EPTTL interviews Dustin Browder at Blizzcon - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Terrifyer
United States338 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
It gives me hope. | ||
|
dartoo
India2889 Posts
On October 25 2011 12:45 slam wrote: "well i think the swarm host might do some of that..... riiiiiiiiight" Anyone else pickup dusty's tendency to say "riiiiiiight" to the extent where you no longer payed attention to the interview and just waited in anticipation for the next riiiiiight? LOL I was thinking the same thing. that riiiiight needs to become a meme. Anyway, that was a really good interview, you need to do more kennigit! I kind agree that pathfinding/selection shouldnt go backwards, but then that was a part of what made bw so much fun to watch and play. dont really know what the solution to it is, and the shredder, is just going to make battles smaller, not grand like bw battles.It's a tough problem to solve. | ||
|
mlspmatt
Canada404 Posts
On October 25 2011 13:52 DiuLaSing wrote: he sounded like he wanted to balance the game based off all level of plays...even noob friendly=.= it really should be based off at the highest level... Blizzard has to keep all skill levels in mind when balancing the game. Cause their business exists based on Bronze nubs buying their game. Without the Nubs, there is no game. | ||
|
VirgilSC2
United States6151 Posts
| ||
|
Louuster
Canada2869 Posts
On October 25 2011 13:26 coolcor wrote: But why is everyone sure it is impossible to have the units spread out more and good pathfinding? Isn't bad pathfinding generally units taking the long way to get where you clicked or getting stuck and not going there at all? Can't you have the units good at taking the shortest path to get somewhere, but stay more spread out on the way and once they get there instead of always going into a perfect ball with no room between them? Its because in BW the pathfinding wasnt as good so units would get stuck on each other. This combined with the 12 units per control groups meant that it was actually rather rare to have all your units together. Lets say you had 2 group of zealots and 2 groups of dragoons. Move commanding all 4 groups to the same spot meant that half of the units would wander around not going where you told them to go. So naturally you would move them to different spots at the same area, which naturally spread them out more. In short, the old 1a2a3a is now just 1a with 50 units, which is where the good pathfinding causes the ball problem. | ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
Dustin was answering a question about how to get the pros to play on the pro maps and tournament maps and Kennigit was asking if they would consider adding tournament maps to the ladder. They were on completely different pages. I dunno if that was lack of clarity in the question, or what. I have done a few interviews in my time, so I do know how complicated questions can get muddled up, so no harm done. Just saying, I don't think people should take Dustins "answer" as his respons to Kennigits question. Excellent interview, and I agreed with just about everything said there. I like the whole "Go play Brood War" thing. I LOVE the whole "throw stuff cool stuff in, and see what results" philosophy. I am glad they balance the game for everyone to some degree. I love the whole "NO GODDAM LAN AND STOP ASKING" thing. Maybe people will stop asking now that he has said a firm hard no... LOL of course they won't. He has said no thousands of time before, but the poor guy KEEPS getting this question shoved down his throat. LAY OFF THE LAN. GJ Dusty and Kenny. | ||
|
Deshkar
Singapore1244 Posts
I believe initially Code S were fairly equal in racial distribution, yet Code A had a large number of Terrans for quite a bit, however it took awhile for those Terrans to slowly diffuse into Code S. The format of the GSL on the short-mid term basis doesn't allow for much turn over of players/races with the changes only being seen on the long term. Right now we're seeing more and more Protoss and Zerg in Code A as well as entering the Up & Downs, given a bit more time and perhaps (if necessary) a very minor small balance patch, we would see slightly better racial equality in Code S. On the other hand, we have seen non Terrans like Stephano, IdrA and Huk perform well in recent non GSL tournaments. I have also recalled seeing various non Terran foreigners take down some Kr Terrans throughout the multitude of tournaments we had recently. On the whole non-Terrans have shown success against Korean Terrans to some extent greater than Korean non-Terrans, could the Koreans culture of choosing/preferring Terrans as a race be a significant factor in the current situation? One must also consider that the format of the GSL could lend strength to the Terran dominance, and not just due to race being op/superior as a whole? The GSL single Bo3 in Code A/S, and Bo1 present in group/up&down stages, plays to the Terrans' strength of being difficult to scout, resilience and ability to quickly switch to a variety of deadly cheese. Even in ESV Korean weekly Tournament, I do believe the finals is a PvP between Squirtle and Tassadar, with the 3rd/4th place match a ZvZ between Bboongbbong and Sirius. Terran dominance is still not as strong/clear. While I neither disagree nor agree that Terrans might be slightly stronger and/or that the Koreans as a whole might be slightly better than EU/NA players, I feel that the Terran dominance is not as prevalent outside the GSL even with the presence of other Korean Terrans. Perhaps the GSL really needs to rethink and rework its system? | ||
|
SKaysc
United States305 Posts
| ||
|
Deshkar
Singapore1244 Posts
On October 25 2011 13:59 VirgilSC2 wrote: I think it might be safe to say Daybreak and Bel'shir are playtested enough to make it into ladder, and some of the ESV Maps get a good amount of play in the Korean Weekly to build a solid foundation. I agree for Daybreak, but I think Bel'Shir might require a lil more testing, it has been frequently downvoted in GSL and there have been recent revisions to the map (high ground near main and the like) due to the unfavorable results in certain MU , PvZ I believe? I think the main problem that Blizzard is having is a lack of an avenue to discern where to actually liaise with to determine which map is sufficiently popular/play-tested. Should they support ESV? iCJug? or TPW? or just the GSL? Personally I like the recent TL-Mapmaking contest and hope it becomes a regular and fully Blizzard-supported event. I think it is a great start with the selection process, and a small invite-only tournament to hard test the finalists. | ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
| ||
|
flanksteak
Canada246 Posts
One thing I hadn't considered was that the design team is getting better at balancing/tweaking the game. I'm all for letting players figure out the game before major changes are made - but likewise, sometimes something is so clearly broken that it should be fixed immediately. Hopefully as the team gets better at identifying issues they'll know the correct route to take. Another thing, he went at length to explain why certain units would be cut from the game ("tooltip gets too large"). The general feeling is that sometimes a unit just doesn't fit into the game without lots of specific conditions/changes. Personally I think the warp-in mechanic is a good example - granted it's a gameplay element, but it has affected so many aspects of protoss just to make it fit. (Khaydarin removal, fixing 4gate timings, can't warp in at ramp, smaller pylon radius); however, it's such a core mechanic to protoss that they just couldn't remove it entirely. Anyway, good stuff. Riiiiiiight? | ||
|
lizzard_warish
589 Posts
| ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
Ever. + Show Spoiler + single tear | ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
On October 25 2011 13:20 Deshkar wrote: I think Blizzard isn't sure of an efficient way to properly discern what community maps are sufficiently popular and properly balanced, BEFORE having them up on the ladder. While there are dozens of decent looking community maps out there, with some of them appearing to have undergone numerous revisions and some level of testings by GM players, those levels of testings are still very limited and not well-documented. How is Blizzard to discern accurately which map is sufficiently tested for all levels of play? It is a risk for them to appear to be favoring particular mapmakers or teams, picking maps that might not be in favor of the community. Perhaps the recent TL map-making contest is a step to such an eventual goal. TL being an intermediary with MOTM-like contests to determine a map(or maps) that can be presented to Blizzard, for further examination for consideration to be placed on the ladder. But if somebody chooses they want to play on a community map why do they need Blizzard's permission that it is sufficiently balanced for them? I think a lot of the people complaining about no community maps in the ladder don't necessarily want everyone playing the game to have to play on GSL maps for their official ladder points. They just want battlenet to help them find people of the same skill who'd also like to play on that map. Because right now to play a community melee map without a practice partner their is no way to not get someone of random skill, and they are buried under custom maps like nexus wars so they'd be on page 100 of popularity and you'd never find anyone anyways so nobody waits to try and find anyone. If there was a 2nd map pool with whatever the tournaments want that people could chose to play on(official GSL map pool with it's own ranking page in battlenet), or you could upload any map you wanted into the ladder pool and battle net will use it if both people have the same map, or some other way to give people more choice wouldn't that be better? So if someone wants to play on untested maps that change every day with 12 mineral patches per base and a neutral mother ship in the middle cloaking neutral destructible rocks and there is another person online who happens to want the same thing they have a way to get matched together. Wouldn't that make everybody happy and end all complaints to Blizzard about the map pool forever? | ||
|
KaosCow
Australia9 Posts
The questions were good. Kennigit's manner and presentation were excellent, as well as the choice for a quiet setting. I would love to see more interviews in the future. | ||
|
VashTS
United States1675 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Riiiiiiight? | ||
|
enemy2010
Germany1972 Posts
On October 25 2011 13:59 mlspmatt wrote: Blizzard has to keep all skill levels in mind when balancing the game. Cause their business exists based on Bronze nubs buying their game. Without the Nubs, there is no game. I was thinking about this point, too. And I dont think that Blizzard has to balance the game to ALL levels of skill. I think they should balance it for the pros and higher levels of play. Because the "noobs" will follow this balance, cause there is not this huge understanding of the game like the pros have. And if you have a balanced game for the pros, the game itself is balanced even to the tiniest bit. And so you end up with a very very balanced game. And thats good for the noobs as well. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 25 2011 12:36 ahw wrote: cool interview! I'm kind of bothered by the overall defensiveness by the guy, as he comes across like some of these questions are personal attacks. But at the same time he's got to deal with the starcraft community, so its understandable. the map-making question seemed to go over his head and the root problem of where the ladder maps are coming from didn't really get touched. i'm actually happy with the new units in trying to un-blob the game. gimping the patching has always been a terrible idea because it makes the game less accessible and it forces a handicap. if the new additions are mostly map-control and harassing units, then hopefully we'll see smaller armies in multiple locations instead. shredder, recall on nexus are two good ideas that come to mind. You'll never see smaller armies when you can select everything and there are no gaps between them and you have a widescreen. | ||
| ||
