|
United States7483 Posts
On March 15 2014 23:57 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 23:49 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2014 23:40 saddaromma wrote:On March 15 2014 23:23 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2014 16:29 Survivor61316 wrote:On March 15 2014 09:01 Big J wrote:On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote:
I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it? I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres. Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years. Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse. But that doesn't mean there are 'few' haters. Compared to the 40K people watching and enjoying ESL right now. Its a few. The minority even. Thats not an indication. A better way to find out is to check what people say in battle.net, chats, tl and reddit.usually 1 out of 5 posts is positive whereas other posts are negative.Therefore I believe haters are actually the majority.
Selection bias, look it up.
People don't generally post in forums about a subject unless they have something to complain about. Most people don't actively participate at all, and those that do are usually only doing so to find a forum for a complaint. The amount of people who post for positive reasons is small, not because there aren't positive people, but because they have no reason to post.
|
On March 15 2014 23:57 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 23:49 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2014 23:40 saddaromma wrote:On March 15 2014 23:23 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2014 16:29 Survivor61316 wrote:On March 15 2014 09:01 Big J wrote:On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote:
I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it? I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres. Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years. Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse. But that doesn't mean there are 'few' haters. Compared to the 40K people watching and enjoying ESL right now. Its a few. The minority even. Thats not an indication. A better way to find out is to check what people say in battle.net, chats, tl and reddit.usually 1 out of 5 posts is positive whereas other posts are negative.Therefore I believe haters are actually the majority.
coming from hong kong where protest is more or less turning into a cultural thing, I can tell you that people complain more than they would to praise.
suddenly remember the days where i studied about this for my marketing 101 unit :D
|
Ok guys I will make a better analogy. LoL also has a lot of haters. You see a lot threads in their forums complaining this and that. However the majority of their forums is filled with active discussion of game, its state, champion builds. And the hot topics are usually like that. Whereas sc2 hot topics are always about smth bad, drama, imba or how the game is bad. Somehow even if lol community is considered the most toxic its forums are better than sc2. Another good example is hearthstone. Check liquidhearth. Therefore I believe sc2 has more haters, and its direct result of how bafly the game was designed.
|
On March 15 2014 23:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 15 2014 01:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:On March 15 2014 01:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:my post was relative to HotS.  I know. It sucks to be all smug and passive aggressive only to realize you misread the quoted post but, it also applies to an expansion relative to the main game as well. the main game has 10 times as much resources dedicated to it as any expansion. the same discussion will happen in the management offices about resources and big changes regarding how to approach LotV. Browder got a promotion so Blizzard is happy with his work on SC2, they are not going to overhaul the game on an expansion. i'm happy with the game, watching IEM... things look good to me. playing the game, its still fun for me so i hope Blizzard just follows the guidelines David Kim outlines in the Reddit AMA. i believe in David Kim more than even Harvey Dent. i predict LotV will give us changes of the same magnitude or smaller than HotS. Therefore, if someone is dissatisfied with SC2, i'd recommend they play a different RTS. Hoping and wishing for Blizz to make wholesale changes is absurb because it's not going to happen. Well, Blizzard being happy with the game is a better argument then "they don't want to spit in dustins face". Glad you came around
actually, its more about spitting in the face of the amount of resources allocated.
really your spitting in the face of the resource allocators like Morhaime and Pearce.
not really just Browder, but the entire team.
don't know how the comment got twisted into a "person spitting in browder's face".
|
On March 16 2014 00:24 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 23:57 saddaromma wrote:On March 15 2014 23:49 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2014 23:40 saddaromma wrote:On March 15 2014 23:23 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2014 16:29 Survivor61316 wrote:On March 15 2014 09:01 Big J wrote:On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote:
I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it? I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres. Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years. Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse. But that doesn't mean there are 'few' haters. Compared to the 40K people watching and enjoying ESL right now. Its a few. The minority even. Thats not an indication. A better way to find out is to check what people say in battle.net, chats, tl and reddit.usually 1 out of 5 posts is positive whereas other posts are negative.Therefore I believe haters are actually the majority. Selection bias, look it up. People don't generally post in forums about a subject unless they have something to complain about. Most people don't actively participate at all, and those that do are usually only doing so to find a forum for a complaint. The amount of people who post for positive reasons is small, not because there aren't positive people, but because they have no reason to post.
Positive opinions.
People that don't post are also the more "casual" ones, and they tend not to care to much how the high ground avd. works or if the Colossus and FF are redesigned.
|
On March 16 2014 01:21 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2014 23:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:On March 15 2014 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 15 2014 01:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:On March 15 2014 01:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:my post was relative to HotS. I know. It sucks to be all smug and passive aggressive only to realize you misread the quoted post but, it also applies to an expansion relative to the main game as well. the main game has 10 times as much resources dedicated to it as any expansion. the same discussion will happen in the management offices about resources and big changes regarding how to approach LotV. Browder got a promotion so Blizzard is happy with his work on SC2, they are not going to overhaul the game on an expansion. i'm happy with the game, watching IEM... things look good to me. playing the game, its still fun for me so i hope Blizzard just follows the guidelines David Kim outlines in the Reddit AMA. i believe in David Kim more than even Harvey Dent. i predict LotV will give us changes of the same magnitude or smaller than HotS. Therefore, if someone is dissatisfied with SC2, i'd recommend they play a different RTS. Hoping and wishing for Blizz to make wholesale changes is absurb because it's not going to happen. Well, Blizzard being happy with the game is a better argument then "they don't want to spit in dustins face". Glad you came around actually, its more about spitting in the face of the amount of resources allocated. really your spitting in the face of the resource allocators like Morhaime and Pearce. not really just Browder, but the entire team. don't know how the comment got twisted into a "person spitting in browder's face".
What about the resources invested in D3? Or the original WC3? Seriously, this argument is so silly. If they will not make major changes is because they feel they are not needed, it's that simple.
|
no, the more resources devoted to the original product the more that is needed to force a change because inertia is the most powerful force in the universe.
also, the future potential income from the changes is measured as well. RTS games don't make much cash relative to all the other things Blizzard is doing these days. They've got bigger fish to fry.
are the D3 console games getting patch 2.0.1?
combine this with Browder getting promoted to VP , clearly Blizzard is happy with his work.
so i don't think we'll see an overhaul to SC2.
|
On March 16 2014 01:38 lamprey1 wrote:
no, the more resources devoted to the original product the more that is needed to force a change because inertia is the most powerful force in the universe.
also, the future potential income from the changes is measured as well. RTS games don't make much cash relative to all the other things Blizzard is doing these days. They've got bigger fish to fry.
are the D3 console games getting patch 2.0.1?
combine this with Browder getting promoted to VP , clearly Blizzard is happy with his work.
so i don't think we'll see an overhaul to SC2.
You start by saying "no", and you end by agreeing with me.
I agree with the relative income vs relative expenses in a case of major changes playing a big role to.
The original argument is still bonkers though, don't know why you insist.
|
my position is that a combination of factors will go into Blizzard's decision to not overhaul the game.
and that the more time and resources allocated to the original game the higher the amount of difference is required motivate an overhaul.
an extreme example to illustrate my point:
200 people work 5 years on a software product released in say 2007.. and now 5 people are working on it in maintenance mode, they'll need 100% proof that they can vastly improve the currently working product to get upper management to sign off on letting 5 guys fuck around with a product that has 1000 man years of effort devoted to it.
get it now?
my position has remained the same throughout my posts. Blizzard is not going ot overhaul SC2 due ot a myriad of factors including inertia.
|
On March 16 2014 03:11 lamprey1 wrote:
my position is that a combination of factors will go into Blizzard's decision to not overhaul the game.
and that the more time and resources allocated to the original game the higher the amount of difference is required motivate an overhaul.
an extreme example to illustrate my point:
200 people work 5 years on a software product released in say 2007.. and now 5 people are working on it in maintenance mode, they'll need 100% proof that they can vastly improve the currently working product to get upper management to sign off on letting 5 guys fuck around with a product that has 1000 man years of effort devoted to it.
get it now?
my position has remained the same throughout my posts. Blizzard is not going ot overhaul SC2 due ot a myriad of factors including inertia.
I agree mostly. They don't feel like an overhaul is needed or at least not worth it, and so there will be none.
The original point is still wrong though LOL. I spit in it's face actually!
|
On March 16 2014 01:11 saddaromma wrote:
Ok guys I will make a better analogy. LoL also has a lot of haters. You see a lot threads in their forums complaining this and that. However the majority of their forums is filled with active discussion of game, its state, champion builds. And the hot topics are usually like that. Whereas sc2 hot topics are always about smth bad, drama, imba or how the game is bad. Somehow even if lol community is considered the most toxic its forums are better than sc2. Another good example is hearthstone. Check liquidhearth. Therefore I believe sc2 has more haters, and its direct result of how bafly the game was designed.
But, that good stuff happens in SC2 too. There is also plenty of discussion and appreciation of strategy in LR threads and Strategy and even in General. Unfortunately, it tends to be forgotten in the storm of complaining. There are quite a few reasons for this, some of which are related to the expectations around the game, the marketing as an E-Sport, and more (IMO) the demanding and self-critical nature of the game, as well as the constant realization that the game has rules. It is that, I think, that leads to so much hate - not how badly the game is designed (assuming that the game is badly designed in the first place).
Personally, I don't give much of a shit for the haters or how much they are in number. It's their assumption that "the community" is just them or that complaining loudly has greater weight than those quietly playing the game that I (sometimes) find irritating. Also, I think many of the arguments used for SC2 is badly designed and that it needs a fundamental overhaul etc are wrong.
Unfortunately, after almost 4 years, this is well-trodden ground. It's unlikely to go away.
|
Fairly certain that people at a massive public company know the definition of a 'sunk cost'.
|
i think Blizzard's request for constant fan feedback is inherent in the "Blizzard design philosophy".
The details around the game design, mechanics and rules are in constant state of flux because they are willing to change things. Think about what its like to drive in the middle of a Blizzard. That resembles Morhaime's development philosophy. That's why the name was selected for the company after they couldn't use "Chaos Studios".
so we get comments that run the entire gamut from "this is the greatest game ever made" to "the game sucks and without all the hype and marketing no one would ever play".
if all we gave them was the TL.Net forums to read any one without intimate familiarity with SC2 would have a hard time figuring out if the game is well liked or not
Morhaime and senior management are right in their element dealing with all the "white noise" on these forums.
On March 16 2014 04:39 B-rye88 wrote:
Fairly certain that people at a massive public company know the definition of a 'sunk cost'.
and a software company is also familiar with how well a 5 guys working part time can deal with 348573987 million lines of code made by 200 other guys who have spent their careers working in specialties they have only brief exposure to.
|
I am not convinced by these supposed metrics of success of Starcraft II. I think we're allowing game design to be rather too easy if we're satisfied with: asymmetrically balanced real-time strategy games with a competitive scene with many viable strategies and games with action all over the map. It sounds pretty impressive, but I think it's the bare minimum we should expect, and even then Starcraft II often fails to live up to it.
(i.e. we have to live by the standards that BW set)
|
I will never bought a Blizzard game again. They have no respect for the players and fans.
It is truly sad see the game losing proplayers and fans because the game is fucking boring and blizzard changing number when the true problem is the core of some units.
Great fucking work.
|
|
|
Some people have made the argument that redesigning the game would be a costly endeavor which is why Blizzard may not implement new fundamental changes to the game.
I don't really buy these arguments since mods like Starbow prove that design changes can be done as simple as a few editor changes in the game. The only thing I can infer, assuming that money is not an issue which I believe it is not, is a reluctance to change the game due to "casuals being confused." This philosophy has permeated other Blizzard games and appears to be the most consistent thing Blizzard will consider when designing or updating a game. Which is a shame really because most changes people seem to want (true high ground advantage, more nuanced economy, etc) can be tested in PTR fairly easily.
On March 16 2014 01:11 saddaromma wrote:
Ok guys I will make a better analogy. LoL also has a lot of haters. You see a lot threads in their forums complaining this and that. However the majority of their forums is filled with active discussion of game, its state, champion builds. And the hot topics are usually like that. Whereas sc2 hot topics are always about smth bad, drama, imba or how the game is bad. Somehow even if lol community is considered the most toxic its forums are better than sc2. Another good example is hearthstone. Check liquidhearth. Therefore I believe sc2 has more haters, and its direct result of how bafly the game was designed.
Because most community suggestions get shot down in the SC2 scene. I can't think of any instances that come to mind without extreme reluctance or after a very long passage of time. You remember when the community cried out for tournament maps on ladder? That didn't really happen until 2 years into the game, far too long to be meaningful.
Then you have the myriad of other balance issues that the community deems important (SH and FF viability) and is always shot down by Blizzard because they see nothing wrong.
It's hard to consistently engaged in the design of the game when the community appears to have such little influence in it. Even pro-players input (which Blizzard says they listen to) don't appear to be considered in any meaningful degree, unless you count players abusing certain units (Thors w/ Thorzaine, Firebats w/ Innovation, or Storms w/ San).
|
On March 16 2014 05:25 TeslasPigeon wrote:
Some people have made the argument that redesigning the game would be a costly endeavor which is why Blizzard may not implement new fundamental changes to the game.
I don't really buy these arguments since mods like Starbow prove that design changes can be done as simple as a few editor changes in the game. The only thing I can infer, assuming that money is not an issue which I believe it is not, is a reluctance to change the game due to "casuals being confused." This philosophy has permeated other Blizzard games and appears to be the most consistent thing Blizzard will consider when designing or updating a game. Which is a shame really because most changes people seem to want (true high ground advantage, more nuanced economy, etc) can be tested in PTR fairly easily.
Starbow is hardly up to Blizzard's standards, especially in terms of animations and models. Blizzard doesn't just care about the gameplay. It's a lot more work than you might think. It's one thing to change some of the stats like oracle speed, quite another to add new mechanics to the game.
|
We think the BW high ground mechanic is not necessarily better than SC2. Each has its pros and cons.
I was thinking about this a bit, and i can't really come up with what are the pros of the SC2 model.
In BW, it gave range units a great advantage against other range units and so:
1)it promoted positional play and defense by having the players fight for position on the map
2)it allowed lower number of units to defend against larger numbers, so it improved map control options and acted a bit as an anti base race mechanic(like we see so much of in SC2)
This 2 are huge IMO and i can't see anything that the SC2 model can even come close to. It's very rare that an army doesn't have the capability to gain vision, since most armies include some sort of flying units past the early-mid and mid game. It's really only the choke points that seem to be relevant in SC2, whether they are ramps or just flat level choke point, doesn't really matter most of the time.
So, what are the pros?
|
On March 16 2014 05:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +We think the BW high ground mechanic is not necessarily better than SC2. Each has its pros and cons. I was thinking about this a bit, and i can't really come up with what are the pros of the SC2 model. In BW, it gave range units a great advantage against other range units and so: 1)it promoted positional play and defense by having the players fight for position on the map 2)it allowed lower number of units to defend against larger numbers, so it improved map control options and acted a bit as an anti base race mechanic(like we see so much of in SC2) This 2 are huge IMO and i can't see anything that the SC2 model can even come close to. It's very rare that an army doesn't have the capability to gain vision, since most armies include some sort of flying units past the early-mid and mid game. It's really only the choke points that seem to be relevant in SC2, whether they are ramps or just flat level choke point, doesn't really matter most of the time. So, what are the pros?
Its good for the simple minded people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
