|
On December 16 2014 16:22 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 16:10 swissman777 wrote:
But mind you guys, too much balance tweaking and map changes are bad for pro-level players.
Can't comment for pro players, but I feel more regular but smaller tweaks to balance would be the way forward. Perhaps in a similar way to how windoze gets monthly patches. Rather than having a buff to widow mines, then a nerf, just give a unit a small nudge, see how things work out (let's not forget that maps factor in a big way with balance) Going forward and how the change has effected meta etc.
Having the game constantly changed makes it even more complex. Which is what we not need if the game should be easily understandable for new players or player who don't play every day.
|
On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me.
Only so many guys would buy the campaign. Then you cannot afford to make such big campaign because the income generated is much less. So the scope or quality of the campaign is not as good, leaving us with standard DLC-like content instead of a fully-fledged campaign.
Starcraft 2 is developed as a traditional, full-price game. It is not an f2p multiplayer game with some DLC single player content.
Many games are still rated by their single player content. To get a good metacritic score, or to be even present in all the media, one should have a game with a strong single player component.
|
On December 27 2014 08:27 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me. Only so many guys would buy the campaign. Then you cannot afford to make such big campaign because the income generated is much less. So the scope or quality of the campaign is not as good, leaving us with standard DLC-like content instead of a fully-fledged campaign. Starcraft 2 is developed as a traditional, full-price game. It is not an f2p multiplayer game with some DLC single player content. Many games are still rated by their single player content. To get a good metacritic score, or to be even present in all the media, one should have a game with a strong single player component.
I dont know, I think a lot of people would pay for the campaign. Also, I don't think sc2 as a traditional full priced game. I mean if you look at hots vs wol, what did they add? 2-3 units per race + skins (although that was pretty half-assed). They could have added that in WoL, so we're essentially paying for the campaign + the extra units dlc.
|
On December 24 2014 06:01 clickrush wrote:That is ofc true. But a large portion of the community up to the casters and pros want more competitive regions outside of korea. I personally couldn't care less from where the top players are comming from. The viewer numbers are apparently the highest when theres a korean vs forgeigner finals at a major tournament. Korea's Esports interests are now closer to the distribution we see globally (while still being the number 1 place for SC2 and now also LoL). But Korea being more globalized in terms of Esports now (having the best LoL teams and the biggest LoL following) is a good thing because it gives more attention to the teams. They are also investing in more tournaments now such as the SSL and the Proleague, so in terms of competitive content SC2 has benefited from the general growth of the teams (the Proleague is sponsored by SKT and the production style and value as well as the on site fans are very similar to the BW Proleague). Also the EU scene has a range of very consistent and successful tournaments, teams and organisations. Literally the only scene which is "struggling" and "on decline" is the NA scene but it has allways been the weakest in terms of competitive gameing throughout Esports history. Somehow NA manages to hype up really really fast and then falls off really fast. A weird phenomenon which probably has to be looked at more closely. The strong side of the NA scene is content creation surrounding Esports but less so winning competitions and maintaining a strong competitive scene apparently. All that said, it is mindboggling for me to hear a couple terms such as "doom and gloom" / "dead game" etc. especially in comparison to BW, because in fact SC2 is a global Esports success. I have no idea where these terms come from but I assume they are NA inventions and as they have the best content creators and the most famous personalities, those terms get kind of broadcasted into the global english speaking scenes. And in the bottom line is that most BW comparisons to critisize SC2 are just meme like below the belt attacks without any real value, reasoning or even content. Their only purpose is to be negative and come off as hipster because the cool kids like BW more than SC2. These people often don't even followed or played BW because if they would then they had actual things to say. SC2 made alot of very good steps away from BW and over time it also learned some of the things back (such as competitive maps). There are interesting relationships there we can explore though. For example the economy changes Blizzard is working on atm are things ppl on these boards have discussed and analyzed extensively and is largely influenced by what we know and learned from the differences of SC2 and BW, same for the maps. But we don't do that on the basis of saying "BW is generally better in any way so SC2 has to be more like it". The discussion goes way beyond that and I was amazed by the fact how deep and interesting it is. Poeple also seem to forget how many things SC2 has improved design wise. Apart from the better UI and Utility surrounding the game we also have more options as in units, upgrades and army compositions which are viable and competitive in the game which is largely exciting.
BW comparisons to criticize SC2 are not a "meme". It's because SC2's game design pales in comparison to BW (if Blizzard listened to the community terribly designed things like Colossi and warpgates and the SC2 economy system would've been changed 3 years ago) and lacks a lot of the things that made BW a decade long king.
I honestly think people who got into the SC scene with SC2 need to stop dismissing BW-related criticism.
|
On December 27 2014 01:48 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 01:32 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:On December 27 2014 01:09 [PkF] Wire wrote:On December 24 2014 04:23 clickrush wrote:
Their patching history is incredibly smart when it comes to balance (the result shows this). I nearly had a heart attack. Of course the results show this ; when a race is doing well, it gets nerfed, when a race is doing bad, it gets buffed, so that the percentages become balanced again. Smart, huh ? What the 33%-33%-33% obsession forgets is whether those patches are actually good for the game. I don't think the game in its current state has improved a lot over WoL : mothership core, muta regen, speed medivacs... are bad things that happened to the game (for the sake of "more action packed games and abilities based units, hurray"), and the game is being balanced around them today. It's a catastrophe. I cant remember when it was, but earlier this year when terrans were struggling they randomly buffed oracle speed? Might not have been that one particularly but I remember couple of patches which came completely out of the blue. This is true as well. Hence I don't really understand how one can call their patching history "incredibly smart". Their passivity during the broodlord infestor era was also infuriating and HotS additions were unneeded and in the end mostly harmful.
If anything, I believe that Blizzard's pathing history shows that they do not have any special insight or super decision making. They have a history of making a lot of poor balance changes (the whole Widow Mine thing is a giant mess) and also has delayed certain patches for way too long.
I would also argue that more frequent patches is a more interesting way of keeping the community interested than balancing via maps.
|
The fact that they are changing the economy system in LotV speaks for itself. I would have loved it, if they would have reduced the hard counters, so players could actually micro more with every unit instead of just massing the counterunit.
|
I think you guys need to be reminded that, according to Blizzard, SC1 was a total fluke and it was good not by design, but by chance.
|
I switched from playing and watching SC2 to fully playing and watching CSGO purely because I'm tired of 2 hour ZvPs where nothing happens for 1.5 of those hours and TvP late-game where T has about a 5% chance of actually winning (salty past T player here).
|
On December 27 2014 09:02 DemigodcelpH wrote:
BW comparisons to criticize SC2 are not a "meme". It's because SC2's game design pales in comparison to BW (if Blizzard listened to the community terribly designed things like Colossi and warpgates and the SC2 economy system would've been changed 3 years ago) and lacks a lot of the things that made BW a decade long king.
I honestly think people who got into the SC scene with SC2 need to stop dismissing BW-related criticism.
DemigodcelpH, I don't think you read all of clickrush's reply. He never said he was 'dismissing BW-related criticism', what he said was that most of the comments about BW vs SC2 did not have any real value, reasoning or even content.
He even stated a good example of Blizzard learning from BW to create SC2
For example the economy changes Blizzard is working on atm are things ppl on these boards have discussed and analyzed extensively and is largely influenced by what we know and learned from the differences of SC2 and BW, same for the maps.
Another thing totally unrelated to this thread, but please don't assume that Blizzard doesn't listen to us. I don't understand where this misconception of Blizzard sprung from, but its completely false. They have stated countless times on the Battlenet forums that they read a lot of the discussions going on across content published on the Internet. They just can't respond to everything. There is way too much stuff on reddit, battlenet, and tl alone.
They are reading this discussion because a lot of other people have provided great insight.
As well, you have no idea how clickrush got into the Starcraft 2. You are only assuming because you are trying to defend BW the moment someone seems like they are dismissing the criticism.
Sorry if I am being over critical, and please don't feel I am trying to be aggressive towards you. I just wanted to point out some fallacy in your statement.
Regarding dlc campaign, I fucking love that idea. I think its great! dlc campaigns work for The Walking Dead video game, I feel like it can easily work for Starcraft lore. Imagine a series of campaigns linked the lore, linked to a UMS map, and then linked to the Starcraft movie (I hope this does happen!). Make the UMS maps free, but to get the story you have to buy campaigns.
|
On December 27 2014 10:26 Hider wrote:
If anything, I believe that Blizzard's pathing history shows that they do not have any special insight or super decision making. They have a history of making a lot of poor balance changes (the whole Widow Mine thing is a giant mess) and also has delayed certain patches for way too long.
I would also argue that more frequent patches is a more interesting way of keeping the community interested than balancing via maps.
You are absolutely right, Blizzard's patch history proves they don't have any insight. They have made bad decisions, sometimes voiced by many within the community, and have tinkered too much with the balance.
I do agree frequent patches will keep the community interested, but it is probably easier to balance the game through maps. And as many others stated before, too many changes fucks with the game and makes it more complicated for some players.
Here is an example, I went to a family Christmas party and spoke to a cousin who played SC2 but hasn't touched it in a long time. I was talking about widow mines, and told him about the changes, and he was confused. He had no idea they did shield damage.
That's why they prefer to balance via maps.
edit: correction on the widowmine change.
|
On December 27 2014 15:18 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 10:26 Hider wrote:
If anything, I believe that Blizzard's pathing history shows that they do not have any special insight or super decision making. They have a history of making a lot of poor balance changes (the whole Widow Mine thing is a giant mess) and also has delayed certain patches for way too long.
I would also argue that more frequent patches is a more interesting way of keeping the community interested than balancing via maps. You are absolutely right, Blizzard's patch history proves they don't have any insight. They have made bad decisions, sometimes voiced by many within the community, and have tinkered too much with the balance. I do agree frequent patches will keep the community interested, but it is probably easier to balance the game through maps. And as many others stated before, too many changes fucks with the game and makes it more complicated for some players. Here is an example, I went to a family Christmas party and spoke to a cousin who played SC2 but hasn't touched it in a long time. I was talking about widow mines, and told him about the changes, and he was confused. He had no idea they could remove shields. That's why they prefer to balance via maps.
They don't remove shields... they do damage... which shields get hit first...
|
On December 27 2014 15:24 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 15:18 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 27 2014 10:26 Hider wrote:
If anything, I believe that Blizzard's pathing history shows that they do not have any special insight or super decision making. They have a history of making a lot of poor balance changes (the whole Widow Mine thing is a giant mess) and also has delayed certain patches for way too long.
I would also argue that more frequent patches is a more interesting way of keeping the community interested than balancing via maps. You are absolutely right, Blizzard's patch history proves they don't have any insight. They have made bad decisions, sometimes voiced by many within the community, and have tinkered too much with the balance. I do agree frequent patches will keep the community interested, but it is probably easier to balance the game through maps. And as many others stated before, too many changes fucks with the game and makes it more complicated for some players. Here is an example, I went to a family Christmas party and spoke to a cousin who played SC2 but hasn't touched it in a long time. I was talking about widow mines, and told him about the changes, and he was confused. He had no idea they could remove shields. That's why they prefer to balance via maps. They don't remove shields... they do damage... which shields get hit first...
Yes I meant they do shield damage. Sorry my bad.
|
On December 20 2014 23:47 Noro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2014 21:11 Zealously wrote:On December 20 2014 20:48 Schakal111 wrote:
Sc2 is not fun at all.. Bnet 2.0 you feel lonley, the arcade system ist very static and boring, the games are very stressfull (larva inject, timewarp, creep spread etc), and the defense ist shit(too many damage from units). If your a casual u want to lean back, putting some defense feel save, dont click every seconds on the timewarp button etc., Bw was the better game, skill but more fun too, if you dont like 1v1 you play big game hunters or hunters FFA, very fun games. Hate this new style. It seems a little strange to say that when BW most certainly required more clicks to maintain baseline macro/production. Lets not fool ourselves by claiming BW wasn't stressful. I agree. It's the nature of the beast for 1v1 games. There are so many high profile games on the market now that are team games, and that require very little mechanical skill to succeed at, or to at least have fun with friends. I think people may need to come to terms with the fact that SC2 became massively popular because these other massive team franchises hadn't really emerged yet. SC2 made esports known to so many people but as soon as other options presented themselves, everyone was quick to jump ship - hence the bubble pop. I don't think SC2 will ever experience the amount of growth it had in the first couple years again. It's up to Blizzard whether or not SC2 maintains the fan base it has now. Any meaningful growth might be wishful thinking.
If kaitlyn, ms spyte, and maddelisk would agree to personally mentor young male teen players, then you would get a lot of interest, but the problem is you know, Uhm male teen hormones when a good looking girl comes within 100 meters, and all those student teacher scandals. And you know evolutionary biology
|
Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly.
MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system.
Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model.
|
On December 27 2014 08:56 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 08:27 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me. Only so many guys would buy the campaign. Then you cannot afford to make such big campaign because the income generated is much less. So the scope or quality of the campaign is not as good, leaving us with standard DLC-like content instead of a fully-fledged campaign. Starcraft 2 is developed as a traditional, full-price game. It is not an f2p multiplayer game with some DLC single player content. Many games are still rated by their single player content. To get a good metacritic score, or to be even present in all the media, one should have a game with a strong single player component. I dont know, I think a lot of people would pay for the campaign. Also, I don't think sc2 as a traditional full priced game. I mean if you look at hots vs wol, what did they add? 2-3 units per race + skins (although that was pretty half-assed). They could have added that in WoL, so we're essentially paying for the campaign + the extra units dlc.
That is more or less my argument.
They need to have everyone to pay to justify the cost.
|
On December 28 2014 07:27 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2014 08:56 phodacbiet wrote:On December 27 2014 08:27 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 15:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 16 2014 15:46 Musicus wrote:
Definitely an excellent read, it won't directly affect Blizzard's way of doing things, but it's good to show that we care. Can't remember when the last time was that something got upvoted that high on r/starcraft.
Sadly sc2 came out as a full prized game and people expect (rightfully so) a complete game, with every future content to be free. With LotV being standalone I don't think that will change, since only a free multiplayer would allow microtransactions. But I hope they will at least provide better rewards for playing/laddering even if we won't be able to spend money ingame. I don't really know why they couldn't do something like free multiplayer / pay for campaign. I guess the product is too far along for that, but in theory that sounds good to me. Only so many guys would buy the campaign. Then you cannot afford to make such big campaign because the income generated is much less. So the scope or quality of the campaign is not as good, leaving us with standard DLC-like content instead of a fully-fledged campaign. Starcraft 2 is developed as a traditional, full-price game. It is not an f2p multiplayer game with some DLC single player content. Many games are still rated by their single player content. To get a good metacritic score, or to be even present in all the media, one should have a game with a strong single player component. I dont know, I think a lot of people would pay for the campaign. Also, I don't think sc2 as a traditional full priced game. I mean if you look at hots vs wol, what did they add? 2-3 units per race + skins (although that was pretty half-assed). They could have added that in WoL, so we're essentially paying for the campaign + the extra units dlc. That is more or less my argument. They need to have everyone to pay to justify the cost.
Yeah, to me HotS was an expansion released for SC2 solely because they released BW for SC1 and charged people for it. There's really no other reason to have done it and it would've made a lot more sense like you said to have just updated WoL with HotS stuff originally.
|
On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model.
They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval.
What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level.
It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes.
This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data.
I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2.
As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years.
|
On December 28 2014 08:41 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model. They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval. What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level. It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes. This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data. I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2. As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years.
Well MTG also advances the story through each set. I don't think the community would mind patches if they were more planned in advance, or had some sort of story arc to them. Like if everyone knew that every year would have a dramatic patch around the same time of year then it would just become the norm. Then it's more like a mini-expansion. That hypes people up.
But either way, I was not suggesting a direct translation of models.
|
On December 28 2014 13:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 08:41 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model. They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval. What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level. It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes. This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data. I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2. As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years. Well MTG also advances the story through each set. I don't think the community would mind patches if they were more planned in advance, or had some sort of story arc to them. Like if everyone knew that every year would have a dramatic patch around the same time of year then it would just become the norm. Then it's more like a mini-expansion. That hypes people up. But either way, I was not suggesting a direct translation of models.
I don't think you understand the problem with your development model.
Starcraft 2's development model is not to make drastic changes over and over. The goal for it's development is to make as few changes as possible, until you don't have to make any more changes. Once the game gets to a state where changes aren't necessary, Blizzard will have successfully balanced Starcraft 2.
Following MtG's development model, Starcraft 2 will never be balanced. It will be forever in a flux of chaos and randomness.
As I said before, MtG keeps making changes because each change brings in more revenue. For Starcraft 2, each change means more cost. Blizzard will go broke if they tried your approach.
I understand you like the idea of constantly shaking up the meta, and maybe for another RTS game that model could work, but it would absolutely destroy Starcraft 2.
|
I do like how people here just think getting data is a problem and that if Blizzard had "data" all the problems would be solved (or most). The real problem Blizzard has isn't a lack of feedback from the community or its refusal to listen to the community, its the very simple fact that it has too much feedback and separating quality posts from shit tier posts, then being able to keep the community involved in a productive manner (good luck with that). Basically if the community was actually interested in improving the game, rather than just saying they are (which I see a lot of generic comments here) then the game might actually improve.
Here's the thing though, don't confuse BW nostalgia with quality design, and that's not something I trust people to be able to discern.
And Magic is something completely different, there's a relatively small sandbox for people to test in for that game compared to real time games such as this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
