|
On November 22 2012 18:45 [F_]aths wrote:
If I hear Dustin Brodwer or David Kim talking, I feel that they are well-informed and care about the game.
If you really feel they care about the game, go watch the last interview of Browder made by TL at the wcs finals. At some points the TL guy asks something like : 'What are your thoughts on the immortal all-in? Is it possibly too strong?" And Browder answered something like "Really? Why would that be?"
The guy made me feel like he had never heard of the immortal all-in. He certainly didnt know parting was at something like 100-2 winratio with it (the 2 only times it's known his immortal all-in was hold was once on gsl once on wcs). Parting even said he had had a 70 win streak with it 70??? How can Browder not have heard of something that big? Then Browder said he watched a couple zvp and thought that every time the Z could have done something better to stop the allin... Even Tastosis started talking about the possibility that the game was broken if someone didnt figure out how to stop Parting. Not that I think they know everything about the game, but as far as i know that's like the only time they spoke about possible imbalance. The point here is not to talk about balance. It's to show Blizzard seems to not be aware of something EVERY sc2 fan that watches a little bit of sc2 knows.
In short Browder made me feel like he's watching a couple games of professional sc2 a week. I feel like i'm watching 15-20 times more sc2 than him, which is not normal... After watching that interview, I went from the opinion "Let's believe in Blizzard" to "OMG they absolutely need the feedback of the community, they dont know their game and they dont know what they're doing with it."
|
alot of ppl are bashing the warp in and larva mechanics that they make the game impossible to be balanced. I understand the frustration but in my opinion these mechanics must exist to make starcraft what it is
Zergs are a bunch of mindless creatures (mostly) that can breed like no tomorrow. Protosses are high tech aliens that are able to control time and space. Without warp in and larva mechanics the personalities of these race will not be obvious and so does the personality of the game.
For terran i think Blizzard did a very good job by making the dropship play so accessible. In my opinion Terran is supposed to be a race with a rich internal warfare history back on the earth killing among themselves (lol) So they are equipped with vast battle tactics like the guerilla tactic (multi prong small troop harrass) and positional defence play. However one thing they need to fix is terran is suppose to be a race with advance mechanical and nuclear technology. But due to some balance issue mech is not too viable vs z & p, players tend not to play mech and terrans lost a big part of their idendity.
Thors Ravens and BCs are freaking cool but nobody gonna use it if they continue to be weak. Buff or make some changes on them while introduce a nuclear powered unit (iron man?) then the terran's personality will be completed. And i shall play that stylish terran to death even though its not perfectly balanced ROFL
|
On November 23 2012 11:03 dddoushio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 10:33 Crawdad wrote: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.
sometimes the community only focus upon that specific unit and forget how it allows MECH to work in TvP. Sure, at the end it didn't work, but we should be glad the community agreed it isn't a good unit after testing it out in beta, along with all the other new units and the Mech TvP game.
It is a dull unit for sure, a moving and extremely powerful and mobile.
BUT a unit can be boring itself given it is a good conjunction with the unit composition.
Is marine interesting? not that interesting until baneling force split/medivac drop micro.
Zealot interesting? etc
It should be the same when we judge warhound. We really shouldn't just go "wtf blizzard remove NOW" but at least they gave it time to see how it really is
|
On November 23 2012 16:22 ETisME wrote:
We really shouldn't just go "wtf blizzard remove NOW" but at least they gave it time to see how it really is
How have they given it time?
The unit was gone within 2 weeks and nobody cared about the effect on mech TvP.
This places them in very awkward position if it turns out that something like the warhound is necessary to make it work.
|
On November 23 2012 16:52 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 16:22 ETisME wrote:
We really shouldn't just go "wtf blizzard remove NOW" but at least they gave it time to see how it really is How have they given it time? The unit was gone within 2 weeks and nobody cared about the effect on mech TvP. This places them in very awkward position if it turns out that something like the warhound is necessary to make it work.
they have given it time in the sense that they tested the unit and tweaked it a little and it just doesn't have that "mech" feeling and completely botched tanks role in mech.
I suspect the biggest reason why it was removed rather than it was reworked is largely due to it being anti mech unit while itself is a mech unit. It just doesn't go with their initial thought and thus it was removed completely.
|
On November 23 2012 16:59 ETisME wrote:
I suspect the biggest reason why it was removed rather than it was reworked is largely due to it being anti mech unit while itself is a mech unit. It just doesn't go with their initial thought and thus it was removed completely.
Isn't that how it works in SC2, though?
All anti-armored units are armored, most anti-light units are light...
|
On November 23 2012 16:59 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 16:52 pmp10 wrote:On November 23 2012 16:22 ETisME wrote:
We really shouldn't just go "wtf blizzard remove NOW" but at least they gave it time to see how it really is How have they given it time? The unit was gone within 2 weeks and nobody cared about the effect on mech TvP. This places them in very awkward position if it turns out that something like the warhound is necessary to make it work. they have given it time in the sense that they tested the unit and tweaked it a little and it just doesn't have that "mech" feeling and completely botched tanks role in mech. I suspect the biggest reason why it was removed rather than it was reworked is largely due to it being anti mech unit while itself is a mech unit. It just doesn't go with their initial thought and thus it was removed completely.
The unit being 'anti-mech' was it's whole purpose.
Lack of mobile counter to stalkers and immortals is a very significant hole in mech arsenal.
|
On November 23 2012 17:12 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 16:59 ETisME wrote:On November 23 2012 16:52 pmp10 wrote:On November 23 2012 16:22 ETisME wrote:
We really shouldn't just go "wtf blizzard remove NOW" but at least they gave it time to see how it really is How have they given it time? The unit was gone within 2 weeks and nobody cared about the effect on mech TvP. This places them in very awkward position if it turns out that something like the warhound is necessary to make it work. they have given it time in the sense that they tested the unit and tweaked it a little and it just doesn't have that "mech" feeling and completely botched tanks role in mech. I suspect the biggest reason why it was removed rather than it was reworked is largely due to it being anti mech unit while itself is a mech unit. It just doesn't go with their initial thought and thus it was removed completely. The unit being 'anti-mech' was it's whole purpose. Lack of mobile counter to stalkers and immortals is a very significant hole in mech arsenal.
Kinda pointless to have an "anti-mech" unit for mech if you already have the Siege Tank with bonus damage against armored. If they are more efficient than the Siege Tank to the point of not needing the tank anymore they should just "fix" the tank instead.
Mech needs a clear and rather mobile anti-air + anti-infantry unit ... something like the Goliath. The Thor doesnt really fulfill the job of "anti-air" due to its bonus damage, which excludes the worst danger ever to mech ... the Broodlord (and the Corruptor).
|
On November 23 2012 20:01 Rabiator wrote:
Kinda pointless to have an "anti-mech" unit for mech if you already have the Siege Tank with bonus damage against armored. If they are more efficient than the Siege Tank to the point of not needing the tank anymore they should just "fix" the tank instead.
Mech needs a clear and rather mobile anti-air + anti-infantry unit ... something like the Goliath. The Thor doesnt really fulfill the job of "anti-air" due to its bonus damage, which excludes the worst danger ever to mech ... the Broodlord (and the Corruptor).
There is no shoe-horning siege tank into other roles due to it's very design - it's meant to be immobile.
Map control needs to be done using more mobile and flexible units and lack of hellion equivalent for meching TvP in an issue.
And there is no fixing mech anti-air problems from the ground.
Even if you could counter broodlords the addition of the tempest means you will always end up out-ranged.
|
On November 23 2012 00:29 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 19:37 [F_]aths wrote: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.
Please try again but with less insults and more real arguments.
|
On November 23 2012 10:16 Von wrote:Show nested quote +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. . 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.
Some some players, not by the players.
I would agree that most of the pro players seems to have a consensus that the WH was bad. If I undersood Artosis right, he would however liked to have had the Warhound tested out for more time.
On November 23 2012 10:16 Von wrote: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.
Now in retroperspective is it easy to say "it was apparent". On TL forums and Bnet forums we have quite a lot of detailled postings explaining in details how to balance the game or fix some units. As it turns out, most postings -- even though it took a lot of work to write them -- don't get to the core issue, because the game as a whole is so complex.
I see several issues here. Progamers seem to don't like to have frequent balance changes because it interrupts practice.
On November 23 2012 10:16 Von wrote: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.
In the past, I felt that some Wol balance ideas originated from TL forum discussions. I think that they listen.
But it's still their game. If the community would be so great, it should be possible to have an open source esports game. It even could feature LAN. Not only that there is no community-driven esports RTS game, there is not even a usable esports RTS from any real company right now. I think (without being absolutely sure here) that one of the reason is that is way harder to get to this point that we can imagine as players.
|
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.
I also feel that this is the real story here. Who makes no mistakes? It's less imo about to make no mistakes and more how you handle them. How do you want to make a good and exciting game if you don't have the courage to make mistakes? I have no issue with that if there is also enough character to correct them.
|
On November 23 2012 20:30 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 20:01 Rabiator wrote:
Kinda pointless to have an "anti-mech" unit for mech if you already have the Siege Tank with bonus damage against armored. If they are more efficient than the Siege Tank to the point of not needing the tank anymore they should just "fix" the tank instead.
Mech needs a clear and rather mobile anti-air + anti-infantry unit ... something like the Goliath. The Thor doesnt really fulfill the job of "anti-air" due to its bonus damage, which excludes the worst danger ever to mech ... the Broodlord (and the Corruptor).
There is no shoe-horning siege tank into other roles due to it's very design - it's meant to be immobile. Map control needs to be done using more mobile and flexible units and lack of hellion equivalent for meching TvP in an issue. And there is no fixing mech anti-air problems from the ground. Even if you could counter broodlords the addition of the tempest means you will always end up out-ranged.
Mech is also meant to be somewhat immobile, but what is the most mobile stuff on the battlefield? Infantry and air. So that is what is needed as a "counter unit" to support the immobile Siege Tank.
|
On November 23 2012 20:56 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 10:33 Crawdad wrote: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. I also feel that this is the real story here. Who makes no mistakes? It's less imo about to make no mistakes and more how you handle them. How do you want to make a good and exciting game if you don't have the courage to make mistakes? I have no issue with that if there is also enough character to correct them.
They also corrected one of their mistakes PRE-beta: the Replicant. They scrapped it, just like BronzeKnee says they should have done for the Warhound, but they didn't receive as much negative feedback regarding the latter unit, so they let it play out in beta. IMO, this was the right decision, and when the Warhound didn't work out, they removed it.
End of story.
|
On November 24 2012 06:51 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 20:56 [F_]aths wrote:On November 23 2012 10:33 Crawdad wrote: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. I also feel that this is the real story here. Who makes no mistakes? It's less imo about to make no mistakes and more how you handle them. How do you want to make a good and exciting game if you don't have the courage to make mistakes? I have no issue with that if there is also enough character to correct them. They also corrected one of their mistakes PRE-beta: the Replicant. They scrapped it, just like BronzeKnee says they should have done for the Warhound, but they didn't receive as much negative feedback regarding the latter unit, so they let it play out in beta. IMO, this was the right decision, and when the Warhound didn't work out, they removed it. End of story.
But they have received a lot of negative feedback regarding the widow mine.
They just put themselves into a position where they can no longer remove or change it.
|
On November 24 2012 06:56 pmp10 wrote:
But they have received a lot of negative feedback regarding the widow mine.
They just put themselves into a position where they can no longer remove or change it.
I don't believe they can no longer change it.
Do you believe it needs to be removed rather than changed?
|
On November 24 2012 07:08 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 06:56 pmp10 wrote:
But they have received a lot of negative feedback regarding the widow mine.
They just put themselves into a position where they can no longer remove or change it. I don't believe they can no longer change it. Do you believe it needs to be removed rather than changed?
I don't know as I have no idea what Blizzard intended for the unit.
But I'm sure that no matter the changes to it there will still be plenty of negative feedback due to it's design.
|
On November 23 2012 06:21 emc wrote:
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.
If you read through my posts here, you'll see that I wrote this:
But if you understand business, you'll know that they don't want to waste their time and money testing bad ideas. No business does.
And that is why I don't have as much faith in Blizzard as a lot of you do. Paid professionals are coming up with unit ideas like the Warhound and abilities like Entomb. They just don't understand the game. They actually believe these are good ideas that have potential, otherwise they wouldn't flesh them out or test them (ie spend money on them). But myself and most of the community can think about the idea in our head and understand it is a terrible idea.
And like I said, Entomb worked exactly how everyone thought it would when it was tested. And that is why it was removed. It never needed to be tested, it was a bad idea. I don't understand how someone in Blizzard couldn't figure that out, or why they couldn't listen to the community before going through all this. The same can be said for the Replicant and Warhound they worked exactly as we thought they would. And that is why they had to to be removed, bad ideas from the start. They literally had no potential and yet someone in Blizzard thought they did.
On November 24 2012 06:51 Crawdad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 20:56 [F_]aths wrote:On November 23 2012 10:33 Crawdad wrote: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. I also feel that this is the real story here. Who makes no mistakes? It's less imo about to make no mistakes and more how you handle them. How do you want to make a good and exciting game if you don't have the courage to make mistakes? I have no issue with that if there is also enough character to correct them. They also corrected one of their mistakes PRE-beta: the Replicant. They scrapped it, just like BronzeKnee says they should have done for the Warhound, but they didn't receive as much negative feedback regarding the latter unit, so they let it play out in beta. IMO, this was the right decision, and when the Warhound didn't work out, they removed it. End of story.
I find it very funny that there are two very different types of people defending Blizzard here:
The first argues that Blizzard listens to the community feedback and responds.
The second argues that Blizzard and their professional game designers are better suited than the community to balance the game and we shouldn't question them. In other words, they don't need the communities help and we should trust them.
These are mutually exclusive arguments and while I believe both are wrong, I can ironically use the arguments created by one against the other.
The Warhound shouldn't have had to have negative feedback from the community for Blizzard to remove it. They should have understood before they even brought it to the Beta that it was an A-move unit, and that like the Widow Mine now, the unit functions better independent of Siege Tanks rather in combination with Siege Tanks (and thus we see Bio players incorporating Widow Mines in PvT rather than going for Mech). Thus the Warhound was a replacement (and a boring one) to the Siege Tank, rather than a compliment.
It is really about the game designers understanding unit and game theory. Does that make sense? They are seemingly designing units who simply don't fit into the game logically, and that is why most of the units they have introduced have been removed (Replicant, Shredder, Warhound) or totally revamped (Tempest, MSC, Oracle), even though those units have done exactly what they were supposed to do after testing.
|
|
|
I hope one day we look back and say:
Remember when fungal growth made you unable to move? Remember when we needed tech labs on every barracks to produce tier 1.5 units instead of an academy? Remember when protoss lived and died by force fields in the early game?
200/25 for the slowest tier 1 production and slowest build time. Hilarious. I can accept the reactor but the tech labs are bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
