|
On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote:David Kim is an idiot. Show nested quote +David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed. We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR. Isn't  PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near. And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again. Show nested quote +David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games. Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit. Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days.
I would hate to play the game that you were lead balanced designer of. Making balance changes based on what race gets 1st place in a mindgame ridden tournament more often than others?
In a more pure situation, ladder, or an even more competitive but slightly less statistically pure situation, proleague, we see protosses doing alright yes? Just because protoss doesn't win 1st place really isn't relevant.
|
It looks like this thread is turning into a general balance discussion thread instead of talking about the interview ...
|
On July 28 2013 12:48 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 13:00 Kim Hyuna wrote:David Kim is an idiot. David Kim: Overall, Protoss is not weak. In a lot of Ro32, Protoss has a stable and high presence. This is not a problem of SC2. It seems like there are fewer top Protoss players out there, at least fewer than Terran and Zerg. So I think we need to look for more new top Protoss players, and then the situation will change. If the number is getting worse [for Protoss], then we will consider change some Protoss units. In addition, in Dreamhack, Stardust got the championship. WCS S1 NA had a lot of Protoss. These numbers make me relaxed. We already seen TOP protoss players playing inside KR. And almost zero success in taking one major title here in KR. Isn't PartinG, Rain, First, MC etc top Protoss players? I don't see any NEW upcoming top protoss coming near. And, Stardust is playing against Foreigner and not TOP Z/T players from KR. And his win against JD is nothing HUGE because JD is known for his weakness in PvZ. What an idiot again. David Kim: I think, in WOL, Protoss's strategy was too narrowed. Basically you only need to turtle up for a big army and then win with one push. But now the situation is different. We add oracle for harassment and change the warp prism's speed. These give more choices for Protoss players. I hope we can see more competitive games. Isn't that what Protossers has been doing? It's either turtle up for one fucking push or 2 base all in. Oracle? It's a shit unit. Obviously he hates Protoss since WOL days. I would hate to play the game that you were lead balanced designer of. Making balance changes based on what race gets 1st place in a mindgame ridden tournament more often than others? In a more pure situation, ladder, or an even more competitive but slightly less statistically pure situation, proleague, we see protosses doing alright yes? Just because protoss doesn't win 1st place really isn't relevant.
Did you even try to understand the post you quoted? He was more or less raging about David Kim saying that "new TOP Protoss players are needed" and the fact - in his mind - that there arent any. There is nothing in that post which supports the "balance around top players only" ... quite the contrary, because Blizzards pov seems to be that and he criticized it.
|
I definitely agree that there seem to be design issues with P compared to the other races and it really is a shame it often forces the "all or nothing" type of engagements and play. I find PvT to be well balanced overall but suffering from tedious late game battles always coming down to viking vs collossi and ghost vs HT. PvZ seems worse though, often forcing the P to attempt to end the game on 2 bases before the 15 minute mark on most maps. That said, I still enjoy watching the game, I'd just wish the issues could be adressed for a more entertaining viewer experience.
With players like Her0, Rain, First etc. the argument that top Protoss players should be behind in terms of skill and decision making seems slightly insulting.
Also, I think it would be very interesting to hear more about what the top players feel about it. What do they think about these issues and do they have suggestions on how it might be fixed? Or are they tied down and not allowed to comment and make suggestions in public? Would be fun to hear a top P player give his view on, for instance, swarm host turtle play on Akilon :>
|
The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^
|
On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote:
The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^
Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad.
Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation?
|
On July 29 2013 03:29 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote:
The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^ Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad. Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation?
Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment?
I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net
|
So what happened to the second David Kim interview that IEM was supposed to show on stream?
Canceled due to tech issues?
|
On July 29 2013 03:45 Shin_Gouki wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 03:29 Rabiator wrote:On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote:
The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^ Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad. Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation? Show nested quote +Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment? I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net
I dont see any wrong with those questions at all?
its been a while since we heard anything from blizzard, so we now we get a chance ofcourse we are curious how they see the balance right now and not weeks back
And it was just statements with zerg, not childinsh or bad at all imo
|
On July 29 2013 04:18 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 03:45 Shin_Gouki wrote:On July 29 2013 03:29 Rabiator wrote:On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote:
The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^ Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad. Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation? Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment? I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net I dont see any wrong with those questions at all? its been a while since we heard anything from blizzard, so we now we get a chance ofcourse we are curious how they see the balance right now and not weeks back And it was just statements with zerg, not childinsh or bad at all imo
"But this is an expansion about Zerg." - that's quite suggestive; like nearly every other question is suggestive and basically gives the respones only one "right" answer.
I think this one is the worst:
"In my opinion, Protoss is not a stable race. Although it has high damage, it relies heavily on high-tier units and the high costs of them limit the versatility of Protoss in competitive games. Have you considered changing this situation?"
Well, nice. In his opinion. Whatever 'stable' means for him... etc
|
On July 29 2013 06:26 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 04:18 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2013 03:45 Shin_Gouki wrote:On July 29 2013 03:29 Rabiator wrote:On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote:
The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^ Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad. Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation? Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment? I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net I dont see any wrong with those questions at all? its been a while since we heard anything from blizzard, so we now we get a chance ofcourse we are curious how they see the balance right now and not weeks back And it was just statements with zerg, not childinsh or bad at all imo "But this is an expansion about Zerg." - that's quite suggestive; like nearly every other question is suggestive and basically gives the respones only one "right" answer. I think this one is the worst: "In my opinion, Protoss is not a stable race. Although it has high damage, it relies heavily on high-tier units and the high costs of them limit the versatility of Protoss in competitive games. Have you considered changing this situation?" Well, nice. In his opinion. Whatever 'stable' means for him... etc
You might have noticed that Foxxan likes to balance whine a whole lot himself, so it's not surprising he thinks there's nothing wrong with those questions.
|
On July 29 2013 03:45 Shin_Gouki wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 03:29 Rabiator wrote:On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote:
The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^ Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad. Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation? Show nested quote +Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment? I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net
The question is phrased in a confusing way, which I would put down to the translation and a certain "judgement call" made as part of it. There are A LOT of them and that is a certain style of asking questions where you start with a statement "people think that Zerg is weak" and then try to coax an answer / counter argument out of the person interviewed.
Your own "answer" is pretty childish, because you dont really explain why this question you quoted is bad. Also stuff like "lolok.net" and "We know blizzard stance towards balance already" are really terrible, because one is childish and the other doesnt apply since the question is about Zerg balance / power level and not general game balance.
Are the assumptions made as part of it really bad? I do hope you noticed that the question says "Many people complain" and not "I think", so he just takes up the Zerg whining as the basis of the question.
Is the assumption that Zerg should be more powerful because HotS is the Zerg expansion wrong? Obviously it is, but it belongs to the "Many people complain ..." part of the question and is in no way representative of the interviewers opinion.
The big point is that there have been quite a lot of people who have posted comments like sage_francis did which stated that ALL of the questions - basically the whole interview - are really bad, which isnt really the case and I dont think anyone has actually made an effort of "disecting" the questions to show where they are bad or childish and instead just give a two-line "statement of fact" that the questions are terrible ... NOT PERSONAL OPINION "I think they are terrible" but FACT "They are terrible".
On July 29 2013 06:26 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 04:18 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2013 03:45 Shin_Gouki wrote:On July 29 2013 03:29 Rabiator wrote:On July 28 2013 21:05 sage_francis wrote:
The questions of the interviewer are so bad and childish... And now thread is another meaningless balance whine fest... my gosh ^^ Can you give an example of a "bad and childish" question and explain why it is bad? "Have you considered buffing Terran mech?" seems a pretty good question which isnt focused on enough, because it seems really illogical to keep that part of the Terran arsenal artificially bad. Have you considered that the wording of the interview might sound odd because of the translation? Many people complain that Zerg is not strong at the moment. But this is an expansion about Zerg. How do you see the balance right now? How do you rate balance at the moment? I mean, this was a pretty bad question (not childish). We, for the most part, know where blizzard stands towards balance already. Zerg isn't strong atm? lolok.net I dont see any wrong with those questions at all? its been a while since we heard anything from blizzard, so we now we get a chance ofcourse we are curious how they see the balance right now and not weeks back And it was just statements with zerg, not childinsh or bad at all imo "But this is an expansion about Zerg." - that's quite suggestive; like nearly every other question is suggestive and basically gives the respones only one "right" answer. I think this one is the worst: "In my opinion, Protoss is not a stable race. Although it has high damage, it relies heavily on high-tier units and the high costs of them limit the versatility of Protoss in competitive games. Have you considered changing this situation?" Well, nice. In his opinion. Whatever 'stable' means for him... etc
Do you really think that starting with a statement - like "people say Zerg is weak" - can leave only one "right" answer open? You can always agree that Zerg is weak, disagree and say there are some Zerg units which are too powerful and need to be looked at or disagree and state that things are fine. The point and style of the interview is "start with a statement" (either taken from the community or the interviewer) and then get Blizzards point of view on the topic.
If he had had enough time to ask five more follow up questions to push David Kim into changing his own point of view and "seeing the light" the interview would have been bad, but as it is there is nothing wrong with it. No one would / did complain about Nony asking David Kim about the Carrier and David Kim was good enough to evade the question and not to answer it (in the SotG interview).
IMO: "But this is an expansion about Zerg" belongs to the previous sentence because of the way it is phrased and thus is belongs to "the community opinion" which is just a basis to compare "Blizzards stance" with.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i read this thing just to see how whacky these guys can get and here's this
"At first when we designed the unit, it is a unit that can shoot a missile to any place in the map!"
feel proud, game developer guy, feel proud!
|
Finally! David Kim knows what's up! I really hate players with lesser knowledge/league complain about balance cause they lose to better players.
There are smaller issues with the variety of protoss all-ins that needs to be reduced, just because most Protoss players either go all-in or hit late game with no idea how to outplay their opponent. By outplaying I mean simple warp prism harras. It's not much to ask of Protoss players to be more active instead of going all in every game. Terran and Zerg are as close to balance as balance gets.
TvP has some minor issues where it's so easy to end a game early. Whereas TvZ, there are longer macro games with alot of back and forth.
GJ David Kim! <3
|
I thought I edited this one, sorry ~_~
|
Your own "answer" is pretty childish, because you dont really explain why this question you quoted is bad. Also stuff like "lolok.net" and "We know blizzard stance towards balance already" are really terrible, because one is childish and the other doesnt apply since the question is about Zerg balance / power level and not general game balance.
Are the assumptions made as part of it really bad? I do hope you noticed that the question says "Many people complain" and not "I think", so he just takes up the Zerg whining as the basis of the question.
Is the assumption that Zerg should be more powerful because HotS is the Zerg expansion wrong? Obviously it is, but it belongs to the "Many people complain ..." part of the question and is in no way representative of the interviewers opinion.
The big point is that there have been quite a lot of people who have posted comments like sage_francis did which stated that ALL of the questions - basically the whole interview - are really bad, which isnt really the case and I dont think anyone has actually made an effort of "disecting" the questions to show where they are bad or childish and instead just give a two-line "statement of fact" that the questions are terrible ... NOT PERSONAL OPINION "I think they are terrible" but FACT "They are terrible".
Wait, why do I need to explain, I say it's bad, thus it's my opinion. You can take it for what it is or you can simply ignore it. The questions are generic, especially the one I snipped. Zerg balance is still overall game balance, don't pretend they're different fields. And no, I don't think "Many people complain." He's probably a zerg player himself and threw that in so he doesn't feel alone. I haven't seen many people complain about zerg being weak except for ZvT.
|
On July 26 2013 12:53 larse wrote:
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
David Kim: If we make this change right now, then it is too big of a change. Players have gotten used to the current mode. But we can improve the length of the game. Especially in TvZ, there are a lot of back and forth. This is because the healing ability of medivac and the production capacity of Zerg. So the game lasts longer.
This is one of the most critical questions.
The answer however, is extremely underwhelming and disappointing. Not that we should expect more at this point, but it's sad to see the lead designer of the game indirectly say, "deal with it, it won't change". Then top it with some irrelevant bullshit about tvz game length.
Once again, this is nothing new. We know that DK and DB have a distorted vision about what is fun and competitive, but those harsh reminders are very demoralizing.
|
On July 29 2013 10:44 kasumimi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 12:53 larse wrote:
Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
David Kim: If we make this change right now, then it is too big of a change. Players have gotten used to the current mode. But we can improve the length of the game. Especially in TvZ, there are a lot of back and forth. This is because the healing ability of medivac and the production capacity of Zerg. So the game lasts longer.
This is one of the most critical questions. The answer however, is extremely underwhelming and disappointing. Not that we should expect more at this point, but it's sad to see the lead designer of the game indirectly say, "deal with it, it won't change". Then top it with some irrelevant bullshit about tvz game length. Once again, this is nothing new. We know that DK and DB have a distorted vision about what is fun and competitive, but those harsh reminders are very demoralizing.
This is SC2 man.... More so than just changing armor and damage, the game speed should be changed too, if you want to make it more like BW/WC3.
Seriously though, complaining about this is to complain about SC2 as a game. Why do you support it if you don't like the way it's played? Games can already potentially last long enough. Whether or not players want to play out long games is their choice. Forcing longer battles will end up destroying peoples macro if you keep the game speed this fast, thus it'll create a new skill cap and help ruin late games.
The question is one of many terrible questions written by someone who is bad at writing up interview questions. The answer is very fitting, and tries to solve the question as much as possible without just completely disregarding it like he wants to.
|
Northern Ireland27251 Posts
You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
|
On July 29 2013 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
You don't have to want a BW remake, or have a WC3-esque game to think that 'terrible terrible damage' can make for some really anti-climatic games, both as a player and as an observer.
would you really expect blizzard to change anything this big? They balanced and designed the units to function at this pacing of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
