|
Why do I think that everytime I hear Dustin Browder talk that he has the game-understanding of a Bronze-player?
- Why does he think if the stats show 50% win-rates that the game is balanced, although he seems worried about "balance" in PvP?
- How can he not see that there are Units/Abilities that are almost never used, like Carriers, Hunter Seeker Missile?
- How can he not acknoledge that early-game rushes like 2-rax-openings and Bunker/Pylon Wall-in's are ridiculously strong and can easily win a Terran/Protoss a game without any trouble of going into a macro-game if the rush fails?
- How can he not see that the small Blizzard-Maps are absolutely horrible?
I'm just disapponted everytime I hear Dustin Browder talk - IMHO, he has absolutely no clue about and doesn't care much for the highly competetive scene at all....
|
On June 09 2011 21:35 kickinhead wrote:
Why do I think that everytime I hear Dustin Browder talk that he has the game-understanding of a Bronze-player?
- Why does he think if the stats show 50% win-rates that the game is balanced, although he seems worried about "balance" in PvP?
- How can he not see that there are Units/Abilities that are almost never used, like Carriers, Hunter Seeker Missile?
- How can he not acknoledge that early-game rushes like 2-rax-openings and Bunker/Pylon Wall-in's are ridiculously strong and can easily win a Terran/Protoss a game without any trouble of going into a macro-game if the rush fails?
- How can he not see that the small Blizzard-Maps are absolutely horrible?
I'm just disapponted everytime I hear Dustin Browder talk - IMHO, he has absolutely no clue about and doesn't care much for the highly competetive scene at all....
I can agree that Dustin doesn't sound like he has in depth knowledge of balance. However it is naive to assume that he only speaks for himself. Behind him there is a team of devs/designers and David Kim.
And even if he sounds like he has no clue I think that's just because he doesn't explain very well. The whole "we think it's balanced" is definetely the sum of an internal discussion. Dustin is just the guy taking the heat.
But i agree he doesn't come off as very good. I'd rather have David Kim speaking who is least to say high level player and playing random has very good knowledge of balance.
|
I'm thinking new terrain mechanics will include "damage zones" like lava, fire, or falling rocks, or even ground units being slowed by water or ice.
|
What are the Chinese on about when they said rushes are too strong? I felt like it was a miss translation and they meant timing attacks were too powerful.
|
On June 09 2011 08:15 zobz wrote:
If the Blizzard team are so concerned about making maps that are balanced for each seperate skill level, why don't they just have a different map pool for each ladder league? This would even give the opportunity for master/grandmaster players to practice and get ranked for their play on real tournament maps, as well as have lots of fun maps and extra simplified maps for newbie players.
In fact, why don't they just let players choose what league to play in? This would really minimize the whole smurfing thing without having to run the ladder like a communist regime. Of course there would still be some fools who purposely play at lower leagues for the sake of noob bashing, but isn't that sort of expected anyway? It would just be so much nicer if there was more choice involved in the ladder, especially in name choosing. (This coming from someone who has only played some SC2 long ago at a friend's house.)
Perhaps you could even be given the choice between a strictly managed ladder and an alternative free ladder. Surely some would choose the latter. Choice just seems to be very low on Blizzard's priority list in general for some reason.
I like this. If they could do 2 different ladders, one competitive ladder where you chose to play if you want to play the gamer more competitive and train on competitive maps and one where casual players who don't really care about improving and just play for fun a few games a week on noob friendly maps.
Ofc the competitive ladder would need some kind of skill measuring so bronze-diamond level players doesn't face a grandmaster player because that gap is probably too high for both players to gain something out of it. So a ranking system to measure skill like iCCup's D to A would be cool, imo.
|
On June 09 2011 21:42 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 21:35 kickinhead wrote:
Why do I think that everytime I hear Dustin Browder talk that he has the game-understanding of a Bronze-player?
- Why does he think if the stats show 50% win-rates that the game is balanced, although he seems worried about "balance" in PvP?
- How can he not see that there are Units/Abilities that are almost never used, like Carriers, Hunter Seeker Missile?
- How can he not acknoledge that early-game rushes like 2-rax-openings and Bunker/Pylon Wall-in's are ridiculously strong and can easily win a Terran/Protoss a game without any trouble of going into a macro-game if the rush fails?
- How can he not see that the small Blizzard-Maps are absolutely horrible?
I'm just disapponted everytime I hear Dustin Browder talk - IMHO, he has absolutely no clue about and doesn't care much for the highly competetive scene at all.... I can agree that Dustin doesn't sound like he has in depth knowledge of balance. However it is naive to assume that he only speaks for himself. Behind him there is a team of devs/designers and David Kim. And even if he sounds like he has no clue I think that's just because he doesn't explain very well. The whole "we think it's balanced" is definetely the sum of an internal discussion. Dustin is just the guy taking the heat. But i agree he doesn't come off as very good. I'd rather have David Kim speaking who is least to say high level player and playing random has very good knowledge of balance.
But how can they say it's balanced when it's clearly not?
Even if we see a pretty even win-loss-stat for each MU, you simply just can't deny that there are Units/Abilities or Maps almost never used in competetive play, just because they're bad!
And don't get me started about stuff like scouting... Okay, Zerg can guess what the Terran will do in the first 5-10 Minutes of the game and if he guesses right, he has a decent chance to win which could lead to an even win-loss-distribution, but is that really balance?
Or stuff like the before mentioned rushes/allin's and cheeses, that are way too good and if you don't send in all your workers have nearly no drawback even without doing much dmg?
Or the fact that Zerg cannot be aggressive against Terran early on if they wall-in properly! Even baneling-busts only work if the Terran has a wall-in with "weak" buildings, if every Terran would wall-in with big structures, not even baneling-busts would be an appropriate aggressive reaction to sth. the Terran is doing.... -.-°
|
I think it would really help your arguement (those who are argueing so) if you can provide statistical evidence of a 50% rush rate. Hearsay is hearsay.
|
On June 09 2011 22:49 Archerofaiur wrote:
I think it would really help your arguement (those who are argueing so) if you can provide statistical evidence of a 50% rush rate. Hearsay is hearsay.
Statistical evidence is sometimes as good as hearsay. For example, unless Blizzard watches each and every game, statistical evidence doesn't show much. He talked to 17 pro gamers, and that is they opinion as well. I'm sure Sen has a lot of in depth discussions with people.
Lets think about it this way, if lets say you play 10 games, and the first five, it's the same rush tactic, but you fight them off biligerently because the players don't know what to do after the rush tactic. The next five game is another same rush tactic and you're just pissed and throw those games because thos players know what to do. Statistically you have a 50% win loss ratio but none of that statistic show the actual rush issue. It tells you nothing really. I've seen Terrans get into masters league with just the 3-4 rax build over and over. It's quite ridiculous.
If 17 top players are complaining about this strategy, especially coming from one of the top players, it's pretty clear there is some problem.
The problem isn't that Starcraft 2 isn't balanced, no game should design purely for balance. It's that Starcraft 2's inherent game design is poor.
Spells are simply hacked into the game, problem with early Protoss? Make a spell called Force Field to stop early aggression completely with a click. Concussive shell and fungal are again, poor game design ideas. They completely shut down the back and forth nature of the game.
Sen brings up some serious points that they seem to fail to see the overall big picture. The ironic that Sen, speaking Chinese, sounds about 200x wiser than the guy "in charge" of Starcraft 2 design. Even the way Sen talks in Chinese speaks volumes compared to the child like manner in which Dustin Browder talks.
To Dustin, SC2 is probably just another game and that his piss poor ideas are having a hard time getting into because he's realizing SC2 is actually a much harder game to design for.
I can't even believe Dustin defended the ball problem. It makes micro harder? No buddy, it makes micro impossible and it makes a-move ridiculously dumb.
|
On June 09 2011 22:37 kickinhead wrote:
Even if we see a pretty even win-loss-stat for each MU, you simply just can't deny that there are Units/Abilities or Maps almost never used in competetive play, just because they're bad!
That has nothing to do with balance.
Or stuff like the before mentioned rushes/allin's and cheeses, that are way too good and if you don't send in all your workers have nearly no drawback even without doing much dmg?
Skill required to defend vs execute attacks is not a balance issue, it's a game design issue. It only becomes a balance issue if a perfectly executed attack simply cannot be defended.
Or the fact that Zerg cannot be aggressive against Terran early on if they wall-in properly! Even baneling-busts only work if the Terran has a wall-in with "weak" buildings, if every Terran would wall-in with big structures, not even baneling-busts would be an appropriate aggressive reaction to sth. the Terran is doing.... -.-°
Now you're just whining.
|
Hate the comments on any comparison to Brood War. I mean he even says go watch Brood War if you don't like SC2... how dense. It's fucking STARCRAFT 2.
"Short rush distances so players can learn the game" -- I think they should've just opened a shop if they wanted to sample cheese.
They should really let someone with a clue answer interview questions.
|
On June 09 2011 23:18 xsevR wrote:
Hate the comments on any comparison to Brood War. I mean he even says go watch Brood War if you don't like SC2... how dense. It's fucking STARCRAFT 2.
"Short rush distances so players can learn the game" -- I think they should've just opened a shop if they wanted to sample cheese.
They should really let someone with a clue answer interview questions.
Saying go watch Brood War is just as dense. They are comparing the game design in brood war to the game design in SC2. Then again comments like "this isn't brood war" is just stupid and coming from Blizzard, it's dumb.
It's like saying Counter strike: Source isn't like counter strike 1. So? There are parts that are way better in CS1 and not a lot of things that are better in CS:S, why is that?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2011 16:18 skipgamer wrote:
Browder is the "face" of starcraft 2 at blizzard. I'm almost certain his role is more management than actually designing. A lead of any creative or technical group rarely does much actual "work", they more-so mediate between the different groups of the development... That being said I'm sure some feedback does pass through him, but I would be highly surprised if he had the "final say" on any issue, let alone balance.
So, cut the rage... Good luck finding a video of similar effect to this from any other major game developer.
<3 Blizzard
Great vid.
edit: just to make it more clear so I don't come off sounding like some "blizzard can do no wrong" fan boy, I genuinely believe Browder was being honest in his answers, and he raised a LOT of good points. When he disagreed with the power of rushes he said he would discuss it more (which is essentially his job, as a mediator.) When they complained about how its harder to watch, it was a good point that the pathing is much better and this naturally leads to more clumping. When they complained about it not being as good as BW, he pretty much flatout said BW is still there if you prefer it...
Most of this thread is complaining about sc2 not being BW... and he has no problem with that. Take it or leave it.
I dont think what most want is a rehash of BW but rather they want to be ensured that the longevity of BW is passed on to SC2. Nobody in this site wants SC2 to fail but rather to not be a fad game like so many games produced today are. BW has been around for over 10+years so certain aspects that allowed it such staying power should be considered and not brushed aside.
|
Its not blizzards fault if players don't use units or abilitys. All of them can be used and instead of yelling at blizzard to fix them you should go and learn how to use them.
|
I hate that most people just want "bigger maps" to prevent rushes. Instead of wanting balance they just want forced macro games.
I really see no problem with a mixed map pool, consisting of both long and short rush distance maps. God forbid players need to know how to play both a short and long term game.
Personally i find it exciting to have games on both ends of the spectrum as opposed to the monotony of only a single play style.
|
On June 10 2011 00:49 Kanuck wrote:
I hate that most people just want "bigger maps" to prevent rushes. Instead of wanting balance they just want forced macro games.
I really see no problem with a mixed map pool, consisting of both long and short rush distance maps. God forbid players need to know how to play both a short and long term game.
Personally i find it exciting to have games on both ends of the spectrum as opposed to the monotony of only a single play style.
hmm, i am on the opposite side of that coin. Rushes do retain the majority of their potency when maps grow bigger, scouts will have to be sent earlier.
Heavy cheese would have more risk added to it and thats GOOD. You can 6 pool and two rax or do whatever you feel like doing on any map because the standard when playing larger maps just increase in their greedy approach at a macro game.
2 rax that would ordinary be unpunishable might have to become proxy 2rax to survive AND THIS IS GOOD because now the terran is at risk for doing early agression, he has to invest more money and time rather than have 2 raxes in your own base chilling and producing marines that could POTENTIALLY END THE GAME FOR ZERG.
The only pet peve i have is that if maps grow beyond the size of testbug is that some of the units seem to be designed with a certain map size in mind.
This is evident when you look at army size when maxed. Atleast it is funny to look at. Starcraft that is a more swarm based economy rts yet once tier 3 kicks in the game has almost wc3 like army numbers (exeptions being zerglings, banelings and marines).
|
The definition of "rush" needs to be more clearly defined. What is a rush and when is it good and when is it bad for the game. Are timing attacks rushes? Sen was probably referring to a lot of timing attacks including 1 base all-ins.
I think that the early rushes (before 5 mins) should be nerfed. All three of these strategies are very effective and can be easily transitioned out of:
cannon rush/block vs Z
2 rax vs Z
6 pool vs P
All of those strategies should be nerfed in my opinion.
Early timing attacks (after 5 mins) should be preserved and left in the game.
These include:
4 gate
3 rax vs P
DT rushes
9 pool speedlings
|
Wow Sen has his own personal translator, thats baller
|
Good interview I wish they would have talked about maybe fixes or improvements to the map editor and maybe see more custom games coming out.
|
On June 09 2011 07:49 NB wrote:sum up for people lazy of loading the video: Show nested quote +
how do you balance the game:
we use pro feedbacks, forums, and stat
Balance process: we have to make sure the balance problem is real, then the balance design team will suggest a fix, if the suggestion solve the problem (should be through test sever), we will apply it to the game
Stat are garther accross bnet and tournament around the world. Currently winrate of all match up are close to 50% so we are satisfied. There is no obvious problem but we are ready to deal with anything pop up. The only recent change is to the 4 gate nerf in PvP to create more play styles. Early indication show that it was a successful patch.
Sen asked: close spawn on maps are zerg imba, is ther solution?
we will fix it in the "next season"(?) with half of the current ladder map will be replaced.
Zerg too passive due to design?
there is no way for us to know how pros playing the game. there are cases pros fixed things b4 the patch came out. There will be no big change coming out, at least not until HoTS came out.
If we find a race is broken, we will most likely to fix it in HoTS. The chance of it being fixed in wings is really small.
Ladder maps are for all players so we intentionally have rush maps in ladder pool. So people in lower league can learn the game. We aware that this will cause pros wont have as much fun on ladder as casual gamers but we have confident that the community wont use the maps that dont work for them in tournaments play.
a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
but the rush are stronger than BW
we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
(i cant really hear the question here, the woman speak in low voice =_=) something about HoTS
we dont know yet, we are trying to make something that is worthy with this name and to last many years to come...
(they tried some kinda trick questions to make dustin reveal new units in HoTS multi)
no we have no idea, we had some horrible stupid units in the pass like the Soul Hunter for example. We still discussing about it.
do you have a timetable to anounce new units?
we dont know yet, we will when we have a good idea. "its done when its done"
it is confirmed that we will have new units in multi players.
yes
are they being added or replace
we dont know yet
beside new units whats gona change in multi players
dont know, sorry
are you know but you are just avoiding?
no, im truely dont know. i have some personal idea but my team could think its stupid. We will reveal it in blizzcon.
about starcraft 2 dota...
you mean blizzard dota
yes, people asking when is it gona be releash
we are wasting time, when its ready!
is there anything speacial about this map u wana talk about?
its gona be awesome. we are working on the shops. we are recreating the heros completely new from last blizzcon. new systems, new features, new gameplay.
we are hoping a game will be 20-30 minutes long compare to normal dota 30-45 minutes so that you can play more games.
all heros from last year has changed?
yes
will you borrow stuff from war3 to dota?
no,we are trying to design something new completely. the inventory and shop system still there but will be different. We dont know yet but we still working on it.
will there a cross region feature for GM in different sever?
our current technology does not allow us to do that just yet. We will look into it but unlikely.
do you think sc2 is harder to watch compare to BW? unit clumps and AoE spell... (they tried to link this to balance design)
unit clums means not "horrible pathing". For mordern RTS we NEED good pathing and we think its the future. Its is true that its harder to see if unit clumps but we are trying our best to solve that with the UI. About the AoE, i feel like it makes the battle much more fun to watch (micro challenging). If you dont think Sc2 is a good game to watch, BW is still out there and a lots of people still watch it. SC2 is a different game and different people. Please go back to BW if you think sc2 is not suited for you.
for different players skill are different. in sc2 every units DPS are higher than BW. this make battle happen too fast for lower league. Why dont we adjust the game according to player players?
We thought about this but its better to learn the game from the beginning. The exp could be accumulated over time. If you need to learn something, we want you to learn the game as what it is.
more newer player we have added stuff to help them in the single players as well as practice league. We tried to relies mostly on tool to help people improve quickly in lower league.
Some question about the percentage of zerg workers (drone) compare to BW... calculation
no, its just what player doing and its not intentional design. infact we expect that question when we decided we will have 2 gas geyser instead of 1 but it turns out ok...
picture taking, hand shaking etc...
edit: im on part 3/4 right now.... gona watch live on three and comeback edit2: done!
Hi, TLers, Comet from wfbrood.com(China)
I have translated this into Chinese and posted on www.wfbrood.com
I have clearly stated that the article was taken from here and I will bring the feedbacks to here
Here is the link(it is in traditional Chinese, not simplified):http://bbs.wfbrood.com/thread-28192-1-1.html
thanks~
|
On June 09 2011 10:38 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 09:55 Ksyper wrote:
In BW workers mined 8 minerals per trip, in SC2 they mine 5 minerals per trip, how did blizzard not anticipate that that would bloat the worker numbers, wtb 250 supply! The income is the same, SC2 workers just mine faster. This is bad though because it flattens the income curve, so taking extra bases doesn't increase income until saturation. It's not really improved worker AI as such, its more to do with the fact that workers will return as soon as a worker arrives. Try lengthening the mining time and workers will start to glitch out. The longer workers stay at a patch the more powerful expanding becomes, because now the amount of patches you have also becomes a resource. There is a problem with double gas though. For a race like Zerg which is gas bound rather than mineral bound, it wastes a lot of supply mining gas.
Would you call protoss a mineral bound race?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
