|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:On November 11 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone." Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests. to be honest, if the video was less "let's see how micro was done in BW and let's see the units "weird" bugs for SC2!", it would have been a much better presentation for blizzard guys to see. I mean those micros like backwards patrol, chinese triangle etcetc, these are exactly what blizzard don't want to add to the game. they care about how the micro can be transferred into something that spectator can see. if the video is cut short right into how banshee/vikings/muta etc would have looked with his adjustment, maybe blizzard could have given a much more concrete reply even if it is still a reject. And we go from superiority/inferiority complex arguments and complaints, to balance concerns, to "they can't understand it, or they're put off by it because the presentation was bad". I'm sorry. When I write and do stuff I generally like to assume people aren't idiots who selectively or completely ignore context clues. So I'm shitting on SC2 because I include a portion describing the history and mechanics of micro in its predecessor? Is that something I explicitly do or something that you infer me doing subtextually? The majority of people who've watched the video don't seem to share yours and the other conspiracy theorists' interpretation of what I'm apparently subtextually trying to infer by my chosen presentation of the subject. Might it be that I'm simply offering some history as a background to the subject rather than advocating the implementation of the exact same mechanics as in Brood War? Do you hear me advocate chinese triangle or patrol micro anywhere in the SC2 section of the video? Do you hear me argue or offer the advice that units should be forced to face and travel towards their target when firing rather than turn around their axis (which would be a pre-requisite for the form of patrol micro found in Brood War to even be meaningful in SC2)? No. No that would be too obvious of me wouldn't it? You guys in this thread see through all that. You're too clever to fall for the explicit interpretation I offer. The majority of viewers obviously suffer from confirmation bias. This is a case of the establishment -- as usual -- trying to push its Brood War agenda on a game that neither needs nor is asking for it. Nony clearly had the better presentation. I mean, it left no room for you at the time to subjectively infer some hidden subtextual meaning right? Let's disregard the fact that Nony also -- just like me -- made a direct comparison to Brood War, and that the whole base of his argument was that the carrier was better designed in Brood War. It would be too simple to give me the benefit of the doubt though, wouldn't it? If you'd take into account the fact that I apparently made a conscious choice of not proposing or arguing for units to be forced to face and travel towards their target, you'd also likely be forced to realize that the history lesson I provided with chinese triangle and patrol micro was just that -- a history lesson -- and nothing more. Too simple though. It's clear the OP is shitting on SC2 and pursuing his BW elitist agenda. I mean..... think of the balance!? Yeah, how can you all not realize the implications to the balance?!? I mean... look at that presentation with all that BW in the beginning? Obviously, being partly psychic I've through a medium been personally able to infer that Blizzard devs are off put by the fact that this OP is clearly propagating for chinese triangles and patrol micro. It's not something that's obvious to the average viewer of course. But Blizz devs aren't so stupid that they can't see through this charade... And even if all of the above weren't true. The fact still remains that OP consciously put in a 20 minute BW circlejerk fest at the end of the video. I mean... if that's not evidence enough of him uncritically pushing an elitist BW agenda -- then what is?!? It certainly couldn't be there to serve as an example of the kind of micro that was made possible by responsive and reliable unit designs. I mean... even if the above were true... the OP didn't need 20 minutes of BW to show it. That's just tactless. It makes it obvious what his alterior motives were. Now back to my own voice at the end of this post. I've wanted to say this the entire thread: shut the fuck up with the constant string of straw mans already. Have you somehow not noticed that all your arguments in this thread have something to do with what I'm supposedly and indirectly inferring, but not directly saying? By making up entirely untrue positions and arguing against them? What the fuck is the obsession with chinese triangle and patrol micro and stacking? Those are completely meaningless concepts were I not at the same time arguing for a change in how SC2 units act while firing. Yet it's repeated constantly as if you and the other geniouses in this thread were actually arguing against a position I'm actually representing as opposed to one that's entirely imagined. This is not just directed towards you. It's time for you to find some real arguments and to respond to real arguments. I don't want to respond to what you supposedly think Blizz devs supposedly thought about my presentation. That's how morons argue. Creating pseudo-debates within a real debate.
The point remains that comparing sc2 to bw is clearly a sore spot for the decision makers at blizzard, and keeping this in mind when calling for change might be a more effective way to enable positive changes to sc2. The presentation could have been made without brood war at all and perhaps been more effective.
That said, the response from dk is pathetic. Avilo summed it up well on his stream yesterday with a bunch of pro sports analogies; "the nfl spectator doesn't have to understand the throwing arm physics behind a perfect qback throw to be amazed at the result", and the technical details behind a 150mph tennis serve etc.
|
On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:On November 11 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone." Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests. to be honest, if the video was less "let's see how micro was done in BW and let's see the units "weird" bugs for SC2!", it would have been a much better presentation for blizzard guys to see. I mean those micros like backwards patrol, chinese triangle etcetc, these are exactly what blizzard don't want to add to the game. they care about how the micro can be transferred into something that spectator can see. if the video is cut short right into how banshee/vikings/muta etc would have looked with his adjustment, maybe blizzard could have given a much more concrete reply even if it is still a reject. And we go from superiority/inferiority complex arguments and complaints, to balance concerns, to "they can't understand it, or they're put off by it because the presentation was bad". I'm sorry. When I write and do stuff I generally like to assume people aren't idiots who selectively or completely ignore context clues. So I'm shitting on SC2 because I include a portion describing the history and mechanics of micro in its predecessor? Is that something I explicitly do or something that you infer me doing subtextually? The majority of people who've watched the video don't seem to share yours and the other conspiracy theorists' interpretation of what I'm apparently subtextually trying to infer by my chosen presentation of the subject. Might it be that I'm simply offering some history as a background to the subject rather than advocating the implementation of the exact same mechanics as in Brood War? Do you hear me advocate chinese triangle or patrol micro anywhere in the SC2 section of the video? Do you hear me argue or offer the advice that units should be forced to face and travel towards their target when firing rather than turn around their axis (which would be a pre-requisite for the form of patrol micro found in Brood War to even be meaningful in SC2)? No. No that would be too obvious of me wouldn't it? You guys in this thread see through all that. You're too clever to fall for the explicit interpretation I offer. The majority of viewers obviously suffer from confirmation bias. This is a case of the establishment -- as usual -- trying to push its Brood War agenda on a game that neither needs nor is asking for it. Nony clearly had the better presentation. I mean, it left no room for you at the time to subjectively infer some hidden subtextual meaning right? Let's disregard the fact that Nony also -- just like me -- made a direct comparison to Brood War, and that the whole base of his argument was that the carrier was better designed in Brood War. It would be too simple to give me the benefit of the doubt though, wouldn't it? If you'd take into account the fact that I apparently made a conscious choice of not proposing or arguing for units to be forced to face and travel towards their target, you'd also likely be forced to realize that the history lesson I provided with chinese triangle and patrol micro was just that -- a history lesson -- and nothing more. Too simple though. It's clear the OP is shitting on SC2 and pursuing his BW elitist agenda. I mean..... think of the balance!? Yeah, how can you all not realize the implications to the balance?!? I mean... look at that presentation with all that BW in the beginning? Obviously, being partly psychic I've through a medium been personally able to infer that Blizzard devs are off put by the fact that this OP is clearly propagating for chinese triangles and patrol micro. It's not something that's obvious to the average viewer of course. But Blizz devs aren't so stupid that they can't see through this charade... And even if all of the above weren't true. The fact still remains that OP consciously put in a 20 minute BW circlejerk fest at the end of the video. I mean... if that's not evidence enough of him uncritically pushing an elitist BW agenda -- then what is?!? It certainly couldn't be there to serve as an example of the kind of micro that was made possible by responsive and reliable unit designs. I mean... even if the above were true... the OP didn't need 20 minutes of BW to show it. That's just tactless. It makes it obvious what his alterior motives were. Now back to my own voice at the end of this post. I've wanted to say this the entire thread: shut the fuck up with the constant string of straw mans already. Have you somehow not noticed that all your arguments in this thread have something to do with what I'm supposedly and indirectly inferring, but not directly saying? By making up entirely untrue positions and arguing against them? What the fuck is the obsession with chinese triangle and patrol micro and stacking? Those are completely meaningless concepts were I not at the same time arguing for a change in how SC2 units act while firing. Yet it's repeated constantly as if you and the other geniouses in this thread were actually arguing against a position I'm actually representing as opposed to one that's entirely imagined. This is not just directed towards you. It's time for you to find some real arguments and to respond to real arguments. I don't want to respond to what you supposedly think Blizz devs supposedly thought about my presentation. That's how morons argue. Creating pseudo-debates within a real debate.
5 mins of BW micro mechanics in a 20 mins discussion is already way more than enough for a history lesson, especially when it did not really touch on SC2 and how relevant are these micro to SC2.
And no, you including BW is not insulting SC2, but your attitude in how you present the video is.
Example, your final words clearly is pretty much shitting on sc2.
esport requires consistent, responsive etcetc (and shows a small shot of BW) and then you go on saying SC2 breaking all these rules without a valid reason?
All units in SC2 are unreliable, inconsistent, unresponsive then while BW did it all perfectly correct?
Which did they do it right? how much turn rate (for example) would be good for which unit, or even how fast the turret should turn for immortal etc.
why Nony video was better for blizzard to see.
It is about one unit, one popular yet underused unit. (You highlighted the wrong word, it should be carrier.)
they were close to remove carrier from HotS and leash range gives blizzard one reason to keep the unit.
BW part he included is about mechanics that is related to that unit, nothing else, no 10 mins montage, no 5 mins BW history of micro lesson that is irrelevant to carrier
In fact, I suspect they even used carrier leash range to test out the community feedback on these micro which at the end, turns out to be under-used and still did not increase carrier variability, unlike how void ray change became a staple unit in pvz.
("Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers.")
so what was Blizzard's comment about your video after watching it?
"These were hidden mechanics (so hidden that it even took a specific video made by a passionate investigator that to explain the nuances to our most invested followers)."
Do we know anything about blizzard's opinion on separation radius, overkill, turrets, unit response rate etc? Nope.
We don't even know if they actually go as far as watching past the BW backward patrol micro etc
If you simply broke the video down into each problems, your recommendation of fix and how it actually looks in SC2 and only provide BW if it is necessary, then it is better, no?
Then at least Blizzard can address each of the points a lot easier, no?
Why do you have to include 5 mins of BW micro history lesson, with a 20 mins of BW montage if you are trying to cover some part of SC2 problem?
If you think presentation is not important, I don't know what to say.
Just think of it as a business proposal, would a company be interested in first watching 5 mins materials that aren't related to your main topic, then 15 mins on the actual discussion topics, then another 20 mins on a montage on another product?
A business proposal should be concise and focused.
You are trying to sell your points, of cause presentation is important.
|
Finally watched the video. Enjoyed it immensely until the end, which I would have to agree the presentation became an issue. Overall I'd like to think Blizz devs can overlook it and see the awesome highlights you presented.
Still, comparing one clip where there are hype Korean commentators cheering for great drone micro, compared to a probe chasing a drone in a unit tester with no commentary and inferring that that is substantially more boring in two completely contexts was in poor taste in what was a really good video. Furthermore, saying that SC2 is not "consistent, responsive, etc" is too broad of a criticism. It's like saying "SC2 is not fun, enjoyable, and appealing" and those words mean too many different things to different people.
Still, I was really impressed of what you highlighted and I hope that final presentation doesn't turn off any chance of developers taking this video seriously. I agree with Nony that it seems that Heroes is a bit of a priority right now if some of these changes require a change in the engine.
I agree with the point that the viewers can appreciate subtle micro, no idea why David Kim would say that.
|
On November 12 2013 02:30 NonY wrote:
Having talked to some people at BlizzCon, I don't think now is the right time to make a push for these changes. I think we should wait for Legacy of the Void, which I now believe to be pretty far off, until we really get into the developers' faces.
David Kim gave an extremely unsatisfying response. For one, whenever pristine kiting micro makes the difference in a fight, the crowds DO recognize it and they DO cheer. For another, they can't make every battle situation involve some flashy ability, so in the absence of something cheer-inducing, there's no reason not to give the player incentive to micro more. That is, it wouldn't be a negative change -- possibly neutral, but most likely positive.
My read on the situation is that implementing a number of these changes would be a major project for them, a project for which they currently don't have the time and resources. And even once they decide all the specific changes they're going to make, the (im)balancing fallout will be immense. Entire strategies depend on the effectiveness and reliability of certain units and that will all get shaken up.
Dk's response was odd (and possibly evasive) but I still don't know what aspect of the video he was responding to. After all, the question was (iirc), "What are your thoughts on the Depth of Micro article on TL?". Moreover, I don't believe his response indicated that there would be no additions to micro-ability in SC2 (indeed his previous presentation seemed to suggest otherwise). Rather, that they might not be of the kind showcased in the video. If so, I see nothing wrong with that. The real test will be when these micro enhancements are made, the use of these by the player base, and their effect on SC2 gameplay.
|
Northern Ireland25045 Posts
I think consistent is a good choice of words really. Hell of a lot better than the words like 'dynamic' and 'exciting' which often come with balance patches :p
More so for the clear differences in how units behave when grouped up. The Banshees and especially the Oracles glitch out quite a bit when their numbers rise.
|
On November 12 2013 02:30 NonY wrote:
Having talked to some people at BlizzCon, I don't think now is the right time to make a push for these changes. I think we should wait for Legacy of the Void, which I now believe to be pretty far off, until we really get into the developers' faces.
David Kim gave an extremely unsatisfying response. For one, whenever pristine kiting micro makes the difference in a fight, the crowds DO recognize it and they DO cheer. For another, they can't make every battle situation involve some flashy ability, so in the absence of something cheer-inducing, there's no reason not to give the player incentive to micro more. That is, it wouldn't be a negative change -- possibly neutral, but most likely positive.
My read on the situation is that implementing a number of these changes would be a major project for them, a project for which they currently don't have the time and resources. And even once they decide all the specific changes they're going to make, the (im)balancing fallout will be immense. Entire strategies depend on the effectiveness and reliability of certain units and that will all get shaken up.
this is a top comment and entirely relevant. the balance implication and the resources to clean up the results of enhancing the game in this way is no small thing. most of the changes the community here want are not small
|
i disagree with dk's comment on casuals understanding whats going on. its so common in so many sports and esports alike, there shouldnt be efforts of trying to identify all of them, it ruins it (spells). high level mechanics should be extremely difficult and impossible without learning and practicing. much like knuckleballs in soccer and baseball, golf swings, shooting mechanics in basketball. casuals can do their hardest but knowing what to do and practicing it is what makes it work. labeling everything just makes it more stupid. (not that they intentionally did that with spells but seems to be a side effect of it)
|
On November 12 2013 16:06 jinorazi wrote:
i disagree with dk's comment on casuals understanding whats going on. its so common in so many sports and esports alike, there shouldnt be efforts of trying to identify all of them, it ruins it (spells). high level mechanics should be extremely difficult and impossible without learning and practicing. much like knuckleballs in soccer and baseball, golf swings, shooting mechanics in basketball. casuals can do their hardest but knowing what to do and practicing it is what makes it work. labeling everything just makes it more stupid. (not that they intentionally did that with spells but seems to be a side effect of it)
To be perfectly honest, I showed a friend a sc2 video yesterday... Did they have any idea what was going on? No. Did they enjoy it? Yes.
|
I think I love you.
That video explained so much I couldn't really put into words when trying to figure out why exactly I never enjoyed SC2 as much as I did BW. :3
|
I think CatZ gave the right, proper response to avilo. On twitter.
I would use a more friendly wording, ok. Nevertheless, thanks to CatZ.
|
On November 12 2013 15:24 dreamseller wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 02:30 NonY wrote:
Having talked to some people at BlizzCon, I don't think now is the right time to make a push for these changes. I think we should wait for Legacy of the Void, which I now believe to be pretty far off, until we really get into the developers' faces.
David Kim gave an extremely unsatisfying response. For one, whenever pristine kiting micro makes the difference in a fight, the crowds DO recognize it and they DO cheer. For another, they can't make every battle situation involve some flashy ability, so in the absence of something cheer-inducing, there's no reason not to give the player incentive to micro more. That is, it wouldn't be a negative change -- possibly neutral, but most likely positive.
My read on the situation is that implementing a number of these changes would be a major project for them, a project for which they currently don't have the time and resources. And even once they decide all the specific changes they're going to make, the (im)balancing fallout will be immense. Entire strategies depend on the effectiveness and reliability of certain units and that will all get shaken up. this is a top comment and entirely relevant. the balance implication and the resources to clean up the results of enhancing the game in this way is no small thing. most of the changes the community here want are not small
Its not a top comment, its just common sense.
|
On November 12 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:On November 11 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone." Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests. to be honest, if the video was less "let's see how micro was done in BW and let's see the units "weird" bugs for SC2!", it would have been a much better presentation for blizzard guys to see. I mean those micros like backwards patrol, chinese triangle etcetc, these are exactly what blizzard don't want to add to the game. they care about how the micro can be transferred into something that spectator can see. if the video is cut short right into how banshee/vikings/muta etc would have looked with his adjustment, maybe blizzard could have given a much more concrete reply even if it is still a reject. And we go from superiority/inferiority complex arguments and complaints, to balance concerns, to "they can't understand it, or they're put off by it because the presentation was bad". I'm sorry. When I write and do stuff I generally like to assume people aren't idiots who selectively or completely ignore context clues. So I'm shitting on SC2 because I include a portion describing the history and mechanics of micro in its predecessor? Is that something I explicitly do or something that you infer me doing subtextually? The majority of people who've watched the video don't seem to share yours and the other conspiracy theorists' interpretation of what I'm apparently subtextually trying to infer by my chosen presentation of the subject. Might it be that I'm simply offering some history as a background to the subject rather than advocating the implementation of the exact same mechanics as in Brood War? Do you hear me advocate chinese triangle or patrol micro anywhere in the SC2 section of the video? Do you hear me argue or offer the advice that units should be forced to face and travel towards their target when firing rather than turn around their axis (which would be a pre-requisite for the form of patrol micro found in Brood War to even be meaningful in SC2)? No. No that would be too obvious of me wouldn't it? You guys in this thread see through all that. You're too clever to fall for the explicit interpretation I offer. The majority of viewers obviously suffer from confirmation bias. This is a case of the establishment -- as usual -- trying to push its Brood War agenda on a game that neither needs nor is asking for it. Nony clearly had the better presentation. I mean, it left no room for you at the time to subjectively infer some hidden subtextual meaning right? Let's disregard the fact that Nony also -- just like me -- made a direct comparison to Brood War, and that the whole base of his argument was that the carrier was better designed in Brood War. It would be too simple to give me the benefit of the doubt though, wouldn't it? If you'd take into account the fact that I apparently made a conscious choice of not proposing or arguing for units to be forced to face and travel towards their target, you'd also likely be forced to realize that the history lesson I provided with chinese triangle and patrol micro was just that -- a history lesson -- and nothing more. Too simple though. It's clear the OP is shitting on SC2 and pursuing his BW elitist agenda. I mean..... think of the balance!? Yeah, how can you all not realize the implications to the balance?!? I mean... look at that presentation with all that BW in the beginning? Obviously, being partly psychic I've through a medium been personally able to infer that Blizzard devs are off put by the fact that this OP is clearly propagating for chinese triangles and patrol micro. It's not something that's obvious to the average viewer of course. But Blizz devs aren't so stupid that they can't see through this charade... And even if all of the above weren't true. The fact still remains that OP consciously put in a 20 minute BW circlejerk fest at the end of the video. I mean... if that's not evidence enough of him uncritically pushing an elitist BW agenda -- then what is?!? It certainly couldn't be there to serve as an example of the kind of micro that was made possible by responsive and reliable unit designs. I mean... even if the above were true... the OP didn't need 20 minutes of BW to show it. That's just tactless. It makes it obvious what his alterior motives were. Now back to my own voice at the end of this post. I've wanted to say this the entire thread: shut the fuck up with the constant string of straw mans already. Have you somehow not noticed that all your arguments in this thread have something to do with what I'm supposedly and indirectly inferring, but not directly saying? By making up entirely untrue positions and arguing against them? What the fuck is the obsession with chinese triangle and patrol micro and stacking? Those are completely meaningless concepts were I not at the same time arguing for a change in how SC2 units act while firing. Yet it's repeated constantly as if you and the other geniouses in this thread were actually arguing against a position I'm actually representing as opposed to one that's entirely imagined. This is not just directed towards you. It's time for you to find some real arguments and to respond to real arguments. I don't want to respond to what you supposedly think Blizz devs supposedly thought about my presentation. That's how morons argue. Creating pseudo-debates within a real debate. 5 mins of BW micro mechanics in a 20 mins discussion is already way more than enough for a history lesson, especially when it did not really touch on SC2 and how relevant are these micro to SC2. And no, you including BW is not insulting SC2, but your attitude in how you present the video is. Example, your final words clearly is pretty much shitting on sc2. esport requires consistent, responsive etcetc (and shows a small shot of BW) and then you go on saying SC2 breaking all these rules without a valid reason? All units in SC2 are unreliable, inconsistent, unresponsive then while BW did it all perfectly correct? Which did they do it right? how much turn rate (for example) would be good for which unit, or even how fast the turret should turn for immortal etc. why Nony video was better for blizzard to see. It is about one unit, one popular yet underused unit. (You highlighted the wrong word, it should be carrier.) they were close to remove carrier from HotS and leash range gives blizzard one reason to keep the unit. BW part he included is about mechanics that is related to that unit, nothing else, no 10 mins montage, no 5 mins BW history of micro lesson that is irrelevant to carrier In fact, I suspect they even used carrier leash range to test out the community feedback on these micro which at the end, turns out to be under-used and still did not increase carrier variability, unlike how void ray change became a staple unit in pvz. ("Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers.") so what was Blizzard's comment about your video after watching it? "These were hidden mechanics (so hidden that it even took a specific video made by a passionate investigator that to explain the nuances to our most invested followers)." Do we know anything about blizzard's opinion on separation radius, overkill, turrets, unit response rate etc? Nope. We don't even know if they actually go as far as watching past the BW backward patrol micro etc If you simply broke the video down into each problems, your recommendation of fix and how it actually looks in SC2 and only provide BW if it is necessary, then it is better, no? Then at least Blizzard can address each of the points a lot easier, no? Why do you have to include 5 mins of BW micro history lesson, with a 20 mins of BW montage if you are trying to cover some part of SC2 problem? If you think presentation is not important, I don't know what to say. Just think of it as a business proposal, would a company be interested in first watching 5 mins materials that aren't related to your main topic, then 15 mins on the actual discussion topics, then another 20 mins on a montage on another product? A business proposal should be concise and focused. You are trying to sell your points, of cause presentation is important.
Then why don't you do a proper video yourself?
LaLush's video was absolutely fine, SC2 really lacks some stuff the game could be improved upon. Using BW montages, shitting on game or exaggerating are all matter of style. In the end he delivers the POINT, which is most important. If you think it could be done in better way then go ahead do it, its better than pointless critisizm of the presentation rather than arguing the matter itself.
|
On November 12 2013 17:32 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:On November 11 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone." Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests. to be honest, if the video was less "let's see how micro was done in BW and let's see the units "weird" bugs for SC2!", it would have been a much better presentation for blizzard guys to see. I mean those micros like backwards patrol, chinese triangle etcetc, these are exactly what blizzard don't want to add to the game. they care about how the micro can be transferred into something that spectator can see. if the video is cut short right into how banshee/vikings/muta etc would have looked with his adjustment, maybe blizzard could have given a much more concrete reply even if it is still a reject. And we go from superiority/inferiority complex arguments and complaints, to balance concerns, to "they can't understand it, or they're put off by it because the presentation was bad". I'm sorry. When I write and do stuff I generally like to assume people aren't idiots who selectively or completely ignore context clues. So I'm shitting on SC2 because I include a portion describing the history and mechanics of micro in its predecessor? Is that something I explicitly do or something that you infer me doing subtextually? The majority of people who've watched the video don't seem to share yours and the other conspiracy theorists' interpretation of what I'm apparently subtextually trying to infer by my chosen presentation of the subject. Might it be that I'm simply offering some history as a background to the subject rather than advocating the implementation of the exact same mechanics as in Brood War? Do you hear me advocate chinese triangle or patrol micro anywhere in the SC2 section of the video? Do you hear me argue or offer the advice that units should be forced to face and travel towards their target when firing rather than turn around their axis (which would be a pre-requisite for the form of patrol micro found in Brood War to even be meaningful in SC2)? No. No that would be too obvious of me wouldn't it? You guys in this thread see through all that. You're too clever to fall for the explicit interpretation I offer. The majority of viewers obviously suffer from confirmation bias. This is a case of the establishment -- as usual -- trying to push its Brood War agenda on a game that neither needs nor is asking for it. Nony clearly had the better presentation. I mean, it left no room for you at the time to subjectively infer some hidden subtextual meaning right? Let's disregard the fact that Nony also -- just like me -- made a direct comparison to Brood War, and that the whole base of his argument was that the carrier was better designed in Brood War. It would be too simple to give me the benefit of the doubt though, wouldn't it? If you'd take into account the fact that I apparently made a conscious choice of not proposing or arguing for units to be forced to face and travel towards their target, you'd also likely be forced to realize that the history lesson I provided with chinese triangle and patrol micro was just that -- a history lesson -- and nothing more. Too simple though. It's clear the OP is shitting on SC2 and pursuing his BW elitist agenda. I mean..... think of the balance!? Yeah, how can you all not realize the implications to the balance?!? I mean... look at that presentation with all that BW in the beginning? Obviously, being partly psychic I've through a medium been personally able to infer that Blizzard devs are off put by the fact that this OP is clearly propagating for chinese triangles and patrol micro. It's not something that's obvious to the average viewer of course. But Blizz devs aren't so stupid that they can't see through this charade... And even if all of the above weren't true. The fact still remains that OP consciously put in a 20 minute BW circlejerk fest at the end of the video. I mean... if that's not evidence enough of him uncritically pushing an elitist BW agenda -- then what is?!? It certainly couldn't be there to serve as an example of the kind of micro that was made possible by responsive and reliable unit designs. I mean... even if the above were true... the OP didn't need 20 minutes of BW to show it. That's just tactless. It makes it obvious what his alterior motives were. Now back to my own voice at the end of this post. I've wanted to say this the entire thread: shut the fuck up with the constant string of straw mans already. Have you somehow not noticed that all your arguments in this thread have something to do with what I'm supposedly and indirectly inferring, but not directly saying? By making up entirely untrue positions and arguing against them? What the fuck is the obsession with chinese triangle and patrol micro and stacking? Those are completely meaningless concepts were I not at the same time arguing for a change in how SC2 units act while firing. Yet it's repeated constantly as if you and the other geniouses in this thread were actually arguing against a position I'm actually representing as opposed to one that's entirely imagined. This is not just directed towards you. It's time for you to find some real arguments and to respond to real arguments. I don't want to respond to what you supposedly think Blizz devs supposedly thought about my presentation. That's how morons argue. Creating pseudo-debates within a real debate. 5 mins of BW micro mechanics in a 20 mins discussion is already way more than enough for a history lesson, especially when it did not really touch on SC2 and how relevant are these micro to SC2. And no, you including BW is not insulting SC2, but your attitude in how you present the video is. Example, your final words clearly is pretty much shitting on sc2. esport requires consistent, responsive etcetc (and shows a small shot of BW) and then you go on saying SC2 breaking all these rules without a valid reason? All units in SC2 are unreliable, inconsistent, unresponsive then while BW did it all perfectly correct? Which did they do it right? how much turn rate (for example) would be good for which unit, or even how fast the turret should turn for immortal etc. why Nony video was better for blizzard to see. It is about one unit, one popular yet underused unit. (You highlighted the wrong word, it should be carrier.) they were close to remove carrier from HotS and leash range gives blizzard one reason to keep the unit. BW part he included is about mechanics that is related to that unit, nothing else, no 10 mins montage, no 5 mins BW history of micro lesson that is irrelevant to carrier In fact, I suspect they even used carrier leash range to test out the community feedback on these micro which at the end, turns out to be under-used and still did not increase carrier variability, unlike how void ray change became a staple unit in pvz. ("Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers.") so what was Blizzard's comment about your video after watching it? "These were hidden mechanics (so hidden that it even took a specific video made by a passionate investigator that to explain the nuances to our most invested followers)." Do we know anything about blizzard's opinion on separation radius, overkill, turrets, unit response rate etc? Nope. We don't even know if they actually go as far as watching past the BW backward patrol micro etc If you simply broke the video down into each problems, your recommendation of fix and how it actually looks in SC2 and only provide BW if it is necessary, then it is better, no? Then at least Blizzard can address each of the points a lot easier, no? Why do you have to include 5 mins of BW micro history lesson, with a 20 mins of BW montage if you are trying to cover some part of SC2 problem? If you think presentation is not important, I don't know what to say. Just think of it as a business proposal, would a company be interested in first watching 5 mins materials that aren't related to your main topic, then 15 mins on the actual discussion topics, then another 20 mins on a montage on another product? A business proposal should be concise and focused. You are trying to sell your points, of cause presentation is important. Then why don't you do a proper video yourself? LaLush's video was absolutely fine, SC2 really lacks some stuff the game could be improved upon. Using BW montages, shitting on game or exaggerating are all matter of style. In the end he delivers the POINT, which is most important. If you think it could be done in better way then go ahead do it, its better than pointless critisizm of the presentation rather than arguing the matter itself.
Whether the POINT was delivered or not, we don't know.
blizzard feedback DID NOT address any of the POINT shown in the video and seemingly only have watched the BW patrol micro part which is NOT THE POINT of this video but took up 1/4th of the actual content?
Nothing on turret tracking, overkill, separation radius etc which are not invisible micro. Do you still think the point was delivered?
It doesn't matter if you think the POINT was correct or not, it's not even about if you think the video is fine or not.
if the matter of style is getting in the way of presenting the POINT, then obviously it isn't a good video to deliver his POINT, is it?
It's about did Blizzard watch the whole video without those BW presentation getting in their way of thinking.
as for why don't I do a proper video, this is a silly argument.
can you do better than twitchtv? then do you have to accept as it is with all the lags?
|
If DK doesn't want to have hidden mechanics micro that the casual players might not understand, then why not simply reduce the damage output of SC2?
This will make a more micro-intensive game that everyone will enjoy and appreciate. Micro highlights are always popular, and this one of the reasons why LoL and Dota is popular.
There will be constant action right from the beginning, since controlling every individual unit is more important, from first stalker to pair of lings, or group of marines. Harassing, defending harass, multitasking is more important since both sides can win more decidedly by micro.
Units that hard-counter other units will be a little less effective since micro can still let u escape/ live longer for other units to join the fight, so it gives this back-and-forth micro battles.
Battles of death-balls won't end so quickly with you watching wtf just happened. Overall deathballs will have less importance, because it's not so important for you to have all your units together in a fight to do high damage.
Currently the game is too fast. It's so common for pros to not look for 1 second and lose entire army, and so basically game over.
Comebacks are more possible as a player can be able to win even if having a lower supply but having amazing micro. Back-and-forth comebacks makes the game more exciting.
Since dmg output is so high, micro of big battles is mainly of spreading units and concaves, then mostly A-move. If dmg output is reduced, micro is more unit intensive and constant throughout. No more A-move.
Basically the skill-ceiling will be much much higher. And the casual players will appreciate pros able to micro that so good and make more amazing plays
I come from a WC3 background so I'm very biased towards micro
|
On November 12 2013 12:32 dreamseller wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:On November 11 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone." Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests. to be honest, if the video was less "let's see how micro was done in BW and let's see the units "weird" bugs for SC2!", it would have been a much better presentation for blizzard guys to see. I mean those micros like backwards patrol, chinese triangle etcetc, these are exactly what blizzard don't want to add to the game. they care about how the micro can be transferred into something that spectator can see. if the video is cut short right into how banshee/vikings/muta etc would have looked with his adjustment, maybe blizzard could have given a much more concrete reply even if it is still a reject. And we go from superiority/inferiority complex arguments and complaints, to balance concerns, to "they can't understand it, or they're put off by it because the presentation was bad". I'm sorry. When I write and do stuff I generally like to assume people aren't idiots who selectively or completely ignore context clues. So I'm shitting on SC2 because I include a portion describing the history and mechanics of micro in its predecessor? Is that something I explicitly do or something that you infer me doing subtextually? The majority of people who've watched the video don't seem to share yours and the other conspiracy theorists' interpretation of what I'm apparently subtextually trying to infer by my chosen presentation of the subject. Might it be that I'm simply offering some history as a background to the subject rather than advocating the implementation of the exact same mechanics as in Brood War? Do you hear me advocate chinese triangle or patrol micro anywhere in the SC2 section of the video? Do you hear me argue or offer the advice that units should be forced to face and travel towards their target when firing rather than turn around their axis (which would be a pre-requisite for the form of patrol micro found in Brood War to even be meaningful in SC2)? No. No that would be too obvious of me wouldn't it? You guys in this thread see through all that. You're too clever to fall for the explicit interpretation I offer. The majority of viewers obviously suffer from confirmation bias. This is a case of the establishment -- as usual -- trying to push its Brood War agenda on a game that neither needs nor is asking for it. Nony clearly had the better presentation. I mean, it left no room for you at the time to subjectively infer some hidden subtextual meaning right? Let's disregard the fact that Nony also -- just like me -- made a direct comparison to Brood War, and that the whole base of his argument was that the carrier was better designed in Brood War. It would be too simple to give me the benefit of the doubt though, wouldn't it? If you'd take into account the fact that I apparently made a conscious choice of not proposing or arguing for units to be forced to face and travel towards their target, you'd also likely be forced to realize that the history lesson I provided with chinese triangle and patrol micro was just that -- a history lesson -- and nothing more. Too simple though. It's clear the OP is shitting on SC2 and pursuing his BW elitist agenda. I mean..... think of the balance!? Yeah, how can you all not realize the implications to the balance?!? I mean... look at that presentation with all that BW in the beginning? Obviously, being partly psychic I've through a medium been personally able to infer that Blizzard devs are off put by the fact that this OP is clearly propagating for chinese triangles and patrol micro. It's not something that's obvious to the average viewer of course. But Blizz devs aren't so stupid that they can't see through this charade... And even if all of the above weren't true. The fact still remains that OP consciously put in a 20 minute BW circlejerk fest at the end of the video. I mean... if that's not evidence enough of him uncritically pushing an elitist BW agenda -- then what is?!? It certainly couldn't be there to serve as an example of the kind of micro that was made possible by responsive and reliable unit designs. I mean... even if the above were true... the OP didn't need 20 minutes of BW to show it. That's just tactless. It makes it obvious what his alterior motives were. Now back to my own voice at the end of this post. I've wanted to say this the entire thread: shut the fuck up with the constant string of straw mans already. Have you somehow not noticed that all your arguments in this thread have something to do with what I'm supposedly and indirectly inferring, but not directly saying? By making up entirely untrue positions and arguing against them? What the fuck is the obsession with chinese triangle and patrol micro and stacking? Those are completely meaningless concepts were I not at the same time arguing for a change in how SC2 units act while firing. Yet it's repeated constantly as if you and the other geniouses in this thread were actually arguing against a position I'm actually representing as opposed to one that's entirely imagined. This is not just directed towards you. It's time for you to find some real arguments and to respond to real arguments. I don't want to respond to what you supposedly think Blizz devs supposedly thought about my presentation. That's how morons argue. Creating pseudo-debates within a real debate. The point remains that comparing sc2 to bw is clearly a sore spot for the decision makers at blizzard, and keeping this in mind when calling for change might be a more effective way to enable positive changes to sc2. The presentation could have been made without brood war at all and perhaps been more effective. That said, the response from dk is pathetic. Avilo summed it up well on his stream yesterday with a bunch of pro sports analogies; "the nfl spectator doesn't have to understand the throwing arm physics behind a perfect qback throw to be amazed at the result", and the technical details behind a 150mph tennis serve etc.
Funny enough, you'd think that the designers of a game in which one huge aspect is coping with your losses and emerging stronger from them would be better at dealing with harsh criticism.
|
blizzard! plz hire this guy :'(
I think this is the biggest mistake that sc2 dev team made.
no wonder every battle was 5 secs blink of eyes...
|
The turret tracking could definitely get implemented without much effort and radical change. I am thinking about tanks, immortals and hellions.
It is kinda ironic. I feels that with this thread and threads about BW pathing etc. that SC2 has taught as a lot more about BW than BW did.
|
On November 12 2013 19:39 Xiphias wrote:
The turret tracking could definitely get implemented without much effort and radical change. I am thinking about tanks, immortals and hellions.
It is kinda ironic. I feels that with this thread and threads about BW pathing etc. that SC2 has taught as a lot more about BW than BW did.
In science you often have to knock out genes to analyse them. In most cases you can only see a difference or an effect after the gene is not there anymore. So i guess its much easier to notice stuff in SC2 that we had in BW but isnt there anymore.
|
On November 12 2013 18:32 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 12:32 dreamseller wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:On November 11 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone." Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests. to be honest, if the video was less "let's see how micro was done in BW and let's see the units "weird" bugs for SC2!", it would have been a much better presentation for blizzard guys to see. I mean those micros like backwards patrol, chinese triangle etcetc, these are exactly what blizzard don't want to add to the game. they care about how the micro can be transferred into something that spectator can see. if the video is cut short right into how banshee/vikings/muta etc would have looked with his adjustment, maybe blizzard could have given a much more concrete reply even if it is still a reject. And we go from superiority/inferiority complex arguments and complaints, to balance concerns, to "they can't understand it, or they're put off by it because the presentation was bad". I'm sorry. When I write and do stuff I generally like to assume people aren't idiots who selectively or completely ignore context clues. So I'm shitting on SC2 because I include a portion describing the history and mechanics of micro in its predecessor? Is that something I explicitly do or something that you infer me doing subtextually? The majority of people who've watched the video don't seem to share yours and the other conspiracy theorists' interpretation of what I'm apparently subtextually trying to infer by my chosen presentation of the subject. Might it be that I'm simply offering some history as a background to the subject rather than advocating the implementation of the exact same mechanics as in Brood War? Do you hear me advocate chinese triangle or patrol micro anywhere in the SC2 section of the video? Do you hear me argue or offer the advice that units should be forced to face and travel towards their target when firing rather than turn around their axis (which would be a pre-requisite for the form of patrol micro found in Brood War to even be meaningful in SC2)? No. No that would be too obvious of me wouldn't it? You guys in this thread see through all that. You're too clever to fall for the explicit interpretation I offer. The majority of viewers obviously suffer from confirmation bias. This is a case of the establishment -- as usual -- trying to push its Brood War agenda on a game that neither needs nor is asking for it. Nony clearly had the better presentation. I mean, it left no room for you at the time to subjectively infer some hidden subtextual meaning right? Let's disregard the fact that Nony also -- just like me -- made a direct comparison to Brood War, and that the whole base of his argument was that the carrier was better designed in Brood War. It would be too simple to give me the benefit of the doubt though, wouldn't it? If you'd take into account the fact that I apparently made a conscious choice of not proposing or arguing for units to be forced to face and travel towards their target, you'd also likely be forced to realize that the history lesson I provided with chinese triangle and patrol micro was just that -- a history lesson -- and nothing more. Too simple though. It's clear the OP is shitting on SC2 and pursuing his BW elitist agenda. I mean..... think of the balance!? Yeah, how can you all not realize the implications to the balance?!? I mean... look at that presentation with all that BW in the beginning? Obviously, being partly psychic I've through a medium been personally able to infer that Blizzard devs are off put by the fact that this OP is clearly propagating for chinese triangles and patrol micro. It's not something that's obvious to the average viewer of course. But Blizz devs aren't so stupid that they can't see through this charade... And even if all of the above weren't true. The fact still remains that OP consciously put in a 20 minute BW circlejerk fest at the end of the video. I mean... if that's not evidence enough of him uncritically pushing an elitist BW agenda -- then what is?!? It certainly couldn't be there to serve as an example of the kind of micro that was made possible by responsive and reliable unit designs. I mean... even if the above were true... the OP didn't need 20 minutes of BW to show it. That's just tactless. It makes it obvious what his alterior motives were. Now back to my own voice at the end of this post. I've wanted to say this the entire thread: shut the fuck up with the constant string of straw mans already. Have you somehow not noticed that all your arguments in this thread have something to do with what I'm supposedly and indirectly inferring, but not directly saying? By making up entirely untrue positions and arguing against them? What the fuck is the obsession with chinese triangle and patrol micro and stacking? Those are completely meaningless concepts were I not at the same time arguing for a change in how SC2 units act while firing. Yet it's repeated constantly as if you and the other geniouses in this thread were actually arguing against a position I'm actually representing as opposed to one that's entirely imagined. This is not just directed towards you. It's time for you to find some real arguments and to respond to real arguments. I don't want to respond to what you supposedly think Blizz devs supposedly thought about my presentation. That's how morons argue. Creating pseudo-debates within a real debate. The point remains that comparing sc2 to bw is clearly a sore spot for the decision makers at blizzard, and keeping this in mind when calling for change might be a more effective way to enable positive changes to sc2. The presentation could have been made without brood war at all and perhaps been more effective. That said, the response from dk is pathetic. Avilo summed it up well on his stream yesterday with a bunch of pro sports analogies; "the nfl spectator doesn't have to understand the throwing arm physics behind a perfect qback throw to be amazed at the result", and the technical details behind a 150mph tennis serve etc. Funny enough, you'd think that the designers of a game in which one huge aspect is coping with your losses and emerging stronger from them would be better at dealing with harsh criticism.
an interesting link you've made between the competitive aspect of 1vs1 RTS and business structures; it's well known that most of "the magic" in terms of the design team (diablo1/2 team, wc1/2/3 team, sc/bw team) has moved on from blizzard and it seems the new team doesn't want their decisions in the future informed by the glorious past.
|
On November 12 2013 18:06 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 17:32 saddaromma wrote:On November 12 2013 13:36 ETisME wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2013 02:06 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 00:02 ETisME wrote:On November 11 2013 23:36 Plansix wrote:On November 11 2013 23:32 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 11 2013 22:44 NukeD wrote:
This thread got me so frustrated with anything sc2 related. Abandon ship folks. There is no hope. Quitter ^^ On November 11 2013 22:52 Dr.Sin wrote:
This is fantastic work, thank you LaLush! Has this been put on the bnet forums? Has Blizzard said anything about these features or why it was made this way in sc2? The only direct response I know of is from a blizzcon panel - at 46:37 if that link doesn't take you to the correct time. Questioner: "Recently on team liquid there was a post called "depth of micro". I was wondering if you guys saw that post and what your thoughts were on it." David Kim: "We try to look into every community - especially the big ones like the video you're talking about - and regarding it we thought it was an amazing comparison between the two games, but I think at the end of the day it kind of goes back the point about skill visibility that I was talking about. A lot of those micro opportunities that there were and that are shown in that video were very cool but it's not something that a casual level viewer can easily understand. So while we do want specific things that only the really hardcore players can understand we want to more so focus on something that everyone can enjoy, because on this side, not only the most hardcore people can understand that stuff that's going on but also the casual viewers, so we want to have a good balance of the two and right now our focus is more so on the skill visibility for everyone." Which sounds like they want to make the game as skill bases as possible an having units that are great to micro, just like the video wants. But they may not do it in the exact way the video suggests. to be honest, if the video was less "let's see how micro was done in BW and let's see the units "weird" bugs for SC2!", it would have been a much better presentation for blizzard guys to see. I mean those micros like backwards patrol, chinese triangle etcetc, these are exactly what blizzard don't want to add to the game. they care about how the micro can be transferred into something that spectator can see. if the video is cut short right into how banshee/vikings/muta etc would have looked with his adjustment, maybe blizzard could have given a much more concrete reply even if it is still a reject. And we go from superiority/inferiority complex arguments and complaints, to balance concerns, to "they can't understand it, or they're put off by it because the presentation was bad". I'm sorry. When I write and do stuff I generally like to assume people aren't idiots who selectively or completely ignore context clues. So I'm shitting on SC2 because I include a portion describing the history and mechanics of micro in its predecessor? Is that something I explicitly do or something that you infer me doing subtextually? The majority of people who've watched the video don't seem to share yours and the other conspiracy theorists' interpretation of what I'm apparently subtextually trying to infer by my chosen presentation of the subject. Might it be that I'm simply offering some history as a background to the subject rather than advocating the implementation of the exact same mechanics as in Brood War? Do you hear me advocate chinese triangle or patrol micro anywhere in the SC2 section of the video? Do you hear me argue or offer the advice that units should be forced to face and travel towards their target when firing rather than turn around their axis (which would be a pre-requisite for the form of patrol micro found in Brood War to even be meaningful in SC2)? No. No that would be too obvious of me wouldn't it? You guys in this thread see through all that. You're too clever to fall for the explicit interpretation I offer. The majority of viewers obviously suffer from confirmation bias. This is a case of the establishment -- as usual -- trying to push its Brood War agenda on a game that neither needs nor is asking for it. Nony clearly had the better presentation. I mean, it left no room for you at the time to subjectively infer some hidden subtextual meaning right? Let's disregard the fact that Nony also -- just like me -- made a direct comparison to Brood War, and that the whole base of his argument was that the carrier was better designed in Brood War. It would be too simple to give me the benefit of the doubt though, wouldn't it? If you'd take into account the fact that I apparently made a conscious choice of not proposing or arguing for units to be forced to face and travel towards their target, you'd also likely be forced to realize that the history lesson I provided with chinese triangle and patrol micro was just that -- a history lesson -- and nothing more. Too simple though. It's clear the OP is shitting on SC2 and pursuing his BW elitist agenda. I mean..... think of the balance!? Yeah, how can you all not realize the implications to the balance?!? I mean... look at that presentation with all that BW in the beginning? Obviously, being partly psychic I've through a medium been personally able to infer that Blizzard devs are off put by the fact that this OP is clearly propagating for chinese triangles and patrol micro. It's not something that's obvious to the average viewer of course. But Blizz devs aren't so stupid that they can't see through this charade... And even if all of the above weren't true. The fact still remains that OP consciously put in a 20 minute BW circlejerk fest at the end of the video. I mean... if that's not evidence enough of him uncritically pushing an elitist BW agenda -- then what is?!? It certainly couldn't be there to serve as an example of the kind of micro that was made possible by responsive and reliable unit designs. I mean... even if the above were true... the OP didn't need 20 minutes of BW to show it. That's just tactless. It makes it obvious what his alterior motives were. Now back to my own voice at the end of this post. I've wanted to say this the entire thread: shut the fuck up with the constant string of straw mans already. Have you somehow not noticed that all your arguments in this thread have something to do with what I'm supposedly and indirectly inferring, but not directly saying? By making up entirely untrue positions and arguing against them? What the fuck is the obsession with chinese triangle and patrol micro and stacking? Those are completely meaningless concepts were I not at the same time arguing for a change in how SC2 units act while firing. Yet it's repeated constantly as if you and the other geniouses in this thread were actually arguing against a position I'm actually representing as opposed to one that's entirely imagined. This is not just directed towards you. It's time for you to find some real arguments and to respond to real arguments. I don't want to respond to what you supposedly think Blizz devs supposedly thought about my presentation. That's how morons argue. Creating pseudo-debates within a real debate. 5 mins of BW micro mechanics in a 20 mins discussion is already way more than enough for a history lesson, especially when it did not really touch on SC2 and how relevant are these micro to SC2. And no, you including BW is not insulting SC2, but your attitude in how you present the video is. Example, your final words clearly is pretty much shitting on sc2. esport requires consistent, responsive etcetc (and shows a small shot of BW) and then you go on saying SC2 breaking all these rules without a valid reason? All units in SC2 are unreliable, inconsistent, unresponsive then while BW did it all perfectly correct? Which did they do it right? how much turn rate (for example) would be good for which unit, or even how fast the turret should turn for immortal etc. why Nony video was better for blizzard to see. It is about one unit, one popular yet underused unit. (You highlighted the wrong word, it should be carrier.) they were close to remove carrier from HotS and leash range gives blizzard one reason to keep the unit. BW part he included is about mechanics that is related to that unit, nothing else, no 10 mins montage, no 5 mins BW history of micro lesson that is irrelevant to carrier In fact, I suspect they even used carrier leash range to test out the community feedback on these micro which at the end, turns out to be under-used and still did not increase carrier variability, unlike how void ray change became a staple unit in pvz. ("Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers.") so what was Blizzard's comment about your video after watching it? "These were hidden mechanics (so hidden that it even took a specific video made by a passionate investigator that to explain the nuances to our most invested followers)." Do we know anything about blizzard's opinion on separation radius, overkill, turrets, unit response rate etc? Nope. We don't even know if they actually go as far as watching past the BW backward patrol micro etc If you simply broke the video down into each problems, your recommendation of fix and how it actually looks in SC2 and only provide BW if it is necessary, then it is better, no? Then at least Blizzard can address each of the points a lot easier, no? Why do you have to include 5 mins of BW micro history lesson, with a 20 mins of BW montage if you are trying to cover some part of SC2 problem? If you think presentation is not important, I don't know what to say. Just think of it as a business proposal, would a company be interested in first watching 5 mins materials that aren't related to your main topic, then 15 mins on the actual discussion topics, then another 20 mins on a montage on another product? A business proposal should be concise and focused. You are trying to sell your points, of cause presentation is important. Then why don't you do a proper video yourself? LaLush's video was absolutely fine, SC2 really lacks some stuff the game could be improved upon. Using BW montages, shitting on game or exaggerating are all matter of style. In the end he delivers the POINT, which is most important. If you think it could be done in better way then go ahead do it, its better than pointless critisizm of the presentation rather than arguing the matter itself. Whether the POINT was delivered or not, we don't know. blizzard feedback DID NOT address any of the POINT shown in the video and seemingly only have watched the BW patrol micro part which is NOT THE POINT of this video but took up 1/4th of the actual content? Nothing on turret tracking, overkill, separation radius etc which are not invisible micro. Do you still think the point was delivered? It doesn't matter if you think the POINT was correct or not, it's not even about if you think the video is fine or not. if the matter of style is getting in the way of presenting the POINT, then obviously it isn't a good video to deliver his POINT, is it? It's about did Blizzard watch the whole video without those BW presentation getting in their way of thinking. as for why don't I do a proper video, this is a silly argument. can you do better than twitchtv? then do you have to accept as it is with all the lags?
Bottom point: The predecessor had more flare in gameplay and had more groundbreaking micro opportunities than the sequels. Blizzard have to accept that their sequel couldn't follow the big brother's footstep. So far, Blizzard have refused to do that and there is no hope left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
