EPTI also dislike the tone.
But i gave up mid ways so i won't argue. In fact it seens like i agree with a lot of the substance there.
Razzia of the Blizzsters - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Warning for everyone in this thread: I WILL moderate your posts very harshly from now on if you can't have a civil discussion. | ||
|
Superbanana
2369 Posts
I also dislike the tone. But i gave up mid ways so i won't argue. In fact it seens like i agree with a lot of the substance there. | ||
|
Tictock
United States6052 Posts
On April 13 2015 08:14 Para199x wrote: I've tried to write a (still quite long) TL;DR with only the content of the post. Why oh why would you do this? "Where is the Meat?" He asked while holding the skeleton. | ||
|
Cele
Germany4016 Posts
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: LotV has no business being a mere reform. It needs a revolution. Only then can we complete the list above and say, a few years from now on: Legacy of the Void was a revolution for Starcraft II. That article was a great read, i agree with most of whaht you said here. What puzzles me infinitely: If you see the issues with SC2 that clear and if your perspective on the "Blizzters" is so clear, where does your hope stem from that things will change in a meaningful way- giving a game room to develop on it's own- refuse the hard counter system- navigate towards a player game instead of a spectator game- move away from hyber agresssion and hyper effectiveness towards a slower paced game where decisions- thus skill matters more? What makes you think the Blizzters have incentive to make according changes even if Dustin B. read your article right now and wholeheartedly agreed? There is no reason to hope so. 1) LotV will sell, despite all it faults and despite the isses you see 2) The "Esport" drama will continue, with arbitrary pushed and maintained events, competion and "best games of the year" writeups. 3) After that, incentive to move this game in another direction will stop, no additional patches will come, no big events will be pushed anymore. To me, that seemed inevitable 2 years ago, and it predestined now. I don't see the worth of wasting myself into making a ill-designed game better when the game creator is unwilling to take necessary steps. | ||
|
Gaius Baltar
United States449 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
Hopefully Blizzard will heed the call and make LOTV what it could become. | ||
|
Maniak_
France305 Posts
On April 13 2015 08:19 knOxStarcraft wrote: Here's a crazy idea; why doesn't everyone who wants sc2 to be BW2 go play the fucking custom map scbw or starbow and leave sc2 to the people who actually like it. You want to know the real enemy to sc2? It's whining. "Fuck you Blizzard toss op. Fuck you blizzard deathballs wah. Fuck you blizzard too many abilities. Fuck you blizzard game too ez, but too hard also. etc. etc.". One of the reasons someone like stephano has so much success is because he finds solutions to what other people whine about. Especially whining about how the game is completely hopeless less than two weeks into a long beta, to which basically no one has access. I played a few games of the beta (sorry, I'm one of them :/), got completely wrecked every time. Everything was going much too fast for me. So do I blame the game? Nah, I'm just really, really bad at it, basically haven't touched the HotS ladder at all and have no idea what I'm doing. That and either there's no matchmaking yet or it needs a lot more players/games to work properly. No matter what, the game will be too fast for most players anyway. That doesn't matter much for non-pros, they'll be matched against same level players who can't do 1/10th of what's possible either. Pros are pros. If the difference between the best of the best is based on pure mechanics instead of tactics (if that was the case), that's where the best pros in that category will shine. Boosting up the skill ceiling based on mechanics instead of tactics is arguable (and again, we're less than two weeks into the beta) but it's a design decision. Some like it, others don't, in the end that's Blizzard's choice. Look at ZeromuS' article. It addresses a specific issue, with big changes that may already be too big for what Blizzard intends with the beta (hopefully not though), but it does so by clearly explaining of this works, of this could work, and by actually giving options and alternatives to be tested. And it's well written (granted that's subjective, but everything in this entire topic is subjective). It's not "this game sucks, the designers are stupid and don't know what they're doing, everything is crap, they should change the entire game and design it my way". This is just random whining. There are already tons of posts like that (the number of words doesn't make it magically different or better, far from it), there are obviously many who agree with it, but it's still not part of any solution. What's the point of all this? Revealing the big secret that when you have less time to do something you have less time to do it? Raising awareness for the masses that some people don't like the game design of SC2 and just know they'd do a better job than Blizzard at making their own games without giving any constructive or practical ideas? Wow, color me impressed. I did not know that. | ||
|
Para199x
United Kingdom40 Posts
On April 13 2015 12:12 Tictock wrote: Why oh why would you do this? "Where is the Meat?" He asked while holding the skeleton. Because I made a list like this just to be able to get any coherence from that thing at all, other people aren't so patient. There are a lot of good (and bad) points raised in the original but I find the style really ugly (though obviously bearable, hence I got to the end). The list I made is no less ugly to me but for people who can't make it through the original it is, at least, shorter. | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
On April 13 2015 16:28 Maniak_ wrote: ... Look at ZeromuS' article. It addresses a specific issue, with big changes that may already be too big for what Blizzard intends with the beta (hopefully not though), but it does so by clearly explaining of this works, of this could work, and by actually giving options and alternatives to be tested. And it's well written (granted that's subjective, but everything in this entire topic is subjective). It's not "this game sucks, the designers are stupid and don't know what they're doing, everything is crap, they should change the entire game and design it my way". This is just random whining. There are already tons of posts like that (the number of words doesn't make it magically different or better, far from it), there are obviously many who agree with it, but it's still not part of any solution. What's the point of all this? Revealing the big secret that when you have less time to do something you have less time to do it? Raising awareness for the masses that some people don't like the game design of SC2 and just know they'd do a better job than Blizzard at making their own games without giving any constructive or practical ideas? Wow, color me impressed. I did not know that. Yeah Zeromus articles has beautiful graphs, but it doesn't bring anything new (uvantak had done almost the same article 2 months ago) nor solves any issue consistently because, to quote Zeromus himslef : On April 13 2015 05:33 ZeromuS wrote: To be honest, I am 100% okay with trying this being critical of it and deciding its shit. If it turns out after 2 weeks to just be strictly worse I accept this reality. If it sucks then I'll admit I wasn't right (not necessarily wrong, just not right as I think breaking the 2:1 pair in SOME way is the best way forward), and move on with my life. I'm not so married to this that I'll give up on SC2 if it doesn't get implemented. I just think its worth an experiment. If it turtles too fast or the pace of the game is too quick we can tone down the mineral income and try to sneak it that change in and slow the pace of the game on the battle field. He just *thinks* 2:1 ratio is a major issue and would *like* to see other models tested. It's up to you to think the same or not, and to go and test the thing by yourself using the available mods. TheDwf though tries to adress the flaws in the meta and the flaws in the unit design, and bring very detailed points about why some units are good and some are bad. It adresses questions such as : - is it ok to favor hard counters over soft counters (LotV banshee, LotV ultralisk, ...)? - are some "no risk abilities" game breaking (MSC recall, sieged tank in medivacs, ...)? - how does time reducing lowers the control by the players? - what are the most common kind of flaws in units deisgn in sc2 and how to solve them? and uses as a main explanation for all this, the fact that game designer favor viewers over players. Calling it random whinning, just shows that the article was too long for your attention span and failed to read it throughoutly. No shame about this though, it took me five times to completly read it, and I still have some paragraphs to read again  | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
On April 13 2015 08:19 knOxStarcraft wrote: Here's a crazy idea; why doesn't everyone who wants sc2 to be BW2 go play the fucking custom map scbw or starbow and leave sc2 to the people who actually like it. You want to know the real enemy to sc2? It's whining. "Fuck you Blizzard toss op. Fuck you blizzard deathballs wah. Fuck you blizzard too many abilities. Fuck you blizzard game too ez, but too hard also. etc. etc.". One of the reasons someone like stephano has so much success is because he finds solutions to what other people whine about. maybe if the custom games and arcade section weren't a complete fucking mess it would be possible to arrange those games. | ||
|
Maniak_
France305 Posts
On April 13 2015 18:29 Gwavajuice wrote: Yeah Zeromus articles has beautiful graphs, but it doesn't bring anything new (uvantak had done almost the same article 2 months ago) nor solves any issue consistently Of course it doesn't solve everything. Who would be arrogant enough to proclaim he knows exactly what Blizzard should do to fix everything? He gives his opinion, his analysis, his suggestions, all while being clear and respectful to pretty much everyone involved. That's a constructive article. He's not trying to impose his views on everyone, he's actually trying to promote discussions, most importantly to promote discussions *with* Blizzard. Shitting on Blizzard, calling everything crap and only appealing to those who already think the same without bringing anything to the table on the other hand, that's useless. On April 13 2015 18:29 Gwavajuice wrote: TheDwf though tries to adress the flaws in the meta and the flaws in the unit design, and bring very detailed points about why some units are good and some are bad. Have you seen anything in there that's new? Anything that has not been whined about since the first day of WoL ? Where are the proposed solutions? I'm not talking about useless "they should just change everything to make it the way I want it", but actual specific practical improvements that have any chance at all to be looked at? I'm not saying there are no points in there. Some may even be valid from my point of view. But that's just it. A subjective point of view from someone who doesn't like the game, doesn't like the design choices, and is more than happy to ramble on this until the end of times without doing anything actually productive about it. Riling up the people who don't like at least some of the same design choices is useless. Doing it using fancy wording and standard marketing/politic/debating bullshit (cute names with which to label and ridicule anyone who doesn't agree? Check) is both useless and stupid. Also there's the very probable and simple fact that Blizzard may simply not want to make SC2 into a game approved by Dwf. They may be pretty happy with the orientation they're giving LotV. Who's to say they're wrong? Why should they care about what a random TL poster thinks, no matter how many words he uses, when all he does is shitting on everything they've done and are still doing? This is just a list of a lot of complaints that have been made over time, subjective, justified or not, without bringing anything new, presented in a package filled with bullshit. It's not helping. It's just validating a *lot* of whine. Then again, that's just my subjective opinion. If others find this entertaining or even helpful, good for them. But I'd rather see more ZeromuS articles. At least those have a chance to be useful. On April 13 2015 18:29 Gwavajuice wrote: Calling it random whinning, just shows that the article was too long for your attention span and failed to read it throughoutly. No shame about this though, it took me five times to completly read it, and I still have some paragraphs to read again Mmh I've been reading (even writing) longer articles before BW even existed, that's not a problem But I have this thing where if a writer can't be bothered to write properly, or even... *shudders* be respectful of his readers, I can't be bothered to read it. Though it's funny to read comments debating the merits of this post based on things like "I think what he wanted to say is" and other "what I think he means is". Great indicator of the quality of writing there. It's not difficult to understand and thought-inducing because it's anything profound. It's difficult to understand and irritation-inducing because it's been badly written. Except for those whose already established opinions this validates. Utterly unnecessary. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Though it's funny to read comments debating the merits of this post based on things like "I think what he wanted to say is" and other "what I think he means is". Great indicator of the quality of writing there. Why is that funny? Its perfectly normal. When someone makes something, a movie, a text, a theater. People can view it different. Some will understand, some will not understand. Its a human trait. I suggest that you, instead of writing empty words brings some examples as to why he is writing bad. If you already have done that i apologise but right now, the outsider i am, all i see are empty words. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
But only being able to practically do maybe one thing on an extremely unforgiving timer before tech develops past the point where being aggressive is useful really sucks I think this is more of an issue with unit-design than timer. E.g. if Hellions only have utility early game, then its a design flaw. Thus, the issue here is hardcounter interactions rather than "speed". Also, I think we should seperate speed into attack speed, movement speed and production speed. They are vastly different concepts with different consequences, and I was primarily adressing the idea that the movement speed in Starcraft 2 is too high. When someone makes something, a movie, a text, a theater. People can view it different. Some will understand, some will not understand. You don't go into a movie or a theater to learn/improve your knowledge of a certain subject. But when you make an article intended to analyze the flaws of Blizzard, you should write in such a way so the target group easily can understand your message. | ||
|
Maniak_
France305 Posts
On April 13 2015 21:10 Foxxan wrote: Why is that funny? Its perfectly normal. When someone makes something, a movie, a text, a theater. People can view it different. Some will understand, some will not understand. It depends on what you're taking this post as. If it's just philosophical musings on what one may or may not like in the design of SC2, then yes, it should be open to interpretation and cause debates around it. If it's supposed to be a very specific list of issues in SC2 with ideas on what should/could be done to improve the situation, then it should be clear, with precise points. I'm looking at it from this latter angle. On April 13 2015 21:10 Foxxan wrote: I suggest that you, instead of writing empty words brings some examples as to why he is writing bad. If you already have done that i apologise but right now, the outsider i am, all i see are empty words. It's already been brought up by others, I didn't see the need to repeat it. Basically the complete lack of structure, of direction, the (apparently intentional) obfuscation of any point with piles of fancy wording that bring nothing, underneath it all the simple rehashing of the same old complaints that have already been made by many others since the beginning of SC2, the pretentiousness of the whole thing, ... As was pointed out before in this thread, good writing also implies being able to be clear and concise. This is not. As a philosophical dissertation sure, but not as an article intended to do anything to improve things. And if this is not meant to improve things, what's it for? It's great for those who already agree, can read it over a loooong time and nod their heads every time one of their complaints is validated. And it serves no purpose there. For everyone else, the writing is an obstacle to understanding and discussing the contents. In my book, that's not what good writing is about. No matter what your personal, more comfortable style is, when you want to convince people or at least promote discussion, you should know and target your audience. Make things as easy as possible to understand, in order to help those discussions. Not purposely complicate everything to then laugh by yourself while watching others fight over what you meant. Are those words less empty? Edit: fixed mobile keyboard trickery | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 13 2015 07:43 Nebuchad wrote: 1), the idea that skill is expressed better in slowness is entirely wrong. Indeed. That's why it's completely absent from the text: + Show Spoiler + Where the delicate balance and tangle between “mechanics” and “strategy” relies on making sure that mistakes occur both from the user (who must always crave for time, but reasonably) and his opponent (whose main job is to actively try to force more mistakes from his second nemesis) Multitasking is the primary and highest “skill stretcher” because the time constraint makes it difficult/impossible to perfectly combine those elements. necessary RTS equilibrium between “total control” (pure strategy) and “zero control” (pure luck). (A contrario, if we give too much time, control becomes too easy—control becomes total.) There are different temporalities within the game which have to be carefully calibrated to ensure the survival of control and, ultimately, sense. You're confusing skill and control; or rather, you think that I said skill = control. But absolutely not! Excessive stretching of time kills skill too! Which is why I am still rolling on the floor laughing about their attempt at “halving the dps of all units in the game”. I sure hope that it was a mere lie to appease the “community” and that they didn't actually waste a single second testing that… You're confusing two different events in the chess example; (a) skill in playing the individual games in the simul, and (b) skill in playing the whole simultaneous exhibition exercise. Contraction of time has a reverse effect on those two events; if (a) is lower then (b) is higher and vice versa. You're probably overthinking things. The idea is very basic, it's just that the implications are complicated and subtle because time in SC2 is much more than the timer. You can just go play a game and you'll intuitively understand what I meant in Spaghettification. This is also why players hate spikes. Technical artefact, but pure illustration of the contraction of time. Thing is, even when SC2 is fluid, there are tons of micro-freezes that you no longer feel! 2), the LotV car doesn't go faster. There is no "contraction of time". There is a removal of time. The remaining time advances at the same speed Nope. Paradoxical and plural nature of time in RTS. Time ≠ game timer. If there is no contraction of time, explain this. You say we just remove one minute or so at the beginning, yet we end up at max saturation 2 minutes 30 earlier. How? | ||
|
Startyr
Scotland188 Posts
does not fully describe the interaction between the amount of skill, the skill that can actually be used and displayed and the time available to utilise that skill. | ||
|
manwiththemachinegun
5 Posts
Though the key criticism of how the exponential, unfettered growth in production screws up the pacing of the game is fair. What are the solutions though now that adding apm sinks is out of the question? Bringing back the upkeep system from WC3? Making supply depots cost more? Removing early safety units like the queen to slow down the snowballing? I thought there would be more discussion along those fronts to be honest. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12163 Posts
On April 13 2015 22:41 TheDwf wrote: You're confusing skill and control; or rather, you think that I said skill = control. But absolutely not! Excessive stretching of time kills skill too! Which is why I am still rolling on the floor laughing about their attempt at “halving the dps of all units in the game”. I sure hope that it was a mere lie to appease the “community” and that they didn't actually waste a single second testing that… Then you can't just say "this is bad because time is contracted", which is what you're doing in the first few paragraphs. You have to provide an explanation as to why we're on the bad side of the curve and not on the good side. You're confusing two different events in the chess example; (a) skill in playing the individual games in the simul, and (b) skill in playing the whole simultaneous exhibition exercise. Contraction of time has a reverse effect on those two events; if (a) is lower then (b) is higher and vice versa. And where am I confused? The capacity to do (a) well isn't impressive for a GM. A lot of players can do it. The capacity to do (a) well in the context of having to do (b) is what creates the performance. Which is why (a) should be considered much less relevant than (b), in your analogy and in starcraft. Nope. Paradoxical and plural nature of time in RTS. Time ≠ game timer. If there is no contraction of time, explain this. You say we just remove one minute or so at the beginning, yet we end up at max saturation 2 minutes 30 earlier. How? cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 13 2015 12:59 Cele wrote: That article was a great read, i agree with most of whaht you said here. What puzzles me infinitely: If you see the issues with SC2 that clear and if your perspective on the "Blizzters" is so clear, where does your hope stem from that things will change in a meaningful way Yeah... Well, as I said, the text is pure unintended design. I had no intention to leave the Outer Rim, but it simply jumped from my fingers by accident. I don't know what it will achieve, if it even succeeds in doing anything. I have no particular illusion or expectation. Checkmating the Blizzsters on balance was trivial but moving this one mountain is far, far more difficult; partly because the big cat in the arena doesn't realize that he's fully at the heart of the problem too. Tons of people think that Blizzard is simply clueless and don't know what they're doing, etc., but that's not my view anymore. Despite the numerous accidents, blunders, failures and backfires they do have a vision. Otherwise the S part of RTS wouldn't be deconstructed stone by stone. So, yeah, this is the message of the text. Which is why posts like this are tragically hilarious in their own way. To paraphrase a famous sentence: L'Histoire rit de ceux qui déplorent les effets dont ils chérissent les causes; History laughs at those who deplore the effects of which causes they cherish. Some do criticize Blizzard fiercely but actually adhere to their vision. This is the only way we get things like this (just one example among many). But in the end, as I wrote: “As you sow, so shall you reap.” Pffft... The last words from Aragorn's mother: “I gave hope to men, I have kept none for myself.” | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
 | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On April 13 2015 23:48 The_Red_Viper wrote: The click bait style of this text made me not read it click bait? How? This is the antithesis of clickbait d: e : I mean when you read the title, see the image and read "Spaghettification" it may seem a bit clickbaity, but once you'll read one or two paragraphs you'll understand that it's really not. | ||
| ||
