- Starter edition(F2P) changes: --> All races available --> Custom games available --> Arcade available New Arcade Trailer!(Thanks to Nerevar!)
- Clan/Groups Interface is going to get some upgrades: --> Clan Decals(See picture above) --> Calendar Events being added
- New level cap and new carbot portraits/ decals:
- Extension Mods:
Extension Mods will allow you to easily apply the parameters of the mods you develop to any map without having to recreate them every time you want to see how they play on a new map.
The browser interface will be streamlined. All players will need to do to is select a map, apply the mod of their choice, and get back to gaming. As an example, we’ve worked on an Extension Mod version of Big Game Hunters and will be providing it along with Patch 2.1.
- Kinda offtopic, but WC3 units have been added into the Editor - BW music has been remastered and added into the game - No more AFK game hosts.
After a period of inactivity in a game lobby, hosts will be reminded that they will be removed from the game if they do not respond soon. If a lobby host is removed this way, another player from the lobby will be promoted to host automatically. This way, players can get the game started without getting stuck waiting on game hosts who step away from their computers.
Balance
New balance patch will come next week(with apparently all the proposed changes)
Next to the widow mine they are also looking into Swarm Hosts right now but they have no conclusion. David said they are looking into whether passive style or more aggresssive style is better. What kind of changes could come he did not say.
Players are generally finding two ways to use Swarm Hosts: aggressively and passively. If passive Swarm Host playstyles continue, we'll likely be looking at the Swarm Host in the future.
They are also pretty happy with the win rates within the leagues in general and they focus on balaning for pro level matches.
They also talk to pro players and casters as well and take community's criticism seriously. They also believe in the concept of problems fixing "themselves":
Additionally, players sometimes solve problems without our intervention. For example, pro player Lee 'Life' Seung Hyun's incredible prowess with Zerglings and Banelings offered an alternative when Roach and Hydralisk compositions were a common choice when dealing with Widow Mine armies.
Future goals are to open more windows of opportunity for players (David's example was TvP where P starts being aggressive with Stalkers, then gets pushed by back Marauders, pushing forward again with Colossi and terran using a window where he drops into the main of the P...) They also want to "up the action" in the game, increase diversity from game to gameby making more unique matchups and offer the players more chances to show their skill.
These are the plans for the future of SC2 Balance:
So what's the team planning for StarCraft II multiplayer in the near future?
- A balance patch following BlizzCon, sometime in the next week or two. - We'll continue looking at Swarm Host usage across all regions. - We're working on the map pool for the 2014 World Championship Series. - Two new team maps for each new ladder season.
WCS 2014
Why eSports?
We LOVE eSports and the World Championship Series is our passion project. We want to continue building the community that StarCraft II eSports was founded on. Additionally, we want to continue to support StarCraft II and its lively community for years to come.
They recapped 2012 and 2013 and have drawn conclusions from that:
- Allow more time for feedback - Keep evolving WCS - Straightforward format: Qualifiers -> Challenger -> Premier (C and P seeding into Ranking System?) - Keep Global Ranking System - "Realistic opportunities for players [of each region]" --> They want to guarantee spots to players from every region but they still have to "prove" their skill
In general, more "grass roots events" for WCS and also spreading out the tournament in general, making a more fixed schedule to develop storylines and whatnot.
Kimaphan pointed out that she can't talk anything more specific as of yet. These are the goals for 2014:
- We've been working closely with our partners for months and we're very close to finalizing our plan for 2014. - Allow more time for feedback from our players, partners, teams, and community. - We'll be working to steadily evolve the WCS through fine-tuning, rather than making a complete overhaul. - The 2014 WCS will still highlight the best players and feature a rebalancing of the WCS point system. - We want to provide realistic opportunities for all WCS participants.
Q&A
(I will leave out questions without specific answers):
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily visible when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
I'm not sure he actually addressed the bugs that were discussed in the video though
cloaken's response to community's reaction:
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Question: TvZ is mostly Mutaling Bane vs Biomine and not a lot of mech. Comments? Answer: They want more diversity, mech is a good opportunity. Two changes: Combined upgrades and siege tank buffs. If thats not enough there's still time to make more changes, but the goal for the future is to make mech viable not only against Z but also P.
Question: Skins for units? Unit sounds? Answer: They are "excited" about skins, it gets brought up frequently in the offices. Reality: They have to support all kind of systems so as a result of that they are up against a memory cap. They can not add skins without affecting gameplay, they make sure that gameplay comes first and it will take more time. They really want it, but can not.
Question: (From SCLegacy! Wow!) Did not watch any WCS at all. There's too much of it. What are their thoughts on "There's too much!" ("Now we are watching the superball, next up: superball!") Answer: They have a global audience. Thats one of the reasons, but they are looking into spreading things out more and fixing schedules. Maybe only two days a week for a WCS region etc. More grass roots stuff for WCS so that it gets more exciting and people can follow it more easily.
Question: Marketplace? Answer: They talk about it all the time. Reality: They haven't been able to invest time to build the tech infrastructure. They are working on something for that for the new HotS though and maybe they could build on that for SC2. No timeline for that, but that is what they are doing: Learning from Heroes and building up on that.
Question: Try and increase the player numbers, more people into the game?(From ESL guy) Answer: They are trying to make a lot of improvements on the Arcade side to bring in more players. Making improvements to the UI and as far as tournaments, it is a group task for community, blizzard, tournament orgas AND players. They want to invest more into "Grass Roots Esports" stuff in 2014 and they will go into detail about that later on.
David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the visibility of moves, and that it should be easily visible when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
I'm not sure he actually addressed the bugs that were discussed in the video though
[–]Zergcarlfish [score hidden] 31 minutes ago* Calendar events for clans/groups Custom clan decals SC1 music has been remastered and added Warcraft horde hero models being updated and added to editor Starter edition: all races unlocked Starter edition: arcade unlocked Starter edition: custom games unlocked (!!!!) (So basically, everything but the ladder/campaign is going free to play?) The other big thing for map-makers: overlay-style custom games where you can "apply" the game to any map. So for example you only have to write one "Monobattle" overlay, then players can apply that to any melee map they want to monobattle on.
Reading this while DJWheat is talking and talking. :D
Sooo... Arcade = F2P? That's GREAT news! I hope they do that fast. It would be even more awesome to make whole SC2 multiplayer F2P.
Maybe it's even too late for this. But a free arcade will help. There are so many great fun maps, but there are not enough players for those except for the most popular ones. And new ones don't really get a player base. I hope that Arcade itself also gets an update to give new maps better chances.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
What a cop out answer =[
UPDATE:
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
Balance: New balance patch will come next week(mine/tank change etc).
They are also looking into Swarm Hosts right now but they have no conclusion. David said they are looking into whether passive style or more aggresssive style is better. What kind of changes could come he did not say.
They are also pretty happy with the win rates within the leagues in general and they focus on balaning for pro level matches. Future goals are to open more windows of opportunity for players (David's example was TvP where P starts being aggressive with Stalkers, then gets pushed by back Marauders, pushing forward again with Colossi and terran using a window where he drops into the main of the P...)
WCS 2014:
- Allow more time for feedback - Keep evolving WCS - Straightforward format: Qualifiers -> Challenger -> Premier (C and P seeding into Ranking System?) - Keep Global Ranking System - "Realistic opportunities for players [of each region]" --> They want to guarantee spots to players from every region but they still have to "prove" their skill
Q&A is going on right now. (I will leave out questions without specific answers):
Question: Depth of Micro? A: They look at everything the community posts like that. A lot of micro opportunites were very cool, but that is not something a casual viewer can easily understand. So they really want some things that hardcore viewers can understand, but they want easy-to-understand stuff as well and focus on that right now.
Question: TvZ is mostly Mutaling Bane vs Biomine and not a lot of mech. Comments? A: They want more diversity, mech is a good opportunity. Two changes: Combined upgrades and siege tank buffs. If thats not enough theress still time to make more changes, but the goal for the future is to make mech viable not agianst Z but also P.
Question: Skins for units? Unit sounds? A: They are "excited" about skins, it gets brought up frequently in the offices. Reality: They have to support all kind of systems so as a result of that they are up against a memory cap. They can not add skins without affecting gameplay, they make sure that gameplay comes first and it will take more time. They really want it, but can not.
I'm going to edit in everything new I get from it!
Question: Depth of Micro? A: They look at everything the community posts like that. A lot of micro opportunites were very cool, but that is not something a casual viewer can easily understand. So they really want some things that hardcore viewers can understand, but they want easy-to-understand stuff as well and focus on that right now.'
My god............... That is the worst answer.........Just lost more hope...............
How can a casual not understand that?????? Wtf!!! At the same time, I would argue that most of the SC2 if not 90% of it is people who play the game and can understand a viking stopping and shooting back and forth. Hell what I am saying if I never touched sc2 I could still understand a viking to stop, make a shot then keep retreating.
On November 09 2013 07:12 wUndertUnge wrote: No roach upgrade going through? EDIT: Specifically, tunneling claw speed upgrade?
I am pretty sure that it's still going through, but the question was more focused on ZvT, and tunneling claws will definitely make no impact on the match up
On November 09 2013 07:16 KeksX wrote: The Q&A is over now and so is the SC2 Panel. If I missed anything else please post it and I will add it to the OP!
On November 09 2013 07:16 KeksX wrote: The Q&A is over now and so is the SC2 Panel. If I missed anything else please post it and I will add it to the OP!
Dah, I was hoping for more news about WCS 2014
Kimaphan sounded really disappointed that she couldn't give out more details.
On November 09 2013 07:19 Mirosuu wrote: Is there a summary of the stuff for 2.1? I've only seen some stuff about BW music and F2P arcade. I was expecting some other stuff... =/
I was really pumped for more as welll, but the clan decal thing looks really cool.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
I'm not sure he actually addressed the bugs that were discussed in the video though
I hate this answer by David Kim. I watched BW for around 10 years after I stopped playing it. The awesome micro moves are noticeable to viewers, even ones who have no idea how they're done and stopped playing long before they were discovered. I enjoyed watching such things as Fantasy's vulture micro, Jaedong's mutalisk micro and Leta's wraith micro without knowing the mechanics behind them. It was just that obvious that their micro was much better than their opponent's. It just looked cool.
On November 09 2013 07:19 Mirosuu wrote: Is there a summary of the stuff for 2.1? I've only seen some stuff about BW music and F2P arcade. I was expecting some other stuff... =/
I was really pumped for more as welll, but the clan decal thing looks really cool.
There are also some updates to the overall clan/group interface, notably calendar events being added.
Less WCS next year is pretty good for me but it does seem like less players will be getting exposure from it. Will have to wait for the full info to come out.
I don't see how these things are supposed to help the foreigner (especially NA) scenes.
Koreans are still going to practice on KR, NA ladder will (overall) not improve, and we'll still be stuck with the same issues.. Except with 6 foreigners in ro16 as opposed to 2? Artificial caps are not the way to go unless you force a residential restriction.
Edit: In addition, David Kim's answer re: Depth of Micro is such a joke. For one, he completely ignored the bugs exposed, secondly he wants claims casuals don't understand micro.. good job looking down upon the group you apparently want to grab the most.
And you know, stifling the skillcap in favor of getting more eyeballs.. Ugh.
David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
That is the stupidest answer I have ever heard. Really disappointed in David Kim for answering like that and blame their entire decision with "Casual player." Saying Casual player do not understand Micro in Starcraft (E-sport) is the same as saying casual do not understand dribbling in soccer. People falls in love with E-sport because of MICRO!! My wife enjoys starcraft 2 only because of micro. The casual players DO NOT understand build order, timing, marco....etc. In fact, of alll things, the casual viewer ONLY understands MICRO. When they see hellions jiggling around, zerglings try to surround, banshee, oracle. The intense micro moments are the only thing a casual viewer will understand.
David Kim's answer completely denies the core of E-sport.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
What a cop out answer =[
Agreed, that seems like a real question dodge, there are many features that the players can't use or understand, the fact remains that the game should remain like that, easy to learn but difficult to master. Additionally, from a spectator's point of view, there are many things in the game that the audience currently doesn't understand on their own.
However, they are able to understand it with the help of the community casters, whether that be Day9 on his dailies or Tastosis and many others in tournaments.
I don't understand why David Kim equates "casual" with "stupid" or "poor observational skills".... A non pro football player can understand a really amazing play without having it be something they can do or recreate.
On November 09 2013 07:42 las91 wrote: I don't understand why David Kim equates "casual" with "stupid" or "poor observational skills".... A non pro football player can understand a really amazing play without having it be something they can do or recreate.
I really don't get his point either. It seems that he's afraid that people will turn away if you have to explain a micro mechanic longer than 3 seconds...
EDIT: Also I tried formatting the thread a little. I'm a complete newb when it comes to this so if you absoletely hate it, don't tell me because I might cry
If casual viewers can't appreciate really cool micro then what do they appreciate? Perfect barracks production? Lack of supply blocks? What an awful dodge on Blizzard's part.
edit: Actually a completely retarded dodge. Like what the hell.
On November 09 2013 07:42 las91 wrote: I don't understand why David Kim equates "casual" with "stupid" or "poor observational skills".... A non pro football player can understand a really amazing play without having it be something they can do or recreate.
I really don't get his point either. It seems that he's afraid that people will turn away if you have to explain a micro mechanic longer than 3 seconds...
EDIT: Also I tried formatting the thread a little. I'm a complete newb when it comes to this so if you absoletely hate it, don't tell me because I might cry
You did a great job with formatting
I did some LR threads on my other account a long time ago, and those are a waaaaaay bigger pain to manage, especially at the speeds that LR threads demand.
On November 09 2013 07:42 las91 wrote: I don't understand why David Kim equates "casual" with "stupid" or "poor observational skills".... A non pro football player can understand a really amazing play without having it be something they can do or recreate.
I really don't get his point either. It seems that he's afraid that people will turn away if you have to explain a micro mechanic longer than 3 seconds...
EDIT: Also I tried formatting the thread a little. I'm a complete newb when it comes to this so if you absoletely hate it, don't tell me because I might cry
You did a great job with formatting
I did some LR threads on my other account a long time ago, and those are a waaaaaay bigger pain to manage, especially at the speeds that LR threads demand.
Thanks man! I hope it's okay that I put out the quotes n stuff, thought this would look better!
On November 09 2013 07:54 Qwyn wrote: Did they really...say...
That the glorious SC Zerg music has been remastered and added into the game?
OMG.
And if pretty much every thing is available in the starter edition what is the point of buying the game?
Campaign and 1v1 ladder. Strangely generous of Blizzard to make so much of this free though. It's good for the game, though I question if this is good for their bottom line.
2v2, 3v3, 4v4, and FFA ladders/matchmaking are easily free with spawning, and one can always ask around in chat channels if no friends are online at the moment.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
What a cop out answer =[
Agreed, that seems like a real question dodge, there are many features that the players can't use or understand, the fact remains that the game should remain like that, easy to learn but difficult to master. Additionally, from a spectator's point of view, there are many things in the game that the audience currently doesn't understand on their own.
However, they are able to understand it with the help of the community casters, whether that be Day9 on his dailies or Tastosis and many others in tournaments.
Exactly! You can understand an awesome move when commentators are screaming and getting all hype. This answer makes me so mad rofl ._.
On November 09 2013 07:42 las91 wrote: I don't understand why David Kim equates "casual" with "stupid" or "poor observational skills".... A non pro football player can understand a really amazing play without having it be something they can do or recreate.
I really don't get his point either. It seems that he's afraid that people will turn away if you have to explain a micro mechanic longer than 3 seconds...
EDIT: Also I tried formatting the thread a little. I'm a complete newb when it comes to this so if you absoletely hate it, don't tell me because I might cry
Your formatting was BAD! Now, go cry some more! >:D
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
I'm not sure he actually addressed the bugs that were discussed in the video though
I hate this answer by David Kim. I watched BW for around 10 years after I stopped playing it. The awesome micro moves are noticeable to viewers, even ones who have no idea how they're done and stopped playing long before they were discovered. I enjoyed watching such things as Fantasy's vulture micro, Jaedong's mutalisk micro and Leta's wraith micro without knowing the mechanics behind them. It was just that obvious that their micro was much better than their opponent's. It just looked cool.
Let's be honest here. What's the difference between watching Vulture micro compared to Reaper micro? BW Mutalisk stacking vs SC2 Mutalisk stacking? Wraith micro and Banshee micro?
They look identical to a lay-person, but all of the "amazement" is from in-depth knowledge about how awkward the actual micro management is.
Most of the amazing control in Pro BW wasn't from how amazing each play actually looked, but how "bad" the average unit control looked.
I don't think I can properly express how much I hate this answer about the micro. It's completely ignorant of how casuals experienced BW. It was way, way easier to understand BW micro.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
What a cop out answer =[
Agreed, that seems like a real question dodge, there are many features that the players can't use or understand, the fact remains that the game should remain like that, easy to learn but difficult to master. Additionally, from a spectator's point of view, there are many things in the game that the audience currently doesn't understand on their own.
However, they are able to understand it with the help of the community casters, whether that be Day9 on his dailies or Tastosis and many others in tournaments.
Exactly! You can understand an awesome move when commentators are screaming and getting all hype. This answer makes me so mad rofl ._.
and its something casual players cant/wont do in your own games. but thats blizzard for you...easy to learn hard to master LOL edit: the only thing that is good in this announcement is that they acknowledge bw music is superior
They basically have absolutely no idea whatsoever of what made BW so great. They just kinda look at it and go "oh yeah that game turned out pretty well, cool" without trying to figure out WHY it's so fucking good.
David Kim gave the worst answer he could possibly have.
I think this proves that as long as Kim is calling the shots, there won't be any real fundamental changes to SC2 as we know it. We're probably going to have to start living with that reality.
Was that really it? No new features announced? No in client viewing like Dota 2? Nothing new except new portraits and map editor options? No news about Legacy of the Void?
Answer: They want more diversity, mech is a good opportunity. Two changes: Combined upgrades and siege tank buffs. If thats not enough theress still time to make more changes, but the goal for the future is to make mech viable not agianst Z but also P.
As awesome as it is to see, i don't see mech being viable for at least another year (prob when lotv comes out lol) still at the rate they are changing things. Mech in tvp needs some big changes before it becomes viable. Good to hear but i will not be expecting any results any time soon
based from their summery of their future goals in their blog (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/11523759) Mech is obviously at the bottom of their to do list lol. focusing on adding more action and excitement, pretty much anti mech approach lol since mech requires terran to play like protoss lol. sit back, build up your comp then move out to secure additional bases to add more tech and kill with big deathball
I didn't understand how Muta micro or Vulture micro worked for ages nor did I know how Carriers worked. Yet everyone knew how impressive Jaedong's Muta Micro, Fantasy's Vulture micro and Stork's Carriers were.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
I'm not sure he actually addressed the bugs that were discussed in the video though
I hate this answer by David Kim. I watched BW for around 10 years after I stopped playing it. The awesome micro moves are noticeable to viewers, even ones who have no idea how they're done and stopped playing long before they were discovered. I enjoyed watching such things as Fantasy's vulture micro, Jaedong's mutalisk micro and Leta's wraith micro without knowing the mechanics behind them. It was just that obvious that their micro was much better than their opponent's. It just looked cool.
Let's be honest here. What's the difference between watching Vulture micro compared to Reaper micro? BW Mutalisk stacking vs SC2 Mutalisk stacking? Wraith micro and Banshee micro?
They look identical to a lay-person, but all of the "amazement" is from in-depth knowledge about how awkward the actual micro management is.
Most of the amazing control in Pro BW wasn't from how amazing each play actually looked, but how "bad" the average unit control looked.
This is completely wrong. Mutalisk stacking from both games looks the same? Maybe you need to go back and see how mutalisk flocks in BW looked and felt. You could literally see how elegant and smooth they were, gliding in and out without any pauses. No need to understand the game at all to see this difference.
On November 09 2013 08:09 paralleluniverse wrote: Was that really it? No new features announced? No in client viewing like Dota 2? Nothing new except new portraits and map editor options? No news about Legacy of the Void?
Very, very underwhelmed.
Making essentially the entire game game free minus campaign and 1v1 ladder is a pretty big deal.
Yeah I am curious if that's all that was announced. The OP feels somewhat lacking...
And I am really, really glad that well known figures are speaking out about how upset they are by Blizzard's reponse. It's nice to see that - it could very well be the precursor to actual change!
On November 09 2013 08:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I don't think I can properly express how much I hate this answer about the micro. It's completely ignorant of how casuals experienced BW. It was way, way easier to understand BW micro.
You have gravitas, clobber David Kim with a bit of common sense.
On November 09 2013 08:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I don't think I can properly express how much I hate this answer about the micro. It's completely ignorant of how casuals experienced BW. It was way, way easier to understand BW micro.
No it wasn't. Casuals average on the order of around 40 APM (give or take around 1 action every 1.5s) and more often than not do notice half of the things that people on this forum claim they do.
What were you guys expecting them to do? Commit to a complete redesign of a number of core parameters in their game, mid expansion because of a single video from a pro gamer?
Come on. Don't be silly. You were never going to get that kind of reaction. At best, you might see some of those mechanics (siege tank turret and probably a toning down of the autospreading) in LoTV but not any time soon.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
I'm not sure he actually addressed the bugs that were discussed in the video though
I hate this answer by David Kim. I watched BW for around 10 years after I stopped playing it. The awesome micro moves are noticeable to viewers, even ones who have no idea how they're done and stopped playing long before they were discovered. I enjoyed watching such things as Fantasy's vulture micro, Jaedong's mutalisk micro and Leta's wraith micro without knowing the mechanics behind them. It was just that obvious that their micro was much better than their opponent's. It just looked cool.
I would have to agree if this is the actual wording of his answer. Just because the average viewer doesn't (whether that's cant or doesn't want to) understand the mechanical skill required to pull off feat X, it's still easily understandable that the units are doing something 'cool', whether that be incredible micro, or not dying, or mass murdering like vultures vs probes. All of that is easily identifiable by a viewer, even if they don't consciously grasp the finer details.
On November 09 2013 07:00 KeksX wrote: General & Arcade
- Starter edition(F2P) changes: --> All races available --> Custom games available --> Arcade available
Sooo, what's left that's not free to play?
*Ladder *Single player *...
Anything else?
Nope, but thats a pretty big point if you really want to get into competetive starcraft. Ladder will always be where you improve the most as a normal guy, so opening everything else is actually pretty smart imho..
@wo1fwood: Obviously it's not 100% his words, but he literally said that they focus on easy to understand mechanics first. Now that I think of it, I believe(actually quite sure) he said he still wants a balance between hardcore mechanics and "casual" mechanics but are focusing on "casual" mechanics. I'm going to add that in.
Also, on that note: They were also talking about more "visible" skill mechanics. I didn't get anything specific out of it but they mentioned blink micro as well as Spawn Larvae. Does anyone remember what I mean? It was David Kim's balance talk.
A bit boring that the starcraft content for blizzcon is just wcs and a sort of meaningless "we're thinking about it" sc2 panel that lasts 1h. I mean, this is the only chance Blizzard fans have to talk to the developers, why not have David Kim do like 30 more minutes of Q&A?
edit: I could be more excited about WCS I suppose, just that I usually associate blizzcon with the fun panels
On November 09 2013 07:00 KeksX wrote: General & Arcade
- Starter edition(F2P) changes: --> All races available --> Custom games available --> Arcade available
Sooo, what's left that's not free to play?
*Ladder *Single player *...
Anything else?
Nope, but thats a pretty big point if you really want to get into competetive starcraft. Ladder will always be where you improve the most as a normal guy, so opening everything else is actually pretty smart imho..
Oh, yes, I do think it's quite smart, too. Make everything F2P other than a) single player campaign (which people will want to buy on release) and b) Competitive multiplayer, which people usually are quite willing to pay money for, if they are into competitive multiplayer in the first place.
Everyone who doesn't fall into these two categories would not have bought the game just for the custom/arcade games alone, anyways, so might as well make it F2P.
Though I do wonder what kind of plans they have to actually make money from the F2P portion of the game now. Here's to hoping they won't do something really stupid.
On November 09 2013 07:00 KeksX wrote: General & Arcade
- Starter edition(F2P) changes: --> All races available --> Custom games available --> Arcade available
Sooo, what's left that's not free to play?
*Ladder *Single player *...
Anything else?
Nope, but thats a pretty big point if you really want to get into competetive starcraft. Ladder will always be where you improve the most as a normal guy, so opening everything else is actually pretty smart imho..
@wo1fwood: Obviously it's not 100% his words, but he literally said that they focus on easy to understand mechanics first. Now that I think of it, I believe(actually quite sure) he said he still wants a balance between hardcore mechanics and "casual" mechanics but are focusing on "casual" mechanics. I'm going to add that in.
The person that invented the word "casual" should be shot. Apparently these days "casual" is just an euphemism for "not very bright and can't handle any complexity". Every time you bring something up to Blizzard they can handwave it away using that word, it's so meaningless. How is a person that plays the game occasionally and would enjoy mastering micro tricks not a casual player, for instance? Who exactly is Blizzard designing their game for if it's not the people that actually play the game?
On November 09 2013 08:09 paralleluniverse wrote: Was that really it? No new features announced? No in client viewing like Dota 2? Nothing new except new portraits and map editor options? No news about Legacy of the Void?
Very, very underwhelmed.
Making essentially the entire game game free minus campaign and 1v1 ladder is a pretty big deal.
Not really. Making custom and arcade games free isn't that big of a deal, nor does it take much time. What are they doing with their time?
On November 09 2013 07:00 KeksX wrote: General & Arcade
- Starter edition(F2P) changes: --> All races available --> Custom games available --> Arcade available
Sooo, what's left that's not free to play?
*Ladder *Single player *...
Anything else?
Nope, but thats a pretty big point if you really want to get into competetive starcraft. Ladder will always be where you improve the most as a normal guy, so opening everything else is actually pretty smart imho..
@wo1fwood: Obviously it's not 100% his words, but he literally said that they focus on easy to understand mechanics first. Now that I think of it, I believe(actually quite sure) he said he still wants a balance between hardcore mechanics and "casual" mechanics but are focusing on "casual" mechanics. I'm going to add that in.
The person that invented the word "casual" should be shot. Apparently these days "casual" is just an euphemism for "not very bright and can't handle any complexity". Every time you bring something up to Blizzard they can handwave it away using that word, it's so meaningless. How is a person that plays the game occasionally and would enjoy mastering micro tricks not a casual player, for instance? Who exactly is Blizzard designing their game for if it's not the people that actually play the game?
its for everybody. toddlers and grandmas... but discussion about complexity in games doesnt really belong here
On November 09 2013 08:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I don't think I can properly express how much I hate this answer about the micro. It's completely ignorant of how casuals experienced BW. It was way, way easier to understand BW micro.
No it wasn't. Casuals average on the order of around 40 APM (give or take around 1 action every 1.5s) and more often than not do notice half of the things that people on this forum claim they do.
What were you guys expecting them to do? Commit to a complete redesign of a number of core parameters in their game, mid expansion because of a single video from a pro gamer?
Come on. Don't be silly. You were never going to get that kind of reaction. At best, you might see some of those mechanics (siege tank turret and probably a toning down of the autospreading) in LoTV but not any time soon.
No, of course we weren't expecting an entire redesign but we wanted to show them that there were so many micro tricks that can be done within the confines of the Starcraft 2 engine, and that it didn't need to be like BW exactly. But he decides to tell us that it's not really important right now. And you can see, pretty much no one in the community agrees.
On November 09 2013 08:09 paralleluniverse wrote: Was that really it? No new features announced? No in client viewing like Dota 2? Nothing new except new portraits and map editor options? No news about Legacy of the Void?
Very, very underwhelmed.
Making essentially the entire game game free minus campaign and 1v1 ladder is a pretty big deal.
Not really. Making custom and arcade games free isn't that big of a deal, nor does it take much time. What are they doing with their time?
Holding meetings to discuss making custom & arcade free.
I think in reality they're mostly working on Legacy of the Void though, as far as I know David Kim is also in charge of balancing the single player maps. (for multiple difficulties and that sort of thing)
On November 09 2013 08:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I don't think I can properly express how much I hate this answer about the micro. It's completely ignorant of how casuals experienced BW. It was way, way easier to understand BW micro.
No it wasn't. Casuals average on the order of around 40 APM (give or take around 1 action every 1.5s) and more often than not do notice half of the things that people on this forum claim they do.
What were you guys expecting them to do? Commit to a complete redesign of a number of core parameters in their game, mid expansion because of a single video from a pro gamer?
Come on. Don't be silly. You were never going to get that kind of reaction. At best, you might see some of those mechanics (siege tank turret and probably a toning down of the autospreading) in LoTV but not any time soon.
First off...I hope you realize who you are talking to ^^.
And don't you worry, casuals watching BW games have an OBSERVER, or a REPLAY FEATURE which does all the seeing FOR THEM (casuals can't see cool micro? what bullshit) so they don't have to give themselves seisures jumping from screen to screen. This OBSERVER catches all the wonderful, crystal clear action FOR THEM, which they can easily understand because it is not derived from layered mechanics and clutter but THE BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL MECHANICS of the game.
I think what people are upset about is not that Blizzard won't do anything about it (LOTV at all - but of course people would be upset with that too), it's the poor, bullshit wording of the answer. Micro in BW IS clear to see - it occurs at a basic, fundamental level.
On November 09 2013 08:25 Maasked wrote: I'm really hoping for F2P Ladder. Would make the audience huge. campaign can stay paywalled, I would still buy it.
I hope the 1v1 ladder never goes F2P. I would prefer some kind of barrier of entry to prevent too many smurfs and hackers from flooding the 1v1 ladder.
On November 09 2013 07:00 KeksX wrote: General & Arcade
- Starter edition(F2P) changes: --> All races available --> Custom games available --> Arcade available
Sooo, what's left that's not free to play?
*Ladder *Single player *...
Anything else?
Nope, but thats a pretty big point if you really want to get into competetive starcraft. Ladder will always be where you improve the most as a normal guy, so opening everything else is actually pretty smart imho..
@wo1fwood: Obviously it's not 100% his words, but he literally said that they focus on easy to understand mechanics first. Now that I think of it, I believe(actually quite sure) he said he still wants a balance between hardcore mechanics and "casual" mechanics but are focusing on "casual" mechanics. I'm going to add that in.
The person that invented the word "casual" should be shot. Apparently these days "casual" is just an euphemism for "not very bright and can't handle any complexity". Every time you bring something up to Blizzard they can handwave it away using that word, it's so meaningless. How is a person that plays the game occasionally and would enjoy mastering micro tricks not a casual player, for instance? Who exactly is Blizzard designing their game for if it's not the people that actually play the game?
Just so it's clear, I put the word casual in quotes because it's my word here. They didn't say that, David called it "Easy to understand stuff"... Doesn't change the content, but he did not say "casual".
On November 09 2013 08:09 paralleluniverse wrote: Was that really it? No new features announced? No in client viewing like Dota 2? Nothing new except new portraits and map editor options? No news about Legacy of the Void?
Very, very underwhelmed.
Making essentially the entire game game free minus campaign and 1v1 ladder is a pretty big deal.
Not really. Making custom and arcade games free isn't that big of a deal, nor does it take much time. What are they doing with their time?
Holding meetings to discuss making custom & arcade free.
I think in reality they're mostly working on Legacy of the Void though, as far as I know David Kim is also in charge of balancing the single player maps. (for multiple difficulties and that sort of thing)
With many of the SC2 developers also working on LotV at the moment, I think LotV work is progressing at a slowed place right now.
Then again, Blizzard has historically been super slow about releasing even simple features for SC2. Consider how long it took to get all those UI updates for WoL. It's probably gonna take Blizzard an even longer time to release the more complex features like in-client streaming and automated tournaments.
On November 09 2013 08:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I don't think I can properly express how much I hate this answer about the micro. It's completely ignorant of how casuals experienced BW. It was way, way easier to understand BW micro.
No it wasn't. Casuals average on the order of around 40 APM (give or take around 1 action every 1.5s) and more often than not do notice half of the things that people on this forum claim they do.
What were you guys expecting them to do? Commit to a complete redesign of a number of core parameters in their game, mid expansion because of a single video from a pro gamer?
Come on. Don't be silly. You were never going to get that kind of reaction. At best, you might see some of those mechanics (siege tank turret and probably a toning down of the autospreading) in LoTV but not any time soon.
No, of course we weren't expecting an entire redesign but we wanted to show them that there were so many micro tricks that can be done within the confines of the Starcraft 2 engine, and that it didn't need to be like BW exactly. But he decides to tell us that it's not really important right now. And you can see, pretty much no one in the community agrees.
No offence, man, but there are about a million or so players who play SC2 every day and thus far, at most 827 people have posted in the thread covering this. 40,000 have watched it.
Just to put into perspective how few people that is, that is only twice the number who watched "But What About Wayne Brady?" on LAGTv. In other words, in Starcraft terms, it's not particularly popular at all.
Now while I am not saying this is an unimportant point (it is, I was convinced by the video myself - it was very impressive) the echo chamber that is TeamLiquid vastly overestimate their importance to the Starcraft "community". The fact that they took notice of it at all is important. It means they saw the criticism and probably took it on board. They will likely be having discussions in their developer discussions regarding it. However, they design the game. We don't.
As it turns out there are over 120,000 people watching it at the moment. They're obviously doing something right.
The person that invented the word "casual" should be shot. Apparently these days "casual" is just an euphemism for "not very bright and can't handle any complexity".
Casual is a euphemism for the "the people who bring in the money".
Not sure if someone should start a thread on just that David Kim's comment. I feel like the entire Sc2 community is raging now. (but distracted by the grand final ) David Kim, the swarm is coming.
It should be much better. The people who want change aren't happy with "good enough," or doubt that it even is. But by all means, argue safely in favor of the status quo and wallow in its mediocrity.
I'm disappointed that a vod of the sc2 panel still hasn't been uploaded onto Youtube yet. Last year, we got a lot of vods quickly uploaded from the HotS panels. Today, a lot of the other games have had their panels quickly uploaded within the last few hours.
On November 09 2013 08:45 Nerevar wrote: I'm disappointed that a vod of the sc2 panel still hasn't been uploaded onto Youtube yet. Last year, we got a lot of vods quickly uploaded from the HotS panels. Today, a lot of the other games have had their panels quickly uploaded within the last few hours.
You're kinda complaining about the pirates being late in uploading things they shouldn't in the first place.
I mean, as far as I know the Virtual Ticket is there for a reason, and Blizzard themselves aren't going to be uploading anything.
Cool! I'm gonna add this and edit the post to match the information on there !
It's so funny.
"Internal Processes The state of StarCraft II multiplayer is examined by three groups: the Design Team, Game Analysis Team, and Balance Team. The Design Team digs in to big picture things like matchup excitement, race performance, and analyzes the big picture of StarCraft II multiplayer The Game Analysis Team analyzes specific games and does individual research. They then come together to engage in group discussions. The Balance Team tests changes internally, and consists of the best StarCraft II players across multiple departments at Blizzard Headquarters."
So SC2-F2P now makes two shots - it solves LAN question (just download SC2 and do anything you want - play tournament via Customs or play with friends via Arcade) and opens it to a bigger amount of players.
On November 09 2013 10:06 Fjodorov wrote: BW micro not enjoyable for the audience? BW was kind of a big thing in that place called south korea. They seemed to enoy it atleast.
There were no casual viewers in BW though - and that was the target group he was talking about.
On November 09 2013 10:06 Fjodorov wrote: BW micro not enjoyable for the audience? BW was kind of a big thing in that place called south korea. They seemed to enoy it atleast.
There were no casual viewers in BW though - and that was the target group he was talking about.
Plenty of casual viewers in Korea, from toddlers to grandparents.
On November 09 2013 10:18 Faust852 wrote: So they have ~50% WR in TvZ but still want to nerf the widow mine to dead ?Okay.
Probably because it can be super volatile and want to reward the players who can actually micro their mines(Bomber, Bogus) versus those who just get lucky. More skillshot, less scarab.
On November 09 2013 10:18 Faust852 wrote: So they have ~50% WR in TvZ but still want to nerf the widow mine to dead ?Okay.
Probably because it can be super volatile and want to reward the players who can actually micro their mines(Bomber, Bogus) versus those who just get lucky. More skillshot, less scarab.
and because it's the end of the season and mine nerfs are offset by other buffs & potential map changes that change balance anyway
When I saw that they were adding BW music into SC2 (and even better yet, remastered!), my heart jumped. I was afraid that I was weird, though, being stoked about that little detail when everything else just seems so much more important. Then I read the thread...
On November 09 2013 07:18 ShowTheLights wrote: uhhhhhhhhhhhhh Starcraft 1 music remastered in SC2?!
disappointed with the stupid clan thing change, where is the in game tournament stuff also sad about the skin, seems they just can't do it. expected for depth of micro, I always agreed that sc2 could have their very own unique micro instead of having to rely on past bw micro mechanics. blink and forcefields are really quite great example.
WC3 models, I guess this is to support the arcade and heroes of the storm?
On November 09 2013 08:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I don't think I can properly express how much I hate this answer about the micro. It's completely ignorant of how casuals experienced BW. It was way, way easier to understand BW micro.
Ok, like most of you, I think David Kims response to depth of micro is complete BS. In 09 I talked my wife into going to blizzcon with me and she sat and watched the WC3 and Broodwar tournaments with me. She had never seen BW before and yet she was still able to appreciate their micro and said she was surprised how much she enjoyed watching despite the bad graphics. It passed the noob test with flying colors. Come to SC2, she says its too hard to tell whats going on with things just dying everywhere. I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but I am sure there are many other stories where Kims statement does not pass the noob test.
On November 09 2013 11:45 StreetWise wrote: Ok, like most of you, I think David Kims response to depth of micro is complete BS. In 09 I talked my wife into going to blizzcon with me and she sat and watched the WC3 and Broodwar tournaments with me. She had never seen BW before and yet she was still able to appreciate their micro and said she was surprised how much she enjoyed watching despite the bad graphics. It passed the noob test with flying colors. Come to SC2, she says its too hard to tell whats going on with things just dying everywhere. I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but I am sure there are many other stories where Kims statement does not pass the noob test.
what is wrong with just adding more micro potential ? it increases the skillcap .. and separates the greater player .. tsk.x do they really want a a-move game ?
Honestly, how can the changes suggested in the depth of micro video be damaging to the casual base. All they'll see is just units moving, while they won't be able to appreciate it, it will not be damaging to them, they will simply see it as normal, meanwhile, the quality of play will increase and everyone will benefit, casual, pro and hardcore fan.
All the outrage over David Kim saying what he's been saying for years . . . "I know what's best, I never make mistakes".
It doesn't matter if it makes sense - in fact, it's probably better to just not suggest anything to Blizzard regarding Starcraft 2 at all. At least if the community doesn't suggest something, then there's a chance these guys might stumble on it and actually implement it thinking it's their own idea.
On November 09 2013 11:45 StreetWise wrote: Ok, like most of you, I think David Kims response to depth of micro is complete BS. In 09 I talked my wife into going to blizzcon with me and she sat and watched the WC3 and Broodwar tournaments with me. She had never seen BW before and yet she was still able to appreciate their micro and said she was surprised how much she enjoyed watching despite the bad graphics. It passed the noob test with flying colors. Come to SC2, she says its too hard to tell whats going on with things just dying everywhere. I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but I am sure there are many other stories where Kims statement does not pass the noob test.
reread op
My point is, that casuals can appreciate the more nuanced micro moves that he assumes casuals wont grasp. Science vessel use comes to mind, baiting mines with a zealot, and moving shot. Right now they are trying to fix things for the casual fan(like what exactly), but I think they are missing the point. Most of the fixes in the video could be appreciated by both audiences, although for different reasons. It is up to the caster to let the audience know how good someone is actually playing and we have the casters that can do that.
Despite David Kim's answer, I hope that the video and the issues presented within it, still gets looked at. Such as the way air units behave in bigger groups and the oracle laser "bug". I honestly think this constitutes something that could be considered bugs or at least as being unintentional side effects in the game engine, which is definately stuff that makes sense to look at for an expansion.
My biggest hope for LotV is that zealot charge is removed in favour of a plain speed increase!
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
EDIT: The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
EDIT: The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
Just listen, come one, just look here, and here, and admit and listen. gaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwww
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
EDIT: The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
Do you think there's something missing from our messages? I want to say that they're just being dense, but I keep getting the feeling that they shift into alternate realities on occasion, and miss things that are obvious to the rest of us.
Maybe R1CH can build us a time suit or something...
Blizzard do need everything spelled out to them in really basic ways - preferably with a video (that seems to get their attention most of the time!) - so you might be right.
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
EDIT: The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
You might be right. But, Lalush's video was too BW heavy. It's not surprising that his response appears to look to the last half of that video which was all about cool micro tricks in BW, and not the bugs in SC2 which may be preventing SC2 specific micro enhancement. I think Lalush may have missed a window with his presentation of that video. A shame, really.
So one big battle per game, where position and army comp determines everything, is fun for the viewer? Good job Blizz, keep those deathballs and sluggish controls coming.
On November 09 2013 13:36 mrpeabody wrote: So one big battle per game, where position and army comp determines everything, is fun for the viewer? Good job Blizz, keep those deathballs and sluggish controls coming.
What game are you talking about? Because it doesn't sound like the StarCraft II I've been watching.
On November 09 2013 13:36 mrpeabody wrote: So one big battle per game, where position and army comp determines everything, is fun for the viewer? Good job Blizz, keep those deathballs and sluggish controls coming.
What game are you talking about? Because it doesn't sound like the StarCraft II I've been watching.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
If I could like this a thousand times, upvote it, share it, tweet it, jesus christ... this! For goodness sakes, I had the exact same reaction when I read what he said. You can ABSOLUTELY see and appreciate the micro in front of you, even a casual player can see that. Even D-/D scrubs on iccup could appreciate a pro microing units in a fashion they themselves wouldn't be able to replicate. That makes it even more awe-inspiring.
Edited: Also, some guy on reddit said this: "How can you say that this type of micro can not be appreciated by casuals when BW was huge."
And that's so simply put, I just... that's... genius.
On November 09 2013 14:17 Sapphire.lux wrote: BW micro hard to appreciate....but tightly packed deathballs and 3 sec. battles are much better
BW micro hard to appreciate unless you did it yourself. Saying this as one of those guys who did not think that BW micro was anything special until i tried to do it myself and broke my mouse.
On November 09 2013 08:03 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I don't think I can properly express how much I hate this answer about the micro. It's completely ignorant of how casuals experienced BW. It was way, way easier to understand BW micro.
Well, Kim couldn't just say " we won't make a very big effort on this game anymore, so don't bother pointing out the flaws" can't he?
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
What a cop out answer =[
UPDATE:
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
If I could like this a thousand times, upvote it, share it, tweet it, jesus christ... this! For goodness sakes, I had the exact same reaction when I read what he said. You can ABSOLUTELY see and appreciate the micro in front of you, even a casual player can see that. Even D-/D scrubs on iccup could appreciate a pro microing units in a fashion they themselves wouldn't be able to replicate. That makes it even more awe-inspiring.
Edited: Also, some guy on reddit said this: "How can you say that this type of micro can not be appreciated by casuals when BW was huge."
And that's so simply put, I just... that's... genius.
>_< Not only that but it's pretty distinguishable lmao.
The free arcade for starter edition is awesome, the casual players base will definitely increased dramatically. Look like I can get more guys to start playing arcade now. Going to see how the arcade scene will further develop.
I wish they would remove the level cap entirely. Have it just keep getting higher and higher by some multiplicative so that way you can showboat off a number to show how much StarCraft you play. I think it would be cool to see just how much I play instead of just seeing that number 30.
Like that they are focusing more on the Arcade, would have liked some more Clan Support, maybe hinting towards a Clan vs Clan matchmaking. In game tournamnets etc.
Nothing new on the extra content/skins just excitement is not good if it could be implemented with the new F2P Arcade it could open up even more for new players imo.
The comment on Micro.. just seems silly lets be honest and overly defensive.
Dissapointed in DK and his comment on the Depth of Micro. I would state that the game needs depth for the hardcore sc2 player, and sure it can have elements of flashiness (for new players). But that fact that they are valuing new customers, rather than focussing on retaining the ones that actually are hardcore sc2/BW fans pisses me off. I dont know how much time and money I have used on Blizzard products, but this certainly makes me shrug my shoulders. Am I not as important as a new customer?
Give us depth of micro, and keep the flashiness = everyone wins AND we get a fun period of rebalancing sc2. It would totally revamp the game.
On November 09 2013 15:15 Tobblish wrote: Like that they are focusing more on the Arcade, would have liked some more Clan Support, maybe hinting towards a Clan vs Clan matchmaking. In game tournamnets etc.
Nothing new on the extra content/skins just excitement is not good if it could be implemented with the new F2P Arcade it could open up even more for new players imo.
The comment on Micro.. just seems silly lets be honest and overly defensive.
Can see many wc3 custom dwellers on garena server transfer over. At last, Blizzard start focusing a little bit on the arcade scene. It has so much potential.
On November 09 2013 15:15 Butterednuts wrote: I wish they would remove the level cap entirely. Have it just keep getting higher and higher by some multiplicative so that way you can showboat off a number to show how much StarCraft you play. I think it would be cool to see just how much I play instead of just seeing that number 30.
I like that idea! Taht would be a great addition :D
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
To be honest, less flash is better. That way, you can see more of the subtleties of what is going on in the battle. However, there needs to be enough flash to show what is going on (like debuffs and storms being obvious, but not cluttering the screen too much).
To be honest, Blink micro is fine, but I consider surrounds to be a relative joke when you have an extra 2 movespeed over your target (even more on creep).
Face it, we might as well let SC2 die, and pray to God they get it right with SC3.
And how it LOOKS to casual viewers doesn't mean jack shit and has no value. You have very good casters like Day9 and Tastosis that EXPLAIN EVERYTHING that needs to be explained for the casuals. They will still understand what's going on and will plenty appreciate it. Seeing Marines kite slow lings is far more enjoyable than watching Stimmed Marines kite speed lings on creep for 2 seconds before they get surrounded. The fact is, Blizzard had to make the most obnoxiously overpowered numbers for ling speed, otherwise it would be terrible. Can you imagine trying to chase Marines with lings being any slower than a movement speed of 4 given the way Marines currently function? You'd lose all your lings before doing any damage. I mean, they had to buff charge to deal with bio kiting, cause there is no other way to deal with bio micro (cause other units don't have legitimate means of being microed effectively).
As it currently is, SC2 is mechanically less demanding than fucking LoL in terms of micro except in the case of splitting Marines on creep against more than twice as many speed Banelings (and even the very best would find it tough to be successful there). Not saying LoL is a more mechanically difficult game overall (they have 0 sense of multitasking or anything really to prevent it from being a pure micro fest). But LoL has (for the most part) VERY basic concepts of micro aside from skill shots. It's heavily focused on stutter step micro and kiting/comboing your abilities. In essence, it's a constant interaction of kiting and chasing, with mechanics to do damage and promote or deny kiting. SC2 is simply get ahead, march your big army into a good spot into anything but a bad spot to fight, and roll the guy over either slowly or instantly.
Promoting skirmish battles (resulting from improving micro possibilities) would greatly improve the viewability of the game. Cheeses would be more effective, while countering it would also be more effective. Currently, you need to hit certain benchmarks to defend cheeses (or make them happen), but with more micro possibility, you might be able to get away with one or two less units and still succeed if you are the better player mechanically. Also, games would be far less greedy since you can straight up die to 6-8 units. People LIKE watching skirmishes. They LIKE tons of small engagements. They DON'T like waiting 20 minutes for 2 guys to finish the game with a fight scene out of a Michael Bay movie. They won't mind if it's how it consistently finishes, but there needs to be distinction between matches. It needs to be more than "Every Terran/Zerg/Protoss will do exactly this, or some variation, hit all the benchmarks exactly, then poke, and move on to the next set of benchmarks, then hit a timing, then go for a deathball and ram it into the enemy's face."
On another note, Blizzard also fucked up how they decided to broadcast Blizzcon. It was so terrible, I decided not to even bother and would just rather look up the results here and maybe look at vods later if any are available.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
What a cop out answer =[
UPDATE:
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
To be honest, less flash is better. That way, you can see more of the subtleties of what is going on in the battle. However, there needs to be enough flash to show what is going on (like debuffs and storms being obvious, but not cluttering the screen too much).
To be honest, Blink micro is fine, but I consider surrounds to be a relative joke when you have an extra 2 movespeed over your target (even more on creep).
Face it, we might as well let SC2 die, and pray to God they get it right with SC3.
And how it LOOKS to casual viewers doesn't mean jack shit and has no value. You have very good casters like Day9 and Tastosis that EXPLAIN EVERYTHING that needs to be explained for the casuals. They will still understand what's going on and will plenty appreciate it. Seeing Marines kite slow lings is far more enjoyable than watching Stimmed Marines kite speed lings on creep for 2 seconds before they get surrounded. The fact is, Blizzard had to make the most obnoxiously overpowered numbers for ling speed, otherwise it would be terrible. Can you imagine trying to chase Marines with lings being any slower than a movement speed of 4 given the way Marines currently function? You'd lose all your lings before doing any damage. I mean, they had to buff charge to deal with bio kiting, cause there is no other way to deal with bio micro (cause other units don't have legitimate means of being microed effectively).
As it currently is, SC2 is mechanically less demanding than fucking LoL in terms of micro except in the case of splitting Marines on creep against more than twice as many speed Banelings (and even the very best would find it tough to be successful there). Not saying LoL is a more mechanically difficult game overall (they have 0 sense of multitasking or anything really to prevent it from being a pure micro fest). But LoL has (for the most part) VERY basic concepts of micro aside from skill shots. It's heavily focused on stutter step micro and kiting/comboing your abilities. In essence, it's a constant interaction of kiting and chasing, with mechanics to do damage and promote or deny kiting. SC2 is simply get ahead, march your big army into a good spot into anything but a bad spot to fight, and roll the guy over either slowly or instantly.
Promoting skirmish battles (resulting from improving micro possibilities) would greatly improve the viewability of the game. Cheeses would be more effective, while countering it would also be more effective. Currently, you need to hit certain benchmarks to defend cheeses (or make them happen), but with more micro possibility, you might be able to get away with one or two less units and still succeed if you are the better player mechanically. Also, games would be far less greedy since you can straight up die to 6-8 units. People LIKE watching skirmishes. They LIKE tons of small engagements. They DON'T like waiting 20 minutes for 2 guys to finish the game with a fight scene out of a Michael Bay movie. They won't mind if it's how it consistently finishes, but there needs to be distinction between matches. It needs to be more than "Every Terran/Zerg/Protoss will do exactly this, or some variation, hit all the benchmarks exactly, then poke, and move on to the next set of benchmarks, then hit a timing, then go for a deathball and ram it into the enemy's face."
On another note, Blizzard also fucked up how they decided to broadcast Blizzcon. It was so terrible, I decided not to even bother and would just rather look up the results here and maybe look at vods later if any are available.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
What a cop out answer =[
UPDATE:
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
To be honest, less flash is better. That way, you can see more of the subtleties of what is going on in the battle. However, there needs to be enough flash to show what is going on (like debuffs and storms being obvious, but not cluttering the screen too much).
To be honest, Blink micro is fine, but I consider surrounds to be a relative joke when you have an extra 2 movespeed over your target (even more on creep).
Face it, we might as well let SC2 die, and pray to God they get it right with SC3.
And how it LOOKS to casual viewers doesn't mean jack shit and has no value. You have very good casters like Day9 and Tastosis that EXPLAIN EVERYTHING that needs to be explained for the casuals. They will still understand what's going on and will plenty appreciate it. Seeing Marines kite slow lings is far more enjoyable than watching Stimmed Marines kite speed lings on creep for 2 seconds before they get surrounded. The fact is, Blizzard had to make the most obnoxiously overpowered numbers for ling speed, otherwise it would be terrible. Can you imagine trying to chase Marines with lings being any slower than a movement speed of 4 given the way Marines currently function? You'd lose all your lings before doing any damage. I mean, they had to buff charge to deal with bio kiting, cause there is no other way to deal with bio micro (cause other units don't have legitimate means of being microed effectively).
As it currently is, SC2 is mechanically less demanding than fucking LoL in terms of micro except in the case of splitting Marines on creep against more than twice as many speed Banelings (and even the very best would find it tough to be successful there). Not saying LoL is a more mechanically difficult game overall (they have 0 sense of multitasking or anything really to prevent it from being a pure micro fest). But LoL has (for the most part) VERY basic concepts of micro aside from skill shots. It's heavily focused on stutter step micro and kiting/comboing your abilities. In essence, it's a constant interaction of kiting and chasing, with mechanics to do damage and promote or deny kiting. SC2 is simply get ahead, march your big army into a good spot into anything but a bad spot to fight, and roll the guy over either slowly or instantly.
Promoting skirmish battles (resulting from improving micro possibilities) would greatly improve the viewability of the game. Cheeses would be more effective, while countering it would also be more effective. Currently, you need to hit certain benchmarks to defend cheeses (or make them happen), but with more micro possibility, you might be able to get away with one or two less units and still succeed if you are the better player mechanically. Also, games would be far less greedy since you can straight up die to 6-8 units. People LIKE watching skirmishes. They LIKE tons of small engagements. They DON'T like waiting 20 minutes for 2 guys to finish the game with a fight scene out of a Michael Bay movie. They won't mind if it's how it consistently finishes, but there needs to be distinction between matches. It needs to be more than "Every Terran/Zerg/Protoss will do exactly this, or some variation, hit all the benchmarks exactly, then poke, and move on to the next set of benchmarks, then hit a timing, then go for a deathball and ram it into the enemy's face."
On another note, Blizzard also fucked up how they decided to broadcast Blizzcon. It was so terrible, I decided not to even bother and would just rather look up the results here and maybe look at vods later if any are available.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
What a cop out answer =[
UPDATE:
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
To be honest, less flash is better. That way, you can see more of the subtleties of what is going on in the battle. However, there needs to be enough flash to show what is going on (like debuffs and storms being obvious, but not cluttering the screen too much).
To be honest, Blink micro is fine, but I consider surrounds to be a relative joke when you have an extra 2 movespeed over your target (even more on creep).
Face it, we might as well let SC2 die, and pray to God they get it right with SC3.
And how it LOOKS to casual viewers doesn't mean jack shit and has no value. You have very good casters like Day9 and Tastosis that EXPLAIN EVERYTHING that needs to be explained for the casuals. They will still understand what's going on and will plenty appreciate it. Seeing Marines kite slow lings is far more enjoyable than watching Stimmed Marines kite speed lings on creep for 2 seconds before they get surrounded. The fact is, Blizzard had to make the most obnoxiously overpowered numbers for ling speed, otherwise it would be terrible. Can you imagine trying to chase Marines with lings being any slower than a movement speed of 4 given the way Marines currently function? You'd lose all your lings before doing any damage. I mean, they had to buff charge to deal with bio kiting, cause there is no other way to deal with bio micro (cause other units don't have legitimate means of being microed effectively).
As it currently is, SC2 is mechanically less demanding than fucking LoL in terms of micro except in the case of splitting Marines on creep against more than twice as many speed Banelings (and even the very best would find it tough to be successful there). Not saying LoL is a more mechanically difficult game overall (they have 0 sense of multitasking or anything really to prevent it from being a pure micro fest). But LoL has (for the most part) VERY basic concepts of micro aside from skill shots. It's heavily focused on stutter step micro and kiting/comboing your abilities. In essence, it's a constant interaction of kiting and chasing, with mechanics to do damage and promote or deny kiting. SC2 is simply get ahead, march your big army into a good spot into anything but a bad spot to fight, and roll the guy over either slowly or instantly.
Promoting skirmish battles (resulting from improving micro possibilities) would greatly improve the viewability of the game. Cheeses would be more effective, while countering it would also be more effective. Currently, you need to hit certain benchmarks to defend cheeses (or make them happen), but with more micro possibility, you might be able to get away with one or two less units and still succeed if you are the better player mechanically. Also, games would be far less greedy since you can straight up die to 6-8 units. People LIKE watching skirmishes. They LIKE tons of small engagements. They DON'T like waiting 20 minutes for 2 guys to finish the game with a fight scene out of a Michael Bay movie. They won't mind if it's how it consistently finishes, but there needs to be distinction between matches. It needs to be more than "Every Terran/Zerg/Protoss will do exactly this, or some variation, hit all the benchmarks exactly, then poke, and move on to the next set of benchmarks, then hit a timing, then go for a deathball and ram it into the enemy's face."
On another note, Blizzard also fucked up how they decided to broadcast Blizzcon. It was so terrible, I decided not to even bother and would just rather look up the results here and maybe look at vods later if any are available.
This whole post is all so wrong.
Yeah... Rylai should just go play LoL since it's the better game in every aspect. At least for him.
What does "all 3 races will be available in starter edition" ? Does it mean that you can play multiplayer with all the 3 races without buying the game ?
On November 09 2013 18:15 MagmaPunch wrote: What does "all 3 races will be available in starter edition" ? Does it mean that you can play multiplayer with all the 3 races without buying the game ?
It might mean you can play custom games with other people (not sure if for any map or select maps) without buying the game. But you can't ladder probably.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
You all appear to be drawing conclusions without hearing what David said in context. He said that the type of micro implemented back in Brood War was not easy to understand and appreciate as a casual viewer. 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). We think we can do better than that. Skill based tactics like Blink, or zerg surrounds - those are the kinds of things that are easy to understand. Others like Spawn Larvae and Chrono Boost, carrier micro etc. - these are not easy to watch and appreciate to new viewers. We feel that the game needs a healthy mix of skill abilities that are easy to appreciate along side the deeper unseen technical stuff. Right now, we think the game leans too heavy on the hard-to-appreciate-for-a-new-viewer side.
Another disappointing response. The micro displayed in the video was anything but subtle. The video explained why the SC2 engine was preventing this micro from happening (hence the research) but the micro is EASILY seen as impressive. It absolutely falls into the class of Blink micro or Surrounds because you see units moving in impressive ways.
Just.... wow....
The healthy mix they want is being prevented by their own engine for exactly the reasons that Lalush outlines aslkdfa;lskdfna
You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
EXACTLY!!! it is so dissapointing to get this kind of dishonest ignorance again and again and again and again... i guess we don't have to assume mallice when it might just be plain stupidity? blizzcon is so epic that i'm kind of in a forgiving mood and all the other changes are really pointing in the right direction...
still I would have much preferred a kind of anwser like: - we are focusing with all our efforts on all the other stuff, we just don't have the resources to look into it - implementing these changes would initially imbalance the game so much that we won't risk it untill the next expansion and beta testing
this STUPID argument of accessibility is just enraging... if they wanted accesability, they should have made the multiplayer and the arcade free to play ages ago and implement some sort of grass-root / regionlock WCS system from the getgo... STOP DUMBING DOWN THE GAME right now the world chess championship started with a 2.5 million USD prize pool and hundereds of thousands of viewers... 99.99% of these people couldn't spot a checkmate in 2 moves, still they are watching the twelve 7 hours long (!) matches for the next 2 weeks... most Starcraft players don't even know how to take an expansion properly and when to attack (David, ever heard of timings? like THE most important thing in Starcraft EVER those are so easy to spot riht?), and they still enjoy and watch the game because... we have casters and experts, who explain these nuances to them!
Does the extension mod have to be set before the game appears or can it be undefined. Im guessing the 'Join Game' button would have to be removed when creating a new map.
So, essentially they are making the only difference between buying SC2 and starter version: A. no solo ladder (be it random team one or 1v1) B. no campaign. Hm, cool. That's about as close as they can get to F2P.
On November 09 2013 19:16 Dreamsmasher2 wrote: Isnt the micro thing suppose to be a Game design thing and not a Balance thing? I dont know if David Kim is the guy that is in charge of that.
he regularly anwsers questions about forcefields, warpgate and other similar design stuff, so...
I think at this level balance and design shouldn't be separated, because balance isn't just a numbers game.
I do not understand - did you honestly think they could just go deep into the engine and correct the things that lalush outlines in the video? If they did that it would change the balance of every single unit in the game. All matchups all races would need a complete rebalancing - it would basicly be a whole new game.
I mean great and cool if they could or would do it - but dont you guys remember how much they struggled with adding a new couple of HOTS units - just think or how broken the warhound was, and they thought that was a great addition.
To rebalance the whole of the game with this new set of micro skills for all units, blizzard would need almost all of their development team back for on sc2 and that is clearly not happening - instead the sc2 folks are being put on new projects like Heroes or whatnot.
The clan decal example with the TL logo looks utterly lame and poorly attached to the hatchery to me, but the idea of it is good, so if it ended up looking good (such as wrapping around the hatchery or just being placed on the ground with/instead of the other chosen decal), sure, that's great.
Extension Mods, WC3 models and the AFK game host issues are all very good but yeah, I originally completely missed
On November 09 2013 07:18 ShowTheLights wrote: uhhhhhhhhhhhhh Starcraft 1 music remastered in SC2?!
BEST ANNOUNCEMENT
That's wonderful!
I don't like the comments about "Skill involved in micro" needing to be so clearly apparent to casual viewers, because it's quite a limiting factor, I would imagine and commentators are meant to be able to clarify such things. That gives Tastosis and others more extra teaching lines to use in casts that are actually important bits of information that can be interesting for newer viewers, such as talking about carrier micro.
Man what a let down. Did DK even ever watch professional BW?! Those micro moments are the ones where casters fire up, and it's possible to see game-changing fights and winner is not pre-determined like in most cases in SC2.
I guess that DK answer to depth of micro shows how far apart are the vision of game devs vs. players of the game. Blizzard games used to be easy to play, difficult to master. In micro department there's not that much things to master.
I can't get over why they are not willing to give it a shot on PTR. I'm sure that the game might need rebalancing which needs to be addressed.
On November 09 2013 19:54 Akira_fn wrote: I do not understand - did you honestly think they could just go deep into the engine and correct the things that lalush outlines in the video? If they did that it would change the balance of every single unit in the game. All matchups all races would need a complete rebalancing - it would basicly be a whole new game.
I mean great and cool if they could or would do it - but dont you guys remember how much they struggled with adding a new couple of HOTS units - just think or how broken the warhound was, and they thought that was a great addition.
To rebalance the whole of the game with this new set of micro skills for all units, blizzard would need almost all of their development team back for on sc2 and that is clearly not happening - instead the sc2 folks are being put on new projects like Heroes or whatnot.
from a practical application standpoint adding this kind of functionality to the game would be a silly idea mid-expansion and a huge waste of energy and resources. I dont' think anyone would be advocating adding in this stuff until LotV as it would fundamentally change some unit interactions and would be better suited and more compacted as a development cycle if done then. That being said, I really hope they re-examine their position on this as DKim's current perspective on this topic is quite flawed.
Let's face it guys = the new Macro in SC2 is much more APM and attention-demanding than in BW used to be (ofc. - with the exception of TvZ Bio play.. )
It's like if they implemented things as Lalush said, it would be almost impossible to play well.. SC2 is much more fast-paced game in terms of mineral-gathering ratio therefore much more Macro-over-micro-demanding.. Sure BW had much harder mechanics in demand cause of no multi-building selection and such things, but again - in SC2 minerals are much more fastly gathered, so overall IMO ends up more Macro-demanding game..
However - DK could at least acknowledge and say like something, "We saw the video and we're currently pleased as to how units behave but we'll see if some of the lesser micro-d or lesser used units continue to have their status as lesser used units then we'd like to implement and test them with some of those changes"..
I for example would like some Improvements to the Vikings and Carriers.. Maybe Corruptors could be affordable (if not reccomendable) to have a small benefit of those changes as well..
Like --> CAREFULLY choose which units to improve in their responsiveness.. IMO Vikings and Carriers are #1 in the "club" there.. AND HERE'S THE BEST PART - the possibility is ALREADY THERE, and can be made sooooo subtle and so accurate in 2 decimal points any moment there..
As for the other/rest things said/mentioned --> I'm so pleased with the 2 things they said though:
1 - is the BW music remastered (hopefully in ways that fits their SC2 counterparts so it would be a "lean" experience with the music ingame), and
2 - is the careful observation of Swarm-Host play..
On November 09 2013 20:49 VArsovskiSC wrote: Let's face it guys = the new Macro in SC2 is much more APM and attention-demanding than in BW used to be (ofc. - with the exception of TvZ Bio play.. )
It's like if they implemented things as Lalush said, it would be almost impossible to play well.. SC2 is much more fast-paced game in terms of mineral-gathering ratio therefore much more Macro-over-micro-demanding.. Sure BW had much harder mechanics in demand cause of no multi-building selection and such things, but again - in SC2 minerals are much more fastly gathered, so overall IMO ends up more Macro-demanding game..
However - DK could at least acknowledge and say like something, "We saw the video and we're currently pleased as to how units behave but we'll see if some of the lesser micro-d or lesser used units continue to have their status as lesser used units then we'd like to implement and test them with some of those changes"..
I for example would like some Improvements to the Vikings and Carriers.. Maybe Corruptors could be affordable (if not reccomendable) to have a small benefit of those changes as well..
Like --> CAREFULLY choose which units to improve in their responsiveness.. IMO Vikings and Carriers are #1 in the "club" there.. AND HERE'S THE BEST PART - the possibility is ALREADY THERE, and can be made sooooo subtle and so accurate in 2 decimal points any moment there..
As for the other/rest things said/mentioned --> I'm so pleased with the 2 things they said though:
1 - is the BW music remastered (hopefully in ways that fits their SC2 counterparts so it would be a "lean" experience with the music ingame), and
2 - is the careful observation of Swarm-Host play..
you think sc2 is more macro demanding then BW ??? lol... its the complete opposite for me BW macro is by FAR harder then sc2.
I'd like to think that David Kim was somehow talking about a different aspect of the video than what everyone else was thinking about. I'd like to think that what David Kim meant was "Invisible micro, like combos of stop, patrol, attack and move that just end up looking like a unit that shoots while moving, or unit clumping manipulated by hold move commands, are not something we want to focus on, because it's completely invisible to the casual viewer" (and I would completely agree with that statement!). However, I'd also like to think that he didn't completely shrug off the entire video. Rather, that he felt defensive and that, in hindsight, he would have loved to express himself slightly differently.
The reason I'd like to think that, is that so much of what LaLuSh described as bugs really look like bugs and I believe that casual viewers, at the very least on the subconscious level, will appreciate how the game would be if those bugs were gone. I, personally, am crap at micro, be it BW or SC2, to the extent that I didn't know any of the micro tricks LaLuSh explained in his video (save for the stuff from the StarCraft Master map), but on a subconscious level, I have always appreciated some of the movement in BW, and specifically some of the movement that is impossible in SC2 due to the bugs that LaLuSh outlined. There is something beautiful in watching a Muta stack glide back and forth, in perfect rhythm to coincide with their attack speed, one-shotting one marine at a time. It is not beautiful to watch a bunch of Vikings arrive on location, bug out with their separation radius and awkwardly mess up their formation. A single Banshee kiting a group of marines perfectly is the stuff that would make legends, just like the SC2 Master map shows us. Two Banshees trying to kite but messing up for each other and getting shot down is hardly working as intended, in my opinion. And a single Oracle getting ahead of everyone else because the others are suddenly capable of insta-stopping only if they want to watch their friend get the last shot... That's just silly.
Besides, a lot of micro is easily recognizable to casual viewers. Everyone knows that you have to actively tell your units to do stuff and the Banshee, in my opinion, is a prime example of how this translates to the casual viewer. For the Banshee to fire, it has to turn around, so you get a visual clue that the player has told the Banshee "something" that made the Banshee fire on the marines and you know that the Banshee has gotten an additional order to continue kiting. Even that "something" that the Banshee was told is unimportant to the casual viewer (and on a personal note, I'm perfectly fine with it just being a single attack command - no need to stop-patrol-move-attack or whatever). What is important, though, is that the casual viewer sees "This player spent some of his attention on that one single unit and he managed to kill off those marines. That was awesome". The Muta stack from BW, killing off one marine at a time, gliding back and forth is another example. Anyone would know that the Mutas don't fly back and forth by themselves; they have to be babysat in order to do it.
In summary, my opinion is that some of the bugs that LaLuSh demonstrated are unwanted behaviour, in that they make the units act unnaturally. And even if a casual viewer is not able to consciously point out what's wrong, I believe he or she would appreciate an increased naturalness in movements. I know I did when I saw the video! Even though I couldn't have begun to explain what was wrong before I saw it, I still appreciated the increased naturalness of movement with LaLuSh's tinkering. Moreover, "movement micro" (that manipulates movement only without using abilities) is not a problem in and of itself, as long as that micro is translated as a visual cue to the viewer. Simply having every unit twitch and face the target whenever they shoot would be sufficient in that regard, I think. Even in a fly-by moving shot, it will be obvious by the twitching and facing that micro has been applied.
I agree with what I hope David Kim meant; fancy order combos is not a priority and visual cues are the way to go. But he should watch the video again: The possibility for micro that will arise by fixing the bugs caused by separation radius etc. is not mutually exclusive with micro that is visible for even the most casual of viewers. And I believe fixing the bugs would provide for a better experience, both for the gamers and the audience.
We have nothing really to look forward to, and they just refuse to listen to the community. I was hoping that this Blizzcon + a great patch + some promising future comments would get some people back on board and get an upward, or at least stable, base that can hold strong going back into LotV. Instead we get some portraits, and that they are keeping an eye on swarm hosts. HotS has been so disappointing with the actual impact it has had on the game, I was hoping they would look at patching the game to actually have HotS matter. I find it funny they said Terran felt "relatively complete" so they wanted to show the other races some love in HotS yet the most impactful unit has been the widow mine and the medivac boost. Swarm host, vipers, oracle, and tempest are hardly ever used.
Honestly, they are to worried about making the viewer experience for a casual person to "easy to watch!" Seriously, give the community some credit to pull new people in and explain the game. How about catering toward your hardcore fans you are losing instead of the randoms you hope tune in and watch. Not to mention it is totally contradictory because they say they want viewers to easily see great micro, yet many fights are giant balls of DPS that just run into each other and after 3 seconds one is still left and the other is gone. How does that show off micro to anyone? Two balls of armies disappearing in 3 seconds?
You honestly think HotS did not have any impact on SC2? I think it actually had a pretty big one and I would never, ever want to go back to WoL even though HotS has its problems too.. I for one enjoy many of these things they introduced, I kinda get used to Blizzard not bringing miracles but I still love the game so I focus on the positive things.
Now, when it comes to LotV though I expect a lot more than this, obviously!
Did they give any indication about when patch 2.1 will drop? I notice the WC3 units in the editor aren't until "2014" and that seems like a long time for a pretty limited patch.
On November 09 2013 22:18 Dingobloo wrote: Did they give any indication about when patch 2.1 will drop? I notice the WC3 units in the editor aren't until "2014" and that seems like a long time for a pretty limited patch.
I think they are referring to having ALL the unnits by 2014 in the editor. 2.1, or at least the balance patch, is scheduled to be in one or two weeks.
On November 09 2013 22:21 howLiN wrote: If ladder maps are to be aligned with the WCS season maps, does that mean there will be 3 ladder seasons per year?
Didn't they want to make/ keep seasons shorter than ~4 months? If the calendar year is divided into 3 WCS seasons, then Blizzard could hypothetically make 6 ladder seasons (two ladder seasons per WCS season), I suppose. 2 months per season seems okay imo.
You honestly think HotS did not have any impact on SC2? I think it actually had a pretty big one and I would never, ever want to go back to WoL even though HotS has its problems too.. I for one enjoy many of these things they introduced, I kinda get used to Blizzard not bringing miracles but I still love the game so I focus on the positive things.
Now, when it comes to LotV though I expect a lot more than this, obviously!
Widow mine, mothership core, medivac boost. Name more than these three that are used in significant numbers.
In my opinion it is entirely irrelevant if the viewer can "understand" how the micro works. The casual viewer seeks the result and not the specific way it is achieved. Blink for example: Everybody notices that it's either every stalker, junks or single stalkers being microed. Nobody cares which hotkey and mousemoved is used - a casual viewer, doesn't even see that. What the viewer sees is that stalkers flash back and don't die because they dodge the damage. I don't think the viewer has to know how it is microed, he just has to see the result. If Vikings were to shoot instantly or delayed, the viewer doesn't care. He cares about Colossus dying and Vikings survivng.
I'm also convinced that the experience for a gamer will be enhanced if the units feel more responsive.
You honestly think HotS did not have any impact on SC2? I think it actually had a pretty big one and I would never, ever want to go back to WoL even though HotS has its problems too.. I for one enjoy many of these things they introduced, I kinda get used to Blizzard not bringing miracles but I still love the game so I focus on the positive things.
Now, when it comes to LotV though I expect a lot more than this, obviously!
Widow mine, mothership core, medivac boost. Name more than these three that are used in significant numbers.
hydra speed muta speed regen phoenix new range reapers void ray charge free hallucination new ultra damage new raven seeker missile dt shrine cost decrease
Yes, I DO think that SC2 is more macro-demanding than that in BW.. In fact I was an icCup player on D+ level (around 1550 pts at my highest) for some time..
And I think that since there's higher resource-gathering rate in SC2, it's actually a more demanding macro game.. The only real reason why anyone would say that BW was more macro demanding is because there wasn't the auto-mine feature so sometimes I even had 4-5 Probes that weren't mining so had to re-check and order them to mine..
Still - pretty sure that in BW could get like 1.5-2k minerals unused or sth veeeeeery rarely (unless while Muta-stack-micro-ing), while in SC2 that can happen rather more easily.. My personal explanation for that happening is the higher rate of mineral gathering..
And pls guys could you read the whole post before replying on the very first thing disagreed with..
On November 09 2013 07:38 wUndertUnge wrote: It sounds like this SC2 talk doesn't include any WCS decisions...which is good
It's because they aren't finalized. Why do I keep getting a message says I'm attempting to double post after one click? It's odd that happened several times the other day too. ;/
You honestly think HotS did not have any impact on SC2? I think it actually had a pretty big one and I would never, ever want to go back to WoL even though HotS has its problems too.. I for one enjoy many of these things they introduced, I kinda get used to Blizzard not bringing miracles but I still love the game so I focus on the positive things.
Now, when it comes to LotV though I expect a lot more than this, obviously!
Widow mine, mothership core, medivac boost. Name more than these three that are used in significant numbers.
hydra speed muta speed regen phoenix new range reapers void ray charge free hallucination new ultra damage new raven seeker missile dt shrine cost decrease
that's a bit cheating since most of those are just balance adjustments
On November 09 2013 23:12 VArsovskiSC wrote: Yes, I DO think that SC2 is more macro-demanding than that in BW.. In fact I was an icCup player on D+ level (around 1550 pts at my highest) for some time..
And I think that since there's higher resource-gathering rate in SC2, it's actually a more demanding macro game.. The only real reason why anyone would say that BW was more macro demanding is because there wasn't the auto-mine feature so sometimes I even had 4-5 Probes that weren't mining so had to re-check and order them to mine..
Still - pretty sure that in BW could get like 1.5-2k minerals unused or sth veeeeeery rarely (unless while Muta-stack-micro-ing), while in SC2 that can happen rather more easily.. My personal explanation for that happening is the higher rate of mineral gathering..
And pls read the whole post before you guys just "bash" on the very first thing you guys read..
aren't you guys talking about different things? it took more APM in BW because of no automine... so in that sense it was more demanding.
but you might be right about what you're saying about resource collection
You honestly think HotS did not have any impact on SC2? I think it actually had a pretty big one and I would never, ever want to go back to WoL even though HotS has its problems too.. I for one enjoy many of these things they introduced, I kinda get used to Blizzard not bringing miracles but I still love the game so I focus on the positive things.
Now, when it comes to LotV though I expect a lot more than this, obviously!
Widow mine, mothership core, medivac boost. Name more than these three that are used in significant numbers.
hydra speed muta speed regen phoenix new range reapers void ray charge free hallucination new ultra damage new raven seeker missile dt shrine cost decrease
that's a bit cheating since most of those are just balance adjustments
it's more than just balance adjustments, quite a lot of them kinda completely redefined the metagame in hots.
hydra speed means you can go ling hydra against toss with fast third. new reapers let terran control creep and scout and transition with reaper hellion extremely well void ray charge means 2 stargate opening is a lot safer free hallucination means more scouting and mind games like fake colossus against viper new raven seeker missile makes 2 base mech all in more powerful in tvt dt shrine reduction lead to the naniwa ffe dt into 2 stargate in pvz
On November 09 2013 23:12 VArsovskiSC wrote: Yes, I DO think that SC2 is more macro-demanding than that in BW.. In fact I was an icCup player on D+ level (around 1550 pts at my highest) for some time..
And I think that since there's higher resource-gathering rate in SC2, it's actually a more demanding macro game.. The only real reason why anyone would say that BW was more macro demanding is because there wasn't the auto-mine feature so sometimes I even had 4-5 Probes that weren't mining so had to re-check and order them to mine..
Still - pretty sure that in BW could get like 1.5-2k minerals unused or sth veeeeeery rarely (unless while Muta-stack-micro-ing), while in SC2 that can happen rather more easily.. My personal explanation for that happening is the higher rate of mineral gathering..
And pls read the whole post before you guys just "bash" on the very first thing you guys read..
At first I thought you were using the smiley as if you were being sarcastic. You cannot be serious. You mention auto-mining yet skip over SBS? There are way more clicks in BW period. When it comes to managing your army and managing every aspect of your economy. As for mining out. Of course it's faster in SC2 and heck they even start you off with 6 workers to pick things up yet the average game is still around the same time. Once a player gets to three bases in BW things start spiraling out of control as well though, so that's a minute point. I question if you were mining effectively at all at BW either that or you had good control of your army while still macroing. It honestly doesn't take long for those minerals to climb when you are controlling each group effectively. Either that or you were just throwing your zerg army away while using larva.
On November 09 2013 23:12 VArsovskiSC wrote: Yes, I DO think that SC2 is more macro-demanding than that in BW.. In fact I was an icCup player on D+ level (around 1550 pts at my highest) for some time..
And I think that since there's higher resource-gathering rate in SC2, it's actually a more demanding macro game.. The only real reason why anyone would say that BW was more macro demanding is because there wasn't the auto-mine feature so sometimes I even had 4-5 Probes that weren't mining so had to re-check and order them to mine..
Still - pretty sure that in BW could get like 1.5-2k minerals unused or sth veeeeeery rarely (unless while Muta-stack-micro-ing), while in SC2 that can happen rather more easily.. My personal explanation for that happening is the higher rate of mineral gathering..
And pls read the whole post before you guys just "bash" on the very first thing you guys read..
aren't you guys talking about different things? it took more APM in BW because of no automine... so in that sense it was more demanding.
but you might be right about what you're saying about resource collection
He is right about the fact that it's a lot faster to mine out in SC2, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be on top of everything when it comes to your game in BW. People have learned to play the macro game in BW eons ago.
You honestly think HotS did not have any impact on SC2? I think it actually had a pretty big one and I would never, ever want to go back to WoL even though HotS has its problems too.. I for one enjoy many of these things they introduced, I kinda get used to Blizzard not bringing miracles but I still love the game so I focus on the positive things.
Now, when it comes to LotV though I expect a lot more than this, obviously!
Widow mine, mothership core, medivac boost. Name more than these three that are used in significant numbers.
hydra speed muta speed regen phoenix new range reapers void ray charge free hallucination new ultra damage new raven seeker missile dt shrine cost decrease
that's a bit cheating since most of those are just balance adjustments
But they are actually quite important and balanced around the new introduced units. Also don't forget the B.net overhaul and a lot of other things that came with HotS!
The metagame in HotS is different from WoL; and just not having Broodlord Infestor anymore is worth having it! And we even got confirmation that they are looking at swarmhosts so HotS is already doing much better than WoL.
You honestly think HotS did not have any impact on SC2? I think it actually had a pretty big one and I would never, ever want to go back to WoL even though HotS has its problems too.. I for one enjoy many of these things they introduced, I kinda get used to Blizzard not bringing miracles but I still love the game so I focus on the positive things.
Now, when it comes to LotV though I expect a lot more than this, obviously!
Widow mine, mothership core, medivac boost. Name more than these three that are used in significant numbers.
hydra speed muta speed regen phoenix new range reapers void ray charge free hallucination new ultra damage new raven seeker missile dt shrine cost decrease
that's a bit cheating since most of those are just balance adjustments
But they are actually quite important and balanced around the new introduced units. Also don't forget the B.net overhaul and a lot of other things that came with HotS!
The metagame in HotS is different from WoL; and just not having Broodlord Infestor anymore is worth having it! And we even got confirmation that they are looking at swarmhosts so HotS is already doing much better than WoL.
Yes it's undeniable that the game is much better than WoL, we also get more good games at the pro level more often now, then before(at least I think so)
You honestly think HotS did not have any impact on SC2? I think it actually had a pretty big one and I would never, ever want to go back to WoL even though HotS has its problems too.. I for one enjoy many of these things they introduced, I kinda get used to Blizzard not bringing miracles but I still love the game so I focus on the positive things.
Now, when it comes to LotV though I expect a lot more than this, obviously!
Widow mine, mothership core, medivac boost. Name more than these three that are used in significant numbers.
hydra speed muta speed regen phoenix new range reapers void ray charge free hallucination new ultra damage new raven seeker missile dt shrine cost decrease
that's a bit cheating since most of those are just balance adjustments
But they are actually quite important and balanced around the new introduced units. Also don't forget the B.net overhaul and a lot of other things that came with HotS!
The metagame in HotS is different from WoL; and just not having Broodlord Infestor anymore is worth having it! And we even got confirmation that they are looking at swarmhosts so HotS is already doing much better than WoL.
Yes it's undeniable that the game is much better than WoL, we also get more good games at the pro level more often now, then before(at least I think so)
That also has to do with players getting better and the game is always shifting.
On November 09 2013 19:54 Akira_fn wrote: I do not understand - did you honestly think they could just go deep into the engine and correct the things that lalush outlines in the video? If they did that it would change the balance of every single unit in the game. All matchups all races would need a complete rebalancing - it would basicly be a whole new game.
SC2's very own '1.08' if they did it right -- I don't see the issue. As it is, the imbecilic design decisions and non-answers from Kim and crew has me playing more LoL than SC2 than I care to admit, and they're going to keep losing players as more and more grow tired of the superficiality that is 'casual accessible'.
That viking attack animation, and the tank turret, has annoyed me since WoL; now that I know the reason (and a viable fix) I find them that much more inexcusable.
On November 09 2013 22:21 howLiN wrote: If ladder maps are to be aligned with the WCS season maps, does that mean there will be 3 ladder seasons per year?
Didn't they want to make/ keep seasons shorter than ~4 months? If the calendar year is divided into 3 WCS seasons, then Blizzard could hypothetically make 6 ladder seasons (two ladder seasons per WCS season), I suppose. 2 months per season seems okay imo.
On November 09 2013 20:49 VArsovskiSC wrote: Let's face it guys = the new Macro in SC2 is much more APM and attention-demanding than in BW used to be (ofc. - with the exception of TvZ Bio play.. )
It's like if they implemented things as Lalush said, it would be almost impossible to play well.. SC2 is much more fast-paced game in terms of mineral-gathering ratio therefore much more Macro-over-micro-demanding.. Sure BW had much harder mechanics in demand cause of no multi-building selection and such things, but again - in SC2 minerals are much more fastly gathered, so overall IMO ends up more Macro-demanding game..
However - DK could at least acknowledge and say like something, "We saw the video and we're currently pleased as to how units behave but we'll see if some of the lesser micro-d or lesser used units continue to have their status as lesser used units then we'd like to implement and test them with some of those changes"..
I for example would like some Improvements to the Vikings and Carriers.. Maybe Corruptors could be affordable (if not reccomendable) to have a small benefit of those changes as well..
Like --> CAREFULLY choose which units to improve in their responsiveness.. IMO Vikings and Carriers are #1 in the "club" there.. AND HERE'S THE BEST PART - the possibility is ALREADY THERE, and can be made sooooo subtle and so accurate in 2 decimal points any moment there..
As for the other/rest things said/mentioned --> I'm so pleased with the 2 things they said though:
1 - is the BW music remastered (hopefully in ways that fits their SC2 counterparts so it would be a "lean" experience with the music ingame), and
2 - is the careful observation of Swarm-Host play..
I wouln't say the macro is more APM intensive, Blizzard even went out of their way to add mechanics to offset multiple building selection and autorally, but you are spot on about how macro has been accelerated. The micro problem can be divided into two parts. The first part is the power balance of micro to macro has been shifted, because attention toward macro oriented APM and strategy has been buffed by the macro mechanics, while micro oriented APM has been nerfed because of optimal movement pathing (human intervention would only interfere with) and DPS density involving the entire army in a single confined space (making human reaction time a major obstacle to just pure raw DPS). The second part is the units themselves that could serve to micro "better," by means of tweaking and reevaluating stale or underused dynamics, exampled by the Lalush video if you want specifics for what micro dynamics mean.
SC2 can be really great with a small number of units, a lot of back and forth and close calls, but it doesn't tend to ramp up so well because of the battle resolution, because it's better to just keep pumping units or expanding, because the units themselves move homogenously, attack all the same time, and move all at the same time. Now, I'm not arguing to change the pathing system or to have builtin randomness to units, but rather keep the balance environment to promote unit diversity, and then tweak each unit themselves, such that we have the reliability of a world class competition, but require the micro management of all the quirks of each unit.
On November 09 2013 19:54 Akira_fn wrote: I do not understand - did you honestly think they could just go deep into the engine and correct the things that lalush outlines in the video? If they did that it would change the balance of every single unit in the game. All matchups all races would need a complete rebalancing - it would basicly be a whole new game.
SC2's very own '1.08' if they did it right -- I don't see the issue. As it is, the imbecilic design decisions and non-answers from Kim and crew has me playing more LoL than SC2 than I care to admit, and they're going to keep losing players as more and more grow tired of the superficiality that is 'casual accessible'.
That viking attack animation, and the tank turret, has annoyed me since WoL; now that I know the reason (and a viable fix) I find them that much more inexcusable.
Posts like these really confuse me. You honestly blame David Kim for liking LoL more than SC2? What a dumb way to go about it. You like LoL more than SC2, so what? Just go play it and don't feel bad about it, man. You are not contributing anything here with comments like these other than another "Game X vs Game Y" discussion and we already have enough of that.
That being said, I have to agree with you that from a players POV, that stuff is not acceptable. But then again it might not be David's fault at all. We had it before that the art team said no (I think it was the blocking ramps thingy) even though the balance team wanted it.
So I think if they figure out how to properly implement those features we might see them implemented. MIGHT.
On November 09 2013 07:04 LittLeD wrote: David Kim answered the question about the 'Depth of Micro' video. His answer was that it draws back to the viability of moves, and that it should be easily viable when a 'cool' move is made that gets someone an advantage.
I'm not sure he actually addressed the bugs that were discussed in the video though
I hate this answer by David Kim. I watched BW for around 10 years after I stopped playing it. The awesome micro moves are noticeable to viewers, even ones who have no idea how they're done and stopped playing long before they were discovered. I enjoyed watching such things as Fantasy's vulture micro, Jaedong's mutalisk micro and Leta's wraith micro without knowing the mechanics behind them. It was just that obvious that their micro was much better than their opponent's. It just looked cool.
Let's be honest here. What's the difference between watching Vulture micro compared to Reaper micro? BW Mutalisk stacking vs SC2 Mutalisk stacking? Wraith micro and Banshee micro?
They look identical to a lay-person, but all of the "amazement" is from in-depth knowledge about how awkward the actual micro management is.
Most of the amazing control in Pro BW wasn't from how amazing each play actually looked, but how "bad" the average unit control looked.
The difference is the maximization of effectiveness that the best players could bring out with their favourite units. Watch Fantasy or Nada vulture micro with perfect magic boxing to mine surround or kite drones. Other T's may be decent at their control, but when you watch a true master use their favourite units to their true potential, the results are impressive, jaw-dropping and extremely pleasing to both audience and casters.
Watch JD micro mutas in BW. Really watch how he controls. Watch his perfect stacking, how he is controlling the stacking through clicking on mineral patches so the mutas fire as one and cannot be target fired by marines/scourge. Watch his split his mutas perfectly almost the instant when irradiate goes down when delaying the 9:30 3 tank 1 sci vessel 4-6 rax pre defiler timing. JvZ, enough said.
Wraith micro was impressive as you needed more than 1 wraiths (+ control tower for cloak) before you can kill anything effectively (wraith AtG pew pew takes 10 shots to kill an scv). 1 banshee alone can kill huge amounts of AtG.
I kinda agree with your last statement. Moreso that casual players know how difficult it is to execute micro/macro effectively. Progamers maximize potential of their units.
You honestly think HotS did not have any impact on SC2? I think it actually had a pretty big one and I would never, ever want to go back to WoL even though HotS has its problems too.. I for one enjoy many of these things they introduced, I kinda get used to Blizzard not bringing miracles but I still love the game so I focus on the positive things.
Now, when it comes to LotV though I expect a lot more than this, obviously!
Widow mine, mothership core, medivac boost. Name more than these three that are used in significant numbers.
hydra speed muta speed regen phoenix new range reapers void ray charge free hallucination new ultra damage new raven seeker missile dt shrine cost decrease
that's a bit cheating since most of those are just balance adjustments
But they are actually quite important and balanced around the new introduced units. Also don't forget the B.net overhaul and a lot of other things that came with HotS!
The metagame in HotS is different from WoL; and just not having Broodlord Infestor anymore is worth having it! And we even got confirmation that they are looking at swarmhosts so HotS is already doing much better than WoL.
Yes it's undeniable that the game is much better than WoL, we also get more good games at the pro level more often now, then before(at least I think so)
That also has to do with players getting better and the game is always shifting.
On November 09 2013 19:54 Akira_fn wrote: I do not understand - did you honestly think they could just go deep into the engine and correct the things that lalush outlines in the video? If they did that it would change the balance of every single unit in the game. All matchups all races would need a complete rebalancing - it would basicly be a whole new game.
SC2's very own '1.08' if they did it right -- I don't see the issue. As it is, the imbecilic design decisions and non-answers from Kim and crew has me playing more LoL than SC2 than I care to admit, and they're going to keep losing players as more and more grow tired of the superficiality that is 'casual accessible'.
That viking attack animation, and the tank turret, has annoyed me since WoL; now that I know the reason (and a viable fix) I find them that much more inexcusable.
Posts like these really confuse me. You honestly blame David Kim for liking LoL more than SC2? What a dumb way to go about it. You like LoL more than SC2, so what? Just go play it and don't feel bad about it, man. You are not contributing anything here with comments like these other than another "Game X vs Game Y" discussion and we already have enough of that.
That being said, I have to agree with you that from a players POV, that stuff is not acceptable. But then again it might not be David's fault at all. We had it before that the art team said no (I think it was the blocking ramps thingy) even though the balance team wanted it.
So I think if they figure out how to properly implement those features we might see them implemented. MIGHT.
Blaming the art team is as bad as blaming casuals, and I'm not blaming David Kim for liking LoL. I'm saying I want to enjoy SC2, but find myself playing more and more LoL because of Blizzard's design decisions. I'm blaming David Kim for ruining any enjoyment I could have had out of StarCraft.
On November 09 2013 19:54 Akira_fn wrote: I do not understand - did you honestly think they could just go deep into the engine and correct the things that lalush outlines in the video? If they did that it would change the balance of every single unit in the game. All matchups all races would need a complete rebalancing - it would basicly be a whole new game.
SC2's very own '1.08' if they did it right -- I don't see the issue. As it is, the imbecilic design decisions and non-answers from Kim and crew has me playing more LoL than SC2 than I care to admit, and they're going to keep losing players as more and more grow tired of the superficiality that is 'casual accessible'.
That viking attack animation, and the tank turret, has annoyed me since WoL; now that I know the reason (and a viable fix) I find them that much more inexcusable.
Posts like these really confuse me. You honestly blame David Kim for liking LoL more than SC2? What a dumb way to go about it. You like LoL more than SC2, so what? Just go play it and don't feel bad about it, man. You are not contributing anything here with comments like these other than another "Game X vs Game Y" discussion and we already have enough of that.
That being said, I have to agree with you that from a players POV, that stuff is not acceptable. But then again it might not be David's fault at all. We had it before that the art team said no (I think it was the blocking ramps thingy) even though the balance team wanted it.
So I think if they figure out how to properly implement those features we might see them implemented. MIGHT.
Blaming the art team is as bad as blaming casuals, and I'm not blaming David Kim for liking LoL. I'm saying I want to enjoy SC2, but find myself playing more and more LoL because of Blizzard's design decisions. I'm blaming David Kim for ruining any enjoyment I could have had out of StarCraft.
It's not "blaming the art team", it's just Blizzard's internal procedure with things. We don't know how things work internally and we might see a David Kim on stage that says "It can't be done right now" while internally he is fighting for it. We just don't know.
"I tried showing the LaLush video to my manager and he slapped me in the face saying wtf is that? And then proceeded to walk over to this panel with my tail between my legs." -David Kim
On November 10 2013 00:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: All I hear from David Kim's statement is,
"I tried showing the LaLush video to my manager and he slapped me in the face saying wtf is that? And then proceeded to walk over to this panel with my tail between my legs." -David Kim
Is English DK's first language? I always feel his comments get taken out of context and he reuses the same words over and over in his posts, like "we think it would be cool if..." Not that it is an excuse, but he always seems to have the right intent, but voicing it is a problem for him.
Also, the starter editing shit is dope. Good for Blizzard on that one.
On November 10 2013 00:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: All I hear from David Kim's statement is,
"I tried showing the LaLush video to my manager and he slapped me in the face saying wtf is that? And then proceeded to walk over to this panel with my tail between my legs." -David Kim
Is English DK's first language? I always feel his comments get taken out of context and he reuses the same words over and over in his posts, like "we think it would be cool if..." Not that it is an excuse, but he always seems to have the right intent, but voicing it is a problem for him.
Also, the starter editing shit is dope. Good for Blizzard on that one.
I don't know myself.
But "casuals don't get it" is such a non-answer since casuals barely get worker production and minimap awareness. A video asking more units to move like marines seems like something casuals should get.
But since I believe David Kim is a smart man who works in a large company, all I hear is red tape mumbo jumbo.
I find it fascinating that there's been several very positive changes announced, but people choose to focus on the one thing they didn't like. Personally, I loved Lalush's video, and think some of the ideas could very effectively raise the skill cap for Starcraft II, while still making the fact that you're microing obvious and clear to everyone. Say, like tank turrets, or lowering viking "time-to-start-attack-time". Also, I agree with Lalush's analysis that the Oracle whether-we-stop-depends-on-whether-we-get-the-killing-blow is a bug, that should be fixed. The fact that it is a beam weapon should only influence the visual, not the gameplay like it does now. However, whether they like it or not at Blizzard, they can't say anything until they actually commit 100% percent to redesigning several elements. With most of the team in Heroes, they probably can't do this now. (And, no, they can't say that, 'cause people would complain that "Starcraft doesn't get enough attention!").
That said: 1)This patch essentially makes it so GameHeart (and many other mods!) only has to produce one file, and then can just combine that with maps in order to produce the awesome GameHeart maps we all want. -> Easier map creation! 2)This patch makes 90% of Starcraft II free if you have someone to play it with. Many people said that it was Starcraft's model that held it back. Well, let's see! Maybe we can bring a lot of people into the community with this! 3)This patch provides SC:BW music (OMG!) 4)Cosmetic changes, like more levels, more portraits, better decal support, slight changes to clans, are all for the better.
On November 10 2013 00:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: All I hear from David Kim's statement is,
"I tried showing the LaLush video to my manager and he slapped me in the face saying wtf is that? And then proceeded to walk over to this panel with my tail between my legs." -David Kim
Is English DK's first language? I always feel his comments get taken out of context and he reuses the same words over and over in his posts, like "we think it would be cool if..." Not that it is an excuse, but he always seems to have the right intent, but voicing it is a problem for him.
Also, the starter editing shit is dope. Good for Blizzard on that one.
I don't know myself.
But "casuals don't get it" is such a non-answer since casuals barely get worker production and minimap awareness. A video asking more units to move like marines seems like something casuals should get.
But since I believe David Kim is a smart man who works in a large company, all I hear is red tape mumbo jumbo.
Yeah, I think it would take programmers that are likely working on other things to make the changes work and avoid horrible bugs. Also the question itself was a bit broad, since it dealt with a 15 minute video. I would have rathered a specific question like "what about the turret thing?" or "do you think you could make large numbers of air units more microable on mass?"
Its the classic community video thing of us asking "Did you see this amazing video? Are you going to do all the things that are in the video?" I think Blizzard is trying to make everything more microable and snappy, just not the way the video described.
Still want the turret thing, just because it would be awesome to watch.
On November 10 2013 00:42 vjcamarena wrote: I find it fascinating that there's been several very positive changes announced, but people choose to focus on the one thing they didn't like. Personally, I loved Lalush's video, and think some of the ideas could very effectively raise the skill cap for Starcraft II, while still making the fact that you're microing obvious and clear to everyone. Say, like tank turrets, or lowering viking "time-to-start-attack-time". Also, I agree with Lalush's analysis that the Oracle whether-we-stop-depends-on-whether-we-get-the-killing-blow is a bug, that should be fixed. The fact that it is a beam weapon should only influence the visual, not the gameplay like it does now. However, whether they like it or not at Blizzard, they can't say anything until they actually commit 100% percent to redesigning several elements. With most of the team in Heroes, they probably can't do this now. (And, no, they can't say that, 'cause people would complain that "Starcraft doesn't get enough attention!").
That said: 1)This patch essentially makes it so GameHeart (and many other mods!) only has to produce one file, and then can just combine that with maps in order to produce the awesome GameHeart maps we all want. -> Easier map creation! 2)This patch makes 90% of Starcraft II free if you have someone to play it with. Many people said that it was Starcraft's model that held it back. Well, let's see! Maybe we can bring a lot of people into the community with this! 3)This patch provides SC:BW music (OMG!) 4)Cosmetic changes, like more levels, more portraits, better decal support, slight changes to clans, are all for the better.
Why are we so negative?
I am with you and I think Blizzard is doing a ton of cool stuff with carbot, game heart and decal support for teams. The negativity just from the set of people who were really into the video and saw it as the way to make SC2 more exciting. You can't make everyone happy.
On November 09 2013 07:09 Plexa wrote: You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
I totally agree.
Sadly, I think it now look more likely that Blizzard will do something like this for LotV...
New castable ability added to all units called...
'Micro' 1sec cooldown. Causes the unit to do 25% extra damage with their next attack. A big shiny halo appears over 'Microed' units so that spectators know how pro you are playing.
Now you can truly find out who can "micro" all their units the best and be the top dog in Starcraft 2!
Classic StarCraft Music in StarCraft II Delight your ear drums in-game with the classic StarCraft and Brood War soundtracks, which have been remastered, and will be available for play in StarCraft II following the patch. Warcraft III Orc Heroes
The Far Seer, Shadow Hunter, Blademaster, and Tauren Chieftain Orc heroes from Warcraft III have all been remodeled and will be available for use by map developers in the StarCraft II Editor some time in 2014.
Wow, kudos to Blizzard for this.
Remodeled WC3 models were a somewhat common request but it seemed unlikely except it turns out they ended up doing it anyway for map editors (along with the HotS BW models like the new Devourer model for map editors), which is really nice by blizzard.
Well, it took them 2 years to make massive units crush forcefields. 2 years to realize that an Ultra shouldn't be blocked by a forcefield. Blizzard just is unable to comprehend what makes a RTS good, unable to understand the consequences of their design decisions. They focus too much on their definition of casual experience and mess up pretty badly because of it. At this point I don't have any faith left for Blizzard to improve this game significantly.
On November 10 2013 00:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: All I hear from David Kim's statement is,
"I tried showing the LaLush video to my manager and he slapped me in the face saying wtf is that? And then proceeded to walk over to this panel with my tail between my legs." -David Kim
Is English DK's first language? I always feel his comments get taken out of context and he reuses the same words over and over in his posts, like "we think it would be cool if..." Not that it is an excuse, but he always seems to have the right intent, but voicing it is a problem for him.
Also, the starter editing shit is dope. Good for Blizzard on that one.
I don't know myself.
But "casuals don't get it" is such a non-answer since casuals barely get worker production and minimap awareness. A video asking more units to move like marines seems like something casuals should get.
But since I believe David Kim is a smart man who works in a large company, all I hear is red tape mumbo jumbo.
Yeah, I think it would take programmers that are likely working on other things to make the changes work and avoid horrible bugs. Also the question itself was a bit broad, since it dealt with a 15 minute video. I would have rathered a specific question like "what about the turret thing?" or "do you think you could make large numbers of air units more microable on mass?"
Its the classic community video thing of us asking "Did you see this amazing video? Are you going to do all the things that are in the video?" I think Blizzard is trying to make everything more microable and snappy, just not the way the video described.
Still want the turret thing, just because it would be awesome to watch.
On November 10 2013 00:42 vjcamarena wrote: I find it fascinating that there's been several very positive changes announced, but people choose to focus on the one thing they didn't like. Personally, I loved Lalush's video, and think some of the ideas could very effectively raise the skill cap for Starcraft II, while still making the fact that you're microing obvious and clear to everyone. Say, like tank turrets, or lowering viking "time-to-start-attack-time". Also, I agree with Lalush's analysis that the Oracle whether-we-stop-depends-on-whether-we-get-the-killing-blow is a bug, that should be fixed. The fact that it is a beam weapon should only influence the visual, not the gameplay like it does now. However, whether they like it or not at Blizzard, they can't say anything until they actually commit 100% percent to redesigning several elements. With most of the team in Heroes, they probably can't do this now. (And, no, they can't say that, 'cause people would complain that "Starcraft doesn't get enough attention!").
That said: 1)This patch essentially makes it so GameHeart (and many other mods!) only has to produce one file, and then can just combine that with maps in order to produce the awesome GameHeart maps we all want. -> Easier map creation! 2)This patch makes 90% of Starcraft II free if you have someone to play it with. Many people said that it was Starcraft's model that held it back. Well, let's see! Maybe we can bring a lot of people into the community with this! 3)This patch provides SC:BW music (OMG!) 4)Cosmetic changes, like more levels, more portraits, better decal support, slight changes to clans, are all for the better.
Why are we so negative?
I am with you and I think Blizzard is doing a ton of cool stuff with carbot, game heart and decal support for teams. The negativity just from the set of people who were really into the video and saw it as the way to make SC2 more exciting. You can't make everyone happy.
Right, I get that many people found Lalush's video to be the bee's knees. That's great! Even as a noob that has never reached a tenth of the skill displayed there, it was absolutely fascinating! But really, why not just keep it constructive?
I think a discourse that goes more like "We loved that you did this and this, and we'd like to discuss the following change, and we're open to the fact that we might be wrong" would really serve us better. I mean, Blizzard reaches out to us every so often, and that's great, 'cause they don't need to do that. However, half the time they do, we clobber them.
I think it's obvious that they don't reach out every day, or every week. If when they do, we just attack them, the'll do it less and less, won't they?
PS: And yeah, we might be wrong. I'd love to micro my Vikings in an easier fashion, and I'd love to see Mvp do that as well, but stacked flyers don't show how many units there are there! It goes against one of the core eSports principles ("Everything someone does has to be clearly visible"). Maybe discussing the perfect balance between microability and visibility when manouvering clustered flying units would be a better way to push eventual changes forward?
On November 10 2013 01:11 Ravomat wrote: Well, it took them 2 years to make massive units crush forcefields. 2 years to realize that an Ultra shouldn't be blocked by a forcefield. .
This was implemented in Beta Patch 13 ie 2-4 months at most after the beta was released, not sure where you're pulling 2 years from unless you mean since the start of SC2's development in which case the design would never have been solidified enough to make those kinds of calls.
On November 10 2013 01:11 Ravomat wrote: Blizzard just is unable to comprehend what makes a RTS good, unable to understand the consequences of their design decisions.
You do realize that Blizzard created StarCraft and StarCraft II, right?
On November 10 2013 01:11 Ravomat wrote: Well, it took them 2 years to make massive units crush forcefields. 2 years to realize that an Ultra shouldn't be blocked by a forcefield. Blizzard just is unable to comprehend what makes a RTS good, unable to understand the consequences of their design decisions. They focus too much on their definition of casual experience and mess up pretty badly because of it. At this point I don't have any faith left for Blizzard to improve this game significantly.
The more I read from David Kim the more I get the impression that he and the people in the community who are trying to provide detailed feedback are simply talking past one another. It seems like he truly does not understand what is being said, and his responses are all just platitudes and clichés.
I don't think a QA panel is enough for something like this, we'd need like a ten hour long session with the first five being spent very carefully explaining exactly what the feedback really is trying to say.
I need to comment on the depth of micro answer aswell and say that it doesn't matter if new players doesn't understand it. What they will understand is people cheering more which is an important part of watching e-sports. Depth of micro will add more cheering from the audience during every stage of the game, I'm sure.
Yes we want cool moves that are easy to understand for new players but it's not more important than depth. We want both.
On November 10 2013 01:13 vjcamarena wrote: It goes against one of the core eSports principles ("Everything someone does has to be clearly visible").
Then tell me why games with bugs or glitches are the ones most popular? If you take fighting games, old Street Fighter games had several bugs that were appreciated by the community (Capcom vs SNK2: Roll cancel, Alpha 3: Crouch Cancel). Even Street Fighter 4 is filled with Option selects that cover several situations (If opponent back dashs, you sweep, if he blocks, you throw him). Nobody sees players inputting those option selects or using some of the bugs and the viewer just thinks "How is he doing that?! That guy is super skilled!"
Imo game breaking bugs are not bad, as long as they are entertaining. I mean, the best example for RTS is Broodwar with all its control bugs (stop lurker, stack Zerg ground units). Not everything needs to be visible. Sometimes it's better that it's not visible, as that leads to tension and exitement for the viewer.
On November 09 2013 07:09 Plexa wrote: You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
I totally agree.
Sadly, I think it now look more likely that Blizzard will do something like this for LotV...
'Micro' 1sec cooldown. Causes the unit to do 25% extra damage with their next attack. A big shiny halo appears over 'Microed' units so that spectators know how pro you are playing.
Now you can truly find out who can "micro" all their units the best and be the top dog in Starcraft 2!
That made me laugh out loud. Yesh, because we certainly need more abilities in the game. Every unit should have four abilities like a moba as well, hue. *Commences disco ball dance*
On November 10 2013 01:11 Ravomat wrote: Well, it took them 2 years to make massive units crush forcefields. 2 years to realize that an Ultra shouldn't be blocked by a forcefield. Blizzard just is unable to comprehend what makes a RTS good, unable to understand the consequences of their design decisions. They focus too much on their definition of casual experience and mess up pretty badly because of it. At this point I don't have any faith left for Blizzard to improve this game significantly.
Blizzard have only created the best RTS game in existence. Surely they have no idea what they're doing.
On November 10 2013 01:13 vjcamarena wrote: It goes against one of the core eSports principles ("Everything someone does has to be clearly visible").
Then tell me why games with bugs or glitches are the ones most popular? If you take fighting games, old Street Fighter games had several bugs that were appreciated by the community (Capcom vs SNK2: Roll cancel, Alpha 3: Crouch Cancel). Even Street Fighter 4 is filled with Option selects that cover several situations (If opponent back dashs, you sweep, if he blocks, you throw him). Nobody sees players inputting those option selects or using some of the bugs and the viewer just thinks "How is he doing that?! That guy is super skilled!"
Imo game breaking bugs are not bad, as long as they are entertaining. I mean, the best example for RTS is Broodwar with all its control bugs (stop lurker, stack Zerg ground units). Not everything needs to be visible. Sometimes it's better that it's not visible, as that leads to tension and exitement for the viewer.
Well, I'm no expert, but Dustin Browder and his team, are, and when I've seen them discuss SC II design [1], they have mentioned visibility as a key factor. Other eSports (LoL, Dota, Fifa, Shooters,...) seem to have very visually distinct effects/moves as well.
I actually don't think bugs are necessarily good or bad, that's not my point at all. The question is: do bugs make the game better by "eSport standards" (obviously I have no idea what those are, or I'd get paid for designing videogames!). I don't really know much about fighting games, but as far as I know, combos are something you see clearly: in Smash Bros at least, when someone comboes you, you just float on the air helplessly while he hits you repeatedly.
And absolutely, I agree that counterplay "(If opponent back dashs, you sweep, if he blocks, you throw him)" is key. And obviously, I agree that there need to be skill differentiators! There should be "hard things to do" (Capcom vs SNK2: Roll cancel, Alpha 3: Crouch Cancel) that make pro players distinct from one another! I like those things just like you!
I'd argue the ideal eSport has most/all of what the players do be visible/audible to the viewer. Naturally, WHAT IT MEANS should not be always clear (who is going to win this game? who is going to win this battle? does Terran on 2 Base with a third command center at home and mules have more income than a zerg on three bases that aren't completely saturated?). All watchable activities, incluiding eSports, need to generate uncertainty, on that we agree. But as I understand it, the tension should come from "What is better, A or B?" (The Terran's mass of stimmed bio, or the Toss' small gateway army+splash) not from "What the hell is going on on the screen?".
What are your thoughts on this? What are things you shouldn't see in order to make an eSport more fun to watch?
On November 10 2013 01:11 Ravomat wrote: Well, it took them 2 years to make massive units crush forcefields. 2 years to realize that an Ultra shouldn't be blocked by a forcefield. Blizzard just is unable to comprehend what makes a RTS good, unable to understand the consequences of their design decisions. They focus too much on their definition of casual experience and mess up pretty badly because of it. At this point I don't have any faith left for Blizzard to improve this game significantly.
Blizzard have only created the best RTS game in existence. Surely they have no idea what they're doing.
the real problem is that they were so good in it that everyone else gave up. That way there was no good way of stealing good new things from others. So they had no idea how people react towards certain things. Guess thats why they extended the period between the expansion packs as well.
But I don't care alot for more microable units unless pros actually start to use all the stuff you can do already properly. For me it sounds more like we want our units to be easier to micro. But even the BW superstars got lazy, because the reward isn't as high as it used to be when you fight the pathfinding and micro your units. Thats why most concentrate on the a-move units, unless there is no other way.
On November 09 2013 07:09 Plexa wrote: You don't need to add flashy abilities to create this healthy mix, you just need to open up the potential of units so that players can do impressive things with them. ._.
I totally agree.
Sadly, I think it now look more likely that Blizzard will do something like this for LotV...
New castable ability added to all units called...
'Micro' 1sec cooldown. Causes the unit to do 25% extra damage with their next attack. A big shiny halo appears over 'Microed' units so that spectators know how pro you are playing.
Now you can truly find out who can "micro" all their units the best and be the top dog in Starcraft 2!
That made me laugh out loud. Yesh, because we certainly need more abilities in the game. Every unit should have four abilities like a moba as well, hue. *Commences disco ball dance*
Hey, i like this idea. I think zerglings should have this: Metabolic boost: Run faster, duration 1 second, cd 1 second Adrenal glands: Attack faster, duration 1 second, cd 1 second and so on. After that we can clearly see who is the better player!
Micro like this is actually probably one of the most clearly visible and intuitive forms of micro. Having a flashy spell effect that you have no idea as a viewer what it's doing is often quite difficult to understand; see most Dota style games, etc. Seeing a progamer move his units really well is something that is pretty darn obvious and intuitive to grasp.
On November 10 2013 01:11 Ravomat wrote: Well, it took them 2 years to make massive units crush forcefields. 2 years to realize that an Ultra shouldn't be blocked by a forcefield. Blizzard just is unable to comprehend what makes a RTS good, unable to understand the consequences of their design decisions. They focus too much on their definition of casual experience and mess up pretty badly because of it. At this point I don't have any faith left for Blizzard to improve this game significantly.
Blizzard have only created the best RTS game in existence. Surely they have no idea what they're doing.
If I remember correctly most if not all of those responsible for said game are no longer working for blizzard.
I thought about writing a little more but apparently most of you still think Blizz is going to improve this game significantly in one way or another. I hope you're right.
Seems like you will only be able to micro the units in an impressive way that Blizzard wants you to micro. Meaning that in LotV they will give us some shit like Blink Stalker or Banelings for some obvious micro with certain units, while just ignoring the rest of the units altogether. Gotta be flashy (and not like BW!!).
Seeing how Lalush constantly points out the fundamental flaws of SC2's design vs what Blizzard actually does always saddens me.
Smart move with the Arcade tho. Blizzard is super fucking late on nearly everything in SC2 but at least this is a right move.
On November 10 2013 01:13 vjcamarena wrote: It goes against one of the core eSports principles ("Everything someone does has to be clearly visible").
Wall of text incoming.
Then tell me why games with bugs or glitches are the ones most popular? If you take fighting games, old Street Fighter games had several bugs that were appreciated by the community (Capcom vs SNK2: Roll cancel, Alpha 3: Crouch Cancel). Even Street Fighter 4 is filled with Option selects that cover several situations (If opponent back dashs, you sweep, if he blocks, you throw him). Nobody sees players inputting those option selects or using some of the bugs and the viewer just thinks "How is he doing that?! That guy is super skilled!"
Imo game breaking bugs are not bad, as long as they are entertaining. I mean, the best example for RTS is Broodwar with all its control bugs (stop lurker, stack Zerg ground units). Not everything needs to be visible. Sometimes it's better that it's not visible, as that leads to tension and exitement for the viewer.
Strange that you'd use a Street Fighter Alpha series game as an example, the FGC has largely shunned most of the alpha series in the long term because of the fact that the bugs with custom combos tend to be extremely game breaking despite something like the Valle CC being an interesting glitch for it's time. Compared to say SF:Turbo for instance which is likely the most buggy game still played at a high level with any frequency that just has so many bugs that it somehow evens out. The other thing those games have in common is that they're older, older games are figured out and people are generally more accepting of their flaws because they're no longer able to be fixed, nostalgia is pretty strong. Weird example of this are zelda speed runs, the games seem to get popular for speed running in chronological order, the new one is always the worst and new discoveries happen over time that make the newer old ones entertaining to the point of being viable often their popularity with people the right age is more important then any objective measure of their quality because those people are willing to put in the time to figure them out.
On the topic of options selects I say they're almost the exact situation that Blizzard is attempting to avoid, as a player, they're great they help you bypass some of the inherent coin flip nature of certain situations in fighting games, they're difficult to uncover and skillful to execute but as a spectator they're almost indistinguishable from a guess to someone watching unless you have a high enough knowledge of the game, the match up, and the player to some extent. Even from personal experience playing and watching a fair amount of fighting games I definitely can't pick an option select unless I have prior knowledge that it exists.
This I think is where David Kim and the community diverge in their views, bugs and micro tricks like option selects and patrol micro very clearly add depth to the game, so for the community that's seen as a undeniably a good thing, but they do so by adding edge and special cases sometimes to the point of being imperceptible or often contradictory to the way the game usually works, this funnily enough is also why they're seen as interesting.
The difficulty for the design team is to make things that are designed, and that work in a consistent and visual, understandable manner that seem equally game changing and game breaking, they want depth by building a larger number of interactions on top of each other that all work consistently and are represented visually, not just depth through complexity.
LaLush's video unfortunately takes a long time to get to the parts that actually are useful. The built in wind up on air unit shots, the spreading before firing priorities and turret bugs are all no-brainers to me as they're all consistent with SC2's philosophy and are just good for game responsiveness (though they would require re-balancing, especially for vikings). This is the stuff that should have been put up front on the video and been like "these are bugs and should be fixed". Stuff like patrol micro (which I think is what David Kim is addressing) and the behaviour of hovering units I don't think are making a come back and I think lumping them all together is what has lead to this mis-communication in the first place. I also got down voted for this on reddit but the video really didn't need 30 minutes of BW micro highlight videos pasted on the end of it, you have to respect the time of the people watching it to get your point across.
TLDR: Buggy games are held in high regard because they're time tested, mature and cannot be fixed, LaLushes video is good, but covers a lot of ground and should really be more focused, some of it is useful, and some of it is completely against the the design philosophy of SC2 and will likely never be implemented despite how much depth it adds because it does so through complexity. David Kim is addressing the latter without addressing the former which is source of the mis-communication but the video also has to shoulder some of the burden for being rambling and long winded.
On November 10 2013 02:21 Captain Peabody wrote: Micro like this is actually probably one of the most clearly visible and intuitive forms of micro. Having a flashy spell effect that you have no idea as a viewer what it's doing is often quite difficult to understand; see most Dota style games, etc. Seeing a progamer move his units really well is something that is pretty darn obvious and intuitive to grasp.
I like this kind of criticism. It seems to me that several Starcraft II units do have "micro buttons" like the Medivac or the Void Ray. And I do agree that "moving a unit better" is a very elegant way to show micro, say, like Marine stuttersteps, or Vulture "shots-halfway-while-turning". In comparison "Micro buttons" feel slightly more like clutter.
Is it possible, though, that "micro buttons" are needed when you implement better pathfinding? I mean, if not microed units do 90% of what microed units do, it makes sense to focus on other things. If they do 10%, then you had better micro like mad.
Is it possible that "elegant micro", the kind of micro that just relies on moving units better, only makes sense when pathfinding is bad? Are there ways to implement -really relevant- elegant micro on a game with good pathfinding? Or is the only solution to "just have bad pathfinding"? Even Lalush himself [1] says that the ideas on his video wouldn't change the game that fundamentally...
Many people won’t consider this title one of “the best” RTS games ever made, let alone worthy of the #4 spot on a top 10 list. It’s an incremental improvement over a solid formula, and subjectively lacking in what many would consider to be “advanced” features for an RTS game. But that’s not why it’s seated in the top 10 of all time when arguably more feature-rich games like Warhammer: Dawn of War 2 aren’t. StarCraft 2 is the most played and most recognizable RTS experience ever to be conceived. Let’s not kid ourselves here. With roughly 750,000 people logged into battle.net at any given time even almost 2 years after its launch, StarCraft 2 probably has a population that totals more than all other games in the list combined. To a greater or lesser extent, this game has defined what it means to be popular in the real-time strategy genre, much as World of WarCraft has done in the MMORPG genre. This game, like its predecessor, will make ripples in this genre for decades, and that’s not to be sneered at, even if this franchise isn’t up your alley.
What does that even mean? What advanced RTS features is the game lacking? And does the game really have a negative reputation?
What does that even mean? What advanced RTS features is the game lacking? And does the game really have a negative reputation?
I suppose it means it is not WH40k:DoW 2 or Total Annihilation. Oh wait, it put Company of Heroes on 1st place. What is this!? Disregard any kind of such thing :D
Is it possible that "elegant micro", the kind of micro that just relies on moving units better, only makes sense when pathfinding is bad? Are there ways to implement -really relevant- elegant micro on a game with good pathfinding? Or is the only solution to "just have bad pahfinding"? Even Lalush himself [1] says that the ideas on his video wouldn't change the game that fundamentally...
No, there are plenty of units, in SC2 even, with good micro interactions that don't relying on just pressing buttons, ling surrounds, splits and bunching of any kind, kiting of any kind (not just MM stutter step but stalker vs marine, banshee vs marine etc), target fire both of priority targets and to maximize the effect of abilities of damage (concussive), managing units of different speeds and ranges (zealots in front of stalkers etc), lining up hellion aoe, you might even add loading and unloading into transports to that list.
The important point from Blizzard's perspective is that if something does something that's not consistent with the way the unit works then active and passive abilities are a decent way to surface that to the player in a way that makes sense, unlike say patrol micro which lets you bypass the turning speed of the unit through a clever exploitation of the game mechanic.
I don't understand why David Kim would say that it is difficult to see the micro involved in the "Depth of Micro" video... It's pretty obvious who can show more skill and it isn't that difficult to understand. It's like saying that the vast majority of starcraft fans are incapable of understanding something that can be explained T.T" I really hope that he reconsiders and implements the changes because it would definitely raise the skill ceiling for competitive play.
On November 10 2013 03:09 Intricate wrote: I don't understand why David Kim would say that it is difficult to see the micro involved in the "Depth of Micro" video... It's pretty obvious who can show more skill and it isn't that difficult to understand. It's like saying that the vast majority of starcraft fans are incapable of understanding something that can be explained T.T" I really hope that he reconsiders and implements the changes because it would definitely raise the skill ceiling for competitive play.
Well it did take a 15 minute video to explain how the micro worked and why is was so impressive. I watched SC2 with some friends who don't play last night and they were impressed with blink stalker micro and muta's hunting down medivacs. I don't think they would have been noticeably more impressed if the micro was like it was in BW.
On November 10 2013 01:13 vjcamarena wrote: It goes against one of the core eSports principles ("Everything someone does has to be clearly visible").
Wall of text incoming.
Then tell me why games with bugs or glitches are the ones most popular? If you take fighting games, old Street Fighter games had several bugs that were appreciated by the community (Capcom vs SNK2: Roll cancel, Alpha 3: Crouch Cancel). Even Street Fighter 4 is filled with Option selects that cover several situations (If opponent back dashs, you sweep, if he blocks, you throw him). Nobody sees players inputting those option selects or using some of the bugs and the viewer just thinks "How is he doing that?! That guy is super skilled!"
Imo game breaking bugs are not bad, as long as they are entertaining. I mean, the best example for RTS is Broodwar with all its control bugs (stop lurker, stack Zerg ground units). Not everything needs to be visible. Sometimes it's better that it's not visible, as that leads to tension and exitement for the viewer.
On the topic of options selects I say they're almost the exact situation that Blizzard is attempting to avoid, as a player, they're great they help you bypass some of the inherent coin flip nature of certain situations in fighting games, they're difficult to uncover and skillful to execute but as a spectator they're almost indistinguishable from a guess to someone watching unless you have a high enough knowledge of the game, the match up, and the player to some extent. Even from personal experience playing and watching a fair amount of fighting games I definitely can't pick an option select unless I have prior knowledge that it exists.
This I think is where David Kim and the community diverge in their views, bugs and micro tricks like option selects and patrol micro very clearly add depth to the game, so for the community that's seen as a undeniably a good thing, but they do so by adding edge and special cases sometimes to the point of being imperceptible or often contradictory to the way the game usually works, this funnily enough is also why they're seen as interesting.
The difficulty for the design team is to make things that are designed, and that work in a consistent and visual, understandable manner that seem equally game changing and game breaking, they want depth by building a larger number of interactions on top of each other that all work consistently and are represented visually, not just depth through complexity.
LaLush's video is unfortunately takes a long time to get to the parts that actually are useful. The built in wind up on air unit shots, the spreading before firing priorities and turret bugs to me are all no-brainers to me as they're all consistent with this philosophy and are just good for game responsiveness (though that would require re-balancing, especially for vikings). This is the stuff that should have been put up front on the video and been like "these are bugs and should be fixed". Stuff like patrol micro (which I think is what David Kim is addressing) and the behaviour of hovering units I don't think are making a come back and I think lumping them all together is what has made this mis-communication happen in the first place. I also got down voted for this on reddit but the video really didn't need 30 minutes of BW micro highlight videos pasted on the end of it, you have to respect the time of the people watching it to get your point across.
TLDR: Buggy games are held in high regard because they're time tested, mature and cannot be fixed, LaLushes video is good, but covers a lot of ground and should really be more focused, some of it is useful, and some of it is completely against the the design philosophy of SC2 and will likely never be implemented despite how much depth it adds because it does so through complexity. David Kim is addressing the latter without addressing the former which is source of the mis-communication but the video also has to shoulder some of the burden for being rambling and long winded.
I really liked this post. Thanks. It explicated a few things I had begun to think about and also gave me new things to think about.
You are also spot on with regards to the presentation of Lalush's video. I said, at the time, recommended in fact, that he consider doing a NoNy (e.g. when he did his Carrier micro clip) on the video, and also cut out the long BW segment at the end (what point did this serve other than playing to the gallery - a segment of the gallery, in fact?). This did not happen. Even better would have been to cut down the themes, the SC2 bug and micro specific themes, into focused bite-sized chunks of say 3 - 5 minutes each and to maybe even have these as separate videos. DK's response (to a maybe vague question) is disappointing, but I can see where he is coming from. Moreover, he does not seem to imply that more micro opportunity in SC2 is not forthcoming. Rather, that micro opportunities of the kind (poorly argued for) in the video are not likely to be forthcoming.
The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job.
On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote: The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job.
This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way.
On November 10 2013 03:09 Intricate wrote: I don't understand why David Kim would say that it is difficult to see the micro involved in the "Depth of Micro" video... It's pretty obvious who can show more skill and it isn't that difficult to understand. It's like saying that the vast majority of starcraft fans are incapable of understanding something that can be explained T.T" I really hope that he reconsiders and implements the changes because it would definitely raise the skill ceiling for competitive play.
Well it did take a 15 minute video to explain how the micro worked and why is was so impressive. I watched SC2 with some friends who don't play last night and they were impressed with blink stalker micro and muta's hunting down medivacs. I don't think they would have been noticeably more impressed if the micro was like it was in BW.
So it took you 15 minutes to understand that a sc2 viking must stop before it shoots, but with a few tweaks in engine parameters it doesn't need to stop to shoot? Do you understand the difference between 'seeing the difference at a glance' and 'delving into the mechanics/code that makes it all happen'?
It's ok to be a fanboy, it's ok not to like proposed changes, it's not ok to play dumb like David Kim is.
The improved F2P is nice but I guess we will never see ladder go F2P since it's relatively easy to cheat. Setting up custom games might bring some people in but it's probably not as noob friendly as playing on the team ladder with a couple of friends...
On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote: The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job.
This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way.
If anyone mentions the video what inevitably happens is that some concerns will be brought up about the presentation: sloppy editing, slow pacing, monotone voice, the choice of brood war for the comparisons and so on. I don't think any of that counts as a valid argument. There is plenty of valid discussion to be had about the video, but somehow complaining about the presentation is the only thing that some people can bring to the discussion. All this pearl clutching about trivial matters is just too much and makes me consider that these are dishonest tactics that substitute for actual arguments.
I'm not going to speak for Lalush, but my reading of the video is that it can't be helped that it's divisive. There was very interesting micro in brood war, but it's missing in the sequel. That's why the brood war footage is the point of the video. It seems like quite a simple concept.
Oh, and in the "real world" Blizzard was never going to implement anything of this video no matter what. I don't know what you were expecting...
The thing about the micro skills is it doesn't even matter if the casual viewer can appreciate it, because if they can't then the game is still the same spectacle for them. But for the knowledgable people, they can see and appreciate it and most importantly of all, it allows for a more enjoyable, fun and skill based game for the players. This will lead to higher win rates for top players, better rewards for the best and make esports much more enjoyable overall. Just because the casuals can't understand doesn't mean its negative for the casuals. How could it be? It will just be over their head. The fact is even if the casuals don't understand the subtlety of the skills it will still make for better viewing for them indirectly. By creating better games and more dominant displays/
On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote: The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job.
This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way.
If anyone mentions the video what inevitably happens is that some concerns will be brought up about the presentation: sloppy editing, slow pacing, monotone voice, the choice of brood war for the comparisons and so on. I don't think any of that counts as a valid argument. There is plenty of valid discussion to be had about the video, but somehow complaining about the presentation is the only thing that some people can bring to the discussion. All this pearl clutching about trivial matters is just too much and makes me consider that these are dishonest tactics that substitute for actual arguments.
I'm not going to speak for Lalush, but my reading of the video is that it can't be helped that it's divisive. There was very interesting micro in brood war, but it's missing in the sequel. That's why the brood war footage is the point of the video. It seems like quite a simple concept.
Oh, and in the "real world" Blizzard was never going to implement anything of this video no matter what. I don't know what you were expecting...
Presentation is a key component of making any argument. Your points don't exist in a vacuum. This also means respecting the time of the people you are presenting to. A 45 minute video of which more than half are BW clips does not do that. Nor does it add to the argument when the argument should be about improving aspects of SC2 in specific ways. This is not to say that a better presented video may have had more impact with the development team. The point is, we may never know.
Second, you are assuming that your argument is the right and correct one. This may or may not be the case. But, let's not assume that the person you are making the argument to necessarily believes it just because you (and everyone else of your group on the forum) are convinced of the strength of your argument. For example, I myself am not sure how much of the changes LaLush proposed would or should fit into SC2. Turrets I can unreservedly get on board with, the rest I am not sure about. Heck, I may even be wrong about turrets. I did, however, want to see some testing to see what could fit into SC2 without overhauling the game too much. I say this because I have an incremental and conservative attitude towards SC2.
I should also add, that we are basing this dissection of DK's reply on a question - the specifics of which I do not know - at a panel discussion. It is quite easy to talk past one another (especially if the question was "Did you see the Depth of Micro article on TL?"). Again, a focused video could have led to focused questions and less opportunity for DK to evade the issue with a general reply. Finally, we may yet have more micro in SC2. Just maybe not the type that was in BW and was showcased in the last half of that clip. This may not necessarily be a bad thing. It depends on what micro enhancements that the SC2 development team do make, the use of these changes by the playerbase, and their effect in improving SC2 gameplay.
On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote: The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job.
This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way.
If anyone mentions the video what inevitably happens is that some concerns will be brought up about the presentation: sloppy editing, slow pacing, monotone voice, the choice of brood war for the comparisons and so on. I don't think any of that counts as a valid argument. There is plenty of valid discussion to be had about the video, but somehow complaining about the presentation is the only thing that some people can bring to the discussion. All this pearl clutching about trivial matters is just too much and makes me consider that these are dishonest tactics that substitute for actual arguments.
The argument we're making is not so different, just from opposite ends, you are saying that I'm avoid the content by attacking the presentation, but I'm not the one that needs to be convinced of the content and I agree with it regardless. The development team are the people that need to be convinced and to a lesser extent the player base as a whole in order to put that pressure on the development team.
If the people he was trying to convince are inherently skeptical of translating BW concepts directly into SC2 then don't give them any reason dismiss you, keep it focused, prioritize the stuff that is immediately useful and then on the stuff that is less applicable but that you still feel is important. The first 18 minutes does an excellent job with intercut broodwar footage of illustrating it's point (though not necessarily in the optimal order) and the 28 minutes of BW highlights with no analysis does not strengthen that and in the eyes of the target audience may in fact weaken it for the reasons both you and I have been saying.
On November 10 2013 04:36 aZealot wrote: a focused video could have led to focused questions and less opportunity for DK to evade the issue with a general reply
That's never going to happen, sorry. He'll find new ways to evade questions.
On November 10 2013 03:09 Intricate wrote: I don't understand why David Kim would say that it is difficult to see the micro involved in the "Depth of Micro" video... It's pretty obvious who can show more skill and it isn't that difficult to understand. It's like saying that the vast majority of starcraft fans are incapable of understanding something that can be explained T.T" I really hope that he reconsiders and implements the changes because it would definitely raise the skill ceiling for competitive play.
Well it did take a 15 minute video to explain how the micro worked and why is was so impressive. I watched SC2 with some friends who don't play last night and they were impressed with blink stalker micro and muta's hunting down medivacs. I don't think they would have been noticeably more impressed if the micro was like it was in BW.
So it took you 15 minutes to understand that a sc2 viking must stop before it shoots, but with a few tweaks in engine parameters it doesn't need to stop to shoot? Do you understand the difference between 'seeing the difference at a glance' and 'delving into the mechanics/code that makes it all happen'?
It's ok to be a fanboy, it's ok not to like proposed changes, it's not ok to play dumb like David Kim is.
It's hard to convey on-screen how stop-shoot micro works...Like, I've seen Nada's vulture videos and stuff, I wouldn't have known it was a 'thing' unless someone pointed it out in some way (caster). So for this, I can see people thinking that stop-shoot viking isn't that impressive if no one points it out and explains what the person is doing...haha, because when I first saw the SC2 phoenix, I thought the person microing was doing the stop-shoot thing until I learned the phoenix does it on its own.
I agree that it's super easy to implement, but they just dont want to 'cause its not something that a lot of people might pick up on?
On November 10 2013 05:18 [PkF] Wire wrote: Those carbot decals are stupid. Are we playing a serious game ?
At least make decals and skins so that one can choose not to have them displayed because it just feels gimmicky. Carbot zealots in game soon ?
Spr srs spr game! PEGI 60! Not retired yet? You are TOO YOUNG FOR SC2!!!... Seriously, everybody likes Carbot's style, why don't bring it in and let people have a little fun?
It's not like someone from Blizzard will read my message and say "oh God, he doesn't like carbot decals, let's cancel it". I don't think it should keep me from expressing a mere point of view.
On November 10 2013 06:52 [PkF] Wire wrote: It's not like someone from Blizzard will read my message and say "oh God, he doesn't like carbot decals, let's cancel it". I don't think it should keep me from expressing a mere point of view.
Expressing your opinion is fine and your allowed to do it. But you open yourself up to people expressing their opinion on your opinion.
"Question: TvZ is mostly Mutaling Bane vs Biomine and not a lot of mech. Comments? Answer: They want more diversity, mech is a good opportunity. Two changes: Combined upgrades and siege tank buffs. If thats not enough there's still time to make more changes, but the goal for the future is to make mech viable not only against Z but also P."
--> They haven't made it playable in the last 3 years. Does somebody really think they will make Mech work in TvZ and TvP? I highly doubt that.
Everytime i hear something from them about decals i get ultra pissed because of the bullshit move of removing the ability to change skins and backgrounds with the purpose of anti-hackz while they and everybody else knowed that those things had nothing to do with anti hacking (and hey, there are still hackz) and was just a excuse to implement a own system after the community developed it. It was a fraud theft from the community for the community. I hate those companies for removing community driven projects with lame excuses. And the irony is, they can´t even do it right.
On November 10 2013 08:47 TurboMaN wrote: Best thing is the BW soundtrack
"Question: TvZ is mostly Mutaling Bane vs Biomine and not a lot of mech. Comments? Answer: They want more diversity, mech is a good opportunity. Two changes: Combined upgrades and siege tank buffs. If thats not enough there's still time to make more changes, but the goal for the future is to make mech viable not only against Z but also P."
--> They haven't made it playable in the last 3 years. Does somebody really think they will make Mech work in TvZ and TvP? I highly doubt that.
Actually there is.. I personally like - right now - can think of like 3 ways to do that, yet alone DK would..
Problem is that they seek very "small" changes that will affect the game, and those are kinda hard to make/find..
I find most of this news to be fantastic. Hopefully they will at least fix the things that appear like bugs revealed in the micro video. What I missed most was info on LotV.
I can tell you now the chance to listen to Starcraft 1 music will get me playing a lot of SC2 again. I freakin' go to sleep with those tracks playing sometimes.
I have a bad feeling that the remastered Brood War music won't turn out well. I can't fully explain why but I just think they'll miss the mark somehow.
On November 11 2013 13:10 claybones wrote: I have a bad feeling that the remastered Brood War music won't turn out well. I can't fully explain why but I just think they'll miss the mark somehow.
you can always just play bw music with a music player on your pc
On November 11 2013 13:10 claybones wrote: I have a bad feeling that the remastered Brood War music won't turn out well. I can't fully explain why but I just think they'll miss the mark somehow.
you can always just play bw music with a music player on your pc
That's basically my point, I don't see a reason why they should remaster it.
On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote: The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job.
This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way.
If anyone mentions the video what inevitably happens is that some concerns will be brought up about the presentation: sloppy editing, slow pacing, monotone voice, the choice of brood war for the comparisons and so on. I don't think any of that counts as a valid argument. There is plenty of valid discussion to be had about the video, but somehow complaining about the presentation is the only thing that some people can bring to the discussion. All this pearl clutching about trivial matters is just too much and makes me consider that these are dishonest tactics that substitute for actual arguments.
I'm not going to speak for Lalush, but my reading of the video is that it can't be helped that it's divisive. There was very interesting micro in brood war, but it's missing in the sequel. That's why the brood war footage is the point of the video. It seems like quite a simple concept.
Oh, and in the "real world" Blizzard was never going to implement anything of this video no matter what. I don't know what you were expecting...
Presentation is a key component of making any argument. Your points don't exist in a vacuum. This also means respecting the time of the people you are presenting to. A 45 minute video of which more than half are BW clips does not do that. Nor does it add to the argument when the argument should be about improving aspects of SC2 in specific ways. This is not to say that a better presented video may have had more impact with the development team. The point is, we may never know.
Second, you are assuming that your argument is the right and correct one. This may or may not be the case. But, let's not assume that the person you are making the argument to necessarily believes it just because you (and everyone else of your group on the forum) are convinced of the strength of your argument. For example, I myself am not sure how much of the changes LaLush proposed would or should fit into SC2. Turrets I can unreservedly get on board with, the rest I am not sure about. Heck, I may even be wrong about turrets. I did, however, want to see some testing to see what could fit into SC2 without overhauling the game too much. I say this because I have an incremental and conservative attitude towards SC2.
I should also add, that we are basing this dissection of DK's reply on a question - the specifics of which I do not know - at a panel discussion. It is quite easy to talk past one another (especially if the question was "Did you see the Depth of Micro article on TL?"). Again, a focused video could have led to focused questions and less opportunity for DK to evade the issue with a general reply. Finally, we may yet have more micro in SC2. Just maybe not the type that was in BW and was showcased in the last half of that clip. This may not necessarily be a bad thing. It depends on what micro enhancements that the SC2 development team do make, the use of these changes by the playerbase, and their effect in improving SC2 gameplay.
I don't think it could have been said better.
There were a couple of things in there that seem like no-brainers. Turrets, the overkill bug, and the separation taking priority over attacking all fit in that category to me. The rest of it, I have a lot of trouble getting behind, because what he's talking about isn't broken, it just isn't how he would prefer it to be.
In particular, the attack initiation time point I think is a case of different rather than inferior design. It makes me think of that Starcraft Master level where you had 1 banshee vs a bunch of marines. It's only a challenge because it requires reasonably precise timing, not just speed. If you are late or early, you lose efficiency from your unit. If you take initiation time off the banshee (and rebalance it appropriately), winning that scenario shifts from being about precision to being purely about speed.
On November 11 2013 13:10 claybones wrote: I have a bad feeling that the remastered Brood War music won't turn out well. I can't fully explain why but I just think they'll miss the mark somehow.
I think it should be fine. They'll probably just do them in higher bitrate with redone instrumentals, maybe using a real orchestra instead of an electronic one.
There are already a few official orchestral arrangements of some of each of the races' songs released by Blizzard as part of an anniversary album Echoes of War. Even though I can nitpick that orchestra to death and question some of the melody choices in the arrangements, the songs ultimately do sound good whenever they're just remixes of old BW themes. If it's just a remaster, it's completely fine since the old melodies are solid enough to survive a lot of bad remixing.
I would like to add that I talked to Cloaken at blizzcon, and he strongly suggested that the economy of the game is not going to change for LotV. In fact based on what he said it seems like it's not even something that's being looked at or is on the table at the moment. Granted he isn't a developer himself, he still seems to know what the developers are working on. I know a lot of people want to see changes to the economy of the game so I hope this gives some insight. (sorry if this doesn't belong in this thread, not sure where else to post it)
On November 11 2013 14:49 coolman123123 wrote: I would like to add that I talked to Cloaken at blizzcon, and he strongly suggested that the economy of the game is not going to change for LotV. In fact based on what he said it seems like it's not even something that's being looked at or is on the table at the moment. Granted he isn't a developer himself, he still seems to know what the developers are working on. I know a lot of people want to see changes to the economy of the game so I hope this gives some insight. (sorry if this doesn't belong in this thread, not sure where else to post it)
I think this doesn't come as a surprise to absolutely nobody, although it's nice to have some kind of "confirmation". Did you talk about anything else interesting?
On November 10 2013 06:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: I would pay to be able to disable skins and have a standardized game. What do we do now ?
I'm not against a bit of fun, portraits are fine, but those ingame decals just aren't serious. I want the game to feel realistic.
I don't think there should be instant replay review in football, but I don't get everything I want. Life it hard, get a helmet.
I didn't know Sepp Blatter had a TL account! All those disagreements we've had Plansix, now I suddenly understand why your opinions are so questionable to me.
At least I'm encouraged that the vast majority of fans in all sports support instant replay.
Anyway, I'm all for the decals being able to be disabled, because I also want the game to feel realistic. Same can be said for skins, you should be able to disable skins too. More options > less options.
On November 11 2013 14:49 coolman123123 wrote: I would like to add that I talked to Cloaken at blizzcon, and he strongly suggested that the economy of the game is not going to change for LotV. In fact based on what he said it seems like it's not even something that's being looked at or is on the table at the moment. Granted he isn't a developer himself, he still seems to know what the developers are working on. I know a lot of people want to see changes to the economy of the game so I hope this gives some insight. (sorry if this doesn't belong in this thread, not sure where else to post it)
I think this doesn't come as a surprise to absolutely nobody, although it's nice to have some kind of "confirmation". Did you talk about anything else interesting?
It seems like the expansion is really trying to appeal to new/casual players. You can see based on what they said in the panel that this is the direction the team is taking. He also mentioned f2p is not off the table at this time.
On November 11 2013 14:49 coolman123123 wrote: I would like to add that I talked to Cloaken at blizzcon, and he strongly suggested that the economy of the game is not going to change for LotV. In fact based on what he said it seems like it's not even something that's being looked at or is on the table at the moment. Granted he isn't a developer himself, he still seems to know what the developers are working on. I know a lot of people want to see changes to the economy of the game so I hope this gives some insight. (sorry if this doesn't belong in this thread, not sure where else to post it)
I think this doesn't come as a surprise to absolutely nobody, although it's nice to have some kind of "confirmation". Did you talk about anything else interesting?
It seems like the expansion is really trying to appeal to new/casual players. You can see based on what they said in the panel that this is the direction the team is taking. He also mentioned f2p is not off the table at this time.
f2p campaign?? wtf thatll probably never gonna happen,and sc2 multiplayer is f2p anyway after new patch ,except 1v1 matchmaking
On November 11 2013 14:49 coolman123123 wrote: I would like to add that I talked to Cloaken at blizzcon, and he strongly suggested that the economy of the game is not going to change for LotV. In fact based on what he said it seems like it's not even something that's being looked at or is on the table at the moment. Granted he isn't a developer himself, he still seems to know what the developers are working on. I know a lot of people want to see changes to the economy of the game so I hope this gives some insight. (sorry if this doesn't belong in this thread, not sure where else to post it)
I think this doesn't come as a surprise to absolutely nobody, although it's nice to have some kind of "confirmation". Did you talk about anything else interesting?
It seems like the expansion is really trying to appeal to new/casual players.
How are they going to do that I wonder aside from what they're already doing...
EDIT: Any specifics? Also, that doesn't mean watering down the 1v1 right?
I don't trust the ratios mentioned, no near of 50%, you watched the top 100 matches but how many Zergs has been on this matches? don't much I think, I just see on every single WCS region championship Protoss and Terran Players and you still saying the game is balanced? holy fuck...
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYlCGQuCAAAOD3N.jpg:large)
![[image loading]](https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/content_folder_media/I07K6YH7B6KO1383802823545.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYlCyw6CEAIO70h.jpg:large)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYlDqUBCMAA7A7u.jpg:large)
![[image loading]](https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/content_folder_media/L6V7GSLZGZBB1383803047887.jpg)
) David Kim, the swarm is coming. 
- and that was the target group he was talking about. 
