EPT
Blizzard: Out of touch? - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Lokian
United States699 Posts
Make controlling harder, remove easy macro... Basically make everything retarded so that pros can gain meaningless 'skills' that seperates them from players that can't handle high APM and precision. This will definitely give the koreans the advantage since everyone else won't spend days memorizing keystrokes and crap. You know what that is... it's like playing an instrument. And maybe 20% game. BW... is like a full blown orchestral piece now. Well, look. Games should have less to do with non-gaming 'skills' and more with decisions like chess. This is why a lot of top players lose, since its basically whoever outsmarts the other, or get lucky. And sc2 complexity is not comparable to chess since there's too much room for mistakes | ||
|
Jaeger
United States1150 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On June 12 2011 15:05 Dommk wrote: They introduced Slag pits because in actual fact, people who played ladder liked those kinds of maps. Tal'Darin is currently the 8th least down voted map (Bottom 3). They wanted a mix of maps I don't what moving shot has to do with anything, you can easily look at some change and act as if there was a big player uproar, in the same vain, the Roach range buff to 4 range received a huge uproar--pro players were saying it was a bad change, some good Zergs saying it should have been 3.5 Range instead of 4range...6months later the unit isn't that amazing. And how much insight do you actually have in development? Unless you've seen first hand how they communicate with players, I don't think you should be making outlandish statements Explain shattered temple and xel naga caverns being the top 1v1 maps on multiplayer custom? If you look at many of the TL articles that arose in BETA looking for change, then look at the changes that were made due to those articles. You would see that the problem domain addressed by Blizzard and the solution created, was not what the article was looking for. For example moving shot (please read the article). It did not ask for phoenix's to shoot while moving (without even needing to attack), it asked for more micro-ability such as moving shot for all air-units. E.g mutalisk, phoenix, viking, etc. I feel its something Blizzard needs to improve in. | ||
|
DeltruS
Canada2214 Posts
Or at least I hope they are. | ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
Secondly, just because a map is a large map or "macro favored" (what Blizzard calls macro favored, I actually call standard), does not mean that all-in/aggressive strats cannot be used. They'll be less effective, but the ultimate goal of the map pool should be to have maps where all styles of play can be utilized, not individual maps where a single style should be used. And, I posted this up before, but I'll post it again: In BW, there is this unit called a hydralisk. It has 2 upgrades, one for range, and one for speed. It has no extra functions, except for morphing into a lurker. It is cheap to produce and easy to mass. It is, in a sense, the perfect A-move unit. It is used in the staple of ZvP. However, you NEVER A-Move this unit. Protoss had Psi Storm and Reavers. You have to storm dodge to get the most out of your hydralisks, and have to scourge the shuttles/move hydras out of the way to not lose your army. An A-Move unit ceases to be an A-move unit as soon as it becomes necessary to micro them. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
Hell, I'd even say they are doing a hell of a job by having their devs play the game to see how they feel whereas not many developers would do that. Also this is a key answer that you seem to have interpreted badly IMO: Dustin Browder: 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) They provides us the tool(game) for us to do as we please. Hell, he even said that he will pass the complaint to the balance team. I don't know what you want, for them to read TL? For them to hire pro gamers with little to no experience in game design (probably) to help with something as fickle as blance, or something as subjective as fun? Sponsor a nerd to play Random all day at top level in tourneys so they can get feedback from him?Or just let the community develop the game(seriously a lot of the balance threads just give out flat out terrible ideas) Seriously, they only have 1 job, to develop a game, if you don't find it interesting or fun, its ok don't play it nobody will think any less from you. And seriously Pride issue? Do you seriously think that a lot of people are so collectively petty that they won't acknowledge that they made a mistake? Is Blizzard a Hive mind? Do they fire people who don't agree with DB? Do they really want to potentially lose a lot of money just because of pride? One thing I can agree with you is this: In the end its us who buys the games, and the pro-gamers who try to create interesting builds and fun games to watch that increases the longevity of the game. Exactly, its us the gamers the ones who give life to the game. Developers just give us the tools to play around with. I believe the community should be listened to more, especially in interviews, rather than just refuting them with useless examples. They are listening to the community,thing is that the community doesn't even freaking know what they want, because the community is not a f@$#@ing Hive mind.I'd even say that they have spoiled the community with so many balance patches. Every single time a strategy that seems to have any kind of potential emerges a large part of the community cries "IMBA" instead of adapting(and seriously I can't stress it enough the community is not a Hive mind) maybe its because I am used to BW but seriously, after the last patch came in 2002(?) we kinda just accepted the game as it was and dealt with it. They(the developers) are doing their best, they have stated that they listed to the community, that they see pro games, that they are in contact with pro gamers. Seriously what do you want? For them to cater to you? Its obvious that the community has a lot of different views about ...everything. | ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
On June 12 2011 15:11 sluggaslamoo wrote: Explain shattered temple and xel naga caverns being the top 1v1 maps on multiplayer custom? If you look at many of the TL articles that arose in BETA looking for change, then look at the changes that were made due to those articles. You would see that the problem domain addressed by Blizzard and the solution created, was not what the article was looking for. For example moving shot (please read the article). It did not ask for phoenix's to shoot while moving (without even needing to attack), it asked for more micro-ability such as moving shot for all air-units. E.g mutalisk, phoenix, viking, etc. I feel its something Blizzard needs to improve in. Yeah I remember reading the article and saying to myself "yeah, I miss how I could do that with corsairs, that should totally be in the game. Bring a bit more micro to it." Then they changed the pheonix, and I was confused. I did want it to to be able to move and shoot, but not like this.... I feel stupid right clicking, watching them shoot :/ | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
I think it's just that they wanted to "save something" for the expansions, but they don't want to say "Yeah, the Reaver is cool enough we figured you'd spend an extra $20 for it", so it comes off as muddied. (And, lest we start throwing around the phrase Acti-Blizzard, SC1 did this too, to get people to buy Brood War). Also, just because Blizzard doesn't explicitly say "HERP DE DERP WE FUCKED UP WITH THE COLOSSUS", doesn't mean that they're not aware that it has issues. They may also want to deal with the Colo issue indirectly, by introducing a new unit that interacts with it in an interesting way, or something like that. The Colossus itself is not conceptually flawed (High AOE damage, but big, can be hit as both a ground unit and as an air unit, and low health. Super glass cannon). The problem is that it's too hard to properly snipe them, so a protoss just kind of has to keep his gateway units in the front. If, for instance, HotS brought the Scourge back, the Colossus would become indirectly more interesting in that matchup because P would have to be more careful with it. tl;dr: Blizzard often lies, and they may want to fix units like the colossus by adding a better way to snipe them, which brings it in line with the original design idea. People also SEVERELY underestimate how hard fine-tuning something like this can be. | ||
|
sOAvoid
Canada206 Posts
| ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
On June 12 2011 15:11 sluggaslamoo wrote: If you look at many of the TL articles that arose in BETA looking for change, then look at the changes that were made due to those articles. You would see that the problem domain addressed by Blizzard and the solution created, was not what the article was looking for. For example moving shot (please read the article). It did not ask for phoenix's to shoot while moving (without even needing to attack), it asked for more micro-ability such as moving shot for all air-units. E.g mutalisk, phoenix, viking, etc. I feel its something Blizzard needs to improve in. People who create TL articles are not infallible nor does it mean they never took it into consideration. Phoenix still remain as one of the more APM intensive units in this game right now. It is very easy to sit back in the comfort of your own home and make fallacious statements about Blizzard and how they develop this game but unless you actually interact with Blizzard (as some pro players do) or know first hand what the development process is like, your argument is made up of nothing more than logical fallacies and anecdotal evidence Explain shattered temple and xel naga caverns being the top 1v1 maps on multiplayer custom? How can I possibly explain that? I have no idea why people like the maps that they do, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they DO like it. But there is a need to keep variety within the pool, they have made their point pretty clear that ladder maps are not meant to be the same as tournament maps...or rather the ladder has a different purpose, if there is overlap (which there will always be) then it works out well, but just because Slag pits is in the map pool does not mean tournaments have to use it. Also a pretty interesting note, (well reading a post from Jinro), David Kim is the person who created Xel'Naga Caverns. | ||
|
Oreo7
United States1647 Posts
| ||
|
Hetz
196 Posts
If you want a better, true representation of people's opinions, DONT SHOW THE OVERALL RESULTS PRIOR TOO VOTING! Way too many people will be biased by first looking at what others have voted and will subsequently join them. Show overall results AFTER the vote. | ||
|
AxionSteel
United States7754 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On June 12 2011 15:07 DannyJ wrote: Well, before we truly learn what changes HotS will bring im not going to lambaste blizz, but there definitely is one thing they are simply letting us down with - close positions. Like really, just make the change blizz According to the Sen/Browder interview, this apparently will be addressed in the next season with the new maps, which is in....July, I think? 3 month seasons? | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10328 Posts
the developers/in-house testers never reach the skill level to adequately understand the game they create, but they sure do like to act like they understand David Kim has been top 200 NA Random player for almost forever. Only recently has he dropped to top 300. Matthew Cooper has also been pretty close, but about 100 ranks lower (assuming that the highest ranked Gnome I see in the NA ranking is Matthew Cooper's account). I think it's same to assume from this that David Kim understands the game at a high "enough" level. Also, I agree with others this OP is assuming or making things more serious or bad looking for Blizzard than they are. | ||
|
iAmJeffReY
United States4262 Posts
we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same. That's all that needs to be said. People have GOT to stop comparing them. Stop the maps without xelnaga towers, or rocks, etc. Things that make SC2 good make SC2 good. We want SC2, not BW 12 year expansion pack. Again, the game isn't even a year old yet. Remember that. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
Its not like theres a communication issue, I feel that is more of a pride issue. It's hard to believe a lot these issues aren't known by Blizzard, but it feels more like they are blinded by their own pride, and therefore these issues don't exist, to them. I would like to point out that Blizzard has made a lot of balance fixes that have significantly weakened rushes. So I don't understand the issue. Here are some examples of what people DON'T mean when they talk about micro. Then those people should explain themselves better. If you just mean "movement micro" or "positioning micro" or "non-special-ability micro", then you should say so. They can't read your mind. A zerg dragoon! Which was a lot less "Dragoonish" when it was in development. Back when it was Tier 2 and had 100Hp. Blame the balance of the game, not the original design of the unit. A dragoon with stim! Which allows Barracks play to not be completely useless against the Protoss and Terran the way it was in SC1. Oh wait now protoss isn't as unique, we must make this meat-shield unit, more of a meat-shield! Except that the Immortal was first. The Marauder certainly was not designed before the Immortal. The Marauder was introduced in early 2008; the Immortal was shown off in the initial reveal in mid-2007. Your knowledge of SC2's development history is sadly lacking. According to Blizzard the Overseer and Immortal are a high priority for redesign. However the community thinks otherwise (by a huge margin). Shocking though it may be to believe, Blizzard did not go through every unit and give a thumbs up/down vote on it in their interview. They mentioned two; that doesn't mean that those were the only two they were taking a look at. And they didn't even say that the Immortal was being redesigned. The Overseer one was an example of a unit that wasn't working, and it's hard to deny that this is true. The Colossus is many things. But it certainly works. The poll was about the least interesting units, not the least functional ones. So for all you know, they're in complete agreement with the community. Nobody asked them directly about the Colossus being a boring unit. Also, I trust Blizzard more than the community on this. I guarantee you that most of the votes for "Colossus" just want Reavers back, and that's no way to design a sequel. I personally have no particular love for the Colossus, but I absolutely don't want to see Reavers return. I want something new. | ||
|
Sayer
United States403 Posts
Baneling on other hand were nicely designed and has the wow factor. | ||
|
KoKoRo
United States186 Posts
| ||
| ||
