|
On November 25 2012 19:32 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 18:10 aZealot wrote:On November 25 2012 14:55 zlefin wrote:
I dislike the choice of name you've made. It implies a degree of agreement with your project which is unwarranted.
Yes, I had thought this too. If OneVoice is some sort of name for the project but not actually intended to be "one voice" then I have no problem with it. But, if this project purports to represent "the community" in its planned interactions with Blizzard then OP (and his collaborators) could not be more wrong. You certainly do not represent my thoughts on SC2, and I am confident in saying, the thoughts of many others in the community - especially those members of the community who just play the game without posting, or even lurking, on SC2 community sites. If this pretend representation of "the community" to Blizzard is indeed the aim of OneVoice, this is more than a little presumptuous. Be clear that it is your voice (and your collaborators). This has been a concern of ours as well! We would like to reflect the community as best we can, a good number of changes we are testing were ran by the community. Turns out a lot of other people want to see a tier 1.5 hydra and Immortal, or destructable Force Fields, or a Colossus that has counterplay to it. That said, we don't represent most of the community because most of the community hasn't heard of us, and there are many possible points of dissagreement. The point is to comb through the community for cool ideas, test those cool ideas, and if they seem to contribute to gameplay and theme, pass those replays on to Blizzard for consideration. This is why we want to hear from people like you. What are your thoughts on the game, its design, its state ect? We would love to hear from you at onevoicemod@gmail.com
That's a load of horse shit. The worst thing is you may actually not be aware of this steaming pile you've dropped. You want me to email my feedback to you and thus become part of your onevoice? I've already said I disagree with your ideas for Protoss changes, and that I disagree with your methods of constant adjustment and feedback to Blizzard. What would I gain by giving you feedback when my feedback is that your Protoss changes are mistaken and your method is wrong? Does that mean that your interaction with Blizzard will include this disagreement? How did this make me part of your One Voice?
By (circular) definition you've already, it seems, assumed that you and your team speak for "the community". How? By cherry picking some ideas a majority of random posters agreed with on a given day on a forum? And you presume this means that you speak with One Voice? If all you are doing is testing a few random ideas then I don't have a problem with your purpose even though, as I said, I think it mistaken. But, don't purport yourself and your team to Blizzard as something you are not.
If there is one thing my time on TL has shown me is that everyone has their own fantasy about how the game should be. Some of us have the grace to keep it to ourselves (I'm not one of these lucky few) but the rest of us are just aching to share. Whatever your "brilliant" changes are, you can bet that someone, somewhere, will be complaining about something.
So much for a community with "one voice". What a pretentious load of shit.
|
aZealot, this post is for you. Every change must be properly reasoned. Your point of view seems narrow, you seem to think that if two opinions collide, ItWhoSpeak's opinion will be given preference. If you disagree with one particular idea, then you must first tell them why and then point out the flaws. If you do not communicate we'll never know which idea is better. With the older idea disregarded because you pointed out X and Y flaws, you can slip in your idea and tell them why it's better. Then yours should be implemented (assuming it is the most preferred one among the pool of ideas shared). Cherry picking random ideas? You seem to make this sound so easy.
Of course, if it is concluded (with brainstorming & discussion) that your proposal for a change isn't as good as the other one for X reason, then it would be naive on your part to argue further (assuming reason X is agreed upon by the majority).
A unison is a sweet idea, if this unison can create a better gameplay then that's all we want.
It is true that everyone has their own sweet ideas for a better game, but when we all participate to share our ideas and brainstorm, a dozen or so fantastic ideas will surface that will dominate the rest of the ideas by general consent of the participants.
I imagine it would be similar to electing a CEO. The board of directors unite to discuss who will rise, and give their own reasons as to why they think this person should rise.
Can we not reach a similar end, with our own share of ideas? I'm in. All I want is a better game.
|
No, you don't get it. What if I don't agree at all? What about the community, who do exist, who don't post or don't lurk? Or, for that matter, just don't care? Who just happily play the damn game? I hear it's quite likely these people exist.
The underlying premise of your project is:
a) The game needs to be improved.
b) The means of that improvement can be found by selecting certain ideas which will improve the game.
c) These can be tested and presented to Blizzard as a community idea with a community voice.
(I take it this is an accurate summation.)
Every one of the points above can be contested. Even if they are agreed upon, it will only apply to those who actively, as you say, participate. Therefore, by definition, it excludes those who disagree and don't participate, those who don't wish to participate, and those who never hear about the project and are therefore unable to participate. I trust you see my point and my cynicism regarding the packaging of your project. If you guys are testing changes on a mod map, go for gold. But don't pretend to represent the community, or for that matter, anyone other than yourselves and your fellow participants in this project.
You seem to want the seal of "the community" on your ideas and your project. Without it, what you are doing is another version of Starbow - or any other mod or test done by countless others: nothing special. However, just slapping OneVoice on your project and asking for narcissistic TL keyboard designers to join in does not mean you speak for "the community".
Not by a long shot.
|
@aZealot. First, we cannot speak for the whole community. That is impossible, and we have no illusions about that. What we feel we CAN do is get a sense of what a lot of people wish SC2 had more of: Things like more area control gameplay, supply efficient Zerg units, a choice between Warp Gate and Gate Way, longer, more Brood War-like fights. This isn't stuff I, or any other team member just dreamed up. These are things that have been requested since the first day of WoL beta. I should know, I was on the forums the first day reading posts and playing games.
The name One Voice is something we have discussed internally. We were worried that it sounded pretentious, and given that we haven't published the mod yet, it can certainly be seen that way. The intent was not to have several guys speak for the community, but to provide a forum devoted to identifying areas where SC2 can be improved upon where literally anyone could participate and have some input on what made for a better gameplay experience. In short, One Voice is not what we say, it is what Blizzard hears from testing involving a significant portion of the community in one form or another (should people in the community choose to support us).
As for cherry picking ideas from random posters, well, I assure you that simply isn't how game design works. As you know, Starcraft, like any other RTS is a complex system with moving parts that produce combinations of dynamics. For an esport-class game, these dynamics must conform to some understood standards to provide compelling gameplay. Things like, readability, counterplay, skill floor, skill ceiling, and simplicity can all be measured and tested. Testing this stuff takes time, effort, and critical thinking. If you disagree with our reasoning, fantastic! We want to hear why our ideas don't work, because it isn't about us, its about providing data that can help Blizzard improve the game. If you want to have "the grace to keep your opinions to yourself" fine by us too. Just don't throw mud and call it an argument.
|
Edit: IWS wrote before me :o.
aZealot, I am merely a participant. Your point is correct. Then there is only one way for me to argue further, what percentage of SC2 Players participate here on TL.net forums and battle.net forums, and what is the other percentage of players who merely play the game without ever indulging in our community or official blizzard forums?
Well, in my opinion, people who do not lurk both on TL.net and battle.net forums are people who are not as passionate about the game as the rest of us are. Are you passionate about SC2? I sure hope so.
The reason we all lurk here is because we're interested in mingling with the community and to stay up to date.
If a mod is implemented incorporating the ideas of these passionate people then I imagine it would surely be better than the original SC2 WOL. Passion must be what is driving ItWhoSpeaks, because I don't think he is making money from all this.
As history has proven - if a standalone mod is great, then it'll automatically become popular. I think the original DOTA rose to dominance because it was great and created by people who just wanted to make something fun. Did you know that Blizzard nearly had full rights for DOTA? The same thing can happen to this mod, especially when these hidden players who do not participate in discussions and community forums play the game and also come to like it. It'll happen automatically - by itself. In the end, the player is the judge. Think again of DOTA. This is something only time will tell, if the mod is ever released.
As far as I see it, you are only concerned by the name this person has chosen -- "One Voice".
|
On November 26 2012 17:55 aZealot wrote:
No, you don't get it. What if I don't agree at all? What about the community, who do exist, who don't post or don't lurk? Or, for that matter, just don't care? Who just happily play the damn game? I hear it's quite likely these people exist.
The underlying premise of your project is:
a) The game needs to be improved.
b) The means of that improvement can be found by selecting certain ideas which will improve the game.
c) These can be tested and presented to Blizzard as a community idea with a community voice.
(I take it this is an accurate summation.)
Every one of the points above can be contested. Even if they are agreed upon, it will only apply to those who actively, as you say, participate. Therefore, by definition, it excludes those who disagree and don't participate, those who don't wish to participate, and those who never hear about the project and are therefore unable to participate. I trust you see my point and my cynicism regarding the packaging of your project. If you guys are testing changes on a mod map, go for gold. But don't pretend to represent the community, or for that matter, anyone other than yourselves and your fellow participants in this project.
You seem to want the seal of "the community" on your ideas and your project. Without it, what you are doing is another version of Starbow - or any other mod or test done by countless others: nothing special. However, just slapping OneVoice on your project and asking for narcissistic TL keyboard designers to join in does not mean you speak for "the community".
Not by a long shot.
i feel like you're trying to play devil's advocate just for the hell of it when you try to outline the underlying premises of the OP and then say that any one of them can be argued to the contrary. well of course they can. but i have a hard time believing that you genuinely do not want this game to change beyond what it is now, or to even go as far as say that the game is perfect as it is. all they are trying to do is find a way for the community to be more active in shaping the game, and it might turn out that we decide not to change the game much at all. you're assuming we are seeking to outright turn this thing on its head.
and as far as people being excluded from the decision making, i'm really curious to know how you think this is any different from group decisions conducted in society as a whole. if you don't show up (for whatever reason), your opinions don't get heard. if you care enough about the issue, you're naturally going to find out about these kinds of things and be there. furthermore, you can't complain about being excluded for a dissenting opinion if you just keep it to yourself.
|
( •_•) Guess you can say
( •_•)>⌐□-□ It is not One Voice but
(⌐□_□) We are certainly going One Direction
Well, this works like how most politics work anyway... elect a mouthpiece, mouthpiece speaks for the people, decisions can be made with or without regards for the people... No point arguing over the name if anything...
Maybe "One Love" since this is like the only game we play and we need to save our dying love... (Kappa)
|
Indeed, but there is no power or money involved (I hope). The only thing is "fun; enjoyment".
Isn't that the whole point of this?
|
I think the essay and the pretentiousness is hurting this project. That, and the lack of focus.
We don't have any replays yet, and the only thing that can produce results are good replays. We need players capable of playing halfway-decent games. Who are our players, what are their names, when are they usually on? That is extremely important.
The mod is all over the place. I don't know how to word this, but it just feels icky. Maybe we should just look at one thing at a time (ZvP early-mid game being too passive because roaches > gateway unless you have lots of sentries in a choke), etc), and try to avoid junk like "How do we make the immortal, roach, and thor behave more like their original concepts in a way that is beneficial for the game?", which has the potential to turn into a shitfest. The mod's Protoss is a very, very good example of this, with warp-in immortals from gateways that can shoot up and still have hardened shields.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On November 26 2012 18:18 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
@aZealot. First, we cannot speak for the whole community.
The title of this thread massively disagrees with you, this is just another mod to through around idea (like Starbow and many others) yet with all the talk of community , one voice, united scene etc it seems like you are trying to raise this whole thing above what it really is, a mod.
|
I think Browder and the blizz designers are decent but they made some big mistakes in the early days of development that sort of fucked up the way teh game plays without really realizing it (things like new path-finding and unlimited selection creating death balls, no high-ground advantage making defense suck, etc).
i think the best example is how blizzard decided to replace the medic with the medivac. their original reasoning was that medics couldn't follow reapers over cliffs and so players weren't using reapers very much. This led to such a huge re-structuring of the race: infantry sucked again the early game so they all got buffed, meaning that early game zerg and protoss were now much weaker comparatively to terran infantry in the rest of the game (so a huge bio army is stronger than a big gateway army almost all of the time). oh and guess what no one uses reapers any more anyway because they were a somewhat neat idea given to the wrong race at the wrong tech and pretty much just make the game worse.
Also I strongly disagree with them effectively making the races more unique. The macro mechanics are neat but minimally affect they way the races actually play out. warp-gates and larva inject just mean that protoss and zerg both can reinforce their army really fast (and are thus nerfed because of that). the siege tank got nerfed so bad that traditional mech doesnt exist in SC2, meaning that terran has to make a bio death ball every game. zerg lost the lurker and defiler meaning that they also have to make a deathball every game (IE no more lurker contains, defending expansions with dark swarm, pushing bio back with good swarm/lurker placement, etc). protoss gateway units got nerfed and lost the reaver and arbitor, meaning that they ALSO have to make a death ball every game (no reavers to defend expansions or harass bases, no arbitors to split up and go for recalls). admittedly Protoss were most prone to making death balls in BW, but they were unique because of that.
In the early days of development blizzard made far too many dumb changes to the core of the game that broke it in unforeseen rules. They really should have adhered to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" rule and kept most of the BW units in the game, only changing the ones that were boring or bad (scout, ghost, etc), and MAYBE add 1 or 2 new units to the existing roster (maybe tier 4 units to make the super later game have an extra layer of strategy).
I really wish blizzard would have considered using separate modes for pro and casual players like how valve has done with CS:GO. Basically have a casual mode where unlimited selection, MBS, etc is turned on and a pro mode where that stuff can be tuned down to keep the game hard and interesting (IE if they kept the game mostly the same as BW, they could make sure that things like muta stacking weren't IMBA by limited unit selection and stuff like that).
|
On November 26 2012 18:18 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
@aZealot. First, we cannot speak for the whole community. That is impossible, and we have no illusions about that. What we feel we CAN do is get a sense of what a lot of people wish SC2 had more of: Things like more area control gameplay, supply efficient Zerg units, a choice between Warp Gate and Gate Way, longer, more Brood War-like fights. This isn't stuff I, or any other team member just dreamed up. These are things that have been requested since the first day of WoL beta. I should know, I was on the forums the first day reading posts and playing games.
The name One Voice is something we have discussed internally. We were worried that it sounded pretentious, and given that we haven't published the mod yet, it can certainly be seen that way. The intent was not to have several guys speak for the community, but to provide a forum devoted to identifying areas where SC2 can be improved upon where literally anyone could participate and have some input on what made for a better gameplay experience. In short, One Voice is not what we say, it is what Blizzard hears from testing involving a significant portion of the community in one form or another (should people in the community choose to support us).
As for cherry picking ideas from random posters, well, I assure you that simply isn't how game design works. As you know, Starcraft, like any other RTS is a complex system with moving parts that produce combinations of dynamics. For an esport-class game, these dynamics must conform to some understood standards to provide compelling gameplay. Things like, readability, counterplay, skill floor, skill ceiling, and simplicity can all be measured and tested. Testing this stuff takes time, effort, and critical thinking. If you disagree with our reasoning, fantastic! We want to hear why our ideas don't work, because it isn't about us, its about providing data that can help Blizzard improve the game. If you want to have "the grace to keep your opinions to yourself" fine by us too. Just don't throw mud and call it an argument.
What a load of presumptious horse shit. It really is. Your whole OP disagrees with you. Don't confuse the hallelujahs in your particular congregation for opinion outside your church doors. And don't assume your passion gives you the right to make changes and, more importantly to presume to speak for others. My point still stands. Please just get over yourself.
|
This might be met with a lot more assistance and a lot less dissent if it had some prominent community figures involved in testing it. I don't suppose there is any chance you've motivated any names people would recognize to take a look at your mod and invest some of their time into making it better, is there?
Because that's what Blizzard is doing, and even if they're doing it poorly (read as: worse than you are - which I think is still unknown at this point) - I think in the end people will want the changes that have seen the most high-level testing. We've seen White-Ra, Morrow, Idra, Sheth and many other big names pop into and out of the beta and offer comments.
My personal concern is that, after all your changes and all your testing, the people who are disgruntled at the state of the HotS beta will be just as miffed with your changes.
|
yuk, this reminds me of labor union, pretending to speak for all laborers.
|
On November 26 2012 18:59 Unshapely wrote:
Edit: IWS wrote before me :o.
aZealot, I am merely a participant. Your point is correct. Then there is only one way for me to argue further, what percentage of SC2 Players participate here on TL.net forums and battle.net forums, and what is the other percentage of players who merely play the game without ever indulging in our community or official blizzard forums?
Well, in my opinion, people who do not lurk both on TL.net and battle.net forums are people who are not as passionate about the game as the rest of us are. Are you passionate about SC2? I sure hope so.
The reason we all lurk here is because we're interested in mingling with the community and to stay up to date.
If a mod is implemented incorporating the ideas of these passionate people then I imagine it would surely be better than the original SC2 WOL. Passion must be what is driving ItWhoSpeaks, because I don't think he is making money from all this.
As history has proven - if a standalone mod is great, then it'll automatically become popular. I think the original DOTA rose to dominance because it was great and created by people who just wanted to make something fun. Did you know that Blizzard nearly had full rights for DOTA? The same thing can happen to this mod, especially when these hidden players who do not participate in discussions and community forums play the game and also come to like it. It'll happen automatically - by itself. In the end, the player is the judge. Think again of DOTA. This is something only time will tell, if the mod is ever released.
As far as I see it, you are only concerned by the name this person has chosen -- "One Voice".
We are making 0 money from this, and we have no intention of doing so.
As for the "ickiness of the current mod," there are many things that have issues, Immortals, and Hydras have required a great deal of tweaking to get where they are. Making the Mothership a worth-while non unique unit was a process with over one hundred broken ideas. Remaking the Voidray had a several horribly broken maps. Design is not a clean process. Mistakes are made. The difference between One Voice and WoL is that we are working with the end result of 3+ years of development. We didn't have to make sure fundamental things like worker pathing works. We get the easy part, changing units to better fit their roles and theme. Still, it takes time, and Blizzard had years to weed out terrible ideas like the Soul Hunter and the old Thor.
|
On November 27 2012 04:15 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 18:18 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
@aZealot. First, we cannot speak for the whole community. That is impossible, and we have no illusions about that. What we feel we CAN do is get a sense of what a lot of people wish SC2 had more of: Things like more area control gameplay, supply efficient Zerg units, a choice between Warp Gate and Gate Way, longer, more Brood War-like fights. This isn't stuff I, or any other team member just dreamed up. These are things that have been requested since the first day of WoL beta. I should know, I was on the forums the first day reading posts and playing games.
The name One Voice is something we have discussed internally. We were worried that it sounded pretentious, and given that we haven't published the mod yet, it can certainly be seen that way. The intent was not to have several guys speak for the community, but to provide a forum devoted to identifying areas where SC2 can be improved upon where literally anyone could participate and have some input on what made for a better gameplay experience. In short, One Voice is not what we say, it is what Blizzard hears from testing involving a significant portion of the community in one form or another (should people in the community choose to support us).
As for cherry picking ideas from random posters, well, I assure you that simply isn't how game design works. As you know, Starcraft, like any other RTS is a complex system with moving parts that produce combinations of dynamics. For an esport-class game, these dynamics must conform to some understood standards to provide compelling gameplay. Things like, readability, counterplay, skill floor, skill ceiling, and simplicity can all be measured and tested. Testing this stuff takes time, effort, and critical thinking. If you disagree with our reasoning, fantastic! We want to hear why our ideas don't work, because it isn't about us, its about providing data that can help Blizzard improve the game. If you want to have "the grace to keep your opinions to yourself" fine by us too. Just don't throw mud and call it an argument. What a load of presumptious horse shit. It really is. Your whole OP disagrees with you. Don't confuse the hallelujahs in your particular congregation for opinion outside your church doors. And don't assume your passion gives you the right to make changes and, more importantly to presume to speak for others. My point still stands. Please just get over yourself.
I guess you don't want to have a discussion. That is unfortunate. We aren't leading a cult; cults don't like dissenting opinions. I am also amused as to why you think I feel I have the "right" to make changes. I don't, I don't work at Blizzard, but I understand how game design works because I have studied and practiced it to some extent. What I do have the right to, like anyone who has access to the editor, is to test out different variations of the game. Like any customer, I do have the right to contact Blizzard with concerns about how their company is doing things. This isn't some conspiratorial agenda designed to undermine HotS, all of the people on the team are buying it day one or have already reordered it.
As for you; you don't want to participate and you don't want us to speak for you; that's cool! I acknowledge that. You can speak for you and I can speak for me. Just know that the people who react positively (or critically) to things that I write, or who email me at 2 AM to share their thoughts, or challenge the team's current designs are doing so on their own volition and because they care enough to do so. That is how design works, it doesn't come spilling from the heavens, its a messy process that involves a lot of people communicating over a long period of time.
|
Any news on the test map for Hots?
|
Just to add something of a different vein in here, because I think this thread sorely needs it - I'd much rather have threads and discussions like the ones ItWhoSpeaks has started for each race plus this one, with a continuing dialogue about what should change and how things should change, and have people disagree constructively without name calling, than have no dialogue about things at all. So you disagree with what he (or she?) has proposed, grats. So you disagree with how he/she's gone about it. Grats.
How about offering up some constructive additions to what should be different, with specifics, and how it should be better, rather than calling his attempts to improve this game and community we love "presumptuous horse shit" just because it didn't get your personal stamp of approval? It's a lot easier to lob criticisms than stick your own neck out there and offer ideas.
Start a thread with your own thoughts, do some research, test things out, crunch some numbers, try different things - maybe even offer to help him or work with him instead of trashing him because you and he obviously have the same end goal in mind, which is to make Starcraft II a better game and the Starcraft II community more united and cohesive and harmonious. If you think his ideas suck, post here or in his threads and say why and offer logic and examples. Suggest changes to his modified games or test them out yourself and give some justified and evidenced feedback as to why they do or don't work. Nobody's saying we all need to agree about balance changes and race identity, and nobody's saying you have to care passionately about the game, but if you do care about it, then take the time and effort to constructively and transparently add your voice to the mix.
|
Great write-up man. Very well put. Integrated Continuous Test Realm in the client is a beautiful idea.
Yeah you're the guy that wrote up those excellent race-by-race analysis posts. If I remember correctly?
You're the guy we (random TL readers) almost unanimously drafted as "TL Poster Most Wanted as Blizzard Design Staff Employee" lol.
Your posts are remarkable not only for content - but also for the almost total lack of negativity, insulting, bitching, and whining by the community in the followups lol. Its like a minor miracle.
except .. umm ...
What a load of presumptious horse shit. It really is. Your whole OP disagrees with you. Don't confuse the hallelujahs in your particular congregation for opinion outside your church doors. And don't assume your passion gives you the right to make changes and, more importantly to presume to speak for others. My point still stands. Please just get over yourself.
Oh. Well, I guess there's a turd in every punchbowl huh 
|
I'm against this One Voice stuff. Who voted you to be our voice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
