even agreed on not liking the deathball either and yet Browder says "players want to clump up their units". Most players want to build a ball of death, DB is right, because it makes it easier to focus damage. However a deathball lowers the viewer's experience at it is hard to follow the action. That means there is nuance here, it is not just "deathball sucks". Instead we have pros and cons. Spells with AOE damage force unit splitting for optimal play which involves skill. Foxer rose to fame with unit control. Limited unit selection is maybe applauded by some pros and even some casual gamers. But do you think that you can sell an RTS in this time with a limited unit selection count? While mechanically easier than BW, SC2 is still mechanically demanding on pro level, at least compared to competing esports games like LoL. Regarding RTS, there isn't even a competing game right now. Blizzard must have made at least some things right. Rofl????? They dont NEED to make much right, because it was a long expected sequel to a game with many many fans. Sure, they could have screwed up as much as Duke Nukem Forever, but due to the big fan community this game will be played even if it is less than perfect. There are nuances you know and SC2 has flaws in its design. One piece of wisdom I have learned in my life: You can sell DIRT if you advertise it correctly. In this case you just need Dustin to come out and explain to the players why unlimited unit selection is bad ... and in a sense he has already agreed to that by saying something like "split units are better for the viewer". A limited unit selection is also better for casuals, because you dont lose all your units if you make a mistake and can learn from that in the same game. No casual can split his Marines against a clump of Banelings rolling towards him .... which is an a-move every casual can do and putting them into one big group makes it even easier.
Does it make a good argument to begin with "Rofl"?
Of course SC2 is less than perfect, so is any other game. Limited unit selection would feel like a punishment to build a big army. SC2 is a game where big armys fight big armies, it's not WC3. Even when SC1 was released, the unit limit was not generally praised but often felt like an artifical constraint.
SC2 was able to make an RTS in the western esports scene popular again. While WC3 already had a lot of fans, it turned out to be a small thing compared to SC2. I think the data is conclusive that Blizzard did some things right with the game. Now we need to have the remaining flaws removed to get an even better game.
On November 22 2012 05:26 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 03:23 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 02:40 Rabiator wrote:2. The asymmetric distribution of production speed boosts is the reason why certain races have advantages at certain "timings". The easiest example are all the Protoss timings which usually start after Warp Gate research is done and the X Warp Gates have been built. It is a terrible idea to have a "structural imbalance" in the general mechanics, because they have to fix this through the units. In addition it seems a stupid idea to claim to be wanting to make mech viable while the core unit of that strategy is NOT affected by any production speed boost. Fixing this is easy again: remove the production speed boosts AND the economic speed boosts (thus removing the MULE, which has been the reason why we dont have any maps with gold minerals anymore AND which has been complained about for a long time). If you can see so easy fixes I really wonder why you don't work in the industry. Did it ever occur to you that the fix is maybe not as easy as you think? Local imbalance and the favor of certain timings for certain build orders for each race allows the races to be actually different. While this gameplay mechanic also causes some troubles like timings which are easy to execute and hard to defend, it doesn't mean that the game as a whole would be better off without it. I am not certain about the right way. I don't think though that you can be certain either, even if you act as if you are certain. Stop that stupid "if you are so smart why dont you work in the industry" argument, which is just an attempt to intimidate or discourage the one you are supposedly arguing with. If you think you found a flaw in my arguments then please say so, but stop saying "I don't think though that you can be certain either". Either argue with my reasoning or shut up.
Why so aggressive? The general flaw of many of your arguments is that you only look at a small part or at one of many possible situations. Or that you state your personal opinion which is shared by some others while you act as if you voice the general consesus. At the same time you write in a style as if you are 100% sure that you fully understand all aspects of the game.
On November 22 2012 05:26 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 03:23 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 02:40 Rabiator wrote:3. Unit balancing is different according to the number of units involved. "2 Marines vs. 1 Zealot" is a different balance from "20 Marines vs. 10 Zealots" or "50 Marines vs. 25 Zealots" and this is the core mathematical reason why unit cluming is terrible and should be removed ASAP! With "less clumping" the variation in the balance isnt as big, which makes the general stats of the units less important. We have seen that in the "local overpoweredness" of the Siege Tank in BW for example; it didnt really matter that the attack was strong, but in SC2 that kind of attack would be terrible and would have to be balanced precisely and with extreme care. What exactly does this point prove? That it plays different compared to BW? You don't remove "ASAP" things if the game as a whole works more or less. You take carefully steps in the right direction or you risk to mess up the entire game. People make a living off an esports career right now. A responsible action is to not make "ASAP" changes. Well if you find a problem - which I believe I have - AND you have already scheduled your release date - which they have - AND if the change would totally change the gameplay you kinda have to do things ASAP to be done before the release of the expansion ... easy logic I would say. Starcraft 2 can be easily compared to BW and once you do you see that the newer game has problems which the older didnt have and then the solution is easy enough to see. That comparison and the long eSports tradition is a resource which they *should be* using, but they are not. If you have to ask what my "2X Marines vs. X Zealots" example means then you havent tried to understand it. If you have just 2 Marines and 1 Zealot came along to try and kill them they would have to run away for a bit and then shoot the Zealot, but it would take a lot of work from the player to keep them alive. If you do that for a larger group the Zealots have a smaller chance of winning, simply because the number of Marines is soo big that they can kill a few Zealots before they reach the Marines and then continue to kill them faster than the Marines would die, because more Marines can shoot the one line of Zealots which can attack them. It has something to do with the mathematical fact that the "group dps" is higher if your clump gets bigger and this continues to rise. This is so big that the Zealots die before taking too many swings themselves, which they can do a lot, when its just 2 Marines fighting a single Zealot. The size of the clumps is so big that they make expensive units - like Siege Tanks or Colossi or Thors - rather worthless and those expensive units just die too fast. Just look at a clump of Roaches "fleeing" from a group of Stalkers ... and if you have enough Roaches they can simply turn around and one-shot a Stalker. Thats stupid. Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 03:23 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 02:40 Rabiator wrote:On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:On November 21 2012 02:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Now it isn't all bad, some new units are great and enhance the game. But given the fact Blizzard took way too long to make simple changes in WOL to address the imbalance (we just recently got ramp blockers in HOTS, how long did it take them to figure this out, how long was the community asking for it, how long did tournaments use them?) . Another "fact". Ladder play is not tournament play. You also cannot just bring something into the game because it sounds good. If you ever had something to do with the development of a larger software project, you know what you do when you have a working solution. You don't just add something or change something. It has to be well thought-out. You need to consider future implications. One false step in the project can cost you A LOT in the future. There is a reason why everything is so slow: You need to document all changes and need to make sure that they don't do any harm. In the software development, a fast solution often is a costly solution which sooner or later requires large part to be replaced by newly written code. Rofl ... they arent programming the game anymore. That work has been done for years. They are simply adding in some new units and that shouldnt take weeks and weeks of programming. The biggest problem is adding in units which DONT SUCK. In the end the game is supposed to be an "eSports game" and because of this even Blizzard needs to respect the tournament organizations like GSL and MLG and they should use their maps on the ladder. For a new expansion they should stick to known maps, because it doesnt make sense that players have to try out new units AND new maps at the same time. That's really stupid to vary two things at the same time when you are testing something and only after the community complained did they add a few known maps to the HotS map pool. Your roffeling shows that you didn't understood the point of my comparison. It also shows that you don't have experience with larger software projects and that you consider changes much easier than they actually are. If I am wrong and you are in fact a genius, please do go into the industry. You DONT NEED programming or software project experience to have ideas. Thats for programmers to organize. Hence the "rofls", because you keep sticking to this irrelevant argument. I dont work there, because it would be in the US and because they didnt ask me AND because I dont care for it. If Dustin sent me an email tomorrow I could advise him, but I doubt that will happen, so what is the point you are trying to make? It is also easier to see the problems and the right way if you are NOT part of the ongoing daily process, because then you get sucked up into the details and lose the view of the "big picture". My points above about the general problems - which they totally ignore so far - should show that easily.
The shifting balance of melee versus ranged units makes the game more complex as I pointed out in another reply in another thread.
You don't need software project experience, any experience of a complicated process where humans are involves is sufficient. Even small changes can have a large impact. You don't change things "ASAP" just because they sound good. You can do that in a small project, but when many people are involved you need to be sure that you don't make things worse. Unbuildable rocks are coming with Hots, a good chance to introduce them and have them tested in ladder play.
When you pick one thing which turns out to be a good thing and then ask why it wasn't implement 'ASAP' as someone proposed it, you are underestimating the difficulties managing a complex project like SC2.
|
On November 22 2012 19:37 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 05:26 Rabiator wrote:On November 22 2012 03:23 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 02:40 Rabiator wrote:On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:On November 21 2012 02:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Fact is, Blizzard doesn't understand the game, evidenced by the ever changing roll that Warhounds, Tempests and Oracles have had.. If you could make clear points, you would not have to resort to such "facts". Just because you don't understand Blizzards thoughts behind it doesn't mean that they don't understand it. It just means that you don't understand what a team of highly professional and experienced game developers had in mind. Take a field of any profession, let it be music theory or geological field trip. There will be A LOT were you don't understand the reasoning, even though you are able to hear music and to see a geological conglomeration of sediments. Rofl ... clear points have been given soooo many times already and yet Blizzard ignores them. Here are a few of my favorites: 1. Deathball sucks and is caused by tight unit movement, unlimited unit selection and an increased production speed (compared to BW) .... fix is easy: remove production boosts, limit unit selection and force-spread units while moving. I think Blizzard even agreed on not liking the deathball either and yet Browder says "players want to clump up their units". Most players want to build a ball of death, DB is right, because it makes it easier to focus damage. However a deathball lowers the viewer's experience at it is hard to follow the action. That means there is nuance here, it is not just "deathball sucks". Instead we have pros and cons. Spells with AOE damage force unit splitting for optimal play which involves skill. Foxer rose to fame with unit control. Limited unit selection is maybe applauded by some pros and even some casual gamers. But do you think that you can sell an RTS in this time with a limited unit selection count? While mechanically easier than BW, SC2 is still mechanically demanding on pro level, at least compared to competing esports games like LoL. Regarding RTS, there isn't even a competing game right now. Blizzard must have made at least some things right. Rofl????? They dont NEED to make much right, because it was a long expected sequel to a game with many many fans. Sure, they could have screwed up as much as Duke Nukem Forever, but due to the big fan community this game will be played even if it is less than perfect. There are nuances you know and SC2 has flaws in its design. One piece of wisdom I have learned in my life: You can sell DIRT if you advertise it correctly. In this case you just need Dustin to come out and explain to the players why unlimited unit selection is bad ... and in a sense he has already agreed to that by saying something like "split units are better for the viewer". A limited unit selection is also better for casuals, because you dont lose all your units if you make a mistake and can learn from that in the same game. No casual can split his Marines against a clump of Banelings rolling towards him .... which is an a-move every casual can do and putting them into one big group makes it even easier. Does it make a good argument to begin with "Rofl"? Of course SC2 is less than perfect, so is any other game. Limited unit selection would feel like a punishment to build a big army. SC2 is a game where big armys fight big armies, it's not WC3. Even when SC1 was released, the unit limit was not generally praised but often felt like an artifical constraint. SC2 was able to make an RTS in the western esports scene popular again. While WC3 already had a lot of fans, it turned out to be a small thing compared to SC2. I think the data is conclusive that Blizzard did some things right with the game. Now we need to have the remaining flaws removed to get an even better game.
Yes it doesn make for a good start, if the argument in question is hilariously stupid. Of course SC2 is more popular than anything before, because the INFRASTRUCTURE IS THERE NOW! Streaming is easy like hell, but if we had the same during WC3 days or even BW days they would have been big in the west as well. Korea is a special case, because it is a small country with very concentrated infrastructure of high quality. Do you remember your internet connection speed a few years back? Now think again if "rofl" isnt an appropriate answer to arguments of yours ...
On November 22 2012 19:37 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 05:26 Rabiator wrote:On November 22 2012 03:23 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 02:40 Rabiator wrote:2. The asymmetric distribution of production speed boosts is the reason why certain races have advantages at certain "timings". The easiest example are all the Protoss timings which usually start after Warp Gate research is done and the X Warp Gates have been built. It is a terrible idea to have a "structural imbalance" in the general mechanics, because they have to fix this through the units. In addition it seems a stupid idea to claim to be wanting to make mech viable while the core unit of that strategy is NOT affected by any production speed boost. Fixing this is easy again: remove the production speed boosts AND the economic speed boosts (thus removing the MULE, which has been the reason why we dont have any maps with gold minerals anymore AND which has been complained about for a long time). If you can see so easy fixes I really wonder why you don't work in the industry. Did it ever occur to you that the fix is maybe not as easy as you think? Local imbalance and the favor of certain timings for certain build orders for each race allows the races to be actually different. While this gameplay mechanic also causes some troubles like timings which are easy to execute and hard to defend, it doesn't mean that the game as a whole would be better off without it. I am not certain about the right way. I don't think though that you can be certain either, even if you act as if you are certain. Stop that stupid "if you are so smart why dont you work in the industry" argument, which is just an attempt to intimidate or discourage the one you are supposedly arguing with. If you think you found a flaw in my arguments then please say so, but stop saying "I don't think though that you can be certain either". Either argue with my reasoning or shut up. Why so aggressive? The general flaw of many of your arguments is that you only look at a small part or at one of many possible situations. Or that you state your personal opinion which is shared by some others while you act as if you voice the general consesus. At the same time you write in a style as if you are 100% sure that you fully understand all aspects of the game.
I dont claim I understand all aspects of the game, but what I criticize is based upon logical conclusions and basic math. If you find faults in that chain of conclusions then please state them, I am eager to read them, but please stop the "you cant be 100% sure, so shut up" arguments, because you cant be sure that your argumentation is 100% accurate either, so you shouldnt write this either. Its an empty argument ...
A certain degree on aggressiveness is appropriate, because you refuse to TAKE PART IN THE DISCUSSION and rather concentrate on saying "you are wrong" or "you are not qualified". Either argue with the points in question or keep out of it ...
On November 22 2012 19:37 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 05:26 Rabiator wrote:On November 22 2012 03:23 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 02:40 Rabiator wrote:3. Unit balancing is different according to the number of units involved. "2 Marines vs. 1 Zealot" is a different balance from "20 Marines vs. 10 Zealots" or "50 Marines vs. 25 Zealots" and this is the core mathematical reason why unit cluming is terrible and should be removed ASAP! With "less clumping" the variation in the balance isnt as big, which makes the general stats of the units less important. We have seen that in the "local overpoweredness" of the Siege Tank in BW for example; it didnt really matter that the attack was strong, but in SC2 that kind of attack would be terrible and would have to be balanced precisely and with extreme care. What exactly does this point prove? That it plays different compared to BW? You don't remove "ASAP" things if the game as a whole works more or less. You take carefully steps in the right direction or you risk to mess up the entire game. People make a living off an esports career right now. A responsible action is to not make "ASAP" changes. Well if you find a problem - which I believe I have - AND you have already scheduled your release date - which they have - AND if the change would totally change the gameplay you kinda have to do things ASAP to be done before the release of the expansion ... easy logic I would say. Starcraft 2 can be easily compared to BW and once you do you see that the newer game has problems which the older didnt have and then the solution is easy enough to see. That comparison and the long eSports tradition is a resource which they *should be* using, but they are not. If you have to ask what my "2X Marines vs. X Zealots" example means then you havent tried to understand it. If you have just 2 Marines and 1 Zealot came along to try and kill them they would have to run away for a bit and then shoot the Zealot, but it would take a lot of work from the player to keep them alive. If you do that for a larger group the Zealots have a smaller chance of winning, simply because the number of Marines is soo big that they can kill a few Zealots before they reach the Marines and then continue to kill them faster than the Marines would die, because more Marines can shoot the one line of Zealots which can attack them. It has something to do with the mathematical fact that the "group dps" is higher if your clump gets bigger and this continues to rise. This is so big that the Zealots die before taking too many swings themselves, which they can do a lot, when its just 2 Marines fighting a single Zealot. The size of the clumps is so big that they make expensive units - like Siege Tanks or Colossi or Thors - rather worthless and those expensive units just die too fast. Just look at a clump of Roaches "fleeing" from a group of Stalkers ... and if you have enough Roaches they can simply turn around and one-shot a Stalker. Thats stupid. Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 19:37 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 03:23 [F_]aths wrote:On November 22 2012 02:40 Rabiator wrote:On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:On November 21 2012 02:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Now it isn't all bad, some new units are great and enhance the game. But given the fact Blizzard took way too long to make simple changes in WOL to address the imbalance (we just recently got ramp blockers in HOTS, how long did it take them to figure this out, how long was the community asking for it, how long did tournaments use them?) . Another "fact". Ladder play is not tournament play. You also cannot just bring something into the game because it sounds good. If you ever had something to do with the development of a larger software project, you know what you do when you have a working solution. You don't just add something or change something. It has to be well thought-out. You need to consider future implications. One false step in the project can cost you A LOT in the future. There is a reason why everything is so slow: You need to document all changes and need to make sure that they don't do any harm. In the software development, a fast solution often is a costly solution which sooner or later requires large part to be replaced by newly written code. Rofl ... they arent programming the game anymore. That work has been done for years. They are simply adding in some new units and that shouldnt take weeks and weeks of programming. The biggest problem is adding in units which DONT SUCK. In the end the game is supposed to be an "eSports game" and because of this even Blizzard needs to respect the tournament organizations like GSL and MLG and they should use their maps on the ladder. For a new expansion they should stick to known maps, because it doesnt make sense that players have to try out new units AND new maps at the same time. That's really stupid to vary two things at the same time when you are testing something and only after the community complained did they add a few known maps to the HotS map pool. Your roffeling shows that you didn't understood the point of my comparison. It also shows that you don't have experience with larger software projects and that you consider changes much easier than they actually are. If I am wrong and you are in fact a genius, please do go into the industry. You DONT NEED programming or software project experience to have ideas. Thats for programmers to organize. Hence the "rofls", because you keep sticking to this irrelevant argument. I dont work there, because it would be in the US and because they didnt ask me AND because I dont care for it. If Dustin sent me an email tomorrow I could advise him, but I doubt that will happen, so what is the point you are trying to make? It is also easier to see the problems and the right way if you are NOT part of the ongoing daily process, because then you get sucked up into the details and lose the view of the "big picture". My points above about the general problems - which they totally ignore so far - should show that easily. The shifting balance of melee versus ranged units makes the game more complex as I pointed out in another reply in another thread. You don't need software project experience, any experience of a complicated process where humans are involves is sufficient. Even small changes can have a large impact. You don't change things "ASAP" just because they sound good. You can do that in a small project, but when many people are involved you need to be sure that you don't make things worse. Unbuildable rocks are coming with Hots, a good chance to introduce them and have them tested in ladder play. When you pick one thing which turns out to be a good thing and then ask why it wasn't implement 'ASAP' as someone proposed it, you are underestimating the difficulties managing a complex project like SC2.
If you are so knowledgeable, why dont you work at Blizzard in game design? Do you recognize this argument?
Changing things "ASAP" is necessary if you have wasted too much time and you have a "deadline" for some new releases which will change the balance and the gameplay anyways. Thats a perfect opportunity to implement BIG changes like the ones I suggested. If you dont agree with them thats your right, but dont try to tell me that I am wrong without arguing with the reasonings I have given.
The shifting balance between melee and ranged is NOT what I was hinting at, because the same works for Marines against Stalkers. Since the Stalkers are bigger than the Marines you can stack your Marines much tighter and thus will have a much higher "dps per area" for the Marines than for the Stalkers. This is terrible, because the Stalker is the more expensive unit and should be tougher to kill. They only "work" because of Blink and Forcefield. Your argument that it makes the game more complex is true ... but you forgot to add the words "to balance" at the end. The game logic is simple: mass all your units in a tight clump and go for it at the right angle. There is no "mystic complexity" to which you allude and the only consequence is that the game is harder to balance due to the tight formations ...
|
On November 22 2012 19:23 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:
Ladder play is not tournament play. You also cannot just bring something into the game because it sounds good. If you ever had something to do with the development of a larger software project, you know what you do when you have a working solution. You don't just add something or change something. It has to be well thought-out. You need to consider future implications. One false step in the project can cost you A LOT in the future.
There is a reason why everything is so slow: You need to document all changes and need to make sure that they don't do any harm. In the software development, a fast solution often is a costly solution which sooner or later requires large part to be replaced by newly written code. I'm not going to address the majority of your post, because other people have. But I want to talk about what I just quoted from you and ramp blockers. Now you better check yourself on this logic before you wreck yourself... 1. Starcraft 2 is the same for ladder and tournament play. 2. Part of how Blizzard balances the game is done by looking at ladder data. 3. The absence of ramp blockers skews the data against Zerg, as Terran and Protoss players can block the ramps for easy wins. Heck, I beat ROOTFitzy in the Custom Map TL Open by walling off his ramp on Ohana... these kind of strategies are easy to pull off and have a high win percentage, even if you play someone much better than yourself. 4. Blizzard is balancing the game for both ladder and tournament play based partially on data that is skewed against Zerg due to ramp blocking strategies. So Blizzard is balancing their game based on skewed data. What happens on ladder effects how the game is balanced, which effects tournament play. So much for being well thought out... You are making some assumptions here. Blizzard also watches pro tournaments. They use ladder data to see the win rates through all skill levels. Anectotes like beating Fitzy doesn't really proof a point beside ladder play doesn't equal to tournament play. Since the maps are different, SC2 is not really the same for ladder and tournament play. Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:
If you could make clear points, you would not have to resort to such "facts" So is that clear enough for you? Is what I said not fact? And to top it off, we very recently received ramp blockers in HOTS... Why did it take so long? How long did Blizzard have to think about it? And regarding everything being well thought-out... Entomb was not well thought out, it was a terrible spell that allowed a Bronze league player harass as well as a Grandmaster. It was skilless and not fun. And the community said it from the start. Blizzard should have listened and never implemented it.But they did. Then they realized what everyone knew, that it was terrible. And they had to remove it. So much for being well thought out... But you're right. I don't understand the process that Blizzard uses to balance the game. But I don't think it is because it is too scientific for me and they are too smart for me. I don't think so at all based on what they've done... Not everyone knew that Entomb was terrible. Some voiced their opinion against it and were proved to be right. But had they to offer a better idea? The current oracle is possible because of Blizzard's willingness to makes mistakes. Mistakes like the warhound, not to mention the shredder, replicant and other units. If you are so good that you do everything right without a mistake, you are either goodly or you doesn't do anything. I also wonder if you understand the concept of alpha and beta versions and if you really criticize Blizzard for trying out something which was viewed negatively by some.
I don't think we're going to agree. I'm not sure you understood my point regarding ramp blocking and the effects it has on ladder win rates which Blizzard uses the balance the game. There are no assumptions, it is an open and shut case.
If ramp blocking didn't give a huge edge to Terran and Protoss versus Zerg, it wouldn't be removed from every tournament, and Blizzard wouldn't be introducing things to prevent it in HOTS. My point regarding Fitzy was just evidence that blocking is an overpowered strategy and this is well known. The fact it has been allowed for ladder play for so long after the community realized it was overpowered, and that ladder data is used to help balance the game is idiotic.
Where specifically is the hole in that argument?
You applaud Blizzard for trying an idea like Entomb. Again, I liken it to Blizzard thinking that mixing gasoline and water in an effort to make Kool-Aid. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that is a terrible idea, and the people who thought Entomb was going to work just didn't listen to the logical arguments presented. Entomb was a powerful harassment spell, but it required no skill, and very little micro to make work. It was boring. And most people knew that from the moment Blizzard released the idea.
The important part of what I just wrote is that it wasn't just an opinion that people had that Entomb wasn't good, it was an argument made from logic and reasoning. And lo and behold, the argument made from logic and reasoning by the community defeated Blizzard's "professional game designers" who seemingly lacked logic and reasoning when designing Entomb. This is the problem with Blizzard. They are coming up with ideas that are terrible even before testing.
You're arguing an authoritative argument. You believe that Blizzard and their "professional game designers" are far better suited to make decisions than the community. This is an argument that goes like this:
Most of what authority A (Blizzard) has to say on subject matter S (Starcraft) is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
This issue with this is pointed out in the Wikipedia article linked below: "because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true."
So the authority Blizzard and their "professional game designers" have is not enough alone to prove that our arguments are incorrect. You actually have to provide evidence. This is where Blizzard loses, because they have a long history of being told something by the community, ignoring whatever the community says, then ending up doing what the community said in the first place.
Small "rush maps", the idea that the ladder and tournaments should have different maps, close spawn positions... I could go on.
More regarding an authoritative argument:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
|
On November 23 2012 01:33 BronzeKnee wrote:
You applaud Blizzard for trying an idea like Entomb. Again, I liken it to Blizzard thinking that mixing gasoline and water in an effort to make Kool-Aid. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that is a terrible idea, and the people who thought Entomb was going to work just didn't listen to the logical arguments presented. Entomb was a powerful harassment spell, but it required no skill, and very little micro to make work. It was boring. And most people knew that from the moment Blizzard released the idea.
The important part of what I just wrote is that it wasn't just an opinion that people had that Entomb wasn't good, it was an argument made from logic and reasoning. And lo and behold, the argument made from logic and reasoning by the community defeated Blizzard's "professional game designers" who seemingly lacked logic and reasoning when designing Entomb. This is the problem with Blizzard. They are coming up with ideas that are terrible even before testing.
You're arguing an authoritative argument. You believe that Blizzard and their "professional game designers" are far better suited to make decisions than the community. This is an argument that goes like this:
Most of what authority A (Blizzard) has to say on subject matter S (Starcraft) is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
This issue with this is pointed out in the Wikipedia article linked below: "because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true."
So the authority Blizzard and their "professional game designers" have is not enough alone to prove that our arguments are incorrect. You actually have to provide evidence. This is where Blizzard loses, because they have a long history of being told something by the community, ignoring whatever the community says, then ending up doing what the community said in the first place.
Small "rush maps", the idea that the ladder and tournaments should have different maps, close spawn positions... I could go on.
This is pretty much the problem I have with Blizzard as a whole. Not just Starcraft, but also with Diablo, Warcraft, and Battlenet.
Blizzard DOES learn from their mistakes. The problem is that they learn at a glacial pace, while also making utterly retarded mistakes that a brainless monkey could see a mile away, and oftentimes their "lesson learned" still doesn't fix the problem because they don't want to listen to community suggestions and still insist they do it "their" way. How long did we have to scream for them to put chat channels back? How long for clans? How long for the custom game interface (which still sucks btw)? How long for 99% of the things that Diablo 3 had that we knew would be problems yet they didn't fix anyway? Yet because Blizzard is so hard-headed, we have to practically scream at the top of our lungs for months, usually years, for them to finally get it, and they still don't get it most of the time. There's no reason why ANY of the things I listed should have even lasted past beta, let alone years after release.
Time is crucial. Blizzard can't afford to spend so long on obviously bad ideas, especially when the community is very vocal about said ideas being bad. I don't blame people at all for moving from RTS games to MOBAs. At least with MOBAs, we don't have to spends years trying to convince Riot/Valve that chat channels might actually be a good thing. Blizzard might have been professional game designers a decade ago, but those days are long past.
|
On November 22 2012 10:03 Treeborne wrote:
Seriously, guys need to calm down. I agree that sometimes you can look at the game and think "wtf was blizzard thinking...", but at the same time I think they're taking the right approach when trying to balance it.
When you have so many people playing the game at an extremely high level, it's impossible as a designer to completely predict how different elements will interact with one another. Think about when we saw MKP first split his marines against mass banelings in the GSL. It was breathtaking and spectacular because nobody foresaw that occurring. Dustin even later commented that all the designers were shocked because none of them thought marines could be used in that way. Or to think even farther back, remember when julyzerg first popularized muta stacking? That fundamentally changed the way BW was played and was so groundbreaking that Kespa even debated on whether to ban its usage.
So when Blizzard introduces a unit or ability in beta, it's because they want to see what the community can make of it and not because it's something they believe is complete in its design. That's the entire point of having a beta. That's not to say they just toss random ideas in and leave everything else in the hands of the players, but they do understand that every change that they make has farther reaching consequences than they could possibly imagine. Which also legitimizes their slow and minor patch approach. Why patch something that is just unexplored, not broken?
TL;DR: In the end, human ingenuity and desire to succeed is what ultimately balances a game and not the rules laid out by the game designers. So before we go around hurling insults and pointing fingers, lets just give the game time (as the OP has pointed out) and let Blizzard and the players go to work.
This should have been the OP and gets the point across very clearly. Why change something so suddenly when it could not even be broken in the first place? I really do agree with this and it's why I prefer a slow patching process to a rushed one. Fungal has been a problem for a long time, but I think a lot of people, especially zergs, thought that it was fine because of all the other crap in the game. But now that pro zergs have caught up to terran skill level, we are seeing how abusive it really is.
I KNOW blizzard wants to release this game with fun mechanics and units with fun and unique design. Balance can come later in the form of post-release patches, so we just need to be patient and continue with our feedback to help blizzard realize that even though something might seem really cool and fun on paper (like timewarp) it may turn out to be really bad 2 years down the road. But at least in 2 years, blizzard would be willing to make drastic changes for the sake of this being the best RTS on the planet.
a lot of you act like blizzard is working 24/7, they are not. Their jobs don't just rely on watching forums and making changes every week because some kid can't handle the metagame, they are careful for a reason. Pro play is a huge reason why they want to take things slowly, so let them. Maybe 100 TL threads and 50 b.net threads claimed that entomb was bad... and? If I was blizzard I would definitely give it time to see how it functions in real play. I'm glad hots isn't changing every week right now, it's giving players time to figure things out and for blizzard to decide what's really broken and what's underpowered. Could be the widow-mine is absolutely OP in lower leagues, but is absolutely useless in higher leagues, blizzard is keeping and eye on it and we should just be patient. Give feedback, but don't expect blizzard to be up 24 hours a day reading a thread that came from EU at 12 am, and then a thread from AUS at 4 AM and a thread from US at 8 AM and expect blizzard to read all of it.
|
On November 23 2012 03:35 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 01:33 BronzeKnee wrote:
You applaud Blizzard for trying an idea like Entomb. Again, I liken it to Blizzard thinking that mixing gasoline and water in an effort to make Kool-Aid. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that is a terrible idea, and the people who thought Entomb was going to work just didn't listen to the logical arguments presented. Entomb was a powerful harassment spell, but it required no skill, and very little micro to make work. It was boring. And most people knew that from the moment Blizzard released the idea.
The important part of what I just wrote is that it wasn't just an opinion that people had that Entomb wasn't good, it was an argument made from logic and reasoning. And lo and behold, the argument made from logic and reasoning by the community defeated Blizzard's "professional game designers" who seemingly lacked logic and reasoning when designing Entomb. This is the problem with Blizzard. They are coming up with ideas that are terrible even before testing.
You're arguing an authoritative argument. You believe that Blizzard and their "professional game designers" are far better suited to make decisions than the community. This is an argument that goes like this:
Most of what authority A (Blizzard) has to say on subject matter S (Starcraft) is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
This issue with this is pointed out in the Wikipedia article linked below: "because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true."
So the authority Blizzard and their "professional game designers" have is not enough alone to prove that our arguments are incorrect. You actually have to provide evidence. This is where Blizzard loses, because they have a long history of being told something by the community, ignoring whatever the community says, then ending up doing what the community said in the first place.
Small "rush maps", the idea that the ladder and tournaments should have different maps, close spawn positions... I could go on. This is pretty much the problem I have with Blizzard as a whole. Not just Starcraft, but also with Diablo, Warcraft, and Battlenet. Blizzard DOES learn from their mistakes. The problem is that they learn at a glacial pace, while also making utterly retarded mistakes that a brainless monkey could see a mile away, and oftentimes their "lesson learned" still doesn't fix the problem because they don't want to listen to community suggestions and still insist they do it "their" way. How long did we have to scream for them to put chat channels back? How long for clans? How long for the custom game interface (which still sucks btw)? How long for 99% of the things that Diablo 3 had that we knew would be problems yet they didn't fix anyway? Yet because Blizzard is so hard-headed, we have to practically scream at the top of our lungs for months, usually years, for them to finally get it, and they still don't get it most of the time. There's no reason why ANY of the things I listed should have even lasted past beta, let alone years after release. Time is crucial. Blizzard can't afford to spend so long on obviously bad ideas, especially when the community is very vocal about said ideas being bad. I don't blame people at all for moving from RTS games to MOBAs. At least with MOBAs, we don't have to spends years trying to convince Riot/Valve that chat channels might actually be a good thing. Blizzard might have been professional game designers a decade ago, but those days are long past.
Time is crucial, that is a good point. I think the SC2 community is ripe for the picking if some company can come along and design a good RTS, listen to their community, and adjust as necessary.
On November 23 2012 04:38 emc wrote:
If I was blizzard I would definitely give it time to see how it functions in real play.
Entomb worked exactly as everyone, including Blizzard, thought it would.
And that is why it was removed.
|
On November 23 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 03:35 Spawkuring wrote:On November 23 2012 01:33 BronzeKnee wrote:
You applaud Blizzard for trying an idea like Entomb. Again, I liken it to Blizzard thinking that mixing gasoline and water in an effort to make Kool-Aid. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that is a terrible idea, and the people who thought Entomb was going to work just didn't listen to the logical arguments presented. Entomb was a powerful harassment spell, but it required no skill, and very little micro to make work. It was boring. And most people knew that from the moment Blizzard released the idea.
The important part of what I just wrote is that it wasn't just an opinion that people had that Entomb wasn't good, it was an argument made from logic and reasoning. And lo and behold, the argument made from logic and reasoning by the community defeated Blizzard's "professional game designers" who seemingly lacked logic and reasoning when designing Entomb. This is the problem with Blizzard. They are coming up with ideas that are terrible even before testing.
You're arguing an authoritative argument. You believe that Blizzard and their "professional game designers" are far better suited to make decisions than the community. This is an argument that goes like this:
Most of what authority A (Blizzard) has to say on subject matter S (Starcraft) is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
This issue with this is pointed out in the Wikipedia article linked below: "because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true."
So the authority Blizzard and their "professional game designers" have is not enough alone to prove that our arguments are incorrect. You actually have to provide evidence. This is where Blizzard loses, because they have a long history of being told something by the community, ignoring whatever the community says, then ending up doing what the community said in the first place.
Small "rush maps", the idea that the ladder and tournaments should have different maps, close spawn positions... I could go on. This is pretty much the problem I have with Blizzard as a whole. Not just Starcraft, but also with Diablo, Warcraft, and Battlenet. Blizzard DOES learn from their mistakes. The problem is that they learn at a glacial pace, while also making utterly retarded mistakes that a brainless monkey could see a mile away, and oftentimes their "lesson learned" still doesn't fix the problem because they don't want to listen to community suggestions and still insist they do it "their" way. How long did we have to scream for them to put chat channels back? How long for clans? How long for the custom game interface (which still sucks btw)? How long for 99% of the things that Diablo 3 had that we knew would be problems yet they didn't fix anyway? Yet because Blizzard is so hard-headed, we have to practically scream at the top of our lungs for months, usually years, for them to finally get it, and they still don't get it most of the time. There's no reason why ANY of the things I listed should have even lasted past beta, let alone years after release. Time is crucial. Blizzard can't afford to spend so long on obviously bad ideas, especially when the community is very vocal about said ideas being bad. I don't blame people at all for moving from RTS games to MOBAs. At least with MOBAs, we don't have to spends years trying to convince Riot/Valve that chat channels might actually be a good thing. Blizzard might have been professional game designers a decade ago, but those days are long past. Time is crucial, that is a good point. I think the SC2 community is ripe for the picking if some company can come along and design a good RTS, listen to their community, and adjust as necessary. Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 04:38 emc wrote:
If I was blizzard I would definitely give it time to see how it functions in real play. Entomb worked exactly as everyone, including Blizzard, thought it would. And that is why it was removed.
If an RTS were made today that surpassed SC2 and the dev team gave the community everything it wanted, my mind would be fucking blown that a game could exist. And this game couldn't just be an average game either, SC is a great game because each race is unique and play in completely different ways, it's asymmetrically balanced, this is NOT an easy feat. I seriously think BW was pure luck that it turned out to be balanced, blizzard had their numbers and ran with it, but were fortunate that the game turned out to be a huge Esport. I don't think blizzard ever foresaw BW being as big as it was and it became BIG after blizzard stopped patching the game, so there would be no reason for blizzard to patch BW if it was played today. SC2 is a different story, blizzard is trying to make it an Esport from Day1 because of the expectations of BW. that means there are pros relying on blizzards teets now more than ever. Because of this, blizzard has to take it slow. LoL does a relatively good job of patching things quickly, but it is a completely different game because it was based on a pre-existing game with pre-existing mechanics and there aren't 3 characters, there are dozens and any one of those heroes can be banned at any time if it appears imba. The zerg race can't be banned until Blizzard fixes it, Infestors can't be banned, The game HAS to be played as is, this is not the same as LoL.
Literally the only game that comes close in my eyes as a great RTS is Company of Hereos, but that game doesn't have nearly enough diversity among the different armies. Each army has a MG crew, a mortar crew, vehicles and engineers with slight differences.
Entomb was removed, but there is no use in removing the ability without testing it extensively. How many people actually thought the warhound was a joke? I'm taking a wild guess and saying maybe 50%? It doesn't matter if it appeared IMBA, it had to be tested by pros before a decision could be made. I think more than anything, blizzard was trying to think of a way to keep Entomb because it costs money to run a company full of developers who ask for a pay check every two weeks. Where do you think this money come from? Don't you believe that in a business, it's a LOSS for your company to go back on something you created? In my business screwing up on a job and admitting you made a mistake is a huge loss to the company because now I have to redo our work for free and isn't billable because we made the mistake. The artwork, animation and mechanics behind entomb is now lost, but someone still had to get paid to make all that.
I truly believe blizzard is trying to not only admit their mistakes, but at least find SOME way to make those mistakes work in SC2 while keeping it an esport and still earning enough money that they don't have to lay off anybody. Time is money, and all blizzard has is time.
|
On November 22 2012 01:30 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 02:31 BronzeKnee wrote:
Fact is, Blizzard doesn't understand the game, evidenced by the ever changing roll that Warhounds, Tempests and Oracles have had.. If you could make clear points, you would not have to resort to such "facts". Just because you don't understand Blizzards thoughts behind it doesn't mean that they don't understand it. It just means that you don't understand what a team of highly professional and experienced game developers had in mind. .
Contrary to what some people seem to believe .. game design is not a mystical voodoo art, guided by the high priests of arcane taboo knowledge, sequestered on a mountaintop and consulting with ancient animal spirits.
There was no mystery why (for instance) the Warhound was immediately seen by the players as a bad idea from the start.
It was readily apparent on any number of levels that it A) created more problems than it was apparently designed to solve - B) overlapped with an existing unit in the same race, and C) it was immediately perceived by the user base to be the clunky, dull and unimaginative unit it was, so much so that they were forced to pull it from the game after a huge backlash.
Highly professional and experienced game developers *should* be brainstorming imaginative, unique, synergistic game unit concepts on a regular basis ... evaluating them to fit a definite and targeted role to enhance or fix an important aspect of the game ... RE-evaluating them and testing them to be *sure* that the unit is the best and most original and effective it can possibly be.
THEN testing it internally, putting it through its paces - getting feedback from pros and trusted independent un-biased analysis to see if it passes the test ... *long* before the patch it in a release version and put it out to the public.
But this current team at Blizzard apparently does not work that way lol. Really - hardly at all. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see it. They've demonstrated this over and over.
Why? Who knows. Could be any number of internal, political, management, personality conflict factors we are not privy to.
But they don't work that way man.
|
On November 23 2012 10:16 Von wrote:
There was no mystery why (for instance) the Warhound was immediately seen by the players as a bad idea from the start.
Yes, and they removed it from the game, which is a hell of a lot more than most developers would do.
|
On November 23 2012 10:33 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 10:16 Von wrote:
There was no mystery why (for instance) the Warhound was immediately seen by the players as a bad idea from the start.
Yes, and they removed it from the game, which is a hell of a lot more than most developers would do.
Why did they add it in the first place? If the entire community is telling you this unit is terrible and dull you should probably listen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
