|
On May 18 2013 06:51 USvBleakill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:50 SCST wrote: "We want maps to be imbalanced" David Kim 2013... please tell me he's joking No he says Fun>Balance on maps on ladder. And no one forcing tournaments to use them.
Whoa what? He started off his comment by saying "we are talking to all the tournaments about map changes" and then said "we don't think all maps should be balanced" . . .
|
God incontrol shut the hell up and let us listen to what the man has got to say.
|
On May 18 2013 06:53 SCST wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:51 Qikz wrote:On May 18 2013 06:50 SCST wrote: "We want maps to be imbalanced" David Kim 2013... please tell me he's joking I hope he isn't. Every map in WoL played out the exact same. It was awful. Yes, the tournaments are luckily going to fight to the death to avoid this as they at least understand that "not always being fair" is actually a bad idea. Actually, even a child understands that playing a game that is not fair is a bad idea. This is the problem with too much pro feedback. A lot of the time, the interests of fans and spectators do not align with the interest of pro players, and it's really important that Blizzard / tournaments realize this. Of course a player is going to be fine with a map staying in the pool for 1-2+ years at a time, especially if they are good at the map and confident in it's balance.
More frequent map turnover is one of those issues that is hard for most pros to deal with, but is really really important for the spectators.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Tyler: "What're you thinking about...."
David Kim: Are you coming on to me?
|
On May 18 2013 06:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:49 aZealot wrote:On May 18 2013 06:42 flodeskum wrote:On May 18 2013 06:33 aZealot wrote:On May 18 2013 06:29 Exarl25 wrote:On May 18 2013 06:28 a176 wrote:On May 18 2013 06:27 Exarl25 wrote: I actually really liked his justification for the Colossus. I see the unit in a new light now. Imagine PvT if Colossi couldn't be hit by AA. Would Protoss ever make Stalkers? Wouldn't you just keep making Colossi with Zealots to tank? A core unit of your army being vulnerable to a different kind of attack forces you to diversify your unit composition, to take terrain into account when engaging, and to not just blindly mass Colossi because they can be so effectively countered. Or they could just not have colossus in the first place? And have just purely ground vs ground armies? The point of the Colossus is that it forces air and anti-air. Huh, what's wrong with that? Moreover, that's not a sufficient justification for the Colossus. In WOL, Protoss air sucked because Corruptors and Vikings had to be better (either through damage or range) than Protoss air. Don't get me wrong, I think the Colossus is a cool unit. But, it needs to be re-imagined. Lower range, siege mode, less damage, different attack etc. There are many options. While vikings are good I think marines are are far bigger deterrent for protoss air than vikings can ever be. True, but the range of the Viking (which is needed to counter Colossus range) means that no Protoss air unit can have a comparable range (with the exception of the expensive + slow to build Carrier). If they did, they could take out the Vikings; and Protoss could cut the usually ineffectual Stalker, and build ground armies purely out Colossus/Zealot etc. The Colossus is an interesting unit, but it's current incarnation leaves a lot more to be desired, I think. Tempests?
The wannabe Carrier? ;-)
I can't recall the stats, but isn't the Tempest a dedicated anti-Massive unit? It does little damage to anything else. You may be right, though. In time, Protoss may add Tempests to the traditional Colossus based deathball. You'd need to be on 3+ bases though to make it work. I doubt if it will be feasible as a staple of future PvT play (similar to another late tech, the Carrier).
Hahaha, Geoff trolling DK a little with the Bunker. DK not giving a shit.
|
On May 18 2013 06:55 geno wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:53 SCST wrote:On May 18 2013 06:51 Qikz wrote:On May 18 2013 06:50 SCST wrote: "We want maps to be imbalanced" David Kim 2013... please tell me he's joking I hope he isn't. Every map in WoL played out the exact same. It was awful. Yes, the tournaments are luckily going to fight to the death to avoid this as they at least understand that "not always being fair" is actually a bad idea. Actually, even a child understands that playing a game that is not fair is a bad idea. This is the problem with too much pro feedback. A lot of the time, the interests of fans and spectators do not align with the interest of pro players, and it's really important that Blizzard / tournaments realize this. Of course a player is going to be fine with a map staying in the pool for 1-2+ years at a time, especially if they are good at the map and confident in it's balance. More frequent map turnover is one of those issues that is hard for most pros to deal with, but is really really important for the spectators.
I think that fans will will hate/complain/whine constantly if pros are playing on unfair maps. I can't even imagine.
Kim must not have meant this - I must be misinterpreting what he said when he stated "we are working with tournaments . . . we think fun is more important than balance"
|
Indeed, putting his neck on the line by going on a show like this is an awesome step. Gj!
|
|
United States5162 Posts
On May 18 2013 06:57 SCST wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:55 geno wrote:On May 18 2013 06:53 SCST wrote:On May 18 2013 06:51 Qikz wrote:On May 18 2013 06:50 SCST wrote: "We want maps to be imbalanced" David Kim 2013... please tell me he's joking I hope he isn't. Every map in WoL played out the exact same. It was awful. Yes, the tournaments are luckily going to fight to the death to avoid this as they at least understand that "not always being fair" is actually a bad idea. Actually, even a child understands that playing a game that is not fair is a bad idea. This is the problem with too much pro feedback. A lot of the time, the interests of fans and spectators do not align with the interest of pro players, and it's really important that Blizzard / tournaments realize this. Of course a player is going to be fine with a map staying in the pool for 1-2+ years at a time, especially if they are good at the map and confident in it's balance. More frequent map turnover is one of those issues that is hard for most pros to deal with, but is really really important for the spectators. I think that fans will will hate/complain/whine constantly if pros are playing on unfair maps. I can't even imagine. Kim must not have meant this - I must be misinterpreting what he said when he stated "we are working with tournaments . . . we think fun is more important than balance" Look at BW Proleague. Constant new maps with constant changes made to those maps to fix slight imbalances made it far more interesting imo.
|
On May 18 2013 06:58 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:53 SCST wrote:On May 18 2013 06:51 USvBleakill wrote:On May 18 2013 06:50 SCST wrote: "We want maps to be imbalanced" David Kim 2013... please tell me he's joking No he says Fun>Balance on maps on ladder. And no one forcing tournaments to use them. Whoa what? He started off his comment by saying "we are talking to all the tournaments about map changes" and then said "we don't think all maps should be balanced" . . . If a map is imbalanced then it will get vetoed by players, or teams will only send out players who are good on it in team leagues (which adds a level to "sniper" strategies and the like). As long as there are some standard maps, it is okay to have some zany maps alongside them.
I think this is a bad precedent. What if we end up with over 50% zany maps? What if some can't be veto'd? I agree it should be ok to have some fun maps on ladder. . . getting tournaments to play those maps, that's the scary part of what Kim seemed to be implying.
I honestly don't think the spectator community has any problems with the relatively balanced tournament maps? I haven't heard a single complain about the current map pool in LR threads, stream chats, anywhere.
|
Cool episode. GM level dodge on that weakest race question. Loved it.
|
On May 18 2013 06:57 SCST wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:55 geno wrote:On May 18 2013 06:53 SCST wrote:On May 18 2013 06:51 Qikz wrote:On May 18 2013 06:50 SCST wrote: "We want maps to be imbalanced" David Kim 2013... please tell me he's joking I hope he isn't. Every map in WoL played out the exact same. It was awful. Yes, the tournaments are luckily going to fight to the death to avoid this as they at least understand that "not always being fair" is actually a bad idea. Actually, even a child understands that playing a game that is not fair is a bad idea. This is the problem with too much pro feedback. A lot of the time, the interests of fans and spectators do not align with the interest of pro players, and it's really important that Blizzard / tournaments realize this. Of course a player is going to be fine with a map staying in the pool for 1-2+ years at a time, especially if they are good at the map and confident in it's balance. More frequent map turnover is one of those issues that is hard for most pros to deal with, but is really really important for the spectators. I think that fans will will hate/complain/whine constantly if pros are playing on unfair maps. I can't even imagine. Kim must not have meant this - I must be misinterpreting what he said when he stated "we are working with tournaments . . . we think fun is more important than balance"
You just aren't comprehending the nuances of what he means when he is talking about map balance. A map may seem unfair for a race at first but they will adapt and figure out how to play on it. Did you listen to his Daybreak example? We had the problem in WoL where the "balanced" maps were selected and nothing but those maps were ever used again. No tournament would take the risk of introducing a new map because it may not be "balanced". We need fresh maps, we need to encourage innovation, we need to combat stagnancy. We have the example of BW to follow and the example of WoL to avoid.
|
On May 18 2013 06:57 SCST wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:55 geno wrote:On May 18 2013 06:53 SCST wrote:On May 18 2013 06:51 Qikz wrote:On May 18 2013 06:50 SCST wrote: "We want maps to be imbalanced" David Kim 2013... please tell me he's joking I hope he isn't. Every map in WoL played out the exact same. It was awful. Yes, the tournaments are luckily going to fight to the death to avoid this as they at least understand that "not always being fair" is actually a bad idea. Actually, even a child understands that playing a game that is not fair is a bad idea. This is the problem with too much pro feedback. A lot of the time, the interests of fans and spectators do not align with the interest of pro players, and it's really important that Blizzard / tournaments realize this. Of course a player is going to be fine with a map staying in the pool for 1-2+ years at a time, especially if they are good at the map and confident in it's balance. More frequent map turnover is one of those issues that is hard for most pros to deal with, but is really really important for the spectators. I think that fans will will hate/complain/whine constantly if pros are playing on unfair maps. I can't even imagine. Kim must not have meant this - I must be misinterpreting what he said when he stated "we are working with tournaments . . . we think fun is more important than balance" He's not talking about throwing 80/20 balanced maps into all the map pools. He's just saying, don't focus too much on balance at the cost of fun. It's the same thing with the design of the game, too. As someone else above mentioned, it's much MUCH more difficult to make a balanced game fun and exciting to watch than it is to make a fun game balanced.
And for reference, if you look at BW, this was pretty much entirely how the scene was run in the korean scene. Players were forced to learn new maps every season or individual league, many of the maps being out-there and innovative. Some of them didn't work out and would need to be recalled for being too imbalanced, but it was worth it to get the ones that ended up better than expected and produced really exciting games. It also forced the metagame to change and react a lot quicker than it otherwise would.
|
On May 18 2013 07:00 dcsoda wrote: Cool episode. GM level dodge on that weakest race question. Loved it. He probably did that to see Geoff's reaction. Sly bastard. <3 Good show, albeit a little short one.
|
Why did they end the show as WCS ends? >.> They should start it when WCS ends.
|
So 1 hour of political correct talking and 98% answers with press release character.
But at least Incontrol saves it with a different opinion on some things and the quick questions. And that weakest race dodge was Code S level interviewing skill
|
I'm normally pretty positive about sotg but I feel like this show was a blunder. Having 3 protoss players ask david kim softball questions for an hour just seems like a waste. And they literally didn't press him on his dodges at all.
Ling/bane takes more micro than scourge/muta in bw? Really david kim? Really?
They did a decent job of asking racially diverse questions at the start but most of them were like "why does the colossus get hit by anti-air" "why don't pheonixes have the ability to clear a mineral line like hellbat drops" "why are swarmhosts so good"
Really, really weak. I hope David Kim does more community talks like that, but hopefully next time people don't go full racebabby and pull punches.
|
Going to be a lot of dumb comments here nit picking DK's words.
|
It's like people chose to deliberately misunderstand. Everything Kim said makes a lot of sense if you think about it from a designers and lead-balancer point of view.
What he means with map-imbalance is that they are fine with certain strategies being more viable or stronger on certain maps than on others because it leads to variety. He does not want people to play the same strategy regardless of map. If people always play the same strat no matter what map then why even have different maps? Figuring out what is strong for specific maps is what makes it fun. Of course he didnt mean he wants a map to be 70% Zerg favored for more fun...
|
Great show: it was good to see Geoff and Tyler putting some hard questions to David Kim. Having said that, I think David Kim came across very well in the discussion. There's always going to be some disagreement with Blizzard's approach to balance/design but all his statements were reasonable and well expressed.
Thanks for the show JP.
|
|
|
|