|
Halo was the backbone of the MLG circuit for five years, now it’s a sideshow. What happened?
With the advent of Halo: Reach, the series faltered, and with it, it’s power as an esport. What makes a sport successful -- the money to be had, the spectacles of packed arenas, or perhaps the diversity of teams or strategies within the game itself? All are important, but the heartbeat of a sport is its community.
In the case of Halo, we see a steady progression of esport-friendly design: from Halo CE’s ton of low accuracy, high fire rate weapons to Halo 2’s introduction the Battle Rifle, Carbine, and two Sniper rifles. This showcased player skill over player luck. Halo 3 introduced equipment that provided various forms of area control as well as a high power precision weapon called the Spartan Laser. Just a few years ago, Halo was THE Esports scene in the Americas.
While Reach continued the general trend of making the game more Esport focused (Power Weapons like the Spartan Laser or Brute Shot were balanced or remade, more precision weapons were introduced like the DMR, Needle Rifle, Grenade Launcher, Mobility abilities like Sprint and Evade to make map gameplay more dynamic). Why did a game that tried so hard to be an Esport fail?
Reach split the community.
Certain changes divided the community: traditional Halo fans saw things like weapon bloom and armor abilities to be fundamental departures from the core Halo experience, and turned their backs on Reach in favor of Halo 3. Many insisted that Reach was fine as it was. In the end it didn’t really matter who was right, the scene was split, and more organized Esports like SC2 stole the spotlight. This effect has not damaged just halo Halo: CS, Team Fortress, and Quake have all had their pro communities diminished or marginalized because of fans splitting themselves between games.
Starcraft has tried to rend itself apart -- esports scenes will always struggle with this. Like empires, digital games are doomed to fall in time due to changes in tech and consumer taste. Old sports like Baseball are rooted in history and have generations of people wishing to play the same game their fathers (or mothers) played. These titanic games span centuries, defining entire cultures. Because digital games emerged from the private sector, they follow the same fundamental patterns of the economic culture that they were birthed into. This means that popular digital games like Counterstrike and Quake must be released multiple times to keep competitive in an ever growing market. Like the phoenix, successful esports can achieve immortality by perpetually dying and being reborn in sequel games that have been updated to modern standards and tastes. But has Reach proves, this is a double-edged sword.
There was concern in the aftermath of Wings of Liberty’s big reveal in Korea: Multiple Building Selection, Auto Surround, and Unlimited Unit Selection, and fluid pathing AI all lit up TL.net for years. Was SC2 too noob friendly? Did the game look too cartoony? Was there too much randomness in the game? etc.... While many of these topics were laid to rest, this debate showed two forming factions: BW loyalists and WoL loyalists, their dialog burned into our memory by the infamous TL articles “The Elephant in the Room” and “The Rhino In the Room.” Elephant ultimately asserted that SC2 as a scene couldn’t be taken as seriously due to the fundamental design of the game, while Rhino argued that the design of the game makes the competitive scene less stable and we should be ok with that.
This divide only grew deeper and more bitter, reaching its climax when competitive BW was discontinued. Some left, some stayed, but there was really only one winner: The MOBA. With Kespa fighting Blizzard over broadcasting rights, and an increasingly scattered fanbase, Riot’s League of Legends had an easy time staking a dominant claim in Korea.
Why Has League of Legends done so well?
It has a united community. Even if someone thinks Darius is overpowered or Rengar has been overnerfed, they still log on to play the game, and even if there is a decided imbalance in the game with a champion, there are ways of not having to deal with it (via bans) until the issue is fixed. Only when Riot really screws up with broken champions like release Xin or Vlad do you see any fracturing of the bulk of community outcry. However, because Riot is aggressive in their balance and design, and very active with the community, those fractures don’t affect the core of the community for long. If there is an issue with a champion, it will get adjusted within two weeks to two months, or failing that, get completely remade. Blizzard takes three to six months to do balance tweaks. This is HUGE in establishing a sense of united community, because the community has a working dialogue with the people who make their champions. This isn’t some holiday special like the HotS beta either, this dialogue occurs every week, and game balance gets tweaked every month. Riot’s free to play multiplayer platform where skins generate revenue, allowing players to feel special and even proud by investing in the game. It’s free-to-play nature makes it easy to have accounts to play with your low-skill friends AND you can have a third account do secret practicing stuff on the ladder. Finally, in comparison to Dota 2 and Starcraft, League is much easier to get into and stay into because of a low skill floor due to easy to master mechanics. And, on the mechanical and art side, there are many champions to learn and each kit requires you to read situations slightly differently, creating a sense of variety and progression. These all bring and hold the LoL community together.
What Blizzard can do.
Here’s a controversial statement of the article: Dustin Browder is a pretty damn good designer. His focus in SC2 was to make the races more distinct while focusing on player experience in the game itself. Just look at the language he uses in interviews going way way back, he always comes to the question “how does this make the player feel?” We have creep speed bonus, add on swaps, and pylon power mechanics because of those efforts. Things that enhance the feel of each race. And while many things can be improved in those fields, those ideas (and many many others) are spot on.
The big issue is Starcraft 2 hasn’t supported the community BETWEEN games, due to the lack of a level-up mechanic, statistic support, Clans etc. After the community called out and pillars of the community gnashed their teeth, Blizzard decided that something like meta-progression is important, and implemented the EXP system alongside previous plans like clan support, better statistics, and worldwide play. The issue isn’t that Blizzard doesn’t listen, because they do, and they are pretty damn tenacious about fixing perceived problems with their game. The issue is that they are too slow and cautious with their improvements. I can respect that they don’t wish to upset the tourney scene, people’s livelihoods are on the line. But the fact of the matter is when there are issues with their game, and it takes a long time to fix or improve it, it makes the gameplay and community feel stagnant and neglected.
Therefore, Blizzard needs to show its commitment to improving the game (and openness to change fundamental aspects in design) in a way that protects the professional scene. I.E. They should have an integrated Public Test Realm.
Make it a Feature!
Starcraft 2’s Test Realm didn’t work because it was detached from their main client, and frankly, you could be laddering instead. Making them a special map is an improvement, but it lacks the sense of united purpose that a Test Realm does. What if, along side the various playlists, you had a PTR matchmaking system that changed every two weeks, and had achievements and portraits to earn all within the client. This way, Blizzard could gather data on a variety of maps as well as enabling the community to play a more active role in the development process.
This slows down and weeds out harmful changes, but depends on a consistent player base to test it (which has been the problem traditionally). Finally, for us neophiles in the community, it means there is always new (potential) content to test out every two weeks.
What the Community can do.
First, we need to show consistent interest in exploring changes to unit and race design. We need to show Blizzard we want to see changes discussed and tested, not just during one of the two remaining betas, but week after week, and seeing the results of our efforts foster a better Starcraft. This means, making custom maps and testing things out and sending that data to blizzard, saying “hey, we think this will make for an even better Starcraft experience, you should try this out!” Blizzard has looked at things as fundamental as unit pathing, they can sure as heck test out tier 1.5 hydras, or a difference in Warp Gate implementation.
Second, we must learn from the past, not implement it. Brood War was fantastic; it was a big part of my adolescence, and it showed us that Esports could dominate a CULTURE. It holds a place in history and rightly so, many, many good things came from BW: design, readability, gameplay. The question is, why imitate Brood War when we can do better? If the fanbase can collaborate with Blizzard, Starcraft 2 could easily meet, or even surpass Brood War in design and gameplay. To do so, we need to be open to each other, respectful, organized, and most importantly, we must set aside our sacred cows, our assumptions that Brood War was some unreachable miracle of design our comfort with WoL’s second fiddle in the Esports scene. No, we must push every day to make this game better as a community, with common understandings of what makes good design, what can be good design, and what is to be avoided.
What we have been doing
I have been working with different people in the community to build a custom map to test out significant changes to the game state in an attempt to better express the different identities of each race. (See my articles.) The early game dynamics have been reworked to allow a stronger protoss early game and where Zerg can be more aggressive. Terran have a much more supply efficient mech army and a stronger tier three. OneVoice is an attempt to test out ideas from the community and relay the data we collect to blizzard to aid them in their decisions. I have setup a gmail account so that you folks, my fellow starcrafters, can submit ideas (and explain why you think they would be a good idea for Starcraft.) The mod will be up and live on arcade very soon, and everyone is welcome to give their 2 cents! Look forward to playing with you soon!
Just submit your suggestions to onevoicemod@gmail.com
http://i.imgur.com/Bv8Ez.png
Some ground rules:
1. Be polite to us, the community, and Blizzard, we are all in this together!
2. No Classic units. (Spin offs, and re imaginings are fine and dandy, Blizzard will not remake classic units verbatim this time around.)
3. Focus on racial theme and fun gameplay (for both players)
|
We're calling ourselves OneVoice, and boy do we care about starcraft 2. Keep this logo in mind, we hope to produce some great stuff under it:
|
this is by far the most well written piece of work i have ever seen on teamliquid, and spot on with the point about mobas being the winner in the battle between WOL and BW. In honor of the truth of this, I have made a humble offering in the form of a piece of original ms paint artwork:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Ha ha ha ha. Ultimately, I hope not!
|
Thanks, we care deeply about this sort of thing.
|
Good read. Having a test client constructed into the normal game client would be pretty useful. Blizzard's attempted to do this in the past with their test maps for minor balance changes as opposed to PTR releases for larger patches. I really like the idea of seeing proposed changes being offered and playable on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.
Best of luck with your endeavor.
|
ow man I really like the idea of a ptr-like feature inside the client itself, and not as a seperate client
|
This article is amazing. You should go to events and deliver it as a speech, you'll get a standing ovation every time.
And what you said about the PTR being in a completely separate client is spot on. If it were easier to take part in testing changes I'd dust off my copy of SC2 and stop being a spectator to take an active approach in helping the game grow right now.
|
This was a great writeup, I couldn't agree more. When I started reading this I expected you to lash out at the community for being so negative towards blizzard, but it was more a call to arms suggesting that if we do our part, blizzard will do their best to do theirs.
Mad respect to the author, I hope blizzard sees this project and your writeup, it must take a toll on guys like Browder to see so much negative feedback... Honestly, HOTS, while far from perfect in my opinion, is taking huge steps in the right direction and making the game far more interesting, and i'm especially excited about the stats/clan/group stuff being implemented  .
|
edit- I'm a moron and can't read. Ignore this.
|
Good luck with your project, always nice to see people trying to improve something on the game. The best community is a dedicated community. (which will make sure the game stays alive for a long time, see BW mapmaking and Ladder projects)
Had a good laugh at the Moba thing though after hearing a 3 hour long Dota2 vs LoL discussion.
|
This is awesome and inspiring. You put this logo out as if it were something that we should use. How would you recommend using it?
|
Yes!! I'm so tired of reading all the negative stuff without any solutions. I hope you plan to (or have) post this on the Battle.net forums.
|
Very good post. Good thinking and articulated well.
I really think the idea to make ptr a part of the regular client, with dedicated achievements is pure gold.
If you now add in the option to give direct feedback for each ptr change from the client then we migth get a truly integrated community.
Since I also am of the opinion that more possible options should be tried and tested I also made a testmap to try out some change (mostly FF and Mothership removed and fungal change related).
I actually published it in Hots, thread can be founf here : http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/5848167657#5
sadly I never really got to try it 
Will be looking forward to testing your mod. If I can do anything to help please let me know.
Anything that will help blizzard be less timid with their changes for HotS can only help the game.
|
I think Blizzard is often doing the right things in terms of design. The races feel really different and thats a great achievment. They show an ever so resistent attitude towards ideas like drastic Warpgate changes and that is good, because even if it might positively affect balance, it would probably crush a lot of the games' "spirit".
A problem with Blizzard in general though is that they try to make their games causual friendly. I'm absolutely not saying that is a bad thing, but they are trying to do it the wrong way. I think when games like SC, WC3, D2 and Vanilla WoW were designed Blizzard had a different approach just to make a game fun. Even though there were many hard or abusable mechanics the games were still fun and easy gameplay does not always mean games are better for casuals.
I think D3 and WoW expansions might be prime examples here: WoW becomes easier and easier while classes don't feel as different anymore as they did in the start. There is no room for crazy things anymore as was in vanilla.
I think D3 was really hurt by the fact that they introduced the level restriction (or rather didn't make it as hard to reach as in D2, cause they thought it wouldn't appeal a big audiance if it's hard to get there.
The point i want to make is that blizzard should keep in mind that the journey often is the reward and simplicity of games is not the way to make the game more enjoyable. What they need is a solid base of easy to get basics that leave a lot of open space for players to improve and develop while playing a game.
I hope they will realize this soon enough and the community should definitively try to help there.
I really think you are right on the money with your article and I hope it finds a lot of support, because when a game gets changed by the designer heading into the wrong direction it is our duty to lead them back on the right track.
On note for the PTR thingy: Dota 1 has always had a "stable map" and a "latest map" provided by Ice Frog. That system worked out great. Tourneys would always use the stable map, teams would usually train with that map aswell while the latest map was used for public games and some tournaments with lower prize pool.
|
This is truly an amazing piece of work. Really nice to read, very concise and logical.
|
Great post, I think many people already aware of this but have no skill to write like this. Hope more and more people aware of the real problem
I played many many games from BW to AoE, from Halo to Quake, CS in a fairly competitively causal style and I often see the downfall more than I would like. People should not think SC2 is any more special than those top games
|
Great work but I disagree with your fundamental assumption.
The root cause is not the split community. The split community is the result. The root cause is that the newest game in the series is too different (good or bad) from its predecessor, which lead to controversies and the split community.
Innovation is not always good in many areas. In esports or sports in general, innovation is mostly bad. The reason that baseball or other traditional sports span for centuries, as you said so, is that their rules and designs rarely change or do not change at all. It is exactly the lack of change and innovation of rules and designs in traditional sports that produced their long lifespan.
The reason that we have split community in the older esport games such as Starcraft or Halo or CS as you said is exactly innovation and change. The older esport games suffered this problem more than the newer ones. LoL has a unified community, as you said, because it's the first game in the series. Even as new as LoL, it already has faced comparisons with Dota. There can be changes and innovations of spectating such as better graphics and audio, which are almost necessary in esports. However, changes and innovations of rules and designs of the game will inevitably lead to controversies to various degrees, regardless of whether the intention of those changes and innovations are good or not.
It is strangely unfortunate but it is what is. The problem of split community between different games in a series will always be there in esport.
|
I actually agree with you that the split is the result of design changes. The point is that it is weakening the scene as is, and that we and Blizzard can change it. Simply going back to Brood War will change little in terms of helping the scene outside of Korea, and even then, there are other problems with how the game is distributed (subscription is inferior to free to play for the purposes of the PC Bang). The idea is that we find a set of design principles to test, and submit that data to Blizzard saying "we want something like this in the game."
|
I agree with everything you are saying absolutely, and I think this was a beautifully made post, the only thing I disagree on you with is that you are saying if Blizzard and the community worked together it is possible to make SC2 have better gameplay than BW. The thing that makes BW gameplay so special is that it is an anomaly, it was not created to be the way it is, things like mutalisk stacking / micro was not intended, it was a glitch. I think people need to back away from the " SC2 is not BW, SC2 is a different game" mentality, SC2 came from BW, SC2 would of not existed if SC1 did not exist.
Therefor I believe that SC2 should hold A LOT more of the similarities BW had than it does now, SC2 should not be a completely different game, as StarCraft 2 is still StarCraft, it just really confuses me why so many people want a game that is completely different than BW, when Starcraft 2 is supposed to be based off of BW....
Nice post and thank you for your insight and community project, I just have strong beliefs that if SC2 was a lot more like BW, then there would have been no separation, or at least a lot less, of BW and SC2 mindsets, and it probably would of helped a lot more in the long run for everyone.
I hope this project works out very well for you, God bless.
|
I don't agree with the assumption, nor the method.
I actually agree with you that the split is the result of design changes. The point is that it is weakening the scene as is, and that we and Blizzard can change it.
So to adress the problem of design changes, you create a mod which purpose is to change design ?
The real issue with Starcraft is simple : the way balance was thought and is being executed as a philosophy (and depending of the type of game, RTS). They have decided that they will not add thing to correct it but re-design - every nerf/bug is a re-design.
As you said, this creates a particular effect of motion for something that is supposed to have clear rules (like sports). That's why the community is both split and dynamic. This is in fact a paradox : motion of something that must stay still.
The infestor is the perfect example : the more we talk about it, the more versions of it exist, the more the game lose its place as sacred in our heart. Is there anyone on TL that doesn't have something to say concerning infestors ?
Think about this : imbalance doesn't exist in sports. Why ? Because this imbalance is confined to the players ! You could precisely say that Messi is imba, for example. E-sports' problem of balance comes from this interaction between human/machine/maths interaction.
|
I don't think you have differentiated design from balance...
|
|
|
This is easily one of the best things that ever happened to tl & the sc2 community. GJ and keep it alive!
|
I don't think you have differentiated design from balance...
Because i did not feel i had to. Every act that implies balancing implies re-designing, and by that, i mean a modification of the previous design, that is, conception, of the game.
Yes, when you change a single number, you create a whole new design (in the way i use the word).
I don't know how you would use it, perhaps as a way to describe the graphic form of a unit ?
I loved your posts on identities in SC2 compared to BW, really. But i feel this one lacks analysis for what concerns the definition of E-sport as a variation of sport.
The difference between both could be defined - to take an enormous shortcut - and reduced to this : in sports, there are only mirror MU (metaphor). That's why i love them on SC 2 : this is a pure matter of skill and no one would whine about imbalance (where the split starts) in this case. They could express how much they hate the metagame in ZvZ, but this is not imbalance. This is, in sport, the same as the tactics used by coaches, which can be boring as hell or making some teams look more attractive due to this metagame phenomenon.
So in classic sports, community will split between players or teams, maybe because of metagame sometimes (they won't like the way their team plays), but will not try every day to discuss if the limits of the playground should be re-designed, etc.
So SC2 is about two people, one of them fighting with a classic sword, the other with a katana. What i want to say is that i don't discover anything new, but this problem is related to the nature of SC2. There will always be a doubt regarding the skill of the players, because the tools are not the same. So there will always be people who want to change it as a way to precisely establish a perfect comparison between players. This is impossible.
What you want to do is different, you want to design a new game, that, in your mind, respects more the "philosophy" of Starcraft universe and races than SC2. Well, good luck with that, and i will like to play your mod, really. But this is a new game, and the perfect example for what I said.
There are two ways to use a tool : adapt to it and let its essence determine your actions, develop a new one that will adapt to your way and which essence is determined by your thinking.
Your mod belongs to the second way. You developed the bow when you saw you had to use a sword. I will not criticize this, but it highly contributes to what you want to solve : the community spliting.
Never forget that each one of us has its own version of the infestor in mind, each one. It's quite similar to the process of revolutions when I think about it. An infinite number of constitutions in their head, yet one to be chosen. If not ? Well, let's split in as much pieces as there are constitutions...Again, i won't judge this.
|
Is there any chance you could update the OP with some more details on the changes you plan on testing, or are you waiting for more suggestions before throwing out numbers?
Maybe you could reserve some space for a page with replays, which I think is the most important part of this project: Showing the results of our ideas in-game to both Blizzard and the rest of the playerbase.
Also, is anybody here actually planning on doing testing when the map comes out? Feels like there's a whole lot of "oh hey nice thread, ho hum buildin mah post count  " in this thread already...would be nice to know if there's some real support out there =/
|
couldn't really find myself agreeing with your controversial statement. even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Nevertheless well written and I do agree with the rest of your article.
|
I have been talking with the gentleman behind Starbow. I have followed that mod since its first iterations.
|
As one of the members of this team, I can say that--though Starbow is quite well designed--it doesn't quite accomplish what we're doing here. Starbow has shaped itself around the idea of "Brood War 1.5", as opposed to StarCraft II. With the inclusion of units such as the Dark Archon, the Reaver, Widow Mines, and Lurkers, it is like a second expansion to StarCraft vanilla with a graphics overhaul (Not a bad thing--like I said, I find it quite enjoyable).
We're trying to shape StarCraft II into the unit balance and interactions that it should have come with in the first place, instead of the stale match-ups and binary unit interactions that we have now. Stuff like the Mothership's Vortex, the Infestor's Fungal Growth, and the Thor's clunkiness and supply intensity are being worked with to provide a better dynamic and a more entertaining--and exciting--gameplay and observer experience.
|
On November 21 2012 15:05 topsecret221 wrote:As one of the members of this team, I can say that--though Starbow is quite well designed--it doesn't quite accomplish what we're doing here. Starbow has shaped itself around the idea of "Brood War 1.5", as opposed to StarCraft II. With the inclusion of units such as the Dark Archon, the Reaver, Widow Mines, and Lurkers, it is like a second expansion to StarCraft vanilla with a graphics overhaul (Not a bad thing--like I said, I find it quite enjoyable). We're trying to shape StarCraft II into the unit balance and interactions that it should have come with in the first place, instead of the stale match-ups and binary unit interactions that we have now. Stuff like the Mothership's Vortex, the Infestor's Fungal Growth, and the Thor's clunkiness and supply intensity are being worked with to provide a better dynamic and a more entertaining--and exciting--gameplay and observer experience.
Top hits the nail on the head. For better and worse, we need to work within the framework of Starcraft 2. This means that we can't straight up remove a unit and replace it with something we know works like the Lurker. Blizzard simply won't implement it. Practicality aside, I would much rather bring the dynamics of Brood War forward in new units that function with an updated UI, pathing, ect.
|
On November 21 2012 11:05 Ooshmagoosh wrote:Is there any chance you could update the OP with some more details on the changes you plan on testing, or are you waiting for more suggestions before throwing out numbers? Maybe you could reserve some space for a page with replays, which I think is the most important part of this project: Showing the results of our ideas in-game to both Blizzard and the rest of the playerbase. Also, is anybody here actually planning on doing testing when the map comes out? Feels like there's a whole lot of "oh hey nice thread, ho hum buildin mah post count " in this thread already...would be nice to know if there's some real support out there =/
We are working on a master article detailing the changes we have made and why we have made them. We are a month into actual testing, so numbers have a bit more definition, but we still have a long ways to go.
|
One of the best theards I have read the last time.
I agree to almost all your points and I hope that, with this written in a good english, more people will think about this and really improve starcraft!
But I am also very confused, because this theard is not hyped in any way, so please take this serious, it is a good start to change something in the right direction and not just flaming and whining all the time.
Greetz
|
On November 21 2012 23:18 Fibbz wrote:
But I am also very confused, because this theard is not hyped in any way, so please take this serious, it is a good start to change something in the right direction and not just flaming and whining all the time.
We're going to take this as seriously as we can manage. We can't really hype this specific thread beyond ItWhoSpeak's reputation from his Race Identity threads a little while back, but we're working on other methods of media. Once the game is closer to a final, playable state, we will start working on teasers, trailers, and eventually getting larger community figures to acknowledge us, if not assist us.
We're dedicated, and we should be making some serious progress in the coming months
|
Hopefully, we will have something out in the next few days for you all.
|
Search One Voice In the Custom Games Lobby (not the arcade). One Voice PTR CloudKingdom and Ohana are now up.
IWS, Do you have a chat channel already up for this, or do we(the people) just use the default ones?
|
I don't agree with most of your changes - specifically Protoss (as these are changes I have thought about most in my time on TL - being Protoss myself). I am also not sure about this initiative to constantly feedback suggested changes on a weekly basis. I think this a terrible idea, as it's little more than an arena for the implementation of (usually ) all kinds of "whine of the week" ideas. The game will never settle sufficiently for real development with that kind of never-ending adjustment.
I do, however, respect your passion and dedication to the game. So, I do wish you well in your endeavour.
If they do lead to a better SC2, then I will be pleasantly, and happily, surprised. Good luck.
|
I could give less of shit about the community and esports. What SC2 needs is more interesting gameplay to keep it fun. Its way too stale right now, at least on release people were figuring things out. Now there is basically nothing left to do. The game just doesn't have a high enough skill cap. At the highest levels most matchups are still borefests, there is absolutely nothing special about watching the best play, because they best players have no way to show how much better they are than everyone.
Watching someone like Flash play BroodWar you could stare in awe at how good he is. You could try to copy one aspect of his play and not even come close to doing it like him. Try doing the same in SC2 and you realize you can copy his entire build order nearly perfectly and do the same timing pushes with ease. There is no "wow factor". The worst part is every patch since the beta has been steadily lowering the skill cap. Remember when Reaper micro mattered? It was a spectacle watching the pros kite Roaches and Queens to death. Remember when you tried to do it and embarrassingly lost all your Reapers?
|
On November 25 2012 07:29 Doominator10 wrote:
Search One Voice In the Custom Games Lobby (not the arcade). One Voice PTR CloudKingdom and Ohana are now up.
IWS, Do you have a chat channel already up for this, or do we(the people) just use the default ones?
You need to stick a big fat red announcement on the top of your thread that tells everybody this.
|
I have the same concerns as aZealout.
While the client-side PTR would totally help with testing those changes, does the game really need to go through that many changes so often? Basically, we're saying that each strategy in the game should have viability over two weeks before something should be tested and readjusted. I'm assuming we're talking a retail version, too, and not beta. In any case, while the scene might benefit from something like this early on, when does it stop? When do we just let the game settle and let the player make use of the game's idiosyncracies and wrinkles?
I do like your "bi-partisan" approach to all of this. The blatant negativity and mob-sheep-mental-speak hurts things more than it helps, which is why Blizzard is probably cautious what and whom they listen to and how often they makes changes. Browder has often expressed how they'll make a change, and suddenly it doesn't become an issue anymore. Is this because of the change itself or the perception of the players?
In any case, good stuff man.
|
I dislike the choice of name you've made. It implies a degree of agreement with your project which is unwarranted.
While your goals are laudable; i'm not convinced of your means.
And i still dislike the substantial number of errors you made in yoru articles of the races; it is far too much error for someone who seeks to balance the game. And saying browder's done a great job is the nail in the coffin; results speak for themselves, and the results on sc2 speak to design problems.
|
I'm like crying right now. +1 sir.
|
How far reaching of a change is this trying to promote?
Does it go anywhere close to addressing important parts of design like deathball syndrome, defenders advantage, micro-bility of units?
Does it plan to?
|
> The issue is that they are too slow and cautious with their improvements.
How the hell is this a bad thing? Riot balance quickly because their game is for the casual base, and they nerf overpowered things far more than they buff underpowered things, and considering there are such a huge number of champions it's pretty hard for them to stuff that up. You simply can't compare that kind of balance to the balance in a highly competitive RTS game like SC2, where even the tiniest changes like adding range to an immortal or queen has the most profound impact on the game. And when you consider how frequently the meta-game shifts, with things like hellion runbys, baneling landmines, 1/1/1's, the emergence of forge expand in PvZ and then PvT, phoenixes in pvp, do you really think they would be right to adjust a perceived imbalance the moment it's discovered? Obviously not, especially when you consider what collateral damage the fix might have on the balance of the other match-ups (as mentioned in LoL there are so many champions you can probably nerf one to death and nobody would bat an eyelid). Sorry I respect your initiative and some of your other points but in order to follow through on this I really think you need a better understanding of the balancing process and why Blizzard does things the way it does (not to say they are perfect, but that, as clearly explained there are reasons behind their process).
Oh and as far as the stuff 'between the games', this is a relatively recent complaint by the community, less than 3 or so months old, around the time when LoL became noticed by the SC2 community and the "sc2 is dying" stuff was posted. Prior to that it was very rarely discussed, and so it is understandable that Blizzard was not aware that this was a concern people had.
|
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).
|
On November 25 2012 15:09 decemberscalm wrote:
How far reaching of a change is this trying to promote?
Does it go anywhere close to addressing important parts of design like deathball syndrome, defenders advantage, micro-bility of units?
Does it plan to?
Yes, yes, and yes.
|
On November 25 2012 18:10 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
SCII cannot have "one voice" because there are 3 races and the races do not agree. They cannot speak with one voice, as it is in zerg's best interest to deny that their macro mechanics/infestors are overpovered, and protoss cannot agree that colossus are the reason the game is terrible.
|
United States4883 Posts
On November 25 2012 20:03 GorGor wrote:
SCII cannot have "one voice" because there are 3 races and the races do not agree. They cannot speak with one voice, as it is in zerg's best interest to deny that their macro mechanics/infestors are overpovered, and protoss cannot agree that colossus are the reason the game is terrible.
Lolz lolz. Maybe in middle school. I think both races would say that both units are necessary, filling a role they wouldn't otherwise have, but I think most people in the world agree that there are some huge issues with infestors and colossus that need to be tweaked.
I wanna barf every time I see a zerg army consisting of like 4 BLords and like 30 infestors.
|
On November 21 2012 07:03 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
Here’s a controversial statement of the article: Dustin Browder is a pretty damn good designer.
You are right. This is controversial ... to the point of making your reasoning stand on clay feet. Its not what he says in interviews, but rather what he does that defines him. Just look at the BGH thread and you notice that many people think that "SC2 battles arent fun" and many more such reasons are given. They have the wrong design concept and have yet to notice / acknowledge that they are wrong.
On November 21 2012 07:03 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
Some ground rules:
1. Be polite to us, the community, and Blizzard, we are all in this together!
2. No Classic units. (Spin offs, and re imaginings are fine and dandy, Blizzard will not remake classic units verbatim this time around.)
3. Focus on racial theme and fun gameplay (for both players)
I am sorry, but if we were "together" in this with Blizzard, why is there any need for YOUR effort? Unless you feel it necessary to behave like a bootlicker to get any attention from Blizzard of course. The community isnt listened to by Blizzard and the Warhound was a fake unit that they added to "show" that they do. At the speed at which they removed it there can be hardly any doubt ... OR you have to question your own statement from above.
The point is that UNITS arent the problem of SC2, but the general game mechanics are. They make the game NOT FUN if you simply want to play it for fun. They make the game more about macroing well instead of using your units well (= playing skill). Builds can be copied by everyone, but playing skill has to be learned and the game should be about skill instead of preparation.
Actually UNITS are part of the problem ... all of them which have gotten "bonus damage", because that means they suck against the rest of the units. Best example is the Thor, which *should be* the anti-air defense for mech, but only works somewhat decently against Mutalisks ... if the Zerg never learned to magic-box. So a replacement would be necessary ... in the form of the Goliath and saying "no classic units" is stupid, because there are only so many ways to design units. What is "classic" btw? Why not BW? Units with "bonus" damage are limited in their efficiency and abuseable by an enemy. Thus they need to add more units which do the same - like a mech anti-air with bonus damage against armored - and that makes the game too complicated, when one reason of its success [well that of BW] was the rather limited number of units ... and its simplicity.
So my suggestions for you are:
- remove production speed boosts
- remove the MULE
- limit the number of units selected to 12
- force units to spread out while moving
- make units clumpable through micro
- rebalance AoE damage and area to account for spread units
- minimize the impact of bonus damage
"New units" wont truly fix the game, because the game is not in a good state to begin with. Fix that first and then you can begin to add new stuff again. Think about
"How are players supposed to micro?" or
"Is it a good idea to have the defending player micro when faced with Banelings?" or
"Are bigger battles really better battles?" or
"What makes the game fun for a casual?" (hint: winning isnt everything as BGH clearly shows!)
In other words: Think about the BASICS first, because if you start with false premises your result will be false.
|
One final piece of advice:
If you havent played BW .... PLAY IT ... for some time, because otherwise you dont understand what makes the game different from SC2 and in some cases better.
|
On November 21 2012 07:03 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
Some ground rules:
1. Be polite to us, the community, and Blizzard, we are all in this together!
2. No Classic units. (Spin offs, and re imaginings are fine and dandy, Blizzard will not remake classic units verbatim this time around.)
3. Focus on racial theme and fun gameplay (for both players)
I applaud the effort here, but it wasn't the community that united and changed how Riot balanced the game. Riot was open to the community from the get-go, and even though I think SC2 is a much better game at the moment, I cringe when I play HOTS and I am very excited for Season 3 LOL. Blizzard isn't open to the community relative to Riot at all.
Blizzard has burned so many bridges with the community. How long did people complain about ramp blocking versus Zerg and close spawns? It got so bad that tournaments created their own maps, as they realized the imbalanced. Yet ramp blocking and close spawns continues to happen on the WOL ladder today, and Blizzard balances the game based on this data... it just doesn't make sense.
People don't want SC2 to be like Broodwar in anyway except we want SC2 to be a good game because BW was a good game. But I'm not sure SC2 is as good as Broodwar, and that calls into question your statement about Dustin Browder being a good game designer (heck, he recently said he doesn't think Immortal Sentry all-in being too strong, during the WCS... and look how that turned out...). He had a template on how to make a good game, and he didn't follow it. And the end result is that we have a game that isn't as good. He needs to take responsibility and accept blame for that.
Let's call a spade a spade here, and lay the blame where it belongs. SC2 has a history. Look at it, and make a judgement. When companies are mismanaged and not listening to it's customers people need to stand up and say "What the hell is going on here?" and things need to change.
Going back and trying to talk to Blizzard again isn't going to work, it has been tried over and over again. The problem isn't the community.
At this point, I am pretty sure the only solution is that heads need to roll at Blizzard. SC2 needs a new design team. And I'm not saying this to be rude, I am saying this because every time the community has tried to work with Blizzard, changes have moved at a glacial pace, if at all. We've gone through three UI's in SC2 history, and none of them are very good (the latest in HOTS lacks a clock...) and none of them have addressed the problems with custom games.
We've talked a lot about this in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383247
I hope what you're trying works, I really do. But you can't change how the Blizzard team operates regarding their openness to the community.
But maybe we can change who makes up that team.
|
I like the idea. One point in regards to a classic and unchanged sport like baseball. This isn't actually accurate. Baseball has gone through many changes over the years. Contrast the dead ball era of baseball with the live ball era. It's actually fascinating. Baseball has gone through many "balance patches" if you will, over the years.
|
On November 21 2012 07:03 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
What the Community can do.
First, we need to show consistent interest in exploring changes to unit and race design. We need to show Blizzard we want to see changes discussed and tested, not just during one of the two remaining betas, but week after week, and seeing the results of our efforts foster a better Starcraft. This means, making custom maps and testing things out and sending that data to blizzard, saying “hey, we think this will make for an even better Starcraft experience, you should try this out!” Blizzard has looked at things as fundamental as unit pathing, they can sure as heck test out tier 1.5 hydras, or a difference in Warp Gate implementation.
Second, we must learn from the past, not implement it. Brood War was fantastic; it was a big part of my adolescence, and it showed us that Esports could dominate a CULTURE. It holds a place in history and rightly so, many, many good things came from BW: design, readability, gameplay. The question is, why imitate Brood War when we can do better? If the fanbase can collaborate with Blizzard, Starcraft 2 could easily meet, or even surpass Brood War in design and gameplay. To do so, we need to be open to each other, respectful, organized, and most importantly, we must set aside our sacred cows, our assumptions that Brood War was some unreachable miracle of design our comfort with WoL’s second fiddle in the Esports scene. No, we must push every day to make this game better as a community, with common understandings of what makes good design, what can be good design, and what is to be avoided.
Third, not take a few pixels too seriously.
P.S. If Broodwar was a big part of your adolescence I feel sorry for you. Better luck in the future!
|
Let us not degrade this thread. The man has given his email address (onevoicemod@gmail.com) where changes can be discussed, reasoned, and agreed upon unanimously. The unanimity can only be achieved with good reasoning and brainstorming. Those who do not wish to participate may refrain from expressing disparagement.
|
speaking from a personal point of view, i don't think splitting of the community is the problem, it simply is that the actual game is not as fun as people make it to be. Even though at least half my games on League of Legends are bad (Feeder, Trolls, Leaver, Flamer, you name it), I still enjoy starting a new game, the selection of champions, the early game laning phase, the unfolding of strategies, comebacks that no one would have believed coming true, playing in a team and helping each other out.
Whereas when I decide to try SC2 again, it is lonely, I have only 3 Races to play (not 100+ Champions with even more variety when you include that 10 people pick one of 100+ champions), and the actual game takes a toll on me. It is not that winning would not feel good and strategy and macro/micro would not be rewarded, it is that losing feels THAT bad. I do not feel like i lost because of a stupid misclick, a misread, not enough scouting, it always feels like I lose because the game wants me to lose. Fungal, FF, Colossi, Archon Toilet, Siege Tanks + Planetary Fortress, Concussive shells, Stim - I feel helpless and denied hard when facing those abilities. Thus i rather play LoL.
|
I wonder. Can the mod be implemented in way that addresses the feeling the above poster is describing?
My share: Hard counter should not exist. They take away the "dynamic" feel of the gameplay. One example can be: "You build collosus; I build Corruptors/Viking". Another: "You build tanks/roaches; I build immortals". This is not at all dynamic.
|
On November 26 2012 09:37 Unshapely wrote:
I wonder. Can the mod be implemented in way that addresses the feeling the above poster is describing?
My share: Hard counter should not exist. They take away the "dynamic" feel of the gameplay. One example can be: "You build collosus; I build Corruptors/Viking". Another: "You build tanks/roaches; I build immortals". This is not at all dynamic.
We have been working on addressing the concerns he has listed above. Fungal is being nerfed, FF has been nerfed, Colossi are being retooled, Archon Toilets will be no more, Siege Tanks + Planetaries will have more counterplay, Conc Shells are out... But for everything removed or retooled, something else has been or will be worked in that is both fun to use and fun to counter (so don't fret if you are a zerg player when you see that fungal doesn't stun, or if you're a protoss player and see that colossi are slightly harder to use.
Similarly, we are working on making the counter system less "unit counters", and more "strategy counters". Against mech, harass a little bit more and jump around. Against colossi, micro your way around the beams, or force a retreat.
Of course, this is still considered an alpha version of the build, since not all of what we were intending was implemented. If you find any issues with something that is too easy to counter, or too difficult to hold out against, email us your concern and an appropriate replay at onevoicemod@gmail.com.
|
On November 25 2012 19:25 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 15:09 decemberscalm wrote:
How far reaching of a change is this trying to promote?
Does it go anywhere close to addressing important parts of design like deathball syndrome, defenders advantage, micro-bility of units?
Does it plan to? Yes, yes, and yes.
Good to hear
Any current plans on those?
I've done a lot of experimentation on those issues.
|
wow, awesome write up. great insight, very intresting.
|
Mmm okay. Old question, but heart warming and optimistic. I support this.
|
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?
|
Honestly, I gave up on SC2 a while ago but if this kind of constructive stuff were going on while I was still a frustrated low-masters Terran I probably would have stuck around longer.
I think that you should change the name of the project though -- it seems that people are TL;DR'ing, getting entirely the wrong idea about what the project is about, and then cluttering the thread with useless dribble when it's clear that it is not the point of this to be an appointed dictatorship on balance, but rather a constructive forum to test/implement everyone's ideas.
|
On November 27 2012 09:41 upperbound wrote:
Honestly, I gave up on SC2 a while ago but if this kind of constructive stuff were going on while I was still a frustrated low-masters Terran I probably would have stuck around longer.
I think that you should change the name of the project though -- it seems that people are TL;DR'ing, getting entirely the wrong idea about what the project is about, and then cluttering the thread with useless dribble when it's clear that it is not the point of this to be an appointed dictatorship on balance, but rather a constructive forum to test/implement everyone's ideas.
I totally agree, the name of the mod is clearly upsetting some people and more importantly, distracting from our goal. We are discussing name changes.
|
United States7805 Posts
Nice idea and thanks for posting OP. It is cool to think about a game the community shapes.
|
Why don't you let the community here decide what the [new] name of the project should be? We'll at least feel a little more involved. It seems that many people have already dubbed you the TL.net designer.
Have you considered making a TL poll or some such thing -- to get everyone's opinion on a more suitable name?
P.S: (This question is really out of place but I've been meaning to ask this - are you of American origin?)
|
I wish Blizzerd would just say something along the lines of " we apriciate what you are doing and when you are done testing some of your changes go ahead and send them to us and weel look at them"
Right now "i" as a pert of the community feel ignored by them. even Morrows post about forcefields has not even got a response by Blizzard. (And if it got one via provate mail etc they are simply dumb. SHOW THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU CARE WHAT WE ARE DOING PLEASE!)
|
I honestly don't think there is a huge problem with the game itself I think its just that RTS games in general are not very mass apealable, I mean think about it BW in korea aside, no RTS has really been a mainstream hit, only SC2 could claim to really have been a success in that way, the tournament scene was bigger than anything before it and more people bought the game and played online than any other RTS. Everyone who claims BW was such a success, it wasn't, only in korea was it huge no one else in the world really cared except a small cult following. SC2 in comparison was a vast success, the issue is that now with LoL being so hugely successful SC2s success is being overshadowed and stifled, but that may just be the way it is. Just remember people even though it seems like things are bad, SC2 was the biggest e-sport of all time and that's a pretty big success in my book.
|
On November 27 2012 18:46 Unshapely wrote:
Why don't you let the community here decide what the [new] name of the project should be? We'll at least feel a little more involved. It seems that many people have already dubbed you the TL.net designer.
Have you considered making a TL poll or some such thing -- to get everyone's opinion on a more suitable name?
P.S: (This question is really out of place but I've been meaning to ask this - are you of American origin?)
We are actually talking about that right now! We will see about getting a poll up and running. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please email us at onevoicemod@gmail.com; we would love to know how we can do better.
I was raised in Montana and I went to college in Washington state. I currently reside in Redmond, WA.
|
I might have missed the point of this thread (?), but I had an idea about the warp gate mechanic.
Or rather, it's my take on other peoples ideas.
One of the problems, is that it eliminates the defenders advantage.
Yet is an interesting and fun mechanic, at least as I see it.
So people have suggested various versions of limiting the warp-in potential of pylons, and implementing distance to nexus and such.
How about:
Pylons within a given range of a nexus, has normal warp-in like they do now (you need that to properly defend). However pylons (and warp prisms?) outside nexus range have a max warp-in, with cooldown.
E.g. a proxy pylon can only warp in 4 units, before it enters a refractory periode. This would still leave the potential for harass, but would make it harder to reinforce, and thus leave at least some defenders advantage.
Obviously you could just make several pylons side by side, but if you have to make, say 4 pylons, it would still take longer, and having clumps of 4 pylons here and there would be costly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bGvms.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gvA2S.jpg)
