On November 12 2013 11:17 kawazu wrote: Hello TL. I haven't played SC2 in probably 18 months and I don't even own HOTS, but I watch pro games sometimes. Even when I played SC2, I was pretty horrible at it. I saw this video linked somewhere, probably reddit, and thought I would comment.
Blizzard purposefully designed the game so that people who didn't really know much about the game would be able to watch it anyways. To further this goal, SC2 has an informal "What You See Is What You Get"(WYSIWYG) rule. By WYSIWYG, I mean that you should be able to easily see relative strengths and understand successful outcomes even if you don't know much about the game.
With this perspective, it's very easy to understand why David Kim said the things he did.
WYSIWYG isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think it has been implemented in such a way that it is bad for SC2.
I think the pursuit of WYSIWYG has created a situation where better play can't mitigate good play in key areas.
One issue is that unit micro is effectively gone because the units and spells always act consistently in a way that can't be mitigated. You can't significantly impact the performance of charge zealots by manually controlling them and you can't effectively mitigate damage from charge zealots by trying to maneuver your units. X hellbats will always beat Y zealots but lose to Y+1 zealots. ect.
Some units, like the hellion, were purposefully given high attack wait time values(damage point) so that the benefit gained by controlling them well would be small. This is ridiculous and it makes using them feel like crap.
Area denial units, outside of widow mines(let's be honest, they are basically seeker missiles with stealth), are not effective deterrent because the bigger/stronger army will completely stomp them. My guess is that the widow mines will be nerfed until they work about as well as the other area denial units.(IE they become combat support units with occasional sneakiness)
This also applies to spells. You can't mitigate fungal growth/Abduct/force field/psionic storm/emp/ect after they have been cast. These abilities become hit-or-miss. A good storm/fungal is one that hits a lot of units. A bad storm/fungal is one that doesn't hit enough units. Opponent interaction and reaction completely disappears.
Probably the most visible aspect of the WYSIWYG system is that it has created a system of hard counters. In order for low information viewers to understand what is going on, you have to have easy to understand unit profiles with well defined roles. You can't have situations where a unit is defeated by a unit that it was supposed to counter. For instance, in WYSIWYG you don't want Thors to ever be able to take out Immortals. You also don't want Hellbats to lose to zealots at any scale. ect.
This is a problem because these things lead to all of the most common complaints people have with SC2.
Death balls are inevitable because the weaker groups usually can't deal significant damage to stronger groups. Death balls mean that games are usually determined by the outcome of a single battle. Since you can just see which army is strongest, it's usually obvious who the winner of the battle is going to be.(stronger looking army = win, bad arc = lose, ect)
Matches with similar unit compositions play out exactly the same because units act the same way in every situation, even when players with drastically different skill levels use them.
Unit compositions for a match up do not change much because the strong counter system usually boils things down to a handful of simple unit combinations. It doesn't help that historically, Blizzard has nerfed units in ways that have removed them entirely from match ups.
As a result, the single most important thing in SC2 is economic strategy instead of controlling units well. Personally, I find the economic aspects of the game to be the least interesting to watch/play. It's not fun or interesting to watch people use mules or spawn larva, yet stuff like this is the most important part of the game.
Every single game in the WCS Season 3 Grand Finals had both players expand by around the first two minutes and end the game by ~12 minutes. They usually ended after a little bit of harassment and one actual battle that determined who won. In at least one game, the Zerg player had 3 bases set up before there was any harassment. The Protoss player attacked with 1 stalker and 1 zealot and then built his third base. It's kind of ridiculous.
I'm not saying that SC2 isn't balanced or that it's a bad game, but it could be better if there was more focus on unit control. It could be as simple as giving certain air and ground units better/different tools for skirting their maximum range/firing while pursuing or fleeing/ ect while eliminating some of the more tedious economic stuff.(Preferably not the goofy way the Phoenix works)
Unfortunately, it's unlikely for Blizzard to change SC2 at this point. It would take a lot of effort to stop these problems and Blizzard is probably more worried about making the game more accessible than ever.
Thanks man for actually putting something relevant, interesting, and remotely fresh and new to this thread. I like the bit about the mines as I just saw the new patch for them in action today before I read your post and went *mind = blown*. Regarding the last point as well as pervious post by Lalush on David Kim's lack of programmers; I feel like Blizzard considers SC2 such a low priority right now in comparison to their new games HearthStone and Heroes of the Storm (HotS? HoS? Heroes? Storm? Blizzard All-stars? C'mon man T_T) that SC2HotS isn't going to be going through any major changes. That said, there was recently a patch that made a lot of stuff SC2 free, which is amazing (credits to Husky for the information)... Oh fak I'm rambling.
Point: SC2 1v1 feels like hyper rock paper scissors.without much chance for flair (besides marines vs banelings) Average Joe doesn't want to waste his precious time on that He goes play LoL or something w/ 4 of his friends where he can make his own highlight reelz like the ones he saw on youtube. Blizzard spent ~4years carefully balancing everything to this point to where implementing even a fraction of these unit adjustments could potentially mean another several years of balancing alone. They are on a schedule with LoTV. I feel like unless a mod takes off, these adjustments probably wouldn't come until AFTER LotV where blizz might be willing to break the game a couple of times when they get off such a tight deadline. Go play Starbow. Srsly.
On November 12 2013 11:17 kawazu wrote: Hello TL. I haven't played SC2 in probably 18 months and I don't even own HOTS, but I watch pro games sometimes. Even when I played SC2, I was pretty horrible at it. I saw this video linked somewhere, probably reddit, and thought I would comment.
Blizzard purposefully designed the game so that people who didn't really know much about the game would be able to watch it anyways. To further this goal, SC2 has an informal "What You See Is What You Get"(WYSIWYG) rule. By WYSIWYG, I mean that you should be able to easily see relative strengths and understand successful outcomes even if you don't know much about the game.
With this perspective, it's very easy to understand why David Kim said the things he did.
WYSIWYG isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think it has been implemented in such a way that it is bad for SC2.
I think the pursuit of WYSIWYG has created a situation where better play can't mitigate good play in key areas.
One issue is that unit micro is effectively gone because the units and spells always act consistently in a way that can't be mitigated. You can't significantly impact the performance of charge zealots by manually controlling them and you can't effectively mitigate damage from charge zealots by trying to maneuver your units. X hellbats will always beat Y zealots but lose to Y+1 zealots. ect.
Some units, like the hellion, were purposefully given high attack wait time values(damage point) so that the benefit gained by controlling them well would be small. This is ridiculous and it makes using them feel like crap.
Area denial units, outside of widow mines(let's be honest, they are basically seeker missiles with stealth), are not effective deterrent because the bigger/stronger army will completely stomp them. My guess is that the widow mines will be nerfed until they work about as well as the other area denial units.(IE they become combat support units with occasional sneakiness)
This also applies to spells. You can't mitigate fungal growth/Abduct/force field/psionic storm/emp/ect after they have been cast. These abilities become hit-or-miss. A good storm/fungal is one that hits a lot of units. A bad storm/fungal is one that doesn't hit enough units. Opponent interaction and reaction completely disappears.
Probably the most visible aspect of the WYSIWYG system is that it has created a system of hard counters. In order for low information viewers to understand what is going on, you have to have easy to understand unit profiles with well defined roles. You can't have situations where a unit is defeated by a unit that it was supposed to counter. For instance, in WYSIWYG you don't want Thors to ever be able to take out Immortals. You also don't want Hellbats to lose to zealots at any scale. ect.
This is a problem because these things lead to all of the most common complaints people have with SC2.
Death balls are inevitable because the weaker groups usually can't deal significant damage to stronger groups. Death balls mean that games are usually determined by the outcome of a single battle. Since you can just see which army is strongest, it's usually obvious who the winner of the battle is going to be.(stronger looking army = win, bad arc = lose, ect)
Matches with similar unit compositions play out exactly the same because units act the same way in every situation, even when players with drastically different skill levels use them.
Unit compositions for a match up do not change much because the strong counter system usually boils things down to a handful of simple unit combinations. It doesn't help that historically, Blizzard has nerfed units in ways that have removed them entirely from match ups.
As a result, the single most important thing in SC2 is economic strategy instead of controlling units well. Personally, I find the economic aspects of the game to be the least interesting to watch/play. It's not fun or interesting to watch people use mules or spawn larva, yet stuff like this is the most important part of the game.
Every single game in the WCS Season 3 Grand Finals had both players expand by around the first two minutes and end the game by ~12 minutes. They usually ended after a little bit of harassment and one actual battle that determined who won. In at least one game, the Zerg player had 3 bases set up before there was any harassment. The Protoss player attacked with 1 stalker and 1 zealot and then built his third base. It's kind of ridiculous.
I'm not saying that SC2 isn't balanced or that it's a bad game, but it could be better if there was more focus on unit control. It could be as simple as giving certain air and ground units better/different tools for skirting their maximum range/firing while pursuing or fleeing/ ect while eliminating some of the more tedious economic stuff.(Preferably not the goofy way the Phoenix works)
Unfortunately, it's unlikely for Blizzard to change SC2 at this point. It would take a lot of effort to stop these problems and Blizzard is probably more worried about making the game more accessible than ever.
Thanks man for actually putting something relevant, interesting, and remotely fresh and new to this thread. I like the bit about the mines as I just saw the new patch for them in action today before I read your post and went *mind = blown*. Regarding the last point as well as pervious post by Lalush on David Kim's lack of programmers; I feel like Blizzard considers SC2 such a low priority right now in comparison to their new games HearthStone and Heroes of the Storm (HotS? HoS? Heroes? Storm? Blizzard All-stars? C'mon man T_T) that SC2HotS isn't going to be going through any major changes. That said, there was recently a patch that made a lot of stuff SC2 free, which is amazing (credits to Husky for the information)... Oh fak I'm rambling.
Point: SC2 1v1 feels like hyper rock paper scissors.without much chance for flair (besides marines vs banelings) Average Joe doesn't want to waste his precious time on that He goes play LoL or something w/ 4 of his friends where he can make his own highlight reelz like the ones he saw on youtube. Blizzard spent ~4years carefully balancing everything to this point to where implementing even a fraction of these unit adjustments could potentially mean another several years of balancing alone. They are on a schedule with LoTV. I feel like unless a mod takes off, these adjustments probably wouldn't come until AFTER LotV where blizz might be willing to break the game a couple of times when they get off such a tight deadline. Go play Starbow. Srsly.
What he said isn't remotely true though. If we go based off the comments along in LR threads and what I overhear at tournaments. Most people don't have a firm grasp of the game at all. Even the casters find themselves in these situations. It's kind of stupid to dumb it down to what's happening (not the game itself).
The suggestions here wouldn't have huge effects on gameplay. I agree on that. But it's definitely part of tactics/micro that's readily visible and appreciable to viewers.
Economy is the leading cause for most major gameplay issues in SC2. I still plan on tackling economy in a different article.
On November 14 2013 11:37 LaLuSh wrote: The suggestions here wouldn't have huge effects on gameplay. I agree on that. But it's definitely part of tactics/micro that's readily visible and appreciable to viewers.
Economy is the leading cause for most major gameplay issues in SC2. I still plan on tackling economy in a different article.
More still to come on that topic.
Its a start though. It seems to me like a bug fix tbh.. I feel like its not a big ask, I'm surprised Blizzard responded so negatively..
On November 14 2013 04:45 Barrin wrote: Breadth of Gameplay author here. Depth of Micro, hehe, it's like complimentary. This is really great (left a modest comment saying so on reddit a while ago). More perfect than my Breadth of Gameplay article (I said a lot I shouldn't have and didn't know enough to say everything I should). Frankly I didn't *really* know the relevance to competitive BW of this Micro stuff as well as you did. I mean I knew of it, but you really drove it home in perfect & thorough fashion. This is such an important part of BW, and I must admit it's not much of what I had in mind when writing Breadth of Gameplay. Thank you for giving the other side of the BW story, as I was unable to. Again, this documentation is invaluable.
---
I think the biggest flaw of this analysis is that the size of the armies exhibited are nowhere near the average size armies actually found throughout SC2. Your armies are just so big and the pace is so fast that you generally just don't have the APM to spare to send off little guerrilla squads and micro them well (which is largely what FRB aimed to alleviate btw; will succeed in future, more aggressive version). Generally high damage point delay makes it even harder, actually. Not that it didn't make sense to exhibit them this way, because it is closer to the average army size in BW where the pace is slower than SC2. This hardly invalidates your points (particularly regarding air units and worker micro), but it does significantly lessen their relevance to SC2's current fast pace where large armies are easy to come by.
I guess you could say that (omg plz forgive me LaLuSh <3), I actually find myself somewhat kinda sorta agreeing with David Kim a little bit. Or at least what he seemed to have been trying to say. This is what he actually said:
David Kim: A lot of the micro opportunities that there were [in BW] ... are 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 moreso focus on something that everyone can enjoy; because on this side not only can the really hardcore people understand but also our casual viewers. We want to have a good balance between the two, and right now our focus is moreso on the skill visibility for everyone.
So "breadth of gameplay" (gameplay~=macro) and "depth of micro" are like two different "sides", applicable to any RTS game really.
Gameplay ~= Macro ~= Strategy Micro ~= Tactics Google "Strategy vs Tactics" for more information if you do not understand, please.
David Kim mentions "this side" in the quote above with rather poor articulation; I think what he means by "this side" is the Micro/tactics side. He's saying that on the micro/tactics side, what happens should be really clear to newbs, and the more subtle macro/strategy side is what is left to be appreciated by experts (not that there's more to look at on the macro/strategy side in SC2 than BW, there isn't). I think this assessment reflects proper game design. However, that's not to say that these things (separation radius, damage point, turret track, turn rate, lateral acceleration) are actually unclear to newbs; they might not yet fully understand how it is happening, but they can certainly appreciate the fact that something is happening to make these units kill efficiently that they're not yet capable of regularly reproducing.
Either way, microing just isn't as rewarding as it could be and this is a great area to raise the skill cap with - I don't think anyone is arguing against this. No one is saying that any unit is perfect the way it is. I'm guessing that what he has in mind has more to do with adding/tweaking activated abilities of the units, which (depending on what he has in mind) can make sense in the context in which these units are used: a fast pace where large armies are easier to come by.
I am still quite sure we should tie it all together start by slowing the pace of economy/tech/production down so we (and newbs) actually have time to appreciate subtlety in micro on a regular basis and especially so players have enough time to do important things with micro throughout the course of a game.
To be continued...
I just wanted to say, Breadth of Gameplay and Depth of Micro are easily my favorite threads of all time, I also much enjoyed "In defiance of Mech" (http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=360325) which explains why the Siege Tank has to be the back bone of mech yet it doesn't function like it should..
I'd most certainly like to see attempts of swapping the double gas geysers with singular high yield gas geysers, a greater high ground advantage (maybe start small and increase to more, such as 5-10% damage reduction then increase if necessary). Certain buffs to the Siege Tank (perhaps a bonus to Mechanical units or armored units through an upgrade) or tone down their counters. And finally the suggestions asked for here implemented, maybe as late as LotV.. but I think it would me an over all much better, complete Starcraft... But hey, that might just be my opinion.
On November 14 2013 04:45 Barrin wrote: I am still quite sure we should tie it all together start by slowing the pace of economy/tech/production down so we (and newbs) actually have time to appreciate subtlety in micro on a regular basis and especially so players have enough time to do important things with micro throughout the course of a game.
I agree even from my noob standpoint (EU gold league.)
A slower growing economy would make it more practical to do some early harass instead of trying to quickly build a full army.
On November 14 2013 17:48 L3monsta wrote: I just wanted to say, Breadth of Gameplay and Depth of Micro are easily my favorite threads of all time, I also much enjoyed "In defiance of Mech" (http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=360325) which explains why the Siege Tank has to be the back bone of mech yet it doesn't function like it should..
I'd most certainly like to see attempts of swapping the double gas geysers with singular high yield gas geysers, a greater high ground advantage (maybe start small and increase to more, such as 5-10% damage reduction then increase if necessary). Certain buffs to the Siege Tank (perhaps a bonus to Mechanical units or armored units through an upgrade) or tone down their counters. And finally the suggestions asked for here implemented, maybe as late as LotV.. but I think it would me an over all much better, complete Starcraft... But hey, that might just be my opinion.
I agree, posts by LaLush, Falling, and Barrin are my favs. Breadth of Gameplay Depth of Micro Oh, Micro Where Art Thou? Analysis of Macro SwarmHosts: Safely Whittling Away A-Move by Design All of these posts helped to contribute to my growing lack of interest in the current state of SC2 and fueled my desire for a change. Hungry for more insight.
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."
Wow...David Kim either didn't watch the video or is intentionally obfuscating the issues of bugged air unit pathing, damage-point crippled units, and comically dysfunctional turrets.
I actually quit playing SC2 recently and now exclusively play Dota2 and Brood War. Both games are much more fun than SC2 for me, in large part due to the lack of micro opportunities in low-mid level SC2. I love Dota for its micro focus and strategic depth thru teamplay; Brood War is Brood War.
With decent micro opportunities and the possibility of coming back from a strategical blunder (related issues) SC2 would likely blow both games out of the water for me. It's very sad that Blizzard is failing the Starcraft universe...
David Kim quote: "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."
How did BroodWar become a massive eSport with micro that wasn't recognizable by the average viewer? How did it get televised in Korea if that was the case? His response doesn't jibe with reality.
I think he is trying to make the game to much Like LoL With flashy abilities and explosions when if what was seen in this video were addressed we would have a highly functional game with a ton of micro possibilities and a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher skill ceiling that would separate high level players from the rest.....
On November 15 2013 05:25 Pirfiktshon wrote: I think he is trying to make the game to much Like LoL With flashy abilities and explosions when if what was seen in this video were addressed we would have a highly functional game with a ton of micro possibilities and a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher skill ceiling that would separate high level players from the rest.....
I totally agree. No explosions or flashy stuff in chess or go... still awesome
I have to say I don't completely understand DK's response. Right now a lot of the games that don't go all the way to late game are decided by build order interaction, metagaming and relatively tight timing windows and all that. To me they seem far harder to understand and appreciate than clearly visible dance of unit interaction.
Unless you're actually able to understand the deeper build order and metagame interactions, your average round just doesn't have much else to see than exploding stuff. It's often very hard to see how the players are interacting outside the 5 second major battles.
On November 15 2013 05:25 Pirfiktshon wrote: I think he is trying to make the game to much Like LoL With flashy abilities and explosions when if what was seen in this video were addressed we would have a highly functional game with a ton of micro possibilities and a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher skill ceiling that would separate high level players from the rest.....
I totally agree. No explosions or flashy stuff in chess or go... still awesome
I just wanted to say, Breadth of Gameplay and Depth of Micro are easily my favorite threads of all time, I also much enjoyed "In defiance of Mech" (http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=360325) which explains why the Siege Tank has to be the back bone of mech yet it doesn't function like it should..
I'd most certainly like to see attempts of swapping the double gas geysers with singular high yield gas geysers, a greater high ground advantage (maybe start small and increase to more, such as 5-10% damage reduction then increase if necessary). Certain buffs to the Siege Tank (perhaps a bonus to Mechanical units or armored units through an upgrade) or tone down their counters. And finally the suggestions asked for here implemented, maybe as late as LotV.. but I think it would me an over all much better, complete Starcraft... But hey, that might just be my opinion.
I agree, posts by LaLush, Falling, and Barrin are my favs. Breadth of Gameplay Depth of Micro Oh, Micro Where Art Thou? Analysis of Macro SwarmHosts: Safely Whittling Away A-Move by Design All of these posts helped to contribute to my growing lack of interest in the current state of SC2 and fueled my desire for a change. Hungry for more insight.
Don't forget classics such as: Lings of Liberty SC2B Power Overwhelming Heart of the Swarm: An Empire or Menace Teaching: An Understanding (Not explicitly SC2 related but still gold)
Any other goldens you can think of? I'm trying to get a reference together in my bookmarks tab :D
On topic: I find it hard to believe that with such a wealth of insight that's been poring in since WoL Beta, that Blizzard is just completely blind to everything being said. Beyond DK and or DB, I wonder if higher management just decided the parameters which they are allowed to change the game (really small changes per patch) and their resources are just being devoted to other projects.
David Kim quote: "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."
How did BroodWar become a massive eSport with micro that wasn't recognizable by the average viewer? How did it get televised in Korea if that was the case? His response doesn't jibe with reality.
Brood War became massive because it was around during a time period when PC Bangs became a massive part of Korean culture, and it didn't have much competition for LAN game play (What else was there, Quake? I know CS was after).
Everything surrounding Pro BW in Korea was a perfect storm scenario where a massive percentage of the gaming population was already invested in the game. Viewers in Korea weren't exactly "average".
On November 15 2013 11:22 Doominator10 wrote: Don't forget classics such as: Lings of Liberty SC2B Power Overwhelming Heart of the Swarm: An Empire or Menace Teaching: An Understanding (Not explicitly SC2 related but still gold)
Any other goldens you can think of? I'm trying to get a reference together in my bookmarks tab :D
On topic: I find it hard to believe that with such a wealth of insight that's been poring in since WoL Beta, that Blizzard is just completely blind to everything being said. Beyond DK and or DB, I wonder if higher management just decided the parameters which they are allowed to change the game (really small changes per patch) and their resources are just being devoted to other projects.
Oh man, I have a list hahaha All of these aren't by the three I mentioned, but they are great posts. Philosophy of Design part 1 and part 2 Manifesto of Game Design: Skill, Positional Balance, and Individual Freedom Mechanics IS strategy BW is for Newbs Levelling the Playing Field And... Day[9]'s Musings - Game Design - Baseballs vs Frisbees
I think of those Mechanics IS strategy, Day[9]'s musings, and BW is for Newbs are my favorites.
On topic: I'd bet you're right. They are invested in other projects already, and changing the fundamentals of StarCraft is too much of a change. If the call for these ideas got big enough among the Starcraft community then they might change it, remember how D3 got its changes? yeah...
On November 15 2013 11:22 Doominator10 wrote: Don't forget classics such as: + Show Spoiler +
Lings of Liberty SC2B Power Overwhelming Heart of the Swarm: An Empire or Menace Teaching: An Understanding (Not explicitly SC2 related but still gold)
Any other goldens you can think of? I'm trying to get a reference together in my bookmarks tab :D
On topic: I find it hard to believe that with such a wealth of insight that's been poring in since WoL Beta, that Blizzard is just completely blind to everything being said. Beyond DK and or DB, I wonder if higher management just decided the parameters which they are allowed to change the game (really small changes per patch) and their resources are just being devoted to other projects.
Oh man, I have a list hahaha All of these aren't by the three I mentioned, but they are great posts. Philosophy of Design part 1 and part 2 Manifesto of Game Design: Skill, Positional Balance, and Individual Freedom Mechanics IS strategy BW is for Newbs Levelling the Playing Field And... Day[9]'s Musings - Game Design - Baseballs vs Frisbees
I think of those Mechanics IS strategy, Day[9]'s musings, and BW is for Newbs are my favorites.
On topic: I'd bet you're right. They are invested in other projects already, and changing the fundamentals of StarCraft is too much of a change. If the call for these ideas got big enough among the Starcraft community then they might change it, remember how D3 got its changes? yeah...
Aww Day9 Frisbees <3 You just had to actually find some right when I'm trying to finish this physics HW. Curse you!... and this HW!
On Topic-ish: I've heard good things about their D3 console port. With projects like that, I wouldn't be surprised if DB and or DK were the entire balance team themselves with maybe 1-4 other guys for playtesting and coding.
Off Topic again: Do we have a thread with all the must read threads evar already? If not, why do we not have one T_T Edit: can you link the the philosophies of game design? Having problems googling them.
EPT
