First of all I think that even if the idea presented here is quite simple, the analysis of its implications is really genius. It really deserved some tries. But even if it proves to be the right solution, there is still a long road to go through, with various possibilities, before seeing it became the next generation of sc2. I'd like to discuss that a little bit, if it fits here.
Disclaimer : English is not my first language. So I tend to simplify my explanations, and it tends to be less structured and argumented than it should be. Please make an effort the understand me first, I would love to be go into more details on demand.
Blizzard behavior
Blizzard have always told us that they have made an esport friendly game and that esport phenomeon is there only because of us. As mention in the OP, the business model for this kind of game call for an appealing Massive Massive Damage game, with a renewal through expansions instead of game depth.
Even if Blizzard is extremely active right now balancing the game and proposing new features for bnet2. The people dedicated to that (at least some of the initial ones) seems to have been affected for the whole starcraft 2 series. I think it will all stop when the 2 expensions will be out.
The community power
After BW was released, only a few patchs were made for balance purpose. As the metagame is always evolving they did not get involved like they are doing right now. But the community managed, by map making and strategy creativity, to overcame everything.
Even if blizzard stop with the last expansion letting the game in a state that is not fit for esport, through the map editor, we can still make every balance we want, even units ones if it needed. It is only a matter of community acceptance or not, even if it will probably won't be necessary.
Acceptance by the pro and practice
The main problem trying to do it right now I think is related to the ladder. Unlike ICCup, Blizzard has their hand on the main ladder the pro are using to train. Thus, solving problem though map making, even if they are accepted for tournament, will cause them huge hurdle to train efficiently on it.
Blizzard already told that their ladder is not designed for the competitive scene. I can't see them include such competitive oriented map into the classical ladder, since there is still casual players. The ideal thing would be to have another ladder with another map pool for Master player for instance, or another custom game system (like the w3 one) that allow to quickly find opponent. The problem is to find people of your level.
Many (foreign?) pro right now, mainly use laddering for training. If it become less relevant for them and if no other system came up, they can only achieve practice though real inside coached team training and maybe events like RedBull Lan, or through networking with other pro.
(Impact on tournament metagame and players histories)
If no other fast (thus popular) match making system featuring the new maps, the rate at which the game will be explored will be slower. Maybe for the better. It seems that the GM ladder meta-game is defining the strategy we will see at each tournaments. Only Slayers seemed to do some intern strategy work.
If the players do not immediatly encounter a new strategy on the ladder, maybe it will increase the value of in tournament or even in game adapation, or create some unbeatable player for a longer period or time. I kind of think of the multiples Stephano vs Polt series. + Show Spoiler +
Since IPL3, Stephano has almost rolled over anyone he has encounterd, exept Polt. When asked, he said Polt is his only fear, and that he has no real way of training for that. The only think he can do is think of something new and try it the next time. What a tense moment it was when we saw him win the Lone Star Crash tournament! The games were really back and forth, but even more intense if you had the whole story.
The course of action
I see 3 possibilities here : 1. Implement the new ideas, make them popular so that Blizzard take them into account and then rebalance what's needed during the time they are here. 2. Implement the ideas, make them popular so that the Pro play with them in tournament, letting them having a hard time practicing for it. 3. Make a new ladder system popular, like ICCup, implement the ideas, make them popular so that the new ladder system will use them, so that the competitive scene in general will practice with them.
The better one is obviously the first. Blizzard is really closed and let little informations filter regarding their intentions and goals. Without going into their methodology for balance things out, the speed and the amount voice they give to the community, it seems pretty hard to try to solve it ourself through map making, while they are doing the same with stats change, new upgrades designed for their maps. Even more without concertation.
Since we can't have that much leverage on them to include us in the process, the only way would be to wait for them to finish their expansions and to let us alone deal with that. But if you want to do it right now, I think the best way is the third one. In the end, we will have complete control over everything, and can even decide to reverse the change made by blizzard if it seems to soon for us.
Conclusion ; TLDR
In the end, I think it is a matter of who have control over the changes or not. Through the popular use of their ladder, Blizzard (on purpose or not) kind of force us to not attempt radical change that will split the game into 2 differents gameplays. We either do it on purpose and take the control back this way, and all the problems (and risks for esports) that come with fragmentation. Or we let Blizzard having the control for now and continue to fight for being heard and answered, waiting for the 2 expansions to get out and Blizzard to back off. Hoping they will give us the control of the ladder map pool or we'll have to develop another one like ICCup.
On March 20 2012 22:26 Umpteen wrote: I have to keep disagreeing here. I'm not saying these changes certainly won't lead to imbalance, but I take exception to this insistence that they must and that no supporting evidence is needed.
That's just it though. RTS games are balanced around income and unit costs(not maps, conti, that's why map balance plays such a big role). If you change the very thing the game is balanced around, you destroy the current balance. Units that were designed around the current income will function differently in the game. Whether it makes the balance completely broken or not is unclear, but it will break the current balance and nullify all the balancing that has been done to date. Period.
And the community doesn't know anything about making, designing, and balancing an RTS, just playing them. So we shouldn't go breaking things we can't fix. We should let the actual game makers do that.
Perhaps it would be good to have a place, say a blog, devoted to the theme: "sc2 has fundamental design flaws" ? This would avoid scattering the "tester base" into a myriad of similar projects methinks.
Perhaps it would be good to have a place, say a blog, devoted to the theme: "sc2 has fundamental design flaws" ? This would avoid scattering the "tester base" into a myriad of similar projects methinks.
Anyway, I hope Barrin's idea will take over !
I don't want BW-feel... I don't want to micro double as much just to make things behave like they should. I want a feeling that I did something extra. I want to be able to retreat without getting my slow troops overrun by tons of stim, blink and speedy units, that were queued 5sec ago. I want that my unit does what it should do, but I want to have extra choices like blink. Barrins idea has the potential to do that, those other ideas just dumb down everything to a level were units dont do what they should do.
On March 20 2012 23:35 BXiT wrote: First of all I think that even if the idea presented here is quite simple, the analysis of its implications is really genius. It really deserved some tries. But even if it proves to be the right solution, there is still a long road to go through, with various possibilities, before seeing it became the next generation of sc2. I'd like to discuss that a little bit, if it fits here.
Disclaimer : English is not my first language. So I tend to simplify my explanations, and it tends to be less structured and argumented than it should be. Please make an effort the understand me first, I would love to be go into more details on demand.
Blizzard behavior
Blizzard have always told us that they have made an esport friendly game and that esport phenomeon is there only because of us. As mention in the OP, the business model for this kind of game call for an appealing Massive Massive Damage game, with a renewal through expansions instead of game depth.
Even if Blizzard is extremely active right now balancing the game and proposing new features for bnet2. The people dedicated to that (at least some of the initial ones) seems to have been affected for the whole starcraft 2 series. I think it will all stop when the 2 expensions will be out.
The community power
After BW was released, only a few patchs were made for balance purpose. As the metagame is always evolving they did not get involved like they are doing right now. But the community managed, by map making and strategy creativity, to overcame everything.
Even if blizzard stop with the last expansion letting the game in a state that is not fit for esport, through the map editor, we can still make every balance we want, even units ones if it needed. It is only a matter of community acceptance or not, even if it will probably won't be necessary.
Acceptance by the pro and practice
The main problem trying to do it right now I think is related to the ladder. Unlike ICCup, Blizzard has their hand on the main ladder the pro are using to train. Thus, solving problem though map making, even if they are accepted for tournament, will cause them huge hurdle to train efficiently on it.
Blizzard already told that their ladder is not designed for the competitive scene. I can't see them include such competitive oriented map into the classical ladder, since there is still casual players. The ideal thing would be to have another ladder with another map pool for Master player for instance, or another custom game system (like the w3 one) that allow to quickly find opponent. The problem is to find people of your level.
Many (foreign?) pro right now, mainly use laddering for training. If it become less relevant for them and if no other system came up, they can only achieve practice though real inside coached team training and maybe events like RedBull Lan, or through networking with other pro.
(Impact on tournament metagame and players histories)
If no other fast (thus popular) match making system featuring the new maps, the rate at which the game will be explored will be slower. Maybe for the better. It seems that the GM ladder meta-game is defining the strategy we will see at each tournaments. Only Slayers seemed to do some intern strategy work.
If the players do not immediatly encounter a new strategy on the ladder, maybe it will increase the value of in tournament or even in game adapation, or create some unbeatable player for a longer period or time. I kind of think of the multiples Stephano vs Polt series. + Show Spoiler +
Since IPL3, Stephano has almost rolled over anyone he has encounterd, exept Polt. When asked, he said Polt is his only fear, and that he has no real way of training for that. The only think he can do is think of something new and try it the next time. What a tense moment it was when we saw him win the Lone Star Crash tournament! The games were really back and forth, but even more intense if you had the whole story.
The course of action
I see 3 possibilities here : 1. Implement the new ideas, make them popular so that Blizzard take them into account and then rebalance what's needed during the time they are here. 2. Implement the ideas, make them popular so that the Pro play with them in tournament, letting them having a hard time practicing for it. 3. Make a new ladder system popular, like ICCup, implement the ideas, make them popular so that the new ladder system will use them, so that the competitive scene in general will practice with them.
The better one is obviously the first. Blizzard is really closed and let little informations filter regarding their intentions and goals. Without going into their methodology for balance things out, the speed and the amount voice they give to the community, it seems pretty hard to try to solve it ourself through map making, while they are doing the same with stats change, new upgrades designed for their maps. Even more without concertation.
Since we can't have that much leverage on them to include us in the process, the only way would be to wait for them to finish their expansions and to let us alone deal with that. But if you want to do it right now, I think the best way is the third one. In the end, we will have complete control over everything, and can even decide to reverse the change made by blizzard if it seems to soon for us.
Conclusion ; TLDR
In the end, I think it is a matter of who have control over the changes or not. Through the popular use of their ladder, Blizzard (on purpose or not) kind of force us to not attempt radical change that will split the game into 2 differents gameplays. We either do it on purpose and take the control back this way, and all the problems (and risks for esports) that come with fragmentation. Or we let Blizzard having the control for now and continue to fight for being heard and answered, waiting for the 2 expansions to get out and Blizzard to back off. Hoping they will give us the control of the ladder map pool or we'll have to develop another one like ICCup.
Ladder is not for training. Custom games with Practice Partners are for training, so the points about the ladder are moot.
You seem to want to wrest control from Blizzard and give it to the community. But somehow, I think the people that have already made 4 RTS games with expansions before this one have a better grasp on how to make an RTS than all the random idiots in the community who have no experience doing so.
Blizzard does listen to the community, even if they are pretty quiet as to their internal workings, there is no need to declare war on them as you imply. That's just stupid and will hurt eSports. Seriously, chill out and let them do their job.
Well if DOTA can push/pull/drag a company to its senses then these ideas/concepts can light a path to a brighter future. I for one welcome our "Less Resource per Base Overlords".
On March 20 2012 22:26 Umpteen wrote: I have to keep disagreeing here. I'm not saying these changes certainly won't lead to imbalance, but I take exception to this insistence that they must and that no supporting evidence is needed.
That's just it though. RTS games are balanced around income and unit costs(not maps, conti, that's why map balance plays such a big role). If you change the very thing the game is balanced around, you destroy the current balance. Units that were designed around the current income will function differently in the game. Whether it makes the balance completely broken or not is unclear, but it will break the current balance and nullify all the balancing that has been done to date. Period.
You don't "destroy" the balance with new maps, you change it, and that does not have to be a bad thing. Switching from Steppes of War to macro maps changed the game balance, didn't it? Sure, the 6m/7m maps change the game in a much larger way, but we're here to find out if it is for the better or not. Your comment implies that we shouldn't even try to find that out ourselves, and that's the part I don't understand.
On March 20 2012 23:54 Big J wrote: I don't want to micro double as much just to make things behave like they should. they should do.
I don't want to bring back 12 units selection either, nor dumb dragoons My point was on the contrary that different attempts at modding sc2 should be confronted in one place, so that anyone with an idea can submit it to a decent player base. This in fact is the best way to discard bad ideas and promote good ones without scattering the community.
On March 20 2012 23:35 BXiT wrote: First of all I think that even if the idea presented here is quite simple, the analysis of its implications is really genius. It really deserved some tries. But even if it proves to be the right solution, there is still a long road to go through, with various possibilities, before seeing it became the next generation of sc2. I'd like to discuss that a little bit, if it fits here.
Disclaimer : English is not my first language. So I tend to simplify my explanations, and it tends to be less structured and argumented than it should be. Please make an effort the understand me first, I would love to be go into more details on demand.
Blizzard behavior
Blizzard have always told us that they have made an esport friendly game and that esport phenomeon is there only because of us. As mention in the OP, the business model for this kind of game call for an appealing Massive Massive Damage game, with a renewal through expansions instead of game depth.
Even if Blizzard is extremely active right now balancing the game and proposing new features for bnet2. The people dedicated to that (at least some of the initial ones) seems to have been affected for the whole starcraft 2 series. I think it will all stop when the 2 expensions will be out.
The community power
After BW was released, only a few patchs were made for balance purpose. As the metagame is always evolving they did not get involved like they are doing right now. But the community managed, by map making and strategy creativity, to overcame everything.
Even if blizzard stop with the last expansion letting the game in a state that is not fit for esport, through the map editor, we can still make every balance we want, even units ones if it needed. It is only a matter of community acceptance or not, even if it will probably won't be necessary.
Acceptance by the pro and practice
The main problem trying to do it right now I think is related to the ladder. Unlike ICCup, Blizzard has their hand on the main ladder the pro are using to train. Thus, solving problem though map making, even if they are accepted for tournament, will cause them huge hurdle to train efficiently on it.
Blizzard already told that their ladder is not designed for the competitive scene. I can't see them include such competitive oriented map into the classical ladder, since there is still casual players. The ideal thing would be to have another ladder with another map pool for Master player for instance, or another custom game system (like the w3 one) that allow to quickly find opponent. The problem is to find people of your level.
Many (foreign?) pro right now, mainly use laddering for training. If it become less relevant for them and if no other system came up, they can only achieve practice though real inside coached team training and maybe events like RedBull Lan, or through networking with other pro.
(Impact on tournament metagame and players histories)
If no other fast (thus popular) match making system featuring the new maps, the rate at which the game will be explored will be slower. Maybe for the better. It seems that the GM ladder meta-game is defining the strategy we will see at each tournaments. Only Slayers seemed to do some intern strategy work.
If the players do not immediatly encounter a new strategy on the ladder, maybe it will increase the value of in tournament or even in game adapation, or create some unbeatable player for a longer period or time. I kind of think of the multiples Stephano vs Polt series. + Show Spoiler +
Since IPL3, Stephano has almost rolled over anyone he has encounterd, exept Polt. When asked, he said Polt is his only fear, and that he has no real way of training for that. The only think he can do is think of something new and try it the next time. What a tense moment it was when we saw him win the Lone Star Crash tournament! The games were really back and forth, but even more intense if you had the whole story.
The course of action
I see 3 possibilities here : 1. Implement the new ideas, make them popular so that Blizzard take them into account and then rebalance what's needed during the time they are here. 2. Implement the ideas, make them popular so that the Pro play with them in tournament, letting them having a hard time practicing for it. 3. Make a new ladder system popular, like ICCup, implement the ideas, make them popular so that the new ladder system will use them, so that the competitive scene in general will practice with them.
The better one is obviously the first. Blizzard is really closed and let little informations filter regarding their intentions and goals. Without going into their methodology for balance things out, the speed and the amount voice they give to the community, it seems pretty hard to try to solve it ourself through map making, while they are doing the same with stats change, new upgrades designed for their maps. Even more without concertation.
Since we can't have that much leverage on them to include us in the process, the only way would be to wait for them to finish their expansions and to let us alone deal with that. But if you want to do it right now, I think the best way is the third one. In the end, we will have complete control over everything, and can even decide to reverse the change made by blizzard if it seems to soon for us.
Conclusion ; TLDR
In the end, I think it is a matter of who have control over the changes or not. Through the popular use of their ladder, Blizzard (on purpose or not) kind of force us to not attempt radical change that will split the game into 2 differents gameplays. We either do it on purpose and take the control back this way, and all the problems (and risks for esports) that come with fragmentation. Or we let Blizzard having the control for now and continue to fight for being heard and answered, waiting for the 2 expansions to get out and Blizzard to back off. Hoping they will give us the control of the ladder map pool or we'll have to develop another one like ICCup.
Ladder is not for training. Custom games with Practice Partners are for training, so the points about the ladder are moot.
You seem to want to wrest control from Blizzard and give it to the community. But somehow, I think the people that have already made 4 RTS games with expansions before this one have a better grasp on how to make an RTS than all the random idiots in the community who have no experience doing so.
Blizzard does listen to the community, even if they are pretty quiet as to their internal workings, there is no need to declare war on them as you imply. That's just stupid and will hurt eSports. Seriously, chill out and let them do their job.
Without redoing some research, 2 interviews come to my mind. The one with Idra and Huk talking about their lives into the Salyers house and a random one with Stephano were they all state that their training time in Korea only rely on laddering. They say that they discuss of the game over coffee some time, but it stopped there. It is really really different from organized training that I think they should have, like day9 do with the redbull lan.
Furthermore I think you are wrong saying that ladder is for point and custom games for training. Artosis and Tyler laught at that idea in SOTG. It may be it for you (and me) because you have no other way of competing, but for them it is only a tool of mass training. Even if the training is not focused, they can gain experience and test BO in this fashion. Their goal in so not the be #1 GM, but to win tournaments. Mainly because of course, some them just want viewers on their stream.
I do not say that Blizzard is dumb. I says that we are not totally sure about their agenda. Exactly like the OP mentioned with the "Massive Massive Damages", for the better or for the worst, it is not something that we would have wanted if we had a choice regarding sc2. We had no control over that, it leads to some choices, and here we are. That's it.
Without pointing fingers, I just try to figure out the best ways to see some changes, in a game that belong to us, more than you seems to think. Every community figures and even Blizzard staff said that all this exists because of us and because of our implication. I (at least) do not want to be the passive consumer here.
On March 20 2012 22:26 Umpteen wrote: I have to keep disagreeing here. I'm not saying these changes certainly won't lead to imbalance, but I take exception to this insistence that they must and that no supporting evidence is needed.
That's just it though. RTS games are balanced around income and unit costs(not maps, conti, that's why map balance plays such a big role). If you change the very thing the game is balanced around, you destroy the current balance. Units that were designed around the current income will function differently in the game. Whether it makes the balance completely broken or not is unclear, but it will break the current balance and nullify all the balancing that has been done to date. Period.
You don't "destroy" the balance with new maps, you change it, and that does not have to be a bad thing. Switching from Steppes of War to macro maps changed the game balance, didn't it? Sure, the 6m/7m maps change the game in a much larger way, but we're here to find out if it is for the better or not. Your comment implies that we shouldn't even try to find that out ourselves, and that's the part I don't understand.
You can't design balance around maps because you can't account for every kind of map that will be created. So RTS games are balanced around income and unit costs, since those are usually static in the maps. Bad Maps can be horribly imbalanced and broken for certain races too. Sure, changing from Steppes of War to other maps was fine, but they didn't change the income rate. Gold minerals are gone now, because that income rate couldn't be balanced with the design of the races.
It's not that the community shouldn't try to find it, but the community would also try to implement it and fail miserably because the community knows nothing about making an RTS, just playing them. If we wanted to test it a bunch and blizzard decided to draw on that, that's ok, but it's the actual game balancers who should be balancing the game, not the community trying to force something onto the game that they can't possibly understand the implications of.
On March 20 2012 23:35 BXiT wrote: First of all I think that even if the idea presented here is quite simple, the analysis of its implications is really genius. It really deserved some tries. But even if it proves to be the right solution, there is still a long road to go through, with various possibilities, before seeing it became the next generation of sc2. I'd like to discuss that a little bit, if it fits here.
Disclaimer : English is not my first language. So I tend to simplify my explanations, and it tends to be less structured and argumented than it should be. Please make an effort the understand me first, I would love to be go into more details on demand.
Blizzard behavior
Blizzard have always told us that they have made an esport friendly game and that esport phenomeon is there only because of us. As mention in the OP, the business model for this kind of game call for an appealing Massive Massive Damage game, with a renewal through expansions instead of game depth.
Even if Blizzard is extremely active right now balancing the game and proposing new features for bnet2. The people dedicated to that (at least some of the initial ones) seems to have been affected for the whole starcraft 2 series. I think it will all stop when the 2 expensions will be out.
The community power
After BW was released, only a few patchs were made for balance purpose. As the metagame is always evolving they did not get involved like they are doing right now. But the community managed, by map making and strategy creativity, to overcame everything.
Even if blizzard stop with the last expansion letting the game in a state that is not fit for esport, through the map editor, we can still make every balance we want, even units ones if it needed. It is only a matter of community acceptance or not, even if it will probably won't be necessary.
Acceptance by the pro and practice
The main problem trying to do it right now I think is related to the ladder. Unlike ICCup, Blizzard has their hand on the main ladder the pro are using to train. Thus, solving problem though map making, even if they are accepted for tournament, will cause them huge hurdle to train efficiently on it.
Blizzard already told that their ladder is not designed for the competitive scene. I can't see them include such competitive oriented map into the classical ladder, since there is still casual players. The ideal thing would be to have another ladder with another map pool for Master player for instance, or another custom game system (like the w3 one) that allow to quickly find opponent. The problem is to find people of your level.
Many (foreign?) pro right now, mainly use laddering for training. If it become less relevant for them and if no other system came up, they can only achieve practice though real inside coached team training and maybe events like RedBull Lan, or through networking with other pro.
(Impact on tournament metagame and players histories)
If no other fast (thus popular) match making system featuring the new maps, the rate at which the game will be explored will be slower. Maybe for the better. It seems that the GM ladder meta-game is defining the strategy we will see at each tournaments. Only Slayers seemed to do some intern strategy work.
If the players do not immediatly encounter a new strategy on the ladder, maybe it will increase the value of in tournament or even in game adapation, or create some unbeatable player for a longer period or time. I kind of think of the multiples Stephano vs Polt series. + Show Spoiler +
Since IPL3, Stephano has almost rolled over anyone he has encounterd, exept Polt. When asked, he said Polt is his only fear, and that he has no real way of training for that. The only think he can do is think of something new and try it the next time. What a tense moment it was when we saw him win the Lone Star Crash tournament! The games were really back and forth, but even more intense if you had the whole story.
The course of action
I see 3 possibilities here : 1. Implement the new ideas, make them popular so that Blizzard take them into account and then rebalance what's needed during the time they are here. 2. Implement the ideas, make them popular so that the Pro play with them in tournament, letting them having a hard time practicing for it. 3. Make a new ladder system popular, like ICCup, implement the ideas, make them popular so that the new ladder system will use them, so that the competitive scene in general will practice with them.
The better one is obviously the first. Blizzard is really closed and let little informations filter regarding their intentions and goals. Without going into their methodology for balance things out, the speed and the amount voice they give to the community, it seems pretty hard to try to solve it ourself through map making, while they are doing the same with stats change, new upgrades designed for their maps. Even more without concertation.
Since we can't have that much leverage on them to include us in the process, the only way would be to wait for them to finish their expansions and to let us alone deal with that. But if you want to do it right now, I think the best way is the third one. In the end, we will have complete control over everything, and can even decide to reverse the change made by blizzard if it seems to soon for us.
Conclusion ; TLDR
In the end, I think it is a matter of who have control over the changes or not. Through the popular use of their ladder, Blizzard (on purpose or not) kind of force us to not attempt radical change that will split the game into 2 differents gameplays. We either do it on purpose and take the control back this way, and all the problems (and risks for esports) that come with fragmentation. Or we let Blizzard having the control for now and continue to fight for being heard and answered, waiting for the 2 expansions to get out and Blizzard to back off. Hoping they will give us the control of the ladder map pool or we'll have to develop another one like ICCup.
Ladder is not for training. Custom games with Practice Partners are for training, so the points about the ladder are moot.
You seem to want to wrest control from Blizzard and give it to the community. But somehow, I think the people that have already made 4 RTS games with expansions before this one have a better grasp on how to make an RTS than all the random idiots in the community who have no experience doing so.
Blizzard does listen to the community, even if they are pretty quiet as to their internal workings, there is no need to declare war on them as you imply. That's just stupid and will hurt eSports. Seriously, chill out and let them do their job.
Although I do agree with your sentiment that we should let Blizzard do its job I disagree with your other points.
You might say that ladder is not for training but I would counter that the far majority of foreigners do their training on the ladder. Stephano stated that he basically trains only on the ladder with a small amount of customs thrown in. It might not be the most optimal way to practice, but it is the way pros are practicing.
Blizzard does know how to make an RTS better than the community. However, sometimes things do slip by. When you are working with a small group of people developing the game you might not see everything. For example, when the game went into beta roaches cost 1 supply and had 2 armor. Warpgate tech researched so quickly that it absolutely broke the game. These were things that slipped by in their testing. Even look at HoTS and that ability that the Nexus has to turn a building into a cannon. Through Blizzard's testing they never realized that you can drop a pylon behind your opponents mineral line and abuse it like that. In no way am I saying that they are incompetent or unable to make a fantastic game, but sometimes you need an outside influence to help guide you.
Hey everyone, like Pull posted on the last page we worked together to cast two games of Danosaur vs. xGKingMafia, one on Devolution and one on Entombed Valley. Both these guys are Grandmaster players and the games the produced were excellent, really showcasing some of the options and challenges in a 6m1hyg game. You can find the games at:
Anyone who as really good games should e-mail them to me at wiseoldsenex@gmail.com or hand them off to Barrin for a slot on the front page. Thanks!
Thanks to everyone who's left comments about how I can improve my casting, literally the first game I ever cast was the game of Omne vs. Grizzly, so there's obviously a lot I can work on! The "umm, ummm" thing is a specific problem I'll be working on before the bad habit gets too deep, and I'd love to hear what recommendations or feedback people can offer to help me improve. Thanks for watching!
On March 20 2012 22:26 Umpteen wrote: I have to keep disagreeing here. I'm not saying these changes certainly won't lead to imbalance, but I take exception to this insistence that they must and that no supporting evidence is needed.
That's just it though. RTS games are balanced around income and unit costs(not maps, conti, that's why map balance plays such a big role). If you change the very thing the game is balanced around, you destroy the current balance. Units that were designed around the current income will function differently in the game. Whether it makes the balance completely broken or not is unclear, but it will break the current balance and nullify all the balancing that has been done to date. Period.
You don't "destroy" the balance with new maps, you change it, and that does not have to be a bad thing. Switching from Steppes of War to macro maps changed the game balance, didn't it? Sure, the 6m/7m maps change the game in a much larger way, but we're here to find out if it is for the better or not. Your comment implies that we shouldn't even try to find that out ourselves, and that's the part I don't understand.
You can't design balance around maps because you can't account for every kind of map that will be created. So RTS games are balanced around income and unit costs, since those are usually static in the maps. Bad Maps can be horribly imbalanced and broken for certain races too. Sure, changing from Steppes of War to other maps was fine, but they didn't change the income rate. Gold minerals are gone now, because that income rate couldn't be balanced with the design of the races.
It's not that the community shouldn't try to find it, but the community would also try to implement it and fail miserably because the community knows nothing about making an RTS, just playing them. If we wanted to test it a bunch and blizzard decided to draw on that, that's ok, but it's the actual game balancers who should be balancing the game, not the community trying to force something onto the game that they can't possibly understand the implications of.
I'm curious, are you saying, "you can't balance around maps" and "RTS games are balanced around income and unit costs", because it is written in some obscure treaty unknown from me, because you want it to be thay way, or because you now the decision makers inside all RTS game studio ?
Then do you imply that are 100% sure nobody in this community, is able or even fit to be employed by blizzard for balance ?
Finally, do the community for you only regroup the grunts that can't do sh**, but only baffle about starcraft related meme and only consume some media ? I think you should look at all the people who consider being part of this community and the whole lot a thing accomplished by people in it.
On March 20 2012 23:35 BXiT wrote: First of all I think that even if the idea presented here is quite simple, the analysis of its implications is really genius. It really deserved some tries. But even if it proves to be the right solution, there is still a long road to go through, with various possibilities, before seeing it became the next generation of sc2. I'd like to discuss that a little bit, if it fits here.
Disclaimer : English is not my first language. So I tend to simplify my explanations, and it tends to be less structured and argumented than it should be. Please make an effort the understand me first, I would love to be go into more details on demand.
Blizzard behavior
Blizzard have always told us that they have made an esport friendly game and that esport phenomeon is there only because of us. As mention in the OP, the business model for this kind of game call for an appealing Massive Massive Damage game, with a renewal through expansions instead of game depth.
Even if Blizzard is extremely active right now balancing the game and proposing new features for bnet2. The people dedicated to that (at least some of the initial ones) seems to have been affected for the whole starcraft 2 series. I think it will all stop when the 2 expensions will be out.
The community power
After BW was released, only a few patchs were made for balance purpose. As the metagame is always evolving they did not get involved like they are doing right now. But the community managed, by map making and strategy creativity, to overcame everything.
Even if blizzard stop with the last expansion letting the game in a state that is not fit for esport, through the map editor, we can still make every balance we want, even units ones if it needed. It is only a matter of community acceptance or not, even if it will probably won't be necessary.
Acceptance by the pro and practice
The main problem trying to do it right now I think is related to the ladder. Unlike ICCup, Blizzard has their hand on the main ladder the pro are using to train. Thus, solving problem though map making, even if they are accepted for tournament, will cause them huge hurdle to train efficiently on it.
Blizzard already told that their ladder is not designed for the competitive scene. I can't see them include such competitive oriented map into the classical ladder, since there is still casual players. The ideal thing would be to have another ladder with another map pool for Master player for instance, or another custom game system (like the w3 one) that allow to quickly find opponent. The problem is to find people of your level.
Many (foreign?) pro right now, mainly use laddering for training. If it become less relevant for them and if no other system came up, they can only achieve practice though real inside coached team training and maybe events like RedBull Lan, or through networking with other pro.
(Impact on tournament metagame and players histories)
If no other fast (thus popular) match making system featuring the new maps, the rate at which the game will be explored will be slower. Maybe for the better. It seems that the GM ladder meta-game is defining the strategy we will see at each tournaments. Only Slayers seemed to do some intern strategy work.
If the players do not immediatly encounter a new strategy on the ladder, maybe it will increase the value of in tournament or even in game adapation, or create some unbeatable player for a longer period or time. I kind of think of the multiples Stephano vs Polt series. + Show Spoiler +
Since IPL3, Stephano has almost rolled over anyone he has encounterd, exept Polt. When asked, he said Polt is his only fear, and that he has no real way of training for that. The only think he can do is think of something new and try it the next time. What a tense moment it was when we saw him win the Lone Star Crash tournament! The games were really back and forth, but even more intense if you had the whole story.
The course of action
I see 3 possibilities here : 1. Implement the new ideas, make them popular so that Blizzard take them into account and then rebalance what's needed during the time they are here. 2. Implement the ideas, make them popular so that the Pro play with them in tournament, letting them having a hard time practicing for it. 3. Make a new ladder system popular, like ICCup, implement the ideas, make them popular so that the new ladder system will use them, so that the competitive scene in general will practice with them.
The better one is obviously the first. Blizzard is really closed and let little informations filter regarding their intentions and goals. Without going into their methodology for balance things out, the speed and the amount voice they give to the community, it seems pretty hard to try to solve it ourself through map making, while they are doing the same with stats change, new upgrades designed for their maps. Even more without concertation.
Since we can't have that much leverage on them to include us in the process, the only way would be to wait for them to finish their expansions and to let us alone deal with that. But if you want to do it right now, I think the best way is the third one. In the end, we will have complete control over everything, and can even decide to reverse the change made by blizzard if it seems to soon for us.
Conclusion ; TLDR
In the end, I think it is a matter of who have control over the changes or not. Through the popular use of their ladder, Blizzard (on purpose or not) kind of force us to not attempt radical change that will split the game into 2 differents gameplays. We either do it on purpose and take the control back this way, and all the problems (and risks for esports) that come with fragmentation. Or we let Blizzard having the control for now and continue to fight for being heard and answered, waiting for the 2 expansions to get out and Blizzard to back off. Hoping they will give us the control of the ladder map pool or we'll have to develop another one like ICCup.
Ladder is not for training. Custom games with Practice Partners are for training, so the points about the ladder are moot.
You seem to want to wrest control from Blizzard and give it to the community. But somehow, I think the people that have already made 4 RTS games with expansions before this one have a better grasp on how to make an RTS than all the random idiots in the community who have no experience doing so.
Blizzard does listen to the community, even if they are pretty quiet as to their internal workings, there is no need to declare war on them as you imply. That's just stupid and will hurt eSports. Seriously, chill out and let them do their job.
Without redoing some research, 2 interviews come to my mind. The one with Idra and Huk talking about their lives into the Salyers house and a random one with Stephano were they all state that their training time in Korea only rely on laddering. They say that they discuss of the game over coffee some time, but it stopped there. It is really really different from organized training that I think they should have, like day9 do with the redbull lan.
Furthermore I think you are wrong saying that ladder is for point and custom games for training. Artosis and Tyler laught at that idea in SOTG. It may be it for you (and me) because you have no other way of competing, but for them it is only a tool of mass training. Even if the training is not focused, they can gain experience and test BO in this fashion. Their goal in so not the be #1 GM, but to win tournaments. Mainly because of course, some them just want viewers on their stream.
I do not say that Blizzard is dumb. I says that we are not totally sure about their agenda. Exactly like the OP mentioned with the "Massive Massive Damages", for the better or for the worst, it is not something that we would have wanted if we had a choice regarding sc2. We had no control over that, it leads to some choices, and here we are. That's it.
Without pointing fingers, I just try to figure out the best ways to see some changes, in a game that belong to us, more than you seems to think. Every community figures and even Blizzard staff said that all this exists because of us and because of our implication. I (at least) do not want to be the passive consumer here.
I probably should have been more clear. Ladder can be a good tool to find what builds are being done and face a variety of builds executed by different people. It's not that you can't train on ladder. Playing is ultimately the best training, and whether it is on ladder or not it helps. But ladder is for everyone that plays the game, and most of them aren't progamers. It was never designed or conceived to be a training tool. Practice partners are designed and conceived to be training tool.
And honestly, BW was way way way more "Terrible Terrible Damage" in my opinion. Everything in that game was imbalanced, hanging in a precarious universal balance. You may have chosen something different for Sc2, doesn't mean that everyone else would too. I just want the people that actually have the experience of having made 5 RTS games in charge than people who have made 0.
REally great read I remember having several of the same thoughts and theories in your writeup when I was watching Day9 play the beta.. I would spam in chat.. wait wait go to the workers.... does X number of workers saturate a base?! the thing that excites me the most is map makers can implement these changes in the right direction like you say.. by just eliminating a mineral patch.. and blizzard doesn't have to be behind the initial change... they can just add that map to the pool if it becomes popular... hopefully this map evolution combined with the changes in HOTS will make for match ups where fast expoing feels standard and good and less risky
On March 20 2012 23:35 BXiT wrote: First of all I think that even if the idea presented here is quite simple, the analysis of its implications is really genius. It really deserved some tries. But even if it proves to be the right solution, there is still a long road to go through, with various possibilities, before seeing it became the next generation of sc2. I'd like to discuss that a little bit, if it fits here.
Disclaimer : English is not my first language. So I tend to simplify my explanations, and it tends to be less structured and argumented than it should be. Please make an effort the understand me first, I would love to be go into more details on demand.
Blizzard behavior
Blizzard have always told us that they have made an esport friendly game and that esport phenomeon is there only because of us. As mention in the OP, the business model for this kind of game call for an appealing Massive Massive Damage game, with a renewal through expansions instead of game depth.
Even if Blizzard is extremely active right now balancing the game and proposing new features for bnet2. The people dedicated to that (at least some of the initial ones) seems to have been affected for the whole starcraft 2 series. I think it will all stop when the 2 expensions will be out.
The community power
After BW was released, only a few patchs were made for balance purpose. As the metagame is always evolving they did not get involved like they are doing right now. But the community managed, by map making and strategy creativity, to overcame everything.
Even if blizzard stop with the last expansion letting the game in a state that is not fit for esport, through the map editor, we can still make every balance we want, even units ones if it needed. It is only a matter of community acceptance or not, even if it will probably won't be necessary.
Acceptance by the pro and practice
The main problem trying to do it right now I think is related to the ladder. Unlike ICCup, Blizzard has their hand on the main ladder the pro are using to train. Thus, solving problem though map making, even if they are accepted for tournament, will cause them huge hurdle to train efficiently on it.
Blizzard already told that their ladder is not designed for the competitive scene. I can't see them include such competitive oriented map into the classical ladder, since there is still casual players. The ideal thing would be to have another ladder with another map pool for Master player for instance, or another custom game system (like the w3 one) that allow to quickly find opponent. The problem is to find people of your level.
Many (foreign?) pro right now, mainly use laddering for training. If it become less relevant for them and if no other system came up, they can only achieve practice though real inside coached team training and maybe events like RedBull Lan, or through networking with other pro.
(Impact on tournament metagame and players histories)
If no other fast (thus popular) match making system featuring the new maps, the rate at which the game will be explored will be slower. Maybe for the better. It seems that the GM ladder meta-game is defining the strategy we will see at each tournaments. Only Slayers seemed to do some intern strategy work.
If the players do not immediatly encounter a new strategy on the ladder, maybe it will increase the value of in tournament or even in game adapation, or create some unbeatable player for a longer period or time. I kind of think of the multiples Stephano vs Polt series. + Show Spoiler +
Since IPL3, Stephano has almost rolled over anyone he has encounterd, exept Polt. When asked, he said Polt is his only fear, and that he has no real way of training for that. The only think he can do is think of something new and try it the next time. What a tense moment it was when we saw him win the Lone Star Crash tournament! The games were really back and forth, but even more intense if you had the whole story.
The course of action
I see 3 possibilities here : 1. Implement the new ideas, make them popular so that Blizzard take them into account and then rebalance what's needed during the time they are here. 2. Implement the ideas, make them popular so that the Pro play with them in tournament, letting them having a hard time practicing for it. 3. Make a new ladder system popular, like ICCup, implement the ideas, make them popular so that the new ladder system will use them, so that the competitive scene in general will practice with them.
The better one is obviously the first. Blizzard is really closed and let little informations filter regarding their intentions and goals. Without going into their methodology for balance things out, the speed and the amount voice they give to the community, it seems pretty hard to try to solve it ourself through map making, while they are doing the same with stats change, new upgrades designed for their maps. Even more without concertation.
Since we can't have that much leverage on them to include us in the process, the only way would be to wait for them to finish their expansions and to let us alone deal with that. But if you want to do it right now, I think the best way is the third one. In the end, we will have complete control over everything, and can even decide to reverse the change made by blizzard if it seems to soon for us.
Conclusion ; TLDR
In the end, I think it is a matter of who have control over the changes or not. Through the popular use of their ladder, Blizzard (on purpose or not) kind of force us to not attempt radical change that will split the game into 2 differents gameplays. We either do it on purpose and take the control back this way, and all the problems (and risks for esports) that come with fragmentation. Or we let Blizzard having the control for now and continue to fight for being heard and answered, waiting for the 2 expansions to get out and Blizzard to back off. Hoping they will give us the control of the ladder map pool or we'll have to develop another one like ICCup.
Ladder is not for training. Custom games with Practice Partners are for training, so the points about the ladder are moot.
You seem to want to wrest control from Blizzard and give it to the community. But somehow, I think the people that have already made 4 RTS games with expansions before this one have a better grasp on how to make an RTS than all the random idiots in the community who have no experience doing so.
Blizzard does listen to the community, even if they are pretty quiet as to their internal workings, there is no need to declare war on them as you imply. That's just stupid and will hurt eSports. Seriously, chill out and let them do their job.
Without redoing some research, 2 interviews come to my mind. The one with Idra and Huk talking about their lives into the Salyers house and a random one with Stephano were they all state that their training time in Korea only rely on laddering. They say that they discuss of the game over coffee some time, but it stopped there. It is really really different from organized training that I think they should have, like day9 do with the redbull lan.
Furthermore I think you are wrong saying that ladder is for point and custom games for training. Artosis and Tyler laught at that idea in SOTG. It may be it for you (and me) because you have no other way of competing, but for them it is only a tool of mass training. Even if the training is not focused, they can gain experience and test BO in this fashion. Their goal in so not the be #1 GM, but to win tournaments. Mainly because of course, some them just want viewers on their stream.
I do not say that Blizzard is dumb. I says that we are not totally sure about their agenda. Exactly like the OP mentioned with the "Massive Massive Damages", for the better or for the worst, it is not something that we would have wanted if we had a choice regarding sc2. We had no control over that, it leads to some choices, and here we are. That's it.
Without pointing fingers, I just try to figure out the best ways to see some changes, in a game that belong to us, more than you seems to think. Every community figures and even Blizzard staff said that all this exists because of us and because of our implication. I (at least) do not want to be the passive consumer here.
I probably should have been more clear. Ladder can be a good tool to find what builds are being done and face a variety of builds executed by different people. It's not that you can't train on ladder. Playing is ultimately the best training, and whether it is on ladder or not it helps. But ladder is for everyone that plays the game, and most of them aren't progamers. It was never designed or conceived to be a training tool. Practice partners are designed and conceived to be training tool.
And honestly, BW was way way way more "Terrible Terrible Damage" in my opinion. Everything in that game was imbalanced, hanging in a precarious universal balance. You may have chosen something different for Sc2, doesn't mean that everyone else would too. I just want the people that actually have the experience of having made 5 RTS games in charge than people who have made 0.
I just want the people that actually have the experience of having made 5 RTS games in charge than people who have made 0.
And that is your mistake.
First of all you say that like talking about Blizzard like it is single a person. Blizzard staff changes all the time. You can be 100% sure that almost none of the staff that worked at every level on sc1 is on the sc2 team. Dustin Browder, has only made the legendary eSport friendly and very well balanced and interesting (in term of economy, micro, macro) game : C&C (Generals, was it?)... -.-' , David Kim nothing...
Then without going into something that is fit for another whole long and painful discussion, judging somebody from past accomplishments is a big big mistake, commonly and consciously made by almost everyone. If you don't do your research on the subject, you'll have to take my word for it, or just plainly ignore me and stay with your biaised assumptions.
I'd better discuss my proposals instead of just arguing about random stuff derivated from it. So if you have nothing better than just you are wrong, I'll leave it at that.
This is could be good for the game. For me this will fix half of the problem.
The other half in my opinion is the magic box engine when using ground units. Units should spread more, improving unit clicking, doing AOE less powerful (colosus, fungal, etc) and improving spectator visibility.
PD: Also, they should remove Colosus from the game xD
On March 20 2012 22:26 Umpteen wrote: I have to keep disagreeing here. I'm not saying these changes certainly won't lead to imbalance, but I take exception to this insistence that they must and that no supporting evidence is needed.
That's just it though. RTS games are balanced around income and unit costs(not maps, conti, that's why map balance plays such a big role). If you change the very thing the game is balanced around, you destroy the current balance. Units that were designed around the current income will function differently in the game. Whether it makes the balance completely broken or not is unclear, but it will break the current balance and nullify all the balancing that has been done to date. Period.
The bolded parts just seem like finger-in-the-air hyperbole to me; sorry
I appreciate that some changes could be an almost complete balance reset. I just don't buy into the assumption that all changes that touch income must necessarily be so.
What I did acknowledge in my earlier post is that map SIZE becomes more important the fewer resources you have per base, because when early expansions are (proportionally) a bigger investment you need more of a defender's advantage to secure them. But other than that, what's changing? Mostly the time at which you can have any given army - something that's changing (almost) equally for everyone - and the granularity of the expanding process. Mules are my biggest concern in that respect, but could well be offset by the gas change disproportionately benefiting Protoss and Zerg (banelings, sentries etc).
Sure, it could all be broken. But SC2 doesn't feel knife-edge enough to say, without even testing, that 6m maps constitute a balance reset or will inevitably generate broken strategies. I think you're making an unsupportably general argument.
On March 20 2012 18:51 Mongolbonjwa wrote: Because while the income per base remains same for every race, at the same time every race is different in how they are supposed to use that income.
I might be crazy but i still dont see how it causes imbalance. all races have to adapt. I've played vs toss and terran at more or less the sand level as me and the game was pretty balanced. you obviously have to adapt your build to compensate for your income but so does the other guy. i thought mules would make marines and hellion harass way too strong, when Im fact it didn't. i could afford to expand faster than 15, (12 to be exact which is optimum saturation on 6m) still be able to make a queen and a spine and a few lings early enough to defend against marine pressure, and hellion harass was never a problem because i could wall off early.
i have a really weird build that would lose on normal income maps but is viable on the 6m maps because the other dude doesn't have the economy to punish it.
i do a 10 double extractor trick expand lol. and i keep up in economy easily because 12 drones is all you need to optimally saturate a base.
I think someone should make a map with all the proposed changes so that everyone can test it. I guess blizzard will never implement this though. At best it will be like in cod4 where everyone who really knew something about the game and played at a high level played the promod. I hope there will be something like a promod in sc2 too^^ I think there would have to be some balance changes as especially MMM and some other tactics are very effective in low numbers but others aren't (can't think of one for toss).
EPT
My point was on the contrary that different attempts at modding sc2 should be confronted in one place, so that anyone with an idea can submit it to a decent player base. This in fact is the best way to discard bad ideas and promote good ones without scattering the community.
