|
On July 17 2014 09:54 Cheren wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 08:20 pure.Wasted wrote:
Fans aren't always right... but sometimes they are. Sometimes it's obvious that they're right. The fact that the Colossus shouldn't have made it out of WOL Beta in its current state is a fact, and the fact that it's taken 4 years for Blizzard to CONSIDER doing something about this (maybe possibly) is a travesty. And yet they keep buffing the widow mine, which will lead to more colossus play in PvT since it's the obvious counter. They should remove the bonus damage to shields now that they're bringing back the old widow mine, and buff vikings instead to discourage colossus play.
Honestly? I like your suggestion, but I think doing both is fine. Templar openings were definitely feeling a bit too strong pre +shields buff. Now it could be that the only reason that's true is the econ/upgrade advantage Protoss had thanks to the multitude of scary openings at their disposal, but it could be that that only explains part of it.
Strong WM is a nice counter to Blink pressure builds, and gives Terrans some strong pressure builds of their own. These are both good things. Buffing Vikings on top of that would incentivize Protoss to go Templar, and that would be great, too.
|
Sorry, is this the show that had Flash sit in on, with the recent translation?
|
They won't remove or change Warp Gate. As much as it would help the game, it won't happen.
And Blizzard's ideas for allowing better players to distinguish themselves haven't worked out too well...
|
Quite an honest and fair interview. I think we can a bit more optimistic about LOTV now. Maybe the main reason that Blizzard is not buffing Tank in TvP is that they are planning to tweak the tank more. To allow more micro differentiate. (Pro that target fire and control the tanks)
Right now, a lot of units are quite 1 dimensional...
Widow mine is actually not a bad place to use to tweak balance for HOTS, as there is wide variation on degree of success how the opponent disarm the mine fields.
Over all a +1
|
On July 17 2014 08:58 TopRamen wrote:
A game of SC2 has feedback that is just too wild for a great competitive game. It's a pretty balanced game between players A and B until A or B makes a move that gives them an insurmountable lead and they can then bludgeon their opponent to death with their unstoppable force.
An ideal game progression is one where the lead changes hands but the better player eventually wins.
I disagree. Honestly, it's not all that important that the better player eventually wins. This is not the case in Football(American or World), Poker, Settlers of Catan, or any number of popular competitive games. I would agree that good game design should avoid snowballing and award skill, but a great game should also be dramatic, unpredictable and open to any number of dynamic strategies.
It looks like LoTV is going to take multiplayer in a bit of more hardcore direction. This makes sense. Any number of casual players have left and at this point they're not coming back. (Though they should come back for the campaign. Give Blizzard credit; HoTS was a sizable improvement on WOL as a single player game) It was ambitious of Blizzard to think that a multiplayer RTS would have lasting appeal to "casual" gamers. I would expect some more micro-intensive units for LoTV. Which is not to say LoTV should turn SC2 into BW. I don't think I'd play the game if had BW's terrible pathing. Or if it didn't have auto-mining for that matter.
|
sounds like david kim knows what he is doing.
thanks to Mr. Kim for doing a tough interview with some tough questions and providing some pretty deep insight.
i wonder how long it is before Browder announces he is leaving SC2 completely?
|
Man, what would people whine about if Warp gate was removed. I am sure they would find something.
I love how every interview DK says the same thing about pro gamers and that they all want their own race buffed/other races nerfed. I also like how Korean and Western players want things changed at different speeds. Its almost like he confirms what we already knew to be true. I do like his comment about carriers and BCs, that they are both kinda deathbally and not really a blast to watch. Cause its true.
|
On July 17 2014 12:09 Plansix wrote:
I do like his comment about carriers and BCs, that they are both kinda deathbally and not really a blast to watch. Cause its true.
You kind of expect a little more analysis and insight from the man in charge after 4 years, though, don't you?
Until he actually does something about it (makes the units more interesting, then makes them viable), all it really is is a reasonable excuse for doing nothing to improve the game. I'd have been more impressed if he'd said this... say, as they were tinkering with Tempest/new BC abilities for HOTS, when this brilliant realization could have actually been acted upon.
|
On July 17 2014 12:14 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 12:09 Plansix wrote:
I do like his comment about carriers and BCs, that they are both kinda deathbally and not really a blast to watch. Cause its true. You kind of expect a little more analysis and insight from the man in charge after 4 years, though, don't you? Until he actually does something about it (makes the units more interesting, then makes them viable), all it really is is a reasonable excuse for doing nothing to improve the game. I'd have been more impressed if he'd said this... say, as they were tinkering with Tempest/new BC abilities for HOTS, when this brilliant realization could have actually been acted upon.
The problem is "improving" things requires you to do a shit ton of testing. Because before you improve something, you need to make it shitty over and over and over. Since Blizzard is working on Hearthstone and Heroes, that time is not now. There is no awesome switch that they can just flip or just "take community suggests that are awesome, while not taking shitty ones" button either.
And you do know the reason why he doesn't elaborate right? English is his second language. He speaks English well, but you can tell he runs up against the limits of his vocabulary a lot. You can tell because he uses a lot of the same adjectives over and over.
|
On July 17 2014 12:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 12:14 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 17 2014 12:09 Plansix wrote:
I do like his comment about carriers and BCs, that they are both kinda deathbally and not really a blast to watch. Cause its true. You kind of expect a little more analysis and insight from the man in charge after 4 years, though, don't you? Until he actually does something about it (makes the units more interesting, then makes them viable), all it really is is a reasonable excuse for doing nothing to improve the game. I'd have been more impressed if he'd said this... say, as they were tinkering with Tempest/new BC abilities for HOTS, when this brilliant realization could have actually been acted upon. The problem is "improving" things requires you to do a shit ton of testing. Because before you improve something, you need to make it shitty over and over and over. Since Blizzard is working on Hearthstone and Heroes, that time is not now. There is no awesome switch that they can just flip or just "take community suggests that are awesome, while not taking shitty ones" button either.
There is a "take community suggests that are awesome, while not taking shitty ones" button.
It's called Heart of the Swarm Beta. "Oops" isn't really a justifiable defense for not using it, as far as I'm concerned, especially not when they've never actually said "We didn't take enough advantage of it, but that'll change next time." I absolutely expect LOTV Beta to be the same polish-fest that WOL and HOTS Betas were.
And you do know the reason why he doesn't elaborate right? English is his second language. He speaks English well, but you can tell he runs up against the limits of his vocabulary a lot. You can tell because he uses a lot of the same adjectives over and over.
Where did you get that I have a problem with his vocabulary? My issue isn't with the way he talks about things, it's the fact that these things should have been talked about (by him or DB or anyone else) years ago. For all I know at this point, they didn't even arrive at these thoughts independently, they just read someone on a forum saying "BCs and Carriers would be A-move" and took that as their own position. (Fortunate how it means they don't need to do any work until LOTV, but that's pure coincidence, I'm sure) I've never read anything from Blizzard that was as insightful as Xequecal's analysis of Mech play, or any number of posters' analysis of SC2 vs SC1 economies. Blizz devs have never demonstrated to me that they actually understand what's going on in their game, and how to manipulate the things that are going on to make a superior game in the future.
I still remember Blizz saying they want to make mech viable and then introducing the A-move, massable bio-unit-in-mech-clothing Warhound. That was only one year ago. What does that tell you about what they understand of mech play?
|
Is this post serious?????
We feel that Protoss has been very strong for quite a while now,???? so that is clear since 1 1/2 year and no one does something agains it????
is that a joke? i mean that game is about laddering and ppoints some earn their money with it ....and then there is a post on JULY 17th that protoss is too strong but we didnt change anything since 1 1/2 years????
so that means if im a zerg(terran) player i could have retired the last 1 1/2 years? is it some kind of that???
or just play a unfair "balanced" price competition game ??
where is the goal of playing an imbalanced game if one race is too strong??????
nice choice for i dont know over a 1.000.000. starcraft players out there
|
Ah I broke my rule about posting in these balance threads. I don't realty know what blizzard knows, but I'm sure someone will tell me. Either way, the interview was good and DK seems to have a handle on stuff.
|
Protoss needs a major redesign. My best suggestion would be bring warp gate to tier2/3, a late game ability. Terran needs its strength of bio/mech rebalanced (compared to mech, bio is too good even in late game, but mostly because mech is shit), zerg needs fix in its mirror match.
|
On July 17 2014 12:36 Plansix wrote:
Ah I broke my rule about posting in these balance threads. I don't realty know what blizzard knows, but I'm sure someone will tell me. Either way, the interview was good and DK seems to have a handle on stuff.
I'm not a big fan of David Kim's, but this must be stressed indeed. I thought he answered well to the questions. He acknowledged most of what people consider are the current flaws of the game (which already takes a lot for a game designer in the balance team) and seemed to claim that his team is looking for answers.
People who are disappointed at that interview probably didn't have realistic expectations. What is he gonna go, spoil the 4-5 LotV units and major race changes? Say that he's bringing the Reaveromgsogosu back? For now he's trying to balance the game (by patching the current expansion) and saying they're working on the next expansion so that problems in this one don't occur anymore. I don't know what more you can ask of him.
|
On July 17 2014 12:56 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 12:36 Plansix wrote:
Ah I broke my rule about posting in these balance threads. I don't realty know what blizzard knows, but I'm sure someone will tell me. Either way, the interview was good and DK seems to have a handle on stuff. I'm not a big fan of David Kim's, but this must be stressed indeed. I thought he answered well to the questions. He acknowledged most of what people consider are the current flaws of the game (which already takes a lot for a game designer in the balance team) and seemed to claim that his team is looking for answers. People who are disappointed at that interview probably didn't have realistic expectations. What is he gonna go, spoil the 4-5 LotV units and major race changes? Say that he's bringing the Reaveromgsogosu back? For now he's trying to balance the game (by patching the current expansion) and saying they're working on the next expansion so that problems in this one don't occur anymore. I don't know what more you can ask of him.
Here's what would give me hope for LOTV:
1. Admit that they wasted HOTS and plan to be a lot more experimental with LOTV alpha/beta. (We only got one version of Warhound, and no replacements for it once it got cut = complete and total waste of a Beta)
2. Talk about why they think mech doesn't work, and what they think could make mech work. Is it making fundamental changes to existing units? Is it introducing new units? Could SC1 mech work in SC2? Why or why not? Why did they think Warhound was a good idea, and why didn't they try to make a replacement once they realized it wasn't?
If all he says is "mech doesn't work right now" (which he didn't in this interview, but has in the past), that's great, but anyone could see that. I expect someone who gets paid to think about this stuff to have more opinions than "it doesn't work right now."
3. Talk about why he thinks Protoss doesn't allow the top players to distinguish themselves. What units are problematic in his view? What units are fine and don't need changes? Is his plan to change Colossus, Immortal, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Dark Templar to make them more microable or is it to add one new unit which takes micro?
Again, if all he says is "Protoss doesn't always show off micro," it's hard to argue, but it also doesn't prove he understands what he's talking about. It's an easy answer that everyone can agree with, but that's all it is.
4. Talk about Terran lategame, what is it missing in their opinion? Is it missing a way to transition from bio to mech? Or is it missing a bio lategame? By bio lategame, would they be looking at introducing new units, or revamping existing units (Reaper), or just adding new functionality to existing units (more stuff like Afterburners)?
5. Do they really still think that ladder numbers are an accurate way of judging game balance when Terrans are extinct across all levels of play? Why did they say three weeks ago that balance is fine, and then immediately after the ZPartCraft article say that balance isn't fine? (Obviously I think we all know, but right now nothing stops Blizz from bullshitting us with "balance is fine" next time it so obviously isn't.)
Everything he says is very political, non-committal stuff that tells us nothing about their design process. There's no reason to believe they've learned from past mistakes. They may have, but nothing in the interview supports it.
|
On July 17 2014 12:20 Plansix wrote:
Because before you improve something, you need to make it shitty over and over and over. Since Blizzard is working on Hearthstone and Heroes, that time is not now. There is no awesome switch that they can just flip or just "take community suggests that are awesome, while not taking shitty ones" button either.
Working on Hearthstone and Heroes does not preclude Blizzard from working on SC2. I don't know why people keep thinking that Blizzard projects are some zero sum game. Every project has its own budget. They're also clearly working on LoTV, which is where the SC2 resources are going.
I too I'm pretty happy DK and Blizzard don't take community whine too seriously. The truth is SC2 in general and HoTS is really well designed. It's not perfect but what game is? BW wasn't. There's really good reasons the game was designed with "a-move" units. Lower league players need to be able to control the game without having good mechanics. Believe it or not, Blizzard kind of knows what they're doing. The amount of times I read something along the lines of, "Blizzard doesn't even understand their own game, if only they just did_____.It's so obvious." is unbelievable. It's not so obvious. These things need to be playtested and nobody testing the game is as good as the Korean GMs. Game's pretty damn balanced for 99% of the playerbase.
|
On July 17 2014 13:12 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 12:56 ZenithM wrote:On July 17 2014 12:36 Plansix wrote:
Ah I broke my rule about posting in these balance threads. I don't realty know what blizzard knows, but I'm sure someone will tell me. Either way, the interview was good and DK seems to have a handle on stuff. I'm not a big fan of David Kim's, but this must be stressed indeed. I thought he answered well to the questions. He acknowledged most of what people consider are the current flaws of the game (which already takes a lot for a game designer in the balance team) and seemed to claim that his team is looking for answers. People who are disappointed at that interview probably didn't have realistic expectations. What is he gonna go, spoil the 4-5 LotV units and major race changes? Say that he's bringing the Reaveromgsogosu back? For now he's trying to balance the game (by patching the current expansion) and saying they're working on the next expansion so that problems in this one don't occur anymore. I don't know what more you can ask of him. Here's what would give me hope for LOTV: 1. Admit that they wasted HOTS and plan to be a lot more experimental with LOTV alpha/beta. (We only got one version of Warhound, and no replacements for it once it got cut = complete and total waste of a Beta) 2. Talk about why they think mech doesn't work, and what they think could make mech work. Is it making fundamental changes to existing units? Is it introducing new units? Could SC1 mech work in SC2? Why or why not? Why did they think Warhound was a good idea, and why didn't they try to make a replacement once they realized it wasn't? If all he says is "mech doesn't work right now" (which he didn't in this interview, but has in the past), that's great, but anyone could see that. I expect someone who gets paid to think about this stuff to have more opinions than "it doesn't work right now." 3. Talk about why he thinks Protoss doesn't allow the top players to distinguish themselves. What units are problematic in his view? What units are fine and don't need changes? Is his plan to change Colossus, Immortal, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Dark Templar to make them more microable or is it to add one new unit which takes micro? Again, if all he says is "Protoss doesn't always show off micro," it's hard to argue, but it also doesn't prove he understands what he's talking about. It's an easy answer that everyone can agree with, but that's all it is. 4. Talk about Terran lategame, what is it missing in their opinion? Is it missing a way to transition from bio to mech? Or is it missing a bio lategame? By bio lategame, would they be looking at introducing new units, or revamping existing units (Reaper), or just adding new functionality to existing units (more stuff like Afterburners)? 5. Do they really still think that ladder numbers are an accurate way of judging game balance when Terrans are extinct across all levels of play? Why did they say three weeks ago that balance is fine, and then immediately after the ZPartCraft article say that balance isn't fine? (Obviously I think we all know, but right now nothing stops Blizz from bullshitting us with "balance is fine" next time it so obviously isn't.) Everything he says is very political, non-committal stuff that tells us nothing about their design process. There's no reason to believe they've learned from past mistakes. They may have, but nothing in the interview supports it.
Hm, you bring up a lot of very excellent points. It does seem like every interview we hear nothing but generalizations and buzz words. I would like, for once, to hear some really deep analysis like this, if only so we can see that they (especially Mr. Kim) truly understand the game that's played at the pro level.
|
On July 17 2014 13:12 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 12:56 ZenithM wrote:On July 17 2014 12:36 Plansix wrote:
Ah I broke my rule about posting in these balance threads. I don't realty know what blizzard knows, but I'm sure someone will tell me. Either way, the interview was good and DK seems to have a handle on stuff. I'm not a big fan of David Kim's, but this must be stressed indeed. I thought he answered well to the questions. He acknowledged most of what people consider are the current flaws of the game (which already takes a lot for a game designer in the balance team) and seemed to claim that his team is looking for answers. People who are disappointed at that interview probably didn't have realistic expectations. What is he gonna go, spoil the 4-5 LotV units and major race changes? Say that he's bringing the Reaveromgsogosu back? For now he's trying to balance the game (by patching the current expansion) and saying they're working on the next expansion so that problems in this one don't occur anymore. I don't know what more you can ask of him. Here's what would give me hope for LOTV: 1. Admit that they wasted HOTS and plan to be a lot more experimental with LOTV alpha/beta. (We only got one version of Warhound, and no replacements for it once it got cut = complete and total waste of a Beta) 2. Talk about why they think mech doesn't work, and what they think could make mech work. Is it making fundamental changes to existing units? Is it introducing new units? Could SC1 mech work in SC2? Why or why not? Why did they think Warhound was a good idea, and why didn't they try to make a replacement once they realized it wasn't? If all he says is "mech doesn't work right now" (which he didn't in this interview, but has in the past), that's great, but anyone could see that. I expect someone who gets paid to think about this stuff to have more opinions than "it doesn't work right now." 3. Talk about why he thinks Protoss doesn't allow the top players to distinguish themselves. What units are problematic in his view? What units are fine and don't need changes? Is his plan to change Colossus, Immortal, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Dark Templar to make them more microable or is it to add one new unit which takes micro? Again, if all he says is "Protoss doesn't always show off micro," it's hard to argue, but it also doesn't prove he understands what he's talking about. It's an easy answer that everyone can agree with, but that's all it is. 4. Talk about Terran lategame, what is it missing in their opinion? Is it missing a way to transition from bio to mech? Or is it missing a bio lategame? By bio lategame, would they be looking at introducing new units, or revamping existing units (Reaper), or just adding new functionality to existing units (more stuff like Afterburners)? 5. Do they really still think that ladder numbers are an accurate way of judging game balance when Terrans are extinct across all levels of play? Why did they say three weeks ago that balance is fine, and then immediately after the ZPartCraft article say that balance isn't fine? (Obviously I think we all know, but right now nothing stops Blizz from bullshitting us with "balance is fine" next time it so obviously isn't.) Everything he says is very political, non-committal stuff that tells us nothing about their design process. There's no reason to believe they've learned from past mistakes. They may have, but nothing in the interview supports it.
what you want is their current design thought process.
the interview is about how they do their design process, not specifically about the current balance.
Read all the parts about protoss warpgate as an example.
that's why there is more focus on how they do the patches, why korean pros thought d.kim doesn't listen to them
|
On July 17 2014 15:32 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 13:12 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 17 2014 12:56 ZenithM wrote:On July 17 2014 12:36 Plansix wrote:
Ah I broke my rule about posting in these balance threads. I don't realty know what blizzard knows, but I'm sure someone will tell me. Either way, the interview was good and DK seems to have a handle on stuff. I'm not a big fan of David Kim's, but this must be stressed indeed. I thought he answered well to the questions. He acknowledged most of what people consider are the current flaws of the game (which already takes a lot for a game designer in the balance team) and seemed to claim that his team is looking for answers. People who are disappointed at that interview probably didn't have realistic expectations. What is he gonna go, spoil the 4-5 LotV units and major race changes? Say that he's bringing the Reaveromgsogosu back? For now he's trying to balance the game (by patching the current expansion) and saying they're working on the next expansion so that problems in this one don't occur anymore. I don't know what more you can ask of him. Here's what would give me hope for LOTV: 1. Admit that they wasted HOTS and plan to be a lot more experimental with LOTV alpha/beta. (We only got one version of Warhound, and no replacements for it once it got cut = complete and total waste of a Beta) 2. Talk about why they think mech doesn't work, and what they think could make mech work. Is it making fundamental changes to existing units? Is it introducing new units? Could SC1 mech work in SC2? Why or why not? Why did they think Warhound was a good idea, and why didn't they try to make a replacement once they realized it wasn't? If all he says is "mech doesn't work right now" (which he didn't in this interview, but has in the past), that's great, but anyone could see that. I expect someone who gets paid to think about this stuff to have more opinions than "it doesn't work right now." 3. Talk about why he thinks Protoss doesn't allow the top players to distinguish themselves. What units are problematic in his view? What units are fine and don't need changes? Is his plan to change Colossus, Immortal, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Dark Templar to make them more microable or is it to add one new unit which takes micro? Again, if all he says is "Protoss doesn't always show off micro," it's hard to argue, but it also doesn't prove he understands what he's talking about. It's an easy answer that everyone can agree with, but that's all it is. 4. Talk about Terran lategame, what is it missing in their opinion? Is it missing a way to transition from bio to mech? Or is it missing a bio lategame? By bio lategame, would they be looking at introducing new units, or revamping existing units (Reaper), or just adding new functionality to existing units (more stuff like Afterburners)? 5. Do they really still think that ladder numbers are an accurate way of judging game balance when Terrans are extinct across all levels of play? Why did they say three weeks ago that balance is fine, and then immediately after the ZPartCraft article say that balance isn't fine? (Obviously I think we all know, but right now nothing stops Blizz from bullshitting us with "balance is fine" next time it so obviously isn't.) Everything he says is very political, non-committal stuff that tells us nothing about their design process. There's no reason to believe they've learned from past mistakes. They may have, but nothing in the interview supports it. what you want is their current design thought process. the interview is about how they do their design process, not specifically about the current balance. Read all the parts about protoss warpgate as an example. that's why there is more focus on how they do the patches, why korean pros thought d.kim doesn't listen to them
What I said was specifically a response to posters like Plansix and bhfberserk who suggest that this interview is reason to be optimistic about LOTV. I'm just saying that there's nothing here that we haven't heard before. Politically correct responses and received wisdom. No analysis, no insight, no indication at all that past mistakes have been learned from.
If all you wanted to know was "why doesn't Blizzard patch more/less often?" then this interview may well have been satisfying, and I see nothing wrong with that!
|
same old same old
1. WG is silly design and lot of people knew this since day 1. You can look up shitload of threads about WG since beta. For me WG is n1 problem of SC2 and i can't see it being redone (you could look at starbow for inspiration). It would require too much of testing and all that stuff and i don't think blizzard would want to invest time and money into that. Real shame. There is a reason why TvT, TvZ and were 2 most fun matchups in WOL.
2. "We waited too long to patch in WOL" REALLY? I think you ruined the game by patching too soon in WOL (especially in the early days). Completely destroying tanks because they were too good on Steppes of freaking war. When bigger maps came, all you could do against protoss was bio. Hardly a "strategic diversity". Oh and i remember broodlord infestor in TvZ. They didnt do shit about it for 6 months until koreans figured a counter (mass raven). And it worked. I thought they'd learn from this and wouldn't patch the game every other week.
3. Micro. Oh well. Kinda hard to distinguish yourself with micro if you're a protoss eh? Thank WG for that. And no, spamming forcefields or storm isn't micro. The only real micro protoss has is blink micro or prism micro. Funny that the most "amazing" micro that you can distinguish yourself as a terran is marine vs bling, which was NOT intended by blizzard but a player figured it out. TvZ is such a great MU because of a NOT intended micro. We can be thankful for that "anomaly" because with protoss there sure as hell isn't any room for unique micro.
Maybe next time Blizzard. You made a great game but not a brilliant one this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
