Note: the text includes elements/parts from this post, which is why you may have feelings of déjà vu.
Note 2: some parts of the text are not easy, so read carefully.
Changelog: fixed one English mistake. Thanks to Beelzebro! Fixed another English mistake. Thanks to hewo! Fixed another English mistake. Thanks to bblack!
Spaghettification
1
All things being equal, doubling the amount of workers at the start of the game naturally leads to an increased rhythm of development; but contracting time fatally means less possibility of control from the user. Contracting time = less control = more “time-based” mistakes = increased randomness. Strategy relies on planning, which means enough time to think. If the RT part of RTS is violently compressed then the S withers away too by force. 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), the current direction LotV is taking is very dangerous. LotV's new temporal environment skews the original allocation to the point that players might essentially fight and defeat… themselves. The winner might increasingly be the one who merely capitalizes on a severe, spontaneous blunder generated and immediately aggravated by time pressure, rather than being the one who manipulates his opponent into making that mistake. The interaction between players that creates the game and its tension is in danger, replaced with mere “punishing mechanics” based on forced loss of control.
2
WoL started as a one base fest; LotV is now going down the route of starting with 3 bases by default. Maybe there is a middle ground between those two extremes? Why would diversity be an issue? If early game was deemed as problematic—but who decreed that, and on whose authority?—exactly why would the necessary cure be its removal? Next time your arm is itching, remember not ever to fetch a Blizzard physician: their solution would be to amputate. Surely this way of thinking sounds very advanced for the Ostrogoth medicine at the height of the fifth century, but what about 2015?
Ironically, this frantic pattern of forced expanding may backfire and result… in increased passivity. Since the efficiency of harassment during the 3 bases phase will be reduced by hyper-development, even with the new tools on steroids, players may simply elect instead to proceed with their macro activities before being forced to consider confrontation because of the time bomb. In the end, the change might prolong the “passive period,” artificially filled with an explosion of semi-automated actions. Scouting might end up weakened too, with sudden, wild tech switches becoming the norm thanks to the increased mass of ressources stored each minute. Players might still build their max army, then dance around uncomfortably (knowing the initial clash would be the end as all alive expansions are nearby), and eventually proceed with the ritual sacrifice.
Harassment tools cannot be the answer to this problem: (1) either they're powerful enough to stop hyper-development by themselves, in which case the game will simply turn into a worker hunting contest (see for instance WoL TvT before the Blue Flame nerf); or (2) they're not, and hyper-development will prevail at first before being brutally stopped during the 4+ bases stage (where spread bases become too hard to defend, resulting in a sudden collapse of economies). Should the ETA balance be properly re-calibrated, the central question would still be untouched. A common complaint is that harassment tools are already too destructive: players are frustrated by the speed at which their mineral lines evaporate under the fire of various tools. But what is that debate, if not the one of control?
3
The economy of the SC2 player revolves around three aspects, which are Dexterity, Attention and Knowledge. All of them are tested through the trial of Time. This is why intense multitasking pushes players towards the limit. Multitasking is the primary and highest “skill stretcher” because the time constraint makes it difficult/impossible to perfectly combine those elements. There are indeed set, physical barriers that find their source in the limitations of the human body. Resources like attention and eaps (effective actions per second) are not indefinitely extensible. For instance, currently, eaps has a soft cap at 4 (on average). Even DRG on steroids would not reach 5. There is no measure for attention, but past a certain threshold it's similarly impossible to answer the excessive influx of information; hence why even pros, whose discipline aims at managing the economy of attention in the most efficient way, regularly miss stuff on the minimap or even on their very screen.
So what happens when multitasking becomes intense, when the rhythm increases? Players lose control and blunder. The problem with the current LotV economy is that it does not contract time punctually, but globally. This means players will control less and less what happens in the game: over-contracting time by force can only disfigure the necessary RTS equilibrium between “total control” (pure strategy) and “zero control” (pure luck).
Yet SC2 already suffered a lot because of the time razzia. No more than four words are needed to define its motto: speed instead of depth. The “excitement doctrina” ended up trying to artificially conceal the shallowness of its new strategic conceptions with a violent contraction of time, just like the immense plot holes of all bad blockbusters are partially hidden by shiny “new” special effects, wild camera moves and sheer propaganda. They call this bogus approach “innovation”. In their fantasy, it's probably supposed to look flash. LotV is currently going even further this way, with the consequence that the competition would further be compressed due to the narrowing of the array of skill. The theoretical skill ceiling shall be higher than ever, yet of course absolutely unreachable; thus the practical skill ceiling, i.e. what humans can achieve best in reality, will crumble.
This is what happens to skill when you contract time towards zero. It shrinks and ends up disappearing. Fatally, skill gap follows the movement.
The theoretical skill ceiling in SC2 is infinite and out of reach, and thus does not matter at all; you could indeed always try to micro each of your individual units, but the absolutely massive diminishing returns make it worthless in practice (not to mention you have other, more important things to do). What matters is thus the practical skill ceiling, i.e. how far you can push human limits to achieve the most within a given time frame. Contracting time does raise the skill floor (the threshold of difficulty) but it decreases the practical skill ceiling too (the potential room for mistake-free play). Therefore, it contracts the skill gap itself: on average, the authentic skill difference between players produces less and less difference in actual results, which means that players become increasingly closer to each other and have less and less ways to differentiate themselves. The terminal phase of this movement is the very disparition of skill.
Think about how you could try to win against a world champion. In the picture above, the world champion's skill is the huge orange star at the left. Your own skill, I am afraid, is that tiny little white star at the right. You can't magically make it grow, so how do you erase the skill gap? You could for instance try handicaps. The champion would start with penalities, for instance less pieces in chess or less workers in a SC2 game. But then, you quickly realize this doesn't work. You didn't suppress the skill of the champion, so he still beats you. He humiliates you. You're a rancorous, vicious creature; you want to win. You can of course make the handicap heavier to make his skill impotent, but it remains obvious you simply won because he had considerably less tools at the start of the game. So you use another way to achieve the same goal—a more subtle, wily approach. You attack his very faculties in order to destroy skill at its heart. He would still retain his theoretical skill—the huge orange star—but he would not have the practical means to “enforce” it. Therefore, his practical skill would decrease to the size of your tiny little white star, and you would have “fair competition”. For instance, a world chess champion would simultaneously play against 120 amateurs with only 3 seconds to play per opponent; the violent contraction of time (at least 1:120) would make him lose control, and thus his pratical skill would considerably decrease to the point a strong amateur would probably be able to challenge him (despite the same event being a no match in normal conditions). In SC2, the amateur could set a 50% handicap on the hit points of the champion's units: not only they would be weaker, but more importantly he would have less time to control them, so his superior “micro skills” would be nullified.
Think about driving a car. What happens at 30 km/h? You're still in control. Now increase to 50? Still fully doable, but your margin of error does decrease. Now increase to 70, 100, 150, 300, 500—at some point the accident can no longer be avoided and even the best drivers enter the realm of the “unforgivable”. The simple fact that you maintain your driving activity makes the crash inevitable. You lose control and you make mistakes by force. This mechanism is “the contraction of time”. Blitz chess is another dazzling example of that: pressured by time, world-caliber players start making absolutely grotesque, newbie-like blunders. Contracting time decreases the quality of play, even if the competition can somewhat stand for a while (though increasingly turned inwards, towards oneself). Should you proceed for too long in that direction, skill itself would start to disappear, replaced with the functional equivalent of luck.
Sorry to insist so much, especially as the mechanism is a priori simple, but it's absolutely critical to understand the heart of the swindle. The question is not at all whether chess is a turn-based game while SC2 is RT. The mechanism is strictly identical in both cases, it's simply translated differently—and in a much more complex way—in RTS (where the “time factor” is retroceded in various domains). Take for instance Marine vs Baneling splitting within a set time frame; say, 3 seconds (after that, your commands are greyed out). First mission: splitting 6 Marines vs 12 Banelings. Second mission: splitting 12 Marines vs 24 Banelings. Third mission: splitting 24 Marines vs 48 Banelings. The theoretical skill ceiling was unchanged: losing 0 Marine (assuming stim and offcreep). Why did the practical skill ceiling rise? Because “time pressure” was increased. Intuitively, we see that past certain thresholds, everyone will more or less fail, so “skill” will increasingly be replaced with luck: players will simply box frantically everywhere and random stuff will happen. Control will be lost. (A contrario, if we give too much time, control becomes too easy—control becomes total.) There are various ways to “contract time”: give less actual time, increase the amount of actions to perform, increase the movespeed or damage of the units, etc.
Macro-wise, this phenomenon lies in the speed of development (economy, production, technology). In LotV, the main accelerating factor is currently embodied in economy.
Supernova
4
How did we come to this?
SC2 bears all the glaring flaws of a “forced child”. The original Blizzsters didn't try to make a good game, they tried to make an esport. That was the original sin of SC2. What had once been reached by accident would this time be fully enforced.
The SC2 crew thus asked itself, “what makes a good esport”? What makes it exciting? And they came up with 4 different points. It needs to be (1) watchable, of course; (2) simple; (3) skill-based; (4) uncertain.
In short, the SC2 crew was plagued with a common disease of the ill-named “modernity”: they thought backwards. Their previous work had “delivered excitement” because of its inherent quality. Here, work would focus on building that excitement. But as the SC2 crew would learn over years, one does not simply force things. Neither genius nor passion can be faked, and the best intents often backfire.
If the SC2 crew doesn't stop thinking that way, the original sin of SC2 shall remain its eternal curse. What do players want? Do they want an “esport”? Do they want a balanced game? Hell no. They want to have fun. In a competitive environment, where does fun come from? This is easy to determine as the endless legions of ragers flood us with daily information about that. If we consider the most common expressions/sources of rage:
(1) Balance complaints (2) “No skill low apm” (3) Build order losses and cheeses
(1) What do balance complaints tell us? Surprisingly, nothing. There is indeed the case of mirrors. In fact, this is where the complaints are sometimes by far the most violent. The traditional culture of rivalry between races of course leads to spectacular explosions of rage, but if “balance” was truly the problem we would not notice this phenomenon among mirrors. Yet it's there; and, what's more, it may even be stronger. “This is not about balance,” says Mr. Rage, “it's about design”.
(2) When Mr. “450 apm” rages at his “no skill low apm” opponent, he actually deems unfair a certain “over-efficiency” of the user input, i.e. the ease at which Knowledge is translated into victorious actions.
(3) Why do people almost universally hate build order losses? Because the loss has become unavoidable, sometimes purely because of external factors. Why do some people hate cheeses? Because the loss is brutal and likewise inevitable past a certain threshold.
Those phenomenons are linked to the same “too easy” theme. What is “too easy”? It is “no control needed”. “Ez race” = no control. “No skill low apm” = no control. “BO loss” = no control. “Luck” = no control.
We now have the solutions to all the “primitive issues” stemming from the Original Sin. In their original approach…
[The game] needs to be (1) watchable, of course; (2) simple; (3) skill-based; (4) uncertain.
… the Blizzsters blundered badly:
(A) They confused “simple” with “simplistic”. Hello, hardcounters. What is the characteristic of a hardcounter? Too efficient = too easy = no control. Mechanics were a target of the simplification process too. Mechanics were made easier, which “paradoxically” resulted in less control.
(B) “Uncertainty” was conceived as “pure randomness” and thus “luck,” instead of coming from the clash of skill. Luck = no control.
(C) Their very definition of “skill” was in the end doubtful. “Skill” was conceived in an unilateral way. The interactions were not taken (enough) into account. “Skill” meant making the right choice (building the right “counters,” using the right spell, etc.). The SC2 crew failed to conceptualize that 1 + 1 = 3. Control was not well allocated between players. This is the only way a spell like Force Field ever made it into the game. No interaction = no control from one of the sides. In the end, skill was increasingly conceived as (a) learning things by heart and (b) “dealing with luck,” which is to say… learning how to “roll the dice”. More luck = less control.
(D) As a result of this, “watchability” came to suffer. Symbolically, what wrongly came out first was the first thing to be affected. People are only interested in watching if there is, on average, significant control involved. “Watchability” is not a mere “visual aspect,” it's a mental operation. To be watchable, things don't only need to be “pretty,” they also need to make sense.
SC2 IS FRUSTRATING BECAUSE IT REMOVED FAR TOO MUCH CONTROL FROM THE PLAYER.
Control vs loss of control. Self-explanatory, really.
5
One example of the tragic aftermaths of the “holy esport mantra”: fundamentally, where does the “12 workers at start” idea come from? It comes from the “tyranny of the spectator”. Mr. Viewer is not happy with the downtime at the beginning of the game. But Mr. Viewer does not ask himself if the player is happy with being immediately rushed into action. Maybe the player liked to have this small downtime, maybe he “stupidly” liked to micro his workers on mineral patches, maybe he liked to think about his opening and the strategy he would use; maybe he liked to chat with his allies in team games; maybe he was bored indeed, but could then think about whatever he wanted; or maybe he never gave too much thought about it. Mr. Viewer does not care; he wants to consume esports. Mr. Viewer ends up being blasé because he has actually hundreds of hours of content available; but the quality is not quite there; therefore, Mr. Viewer wants to further maximize his utility. Plagued with the second common disease of “modernity,” short-sightedness, Mr. Viewer does not see that his short-term demands may spectacularly backfire in the future (see part I), fueling an “always more” drug-like logic, piling up artificial entertainment upon forced excitement in a rabid succession of blurry, shiny images. What will Mr. Viewer then do, once he's tired of the spectacle? He will say, “This game is shit” and sail away.
Where is the fault in Mr. Viewer's reasoning? He does not see that what is good for the player is generally good for the spectator, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Think about it. Emotional factors aside (which are a huge deal), where does the pleasure in watching SC2 come from? From the control players have. Why are spectators upset by “anticlimatic” ends or games? Because the loser was lacking control. Fortunately, most of the time, stars line up and the “interest” of players and spectators is the same. But the sense of the relationship is player → spectator, not the reverse.
Take for instance football (soccer), the current number one sports in the world. Football is unintended design. Football is an accident. Football was not “created for spectators”. Various forms of “proto-football” were once played; people acted during centuries and their collective action ended up creating what we now call “football”. Then, it ended up being increasingly institutionalized, standardized. Then the “ballon rond minds” started thinking more and more about “spectators”. They didn't start the process with, “well, how are we going to make the spectacle shiny? Shouldn't we attach a bunch of fireflies to balls so the competition looks neater? Shouldn't we craft the ball out of some slippery material to create excitement for the spectator?”
I mean, what is fundamentally interesting in watching players pushing a goddamn ball over freaking grass for 90 minutes? What is fundamentally interesting in watching two players throw a tiny yellow ball at each other during hours? There is no intrinsic interest in those activities; they're arbitrary. You watch this because you were interested; you were socialized into a certain activity, you ended up liking it and you built your interest out of that. “Spectating” is an emotional and mental operation. If you don't know the rules of a game, for instance, you cannot watch; you're blind. You look at colors, forms, movement, but you don't understand. You're not a “spectator,” you're a corpse. Sense is your true eye.
6
Back to SC2. Think about the various negative feelings many of its own players have towards it. What makes the game frustrating? What makes it stressful? What creates the so common ladder anxiety? “Competitiveness”? No. (Or rather, not only.) Some people affected by this in SC2 are competing outside with no problem whatsoever. What lies behind all of this is the lack of control. You know you are going to lose, of course; but above all, you know that you will lack ways to manage that. Therefore, over time, a good part of the so-called “community” gradually turns into episodic players, full-time spectators. Some of those spectators tend to forget how playing feels. Besides, unlike the player who acts and lives the action, the spectator is passive and powerless. He has no way to impact what happens within the game. Yet he's not necessarily happy with what he witnesses. So he asks, especially as he knows he's been placed on a golden pedestal. He asks luxury patches, he asks changes, prone to formulate demands which further remove control. Too happy to pursue their razzia, the Blizzsters oblige.
Didn't it occur to you how suspicious it was that Blizzard started playing the “I have understood you” chorus more and more? Look at this—don't you find it extremely odd that Blizzard suddenly appears to be in touch with reality? Look at the titles: “More action, More harassment options, Incentives to go on the offense, Micro opportunities on both sides, Army vs Army Micro, Differentiate player skill better, Improve weaker design units/abilities”—should we make a poll about it, what African dictator score would this program get? 98%, 99%? Who can say no to such good intents?
So, things are straightforward. Either (1) the SC2 crew was suddenly stricken with a “holy revelation” on its way to Heaven or (2) there's a huge snag. Considering they spent 5 years refusing to listen to many sensible things, only giving way with the greatest reluctance after prolonged user-based campaigns, common sense tells me to vote for the “huge snag” option.
How do demagogic politicians deceive fools so fools keep voting for them? They talk about High Values such as “Democracy,” “Freedom” or “Justice”; then, once elected, they give the keys to the banksters—that is to say, when they're not banksters themselves. Here, it's the same thing: they talk about “Action,” “Aggression” or “Micro”. You, as a spectator, think about your average SH game; and of course you buy that. But all of this is the functional equivalent of a manipulative operation since you forgot about the historical linking, the actual chain of events. For instance, where do Swarm hosts come from? In broad outline, to deal with turtling “deathballs”. Why did “deathballs” come to exist? Ultimately because of a set of decisions aiming at pleasing the crowd, i.e. at crafting something that was “good for spectators”. The ingenious sophism from the Blizzsters is to use the spectator as a solution to the original problem that was… the spectator.
Why did SC2 purposefully, systematically remove control from the user in various domains? Because the Original Blizzsters thought that (1) spectators come first; (2) spectators must be excited; (3) excitement = randomness.
Our enemy has no face, no voice, yet its shadow is immense and it rules absolute. It is by far the best tyrant because it is an impersonal tyrant. You can find it everywhere; it is slippery, deceitful, yet oddly efficient in subtle ways. It is “Mr. Viewer”. Not only does Mr. Viewer's Roman-like, built-in mischievous joy directly conflicts with the activity of the traditional big cat that is the player, but it even colonizes the big cat—which, increasingly acculturated to the slightly sadistic environment, ends up climbing the terraces to give the thumb down… at himself!
SC2 was made as an esport, i.e. as a game of spectators. But a game is not played by spectators. A game is played by players. A “game of spectators” is a contradictio in adjecto. It can only fail. It failed. It is now time to set things right. Paradoxical as it may be: for the sake of the spectator… the spectator must withdraw. SC2 has to be made as a game of players. Not only spectators are already there, but they will massively flood in (or come back) if things are set right at the design table—where players are the priority, and spectators should eat the leftovers. Blizzard has indeed the priceless chance to be supported by a very patient “community” because of the emotional bond from the early years.
LotV will completely fail if it keeps removing control from the actual user. LotV will only succeed if it restores control to the actual user.
Players need to take back control.
Meteorite bombing
7
Creation is characterized by “unintended design”. When you create something, it always goes beyond what you first imagined. The idea takes off and you no longer control it. Creation is this flickering synergy. This whole text, for instance, started as a mere 4 lines remark on an obscure subforum. Then it expanded uncontrollably to become a fierce prosecution case against the self-sustaining system initiated by the Blizzsters.
Being a RTS designer is a strange experience. Regardless of how clever you are, you always end up being a fool. You need to end up being a fool. You carefully craft something, you plot for hours and days and nights and weeks, you are the Machiavellian Master. Then the user selects your toy and breaks it. For instance, the first designers—naive by necessity—once crafted this common thing now called “defensive building”. “Since people attack,” they thought, “they will also need to defend—we'll give them special tools for that”. And so Defensive Towers were born. Then, as soon as the alpha tests began, this happened:
Shock and stupor. The player is not at all interested in using the defensive building for defence. He immediately uses it… offensively. Yet, if you think about it, this was perfectly logic; this was even silently announced. What happens as soon as there are rules? People cheat. The implicit rule of a defensive building is, well—“it's for defence”. But players, mischievous imps as they are, do not want to hear about such rules. So, they flip the table and go Tower Rush. In short, players appropriate themselves the tools they were given, manipulate them and turn them against their very “intended use”. This process is perfectly natural. In our domain, you cannot and should not be a “dictatorial designer”. This is another contradictio in adjecto. You're a creator. Your destiny is to be a fool. You craft the cocoon, and then you let the butterfly go.
Unfortunately, the Blizzsters were heavy-handed, and the intrusive creationist approach is a huge problem in SC2. This is directly correlated to the original philosophy of the “holy esport mantra”. As a result, the SC2 crew is trying too hard. They need to relax, really. More control for the player = less control from the designer. This does not mean less work; this means working better. The main problem with many SC2 creations is that they come with attached, internal “directions for use”. But the instruction manual cannot be a 800 pages treaty, nor should it be excessively incorporated into the unit itself.
Especially as spontaneous emergence always finds a way: we remember Colossi being sold as this sick “cliffwalking raider” or Swarm hosts as this exciting “siege breaker”. Tell us more about that? Unintended design always happens. It cannot not happen. It happened countless times in SC2 and will happen again. Even with the easiest and dumbest tools ever, players will find ingenious ways to “cheat”. Goblins are made to outfox Orcs. The problem is that accidental creation is a two-edged sword: it can turn good, but it can also go very badly. Oh, Swarm hosts did end up being a siege breaker in the end. The Blizzsters simply forgot to mention the siege would last years.
I spoke about the “control architecture” within the game, but it also exists around the game. In fact, it is no coincidence if this “omnipotence paradigm” can be felt everywhere. A third trait of “modernity” is that power in a given field tends to become increasingly intrusive because of hyper-rationalization. Blizzard wanted to control everything. This is why there is no LAN, this is why everything had to go through Battle.Net with a single account, this is why they were eventually forced to create WCS. But you cannot control everything. The more you try to maintain your grip, the more you need increasing power to seize what inevitably tries to slip out of it. The terminal phase is that you end up choking what you wanted to control.
The expansionnist project has to stop somewhere. There should even be retraction.
8
The SC2 designers had probably little idea about what they were doing when they forsook the “mechanical barriers” from SC1. Now it takes 3 times the effort to even think about vaguely viable stuff because “smartcasting” threatens to make every spell over-efficient, the pathing engine makes army stacking explosive, the unlimited unit selection makes it extremely easy to maneuver and capitalize on advantages, etc. Thus quality of design has to fully compensate for every single of those aspects. This is not undoable by any mean, but it's hellishly hard. As you sow, so shall you reap.
Any decrease in the “mechanical difficulty” department has to be compensated somewhere in strategic complexity, otherwise it's far too trivial to put the “Knowledge” aspect into actions to reach victory. But as people would realize over years, strategy is intimely connected with mechanics. If I can't take my whole army and walk across the map in 30 seconds to vaporize everything, then I have to capitalize on my victorious engagement in another way; this leads to more refined tactics, and eventually higher strategic complexity. Where mechanics are excessively simplified, strategy ends up crumbling too: triumphant entrance of the “1a” paradigm.
“Macro mechanics” were one of the attempts at recreating a mechanical barrier setting apart gods from mortals. Unfortunately, by trying to fix a problem it merely shifted it: macro mechanics ended up increasing the severity of the trial of Time. Macro mechanics indeed all speed up development.
Toning them down directly is a possibility: reducing the amount of minerals MULEs harvest, reducing the amount of larvae produced, reducing the increase in production boost. But it can also be done indirectly. Macro mechanics were once partially “bolted”. For instance, quick 3Nex, 3 hatch or 3OC builds were once unplayable as a standard. But a succession of patches, maps changes and strategic improvements increasingly made them the norm. + Show Spoiler [Details] +
In ZvP, the generalization of FFE openings, then the MSC increased the basal rhythm of development. In TvZ, the Queen patch was an abrupt accelerator (even if there was a natural movement in progress). In TvP, maps encouraged 1 rax FE, then the MSC similarly terminated a few openings which held up Protoss' development. Mirrors are the least affected.
. On average, games now tend to adopt a high speed of development (“hyper-development”). As a result, people declare them “stale” and are not satisfied with how they play out. But why is that? Because hyper-development cruelly underlines the original sins of the fundations.
9
The original pact of SC2 was “less burdensome mechanics, more exciting action”. But kicked out through the doorway, mechanics do come back through the window. What do people consider the “best micro”? What is considered the most “exciting action”? The ones that require the most difficult “user inputs”—the ones where the situation itself recreates… the limited unit selection. Think about individual Blinks. Think about splitting Zerglings against Mines or Marines against Banelings. The common point between those interactive actions is that you don't select your big blob to perform a collective action. You select a small part of your army to do an efficient, precise action. This is actually one of the rare points in which SC2 has reached an improvement by accident—the increased contraction of time can lead to more tense micro.
Thus it is no accident if AoE was the main factor in the emergence of new “micro mechanics”. But then, there's still the problem of (1) contraction of time and (2) ease of use, i.e. brainless AoE juggernauts evaporating stuff too fast. This is why the Colossus, for instance, is considerably inferior to Siege Tanks; the latter requires finesse thanks to the inherent tension of the Siege Mode, while the former almost never does and is fine operating in autopilot most of the time. This is the difference between “burst damage” with vulnerabilities (including friendly fire!) and “dps” in an all-round body; this is the difference between a unit which can be manipulated at will by the opponent (catching it unsieged, forcing Siege, getting close, turning its fire against the owner, etc.) and another one which necessarily ends up being the nodal point of a hardcounter system. Of course, past a certain threshold, both raise firepower issues; but fundamentally they're very different in the way they function. The Colossus is literally the anti-Siege Tank.
(A brief summary about what's wrong with Blizzard's conception of micro here)
10
Changing relations between things to add/recreate interesting interactions and/or mechanics is quite simple as the original “versatile core” is still fully present. Units have indeed tons of modifiable variables: mineral, gas, supply, production time; hit points, attack, armor, range, turn rate, damage point, etc. They can all be used to fix many of the current issues (along with drastic changes in the way the economy works). There are a few fundamental flaws with SC2 unit design. Non-exhaustive list:
Which can be summed up as: (1) too blurry, (2) too big, (3) too easy, (4) too harsh in its specialization. Many SC2 units lack versatility in a needed area, but are over-efficient in another given domain. The accumulation of flaws leads to the worst type of unit ever: the low-skill, over-specialized, over-expensive hardcounter.
“Excessive bastardization” is when the identity of a unit ends up being clouded and weakened with counter-intuitive attributes. Example: light infantry is typically weak regarding hit points, cheap and massable. Adding beefiness to Zerglings would for instance make no sense. Example: a piece of artillery is typically costly, slow, fragile and powerful. But the “culture of the bastardization” does not want to hear about “weaknesses” (necessary weaknessses) and rounds things. Besides, contraction of time naturally takes its toll on an inherently slow material like the artillery. So the designers take a piece of artillery and put it on steroids, increasing its attack rate and giving it special movement; this bastardization is then called “improvement,” with the designers failing to see that a piece of artillery without the traditional weaknesses of a piece of artillery makes little sense.
“Excessive inflation” is when the various costs—mineral, gas, supply, production time—are set too high for no valid reason, blocking cumbersome amounts of resources. Example: the first Colossus costs 200/200 (robobay) + 300/200 (unit) + 200/200 (range). Example: the Thor as a big fat slow unit instead of a 2 supply, medium-sized mobile walker. Example: Roaches and Hydralisks as 2 supply creatures (while their role would rather put them at 1), Ultralisks as a 6 supply mammoth. Excessive inflation = less control about the allocation of resources, including army positioning (you can split three Goliaths, you cannot split a Thor). Why do people hate the Colossus? Because the Colossus is like banksters from Wall Street: “too big to fail”.
“Excessive automation” is when the unit itself does things you should do yourself. Examples: the moving shot from Phoenixes or Cyclones under “Lock On”; Charge from Zealots; how Zerglings surround (partly). Excessive automation = less/no control.
“Excessive asymetric efficiency” is fairly straightforward and leads to various over-specialized hardcounters, too efficient in some domains while almost useless in others.
There are other things to consider such as critical mass, excessive synergies, the sharpness of the efficiency-time curve (for instance, in WoL and HotS Roaches were fundamentally a 3b all-in unit), etc.
All of this is a question of equilibrum. Just like for venom, “the dose makes the poison”. Not all units can be made equally used and equally interesting at all the phases of the game, of course (for instance, I don't consider the necessary rarity of capital ships an argument against their very existence), but there's definitely room for improvement for tons of them, before even thinking about new units.
11
Take for instance the Banshee. In LotV, the Banshee was given a new upgrade, “Hyperflight Rotors”. It increases the Banshee’s movement speed by 1. What is Blizzard's reasoning? “Banshees are not used enough, so we'll make them uncatchable by ground units; this way, people will build more Banshees; this way, their opponent will be forced to build the existing anti-air counters, which belong to the underused units as well”. This reasoning is fundamentally aberrant as it will invariably lead to the well-known HotS early game TvP Oracle problem, triggering a forced chain of reactions instead of giving freedom to the user with versatile tools. Initially, Blizzard even considered 7 range Banshees—what kind of nonsense is that? Such extreme measures could only beg for more hardcounters. One needs to be much more subtle.
Why wouldn't you start with simple tweaks to the Banshee such as decreasing its cost? One could, for instance, decrease the cost of the Banshee from 150/100/3/60 to 125/75/2/50 (possibly increasing Cloak cost to 125/125 so the initial investment cost of the first Cloak Banshee remains untouched; it depends on what tests would say). What do we achieve with that? (1) We don't alter the current interactions involving the Banshee; (2) we encourage players to mix in more Banshees because of the reduced costs; (3) it's easier to send small squads of Banshees in different places of the map; (4) we don't force the opponent to build specific counters, for instance Corruptors, Vikings or Phoenixes.
12
The example of how the SC2 crew dealt or intended to deal with the “Mutalisk problem” in WoL PvZ is highly symbolic of their approach. Mutalisk is problem? Solution is counter. Mutalisk is problem? Solution is “Phoenix with range”. Mutalisk is problem? Solution is “anti-air AoE Tempest”. They don't think about subtle changes like manipulating the dynamics of the match-up. They don't think, “maybe the problem comes from the fact that Zerg reaches those huge Mutalisks flocks too easily”. They don't think, “maybe the asymetric speed of development is the problem”. They say, “Mutalisks are the problem”. And, since players are tired of losing to mutas and (legitimately) end up raising their fists, asking for blood, they comply. They give the “counters”. Of course, they are hardcounters. Consequence of the new hardcounters when the game evolves? Mutas become cheesy, builds/counters become coinflippy and no one is happy.
The Mammoth in the Room
Another example of “dictatorial design,” look at the evolution of the Ultralisk.
I mean, seriously… what's next? Marine bullets healing Ultralisks?
Why would the “solution” to whatever was deemed problematic ever be to turn the relation into the most extreme form of hardcounter? Please don't think this is a racial demand: it also stands true with the Zealot, and even within ZvZ itself! (If it ever goes to that stage, that is.) Why would you further lock the Ultralisk into the role of a juggernaut when you could simply remake it as a lower supply variant, quicker and more agile, and increase its statistics that way if need be? Why can't Zergs have the gracile units their very race calls for? Why does Life's ultra micro have to be barely more efficient than the (inexistent) one from a low master?
The reasoning is always the same. Stop using versatile units. Build hardcounters. Problem is Ultralisk. Solution is Thor. Build Thor. Problem is Ultralisk. Solution is Cyclone. Build Cyclone. Right click Cyclone so Ultralisk doesn't kill Cyclone. The result of the intrusive creationist approach is a game of cubes. You insert cubes of different shapes into other cubes of different shapes according to the will of the designer. This is insulting for players, this is unworthy of Starcraft. Starcraft is not a game of cubes.
“But you don't understand, if we don't do things like this Terran stays on bio 24/7, as they did for years because bio is OP!” (1) Terran doesn't transition to mech from bio and vice versa; (2) why do you want to force players? (3) you witnessed bio the majority of the time for 5 years because the SC2 crew refused to properly (re)build mech, and instead promoted horrors like camping into mass Ravens, which is not mech; (4) Protoss and Zerg too would be forced to build whatever hardcounters they have against the new mammoth on steroids.
If the problem is really “Marines OP” or “bio OP” or “Terrans being lazy bastards and wanting to counter everything with Mariners,” then ask yourself why the hardcounter system is everywhere to be seen. Ask yourself why ZvP has frustrated both sides for years despite regularly featuring way more unit diversity than TvT or TvZ. Or keep sleeping and enjoy your game of cubes.
*
Completeness is the natural consequence of the intrusive creationist design. Players are dispossessed from their own creative potential and only have to apply the instruction manual. But players, whatever they might say out of bad faith after defeat, do not want to apply the instructions of a manual. They want to find their own solutions within the given frame. They don't want the game to be created “solved,” they want to solve the game themselves. SC2 suffered because the “completeness of the circle of the counters” is inherently an inflationnary process leaving less and less room for the player.
Completeness is toxic for the game. Structural holes are what makes things interesting. For instance, Terran would stop being Terran if they received some metaphysical horror like the “tech reactors” from the campaign or static defence (or more brainless melee units). Having those structural holes within the architecture of the race is what defines it. Working around structural holes is players' job.
13
Yet what is the motto of the Blizzsters? “Forging ahead regardless”. What are new units? A false debate.
They may or may not be good, useful, “imbalanced,” etc. But the real debate lies elsewhere. For instance, let us examine the new units from HotS: Hellbats, Mines, Swarm hosts, Vipers, the MSC, Oracles, Tempests. As HotS moves towards its twilight, what units proved to be absolutely inescapable and positive for the game? Were Tempests (initially conceived as an AoE anti-muta unit…) necessary considering the Carrier remained in the gutter for 5 years? As for units that did see a lot of use, did they truly stand the trial of time? If not, can't they be further improved? After all, Hellbats, Mines, Swarm hosts, the MSC and Oracles became a staple of certain match-ups.
Consider for instance 4M replacing Marines/Tanks. There was a huge amount of confusion about why Marines/Tanks was no longer viable in standard HotS TvZ. People brought up the new muta regen, Vipers, the original beta nerfs, bigger maps, etc. All true, but what was the final nail in the coffin? Tanks were killed by hyper-development. Marines/Tanks in TvZ started being in serious troubles in May 2012, because a traditional piece of artillery coming from traditional means of production is absolutely unable to survive in a “modern” environment of hyper-development, threatened (1) to be overwhelmed by hords of cheaper, easily reproducible units and (2) of obsolescence because the opponent might rush superior technology. + Show Spoiler +
Terrans kept using Tanks because at this time, they had nothing else.
This is why the Mine ended up being a deployable Tank shot on steroids. The Mine was the answer developers found to the post-Queen patch environment of hyper-development. Naturally, violence calls for violence. Why did the Balance Team choose the Mine to nuke Protoss domination in PvT during the Zparcraft days? Because in their minds, the Mine was logically the best tool available to deal with that violence: it was perfectly fit for that environment. Unsurprisingly, past a certain threshold of violence, options disappear. In LotV, the SC2 crew has the opportunity to morph back the Mine into what it was supposed to be, a semi-mobile zoning support tool. They can turn it into a 1 supply variant, they can tweak its damages and AoE, they can remove all of its bonus damage to shields. Yet I see no notes regarding Mines.
The MSC is a typical case of crude design. Instead of reorganizing the basic Gateway/Warpgate tech tree to deal with the issues Protoss was facing, they added a Swiss Knife hero unit (initially, it even had detection!) and ruined what could have been a good idea, i.e. a microable flying unit with moderate harassment and scouting possibilities in the early game. Then, they keep building on top of this shaky fundation.
Oracles are a typical case of a good intention that ended up failing (1) because the “deathball model” was not broken and (2) because it was implemented according to the “excessive asymetric efficiency” logic. Interactions with Marines are, for instance, considerably reduced compared with a Banshee because of a few wrong values (damage, range, damage point).
Another thing to consider would be Medivacs picking up Tanks in Siege Mode. Of course, semi-teleporting Tanks look good; besides, it is mechanically demanding; it brings micro and multitasking. But in the end, won't its very violence kill the thing? Won't it trigger people to use hardcounters such as Phoenixes openings so they're not exposed to that? Besides, is it really the role of an artillery unit to smoothly move around with considerable mobility? Why would the core unit of a composition which should be less maneuverable by default (mech) have access to hyper-mobility? This kind of conception sounds like the typical “trap for viewers” to me, a deceitful Colossization of the Siege Tank. It may backfire.
In the end, it is no coincidence if neither the Warhound nor the HERC even made it. What purpose did they fulfill? Exactly why would Terran need Protoss bodies among its ranks?
So, when assessing new units, the first question one should ask is: what does this unit do that an overhaul of the already existing ones—especially those who are underused—can't? And aren't we heading towards a leveling of the necessary landscape?
Wouldn't a logic approach be: first reorganization, then innovation?
The Fault in Our Stars
14
Promoting aggressive multitasking means promoting low-medium risk, low-medium reward operations. Huge risk leads to deathballing: why would you move out if you risk losing everything, which means immediate checkmate? Multitasking is thus heavily affected by parameters like “excessive inflation” or “excessive defender's advantage” coming itself from “excessive efficiency in aggressive tools”.
“Low risk” does not mean “zero risk”. Zero risk = zero interest. Zero risk finds its source in the flawed, unilateral conception of “skill” discussed above (part II). 1 + 1 = 3. Interaction prevails over narcissistic joy. The opponent needs some room to have control too.
Current examples of bad/dubious concepts tending towards zero risk: Recall from the MSC; Warp Prism pick-up range; Release Interceptors from the Carrier; Tactical Jump from the Battlecruiser; uncatchable units; possibly Medivacs picking up Tanks in Siege Mode; etc.
15
Players need time for proper multitasking. If you have 10 tasks to perform in 3 seconds, you may for instance score a 8/10. If you have 15 tasks to perform in those same 3 seconds, you will fail them even more, which in the end will discourage you from even trying because you know you won't have control. One of SC2's problems is that, at times, the game punishes aggressive multitasking because of hyper-development. It is simply better to allocate your user resources to passive building rather than “being cute”.
Paradoxically, the game needs to be slowed down… so players increase the rhythm themselves with multitasking. What needs to be slowed down is the speed of development, not the global clock itself (= you don't need to put the game on “fast” instead of “fastest”). This is why WoL was “slower” than HotS despite game speed being untouched. This is also why WoL TvZ became considerably faster post-Queen patch. Just like in physics, matter itself “contracts time”: in SC2, for the player, a fight with 80 units is much faster than a fight with 20 units. Yet the associated stake is often higher. It is thus better if players reach the “80 units” stage later (gradually). In short, smaller battles with incremental gains instead of systematic big battles crowning the victor. This is what the SC2 crew is trying to do, but they're taking the wrong route with the rabid game of starvation and over-destructive harassment tools to compensate.
16
Derisory control requirements is why camping into 1a out of zero attention tools is universally despised. But special caution must be paid to the situation: the fundamental problem is neither “aggression” nor “defense”. Blizzard has not understood why aggression can be good or defence can turn bad, which is why they have given birth to various horrors that mutilate the game because of their unbeatable operational effectiveness in either of those sides. Aggression can be hollow, same as defence can be skillful. Thus, the “all aggression = good” doctrina makes no sense. Early WoL PvP was strictly built upon “constant aggression”; ask Protoss players if it was a satisfactory match-up.
Hence the necessity to find the right equilibrium between attacking and the legitimate defender's advantage. Certain concepts tend towards an inherent attacker's advantage (e.g. Warpgate, boost Medivacs, muta regen), which is fundamentally absurd. The attacker has the privilege to choose when and where he attacks, so the defender obviously needs “counter-privileges”. Defender's advantage comes from various things like terrain (ramps, chokes), superior vision (information), unit formation (concaves), closer production, artillery units, etc. Spoon-feeding players with specific units like the MSC is crude.
17
Asymmetric design is another area where dosing mistakes prove lethal. In itself, the principle is sound as it ensures one of the sides has interest in moving out on the map to capitalize on its strong windows. But if asymmetric design is poorly implemented, particularly on the back of a flawed economy, the stronger side on the long-term will simply play the clock and camp, knowing its odds at winning passively raise with each passing minute. This will prompt the weaker side on the long-term to focus everything on early or midgame, eventually all-inning before the Xth minute because its odds are too terrible afterwards anyway. Many match-ups fell into that kind of trap during the history of SC2. Mapmakers are held hostage by such considerations and cannot perform miracles…
Stardust accretion
18
What is the only thing more obnoxious than the “tyranny of the spectator”? Its twin brother: the excuse of the “casual”. Have you noticed how the mythical “casual” is a strange creature? Quite oddly, it is clever enough to pull out the credit card to buy the game, but after this the casual becomes the most fragile butterfly whose wings were ever to disturb the ether. It must be cherished and pampered like a spoiled brat. Everything becomes so “confusing” and “complicated” for the casual. The casual, for instance, cannot understand that there are several starting locations on the map. It cannot understand that there are different resources layout for bases. Yet it intuitively understands far more complex phenomenons. Even more impressive, the casual knows how to find his bearings in the current Battle.Net, a performance which cheerfully pulverizes the feat that is bird migration. The casual, however, cannot experiment. If it's a child, it's quite a slow one. Everything must be fed to the casual. He must be kindly guided, step by step, towards the Holy Graal. The casual cannot use his brain; absent-minded butterfly, he has mislaid it. A good thing breathing is autocast, or the casual would forget about it and die—poor, miserable creature born to suffer and pass.
19
Time is our enemy in more than one way. The slow movement of plate tectonics occurs beneath our very feet, so we don't feel it. Each year, there will be a “best 40 games of the year” election that will crown a victor. We barely remember what playing was like the last year, so we may spontaneously think that each passing year is an increasing success. Mental saturation through information bombing takes its toll on our very ability to measure the quality of the game.
False debates are our second enemy.
The debate is not whether or not Cyclones are “OP”. Of course they are. How could the bastard son of the Warhound and the Phoenix avoid its genetic fate?
The debate is not about “buffing is good, nerfing is bad,” as if you couldn't make catastrophic changes to the game with ill-conceived buffs or open tons of options with well-targetted nerfs.
The debate is not whether or not “SC2 is dying”; SC2 as an esport, that is. Pure creature of the “tyranny of the spectator,” this soporofic theme is for long known as null and void—don't we have the undying assurance of John Bain's favorite appendice?
The debate is not about “racial polarization”. The classic balance debates between Protoss, Terran, and Zerg are, for instance, irrelevant as of now. They're dangerous because the traditional agonistic culture between factions can be put to good use to mask the deep-rooted issues (which generated the vast majority of balance questions anyway). Short-sighted users shall be jealous of “the shiny tools others get” and will ask Blizzard the same for “their camp,” failing to realize that they're completely falling into the oldest trap on Earth called “divide and rule”. People should instead unite and camp Blizzard's door so they have a playable RTS first. Otherwise, they will only get (1) an even worse game, (2) an even worse competitive scene, (3) an even worse balance.
As LotV beta begins, we are at the parting of the ways. SC2 is going through a huge identity crisis. Supporters of the “full macro path” who think cheese and early game are “boring” and partisans of the “philosophy of action” should rather keep thinking ahead, go back to the roots of the “holy esports mantra” and remember its motto: “everything must be visible”. In a RTS, what is ultimately the quintessential element that isn't tangibly visible? Strategy.
20
Playability and thus “enjoyability” come from control over various aspects. This is why people involved in games of pure chance systematically develop absurd habits and beliefs in order to recreate the control they no longer have. Control should not be absolute, but there are thresholds to respect. There are different temporalities within the game which have to be carefully calibrated to ensure the survival of control and, ultimately, sense. The quality of the game flows from its “control architecture”. But its identity too.
None of this is new material. There was no secret plot. The razzia of the Blizzsters was openly led. There were people who warned others from this all along. They were deliberately confused with “elitists” and mocked for being “neophobic” or “nostalgic”. They were depicted as “naysayers” or “declinists”. Storm crows are never appreciated; yet their wings too were blessed by the sun. Who knows? Perhaps they're here to announce the sun—the possibility of another sun.
I hope people don't get drunk with the liqueur of their own hope, only to wake up later with a severe hangover. I hope people don't close their eyes with the “give them time” mantra, as if those topics weren't years old, as if similar problems hadn't arisen before in other games, as if other sectors weren't concerned, as if those issues weren't significant of a more global movement. I hope people don't fall into the trap of “one game vs another,” whatever this “another” is.
I take one example of why the “BW vs SC2” trench warfare is counter-productive and stupid. The only thing to defend here is Starcraft.
Splitting the Vulture into the Hellion, the Hellbat and the Widow Mine is potentially genius. There is a lot to do with this “1 into 3” formula. You can actually move Mines, which would be the dream of any BW player! You can actually add further versatility to the primary mech unit, which would be the dream of any BW player! With simple tweaks to the two extra units in SC2, we can obtain a brilliant result, both for bio, biomech and mech play. Instead of that, what do we get? (a) An 1a AoE Zealot [problem is Zealot? Solution is counter-Zealot] and (b) a 2 supply little bomb. The initial mistake of downgrading the Vulture into a monodimensional unit can perfectly be fixed with the very tools SC2 recreated, with an even better as a result. The potential here is immense. The Hellion-Mine-Tank trio can easily surpass its ancestor.
Instead of working together towards that kind of goal (it's just an exemple), we'll have holy avengers waste our time with their “you want to recreate BW 2.0” motto, out of some misguided rancor or sense of pride which end up being toxic for the very game they pretend to love. Yet we see that SC2 can use even its very weaknesses to bounce back—so what's the point in ideological approaches?
I hope people realize the “blind faith” attitude is no more productive than whatever “negative nancies” they want to see. “Heaven has its foundations, angels cannot lose their wings,” drone the zealots who claim we should not probe the bottom of the tank. There were lots of critics, of course, but always cultists found ways to excuse their divinity. Be content to enjoy a small part of their Eternal Grace. Trust the Holy Name of the Brand. Be patient. Be positive. But since 5 years that the joyous positivity of the gang of Care Bears exists, what did it achieve? How many of the original Care Bears themselves are still there? In the end, didn't they grow weary of reaping disenchantment after sowing expectations for so long?
Reality is a boomerang. Blame and kill the messengers at your heart's content, reality remains.
21
There is plenty of potential left within SC2 to turn it into a brilliant game. There is so much better to do than giving birth to a “poltergeist game”. Making things reasonably chaotic ≠ making all things a living chaos. Here too, the dose makes the poison.
Yes, LotV beta is just starting. But is it starting in the right direction? Besides, if you don't even know your own goal, what exactly are you testing?
The LotV beta is the opportunity for designers to amend SC2 by focusing on two aspects: (1) restoring control to players, which means both adequate rhythms and the freedom to make strategic choices; (2) crafting possibilities of complex interactions out of simple concepts. How many of the new units are simple “stand & shoot” stuff?…
WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! C'mon, Blizzard. I know you can MOBAfy Protoss harder.
Units = workers and subunits excluded. Productive active abilities such as morphing, injecting, tumors or building ammunitions excluded. Redundacy excluded (stim, Cloak and Burrow all counted as one, but Burrow move is specific so counted separately). Charge excluded (autocast). Oracle counted as a pure spellcaster. Active abilities of dropships (Overlord, Prism; the Medivac is a spellcaster) excluded.
Do we want games like this to become the norm? At 4 minutes 10, both players have already four town halls (7 of them being finished) and DeMusliM is quietly adding dual Armory. The first “interaction” between the players occurred at 8 minutes (= 11 old SC2 minutes). None of them ever scouted each other (people who think the new economy will nuke low-skill all-ins/cheeses are completely deluded). Past the fourth base stage, the game predictably turned into bowling, with workers as pins falling left and right because bases are too spread to be protected. After right clicking a bunch of Cyclones during a few minutes, DeMusliM won what I struggle to define as a 1v1. The Blizzsters managed to create the impressive concept of a “narcissistic duel,” a kind of “1?1” where both players cook in their respective corners into someone wins.
The material is right there; there are many elements from WoL, from HotS, even from LotV which can be recombined. Even bad concepts can be salvaged. But this needs to be done with coherence—or rather, another coherence…
It is easy to lose one's way and bathe in the excitement of novelty. But the novelty effect is doomed to wear off. After all, this is a RTS—users have to be strategist too. Not everything will be set in stone after the end of LotV beta, but the window to discuss some things will definitely be closed when LotV starts. The chosen concepts will need to stand the corrosion of time, thousands of games, the normal wear and tear of increasing standardization.
Why don't we stop a moment to listen to the words of a wise man? “We don't want to just add another three units to the game for this expansion, three units to the game for the next expansion. That would be a very bloated game for us at that point and the chances that some of those units would be duplicates of other units that already exist in the game in one form or another would be extremely high.” — Who is the wise man who said this before HotS?
This was a very fun read, what with the schadenfreude of recalling how it was outcry primarily from teamliquid over the game being too easy back when MBS and unlimited unit selection were announced that sent Blizzard careening down the path of "more buttons to press." We have come full circle, and now teamliquid is crying out against the propagation of buttons that need to be pressed simply to make the players do more and have less spare attention to translate plans into unit actions.
Also very nice was seeing someone with a real voice in the community acknowledging, at least a little bit, that SC2 players are horrifically discriminator with regards to players of other races.
On April 11 2015 08:24 HewTheTitan wrote: This doesn't feel like a single post, or a single article. It could really use an introduction too. Skimming through, I'm not sure what it's about.
Some interesting points though. I'll skim some more.
In my opinion, it's a very coherent article on how a number of factors have led SC2 to be a game where the theoretical and practical skill ceilings have diverged and why that is a bad thing.
Each individual section makes complete sense but I'm not quite sure what you are asking for here.
The LotV beta is the opportunity for designers to amend SC2 by focusing on two aspects: (1) restoring control to players, which means both adequate rhythms and the freedom to make strategic choices; (2) crafting possibilities of complex interactions out of simple concepts. How many of the new units are simple “stand & shoot” stuff?…
I feel like we're trying to pull off some Inception level stuff on the development team. In your view of the future what is step 1 here in this process?
This sort of reminds me of the Kaufman translation of Nietzsche. Anyone else?
Anyway,
What makes the game frustrating? What makes it stressful? What creates the so common ladder anxiety? “Competitiveness”? No. (Or rather, not only.) Some people affected by this in SC2 are competing outside with no problem whatsoever. What lies behind all of this is the lack of control. You know you are going to lose, of course; but above all, you know that you will lack ways to manage that. Therefore, over time, a good part of the so-called “community” gradually turns into episodic players, full-time spectators.
Playability and thus “enjoyability” come from control over various aspects.
I take this to be the thesis? I agree strongly. The stress comes from feeling like you have no control over what's going to happen. Powerlessness even.
I'd argue that this isn't just a matter of control over units and functions, but from the difficulty of scouting out just what the devil the other player is trying to do before it kills you. Build order surprises lead to a lot of coin flippy situations until years later when the meta is hashed out comprehensively... and even then...
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:
The idea of slowing the game down was touched upon in this article, but for anyone who is still confused I want to give my own attempt at explaining it.
When you slow down the build time of units and tech, you increase the time in which you get to use the things you have. This is mostly as a result of keeping the movement speed of units the same. It allows players more time to try to make something happen with the units they have, encouraging aggression.
For those of you who have played Civ5, you've probably experienced this phenomena in the different game speeds. When you play on the 'Quick' gamespeed, making units is almost detrimental because of how fast tech progressess. By the time you've made your unit and moved it 4-5 times you could already have made a better unit, and your opponent probably has. When you play on 'Marathon', however, that 4-5 moves turns into 40-50 moves. Suddenly making units (and being aggressive in general) becomes a lot more viable, because your opponent wont have time to get a new tech out and make a better unit before your unit arrives. Every unit also becomes far more important because of the slower build times.
Imagine if you doubled the build time and cost of all units, building and research in SC2. It would slow the game down considerably, but it would also give you so much more time to use your units in each stage of the game. It's a lot easier to be aggressive when you have more time to make use of those units before they become obsolete. You'd essentially be doubling the 'timer' on which every aggressive push in SC2 is on.
What Blizzard did in HotS is rather than slow down the production / tech speeds, they increased the movement speed of units to attempt to achieve the same affect. It didn't work, though, because human's are limited by how many actions we can make in a second. The margin of error became too small.
edit: typo's, of which there were a lot.
tl;dr Slowing the game down gives player more time to make things happen with the units they have.
Specially how some design decisions like game speed set up very fast and new unfriendly econ makes the game more frustrating, and create more mechanical barriers instead of adding complexity.
I've always defended that RTS games should be about better thinking needing good hands, instead of having high mechanical barriers from the beggining to start with. LotV econ is the opposite to that principle. BW econ was faily more rewarding and simple, rewarding good expansion planning to gain advantage, but creating the tension between economical/expansion focus to gain advantage or army focus on less bases.
Another strong point is the misconception about micro based abilities. Micro is written on speed, damage point and acceleration (air units). Funnily, it takes almost nothing to band-aid fix quite efficintly until a new slowing/move-shot codification comes to the editor.
I'd personally want to thank you for pointing the poor design of Protoss macro early game. I'm one of that freaks that writes it down everyday on the forums. (And I play Protoss)
best post ever written on TL! although I don't agree with everything you have many good points. Especially that blizzard tries to implement things just to please the spectators I see problematic.
Well done Dwf...well done...you wrote the conclusions I came to having worked on designing an RTS system for awhile now...Discontentment with SC2 being my main inspiration as well...
I wish the post would be more precise and clear. Don't get me wrong, I agree with most things said in that post... but a quite hefty chunk of sentences of that article serve no further purpose but to sound intelligent and fancy. They carry no meaning or purpose and I had to sigh and facepalm a couple times because of that which is a shame because the essence of the article is good. It decreases readability by a lot and only makes things more shiny without adding substance to it. Maybe it's supposed to be a parody of the Blizzard way of doing things, who knows...
Ironically, this frantic pattern of forced expanding may backfire and result… in increased passivity. Since the efficiency of harassment during the 3 bases phase will be reduced by hyper-development, even with the new tools on steroids, players may simply elect instead to proceed with their macro activities before being forced to consider confrontation because of the time bomb. In the end, the change might prolong the “passive period,” artificially filled with an explosion of semi-automated actions. Scouting might end up weakened too, with sudden, wild tech switches becoming the norm thanks to the increased mass of ressources stored each minute. Players might still build their max army, then dance around uncomfortably (knowing the initial clash would be the end as all alive expansions are nearby), and eventually proceed with the ritual sacrifice.
I don't see you putting up any arguments to why we would see more passive play, but you should look at it this way:
Force base economy + immobile units --> Passive play Force bases economy + mobile units --> Lots of action
The reason is that the defenders advantage is reduced which makes it very easy for mobile units to go around and attack each other. On the other hand with immobile units, you will need to invest everything into defending bases which is likely to stale the game.
Sorry to insist so much, especially as the mechanism is a priori simple, but it's absolutely critical to understand the heart of the swindle. The question is not at all whether chess is a turn-based game while SC2 is RT. The mechanism is strictly identical in both cases, it's simply traduced differently—and in a much more complex way—in RTS (where the “time factor” is retroceded in various domains). Take for instance Marine vs Baneling splitting within a set time frame; say, 3 seconds (after that, your commands are greyed out). First mission: splitting 6 Marines vs 12 Banelings. Second mission: splitting 12 Marines vs 24 Banelings. Third mission: splitting 24 Marines vs 48 Banelings. The theoretical skill ceiling was unchanged: losing 0 Marine (assuming stim and offcreep). Why did the practical skill ceiling rise?
Are you attempting to argue that boxing in Sc2 is based on luck? So when Maru split incredibly well through boxing, that's just luck? And if you reduced the speed by 10 times, then it would be more skillbased and less luckbased? Being able to click fast and precise in Starcraft is just luck?
I think your dead wrong here. Mechanical skill in Starcraft is about being able to make intentional clicks as fast and precise as possible. When you give players more time to perform the same amount of action your reducing the skillcap in the sense that the difference between the best players in the world and the secondbest is reduced.
The argument that theoretical skill ceiling skill being higher than practical is irrelevant here. Why? Because the value of each action is not the same. The value of the 10 first actions during an engagement is higher than the value of the next 10 actions.
Example 1 50 Marines vs 40 Banelings. No micro --> All Marines die With 3 actions --> You divide the Marine group into 2 groups --> 5 Mairnes survive. With 3 more action (6 total) --> You Divide Marines into 3 groups --> 8 Marines survive
Since the first 3 actions make you survive 5 extra Marines and the next 3 actions only let 3 extra Marines survive --> The value of each additional action declines.
Example 2 - We have speed value of X in the game. - Best player in the world can perform 100 actions during an engagement. - Second best can perform 90 actions.
Let's see we increase the speed --> Best player can perform 80 actions and second best = 70.
If the difference in the value between 70 and 80 actions > the differnce between 90 and 100 action --> Skill cap has been increased with faster speed --> Prooving your point invalid.
Probably the best analysis of blizzards failure that is sc2 ever written. Im afraid blizzard wont ever come out of their current mindset however. Considering how stuck theyve been in it for the last 5 years.
There are so many baseless claims here that it's hard to count. I read very little actual analysis and a lot of guessing and playing pretend. So little of the claims are backed by actual data that suggests causation, I'm led believe people would swallow anything as long as it bashes Blizzard.
I want to touch on both of Hider's points, mostly in agreement.
The OP gives one screenshot of passive play from LotV. That is not at all the norm that I have witnessed from streams. The vast majority of games have had harassment from the beginning. Players attempt to deny 3rd and 4th bases repeatedly while harassing 1st and 2nd bases because the importance of expanding and thus expansion denying has gone way up while the tools to harass have improved more than the tools to prevent harassment. The current changes to LotV will almost undoubtedly create a more aggressive environment where 3 (or 4) base turtle will be the exception, not the norm. Showing one screenshot of the exception does not prove the point.
On the second topic from Hider's post, I would say there is a balance point. At the current speed, elite players can still separate themselves from the masses. If we played the game on 8x, I don't know that Maru could do any better than you or I, he'd just get run over by banelings. Likewise, I don't think the game would be interesting at 8x slower since any mildly skilled player could split well and splitting would no longer be an interesting combination of tactics + mechanics. That combination is often credited for making Starcraft interesting. Somewhere in the middle is a balance point, but that balance point will be different depending on the eye of the beholder. The current speed is not bad, but in my opinion is just a touch too fast for marine splitting where even Maru often gets a small pack of marines smashed by banelines... just not as often as B-team Koreans, and far less often than typical players (who may get large packs of marines smashed by banelings).
So, in my opinion, an slight decrease in game speed would create a more optimal environment for marine-split versus baneling, but someone else may prefer a large decrease in game speed while a third person may prefer an increase in game speed where just making that one small split shows skill. It's in the eye of the beholder and clearly the OP sees the game through his own lens.
I cannot agree more since it's exactly what i've always thought without being able to express coherently. In particular
Completeness is the natural consequence of the intrusive creationist design. Players are dispossessed from their own creative potential and only have to apply the instruction manual. But players, whatever they might say out of bad faith after defeat, do not want to apply the instructions of a manual. They want to find their own solutions within the given frame. They don't want the game to be created “solved,” they want to solve the game themselves
It's the holy grail of throuth for all kind of games out there. It's the reason why D&D 4 was a flop, why Diablo 3 is not as exciting as Diablo 2 and why Magic is still better than any other card game out there. People want to be intellectually challenged when doing something, not just having to check the Big Book of Dev Approved Solution.
Generally well written and a good read. I'm not sure what you mean by this though:
The question is not at all whether chess is a turn-based game while SC2 is RT. The mechanism is strictly identical in both cases, it's simply traduced differently—and in a much more complex way—in RTS (where the “time factor” is retroceded in various domains).
I didn't have a problem keeping up with the rest of the post, but here "traduced" and "retroceded" are both new words to me. Searching for the definitions simply leads me to infer that you have not used them correctly. Either that, or I'm just being a dunce. Could you explain?
EDIT: I really enjoyed your post and agree with most of your points but I have to say (and I mean no offence) it does feel somewhat like you have made it deliberately convoluted and inaccessible to read.
The OP gives one screenshot of passive play from LotV. That is not at all the norm that I have witnessed from streams. The vast majority of games have had harassment from the beginning. Players attempt to deny 3rd and 4th bases repeatedly while harassing 1st and 2nd bases because the importance of expanding and thus expansion denying has gone way up while the tools to harass have improved more than the tools to prevent harassment. The current changes to LotV will almost undoubtedly create a more aggressive environment where 3 (or 4) base turtle will be the exception, not the norm. Showing one screenshot of the exception does not prove the point.
DWF has never been good at making meaningful examples. In his article from year ago on how UP terran was and how everything else was amoving (which to an extent is correct, but that's not the point), he highlighted a game in order to show how good Mines were vs toss prenerf. However, the game he highlighted showed a protoss player having no idea about builds as it was 1 week after release (or so).
He would also try to argue how terran drops in HOTS were much weaker than in WOL by refering to one specific series between Flash and Liquid.Hero. The issue with that example was that it was one of the few games where dropplay actually occured. Dropplay in TvP HOTS was always far more common than dropplay in 2012.
On the second topic from Hider's post, I would say there is a balance point. At the current speed, elite players can still separate themselves from the masses. If we played the game on 8x, I don't know that Maru could do any better than you or I, he'd just get run over by banelings.
Your right in the regard that there is a balance between when speed is good and when it becomes too much, but DWF isn't right when he says its gonna be more luckbased. Rather it would just make micro unrealistic/impossible. E.g. if you had 0.0001 seconds to split your Marines before banelings killed them (noone could do that).
Secondly, there is indeed a balance to when micro interactions feels great and when they become too fast. However, you cannot make general statements here. Instead we should focus on specific micro interactions and how they can be improved.
The current speed is not bad, but in my opinion is just a touch too fast for marine splitting where even Maru often gets a small pack of marines smashed by banelines... just not as often as B-team Koreans, and far less often than typical players (who may get large packs of marines smashed by baneling
Actually I see this is as an argument for why the current speed is GOOD. Maru hasn't reached the skillcap yet!!!
Isn't that what most of us want? A game that you can constantly get better?
As an example, I dislike protoss because in a lot of situations I find that in a lot of situations there isn't that much to do (same with mech). However, with bio play I can alway do better, and its progress that drives competitive gamers. If you make the skillcap alot more reachable, it's gonna be less interesting imo.
However, that's not to say that we should always look to increase the skillcap in every way. Rather, I believe that we should focus on fun micro interactions. Adding in more complicated stuff just to make the game harder, isn't gonna make the game more fun for the majority of the players. But when you have microinteractions with lots of counterplay where its the human factor that creates the cap (not the lack of AI), I believe you can both create a fun experience for semicasuals and competitive gamers.
On April 11 2015 13:55 Vansetsu wrote: Good points, but extremely convoluted OP.
Same feelings here. While TheDwf's first post made good points and was a great read at the same time, this one feels a lot like he just loves the sound of his own voice.
hider, i love that you are trying to turn this into a debate, and please go on, but i see no point in ad hominem arguments displayed few posts above mine.
dwf, great effort, i dont agree with few points (12 starting workers as any kind of problem when the actual unit design is really the issue ppl should be talking about), but there is stuff in there i support strongly, mostly blizzard bashing. god knows they've been too stubborn when it comes to changing sc2, and they deserve all the criticism they can get. also, i too think there was no need for such 'heavy' language, but you're not the first to go down that route, so whatever
DWF has never been good at making meaningful examples. In his article from year ago on how UP terran was and how everything else was amoving (which to an extent is correct, but that's not the point), he highlighted a game in order to show how good Mines were vs toss prenerf. However, the game he highlighted showed a protoss player having no idea about builds as it was 1 week after release (or so).
He would also try to argue how terran drops in HOTS were much weaker than in WOL by refering to one specific series between Flash and Liquid.Hero. The issue with that example was that it was one of the few games where dropplay actually occured. Dropplay in TvP HOTS was always far more common than dropplay in 2012.
Your arrogance makes you such a readster. Try not to pillage texts and read instead what is actually written. The game you mention was an illustration about how Mines killed detection-less all-ins. Good job editing it out the reference to MC so we couldn't find the actual point! Too bad I read it before.
I never wrote that drop play was common in WoL TvP. Look what is written. LOOK:
Take for instance the Flash vs Rain series in the last WoL Code A. In the Akilon Wastes game, Rain misplayed and allowed two full Medivacs to unload his main base while Flash rallied the rest of his Marines at natural; Rain immediately lost 10 Probes in the maneuver and was in difficulty for the rest of the game. In the Daybreak game, he tried an ambitious tech-heavy build on 2 bases and was likewise refuted by Flash's drop play. In HotS? Photon Overcharge combined with the massive tech advantage would make him impervious to such things; breaking a Protoss on 2 bases is pretty much unthinkable these days.
Can you read? Can you only read and not put words into my mouth? Do you see here any reference to drop play being common in WoL TvP? No. I just said that the possibility to refute ambitious builds with drops was still there. But Mr. Hider doesn't care, he wants to see something, so he sees something. And never mind if the text never contained it!
It's the same thing for the splitting examples, every point you raised is solved within the text itself. But you don't care. You naively think I am arguing for a slow-motion SC2 in which people would have 3 years for each split, lol. And yes, in the very text in which I define Dexterity as one of the main qualities for a player, I am now arguing that boxing is luck! It makes sense!
So good job ignoring sentences like this:
This means players will control less and less what happens in the game: over-contracting time by force can only disfigure the necessary RTS equilibrium between “total control” (pure strategy) and “zero control” (pure luck).
Should you proceed for too long in that direction, skill itself would start to disappear, replaced with the functionalequivalent of 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.
Which completely address your "objections".
I get it that you think that I'm a fraud and overrated and whatnot, and frankly enough I simply don't give a damn. But stop twisting things I say out of pure dishonesty to turn me into the fraud you think I am. Just stop slandering.
The question is not at all whether chess is a turn-based game while SC2 is RT. The mechanism is strictly identical in both cases, it's simply traduced differently—and in a much more complex way—in RTS (where the “time factor” is retroceded in various domains).
I didn't have a problem keeping up with the rest of the post, but here "traduced" and "retroceded" are both new words to me. Searching for the definitions simply leads me to infer that you have not used them correctly. Either that, or I'm just being a dunce. Could you explain?
EDIT: I really enjoyed your post and agree with most of your points but I have to say (and I mean no offence) it does feel somewhat like you have made it deliberately convoluted and inaccessible to read.
Apologies for the mistake, I'm not a native English speaker. Traduced is a false friend and I meant translated. I fixed it in the OP, thanks for pointing it out!
Cut the adverbs, cut the try-hard academic prose, stop misusing words you don't understand and instead, write posts as you'd explain concepts to people in a real conversation.
There are a few decent points in the article but they are few and far between. I'm not sure if you're getting lost in translation, or simply trying to appear more intelligent, but it's not working.
I disagree with the bulk of the article. Too many broad, sweeping generalisations, baseless accusations and flawed arguments.
Very, very interesting read so far (couldn't hold in this post any longer) and very well written :o
I'd like to add an example to the backwards thinking part (4) that can be observed all too often in modern day Hollywood; The backwardness in story developing. A lot of movies these days are image fests that only pretend to be a movie (story) because the filmmakers thought of "bad-ass" (I hate that term, it basically means "crap" to me nowadays) scenes they just had to make sure to put in and developed the story in a way the scene, kind of, would make sense. A good example of this can be found in the SC2 "story" coincidentally: Raynor having a gun as the new Queen of Blades enters his prison cell . Dear Hollywood (and Blizzard): Write a coherent story first and than afterwards think of scenes that tell the story as convincingly as possible. Sigh..
Anyway, going to continue reading the article, thanks TheDwf!
Thank you for this article, it was very thought provoking!
It made me think about what APM and I now like to think of it as a measure of latency - idle time between commands. If the game speed ran slower or if units moved slower (and I don't think either of those changes would be good) then that allows for more micro decisions to be made, which means a greater importance for prioritising those decisions and recognising when further actions are detrimental. I think that same benefit could be achieved by simply having less units to control. Engagements have to be one of the biggest spectator appeals to the game and while my mother may not recognise why Maru's control is almost incomprehensible, I love seeing it and I want to watch him be a boss all game long. When the game goes late and getting maximum value out of each marine is meaningless compared to keeping that macro pumping along, the game stops providing that particular thing I love watching and becomes more about positioning and spells - which are things us mere mortals actually can get right from time to time. I think any game change that can extend the part of the game where micro can outright win you the game, the better.
I am wondering whether reverting the number of starting workers to ~6 but increasing the amount of minerals a player starts with to 200 or so would achieve the result of giving immediate spectator involvement while having the game progress slower. Extending build times particularly on tech buildings and upgrades also seems like an idea that might be worth testing but perhaps would make protoss overly vulnerable.. Then again stronger gateway units..
Actually if the game moves along slower, that also increases the time a player has to scout out an opponent to get an accurate read. That also minimises the randomness of SC2.
Truer words were never spoken, and there are a whole lot a words in this article d: Although I strongly disagree with the notion that backwards thinking and short-sightedness are specific to modernity, both always existed and are part of the human behavior just like cheating/bending the rules is. Apart from that I fail to find anything that seems wrong to me in the article. Good job.
whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then?
The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse.
But it's not, the most you get to show is that it is becoming more like MOBA (IF having more ability is essential component of being a MOBA)
I don't know if you also count in the item system in MOBA? they have quite an intense amount of ability-able items.
It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean.
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then?
The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse.
Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG).
It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean.
It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
The cacophony of verse, the indiscriminate colligation and cogitation obfuscates the inherent connotation as well as acting to thoroughly discombobulate all fellow interlocutors.
There are far to many assumptions, simplifications and generalisations and whether it is intended or not the actual points being made are hidden from view.
To take the example of a car race. Lets say every car has a top speed of 30km/h and the race track has no sharp turns. Every participant can essentially stay at their top speed for the whole race and no one would be able to overtake anyone else. From the image in the original post, if the star on the left of the image represents the amount of skill of a pro player the star on the right is the amount of skill they can actually use if there is a lot of available time. Likewise if the star on the right is the amount of time available then the star on the left is the amount of skill needed to be able to succeed in that limited time.
Whatever our opinions may be, blizzard is at the forefront of developing rts as a game as well as an e-sport, they may replicate what has come before but they are also forging new paths. The game needs to be complex enough for players, even the best in the world, to make mistakes and for their opponents to be able to force mistakes out of each other this is part of virtually every long standing competition and contributes to what makes them interesting to play, and why they can still hold an audiences attention for many decades without drastically changing the rules.
It is established knowledge that it takes approximately 10 years of focused dedicated practice to develop the expertise necessary to become considered among the best in the world. For Starcraft 2 it is still relatively new, when legacy of the void is released it will act in some respects to level the playing field once again. This is also why it is silly to argue about imbalance based on previously 'weak' players beating stronger players as everyone has to learn over what is actually 'good'. I would liken the beta to the tuning of a musical instrument. Deliberately tuning a note over or under the intended place in order to better identify where it is actually supposed to be.
I would recommend reading the academic studies and published papers associated with skill of which there are many, such as this book: The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance Here is an extract from it: https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-making-of-an-expert
"There is little transfer from high-level proficiency in one domain to proficiency in other domains - even when the domains seem, intuitively, very similar." ~Paul Fletovich, Michael Prietula, and Anders Ericsson, p47
"Automaticity is central to the development of expertise, and practice is the means to automaticity [...] Through the act of practice (with appropriate feedback, monitoring, etc.), the character of cognitive operations changes in a manner that (a) improves the speed of the operations, (b) improves the smoothness of the operations, and (c) reduces the cognitive demands of the operations, thus releasing cognitive (e.g. attentional) resources for other (often higher) functions (e.g. planning, self-monitoring)." ~Paul Fletovich, Michael Prietula, and Anders Ericsson, p53
On April 11 2015 22:13 KeksX wrote: I think your post loses his effect simply because it's so large and unstructured. It could use a proper structure and table of contents so that people can address certain points more easily instead of just writing "Yeah good post"!
As I said within the text: unintended design.
The text expanded from a collection of aphorisms, which is why it's disjointed in some ways (and will appear like verbose crap to lot of people—and maybe it is indeed!), but the different parts have their theme and it does have a conducting thread.
The result is indeed far from completeness. Maybe it suffered from time razzia too? One does not simply escape contraction of time. But I like it that way. I know it will put off a lot of readers, especially hurried ones who operate under the assumption that time = money. Or maybe it's just the work of an old cat which enjoys too much the sound of its own purring. You be the judge!
On April 11 2015 22:36 Startyr wrote: The cacophony of verse, the indiscriminate colligation and cogitation obfuscates the inherent connotation as well as acting to thoroughly discombobulate all fellow interlocutors.
There are far to many assumptions, simplifications and generalisations and whether it is intended or not the actual points being made are hidden from view.
To take the example of a car race. Lets say every car has a top speed of 30km/h and the race track has no sharp turns. Every participant can essentially stay at their top speed for the whole race and no one would be able to overtake anyone else. From the image in the original post, if the star on the left of the image represents the amount of skill of a pro player the star on the right is the amount of skill they can actually use if time is contracted. Likewise if the star on the right is the amount of time available then the star on the left is the amount of skill needed to be able to succeed in that limited time.
Whatever our opinions may be, blizzard is at the forefront of developing rts as a game as well as an e-sport, they may replicate what has come before but they are also forging new paths. The game needs to be complex enough for players, even the best in the world, to make mistakes and for their opponents to be able to force mistakes out of each other this is part of virtually every long standing competition and contributes to what makes them interesting to play, and why they can still hold an audiences attention for many decades without drastically changing the rules.
It is established knowledge that it takes approximately 10 years of focused dedicated practice to develop the expertise necessary to become considered among the best in the world. For Starcraft 2 it is still relatively new, when legacy of the void is released it will act in some respects to level the playing field once again. This is also why it is silly to argue about imbalance based on previously 'weak' players beating stronger players as everyone has to learn over what is actually 'good'. I would liken the beta to the tuning of a musical instrument. Deliberately tuning a note over or under the intended place in order to better identify where it is actually supposed to be.
I would recommend reading the academic studies and published papers associated with skill of which there are many, such as this book: The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance Here is an extract from it: https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-making-of-an-expert
"There is little transfer from high-level proficiency in one domain to proficiency in other domains - even when the domains seem, intuitively, very similar." ~Paul Fletovich, Michael Prietula, and Anders Ericsson, p47
"Automaticity is central to the development of expertise, and practice is the means to automaticity [...] Through the act of practice (with appropriate feedback, monitoring, etc.), the character of cognitive operations changes in a manner that (a) improves the speed of the operations, (b) improves the smoothness of the operations, and (c) reduces the cognitive demands of the operations, thus releasing cognitive (e.g. attentional) resources for other (often higher) functions (e.g. planning, self-monitoring)." ~Paul Fletovich, Michael Prietula, and Anders Ericsson, p53
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
While I agree with you points, won't you admit you are a little verbose?
WoL started as a one base fest; LotV is now going down the route of starting with 3 bases by default. Maybe there is a middle ground between those two extremes? Why would diversity be an issue? If early game was deemed as problematic—but who decreed that, and on whose authority?—exactly why would the necessary cure be its removal? Next time your arm is itching, remember not ever to fetch a Blizzard physician: their solution would be to amputate. Surely this way of thinking sounds very advanced for the Ostrogoth medicine at the height of the fifth century, but about what 2015?
I very much disagree with this point. Just because the early game won't be like the early game in WoL and HotS does not mean that there is no early game. Essentially it feels like you are an old lady who always shops at the same store and gets mad when that store decides to change the shelf format and put milk on aisle 3 instead of aisle 2. Different =/= removed.
Other than that many good point were made. Though I see no REAL reason to use so many words.
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
Get off your high horse, you are acting like an asshole. Your post was bad because you felt the need to unnecessary obfuscate things behind flashy phrases that have neither place nor substance. Your points are few and far between, most of the things you wrote serve only to show people how smart you are without adding anything to your argument. I don't know who you want to impress that hard but it's certainly not the intellectual people who can see through your writing fairly easily.
As someone else already said, you probably just like the sound of your own voice...
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
Get off your high horse, you are acting like an asshole. Your post was bad because you felt the need to unnecessary obfuscate things behind flashy phrases that have neither place nor substance. Your points are few and far between, most of the things you wrote serve only to show people how smart you are without adding anything to your argument. I don't know who you want to impress that hard but it's certainly not the intellectual people who can see through your writing fairly easily.
As someone else already said, you probably just like the sound of your own voice...
People are so funny when they take things litterally and without thinking twice
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
Get off your high horse, you are acting like an asshole. Your post was bad because you felt the need to unnecessary obfuscate things behind flashy phrases that have neither place nor substance. Your points are few and far between, most of the things you wrote serve only to show people how smart you are without adding anything to your argument. I don't know who you want to impress that hard but it's certainly not the intellectual people who can see through your writing fairly easily.
As someone else already said, you probably just like the sound of your own voice...
Pretty sure real "intellectual people" wouldn't be so angry about something written in a way that needs you to read carefully, taking the time to understand and think about what you're reading^^
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
While I agree with you points, won't you admit you are a little verbose?
That's perfectly possible. Publishing this text is an interesting experience for me because of the cultural shock. I imagine the average profile of a forum user is certainly a male between 15 and 25 years old, give or take a few years. Most of the time they use forums to communicate, often using no more than a few words or lines. Most of them live in the “TL;DR” culture. Most of them have a utilitarist approach of language. Time is money. Be straightforward. Most of them think words are cubes without nuances. Most of them are readsters committed in "sense razzia". And yet:
(1) Why is “SMS language” forbidden in all respectable forums? (2) Take your favorite movie or book and picture mentally what happens when you try to sum it up in decreasing formats: 10 pages, 5 pages, 1 page, 20 lines, 10 lines, 1 line.
You describe perfectly the errors that blizzard commit consistently while balancing SC2. You put into words why SC2, while potentially the best RTS on the market today, felt slightly wrong. Even to people who have never played BW or WC3.
I've been quietly saying that the queen patch was the worst thing to happen to SC2, but never decided to back that opinion up because I couldn't make a single simple statement of why it was bad design. I could tell you that Zerg players were now able to get too much map control, thus too much safety to drone. "Contraction of Time" is that magic bullet of a phrase that brings together all of the individual poor unit designs into one simple camp.
A very good post, but you need to stop using verbosity as a weapon. You get your point across but spend an unnecessarily large amount of words on doing so. This would resonate more strongly with the audience if it was more concise.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. If you can't be bothered to try to express anything you have to say without endless waterfalls of wannabe fancy literature, you can't be surprised that people will not be bothered to read it or discuss it with you. The sad think is that this textual vomit will be now taken as the holy scripture of the whole "SC2 failed" and "the game needs to be fixed" cult and every discussion will be plagued either be obscure references to it or straightforward demands for the opponent to read it.
This post signifies a lot about what is wrong about today's culture of internet discussion - it is people like TheDwf who refuse to discuss in an upright and rational manner and their followers who try to turn their willingness to participate in extremely bloated reiteration of irrelevant jibberish into their advantage, because anyone who doesn't is "ignorant" and "uniformed" - while this "information" one is supposed to posses caries no factual weight, but has been created solely as a tool to establish superiority of its possesors, or - in worse cases - is just pure propaganda.
Think about it, it's highly ironical that while often one-line responses are seen as rude and impolite, here the same qualities stem from the completely opposite quality of the post.
edit:
On April 12 2015 00:26 Zealously wrote: A very good post, but you need to stop using verbosity as a weapon.
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
While I agree with you points, won't you admit you are a little verbose?
That's perfectly possible. Publishing this text is an interesting experience for me because of the cultural shock. I imagine the average profile of a forum user is certainly a male between 15 and 25 years old, give or take a few years. Most of the time they use forums to communicate, often using no more than a few words or lines. Most of them live in the “TL;DR” culture. Most of them have a utilitarist approach of language. Time is money. Be straightforward. Most of them think words are cubes without nuances. Most of them are readsters committed in "sense razzia". And yet:
(1) Why is “SMS language” forbidden in all respectable forums? (2) Take your favorite movie or book and picture mentally what happens when you try to sum it up in decreasing formats: 10 pages, 5 pages, 1 page, 20 lines, 10 lines, 1 line.
It depends on what your goals with this piece are. If you want to deliver an interesting story to read then I'd say you have succeeded and there's nothing more to it. If you want to convince people of your opinion however (which I'd assume you are, with a passionate opinion piece on a forum) you have to impress a wider audience. Writing such a long and wordy piece might be good for people who appreciate such things, but most people are just here to listen to your opinion. And when your opinion is spread throughout such a mass of words it turns people off. You do whatever you want to, but if you want to convince people you have to accomodate them, it's a simple reality.
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
Get off your high horse, you are acting like an asshole. Your post was bad because you felt the need to unnecessary obfuscate things behind flashy phrases that have neither place nor substance. Your points are few and far between, most of the things you wrote serve only to show people how smart you are without adding anything to your argument. I don't know who you want to impress that hard but it's certainly not the intellectual people who can see through your writing fairly easily.
As someone else already said, you probably just like the sound of your own voice...
Pretty sure real "intellectual people" wouldn't be so angry about something written in a way that needs you to read carefully, taking the time to understand and think about what you're reading^^
Indeed, they are just annoyed at how hard certain people try to impress them with fancy wording without focusing on the most important part: Getting your point across without wasting time and space unnecessary. They only get angry when said person then tries to talk down to people who (rightfully) criticize them for their poorly constructed post.
Most points are fairly straight forward and you usually don't need much time to understand them. As I said: I agree with quite a few points made in the post. It's just a damn shame that TheDWF felt the need to hide them behind a forest of phrases that fulfill no purpose AND then decided to attack anyone who criticizes his style of writing. I know a lot of people like that who are not that great at making a valid point and defending it but instead try to dazzle people with their fancy wording to distract them from that flaw.
You could probably convey the same points in a more clear fashion with only using half the words. If you sacrifice utility for the sake of looking smart then you have a clear problem and should be criticized for it accordingly.
And I have a lot of experience with intellectual works, thank you very much for your badly hidden stab in my direction.
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
While I agree with you points, won't you admit you are a little verbose?
That's perfectly possible. Publishing this text is an interesting experience for me because of the cultural shock. I imagine the average profile of a forum user is certainly a male between 15 and 25 years old, give or take a few years. Most of the time they use forums to communicate, often using no more than a few words or lines. Most of them live in the “TL;DR” culture. Most of them have a utilitarist approach of language. Time is money. Be straightforward. Most of them think words are cubes without nuances. Most of them are readsters committed in "sense razzia". And yet:
(1) Why is “SMS language” forbidden in all respectable forums? (2) Take your favorite movie or book and picture mentally what happens when you try to sum it up in decreasing formats: 10 pages, 5 pages, 1 page, 20 lines, 10 lines, 1 line.
It depends on what your goals with this piece are. If you want to deliver an interesting story to read then I'd say you have succeeded and there's nothing more to it. If you want to convince people of your opinion however (which I'd assume you are, with a passionate opinion piece on a forum) you have to impress a wider audience. Writing such a long and wordy piece might be good for people who appreciate such things, but most people are just here to listen to your opinion. And when your opinion is spread throughout such a mass of words it turns people off. You do whatever you want to, but if you want to convince people you have to accomodate them, it's a simple reality.
Exactly: you perfectly nailed why the quote Barrin mentioned in his post, though interesting, was a bit off for the present case; or why I'll have to face tactful delicacies such as “using verbosity as a weapon,” being a pedantic guru, a condescending fraud, etc. Thanks.
Well, getting myself understood by people despite deliberetely trying to smoke them out is strenuous work; I have other unnecessary rivers of words to write in order to expand such a bankable cult. Good day to you folks!
Some good points. Did not read it all, but what I did read was quite enjoyable. I feel like you are probably of the same overall feeling of Sc2 as I am: like the game, but find some instances overly frustrating. For me with Sc2 my biggest grievance coming from a more old school RTS point of view is the speed in which certain units move and how fast units die all in the name of creating this terrible damage and fast gameplay that Blizzard likes to promote for their e-sport's game, but doesn't necessarily create the best RTS game.
This is why people involved in games of pure chance systematically develop absurd habits and beliefs in order to recreate the control they no longer have. Control should not be absolute, but there are thresholds to respect
Yeah. If you have total control then the habits to recreate control disappear, and they are very important. In fact the habits to recreate control = technique.
I think units should be designed with a) advanced techniques and b) interaction with other player in mind. The medivac is a perfect example. You can do so many advanced things with it (microing, scouting, positionning, breaking siege), all of them being linked to the other player. The msc is the counter example. You can do many things with it but none of them are advanced (hitting a button) , and none of them are interaction with the other player.
If the interaction is baiting a spell then it's bad. Baiting forcefields, overcharge, storm, fungal, abduct etc. is bad interaction because either not relevant or luck based. I'm not talking baiting a positionning (baiting into a baneling trap, baiting a drop and blinking underneath...) : those are in fact great interactions.
I really liked the concept of "hyper development". your study of TvZ WoL --> HoTs is brillant. The 1?1 cooking thing is not necesserarly bad though. Can lead to interesting games. But I think the big rule should be that there is non all iny ways to control the gaem and make it a proper 1v1 and not a 1?1. In each MU both sides should have ways to prevent a 1?1. Current TvP with the oracle threat and the overcharge barrier is indeed complete 1?1 for the T with no alternative, this needs to be addressed.
Overall great article. This gives me faith in our community.
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
Get off your high horse, you are acting like an asshole. Your post was bad because you felt the need to unnecessary obfuscate things behind flashy phrases that have neither place nor substance. Your points are few and far between, most of the things you wrote serve only to show people how smart you are without adding anything to your argument. I don't know who you want to impress that hard but it's certainly not the intellectual people who can see through your writing fairly easily.
As someone else already said, you probably just like the sound of your own voice...
Pretty sure real "intellectual people" wouldn't be so angry about something written in a way that needs you to read carefully, taking the time to understand and think about what you're reading^^
Indeed, they are just annoyed at how hard certain people try to impress them with fancy wording without focusing on the most important part: Getting your point across without wasting time and space unnecessary. They only get angry when said person then tries to talk down to people who (rightfully) criticize them for their poorly constructed post.
Most points are fairly straight forward and you usually don't need much time to understand them. As I said: I agree with quite a few points made in the post. It's just a damn shame that TheDWF felt the need to hide them behind a forest of phrases that fulfill no purpose AND then decided to attack anyone who criticizes his style of writing. I know a lot of people like that who are not that great at making a valid point and defending it but instead try to dazzle people with their fancy wording to distract them from that flaw.
You could probably convey the same points in a more clear fashion with only using half the words. If you sacrifice utility for the sake of looking smart then you have a clear problem and should be criticized for it accordingly.
And I have a lot of experience with intellectual works, thank you very much for your badly hidden stab in my direction.
Come on, he wasn't attacking anyone just like I wasn't doing a "hidden stab" at you. Stop taking things literally, and abandon a bit of this utilitarian conception of words to enjoy a looser and more laid-back approach to what one is saying. And I don't think he was sacrificing utility for the sake of looking smart, he was more sacrificing utility for simple pleasure.
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
While I agree with you points, won't you admit you are a little verbose?
That's perfectly possible. Publishing this text is an interesting experience for me because of the cultural shock. I imagine the average profile of a forum user is certainly a male between 15 and 25 years old, give or take a few years. Most of the time they use forums to communicate, often using no more than a few words or lines. Most of them live in the “TL;DR” culture. Most of them have a utilitarist approach of language. Time is money. Be straightforward. Most of them think words are cubes without nuances. Most of them are readsters committed in "sense razzia". And yet:
(1) Why is “SMS language” forbidden in all respectable forums? (2) Take your favorite movie or book and picture mentally what happens when you try to sum it up in decreasing formats: 10 pages, 5 pages, 1 page, 20 lines, 10 lines, 1 line.
Wouldn't someone who COULD sum up a picture or book in few words and do a good job be considered an excellent writer?
People don't like to slog through reading something like this, being a strong writer means using the correct language at the correct time, at least in my opinion.
I think we're getting off topic here. While I do agree that it was overly flowery and could be much more concise, can we concentrate on what was written rather than how it was written? He made some very good points imo.
On April 12 2015 01:55 Zambrah wrote: People don't like to slog through reading something like this, being a strong writer means using the correct language at the correct time, at least in my opinion.
This is also an opinion, one I highly disagree with.
Sometimes explaining certain concepts to a certain audience requires the level of verbosity shown by the OP. I think the concepts/issues the OP explained/highlighted indeed needed this degree of verbosity in order to make them clear and understandable for specifically some of the Blizzsters.
Furthermore, should we strip all rhetoric from this article, I fear it would get lost in hundreds of threads written in a similar style created not only on TL, but also on the Battlenet forums.
your weak prose and critique of speed/modernity/time's contraction reminded me of virilio- which in turn brought to mind a criticism of his work that i felt aptly describes this post: "Pure shit, turned into gold in the holy cellars of the modern alchemists’ museums." http://www.balsas.cc/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=151
Most of what he wrote is addressing a specific matter in a very clear way. I think you can easily get lost though, 21 randoms paragraphs might not have been the best way to write it. Maybe a Summary could help.
Achtung! TheDwf: By style and sensibilities alone (to mention not your sly sicariations [0] of modernity), you might well appreciate the work of another cult meister, ex: + Show Spoiler +
On April 12 2015 01:55 Zambrah wrote: People don't like to slog through reading something like this, being a strong writer means using the correct language at the correct time, at least in my opinion.
This is also an opinion, one I highly disagree with.
Isn't it more or less standard to write an argumentative piece with clarity and concision?
On April 11 2015 09:54 Pursuit_ wrote: The idea of slowing the game down was touched upon in this article, but for anyone who is still confused I want to give my own attempt at explaining it.
When you slow down the build time of units and tech, you increase the time in which you get to use the things you have. This is mostly as a result of keeping the movement speed of units the same. It allows players more time to try to make something happen with the units they have, encouraging aggression.
For those of you who have played Civ5, you've probably experienced this phenomena in the different game speeds. When you play on the 'Quick' gamespeed, making units is almost detrimental because of how fast tech progressess. By the time you've made your unit and moved it 4-5 times you could already have made a better unit, and your opponent probably has. When you play on 'Marathon', however, that 4-5 moves turns into 40-50 moves. Suddenly making units (and being aggressive in general) becomes a lot more viable, because your opponent wont have time to get a new tech out and make a better unit before your unit arrives. Every unit also becomes far more important because of the slower build times.
Imagine if you doubled the build time and cost of all units, building and research in SC2. It would slow the game down considerably, but it would also give you so much more time to use your units in each stage of the game. It's a lot easier to be aggressive when you have more time to make use of those units before they become obsolete. You'd essentially be doubling the 'timer' on which every aggressive push in SC2 is on.
What Blizzard did in HotS is rather than slow down the production / tech speeds, they increased the movement speed of units to attempt to achieve the same affect. It didn't work, though, because human's are limited by how many actions we can make in a second. The margin of error became too small.
edit: typo's, of which there were a lot.
tl;dr Slowing the game down gives player more time to make things happen with the units they have.
Very well said. Maybe even deserves its own [D] thread
Interesting article. I fear the OP is asking a bit too much for an Addon though and it's too late for that considering SP is done and beta already started. They're a business after all and want this shipped in a couple of months. TFT and BW were not as revolutionary as the changes the OP demands from LoTV (and the had better main game to work with)
Still, this is an article we should remember for SC3 or a spirital successor.
I find the arguments proposed in the "Spaghettification" to have shakey logical foundations and little room for constructive debate. Here is why, point by point:
Paragraph 1 is logically unsound. Starting with more workers does not contract time. Skipping an initial phase does not make units go faster on the screen, nor makes them harder to control. The entire argument is based out of an unsound premise and masked in eloquence. Proposal: discuss the actual consequences of the change, such as scouting timings and the effective removal of builds that did something before the 12th worker.
Paragraph 2 starts with a logical fallacy. Sometimes, the correct solution to unsatisfactory aspects of a game can be removing them altogether. Even continuing with the faulty analogy of medicine, you do treat appendicitis that way. Calling Blizzard developers butchers is not a good suggestion, it is just an insult. The paragraph then goes on to propose a possible evolution of the meta in LotV... which is interesting, as far as wild fantasy goes. Lastly, it is not necessarily true that if harassment tools have the potential of stopping economic development then the game will devolve in a worker hunting contest. Some games might turn harassment-based and some might not, much like players decide to cheese in some matches and not in others. Proposal: discuss alternative solutions for the problem of having to sit during the first two minutes of a game doing repetitive, mostly boring tasks such as worker production - or reject it as a problem altogether, and save yourself the trouble (but do not be surprised if other people consider it such). Don't worry about predicting the metagame of a game that is not released yet: you will not be able to do so. In your defense, nobody will.
Paragraph 3 is based on false analogy. Time does not get contracted by expanding more often, nor manging it becomes mechanically impossible. Having to place one hatchery and two geysers every 2 minutes instead of every 4 does not hit any significant biological skill ceiling; splitting double the amount of marines or driving a car at double the speed obviously does. Proposal: if the new macro model gives you problems, talk about them directly.
you made good points that need to be discussed but dear god: Did you write the architect scene of the second MATRIX movie? Always know what crowd you are adressing! You write this to the users of this forum who may not be strong in their English, thus they dont understand what you are trying to say. You come across as a show off, which consequentially pisses people off and this post fails to deliver the message you want to get across to these people.
So I read the whole thing. I agree on many of the things you say. I think your general points about SC2 needing to be a game for the players, SC2 being developed for the worng reasons and your parts on unit design in Sc2 are very intresting and probably correct.
But God your writing makes you sounds like a pretentious douchebag. You sound like an english major who really really wants to impress his teacher.
Your article is great, and should be read but your writing style really makes it a lot harder then it needs to be.
What a unnecessary long and purposely difficult written text... anyway:
2:"In the end, the change might prolong the “passive period,” artificially filled with an explosion of semi-automated actions. Scouting might end up weakened too, with sudden, wild tech switches becoming the norm thanks to the increased mass of ressources stored each minute"
Well no, if anything the new LotV economy gives you less resources per minute than in HotS as you mine out faster, so need to invest more $ into bases for the same $/min.
3) I just don't see why LotV would contract time. (besides the obvious skip of the first minute of droning) Just because you start with more workers and the economy is different does not mean that there are more decisions/min to be made in a game of LotV compared to HotS. Different decisions, sure. But not so much more decision each minute of playtime.
5)Honestly Starcraft is way more fun too watch then football most of the time. Football matches equate to swarmhost stalemates for a high % of the game, often not building up to anything, and is only enjoyable if you really root for a team. (thats why worldcups are the best). In most Starcraft games even if no combat is happening you can still follow the players building up to something. So I don't understand you argument at all as Starcraft > Football
6) Such a bad paragraph! Deathballs exist because it is the most efficient option. Deathballs are chosen by THE PLAYER not the viewer. Deathballs became efficient because the pathing engine is more efficient so units aren't retarded. It has nothing to do with SC2 being 'made for esports'. LotV already restores more control by giving a counter option to forcefield and making collosus less viable.
7-8-9) There's no point in any of these... And the collosus is getting weakened and siege tanks are more viable in LotV so I have no idea what you want.
10) So you say excessive automisation removes control? But earlier you stated that there was a limit to the amount of actions of person can do. What good would individually charging zealots do besides adding additional low importance actions to be made (actions/min are limited remember)?
11)Well I guess I agree that Blizzards balancing/steering methods are not very great
12) Ultralisks are usually terrible so they buffed them. There is nothing wrong with that at all. They tried adding burrow charge but deemed it too good. So you suggest they should just be split up into several 'heavy zerglings' (lower supply, more agile)? That would make zerglings obsolete after hive. That seems like a way worse decision than having the ultralisk in the game. You say melee units are brainless.... meanwhile ling/bane ZvZ is one of the most intense micro battles in SC2. Ranged unit battles are often just lines of units shooting at eachother, ie Roach vs Roach or Mass collosus battles. The only thing that makes ranged battles interesting are the hardcounters you hate so much. (tanks vs clumped marines, land vs air, army compositions). So much bullshit in this paragraph.
13)They are reorganising as well as innovating. Existing units are changed, new units added....
14) Bad examples. Recall helps remove the 'huge risk' protoss used to have when leaving their base, and Msc can be sniped. Warpprism range allows for additional harassment choices compared to pretty boring mass a-move zealot warpins. Tactical Jump gives Battlecruisers more options to do risky things. Medivac+siege tanks improves the versatility of the tank while not improving it's boring turtle potential.
15) I don't know Kev... I've seen way more small skirmishes in LotV streams while HotS is usually 7-8mins of straight macro. Remember there's a higher % of money required for maintaining the economy, therefore there will actually be less army units at any given time compared to HotS. Also more bases to be defended so smaller skirmishes are more natural as well.
18-21)Spiritual gibberish/nonsense. And then in the end, you mock units 'with buttons' as it is 'mobafication' and therefore bad. But you also keep demanding slower time. There was an RTS with way slower play speed than Starcraft. It's Warcraft 3. And the only reason that was interesting being that slow was exactly because pretty much each unit had one or more buttons and heroes with 4 buttons! This is actually where moba's came from... Buttonless units are only interesting if the damage to health ratio is high, just like in Starcraft 2.
LotV has a lot to live up to and still needs quite some work, but it's already looking pretty revolutionary to me. This article is condescending and mostly just wrong.
On April 12 2015 01:55 Zambrah wrote: People don't like to slog through reading something like this, being a strong writer means using the correct language at the correct time, at least in my opinion.
This is also an opinion, one I highly disagree with.
Isn't it more or less standard to write an argumentative piece with clarity and concision?
It is. And being clear and concise is *much* harder than simply rambling on endlessly and telling the listeners/readers to parse it themselves and try to find the actual points. That's just lazy writing. And when it's done knowingly, that's just bullshit (or marketing/politics. all synonyms )
I agree with multiple of your point, and I'm glad someone wasn't as lazy as me and actually put some effort expressing it. Although the verb was enjoyable to read, it wasn't the clearest/cleanest way to present information, and I fear most less educated people, or simply those with a less extended knowledge of English will fail to even get tot the point(s). Also there's some strongly fallacious and demagogic sayings and I do not feel all your points are evenly supported by logic or evidences. Sadly those extravagant sayings might be the only way to get things moving, but it still gives an aftertaste of whining to the post.
Now can you write the next Protoss bullshit bible please? :D
Just like your terran piece, really well researched and written. Just like your terran piece, very biased and asserts many opinions as facts. And just like your terran piece I leave it not knowing what you actually want from Blizzard. Your complaints and demands are biased, broad, and vague.
I cant think of one real life sport that was created to be a "professional sport"
I have said this over the years the design process should be
X Creates very fun, competitive, community based game or real life sport. Then before you know it the question of "who" is the best NATURALLY arises and then the COMMUNITY turns it into a sport out of demand.
A very good recent example of this is Crossfit. A workout program that came out in 2002 as a combination of multiple forms of fitness. When the founder made it, he wasnt jerking off of the idea of 200,000 people trying to compete. He just made a brilliant combination of fitness. People loved it and it was fun, competitive, and community based. So naturally a few years down the line, the question naturally came who is the best? 13 years later you have over 200,000 people competing in the open for this sport and it is only growing because it was not made FOR SPORT, but it BECAME a sport. This is exactly what happened with BW.
Artificially trying to create some game into a sport is a mistake, and the problem is that now every damn video game company is trying to do that. Now any new game comes out and even in Alpha people are going "ZOMG LIEK ESPORTS????"
I agree with the casual shit, that is a term that I wish never existed.
Lots of caps, I know, but 5 years of being bitter about SC2 does that to people.
(2) Take your favorite movie or book and picture mentally what happens when you try to sum it up in decreasing formats: 10 pages, 5 pages, 1 page, 20 lines, 10 lines, 1 line.
Wouldn't someone who COULD sum up a picture or book in few words and do a good job be considered an excellent writer?
This is an interesting question, though it was not at all the one I raised. Yes, he would be considered a good writer—in this particular exercise. However, writing and summing up are not the same task.
Allow me to bounce back on this and submit you the following paradox:
(1) Many people (would) say I write well. (2) Yet writing too much for nothing is the epitome of being a bad writer.
So, things are straightforward. Either (1) I'm a pedantic, complacent, sadistic guru-wizard, manipulating the very mind of readers to make them believe false things; or (2) the text is what it is because of its constructionand the intents behind it.
People don't like to slog through reading something like this, being a strong writer means using the correct language at the correct time, at least in my opinion.
On April 12 2015 02:11 Zambrah wrote: Isn't it more or less standard to write an argumentative piece with clarity and concision?
But what makes you think I used the incorrect language, if not the intent you perceived—which might have been your implicit expectations? Perhaps I was actually quite clear and concise in my perspective?
To people who criticize my style. — You all came here to read a political program. But all political programs have a theoretical background, and it is by far much more important than the stupid slogans you learn by heart. I tried to make you think about this theoretical background, and you blamed me as “obscure” and “unnecessarily verbose”. Well, I am deeply sorry that I Blinked in your room, put a Gauss Rifle right against your temple, and forced you to read everything in one piece—or even anything at all.
Now; it is probably time for that debate to end.
(1) I have been defined as verbose and complacent. How can I defend myself? By using more words. Therefore, I am wrong by construction. (2) I have been defined as manipulative. If the manipulator defends himself, it's only part of his manipulation. Therefore, I am wrong by construction. (3) We have already been through this: how many pages of Welcome to ZParcraft II were essentially people raising their fists about how I didn't say things nicely enough; or I was too long; or I sounded too “sour”; or I was too sarcastic; or I was too arrogant; or “bla bla bla,” as you put it.
People always have good reasons to blame the messenger. If reality is unpleasant, kill the messenger. If reality is admittable, blame the messenger for not wording it the way Mr. Reader—well, well?—would like it to be formulated. OK, OK, OK. Yet as I wrote in the text:
Reality is a boomerang. Blame and kill the messengers at your heart's content, reality remains.
It's quite hilarious how some of you have no idea how crude and rude they were in their posts. I respect your freedom of reader to dislike my text, its content, its length or its style; but in the end, you won't respect my freedom of author to phrase it the way I want. You want me to stay in the cocoon; in your cocoon. You are—well, well?—a “dictatorial designer”.
But sense, like Starcraft, is not a game of cubes.
While I think it's OK to use rich language in opinion pieces, the only problem I see here is that the only people who could think that this was well written are the same ones who think Paulo Coelho makes Literature with a capital L.
Reading it confirmed my expectation that this would be a great post.
Siege Tanks shouldn't fly. Mutas should die when they are being shot. Half of the Protoss units shouldn't have made it in the game. Injects and the whole production/macro process should have been nerfed in the WoL beta to prevent the balancing around explosive sudden production and snowball effects that swallow "cute" play. Units that don't work - or wouldn't be transitionable in reasonable time with such changes of pace - should have been redesigned.
Hindsight, lots of hindsight indeed. I don't blame blizzard for the mistakes they made in the first 1-2years of the game. Even if there was Broodwar and Warcraft experience, SC2 is a game on its own. But I blame blizzard for the following years of repeating their mistakes and their wild improvisations. HotS could and should have fixed the mistakes. Instead it cemented the games fundamental problems, and it wasn't balance. That was the only aspect HotS kind of fixed with varying success. I'm kind of sad about myself, because I know that for years I was avid defender with great hope that blizzard had a plan. Or at least would just stand to their words*. It feels like their horrible presentation of LotV at Blizzcon has blown the rest of it away.
Though blizzard are just a part of the problem. The community is just as much to blame. Stupid anti-patching attitudes, hype over horrible half-assed changes such as the LotV economy or stupid features like fast moving siege units all across the board (new Swarm Host, tankivacs, Cyclones, Ravagers, new Tempest). RTS fundamentals are being thrown out of the window and the "fans" are rejoicing. Then, two weeks after release they'll be back playing DotA or LoL or that other HotS game, because why would you play an RTS game that wants to be a MOBA if you could just play a MOBA instead?
(2) Take your favorite movie or book and picture mentally what happens when you try to sum it up in decreasing formats: 10 pages, 5 pages, 1 page, 20 lines, 10 lines, 1 line.
Wouldn't someone who COULD sum up a picture or book in few words and do a good job be considered an excellent writer?
This is an interesting question, though it was not at all the one I raised. Yes, he would be considered a good writer—in this particular exercise. However, writing and summing up are not the same task.
Allow me to bounce back on this and submit you the following paradox:
(1) Many people (would) say I write well. (2) Yet writing too much for nothing is the epitome of being a bad writer.
So, things are straightforward. Either (1) I'm a pedantic, complacent, sadistic guru-wizard, manipulating the very mind of readers to make them believe false things; or (2) the text is what it is because of its constructionand the intents behind it.
People don't like to slog through reading something like this, being a strong writer means using the correct language at the correct time, at least in my opinion.
On April 12 2015 02:11 Zambrah wrote: Isn't it more or less standard to write an argumentative piece with clarity and concision?
But what makes you think I used the incorrect language, if not the intent you perceived—which might have been your implicit expectations? Perhaps I was actually quite clear and concise in my perspective?
To people who criticize my style. — You all came here to read a political program. But all political programs have a theoretical background, and it is by far much more important than the stupid slogans you learn by heart. I tried to make you think about this theoretical background, and you blamed me as “obscure” and “unnecessarily verbose”. Well, I am deeply sorry that I Blinked in your room, put a Gauss Rifle right against your temple, and forced you to read everything in one piece—or even anything at all.
Now; it is probably time for that debate to end.
(1) I have been defined as verbose and complacent. How can I defend myself? By using more words. Therefore, I am wrong by construction. (2) I have been defined as manipulative. If the manipulator defends himself, it's only part of his manipulation. Therefore, I am wrong by construction. (3) We have already been through this: how many pages of Welcome to ZParcraft II were essentially people raising their fists about how I didn't say things nicely enough; or I was too long; or I sounded too “sour”; or I was too sarcastic; or I was too arrogant; or “bla bla bla,” as you put it.
People always have good reasons to blame the messenger. If reality is unpleasant, kill the messenger. If reality is admittable, blame the messenger for not wording it the way Mr. Reader—well, well?—would like it to be formulated. OK, OK, OK. Yet as I wrote in the text:
Reality is a boomerang. Blame and kill the messengers at your heart's content, reality remains.
It's quite hilarious how some of you have no idea how crude and rude they were in their posts. I respect your freedom of reader to dislike my text, its content, its length or its style; but in the end, you won't respect my freedom of author to phrase it the way I want. You want me to stay in the cocoon; in your cocoon. You are—well, well?—a “dictatorial designer”.
But sense, like Starcraft, is not a game of cubes.
Holy shit, you ARE a pretentious douche! Your arrogant wording and flashy expression don't make me think about the theoretical background, all it does is make me sigh and facepalm because you try to obfuscate your poor argument behind a wall of words. Your post is neither well written nor well argumented although you really want to appear that way. Cut the crap and state your points and reasoning clear and precise. It's actually that simple.
Wow, I cannot even start to argue with you as almost everything you wrote in return to the critique is just stupid bullshit. Anyway, I'm done with you. Talk to a mirror or a bunch of airheads, makes no difference for me and probably neither for you.
Blizzard tried to make a flashy game for esport betting on the overall "good" mechanics of broodwar and its reputation. Make more big armies fight!!! big = number = more mineral = mule/chrono/inject and the deed was done for an impossible mission.
Try not to rely on ad hominem to argue on the internet.
This discussion should not be about who does or does not get along with who, but rather about the whole idea of contraction of time reducing control in starcraft.
It's also not a discussion about the efficacy of dwf's writing style.
This is once again an awesome article, TheDwf! Although I haven't seen too much of LotV yet, the high starting worker count somehow bothered me as well, but I wasn't sure why. Imho the logic in this huge post is pretty much undeniable.
On a sidenote: I'm one of those "casuals"... and I don't want to be spoon fed with everything. I want to find my own ways of playing the game, instead of being forced to play it a specific way. I'm also more of a strategist, but lack mechanical skill. I never understood why an RTS would need to be a button slamming contest. SC2 more and more turns into a Real-Time-throw-units-at-each-other game with less and less actual Strategy involved.
I think it is important to note that moste of the viewers of any competition will be participants. Most people who watch hockey have played hockey. Most people who watch poker play poker. If Starcraft loses its player base to MOBAs, poker, and CSGO, then the people who watched SC2 will watch whatever they are currently playing. SC2 doesn't have nearly the critical mass required to have it become the football of geeks. In short, the only way to have spectators is to have players.
The health of SC2 as a spectator esport depends critically on how fun it is to play. Swarm hosts are not fun unless your name is Snute. I think though that the biggest problem economy. Currently, you spend the entire game with 3 or fewer mining bases. If changes are made to make 4 bases more efficient than 3 bases, harass units can be toned down, and the game can be much more dynamic. As bad as 4 gate PvP was, late WOL PvT was more frustrating IMO. It was a 15-minute 3-base race to max with one big fight to determine the game. Spread both sides out into more bases and take away the insanity of oracles and boosted medivacs, and there is so much more potential.
To address the style of the writing. I do respect your skill in writing English but I feel that if all you are trying to do is to get a point across to the people in charge of changing the game, hiding it behind long prose can lose your audience.
Also, another flaw is that you are describing the problems without proposing solutions. I believe the Blizzard designers understand where you are coming from and tried to not fall into the pitfalls you are describing.
However, designing such a complex game is pretty hard. And a solution is rarely obvious.
I hate to point this out, but the piece was relatively short for an analytic article. I fear that people have become accustomed to short and shallow internet commentary, and find it difficult to digest a nuanced elaboration of an issue.
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys?
It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case.
For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from.
This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this.
So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style.
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys?
It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case.
For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from.
This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this.
So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style.
This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy.
TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time.
Which, BTW, is the point of this piece, for anyone who feels the arguments are "obfuscated". (I swear to god, I will headdesk the next person who tries to justify that the article is a "discombobulation of perspicacities" with the word "obfuscate" and other large words they found in the thesarus).
Also: yes. DWF like rhetorical writing style. Just accept it and try to understand the core arguments and discuss those. Ignore the "fanciful" writing style for which you need a thesaurus to apprehend the concepts in the terminology as strictly as you would Foucault.
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys?
It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case.
For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from.
This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this.
So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style.
This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy.
TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time.
I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal.
I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it.
At this point, I'm very close to thinking that the SC2 community is by far the biggest thing dragging SC2 as a game and an esports down.
I've been reading these forums almost since SC2 was announced. I have read so karking many of these "design manifestos." They are remarkably similar, and most are not all that helpful--and I have to say that this is, in fact, one of the weakest examples I've seen yet.
As to the article itself, like many examples of this genre, it is long on rhetoric, long on random insults and toxicity towards the game, the community, and Blizzard, long on random opinions about units and game concepts thrown out parenthetically as though self-evident, and short on, well, justification, specificity, constructiveness, etc. No one who didn't already agree with Dwf's short forum post in the first TL strategy thread is going to be convinced by the same post with added insults and metaphors. With the bloat cut out, this post comes to a few broad, vague, one-sided platitudes (Control is good, hard-counters are bad, time contraction is bad, Blizzard is stupid, etc, etc.). This isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's effects will be dreadful.
As to these effects, I can predict them with a high degree of certainty. The above vague platitudes and phrases will be diffused through the community and repeated in forum posts ad nasaeum for the next year or so. The Starcraft community in general will be even more reinforced in their self-regarding sense of themselves as a long-suffering, genius intelligentsia somehow condescending to watch a terribad game designed by their obvious moral and intellectual inferiors, idiots who somehow still haven't figured out how to just read the REALLY OBVIOUS and SIMPLE PRINCIPLES of GOOD GAME DESIGN from BROOD WAR that THAT ONE GUY in THAT ONE FORUM POST wrote with BULLET POINTS and just DO THAT--which is apparently something that the community could easily do on their own. This will lead to the community becoming even more (!) ridiculously toxic towards Blizzard and the game they watch and play. It will also paradoxically lead to much less constructive criticism being directed toward LotV and Starcraft in general. Dozens of people will tell Blizzard to "just read dwf's forum post!" and repeat said platitudes and/or insults instead of engaging in constructive criticism of the game set before them. The aforesaid insults and non-constructivity will not make this a very helpful proposition for Blizzard, but it will have the effect of swamping out real criticism and discussion.
Likewise, the post will also anger lots of people, especially people who (1) disagree with dwf, (2) have some kind of positive feelings towards Blizzard, or (3) feel insulted by dwf's insults. These people will often react badly and non-constructively. They will be responded to non-constructively using dwf's insults and/or platitudes.
The overall result will be the effective devolution of the Starcraft community's discourse, the swamping out of constructive criticism, and an increase in every type of toxicity, towards the game, Blizzard, and other community members. This will continue to drive new players and watchers away from Starcraft, as well as further alienating veterans and fans like me.
I really hope I'm wrong about this. Maybe, somehow, this post will inspire lots of great discussion about these general issues that will eventually lead to some positive, constructive ideas. Some big manifestos have eventually (after bringing on most of the negative effects spoken of above) led to some more-or-less constructive ideas. Maybe that will be true here, in the end. But in the meantime, what will be the costs?
All that being said, I'm gonna go read the TL Strategy post. Carry on.
At this point, I'm very close to thinking that the SC2 community is by far the biggest thing dragging SC2 as a game and an esports down.
I've been reading these forums almost since SC2 was announced. I have read so karking many of these "design manifestos." They are remarkably similar, and most are not all that helpful--and I have to say that this is, in fact, one of the weakest examples I've seen yet.
As to the article itself, like many examples of this genre, it is long on rhetoric, long on random insults and toxicity towards the game, the community, and Blizzard, long on random opinions about units and game concepts thrown out parenthetically as though self-evident, and short on, well, justification, specificity, constructiveness, etc. No one who didn't already agree with Dwf's short forum post in the first TL strategy thread is going to be convinced by the same post with added insults and metaphors. With the bloat cut out, this post comes to a few broad, vague, one-sided platitudes (Control is good, hard-counters are bad, time contraction is bad, Blizzard is stupid, etc, etc.). This isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's effects will be dreadful.
As to these effects, I can predict them with a high degree of certainty. The above vague platitudes and phrases will be diffused through the community and repeated in forum posts ad nasaeum for the next year or so. The Starcraft community in general will be even more reinforced in their self-regarding sense of themselves as a long-suffering, genius intelligentsia somehow condescending to watch a terribad game designed by their obvious moral and intellectual inferiors, idiots who somehow still haven't figured out how to just read the REALLY OBVIOUS and SIMPLE PRINCIPLES of GOOD GAME DESIGN from BROOD WAR that THAT ONE GUY in THAT ONE FORUM POST wrote with BULLET POINTS and just DO THAT--which is apparently something that the community could easily do on their own. This will lead to the community becoming even more (!) ridiculously toxic towards Blizzard and the game they watch and play. It will also paradoxically lead to much less constructive criticism being directed toward LotV and Starcraft in general. Dozens of people will tell Blizzard to "just read dwf's forum post!" and repeat said platitudes and/or insults instead of engaging in constructive criticism of the game set before them. The aforesaid insults and non-constructivity will not make this a very helpful proposition for Blizzard, but it will have the effect of swamping out real criticism and discussion.
Likewise, the post will also anger lots of people, especially people who (1) disagree with dwf, (2) have some kind of positive feelings towards Blizzard, or (3) feel insulted by dwf's insults. These people will often react badly and non-constructively. They will be responded to non-constructively using dwf's insults and/or platitudes.
The overall result will be the effective devolution of the Starcraft community's discourse, the swamping out of constructive criticism, and an increase in every type of toxicity, towards the game, Blizzard, and other community members. This will continue to drive new players and watchers away from Starcraft, as well as further alienating veterans and fans like me.
However, this is exactly NOT a vague balance whine. This whole post was about one particular point. Contraction of time removes control from the player.
Articles like this are necessary in order to make some sort of progress. Discussions need to be had. Things need to be tried out. Communication needs to occur between all involved parties.
There is one simple question that hangs in the air. 'Can Starcraft 2 be made better?' I love Starcraft. I have consumed countless hours of tournaments, and played many more hours of ladder. There are some things that could be tried out as being potentially more fun because, as thedwf observes, the changes that blizzard continually put out often detract from the fun to be had. The more fun the game is, the longer we'll be playing it. The more people can come to enjoy it.
Some people say that BW 2.0 is not the way to go, but we need to have discussions, we need to TRY THINGS OUT. Because what blizzard is doing now is not working, but we can help.
At this point, I'm very close to thinking that the SC2 community is by far the biggest thing dragging SC2 as a game and an esports down.
I've been reading these forums almost since SC2 was announced. I have read so karking many of these "design manifestos." They are remarkably similar, and most are not all that helpful--and I have to say that this is, in fact, one of the weakest examples I've seen yet.
As to the article itself, like many examples of this genre, it is long on rhetoric, long on random insults and toxicity towards the game, the community, and Blizzard, long on random opinions about units and game concepts thrown out parenthetically as though self-evident, and short on, well, justification, specificity, constructiveness, etc. No one who didn't already agree with Dwf's short forum post in the first TL strategy thread is going to be convinced by the same post with added insults and metaphors. With the bloat cut out, this post comes to a few broad, vague, one-sided platitudes (Control is good, hard-counters are bad, time contraction is bad, Blizzard is stupid, etc, etc.). This isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's effects will be dreadful.
As to these effects, I can predict them with a high degree of certainty. The above vague platitudes and phrases will be diffused through the community and repeated in forum posts ad nasaeum for the next year or so. The Starcraft community in general will be even more reinforced in their self-regarding sense of themselves as a long-suffering, genius intelligentsia somehow condescending to watch a terribad game designed by their obvious moral and intellectual inferiors, idiots who somehow still haven't figured out how to just read the REALLY OBVIOUS and SIMPLE PRINCIPLES of GOOD GAME DESIGN from BROOD WAR that THAT ONE GUY in THAT ONE FORUM POST wrote with BULLET POINTS and just DO THAT--which is apparently something that the community could easily do on their own. This will lead to the community becoming even more (!) ridiculously toxic towards Blizzard and the game they watch and play. It will also paradoxically lead to much less constructive criticism being directed toward LotV and Starcraft in general. Dozens of people will tell Blizzard to "just read dwf's forum post!" and repeat said platitudes and/or insults instead of engaging in constructive criticism of the game set before them. The aforesaid insults and non-constructivity will not make this a very helpful proposition for Blizzard, but it will have the effect of swamping out real criticism and discussion.
Likewise, the post will also anger lots of people, especially people who (1) disagree with dwf, (2) have some kind of positive feelings towards Blizzard, or (3) feel insulted by dwf's insults. These people will often react badly and non-constructively. They will be responded to non-constructively using dwf's insults and/or platitudes.
The overall result will be the effective devolution of the Starcraft community's discourse, the swamping out of constructive criticism, and an increase in every type of toxicity, towards the game, Blizzard, and other community members. This will continue to drive new players and watchers away from Starcraft, as well as further alienating veterans and fans like me.
However, this is exactly NOT a vague balance whine. This whole post was about one particular point. Contraction of time removes control from the player.
Articles like this are necessary in order to make some sort of progress. Discussions need to be had. Things need to be tried out. Communication needs to occur between all involved parties.
There is one simple question that hangs in the air. 'Can Starcraft 2 be made better?' I love Starcraft. I have consumed countless hours of tournaments, and played many more hours of ladder. There are some things that could be tried out as being potentially more fun because, as thedwf observes, the changes that blizzard continually put out often detract from the fun to be had. The more fun the game is, the longer we'll be playing it. The more people can come to enjoy it.
Some people say that BW 2.0 is not the way to go, but we need to have discussions, we need to TRY THINGS OUT. Because what blizzard is doing now is not working, but we can help.
Its less about BW 2.0 and more like, take lessons from BW that we can apply to some shortfalls we see in HotS.
You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite "Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's. When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words "Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people.
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys?
It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case.
For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from.
This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this.
So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style.
This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy.
TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time.
I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal.
No, it doesn't; that's not what I said! You hear what you want to hear. I specifically said that it's NOT designed to be taken seriously by Blizzard, but to be regarded as a piece of persuasion to get people to be critical of Blizzard.
I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it.
No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
On April 12 2015 13:17 kelbs wrote: You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite "Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's. When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words "Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people.
Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm.
That said, TheDwf is an incredible writer. This piece is well held together despite the fact that it is essentially a ramble in 20 something unlabeled parts.
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys?
It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case.
For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from.
This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this.
So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style.
This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy.
TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time.
I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal.
No, it doesn't; that's not what I said! You hear what you want to hear. I specifically said that it's NOT designed to be taken seriously by Blizzard, but to be regarded as a piece of persuasion to get people to be critical of Blizzard.
I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it.
No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
On April 12 2015 13:17 kelbs wrote: You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite "Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's. When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words "Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people.
Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm.
That said, TheDwf is an incredible writer. This piece is well held together despite the fact that it is essentially a ramble in 20 something unlabeled parts.
The Elements of Style was brought up because the OP seriously needs an editor. "Time Compression" appears in a few places but is hardly a consistent theme. I could write just as many words as TheDwf on why his intended messages fail to support themselves, but this isn't a scientific piece is it? If this is mere rhetoric, then let us criticise the rhetoric. I will not "rally" behind someone who refuses to speak clearly and concisely about the issues at hand; I will not rally behind someone who names their opinion piece on video game design "RAZZIA OF THE BLIZZSTERS", which when translated to simple english seems to be some sort of raid by a mysterious group who have the misfortune to be named "The Blizzsters", a name both uncomfortable to pronounce and disruptive to read.
If I am told to judge it as rhetoric, it is extremely poor rhetoric. It burdens the reader with words that require a thesaurus every other paragraph, and then it's up to the reader to figure out the intended meaning when we get a phrase like "not punctually, but globally". There is no alternate meaning of punctual that allows it to describe anything other than "on time, when expected." Now I start asking myself "You know, of all the stages of a Starcraft 2 game, I found the opening slowest and least interesting." And so I am already distracted from the point that was being made. Any game design decision cannot be said to be punctual when it has yet to be committed outside of Beta servers. Now I am further from the point that was being made; this is the trap an author of rhetorical writing has set for his or herself in choosing to use words rarely seen outside of essay assignments with a minimum page count.
I agree that Blizzard's initial approach to altering the overall economic shape of Starcraft 2 requires improvement; it only achieves the bare skeleton of "Rewarding Expanding". However, all this nonsense about Watchability and the Tyranny of the Spectator is rhetoric alone, as TheDwf can only speculate why certain design decisions were made. "Time Compression" is rapidly becoming some sort of catchphrase, as if suddenly Blizzard has found a hole in space time and sewn it shut to make their game move faster than possible. We need to keep in mind that Legacy of the Void Economy Revision #1 is still a good start, as a drastic change in the SC2 economy would completely change the strategy and map design of the game. However, we should word our opposition to its side effects as "Punishing Non-expansion", as these are more exact words that reflect on the failings of Blizzard's stated goal.
However, this is a discussion based on rhetoric alone, correct? I have seen nothing exceptional or novel in this rhetoric aside from its superfluous length; even in high school I would blush in embarrassment were I to write a piece such as this. Its language rebuffs proper discussion and provides no food for thought save for the paranoid delusionists who glance nervously at their pitchforks and torches every time Blizzard pushes out a test map that does not completely revise the game's design. Five years may be a long time to wait, but after five years Blizzard suddenly shows willingness to change the economic model of SC2. Let them innovate. But more importantly, tell them precisely and succinctly what is lacking.
Or if writing speeches to rally English-language-focused Etymologists who happen to deeply care about the design of Starcraft 2 is more your forte, by all means write away. Just don't be surprised if others find it distasteful when you turn your forte up to fortississimo.
This is quite the worthy read, however I sadly only have time to skim and smirk (a tactic I use for the replies as well). I shall however make it a point to return and give this work the time it deserves.
I fear that I am in the minority, though I should hope not, as I find TheDwf's writing quite enjoyable as well as very well thought out. I am not sure I agree with all points, which is clearly beside them, but there is a clear amount of thought put into these ideas.
I enjoyed read...err perusing the ensuing chaos of replies.
On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote: So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost
I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways!
You might be my internet hero...
Also, man I am seriously impressed with your ability to write in English, it being your second(?) language. My hat is off to you, that is seriously impressive (also I really should find out where my hat went).
No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
Well doesn't look like we're getting anywhere with this. Can I just ask you though: If you think the article isn't about the game, why are you letting it stay in the 'legacy of the void' subforum? Surely the content here should be directly related to the beta? It's an opinion piece, not a detailed analytical look at legacy of the void and the state of the game, shouldn't it go in a blog post or something? I think that's the key issue here.
People, dear teamliquid's fellows: you made me cry and laugh at the same time.
TheDwf: you're brilliant.
Let's sum it up, it'so beautifull
Some dude show up with a long text, both difficult and rewarding to read, adressing the issue of time-contraction in sc2: it explains how the goal to make an "action-packed" game, with shiny dots on the screen right from the start and all the way to the end ultimately weakens the interactions between players and therefore limits the practical skill-ceiling of the game.
Other dudes freak out, because the wall of text has neither auto-mining, nor smartcasting, and "could be sumed up in 200 words".
gg no re
@TheDwf: you made my day, and most certainly the next.
On April 12 2015 12:42 Captain Peabody wrote: The overall result will be the effective devolution of the Starcraft community's discourse, the swamping out of constructive criticism, and an increase in every type of toxicity, towards the game, Blizzard, and other community members. This will continue to drive new players and watchers away from Starcraft, as well as further alienating veterans and fans like me.
I don't think toxicity has any relevance here but I think "the swamping out of constructive criticism" is a completely valid concern. The points of the piece may be true but it's not nearly direct enough to either make an impact or generate meaningful discussion for the future of LOTV.
On April 12 2015 13:08 Thaniri wrote: However, this is exactly NOT a vague balance whine. This whole post was about one particular point. Contraction of time removes control from the player.
Articles like this are necessary in order to make some sort of progress. Discussions need to be had. Things need to be tried out. Communication needs to occur between all involved parties.
The "contraction of time and how it removes control from the player" would be a great topic of discussion in the college course Starcraft 101. The issue is, what is the direct implementation to fix this? What is step 1 here that we could communicate to blizzard? Even if we all agree with the OP's argument, how can we implement something to fix this? If the fix is an economy change, then why not spend all these words examining a new economy rather than thousands of words arguing against the contraction of time?
I absolutely agree that discussion needs to be had but the discussion generated by this article is pretty much unrelated to the future of LOTV. I believe the backlash from several posters is the result of this confusion. As Captain Peabody mentioned there seems to be "swamping out of constructive criticism" resulting from the post. I don't think that was the intention of the article but that is what is happening.
On April 12 2015 18:33 Karel wrote: People, dear teamliquid's fellows: you made me cry and laugh at the same time.
TheDwf: you're brilliant.
Let's sum it up, it'so beautifull
Some dude show up with a long text, both difficult and rewarding to read, adressing the issue of time-contraction in sc2: it explains how the goal to make an "action-packed" game, with shiny dots on the screen right from the start and all the way to the end ultimately weakens the interactions between players and therefore the practical skill-ceiling of the game.
Other dudes freak out, because the wall of text has neither auto-mining, nor smartcasting, and "could be sum up in 200 words".
gg no re
@TheDwf: you made my day, and most certainly the next.
and you have made my day =D
I think in a week or two when people have had a chance to really digest this we'll see some more discussion
On April 12 2015 18:33 Karel wrote: People, dear teamliquid's fellows: you made me cry and laugh at the same time.
TheDwf: you're brilliant.
Let's sum it up, it'so beautifull
Some dude show up with a long text, both difficult and rewarding to read, adressing the issue of time-contraction in sc2: it explains how the goal to make an "action-packed" game, with shiny dots on the screen right from the start and all the way to the end ultimately weakens the interactions between players and therefore the practical skill-ceiling of the game.
Other dudes freak out, because the wall of text has neither auto-mining, nor smartcasting, and "could be sum up in 200 words".
gg no re
@TheDwf: you made my day, and most certainly the next.
On April 12 2015 18:48 knyttym wrote: The "contraction of time and how it removes control from the player" would be a great topic of discussion in the college course Starcraft 101. The issue is, what is the direct implementation to fix this? What is step 1 here that we could communicate to blizzard? Even if we all agree with the OP's argument, how can we implement something to fix this? If the fix is an economy change, then why not spend all these words examining a new economy rather than thousands of words arguing against the contraction of time?
I absolutely agree that discussion needs to be had but the discussion generated by this article is pretty much unrelated to the future of LOTV. I believe the backlash from several posters is the result of this confusion. As Captain Peabody mentioned there seems to be "swamping out of constructive criticism" resulting from the post. I don't think that was the intention of the article but that is what is happening.
The issue is much broader than "fix the economy: done!", which is why this article in its whole length makes sense. Blizzard is trying to speed the game up on many fronts or has already done so by initial design, patches or WoL-->HotS expansion. And the community is largely applauding because they only see the new toys, they only read the new phrases of "faster game" and "more excitement" but miss the strategical implementations. That's where Dwf says
If the RT part of RTS is violently compressed then the S withers away too by force.
The fix is to change the game on many levels and undo previous changes that let to those situations. The economy model in which you are encouraged to invest everything early into acquiring expansions and building tech and production of little units is a core of the problem. But also many other aspects need to be questioned. Like macro mechanics and worker build time/larva spawn time, reactors and warpgates, costs for tech buildings. Unit interactions need to be improved instead of throwing random spells onto existing units and introducing more units that we don't even know what to use them for or if we know it, it is a simple swap of the new unit with an old one. Like, blizzard complains about the early game downtime, yet, instead of attacking the problem directly with its strategical roots in explosive production after the first inject keeping the opponent at home, walling and forcefielding instead of unit build up or Nexus Canon instead of real unit defense, they just try to start the game at a point in which the armies are big enough to not care about those tools. Or make units that can circumvent them.
Like: PvT boring in WoL? --> Introduce very cheap tools that can win the game early (oracle, widow mine, medivac boosters) --> introduce defensive tools that can stop them of a tiny investment. Result: Players still play the same deathball style as before. Even less macro pressure play because of the enhanced defensive tools. Only aggression left is the hyperstrong tools introduced to do damage where no damage can be done otherwise.
The solution to those deathballs is not to introduce tools and their counters, the solution is to slow down production so that every unit matters. So that your banshee can poke the main, and then poke the natural and dance with the stalkers, not that the mothership core goes "nope" and when you come back the Protoss has 4 warpgates and a robo and an observer and 5stalkers ready to intercept your unit. Ever been annoyed by killing 15drones and then the zerg just remakes them? Yes, too much production on both sides. 15 drones should not be made at 2 bases (not even start about 3bases) in less than one minute. Neither should sacrificing your whole army - 8 hellions, 800minerals investment early in the game - result in just remaking them with 30seconds build time two at a time. The popping roaches now should have a huge timing window to punish the Terran and the Zerg should seriously struggle to not just fall out of the game. But neither is the case. Until the roaches have moved over the map there are 4bunkers finished and the Terran production has started kicking in, so the zerg just doesn't build the roaches in the first place (unless in a very allinish move). Instead he remakes the drones and the game just goes on with more production, bases and tech already finished.
The game is heavily balanced and designed around either being allin, or not having any units at all. The solution isn't simple and probably will not ever be examined by blizzard for obvious reasons of workload and their own designgoals, but going the opposite direction of more bases, more production, more powerful units to circumvent defenses early is plainly wrong.
Like, blizzard complains about the early game downtime, yet, instead of attacking the problem directly with its strategical roots in explosive production after the first inject keeping the opponent at home, walling and forcefielding instead of unit build up or Nexus Canon instead of real unit defense, they just try to start the game at a point in which the armies are big enough to not care about those tools. Or make units that can circumvent them.
Imagine if MOBA's had a phase where you had to kill neutral monsters for 15 minutes before you could actually start attacking the enemy. Wouldn't the easy solution here be to cut straight to the interesting parts of the game?
Blizzard does exactly that with 12-mining workers. Trying to create early game action through unit design only is very challenging. So actually I think your looking at this the wrong way. The core problem is that the game starts too late (and still does), and making tweaks to units should only be considered band-aid fixes. In the future RTS games will most likely allow you to go straight to the fun parts as we see in MOBA's.
Ever been annoyed by killing 15drones and then the zerg just remakes them? Yes, too much production on both sides. 15 drones should not be made at 2 bases (not even start about 3bases) in less than one minute. Neither should sacrificing your whole army - 8 hellions, 800minerals investment early in the game - result in just remaking them with 30seconds build time two at a time. T
If the cost of losing units become too hard, players will build their strategies around trying to avoid this from happening in the first place. This means it will become harder for the enemy to harass drones and the terran player is less likely to be aggressive with Hellions since he cannot afford to lose them.
In fact, all your doing here is increasing the risk/reward of harassing which is exactly what Sc2 doesn't need as it makes the gameplay a lot more volatile and less likely to be back and fourth.
But neither is the case. Until the roaches have moved over the map there are 4bunkers finished and the Terran production has started kicking in, so the zerg just doesn't build the roaches in the first place (unless in a very allinish move). Instead he remakes the drones and the game just goes on with more production, bases and tech already finished.
If zerg doesn't make the Roaches in the first place, the terran could have continued with Hellion production and continued to kill drones. If you want more light Roach aggression to be viable, you should look at stronger burrow, nydus or overlord play, which really has nothng to do with time contraction, but rather has something to do with (a) harassment tools and (b) how thinly the terran player is spread out.
But also many other aspects need to be questioned. Like macro mechanics and worker build time/larva spawn time, reactors and warpgates, costs for tech buildings.
If everything builds X% faster, the effect is unchanged. However, the issue comes from when you create huge economic discrepancies that makes it impossible for one race to move out, and instead gives them a really strong all-in tool (warpgates). But once again, this is a specific issue and not related to time contraction as a general concept.
Regardless of the rhetorics, there are a lot of assertions in this, some not backed up, some straight up false. Why should we believe that because the game starts 1 minute later, it logically follows that everyone will rush for 3-base and not attack? How does that work? The number of 6 workers is no less arbitrary than the number of 12 workers. So why is it that one forces mistakes out of players and removes strategy because it contracts time, when the other didn't?
I have to agree with Captain Peabody to an extent here. A large part of the response mechanic appears to be "a long post shitting on Blizzard? LET ME VOICE AGREEMENT". This feels like preaching to converts.
On April 12 2015 11:54 StalkerFang wrote: Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it.
The problem is that he makes so many great points that it's hard to concentrate on one.
btw: people analyze his rhetoric way too much. is this a forum about writing or about starcraft?
It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
An analytical piece would be something like this: -Based on XXX number of games ,55% of the time Y occured, 20% Z occured and 35% occured which is an increase compared to previously. I believe this can be attributed 4 factors with the most recent factor being introduced by LOTV as seen in...."
In analysis you try to create an overview over all of the factors that impact the decisions in the game. I think DWF in many ways is closer to what I would consider an essay.
It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
We have a very different definition of analysis you and I. This is an philosphiclaly essay that targets the emotions of the audience, especially those who are affected by confirmation bias.
An analytical piece would be something like this: -Based on XXX number of games ,55% of the time Y occured, 20% Z occured and 35% occured which is an increase compared to previously. I believe this can be attributed 4 factors with the most recent factor being introduced by LOTV as seen in...."
In analysis you try to create an overview over all of the factors that impact the decisions in the game. I don't see how DWF even was close here.
So without figures and percentages you can't do analysis?
It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
We have a very different definition of analysis you and I. This is an philosphiclaly essay that targets the emotions of the audience, especially those who are affected by confirmation bias.
An analytical piece would be something like this: -Based on XXX number of games ,55% of the time Y occured, 20% Z occured and 35% occured which is an increase compared to previously. I believe this can be attributed 4 factors with the most recent factor being introduced by LOTV as seen in...."
In analysis you try to create an overview over all of the factors that impact the decisions in the game. I don't see how DWF even was close here.
So without figures and percentages you can't do analysis?
No read this
would be something like this:
Something like this = Example (if you do have a lot of great data as TL had in their "treatise" it definitely does help with the quality of the analysis though - but its not a neccesity).
EDIT: Just checked the actual definition of an analysis:
this process as a method of studying the nature of something or of determining its essential features and their relations:
Hider, you're directly detracting from this discussion by focusing on the rhetoric and not the substance of the article. It doesn't matter what your definition of `analysis' is, nor does it matter whether some other guy used the word correctly when discussing the article. Instead, what matters is the substance of the claims, i.e., what we can learn about the state of the game with the changes proposed by Blizzard from the large number of historic evidence used to illustrate the claims made. It's not that reducing time necessarily reduces strategy, but we're not operating in a vacuum, and a compelling case can be made by looking at our experience with WoL and HotS for this particular change leading to a reduction in how much strategic depth we can expect from LotV.
P.S. An analysis isn't a comprehensive overview of empirical data. The core of the term comes from the idea that we are excluding empirics, and merely explicate information that is already available through making distinctions. An analysis epistemologically always provides less information that the source, but that doesn't detract from its usefulness as making distinctions does allow us to understand the matter better, allowing us to make new connections between different types of empirical data in the long run.
For example, a four-legged chair can be analyzed in the sense that we can say that it includes four legs. This information is entailed by its very meaning. But this analysis can be quite useful in a situation where someone is looking for four equally weighted sticks. We can then proceed to see if the chair has legs which have the same design, and granted that, we can investigate whether we can detach all four legs from the chair.
Hider, you're directly detracting from this discussion by focusing on the rhetoric and not the substance of the article
This is funny, because if you go some pages back I was actually one of the first that attempted to find the actual substance of the article and discuss its flaws. On the other hand, most other commntators were more like "YEH Blizzard sucks, brilliant article". What is it if you want me to discuss actually? Are anyone having a discussion of the "substance" that I am redirecting the discussion away from?
Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm.
Above link felt like a less extreme version of what DWF argues with less irrelevant analogies and more relevant examples. But perhaps because the examples were so direct (rather than vague) the flaws in the argumentation were apparent to anyone.
It takes 3 seconds to anyone with the slightest ounce of bona fides to realize that the thesis defended in Spaghettification is the exact, extreme opposite of what your link is saying. Literally the unadulterated antithesis.
Good luck with your slandering campaign, and by all means stay true to your ID and keep dodging hot bullets like this.
Like, blizzard complains about the early game downtime, yet, instead of attacking the problem directly with its strategical roots in explosive production after the first inject keeping the opponent at home, walling and forcefielding instead of unit build up or Nexus Canon instead of real unit defense, they just try to start the game at a point in which the armies are big enough to not care about those tools. Or make units that can circumvent them.
The easiest solution is to remove/reduce early game. Imagine if MOBA's had a phase where you had to kill neutral monsters for 15 minutes before you could actually start attacking the enemy. Wouldn't the easy solution here be to cut straight to the interesting parts of the game?
Blizzard does exactly that with 12-mining workers. Trying to create early game action through unit design only is very challenging. So actually I think your looking at this the wrong way. The core problem is that the game starts too late (and still does), and making tweaks to units should only be considered band-aid fixes. In the future RTS games will most likely allow you to go straight to the fun parts as we see in MOBA's.
The twelve worker start is one of the best cases that shows how blizzard hasn't understood anything. The 12worker start accelerates the game's economy by 1 minute real time. But it doesn't even lead to "more action" early. Many units that create action - stalkers, hellions, reapers - are not accelerated by this because the crux to getting them out is the build time of the production and tech buildings. I'm not even really opposed to the change, because I believe that it is tomeito-tomato whether you start with 6 or 12 workers, the important part is how you design the timings from each of those starts. But yeah, the whole problem identification - 60 fucking seconds of downtime in the game, when we are talking about 10min breaks between games and uncertain set up times until the game even begins - is bullshit to begin with. The whole argumentation for the change is pretty bad, the more I think about it.
Like: PvT boring in WoL? --> Introduce very cheap tools that can win the game early (oracle, widow mine, medivac boosters) --> introduce defensive tools that can stop them of a tiny investment. Result:
This is the problem with DWFs article. He speaks so vaguely so everyone who is critical of Blizzard can combine what he says with their own interpretations of what Blizzard does wrong. If you can apply Widow Mines into a discussion of time contraction, then you can apply everything, and what on earth is the point of the article then? It doesn't inform us in anyway. It doesn't provide any interesting claims with well-supported arguments.
Oracles and boostervacs were just examples. I could give more and already said that the problem is manigfold. I just made it to showcase how blizzard tries to overcome "boring" gameplay with the introduction of specific tools, rather than dealing with the roots of the boring gameplay itself. That's also what I think is the core point of the article. It's not "just regenerating mutalisks" or "just siege tanks that can be picked up" or "just the LotV economy". It's all of it combined that alienates the game from it's roots. It's the fact that instead of making tank/marine playable, they introduced the widow mine as just a stronger tool and they seem to be doing similar things now with the cyclone for mech and the ravager for roach/hydra. It's that their whole process of problem solving is: let's give them something even better, to deal with what we have made better in the last patch/expansion.
Ever been annoyed by killing 15drones and then the zerg just remakes them? Yes, too much production on both sides. 15 drones should not be made at 2 bases (not even start about 3bases) in less than one minute. Neither should sacrificing your whole army - 8 hellions, 800minerals investment early in the game - result in just remaking them with 30seconds build time two at a time. T
If the cost of losing units become too hard, players will build their strategies around trying to avoid this from happening in the first place. This means it will become harder for the enemy to harass drones and the terran player is less likely to be aggressive with Hellions since he cannot afford to lose them.
In fact, all your doing here is increasing the risk/reward of harassing which is exactly what Sc2 doesn't need as it makes the gameplay a lot more volatile and less likely to be back and fourth.
This is plainly not true. It is not about increasing risk and reward as that is a question of power of the strategies against each other. As I said, both sides have too much production in that scenario. It's about downscaling both sides, so that there aren't 8hellions and 3CCs to begin with and there aren't 3bases with 30larva per minute to begin with. It's about giving the 4hellions or the 5 roaches more time before "the next wave of production" makes these unit numbers insignificant. It is about buffing unit actions - movements and attacks - in comparison to macro actions - income and production to put a greater significance on what a player does with his units, rather than whether he hits his injects perfectly.
But neither is the case. Until the roaches have moved over the map there are 4bunkers finished and the Terran production has started kicking in, so the zerg just doesn't build the roaches in the first place (unless in a very allinish move). Instead he remakes the drones and the game just goes on with more production, bases and tech already finished.
If zerg doesn't make the Roaches in the first place, the terran could have continued with Hellion production and killed them off. If you do want more light Roach aggression to be viable, you should look at stronger burrow, nydus or overlord play, which really has nothng to do with time contraction, but rather has something to do with (a) harassment tools and (b) how thinly the terran player is spread out.
To put it upfront, again, the whole thing was an example. You are right that what you say are solutions, but they are solutions because my roaches don't have the time to do anything to begin with. Say I do a small burrow roach push. I attack the bunker, my opponent pulls SCVs, I kill 2-3 few of them, burrow my roaches one-by-one and heal up. With fast development - the situation right now - my roaches will heal up but you have already so many units by the time they have healed up, that doing more with so few roaches is impossible. With slower development, I can unburrow and repeat the same thing from before. The unit action to macro action ratio has changed. What before was an allinish investment with a tiny timing window to do anything has now become a long lasting harassment tools. Contraction of time.
But also many other aspects need to be questioned. Like macro mechanics and worker build time/larva spawn time, reactors and warpgates, costs for tech buildings.
If everything builds X% faster, the effect is unchanged. However, the issue comes from when you create huge economic discrepancies that makes it impossible for one race to move out, and instead gives them a really strong all-in tool (warpgates). But once again, this is a specific issue and not related to time contraction as a general concept.
But not everything is faster. Only the macro is faster. If you slow down all the macro, your first two hellions can be harassing at the other side of the map before the next two are out. If you don't slow down the macro, you might as well wait for the next two hellions because the ratio of production to movement is much more in the favor of production.
But not everything is faster. Only the macro is faster. If you slow down all the macro, your first two hellions can be harassing at the other side of the map before the next two are out. If you don't slow down the macro, you might as well wait for the next two hellions because the ratio of production to movement is much more in the favor of production.
I still fail to see the implications a bit, but from a general perspective, I don't disagree that movement speed and production should be balanced together. Anyway, you started out by saying that DWF was correct (or somewhat like that), but did DWF specifically come to the conclusion that macro speed is too fast relative to movement speed?
It's about giving the 4hellions or the 5 roaches more time before "the next wave of production" makes these unit numbers insignificant.
So let me be clear: If you buffed the movement speed of Roaches and maintained production, (and balanced it in different ways), the intended gameplay would still be similar?
The twelve worker start is one of the best cases that shows how blizzard hasn't understood anything. The 12worker start accelerates the game's economy by 1 minute real time. But it doesn't even lead to "more action" early. Many units that create action - stalkers, hellions, reapers - are not accelerated by this because the crux to getting them out is the build time of the production and tech buildings.
They come out 1 minute faster! I don't think anyone imagined everything to be solved with this change.
when we are talking about 10min breaks between games and uncertain set up times until the game even begins - is bullshit to begin with. The whole argumentation for the change is pretty bad, the more I think about it.
I do agree that with fantastic design you can make early game and early midgame more interesting, however I think its a bit naive that they on average are gonna be anywhere near as interesting as the later stages of the game. Thus, the core issue here is that we start too early on. Building your first 2 hellions or first reaper or expansion still isn't interesting. Marginally more interesting than building your 7th worker, but.... it still is kinda a waste of time. The real solution for the future of the RTS genre is to let us start at the fun parts.
And out of everything to criticize Blizzard for w/ sc2, early game and early midgame isn't where I would be focussing.
That's also what I think is the core point of the article. It's not "just regenerating mutalisks" or "just siege tanks that can be picked up" or "just the LotV economy". It's all of it combined that alienates the game from it's roots. It's the fact that instead of making tank/marine playable, they introduced the widow mine as just a stronger tool and they seem to be doing similar things now with the cyclone for mech and the ravager for roach/hydra.
I don't think alot of people disagree that Blizzard aren't doing a good enough job of properly reworking exisitng units, and I would have liked to see him focus on this part mainly.
Take for instance the Banshee. In LotV, the Banshee was given a new upgrade, “Hyperflight Rotors”. It increases the Banshee’s movement speed by 1. What is Blizzard's reasoning? “Banshees are not used enough, so we'll make them uncatchable by ground units; this way, people will build more Banshees; this way, their opponent will be forced to build the existing anti-air counters, which belong to the underused units as well”. This reasoning is fundamentally aberrant as it will invariably lead to the well-known HotS early game TvP Oracle problem, triggering a forced chain of reactions instead of giving freedom to the user with versatile tools. Initially, Blizzard even considered 7 range Banshees—what kind of nonsense is that? Such extreme measures could only beg for more hardcounters. One needs to be much more subtle.
I can just answer this one very quickly. They didn't want Overseers + Mutas to hardcounter Banshees in the late game. But yes, generally speaking you (DWF) is correct when it comes to Blizzard liking hardcounters too much (I hate Ultralisk armor buff too).
Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm.
Above link felt like a less extreme version of what DWF argues with less irrelevant analogies and more relevant examples. But perhaps because the examples were so direct (rather than vague) the flaws in the argumentation were apparent to anyone.
It takes 3 seconds to anyone with the slightest ounce of bona fides to realize that the thesis defended in Spaghettification is the exact, extreme opposite of what your link is saying. Literally the unadulterated antithesis.
Good luck with your slandering campaign, and by all means stay true to your ID and keep dodging hot bullets like this.
Look maybe afterall I've been too harsh on you, and I will stop commenting now. But it's really hard to understand the essence of your points. Its possible that I was applying (unintentional) strawmans as I didn't properly understand what you were saying (though I am pretty sure you edited a part yesterday). But if you plan to make such long articles in the future, I think you should split it into a series of 3 parts (one with spells on everything, one with hardcouners and perhaps one on timecontraction), with more bullet points, space and fewer non-Starcraft analogies.
Funnily enough, it turns out that the rest of this thread is significantly more interesting to read than the OP. At least creating that must be counted as OP's achievement
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys?
It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case.
For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from.
This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this.
So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style.
This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy.
TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time.
I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal.
No, it doesn't; that's not what I said! You hear what you want to hear. I specifically said that it's NOT designed to be taken seriously by Blizzard, but to be regarded as a piece of persuasion to get people to be critical of Blizzard.
I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it.
No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
On April 12 2015 13:17 kelbs wrote: You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite "Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's. When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words "Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people.
Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm.
That said, TheDwf is an incredible writer. This piece is well held together despite the fact that it is essentially a ramble in 20 something unlabeled parts.
I am certainly not a good writer so maybe I'm trying to talk above my own understanding here. That said, it seems to me that rhetoric loses it's effect when people cannot understand it. It certainly loses its effect when people actively stop paying attention. I know TheDwf mentioned "people who think time is money" in his article, but the simple truth is that no one wants to read an unorganized wall of text. If your goal was to spur discussion, then my point is that I think you could have done that a lot more effectively. But again, thank you for sharing regardless.
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys?
It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case.
For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from.
This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this.
So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style.
This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy.
TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time.
I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal.
No, it doesn't; that's not what I said! You hear what you want to hear. I specifically said that it's NOT designed to be taken seriously by Blizzard, but to be regarded as a piece of persuasion to get people to be critical of Blizzard.
I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it.
No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
On April 12 2015 13:17 kelbs wrote: You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite "Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's. When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words "Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people.
Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm.
That said, TheDwf is an incredible writer. This piece is well held together despite the fact that it is essentially a ramble in 20 something unlabeled parts.
I am certainly not a good writer so maybe I'm trying to talk above my own understanding here. That said, it seems to me that rhetoric loses it's effect when people cannot understand it. It certainly loses its effect when people actively stop paying attention. I know TheDwf mentioned "people who think time is money" in his article, but the simple truth is that no one wants to read an unorganized wall of text. If your goal was to spur discussion, then my point is that I think you could have done that a lot more effectively. But again, thank you for sharing regardless.
I think that the people who posted in this thread that they liked the way the OP is made are very happy to learn that they are "no one" d:
But not everything is faster. Only the macro is faster. If you slow down all the macro, your first two hellions can be harassing at the other side of the map before the next two are out. If you don't slow down the macro, you might as well wait for the next two hellions because the ratio of production to movement is much more in the favor of production.
I still fail to see the implications a bit, but from a general perspective, I don't disagree that movement speed and production should be balanced together. Anyway, you started out by saying that DWF was correct (or somewhat like that), but did DWF specifically come to the conclusion that macro speed is too fast relative to movement speed?
I think he did multiple times.
Besides, contraction of time naturally takes its toll on an inherently slow material like the artillery. So the designers take a piece of artillery and put it on steroids, increasing its attack rate and giving it special movement; this bastardization is then called “improvement,” with the designers failing to see that a piece of artillery without the traditional weaknesses of a piece of artillery makes little sense.
One of SC2's problems is that, at times, the game punishes aggressive multitasking because of hyper-development. It is simply better to allocate your user resources to passive building rather than “being cute”.
There is most likely much more to be found in there if I would just reread it.
It's about giving the 4hellions or the 5 roaches more time before "the next wave of production" makes these unit numbers insignificant.
So let me be clear: If you buffed the movement speed of Roaches and maintained production, (and balanced it in different ways), the intended gameplay would still be similar?
The problem I have with this approach is that it evaportes unit relations, as happened in HotS with everything around the medivac, a unit that previously was defendable with all sorts of playstyles now requires specific hardcounters because proper defensive placement with *something* to shoot air isn't enough anymore. You make mutas or you die. Or the mutalisk itself against Protoss and Zerg in particular (that bandaid spore crawler solution...). Similar, if you buffed the roaches movement speed, relations such as stalkers kiting roaches early game would break and roaches would be straight up better in early engagments, not just in walking across the map. In partiuclar movement speed is a delicate matter because it has huge strategical implementations on which units you can use against a unit.
The twelve worker start is one of the best cases that shows how blizzard hasn't understood anything. The 12worker start accelerates the game's economy by 1 minute real time. But it doesn't even lead to "more action" early. Many units that create action - stalkers, hellions, reapers - are not accelerated by this because the crux to getting them out is the build time of the production and tech buildings.
They come out 1 minute faster! I don't think anyone imagined more here.
No they don't even! Instead of watching 30seconds of worker movement and a pylon at 9, we watch 10seconds of worker building and a pylon at 13. Then maybe there is a small gap removed until the first gate is put down (or not, time will tell about the best build orders). All in all we "win" like 30seconds. For all build orders and everything thrown out of the window. Have you seen how late the first reaper arrives? How is that "more action"? The change could be good - in the sense that we would actually win that minute without fucking everything early game up - if they really put time into analyzing the differences and made other adjustments to actually win time, like removing the depot requirment of barracks or so.
when we are talking about 10min breaks between games and uncertain set up times until the game even begins - is bullshit to begin with. The whole argumentation for the change is pretty bad, the more I think about it.
I do agree that with fantastic design you can make early game and early midgame more interesting, however I think its a bit naive that they on average are gonna be anywhere near as interesting as the later stages of the game. Thus, the core issue here is that we start too early on. Building your first 2 hellions or first reaper or expansion still isn't interesting. Marginally more interesting than building your 7th worker, but.... it still is kinda a waste of time. The real solution for the future of the RTS genre is to let us start at the fun parts.
And out of everything to criticize Blizzard for w/ sc2, early game and early midgame isn't where I would be focussing.
I don't agree that the lategame is more fun than the rest of the game. There are some very exciting early and early-midgame possibilities, in particular in TvT and TvZ including banshees. In general the aggressions that can be done without falling vastly behind and that are easy to anticipate/scout for the opponent so he doesn't run into an easy loss make for great games. Games are like stories, they need a build up. I want to know the story how someone got to his midgame setup, not just starting everybody with it. The "boring" early game is exactly the fault of blizzard trying to get into "the more fun part" of the game. Instead of playing the early game out, they headstart it into the mid- and lategame by not equalizing the possibilities of the races, but rather just making standardized "you have your way with him now, and he has your way with you later" assymetries. When it should really be, "you try to have your way with him, but he also puts the hurt on you and now you guys have to deal with this fucked up situation and I'm not going to provide either of you with an immortal to just not let this happen".
That's also what I think is the core point of the article. It's not "just regenerating mutalisks" or "just siege tanks that can be picked up" or "just the LotV economy". It's all of it combined that alienates the game from it's roots. It's the fact that instead of making tank/marine playable, they introduced the widow mine as just a stronger tool and they seem to be doing similar things now with the cyclone for mech and the ravager for roach/hydra.
I don't think alot of people disagree that Blizzard aren't doing a good enough job of properly reworking exisitng units. I guess my point here is more what this article specifically brought to highlight that or expand or that? If he wanted to write an article where he went in deep and explained why this was problematic I would be on par with it.
But he just goes everywhere and speaks so vaguely w/ many analogies. In the end, the average reader won't be more informed, but he sure knows how to follow a circilejerk on how much Blizzard sucks.
But it isn't an article that "just touches the subject of reworking units". Or the subject of "reworking economy". It is about the whole direction the game goes with LotV. The ideas behind all the concepts, and how those ideas are rotten.
I asked for tldr but didnt get it so just fast readed something and forgot it already but
Back to SC2. Think about the various negative feelings many of its own players have towards it. What makes the game frustrating? What makes it stressful? What creates the so common ladder anxiety? “Competitiveness”? No. (Or rather, not only.) Some people affected by this in SC2 are competing outside with no problem whatsoever. What lies behind all of this is the lack of control.
I have never heard of so stupid thing as my ladder anxiety is becaused by lack of control. The cause of my ladder anxiety is that I cannot kinda accept im worse than before. I got into high master, next season I was scared as hell. I thought my friend list was following closely my rank. Huge pressure to be good. That leaded to less playing = less losing. It had nothing to do with units, maps, balance, design.
There is most likely much more to be found in there if I would just reread it.
To me it seemed as he was talking about speed in general or the lack of immobility of Siege Tanks (everything has to be mobile), which seems to be different from what your talking about with the Roach.
I don't agree that the lategame is more fun than the rest of the game. There are some very exciting early and early-midgame possibilities, in particular in TvT and TvZ including banshees
I said I found early game and early midgame less interesting. a typical game first gets interesting once your past 3+ bases (and I think you said somewhere along those lines as well previiously).
Games are like stories, they need a build up. I want to know the story how someone got to his midgame setup, not just starting everybody with it.
I think the lack of story part might be a reason why I never enjoyed multipler FPS while always prerefed RTSs. However, it can definitely be maintained with removal of the early stages. But it just needs to start at a different point in time and continue further on.
Similar, if you buffed the roaches movement speed, relations such as stalkers kiting roaches early game would break and roaches would be straight up better in early engagments, not just in walking across the map. In partiuclar movement speed is a delicate matter because it has huge strategical implementations on which units you can use against a unit.
I think that's taking the discussion somewhere else. Obvously interactions must be rebalanced to take this into account, but I think that's more of a sideissue. Whether productionspeed is too fast relative to movementspeed is a different subject I myself haven't really thought of before.
On April 12 2015 23:38 Hider wrote: Look maybe afterall I've been too harsh on you, and I will stop commenting now. But it's really hard to understand the essence of your points. Its possible that somewhere I was applying strawmans as I didn't properly understand what you were saying (though I am pretty sure you edited a part yesterday). But in the future I think you should split it up and add more bullet points, more space and fewer non-Starcraft analogies.
Oh, no, no, no, little thief. You are not going to get off that lightly. You came to pillage, you took what you wanted to take and now you blame the architecture of the mansion? No, no, no. I edited nothing. The only thing I edited is translated instead of traduced in Spaghettification. PM a moderator or whoever has the power to see it to confirm. My “thesis” about the paradoxical nature of time in RTS was so complicated to understand that as soon as you stopped wanting to paint me as a pseudo-intellectual fraud, you started getting it.
Oh, how I feel pity for you. This situation is so cruel… You were so, so sure to have me at last… You suddenly appeared with a triumphant shout, proudly waving this link to prove that I am a fraud; but reality is a boomerang and hit you hard in the face. So you started doubting… The cold arrogance in the voice disappeared, replaced with the velvet of the “perhaps” and the conditionals… And now, after a basic effort of good will, it dawned upon you that you were probably wrong on the whole line. You are now so embarrassed… And you can feel embarrassed indeed…
How far should I push the lesson? Should I humiliate you the way you tried to humiliate me, or should I be merciful? What should be your sentence, Hider?
By all means stay and keep thinking. This mansion is your mansion. The architect wasn't some kind of dishevelled mad scientist and had his own good reasons to build it in that “twisted” way. You have still not fully understood what this text meant; otherwise you wouldn't say that the two first parts (which are split up) are superfluous. If you want to leave, leave. If you wish to stay, no one is going to persecute you. Not me at least; I know better than playing a childish game of wits that I know won before it even starts.
Oh, how I feel pity for you. This situation is so cruel… You were so, so sure to have me at last… You suddenly appeared with a triumphant shout, proudly waving this link to prove that I am a fraud; but reality is a boomerang and hit you hard in the face. So you started doubting… The cold arrogance in the voice disappeared, replaced with the velvet of the “perhaps” and the conditionals… And now, after a basic effort of good will, it dawned upon you that you were probably wrong on the whole line. You are now so embarrassed… And you can feel embarrassed indeed…
When you make such an insulting comment, I couldn't help myself but continuing replying. Let's go back briefly; My issue with your article was always twofold:
(1) Time contraction doesn't seem to be going anywhere. You provide no reasoning for why there is any issue in the game with too fast movement speed + "luck" is the wrong term to describe what happens when you make the game too fast). (2) Poorly structured with lots of irrelevant analogies
Pretty sure I never said you were wrong about hardcounters or spellcasters. And I think those areas cannot be highlighted enough and therefore it is indeed dumb of me to overfocus on the whole time-element (but my criticism is still valid and your whole post is way over the line here). But let me clear: I regret that, but it doesn't make me embarrased or completely wrong and make everything you say correct. Rather, I think I should have ignored some of the flaws and focussed on what is more important going forward with LOTV.
When I said I perhaps made unintentional strawmans it was a result of (in hindsight) not being sure (despite reading most of the article several times by now) what your actually point is. So I might have been critical on the points of the article a bit too quickly while the main issue perhaps is with the structure/writing.
The architect wasn't some kind of dishevelled mad scientist and had his own good reasons to build it in that “twisted” way. f you want to leave, leave. If you wish to stay, no one is going to persecute you. Not me at least; I know better than playing a childish game of wits that I know won before it even starts.
Sad to see you aren't taking my advice of using fewer irrelvant analogies.
You have still not fully understood what this text meant
You say writing is a passion of yours, but you must realize that your not a skilled writer if you cannot communicate effectively. It doesn't make you right or great and its not embarrasing for the reader if he has no clue what your talking about.
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then?
The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse.
Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG).
It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean.
It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
sorry for late reply
you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game?
I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me.
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then?
The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse.
Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG).
It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean.
It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
sorry for late reply
you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game?
I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me.
Yes, I think SC2 is colonized by MOBA logic because the Blizzsters don't understand why abilities/spells are “cool” in a MOBA (or a MMORPG). They're cool in such games because they're what allows/defines control and thus fun. However, a RTS like SC2 has a much more complex “control architecture” for the player and thus doesn't need excessive addition of abilities/spells. This is not a condemnation of abilities in the absolute, but if you implement them they better add depth.
It is no coincidence if the race which has been butchered the most by the Blizzsters, Protoss, is the only one which has to suffer this huge “ability inflation”. The Blizzsters refuse to give Protoss the simple, versatile tools they need and are thus doomed to keep applying their own “forging ahead regardless” philosophy. So they add more abilities. HotS added many abilities. LotV plans on adding more abilities. Look at the Adept, their “core gate unit” which has the impossible task of solving the splitting of the Dragoon into Stalkers + Immortals with Sentries as the necessary safety belt. What does it have? Immediately an ability. Can't be a basic shoot & stand stuff. It has to carry a Dagger of Escape. But Protoss needs no Dagger of Escape.
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then?
The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse.
Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG).
It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean.
It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
sorry for late reply
you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game?
I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me.
Yes, I think SC2 is colonized by MOBA logic because the Blizzsters don't understand why abilities/spells are “cool” in a MOBA (or a MMORPG). They're cool in such games because they're what allows/defines control and thus fun. However, a RTS like SC2 has a much more complex “control architecture” for the player and thus doesn't need excessive addition of abilities/spells. This is not a condemnation of abilities in the absolute, but if you implement them they better add depth.
It is no coincidence if the race which has been butchered the most by the Blizzsters, Protoss, is the only one which has to suffer this huge “ability inflation”. The Blizzsters refuse to give Protoss the simple, versatile tools they need and are thus doomed to keep applying their own “forging ahead regardless” philosophy. So they add more abilities. HotS added many abilities. LotV plans on adding more abilities. Look at the Adept, their “core gate unit” which has the impossible task of solving the splitting of the Dragoon into Stalkers + Immortals with Sentries as the necessary safety belt. What does it have? Immediately an ability. Can't be a basic shoot & stand stuff. It has to carry a Dagger of Escape. But Protoss needs no Dagger of Escape.
what would be your proposal instead? I don't think they intend to make a "strong" gateway unit that is like the dragoon, due to warp gate and overall race design.
Sc2 protoss emphasis more on the higher tech units, so that the robo and stargate units actually feel more powerful in strong contrast.
If they added a strong move and shoot unit, stalkers will get phrased out into some other role and frankly I don't think they should do that when stalker usage is visibly better for top protoss than the rest.
They already have the powerful move and shoot units in robo and stargate tech, gateway units all have distinctive features and functions. The new unit should also be so (though I personally don't like the unit design)
In a game where you control one unit, of course abilities are cool and needed (you obviously don't only shine by good abilities control ; teamwork, coordination, anticipation and reflexes are other qualities required). It's not the case in SC2 where you play on many other levels (economy, compositions, positioning...) and I'm quite adamant the inflation of abilities we're seeing in LotV (especially for P) will end up being harmful for the game.
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then?
The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse.
Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG).
It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean.
It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
sorry for late reply
you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game?
I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me.
Yes, I think SC2 is colonized by MOBA logic because the Blizzsters don't understand why abilities/spells are “cool” in a MOBA (or a MMORPG). They're cool in such games because they're what allows/defines control and thus fun. However, a RTS like SC2 has a much more complex “control architecture” for the player and thus doesn't need excessive addition of abilities/spells. This is not a condemnation of abilities in the absolute, but if you implement them they better add depth.
It is no coincidence if the race which has been butchered the most by the Blizzsters, Protoss, is the only one which has to suffer this huge “ability inflation”. The Blizzsters refuse to give Protoss the simple, versatile tools they need and are thus doomed to keep applying their own “forging ahead regardless” philosophy. So they add more abilities. HotS added many abilities. LotV plans on adding more abilities. Look at the Adept, their “core gate unit” which has the impossible task of solving the splitting of the Dragoon into Stalkers + Immortals with Sentries as the necessary safety belt. What does it have? Immediately an ability. Can't be a basic shoot & stand stuff. It has to carry a Dagger of Escape. But Protoss needs no Dagger of Escape.
I don't think they intend to make a "strong" gateway unit that is like the dragoon, due to warp gate and overall race design.
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys?
It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case.
For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from.
This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this.
So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style.
This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy.
TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time.
I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal.
No, it doesn't; that's not what I said! You hear what you want to hear. I specifically said that it's NOT designed to be taken seriously by Blizzard, but to be regarded as a piece of persuasion to get people to be critical of Blizzard.
I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it.
No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
On April 12 2015 13:17 kelbs wrote: You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite "Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's. When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words "Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people.
Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm.
That said, TheDwf is an incredible writer. This piece is well held together despite the fact that it is essentially a ramble in 20 something unlabeled parts.
I am certainly not a good writer so maybe I'm trying to talk above my own understanding here. That said, it seems to me that rhetoric loses it's effect when people cannot understand it. It certainly loses its effect when people actively stop paying attention. I know TheDwf mentioned "people who think time is money" in his article, but the simple truth is that no one wants to read an unorganized wall of text. If your goal was to spur discussion, then my point is that I think you could have done that a lot more effectively. But again, thank you for sharing regardless.
Just one example : Heidegger. Incredibly difficult to read, possibly unnecessarily, but the effect is profound and everlasting, where the community would be immeasurably impoverished without this particular language as its eventual interpretations enriched our understanding more than hundreds of clearer analyses.
(1) Time contraction doesn't seem to be going anywhere. You provide no reasoning for why there is any issue in the game with too fast movement speed + "luck" is the wrong term to describe what happens when you make the game too fast). (2) Poorly structured with lots of irrelevant analogies
Re-read section 3, I mean READ it. Heck you don't even have to read between the lines...
The theoretical skill ceiling in SC2 is infinite and out of reach, and thus does not matter at all; you could indeed always try to micro each of your individual units, but the absolutely massive diminishing returns make it worthless in practice (not to mention you have other, more important things to do). What matters is thus the practical skill ceiling, i.e. how far you can push human limits to achieve the most within a given time frame. Contracting time does raise the skill floor (the threshold of difficulty) but it decreases the practical skill ceiling too (the potential room for mistake-free play). Therefore, it contracts the skill gap itself: on average, the authentic skill difference between players produces less and less difference in actual results, which means that players become increasingly closer to each other and have less and less ways to differentiate themselves. The terminal phase of this movement is the very disparition of skill.
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys?
It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case.
For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from.
This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this.
So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style.
This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy.
TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time.
I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal.
No, it doesn't; that's not what I said! You hear what you want to hear. I specifically said that it's NOT designed to be taken seriously by Blizzard, but to be regarded as a piece of persuasion to get people to be critical of Blizzard.
I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it.
No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
On April 12 2015 13:17 kelbs wrote: You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite "Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's. When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words "Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people.
Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm.
That said, TheDwf is an incredible writer. This piece is well held together despite the fact that it is essentially a ramble in 20 something unlabeled parts.
I am certainly not a good writer so maybe I'm trying to talk above my own understanding here. That said, it seems to me that rhetoric loses it's effect when people cannot understand it. It certainly loses its effect when people actively stop paying attention. I know TheDwf mentioned "people who think time is money" in his article, but the simple truth is that no one wants to read an unorganized wall of text. If your goal was to spur discussion, then my point is that I think you could have done that a lot more effectively. But again, thank you for sharing regardless.
Just one example : Heidegger. Incredibly difficult to read, possibly unnecessarily, but the effect is profound and everlasting, where the community would be immeasurably impoverished without this particular language as its eventual interpretations enriched our understanding more than hundreds of clearer analyses.
I sure hope I don't write like Heidegger! I'm unsure you're making me a favor with the comparison, haha
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then?
The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse.
Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG).
It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean.
It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
sorry for late reply
you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game?
I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me.
Yes, I think SC2 is colonized by MOBA logic because the Blizzsters don't understand why abilities/spells are “cool” in a MOBA (or a MMORPG). They're cool in such games because they're what allows/defines control and thus fun. However, a RTS like SC2 has a much more complex “control architecture” for the player and thus doesn't need excessive addition of abilities/spells. This is not a condemnation of abilities in the absolute, but if you implement them they better add depth.
It is no coincidence if the race which has been butchered the most by the Blizzsters, Protoss, is the only one which has to suffer this huge “ability inflation”. The Blizzsters refuse to give Protoss the simple, versatile tools they need and are thus doomed to keep applying their own “forging ahead regardless” philosophy. So they add more abilities. HotS added many abilities. LotV plans on adding more abilities. Look at the Adept, their “core gate unit” which has the impossible task of solving the splitting of the Dragoon into Stalkers + Immortals with Sentries as the necessary safety belt. What does it have? Immediately an ability. Can't be a basic shoot & stand stuff. It has to carry a Dagger of Escape. But Protoss needs no Dagger of Escape.
I don't think they intend to make a "strong" gateway unit that is like the dragoon, due to warp gate and overall race design.
I think when they said core, it meant it has a role in a direct engagement like a stalker and not really a dragoon like unit (afterall the first time we know of this unit rough design was from the tweets and it always intended to have mobility based movement ability, meaning not a solid move and shoot unit)
There is most likely much more to be found in there if I would just reread it.
To me it seemed as he was talking about speed in general or the lack of immobility of Siege Tanks (everything has to be mobile), which seems to be different from what your talking about with the Roach.
I think he is partly talking about everything having to be fast to stay relevant in a game of hyper-development which then is wrong for units such as siege tanks and implies that the solution is to just cut out the hyper-development. And then of course that even if you make the game faster, you cannot play faster. You could theoretically tank drop and macro, but it's getting too fast for the players, so you have to cut away from good play even more. Which so far has always led to players cutting out the "cutsie" play, because the macro play is much more important. This is where I think another connection with movement:production ratio comes in. Why is macro play more important? Exactly, because that ratio is very strongly in favor of the production part of play and you don't deal with heavy medivac play through multitasking, you deal with it by eventually just having overwhelming amounts of mutas and killing the fucking thing.
It's a problem that comes from two sides. 1) the unit relations are not as good as they should be, so it is sometimes just not possible to deal with certain enemy tools directly, even if you know they are coming. Hence, you are encouraged to not interact with threats. 2) directly dealing with the enemy is more often than not interrupting your economical build up by so much, while the units you build to deal with the menance don't really add any value right now. As long as you have bases to saturate and production to build up, economical and infrastructural investments lead to exponential growth. The units you build early have to concur with that and usually fall short in terms of value creation. The most simple way to stop this problem is by making the build up process "bumpier", leading back to unit interactions and giving them time to work their magic.
Maybe I'm deadwrong and I'm overinterpreting what he is writing, or interpreting it wrongly or whatever. He is not giving that many details* as you say, but he is giving enough to make valuable points and that is enough for me to agree with him or at least to get me thinking.
*And I do think that it is intentional. Discussing why regenerating mutalisks aren't good for the game is not the point. The point is that they are and other things are too and painting the overall picture, without writing another 50pages of going into details for everything he touches.
I said I found early game and early midgame less interesting. a typical game first gets interesting once your past 3+ bases (and I think you said somewhere along those lines as well previiously).
I have said previously that the game is badly balanced which leads to the necessity of having many bases before anything real can happen. In particular matchups with zerg are badly balanced, because 1base zerg doesn't provide enough production to keep up with a 1 basing protoss or terran, hence zerg needs another hatchery (asap) that will logically be placed at the natural expansion spot. Thereby forcing the opposing players to expand fast as well because 1:2 (potential) economy ratio isn't playable. And even in that situation zerg has trouble playing an even game, only when the game comes to a spot where zerg can have at least 3 hatcheries the game becomes playable. This is why the early game in both TvZ and PvZ are 6-10mins of macro grinding and this cannot change unless they either changed the production or gave zerg extremely larva and cost-efficient early game units that you can build while droning. I guess the ravager is a step into that direction. However, since such a unit produced of larva will most likely break the balance one way or another, the solution will eventually be that the unit gets nerfed into the ground or delayed until after lair, going the way of the WoL-beta roach of "early game zerg cannot be efficient because mass larva". And then it's back to 3bases mass drones 6mins passiveness, instead of macro aggressive play of 1-2bases with expansions behind.
Games are like stories, they need a build up. I want to know the story how someone got to his midgame setup, not just starting everybody with it.
I think the lack of story part might be a reason why I never enjoyed multipler FPS while always prerefed RTSs. However, it can definitely be maintained with removal of the early stages. But it just needs to start at a different point in time and continue further on.
As a player I have always enjoyed the RTS games that started with little and then developed to much. This might be me just talking about what I have learned to love, but even as a little child putting WC2 maps against the AI on "start with 1worker" instead of using the option of starting with a town hall just felt right. Even though it is always the same tasks you do, it still gives me the feeling of "this is what I do". I make my hatchery on 16 and my pool on 15, instead of 15/15, because then my 16th worker mines longer. Of course it's nothing spectacular to watch or play, but I don't even see the reason why it needs to be taken away, given how little time you actually spend on this.
Similar, if you buffed the roaches movement speed, relations such as stalkers kiting roaches early game would break and roaches would be straight up better in early engagments, not just in walking across the map. In partiuclar movement speed is a delicate matter because it has huge strategical implementations on which units you can use against a unit.
I think that's taking the discussion somewhere else. Obvously interactions must be rebalanced to take this into account, but I think that's more of a sideissue. Whether productionspeed is too fast relative to movementspeed is a different subject I myself haven't really thought of before.
Of course it works with a rebalancing towards faster as well. But personally I'm not a huge fan of abusing the reaction time of players to create action, which is why personally I'd prefer the approach of slowing down the development to the pace of the units, rather than the other way around. Speaking theoretically, if they found a way to play with the map revealed (but not the parts where your opponents bases are) I'd be a much happier player. I prefer action that is created despite knowledge, hence, if we rebalance make it so that I can know about my opponents movements, but still lose to it.
Think about driving a car. What happens at 30 km/h? You're still in control. Now increase to 50? Still fully doable, but your margin of error does decrease. Now increase to 70, 100, 150, 300, 500—at some point the accident can no longer be avoided and even the best drivers enter the realm of the “unforgivable”. The simple fact that you maintain your driving activity makes the crash inevitable. You lose control and you make mistakes by force. This mechanism is “the contraction of time”.
You.. You clearly get it. This is what FRB was all about. This is the essence of my Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 article. So many other things in here are just like yes.. It's refreshing to know I'm not the only one who's had these thoughts.
Still reading. AAA+++
Admittedly I think a lot of us latched onto different parts of FRB and focused on rewarding expanding more. Well, I still think changing the income curve and all that is great, but I wasn't really convinced about just making the game slower before. At this point I'm fairly convinced, though.
This was a pretty inspiring post. I suddenly feel more interested in RTS games than I have in years.
This was totally worth the read. It was hard to find anything i could disagree with. Post of the year for me
And only now i realise how much I've changed opinions since I read an article critical of sc2(-design) for the first time. Posts like these make me learn.
Really well written, it just took me 2 days to read it all. Thanks for this ! Simply amazing post and thread. One of those threads where you read every response lol. AMAZING WORK!!!
(1) Time contraction doesn't seem to be going anywhere. You provide no reasoning for why there is any issue in the game with too fast movement speed + "luck" is the wrong term to describe what happens when you make the game too fast). (2) Poorly structured with lots of irrelevant analogies
Re-read section 3, I mean READ it. Heck you don't even have to read between the lines...
The theoretical skill ceiling in SC2 is infinite and out of reach, and thus does not matter at all; you could indeed always try to micro each of your individual units, but the absolutely massive diminishing returns make it worthless in practice (not to mention you have other, more important things to do). What matters is thus the practical skill ceiling, i.e. how far you can push human limits to achieve the most within a given time frame. Contracting time does raise the skill floor (the threshold of difficulty) but it decreases the practical skill ceiling too (the potential room for mistake-free play). Therefore, it contracts the skill gap itself: on average, the authentic skill difference between players produces less and less difference in actual results, which means that players become increasingly closer to each other and have less and less ways to differentiate themselves. The terminal phase of this movement is the very disparition of skill.
Re-read what I wrote on page 2 I mean READ it. Heck you don't even have to read between the lines...
The argument that theoretical skill ceiling skill being higher than practical is irrelevant here. Why? Because the value of each action is not the same. The value of the 10 first actions during an engagement is higher than the value of the next 10 actions.
Example 1 50 Marines vs 40 Banelings. No micro --> All Marines die With 3 actions --> You divide the Marine group into 2 groups --> 5 Mairnes survive. With 3 more action (6 total) --> You Divide Marines into 3 groups --> 8 Marines survive
Since the first 3 actions make you survive 5 extra Marines and the next 3 actions only let 3 extra Marines survive --> The value of each additional action declines.
Example 2 - We have speed value of X in the game. - Best player in the world can perform 100 actions during an engagement. - Second best can perform 90 actions.
Let's say we increase the speed --> Best player can perform 80 actions and second best = 70.
If the difference in the value between 70 and 80 actions > the differnce between 90 and 100 action --> Skill cap has been increased with faster speed --> Prooving your point invalid.
The point here is that as the speed is increased (and players are physically able to perform the tasks), the difference between the very best and the secondbest increases as players cannot perform all of the important tasks. When speed is very low the only difference between the very best and the secondbest are some of the more irrelevant actions, which results in a lower skillcap.
You could theoretically tank drop and macro, but it's getting too fast for the players, so you have to cut away from good play even more.
Why is this a bad thing? The BW skillcap was all about noone being able to do everything they wanted to. Personally that is the feeling I am looking for when I play Sc2. I want a game that is focussed on great micro interactions with an infinitive skillcap. In Sc2 it is best illustrated with bio play where there is always room to improve your play. Wouldn't you rather wanna watch a game where the the best player in the world is rewarded for having significant better micro than the 100th best?
It definitely surprised me if you are of the opinion that pro players should be able to utilize all of the micro opportunites in the game. I for one enjoy if players (as LOTV is released) can only take advantage of tank pick-ups to 10-15% of its fullest potential. (Note: Just using the tank example as a high skill cap micro trick, not as a design-choice that is perfect).
On April 13 2015 01:11 ETisME wrote: what would be your proposal instead? I don't think they intend to make a "strong" gateway unit that is like the dragoon, due to warp gate and overall race design.
Sc2 protoss emphasis more on the higher tech units, so that the robo and stargate units actually feel more powerful in strong contrast.
If they added a strong move and shoot unit, stalkers will get phrased out into some other role and frankly I don't think they should do that when stalker usage is visibly better for top protoss than the rest.
They already have the powerful move and shoot units in robo and stargate tech, gateway units all have distinctive features and functions. The new unit should also be so (though I personally don't like the unit design)
Yeah, they precisely need to properly adjust that gate:support “power ratio”.
The original sin of SC2 Protoss lies in the Warpgate-Stalker-Sentry-Immortal system. Most of the rest is of course terrible but easily fixed. To sum it up, from my perspective:
(1) Protoss has no right to Core tech Warpgate. (2) Stalkers cannot be the solution because of Warpgate and Blink. (3) Sentries should not be a costly requirement. (4) Immortals serve no positive purpose.
Personally, I think they should remove the Immortal from the Robotics and move it to the Gateway as a 2 supply unit acting as the Dragoon (so the BW Dragoon is split into Stalker + Immortal). Stalkers would be the more mobile element (and could be slightly specialized in that way) while Immortal-Dragoons would be the sturdier basic fighter Protoss needs (Blink categorically forbids such an increase in the stats of the Stalker). I don't see another way.
The Immortal in the robo hurts Protoss far more than the Colossus, which is a brainless and terrible unit but fully does its job. Immortals, however, overkill Armored (and mech) like crazy and are powerless against light infantry. As for Sentries, hmm… their early game necessity has to be decreased, if not nuked. Tweaking costs and stats (for instance 75 energy Forcefield) or turning them into a Nexus upgrade (like the Orbital and PFs are for CCs), I don't know. They just can't stay the way they are, especially with a SC2 Dragoon. Besides, Ravagers have no business being an anti-Forcefield Roachydra; there's something better to do with the interesting concept of salvaging the Roach into something more supply-efficient. The MSC is a pure creature of the flawed WISS system and all its spells can go; like the Reaper, we can probably find it a niche harassment/scouting use (possibly with Hallucination), with the Mothership still available in lategame; perhaps a weaker variant of Recall to encourage further mobility against Zerg in midgame, but Protoss should be able to be on the map without such tools.
Thing is, a SC2 Dragoon is incompatible with Warpgate at Core + 120-160s. Warpgate simply needs to be moved higher in the tree tech, until at least 9-10 minutes (old SC2 minutes) or maybe even later. This problem is a huge headache as the Blizzsters want Protoss to perform Warpgate timings, which is why they refuse to apply simple tweaks such as warping only in a given area around the Nexus, etc. Yet they could for instance use this Dark Pylon thing they abandoned in WoL alpha, perhaps with a special ability, to create a proper siege dynamic through Warpgate in midgame.
Warpgate stomps Protoss. Just like Zergs can't have units with Protoss stats because of larva inject, or Terran can't have Zerg's infrastructure with their units, Protoss can't have the current Warpgate and a solid race. The concept of a Swiss knife hyper-development mechanic with built-in aggressive and defensive features is just way too powerful within the race and overshadows by force a critical branch of the tech tree. This is really a waste, as the Warpgate concept is very Protoss indeed, but its dogmatic implementation has been absolutely catastrophic.
They're nerfing the defensive aspect (and the aggressive one when warp-ins are exposed), but Warpgate as the standard production mechanic early in the game is the main problem. Of course, the speed of development of the other races would have to be adjusted since the threat of Warpgate timings acts as a deterrent for what people call “greed”; hyper-mobility would have to be toned down as well (but the Medivac boost is a creature of Warpgate too); mech should lose its anti-Zealot hardcounter; etc. There would be a massive cascade of effects, but all of them would be positive in the end.
One thing is sure, Protoss doesn't need any extra unit until the plethora of flawed tools at their disposal has been amended into a playable WoL basis. After that, one may contemplate adding 1 unit (I don't think there is room for 2).
Think about driving a car. What happens at 30 km/h? You're still in control. Now increase to 50? Still fully doable, but your margin of error does decrease. Now increase to 70, 100, 150, 300, 500—at some point the accident can no longer be avoided and even the best drivers enter the realm of the “unforgivable”. The simple fact that you maintain your driving activity makes the crash inevitable. You lose control and you make mistakes by force. This mechanism is “the contraction of time”.
You.. You clearly get it. This is what FRB was all about. This is the essence of my Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 article. So many other things in here are just like yes.. It's refreshing to know I'm not the only one who's had these thoughts.
Still reading. AAA+++
Admittedly I think a lot of us latched onto different parts of FRB and focused on rewarding expanding more. Well, I still think changing the income curve and all that is great, but I wasn't really convinced about just making the game slower before. At this point I'm fairly convinced, though.
This was a pretty inspiring post. I suddenly feel more interested in RTS games than I have in years.
The RTS genre is young... Very young. I just know inside me that the RTS genre has huge potential.. I think that RTS games could be the best games e-sport wise but for that to happen, the company behind that particular game needs to understand the genre... No, not really the genre but what is good and what is bad gameplay.
All this buzz about dota games is getting ridicilous. No, they do not outshine the RTS genre, they do however, outshine the current RTS games. But no way in hell can a moba/dota(i dont know whats it called) compete with a "REAL" rts game.
That to be said, there are probably potential in every genre out there since gaming is actually very young all together. Blizzard had it before but they dont anymore. I think the current generation has the best gameplay knowledge so its up to us/them to make a company and start developing.
Think about driving a car. What happens at 30 km/h? You're still in control. Now increase to 50? Still fully doable, but your margin of error does decrease. Now increase to 70, 100, 150, 300, 500—at some point the accident can no longer be avoided and even the best drivers enter the realm of the “unforgivable”. The simple fact that you maintain your driving activity makes the crash inevitable. You lose control and you make mistakes by force. This mechanism is “the contraction of time”.
You.. You clearly get it. This is what FRB was all about. This is the essence of my Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 article. So many other things in here are just like yes.. It's refreshing to know I'm not the only one who's had these thoughts.
Still reading. AAA+++
Entirely out of curiosity. Why does the car go faster?
There are two big problems with this whole idea, and they are both apparent in the analogies. So in a sense, it's not such a bad thing that those analogies are here.
1), the idea that skill is expressed better in slowness is entirely wrong. Let's say that instead of playing 120 amateurs with 3 seconds to play, your chess prodigy is now playing 20 amateurs with 30 seconds to play. The contraction of time has been slowed down. The chess prodigy wins all of the 20 games every time. Is skill better expressed?
No, because basically anyone over 2200 ELO could do that. You have removed the difficulty of what he was doing, and in essence, you have turned it into something less amazing. In doing so, you have decreased the skill cap required to do what the GM would be doing in the hypothetical situation.
What's amazing is you are presenting a situation in which even a world champion could lose a game... and your conclusion is that the skill cap is nullified? That's absurd. If even a GM could lose, obviously the task that is asked of him is harder to accomplish.
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, so that's not actually an excuse to make more mistakes.
I've tried to write a (still quite long) TL;DR with only the content of the post. edit: will clean this up tomorrow, but I'm pretty tired right now.
1.
There are more starting workers in the LotV.
Strategy involves thought, which requires time.
LotV seems like it is much faster paced than HotS.
Taking the last two together means less room for strategy in LotV.
2.
The early game is almost completely removed in LotV (or they are heading that way)
Speculation on what might happen due to changes to the game: - May have prolonged passivity - May have more tech switching etc.
Harassment is not the answer to passivity because I have decided that harassment can not be balanced to be effective without being the entire game.
3.
Limits on human ability mean mistakes happen.
I'm worried that the increase in game speed will blur lines between skill levels.
I don't like SC2.
In SC2 the game speed already blurs the lines between skill levels
This happens because there is too little time to do everything that can be done.
Chess analogy (GM vs 120 amateurs)
Car analogy (driving at faster and faster speeds)
Splitting large numbers of marines vs banelings perfectly is impossible (for a human) and therefore is luck, not skill, based
4.
I don't like blizzards approach to SC2.
I don't like modernity.
SC2 shouldn't have:
-Hard counters -Randomness
Should have:
-Skill in interaction (counter example being forcefield)
These things (both present and lacking) lead to a less watchable game.
SC2 is frustrating because it removed far too much control for the player.
5.
12 worker start is purely for spectators.
I hate modernity.
Good for player usually good for spectator, converse not always true.
Pleasure of watching comes from control.
Example of football - made to be played ended up good for spectators. Followed by some purposefuly ridiculous ideas for how to make football more enjoyable.
6.
Ladder anxiety is (largely) due to the aforementioned lack of control.
I hate politics and marketing
The game should be designed for players not spectators
7.
There is really nothing in this section that I can see.
8.
Removing the "mechanical barriers" of BW (limited unit selection, bad patching etc.) makes designing a balanced game harder.
The "macro mechanics" (larvae inject, mule and chronoboost) are bad as (see 3.)
9.
The exciting moments of SC2 all recreate effective limited unit selection - blink micro and splits(of various kinds)
This is ruined by the colossus - which dumbly kills things with little input.
AoE unit which isn't dumb - siege tank
10.
Making SC2 better is easy.
The main flaws include:
-units too good all around,
-things cost too much,
-units doing things themselves --phoenix moving shot --Cyclones once locked on --Charge --Zergling (partial) surrounds
-units too specialized
11.
Example of trying to force use of hard counters (proposed banshee change)
12.
Example with mutas in PvZ.
Example of ultras
Problem of SC2 is that it is designed "solved"
13.
Example of game moving swiftly killing a style of play - submits that marine/tank is not viable because, since queen buff in 2012, the economies are so accelerated that tanks can't keep up
14.
Recall, proposed warp prism pick-up range, and some other things are bad because they reduce risk of actions to (near) zero.
15.
Build times should be increased.
16.
All aggression is not good, blizzard doesn't understand the good parts of defensiveness
17.
Asymmetry isn't handled well enough.
18.
Satire of using the excuse of "casuals"
19.
We shouldn't argue about any specifics because SC2 is awful, we should be lobbying for a playable RTS.
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.
On April 13 2015 06:52 Hider wrote: Why is this a bad thing? The BW skillcap was all about noone being able to do everything they wanted to. Personally that is the feeling I am looking for when I play Sc2. I want a game that is focussed on great micro interactions with an infinitive skillcap. In Sc2 it is best illustrated with bio play where there is always room to improve your play. Wouldn't you rather wanna watch a game where the the best player in the world is rewarded for having significant better micro than the 100th best?
It definitely surprised me if you are of the opinion that pro players should be able to utilize all of the micro opportunites in the game. I for one enjoy if players (as LOTV is released) can only take advantage of tank pick-ups to 10-15% of its fullest potential. (Note: Just using the tank example as a high skill cap micro trick, not as a design-choice that is perfect).
Not being able to do everything you want to do is great. 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. It discourages people from being aggression because you simply can't do enough to make it worth it. Read my post from page one for my thoughts on this.
Some sophism, bad analogies and couple fallacies made me give up reading the wall. 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.
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.
Man I feel like legitimate TL posters are starting to behave like me. This is getting really bad. But perfect post Dwf. You said it far better than I could.
Hopefully Blizzard will heed the call and make LOTV what it could become.
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?
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.
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.
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.
...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Part of the issue there is that an image with something big on the left and something small on the right 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.
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.
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.”
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.
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:
Sure, it is way too long. But the titles and pictures alone are so cringey, i just couldn't get any motivation to read this. I guess it lacks content just as his recent post though, so i think my decision was right in the end.
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:
Sure, it is way too long. But the titles and pictures alone are so cringey, i just couldn't get any motivation to read this. I guess it lacks content just as his recent post though, so i think my decision was right in the end.
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:
Sure, it is way too long. But the titles and pictures alone are so cringey, i just couldn't get any motivation to read this. I guess it lacks content just as his recent post though, so i think my decision was right in the end.
What makes you guess that?
Comments in this thread and the other one where he did make his post (which i read) which lead to this thread
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:
Sure, it is way too long. But the titles and pictures alone are so cringey, i just couldn't get any motivation to read this. I guess it lacks content just as his recent post though, so i think my decision was right in the end.
What makes you guess that?
Comments in this thread and the other one where he did make his post (which i read) which lead to this thread
Well, you kinda nitpicked the comments in this thread then IMO
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:
Sure, it is way too long. But the titles and pictures alone are so cringey, i just couldn't get any motivation to read this. I guess it lacks content just as his recent post though, so i think my decision was right in the end.
What makes you guess that?
Comments in this thread and the other one where he did make his post (which i read) which lead to this thread
Going by the popular opinion, eh? d: No honestly it's a great read. Obviously it's not a hyper precise, figures-based analysis on a precise subject with a scientific or proto-scientific reasoning like the Treatise on the Economy thread, and it is not meant to be one, but as a broad agglomeration of thoughts about various subjects related to SC2 and game design (and even lightly touching non game-related subjects), it is definitely worth the time spent reading it. If you eventually decide to read it, make sure to be in the right mindset though.
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:
Sure, it is way too long. But the titles and pictures alone are so cringey, i just couldn't get any motivation to read this. I guess it lacks content just as his recent post though, so i think my decision was right in the end.
I loved this article so much I read it again. I literally agree with everything, but this point speaks the most to me:
Because the Original Blizzsters thought that (1) spectators come first; (2) spectators must be excited; (3) excitement = randomness.
And that is why the Widow Mine is trash design, the results are not fully predictable, and therefore it the skill ceiling is lower than Siege Tanks. It is so far inferior to the Siege Tank design in just about every way, I still can't believe we lost the Siege Tank in ZvT for the Widow Mine.
Anyone who thinks the Widow Mine is more fun to watch should back and re-live Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando.
I'd just like to ask the OP a further question about the title of this thread. "Razzia of the Blizzsters". Why do you choose the word "razzia" and what do you mean by it? I know the definition of the word but I'm not sure why you've used it in this context or what meaning you intend to convey. What you mean by "time razzia" and "sense razzia" is unclear.
I'm also curious about "the Blizzsters". Why this instead of just calling them Blizzard? What extra connotation are you trying to communicate?
On April 13 2015 23:13 Nebuchad wrote: 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.
I said “this is bad because time is over-contracted,” and later in the text I said time was already over-contracted (so naturally, increasing the movement could only make things worse). The explanation is provided: it frustrates players (who lost too much control) and bulldozes strategy (→ “the game is stale”).
cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume.
Yes; town halls are made earlier, so they make extra workers, which mine more, so the next town halls are made earlier, production comes faster, etc. It speeds up economy/production (hyper-development) → contraction of time.
On April 14 2015 02:19 Beelzebro wrote: I'd just like to ask the OP a further question about the title of this thread. "Razzia of the Blizzsters". Why do you choose the word "razzia" and what do you mean by it? I know the definition of the word but I'm not sure why you've used it in this context or what meaning you intend to convey. What you mean by "time razzia" and "sense razzia" is unclear.
I'm also curious about "the Blizzsters". Why this instead of just calling them Blizzard? What extra connotation are you trying to communicate?
Blizzsters for “Blizzard gangsters,” because they perpetrated a crime against Starcraft. And razzia because of a short, violent attack to capture Starcraft and the player; plus the zz phonetics further echoes the theme of the “temporal attack” (like the buzzing of an insect flying near your ear, if you ever experienced this). I like to think that there was a primitive scene in which the SC2 crew silently stared at a Starcraft poster for a few minutes, then exchanged glances and started frenetically throwing darts. And so SC2 was born.
Time razzia because the contraction of time attacks the game at its core. Picture time raiding a video game shop and capturing SC2. Sense razzia—self-explanatory with some of the answers in this thread.
cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume.
Yes; town halls are made earlier, so they make extra workers, which mine more, so the next town halls are made earlier, production comes faster, etc. It speeds up economy/production (hyper-development) → contraction of time.
I don't see why this would be true. Unless scv's mine more or move faster the economy won't progress faster than if you would do a normal 12+ worker macro build.
cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume.
Yes; town halls are made earlier, so they make extra workers, which mine more, so the next town halls are made earlier, production comes faster, etc. It speeds up economy/production (hyper-development) → contraction of time.
I don't see why this would be true. Unless scv's mine more or move faster the economy won't progress faster than if you would do a normal 12+ worker macro build.
cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume.
Yes; town halls are made earlier, so they make extra workers, which mine more, so the next town halls are made earlier, production comes faster, etc. It speeds up economy/production (hyper-development) → contraction of time.
I don't see why this would be true. Unless scv's mine more or move faster the economy won't progress faster than if you would do a normal 12+ worker macro build.
So how do you explain this? (Same CC first into 3 rax Medivacs build respectively played with the HotS economy and the original LotV economy.)
On April 14 2015 21:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On April 14 2015 19:25 TheDwf wrote:
cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume.
Yes; town halls are made earlier, so they make extra workers, which mine more, so the next town halls are made earlier, production comes faster, etc. It speeds up economy/production (hyper-development) → contraction of time.
I don't see why this would be true. Unless scv's mine more or move faster the economy won't progress faster than if you would do a normal 12+ worker macro build.
seems kinda logical to me, it's a snowball effect
Why? It would be just like if you would resume from replay from a hots game at the moment you have 12 workers
On April 14 2015 21:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On April 14 2015 19:25 TheDwf wrote:
cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume.
Yes; town halls are made earlier, so they make extra workers, which mine more, so the next town halls are made earlier, production comes faster, etc. It speeds up economy/production (hyper-development) → contraction of time.
I don't see why this would be true. Unless scv's mine more or move faster the economy won't progress faster than if you would do a normal 12+ worker macro build.
So how do you explain this? (Same CC first into 3 rax Medivacs build respectively played with the HotS economy and the original LotV economy.)
Well I don't know where that's from. But it takes about 1m45sec to get to 12 scvs in Hots. Which is exactly the time difference between the medivac timings and the max supply timing which are the only relevant measures in the table. Due to bases having less minerals you can't really compare base placement or saturation timings as at 10minutes in Lotv the main will have only 4 patches.
The only thing that really contracts time is the supply increase for CC's which requires you to build slightly less supply depots which saves money. I guess this can slightly snowball.
On April 14 2015 21:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On April 14 2015 19:25 TheDwf wrote:
cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume.
Yes; town halls are made earlier, so they make extra workers, which mine more, so the next town halls are made earlier, production comes faster, etc. It speeds up economy/production (hyper-development) → contraction of time.
I don't see why this would be true. Unless scv's mine more or move faster the economy won't progress faster than if you would do a normal 12+ worker macro build.
seems kinda logical to me, it's a snowball effect
Why? It would be just like if you would resume from replay from a hots game at the moment you have 12 workers
It's explained in the post you originally quoted. Since you start with more workers, you have a higher income right from the beginning ; higher income means more money to spend each minute ; means earlier townhalls and more townhalls ; and since townhalls produce workers themselves which in turn brings in even more income, you have more money earlier in the game, which speeds up economy and production.
On April 14 2015 21:49 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On April 14 2015 21:16 OtherWorld wrote:
On April 14 2015 21:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On April 14 2015 19:25 TheDwf wrote:
cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume.
Yes; town halls are made earlier, so they make extra workers, which mine more, so the next town halls are made earlier, production comes faster, etc. It speeds up economy/production (hyper-development) → contraction of time.
I don't see why this would be true. Unless scv's mine more or move faster the economy won't progress faster than if you would do a normal 12+ worker macro build.
seems kinda logical to me, it's a snowball effect
Why? It would be just like if you would resume from replay from a hots game at the moment you have 12 workers
It's explained in the post you originally quoted. Since you start with more workers, you have a higher income right from the beginning ; higher income means more money to spend each minute ; means earlier townhalls and more townhalls ; and since townhalls produce workers themselves which in turn brings in even more income, you have more money earlier in the game, which speeds up economy and production.
Which just skips time, the time you would need to get 12 workers. The scvs don't mine faster/more (at least afaik), you simply jump right to the point of hots where you have 12 workers. (the only difference is the supply provided, as FueledUpAndReadyToGo already said) The reason is that this "economy change" is a map change, nothing more
In LotV you have more workers before you can afford to spend the income on things, and that is always the case relative to HotS, so the money has to be spent faster in comparison because the income rate is higher relative to where you are in the build.
On April 14 2015 22:37 ThunderBum wrote: In LotV you have more workers before you can afford to spend the income on things, and that is always the case relative to HotS, so the money has to be spent faster in comparison because the income rate is higher relative to where you are in the build.
Well yes, there is a little bit of change cause of the supply "problem"
cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume.
Yes; town halls are made earlier, so they make extra workers, which mine more, so the next town halls are made earlier, production comes faster, etc. It speeds up economy/production (hyper-development) → contraction of time.
I don't see why this would be true. Unless scv's mine more or move faster the economy won't progress faster than if you would do a normal 12+ worker macro build.
Let's be carefull with it, I think even the very enlightened TheDwf has a slight misconception about it.
The time contraction doesn't come form a magical snowball effect happening at 12 workers. It is indeed correct to say that other things being equal the 12 workers start just skips the time you spent in the 6 workers version to reach your 12th worker.
So no real time contaction per se.
But the real deal is, as allways, in the other things being equal, and the truth is touched by ThunderBum. In HOTS, your mining yields an excess of mineral over your SCV production before you reach your 12th drones. So in fact you are banking for infrastructure before the LOTV start, sometimes to directly expand, but most of the time (for T and P at least) to build your first unit production building.
So in fact, even if every non-cheese build in HOTS don't produce anything before 12 workers, the 12 workers start force you to play "greedier" than many "standard HOTS build, since your tech and unit production come later in comparaison to your economy, relatively to HOTS equivalent (sorry for the convoluted and simply horrible sentence, I'm french after all...).
On April 14 2015 21:49 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Well I don't know where that's from. But it takes about 1m45sec to get to 12 scvs in Hots. Which is exactly the time difference between the medivac timings and the max supply timing which are the only relevant measures in the table. Due to bases having less minerals you can't really compare base placement or saturation timings as at 10minutes in Lotv the main will have only 4 patches.
No! They are not the only relevant measures in the table. In fact, in a way, they are the only ones irrelevant! ! They're only lined up with the imaginary “105 seconds shift rule” by accident. As I said, the table is from before the SC2 crew halved the value of half the mineral patches, but the core of the “contraction of time” phenomenon is completely unaffected by this.
If there is a “105 seconds shift rule,” then how come the first expansion is only advanced by 40 seconds? How come stim is only advanced by 65 seconds? How come there is a 100 seconds difference for Medivacs? If this is only an artefact because of the approximation in executing builds, then how come the difference suddenly jumps to 120-150 seconds for the timing of the third? How come we reach 50 SCVs 130 seconds earlier? How come the third is saturated 150 seconds earlier? How come the fourth is at least 250 seconds earlier? “I don't know.” You don't know because there is no 105 seconds shift rule!
People fall back on the mirage of a non-existent “X seconds shift rule” because in the moving tide of time, Terran + Show Spoiler +
other races as well, naturally, it's just that I took Terran as the example
has rocks. For instance, rocks in the form of the rigidity of its infrastructure; e.g. it takes 115 seconds to complete a Barracks with a Reactor, and then it takes time for… “contraction of time” to occur! And so the maxing time ends up being approximatively lined-up in accordance to the nonexistent “105 seconds rule”. Because it still takes 17 seconds for a worker to complete, it still takes 100s for a CC—which still requires 400 mineral—to complete, it still takes 65-60-50s for the rax/fact/port trio to complete, it still takes 50-25s for the reactor/lab duo to complete, it still takes 170s for stim to complete, etc. Even if it kicks in earlier because of extra resources, the technology clock was unchanged. Whether you start with 6 or 12 workers, it takes at least 205s to get a Starport going. The raging wave of contraction of time breaks on unwavering rocks, and that's why HotS Protoss would be completely unplayable with a LotV economy.
Starting with 6 workers = 252 income per minute. Starting with 12 workers = 504 income per minute. And yet speed of development would be untouched? More would be equal? How? Is this sorcery? Did maths lie to us? We learnt that 1 = 1, and now 252 = 504? No. Of course not. Even if the individual collection rate of workers was unchanged (another rock!), more is simply more. We're still at T = 0, and yet… contraction of time. The “X seconds shift rule” is easy to break. We should find it in the earliest pool time. 6p = what, 37s? It takes, what, 95s for Zerg to get 12 drones? So LotV 12p should start at, hmm, -58 seconds. Right in the game lobby. Are we stuck in a Black Hole? What happened to reality? Did we kill time? Where is Stephen Hawking? I want to go home.
Ah! Maniak was asking “What's the point of all this?”—what was the point in revealing the big secret. Yes, exactly; I could not have phrased it better. The point of the “big secret” is that time is not only in the player; it's also deeply incrusted within every single dark corner of the game.
I have come to remind you something, something you once knew; the “big secret” that yes, time exists. An intuitive idea, so simple, yet so strange and so paradoxical that despite knowing it, you simply… forget it… all the time.
On April 14 2015 21:15 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On April 14 2015 19:25 TheDwf wrote:
cause 12 workers collect more than 6 and minerals get there faster, I would assume.
Yes; town halls are made earlier, so they make extra workers, which mine more, so the next town halls are made earlier, production comes faster, etc. It speeds up economy/production (hyper-development) → contraction of time.
I don't see why this would be true. Unless scv's mine more or move faster the economy won't progress faster than if you would do a normal 12+ worker macro build.
Let's be carefull with it, I think even the very enlightened TheDwf has a slight misconception about it.
The time contraction doesn't come form a magical snowball effect happening at 12 workers. It is indeed correct to say that other things being equal the 12 workers start just skips the time you spent in the 6 workers version to reach your 12th worker.
So no real time contaction per se.
But the real deal is, as allways, in the other things being equal, and the truth is touched by ThunderBum. In HOTS, your mining yields an excess of mineral over your SCV production before you reach your 12th drones. So in fact you are banking for infrastructure before the LOTV start, sometimes to directly expand, but most of the time (for T and P at least) to build your first unit production building.
So in fact, even if every non-cheese build in HOTS don't produce anything before 12 workers, the 12 workers start force you to play "greedier" than many "standard HOTS build, since your tech and unit production come later in comparaison to your economy, relatively to HOTS equivalent (sorry for the convoluted and simply horrible sentence, I'm french after all...).
Yes, exactly. People are confused because, as I said in the text, there are different temporalities. Time is much more than the game timer. That's its paradoxical and plural nature.
I honestly have no idea where you're going with this, it seems delusional to me.
The 'rocks' you speak about are exactly why there is no contraction of time, as those rocks are the whole definition of the time it takes to gather minerals and build things in the first place. That's why a well executed 4gate hits at the same time on the same map. There are no waves. A contraction of time would mean that things happen faster. Yet still zerglings run at the same speed, build at the same speed, cost the same and require the same amount of mining time to purchase.
Karel does make a good point that the initial conditions are not exactly the same. There is:
- A lateral shift in time from the 6 worker point to the 12 worker point". This obviously changes early game cheeses. Your
-Each race gets shifted slightly in comparison to each other because in HotS they don't arrive at 12 workers at exactly the same time and in LotV they do.
-You also have a higher supply limit in HotS when your 12th worker reaches the mineral line. This is compensated somewhat by LotV giving you 4 extra supply for your expansion.
-You have more than 50 minerals in HotS when your 12th worker reaches the mineral line. In LotV you start with 50 minerals. If anything this will make units come out slower in LotV, not faster.
-General economy upkeep is slightly higher in LotV. You need 300 or 400 per base, and in HotS each base gives you 12000 minerals, while in LotV this is only 9000. So you need to spend a higher % of your total income on mining structures instead of units/army buildings. This will also make getting units a little slower.
Nothing in this leads to a faster game besides the initial shift. There is no reduction of control for the players. There is only a reduction of choices as pre-12 worker cheese is no longer possible. Besides this initial conditions are changed a little bit. But even currently initial conditions also change with different maps (expansions further away, mineral patch placement) and this doesn't lead to any major issues either.
I had a small hope that TheDwf would try to come up with something more than his recent post about time in RTS. I think a lot of people including me agree on the subjects above and yet I don't think that something will change for LoTV. I strongly believe that "casual user" paradigm TheDwf described is the fundamental essence and driving engine of every entertainment industry. And people who want something more shall always be the minority.
On April 15 2015 04:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I honestly have no idea where you're going with this, it seems delusional to me.
The 'rocks' you speak about are exactly why there is no contraction of time, as those rocks are the whole definition of the time it takes to gather minerals and build things in the first place. That's why a well executed 4gate hits at the same time on the same map. There are no waves. A contraction of time would mean that things happen faster. Yet still zerglings run at the same speed, build at the same speed, cost the same and require the same amount of mining time to purchase.
Karel does make a good point that the initial conditions are not exactly the same. There is:
- A lateral shift in time from the 6 worker point to the 12 worker point". This obviously changes early game cheeses. Your
-Each race gets shifted slightly in comparison to each other because in HotS they don't arrive at 12 workers at exactly the same time and in LotV they do.
-You also have a higher supply limit in HotS when your 12th worker reaches the mineral line. This is compensated somewhat by LotV giving you 4 extra supply for your expansion.
-You have more than 50 minerals in HotS when your 12th worker reaches the mineral line. In LotV you start with 50 minerals. If anything this will make units come out slower in LotV, not faster.
-General economy upkeep is slightly higher in LotV. You need 300 or 400 per base, and in HotS each base gives you 12000 minerals, while in LotV this is only 9000. So you need to spend a higher % of your total income on mining structures instead of units/army buildings. This will also make getting units a little slower.
Nothing in this leads to a faster game besides the initial shift. There is no reduction of control for the players. There is only a reduction of choices as pre-12 worker cheese is no longer possible. Besides this initial conditions are changed a little bit. But even currently initial conditions also change with different maps (expansions further away, mineral patch placement) and this doesn't lead to any major issues either.
You're probably one of those people who argue it doesn't make a difference if you stick with your original choice or choose to switch to the other door on Let's Make a Deal, aren't you?
Even if not, you're committing the same kind of fallacy those people do. What comes before changes what comes after. Economy grows exponentially for all races, and removing time to be aggressive streamlines the growth of the economy. This is exactly why Zerg is so powerful in the current version of the game, and Protoss so weak.
On April 15 2015 04:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
-You have more than 50 minerals in HotS when your 12th worker reaches the mineral line. In LotV you start with 50 minerals. If anything this will make units come out slower in LotV, not faster.
This is a fallacy.. A tricky one, but still.
In LotV you start with 50 mineral, less than in HotS at the same worker count. But it wont make units come out slower, it will make your first few units come out slower. This delay on your first units will skew builds through macro exponential growth, and make, at the end of the road, the huge swell of units come out faster.
It plays out like this, at least for P and T.
-Since you start with 12 workers, 50 minerals and no infrastructure, you are banking money while producing workers much faster then in HotS. -But you can't efficiently invest this money in more units production buildings, because your tech is delayed and you're waiting for it to build your early game "activ units" (let's say core to go for stalkers, or fac to go hellions). -So you invest your overflow of minerals in economy, most likely an earlier expand and/or a perfectly uninterrupted workers production. -As a result you're able to produce big amounts of units faster and the first activ units (yours and the opponent's ones) become irrelevant earlier.
So to sum it up: Your first units come out later. They become irrelevant earlier. Time contraction.
On April 15 2015 04:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I honestly have no idea where you're going with this, it seems delusional to me.
The 'rocks' you speak about are exactly why there is no contraction of time, as those rocks are the whole definition of the time it takes to gather minerals and build things in the first place. That's why a well executed 4gate hits at the same time on the same map. There are no waves. A contraction of time would mean that things happen faster.
Yep, the ETA balance has been de-synchronized in LotV. Technology is faster, but slower. Paradoxical, plural nature of time. Faster in absolute (game timer); relatively slower (because of the sharper economic development). But:
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Should the ETA balance be properly re-calibrated, the central question would still be untouched.
Because we would have still contracted time! By making the construction of buildings faster, or the completion of upgrades earlier, etc. Like Protoss do… since they are endowed with the purest form of the “contraction of time” mechanic. And so SC2 would be faster, despite our dear Zerglings running at the same speed (among various other rocks). Not everything needs to be chronoboosted so we can speak of “contraction of time”!
An inspiring read truly. Though I might disagree with some of your points, you rightly herald of the level of unsatisfaction with where Blizzard is driving the game. Something should happen.
We are all unhappy with the fundamental aspects of the game's pace, but no clear argument is present at OP's post. It is very hard to discuss a point when 10 different people will read 10 different points.
It's funny that someone mentioned Heidegger, because the style discussion in this thread perfectly mimics the analytic/continental divide in philosophy. More Russell, less Derrida, please.
On April 13 2015 23:13 Nebuchad wrote: 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.
I said “this is bad because time is over-contracted,” and later in the text I said time was already over-contracted (so naturally, increasing the movement could only make things worse). The explanation is provided: it frustrates players (who lost too much control) and bulldozes strategy (→ “the game is stale”).
That's not an explanation, that's an assertion. Players being frustrated happens in any situation, for any reason, ever. Strategy being bulldozed is related to balance much more than it is related to design. If people realize that some strategies lead to better results than others, they will do them more often, regardless of how much control they have over the whole game.
On April 15 2015 04:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I honestly have no idea where you're going with this, it seems delusional to me.
The 'rocks' you speak about are exactly why there is no contraction of time, as those rocks are the whole definition of the time it takes to gather minerals and build things in the first place. That's why a well executed 4gate hits at the same time on the same map. There are no waves. A contraction of time would mean that things happen faster. Yet still zerglings run at the same speed, build at the same speed, cost the same and require the same amount of mining time to purchase.
Karel does make a good point that the initial conditions are not exactly the same. There is:
- A lateral shift in time from the 6 worker point to the 12 worker point". This obviously changes early game cheeses. Your
-Each race gets shifted slightly in comparison to each other because in HotS they don't arrive at 12 workers at exactly the same time and in LotV they do.
-You also have a higher supply limit in HotS when your 12th worker reaches the mineral line. This is compensated somewhat by LotV giving you 4 extra supply for your expansion.
-You have more than 50 minerals in HotS when your 12th worker reaches the mineral line. In LotV you start with 50 minerals. If anything this will make units come out slower in LotV, not faster.
-General economy upkeep is slightly higher in LotV. You need 300 or 400 per base, and in HotS each base gives you 12000 minerals, while in LotV this is only 9000. So you need to spend a higher % of your total income on mining structures instead of units/army buildings. This will also make getting units a little slower.
Nothing in this leads to a faster game besides the initial shift. There is no reduction of control for the players. There is only a reduction of choices as pre-12 worker cheese is no longer possible. Besides this initial conditions are changed a little bit. But even currently initial conditions also change with different maps (expansions further away, mineral patch placement) and this doesn't lead to any major issues either.
You're probably one of those people who argue it doesn't make a difference if you stick with your original choice or choose to switch to the other door on Let's Make a Deal, aren't you?
Well I will admit that it took me quite a while to 'get' that problem. But in the end the math points the right direction for that one. If this is the same thing and I am truly blinded, then apologies. But I feel the math doesn't confirm this case at all and it hits my TB-must-react switch.
On April 15 2015 04:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
-You have more than 50 minerals in HotS when your 12th worker reaches the mineral line. In LotV you start with 50 minerals. If anything this will make units come out slower in LotV, not faster.
This is a fallacy.. A tricky one, but still.Perhaps. But I don't see it.
In LotV you start with 50 mineral, less than in HotS at the same worker count. But it wont make units come out slower, it will make your first few units come out slower. This delay on your first units will skew builds through macro exponential growth, and make, at the end of the road, the huge swell of units come out faster. Why would there be extra growth if you have less minerals in the first place.
It plays out like this, at least for P and T.
-Since you start with 12 workers, 50 minerals and no infrastructure, you are banking money while producing workers much faster then in HotS. Why are you producing faster? Your still limited to worker build speed. You have LESS money upfront. Less money at the start does not lead to a larger economy in the end. Your bank will never be bigger than in Hots. -But you can't efficiently invest this money in more units production buildings, because your tech is delayed and you're waiting for it to build your early game "activ units" (let's say core to go for stalkers, or fac to go hellions). -So you invest your overflow of minerals in economy, most likely an earlier expand and/or a perfectly uninterrupted workers production. There is no overflow. Your tech is delayed because you have a little less starting money. You don't suddenly have extra money to invest in macro instead, you started with less in the first place.
On April 15 2015 04:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I honestly have no idea where you're going with this, it seems delusional to me.
The 'rocks' you speak about are exactly why there is no contraction of time, as those rocks are the whole definition of the time it takes to gather minerals and build things in the first place. That's why a well executed 4gate hits at the same time on the same map. There are no waves. A contraction of time would mean that things happen faster.
Yep, the ETA balance has been de-synchronized in LotV. Technology is faster, but slower. Paradoxical, plural nature of time. Faster in absolute (game timer); relatively slower (because of the sharper economic development). But:
Well I don't know how you got that table as the values seem incorrect. I did a simple test with Jakataks Lotv map of the week in the arcade, which is currently inferno pools. Played a game on that map, and on normal HotS infernal pools. - Get 3 bases with 16 workers - Just use hatcheries and drones nothing else as that is the only way for me to get near perfect macro. A better SC2 player than me might get slightly quicker results.
In Hots you reach 12 drones at 1:32. This is the 'start' for Hots. You have about 85 minerals and a 13th drone already building. The expansion comes down at about 2:16. This is 44 ingame seconds after 'start'. The third comes down at 3:29. This is 1m57 seconds after 'start'. And you reach full three bases 16 drone saturation at 7:06. This is 5m34s after start.
In LotV you start with 12 drones, and 50 minerals. No 13th drone building and your drones still have to move to the mineral line. This means the expansion comes slower at around 1m13s after start. The third comes slower at 2:29 after start. And three base 16 drones come slower at 5m51s after start.
There's no real difference in banked minerals. LotV is slightly slower. How is this contracted?
Is the point 6 really true? Sure multiplayer functions were added in SC2 but I remember interviews by Dustin Browder being surprised by the interest of the game as an e-sport.
Also how does the starcraft games fit into this Heartstone graph if you replace randomness with the game's speed resulting in higher amounts of human error. Randomness is vertical and skill is horizontal.
On April 14 2015 21:49 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Well I don't know where that's from. But it takes about 1m45sec to get to 12 scvs in Hots. Which is exactly the time difference between the medivac timings and the max supply timing which are the only relevant measures in the table. Due to bases having less minerals you can't really compare base placement or saturation timings as at 10minutes in Lotv the main will have only 4 patches.
No! They are not the only relevant measures in the table. In fact, in a way, they are the only ones irrelevant! ! They're only lined up with the imaginary “105 seconds shift rule” by accident. As I said, the table is from before the SC2 crew halved the value of half the mineral patches, but the core of the “contraction of time” phenomenon is completely unaffected by this.
If there is a “105 seconds shift rule,” then how come the first expansion is only advanced by 40 seconds? How come stim is only advanced by 65 seconds? How come there is a 100 seconds difference for Medivacs? If this is only an artefact because of the approximation in executing builds, then how come the difference suddenly jumps to 120-150 seconds for the timing of the third? How come we reach 50 SCVs 130 seconds earlier? How come the third is saturated 150 seconds earlier? How come the fourth is at least 250 seconds earlier? “I don't know.” You don't know because there is no 105 seconds shift rule!
I'm pretty sure you know why. The change lets you work with more money on less tech. With the HotS balance in the LotV economy that choice will always go into a faster than usual expansion, and not into additional 3 naked barracks on two bases that - if actually used for production - delay your third timing even beyond the HotS-105 timing. That's when the 105second rule fails.
You can call it contraction of time, but that's not really true. Players deliberately make more economical choices which lead to faster growth, because the tech progression and balance haven't been changed that much. It has nothing to do with the economy itself but with how players approach it. Though even that isn't quite true, as we see many players deliberately breaking out of you benchmarks to go for ravager rushes and tank drops and dirsuptor drops and so on and then keep the game longer in lower supplies than a unhindered 3hatch 11min roach max or 13min Bomber build would in HotS.
On April 15 2015 20:27 Nebuchad wrote: That's not an explanation, that's an assertion. Players being frustrated happens in any situation, for any reason, ever.
No, it precisely doesn't happen for “any reason”. Phenomenons like bad faith, sore losers, cheating, rage, rudeness, etc., all stem from common patterns revolving around control and reward. Why do Neanderthals ping aggressively your minimap and bark orders in broken English like this is the army? Why do people insult you and leave when you don't obey? Why do people love to rage at their incompetent allies in team games? Why do old friends end up yelling at each other at the end of a lost game? Why do children sulk when they lose? Why does Djokovic throw stuff? Why do cool-headed people completely lose their minds and break keyboards? Would we find as many “Mr. Rage” in online chess “communities”?
Frustration comes from lack/loss of control. “I couldn't do anything”. Why does “the support” yell when he's toast again and again and again to “the carry” in lategame? “Help, help! Fuck you, do something!” Because he no longer has the good role, he's powerless. In the early game, the carry was hiding in his forest—pathetic, weak creature almost dying to neutrals in autopilot, pinged by his teammates who were facepalming at his recklessness. Meanwhile, the support was joyfully scoring at the sound of “MEGAKILL!” But tides turn. In lategame, Mr. Support is the weakling and Mr. Carry farms him. Like the creep he has become. And suddenly Mr. Support's mindset changes. He's no longer cheerfully riding into battle like Tulkas, he sulks and grumbles and blames. In a “pub,” he'll often juste leave. Why would he stay? He's useless. The game is being played without him. This is what most SC2 players feel like. From Bronze to pros.
Strategy being bulldozed is related to balance much more than it is related to design. If people realize that some strategies lead to better results than others, they will do them more often, regardless of how much control they have over the whole game.
The separation between “balance” and “design” is artificial and arbitrary; it's a matter of threshold effect. Balancing simply means tweaking the existing (actually or potentially) interactions between eco-productive systems, units, etc. This is why balance naturally shifts over time. All balance issues are related to “design elements” going out of control for some reason. Why was PvP only 4g mirror for months? “Because people realized that this strategy led to better results than others.” That's what's Molière's doctor would say. Why does opium cause sleep? “Quia est in eo virtus dormitiva quæ facit sopire.” — Because it possesses a dormitive power whose nature it is to induce sleep. Hmm? PvP was nothing but 4g because of the design of Warpgate. The strategic diversity was stomped because the contraction of time induced by Warpgate was far too violent for any other option to stand. Because, as you say: some things win, others just don't. Thus the internal balance in PvP was 80% 4g and 20% pre-4g stuff (whatever the actual figures were). And so players had little/no control. Contraction of time had taken its toll. Frustration, stagnation. “Boring, stale match-up”. If we nerf (balance) Warpgate enough so it doesn't happen, we simply end up redesigning PvP's early game (as did the MSC in its own way).
@FueledUpAndReadyToGo: you factored out the “time shift” you wanted to prove so by construction you tested the result you wanted to get. You recreated a situation with no development (using pool/Queens/injects would kill your test). To fall back on the notion of development, you should check your mineral bank at 7:06 too in LotV. And obviously it would be much higher than in HotS, something like 4910. 4910/426 = 11,5 minerals per minute. 2275/426 = 5,34 minerals per minute. Sharper development. Contraction of time. You said it yourself, “A contraction of time would mean that things happen faster”. Well, 2275 minerals in 5:34 instead of 7:06 falls exactly under this category! You're overthinking things. 12 pool doesn't start in the game lobby.
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys?
Do you remember LaLush's Depth of Micro video? There was a great deal of complaining by malcontents about it being too polarizing, that the reference to BW wasn't necessary, that his voice lacked affect and so on. The point is that if a piece has a political message which is not shared by someone, they will pick on secondary factors that should be of no concern. Any rational human being would consider that LaLush brought up many interesting facts and that he had a right to have a political motivation behind his research; and that if the community & Blizzard really were shallow enough to not pierce through the occasional bits of rhetorical flavor, they deserved their fate. But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
On April 15 2015 22:52 Big J wrote: I'm pretty sure you know why. The change lets you work with more money on less tech. With the HotS balance in the LotV economy that choice will always go into a faster than usual expansion, and not into additional 3 naked barracks on two bases that - if actually used for production - delay your third timing even beyond the HotS-105 timing. That's when the 105second rule fails.
You can call it contraction of time, but that's not really true. Players deliberately make more economical choices which lead to faster growth, because the tech progression and balance haven't been changed that much. It has nothing to do with the economy itself but with how players approach it. Though even that isn't quite true, as we see many players deliberately breaking out of you benchmarks to go for ravager rushes and tank drops and dirsuptor drops and so on and then keep the game longer in lower supplies than a unhindered 3hatch 11min roach max or 13min Bomber build would in HotS.
Yep, this is what I've been saying a few posts above. “Deliberately” … Yes, but yes and no. Protoss don't have the opportunity to be less reliant on tech. Reality remains. You can immediately take dual gas and rush a Battlecruiser out of the new economy, but we know how “good” this is. The new frame has objective attributes; thus strategic diversity gets bulldozed in favor of strategic dominance.
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Should the ETA balance be properly re-calibrated, the central question would still be untouched.
On April 15 2015 17:32 TheDwf wrote: Because we would have still contracted time! By making the construction of buildings faster, or the completion of upgrades earlier, etc.
Of course, players won't play 100% passive macro—I am not claiming they will rush the 200/200 limit all the time. Standard will evolve and new pressure builds will emerge to slow down or take advantage of hyper-development. But then we fall back on the “Blue Flame dilemma” in the text:
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Harassment tools cannot be the answer to this problem: (1) either they're powerful enough to stop hyper-development by themselves, in which case the game will simply turn into a worker hunting contest (see for instance WoL TvT before the Blue Flame nerf); or (2) they're not, and hyper-development will prevail at first before being brutally stopped during the 4+ bases stage (where spread bases become too hard to defend, resulting in a sudden collapse of economies). Should the ETA balance be properly re-calibrated, the central question would still be untouched. A common complaint is that harassment tools are already too destructive: players are frustrated by the speed at which their mineral lines evaporate under the fire of various tools.
(…)
The Mine was the answer developers found to the post-Queen patch environment of hyper-development. Naturally, violence calls for violence.
(…)
Should you proceed for too long in that direction, skill itself would start to disappear, replaced with the functional equivalent of luck.
(…)
If the RT part of RTS is violently compressed then the S withers away too by force.
(…)
SC2 IS FRUSTRATING BECAUSE IT REMOVED FAR TOO MUCH CONTROL FROM THE PLAYER.
(…)
[…] fueling an “always more” drug-like logic, piling up artificial entertainment upon forced excitement in a rabid succession of blurry, shiny images. What will Mr. Viewer then do, once he's tired of the spectacle? He will say, “This game is shit” and sail away.
But you know all of this, that's what you were writing a few pages ago.
I play a fair amount of online chess, but I'm also active in club chess. Time matters and changes the nature of the game; in fact it's not a paradox to claim that Standard Chess and Lighting Chess are two different games, because while the former allows for the deliberation of careful plans, the latter is essentially a real-time game where you have to make aggressive moves as quickly as possible because there is no time to think, only crude technique to rely on. If there is strategy it's not to be found inside a game, but in between games as you consider how to exploit the particularities of the time control, which informs your choice of opening and attack moves and so on. It might be chess, but it's not strictly speaking a turn-based strategy game.
There is actually a market for both types of time control, with many chess players using blitz time control games as a quick diversion from more serious club games. But in emphasizing the extremes an important nuance is lost, which is that players want to play at a pace which is natural for them. I don't care for lighting chess, and instead elect to play the more lenient blitz option because I find that if I were to "just play" moves at a natural pace I have enough time to finish the game to a satisfying conclusion.
I think that when TheDwf mentions that there comes a point that not even Maru can control marines properly because the speed and size create an overwhelming effect, we should also ask the question of what happens when an average player is allowed to take the reins. Because the effect will be magnified and all marines will be dead before this person completes a few meager boxing operations while complaining about randomness. Yet Maru can still win reliably. I think that time contraction is a relevant variable, but finding an equilibrium is not a trivial task of diagnosing Starcraft 2 as slightly too fast and adding some necessary counterweights.
On April 15 2015 21:57 archonOOid wrote: Is the point 6 really true? Sure multiplayer functions were added in SC2 but I remember interviews by Dustin Browder being surprised by the interest of the game as an e-sport.
Also how does the starcraft games fit into this Heartstone graph if you replace randomness with the game's speed resulting in higher amounts of human error. Randomness is vertical and skill is horizontal.
Maybe Dustin Browder was talking about the success of BW, or esports in general. Ah, that's an interesting diagram... It could very well visually represent the differences around here.
So I spent the last several days reading this in bits. Despite it being a bit bloated it made some good points and in my opinion the most notable one is bringing in more interesting unit interactions preferably without tons of activated abilities.
So, assuming enough people agree why not hold a poll or some call to action on unit redesign similar to the new terran unit poll? Posts like these aren't all that uncommon and they have rarely led to any major changes.
As a protoss player I would probably elect the colossus.
On April 15 2015 20:27 Nebuchad wrote: That's not an explanation, that's an assertion. Players being frustrated happens in any situation, for any reason, ever.
No, it precisely doesn't happen for “any reason”. Phenomenons like bad faith, sore losers, cheating, rage, rudeness, etc., all stem from common patterns revolving around control and reward.
Notice you had to put "reward" in there. That's an elaborate way of saying the same thing I said, because when you go into it, any reason you could have to be frustrated in a competition is related to control or reward. Posit a game where "contraction of time" is exactly in the right place, it's not too slow, so people are still amazing for doing it right, and it's not too fast, so players don't experience lack of control. Are you under the impression that suddenly, people won't rage over the mistakes they make? Will people stop thinking that they should be doing better than they are, and should be recognized as such?
Would we find as many “Mr. Rage” in online chess “communities”?
We find plenty of them in live chess, so I can't imagine online chess is better. I had someone play a losing position for almost 2 hours more until I checkmated him because he didn't like the way he got into that losing position. I've seen a chessboard being thrown. I've seen two examples of cheating, and been incorrectly accused of cheating once. Nakamura exists. I googled "people killed over game of chess" and found results. More importantly, the demographic that plays online chess and the demographic that rages over starcraft are not exactly comparable. Put the second in an online chess tournament, you'll find the results are similar.
The separation between “balance” and “design” is artificial and arbitrary
Well if that is so, why can't they just balance the game into the right situation? Why does the design need changing in order for the game to be saved?
On April 15 2015 22:52 Big J wrote: I'm pretty sure you know why. The change lets you work with more money on less tech. With the HotS balance in the LotV economy that choice will always go into a faster than usual expansion, and not into additional 3 naked barracks on two bases that - if actually used for production - delay your third timing even beyond the HotS-105 timing. That's when the 105second rule fails.
You can call it contraction of time, but that's not really true. Players deliberately make more economical choices which lead to faster growth, because the tech progression and balance haven't been changed that much. It has nothing to do with the economy itself but with how players approach it. Though even that isn't quite true, as we see many players deliberately breaking out of you benchmarks to go for ravager rushes and tank drops and dirsuptor drops and so on and then keep the game longer in lower supplies than a unhindered 3hatch 11min roach max or 13min Bomber build would in HotS.
Yep, this is what I've been saying a few posts above. “Deliberately” … Yes, but yes and no. Protoss don't have the opportunity to be less reliant on tech. Reality remains. You can immediately take dual gas and rush a Battlecruiser out of the new economy, but we know how “good” this is. The new frame has objective attributes; thus strategic diversity gets bulldozed in favor of strategic dominance.
Yup. But I think you are bashing too hard on the notion of a 105second time shift, while you actually know that the theory would hold if you just started with a supply depot and a pylon. It's a question of balance and design that makes you make those choices. The 12worker change is only bad - though it is pretty unnecessary and useless to begin with - if you don't emphasize on its potential at all. Which I agree, blizzard isn't doing, at least not at this point and as clueless as they are probably not until someone is waving with a supply depot in their faces and telling them that this requirment for the barracks needs to go. Or going a different road and telling them, we want two base Collossus to be a thing.
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then?
The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse.
Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG).
It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean.
It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
sorry for late reply
you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game?
I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me.
Game designers are only human and are heavily influenced by topical references. If you were to ask me to come up with unit designs I would have several based on concepts from Diablo II, World of Warcraft, Warcraft 3, Earth 2140, and so on. We find our inspiration everywhere we can, and the combination of influences can have the spark of something unique and new. Nevertheless, I would find it suspicious for RTS designers to take most of their inspiration from non-RTS sources, although at least Blizzard is dutifully copying some BW concepts. MOBAs have huge popularity and Blizzard's RTS team is even designing a MOBA game parallel to Legacy of the Void. I'm sure that the Blizzard design team is not taking cues from Grey Goo or Planetary Annihilation, I think it would be surprising to find even one person at Blizzard who has seriously played those games. But most of them will have played one of DOTA/League/World of Warcraft and that's a more likely pool of ideas for them to draw from. Not to mention that MOBAs are not only popular, they're also hip, with intellectual support and arguments by people proclaiming it the next great thing, arguments that eventually seep down to the game designers. I think this can be considered irony, that Blizzard's MOBA derived ideas could work if only the game wasn't so fast and high economy.
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then?
The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse.
Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG).
It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean.
It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
sorry for late reply
you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game?
I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me.
Game designers are only human and are heavily influenced by topical references. If you were to ask me to come up with unit designs I would have several based on concepts from Diablo II, World of Warcraft, Warcraft 3, Earth 2140, and so on. We find our inspiration everywhere we can, and the combination of influences can have the spark of something unique and new. Nevertheless, I would find it suspicious for RTS designers to take most of their inspiration from non-RTS sources, although at least Blizzard is dutifully copying some BW concepts. MOBAs have huge popularity and Blizzard's RTS team is even designing a MOBA game parallel to Legacy of the Void. I'm sure that the Blizzard design team is not taking cues from Grey Goo or Planetary Annihilation, I think it would be surprising to find even one person at Blizzard who has seriously played those games. But most of them will have played one of DOTA/League/World of Warcraft and that's a more likely pool of ideas for them to draw from. Not to mention that MOBAs are not only popular, they're also hip, with intellectual support and arguments by people proclaiming it the next great thing, arguments that eventually seep down to the game designers. I think this can be considered irony, that Blizzard's MOBA derived ideas could work if only the game wasn't so fast and high economy.
A human is not a creative being. A human can only recreate.
On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote: whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW Wol to hots to lotv And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is. Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction)
This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise.
And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger.
I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.)
I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then?
The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse.
Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG).
It can be manipulative but it must make sense if you know what I mean.
It does. Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
sorry for late reply
you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference? Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game?
I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible. So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me.
Game designers are only human and are heavily influenced by topical references. If you were to ask me to come up with unit designs I would have several based on concepts from Diablo II, World of Warcraft, Warcraft 3, Earth 2140, and so on. We find our inspiration everywhere we can, and the combination of influences can have the spark of something unique and new. Nevertheless, I would find it suspicious for RTS designers to take most of their inspiration from non-RTS sources, although at least Blizzard is dutifully copying some BW concepts. MOBAs have huge popularity and Blizzard's RTS team is even designing a MOBA game parallel to Legacy of the Void. I'm sure that the Blizzard design team is not taking cues from Grey Goo or Planetary Annihilation, I think it would be surprising to find even one person at Blizzard who has seriously played those games. But most of them will have played one of DOTA/League/World of Warcraft and that's a more likely pool of ideas for them to draw from. Not to mention that MOBAs are not only popular, they're also hip, with intellectual support and arguments by people proclaiming it the next great thing, arguments that eventually seep down to the game designers. I think this can be considered irony, that Blizzard's MOBA derived ideas could work if only the game wasn't so fast and high economy.
A human is not a creative being. A human can only recreate.
Recreating based on different sources of inspiration, and synthesizing these sources into something new, can be seen as "creation" though. (as opposed to "recreating" based on a single source without changing anything, which is plagiarism)
On April 15 2015 21:57 archonOOid wrote: Is the point 6 really true? Sure multiplayer functions were added in SC2 but I remember interviews by Dustin Browder being surprised by the interest of the game as an e-sport.
Also how does the starcraft games fit into this Heartstone graph if you replace randomness with the game's speed resulting in higher amounts of human error. Randomness is vertical and skill is horizontal.
Maybe Dustin Browder was talking about the success of BW, or esports in general. Ah, that's an interesting diagram... It could very well visually represent the differences around here.
Yeah this was a very interesting point to me. It seems like they always thought about giving it what it would need to be an esport, but I have to believe they were really thinking about the player first in the early days. More recently, I'm not so sure.
I quite concur with TheDwf's opinion about "the tyranny of the viewer", by the way. To me spectating is not a worthwhile activity which needs to be preserved. The only intrinsically valuable activity is playing the game. One is passive, the other is active and should take priority.
I sometimes feel like the community considers the Korean pros to be gladiators playing for the entertainment of the emperor and that it would be a good idea to invent various stressful "high skill" activities for them to showcase, all for the greater glory of the empire even if it stops being fun for the players (both pros & casuals).
On April 16 2015 01:33 The_Red_Viper wrote: In the end it's just like evolution, it's a natural way of creating things
Well, the main point is that I think it's useful to keep track of what's inside "Blizzard head-space", which is after all a limited resource and largely determines design decisions. They can be inspired by whatever, I don't specifically care, but at some point you have to notice that the designers of BW and WC3 lived in an era where the main competition was other RTS games, while currently it's mostly MOBA games. And I'm sure this is partly the reason for the addition of active abilities.
Yeah I think people over-emphasize the spectator aspect of the game because it seems like such a cool, new thing. The devs have probably pursued that a lot because of how curious they were about where esports would go. I seem to recall the phrase "a ten year esports experiment" coming from someone at Blizzard or someone who talked with them. I think it's been long enough for me, though, and I'd like to see SC2 be more than just an experiment to learn things from for other games, for other Blizzard and other developers. I'd like to see it stay relevant and become a game with longevity. I'd like to see LotV be revolutionary.
When I think of games that are designed to be televised and watched more than played I think of game-shows more than sports. Sports developed for the spectator first have never really worked, have they?
On April 15 2015 20:27 Nebuchad wrote: That's not an explanation, that's an assertion. Players being frustrated happens in any situation, for any reason, ever.
No, it precisely doesn't happen for “any reason”. Phenomenons like bad faith, sore losers, cheating, rage, rudeness, etc., all stem from common patterns revolving around control and reward.
Notice you had to put "reward" in there. That's an elaborate way of saying the same thing I said, because when you go into it, any reason you could have to be frustrated in a competition is related to control or reward. Posit a game where "contraction of time" is exactly in the right place, it's not too slow, so people are still amazing for doing it right, and it's not too fast, so players don't experience lack of control. Are you under the impression that suddenly, people won't rage over the mistakes they make? Will people stop thinking that they should be doing better than they are, and should be recognized as such?
Would we find as many “Mr. Rage” in online chess “communities”?
We find plenty of them in live chess, so I can't imagine online chess is better. I had someone play a losing position for almost 2 hours more until I checkmated him because he didn't like the way he got into that losing position. I've seen a chessboard being thrown. I've seen two examples of cheating, and been incorrectly accused of cheating once. Nakamura exists. I googled "people killed over game of chess" and found results. More importantly, the demographic that plays online chess and the demographic that rages over starcraft are not exactly comparable. Put the second in an online chess tournament, you'll find the results are similar.
My point isn't about a “zero rage” mirage, it's about the surplus of frustration generated by the attributes of the game. Of course people are going to feel frustration as long as they get involved into a competitive mindset. My point isn't that there's no rage in chess players, but I do think there would be more of it in SC2, even with an “equal sample”. We'll never have confirmation anyway.
The notion of “reward” doesn't evacuate at all the question of control. Some will protest regardless of the conditions (partly because they lacked control… over themselves!), but it doesn't change anything to the objective effects of said conditions. Not to mention reward isn't unrelated to control.
Well if that is so, why can't they just balance the game into the right situation? Why does the design need changing in order for the game to be saved?
Sorry, can you elaborate? I don't understand your objection. Given my point it shouldn't be here!
On April 15 2015 22:52 Big J wrote: I'm pretty sure you know why. The change lets you work with more money on less tech. With the HotS balance in the LotV economy that choice will always go into a faster than usual expansion, and not into additional 3 naked barracks on two bases that - if actually used for production - delay your third timing even beyond the HotS-105 timing. That's when the 105second rule fails.
You can call it contraction of time, but that's not really true. Players deliberately make more economical choices which lead to faster growth, because the tech progression and balance haven't been changed that much. It has nothing to do with the economy itself but with how players approach it. Though even that isn't quite true, as we see many players deliberately breaking out of you benchmarks to go for ravager rushes and tank drops and dirsuptor drops and so on and then keep the game longer in lower supplies than a unhindered 3hatch 11min roach max or 13min Bomber build would in HotS.
Yep, this is what I've been saying a few posts above. “Deliberately” … Yes, but yes and no. Protoss don't have the opportunity to be less reliant on tech. Reality remains. You can immediately take dual gas and rush a Battlecruiser out of the new economy, but we know how “good” this is. The new frame has objective attributes; thus strategic diversity gets bulldozed in favor of strategic dominance.
Yup. But I think you are bashing too hard on the notion of a 105second time shift, while you actually know that the theory would hold if you just started with a supply depot and a pylon.
Ah, no. Sorry, I misread what you said. You can make tech faster but there cannot be a 105s time shift for technology in general. HotS rax before depot would be, what, 70 seconds? So LotV rax before depot should be -35. Uh? When you remove the depot requirement you get a time shift indeed for the rax-fact-port trio, but a time shift of 30s; not 105.
If you remove depot before rax in LotV, you start the rax at, what, 18 seconds with a brief SCV cut? 20 without? 70 - 20 = 50s. No 105s time shift, even if we don't interrupt SCV production.
The 12worker change is only bad - though it is pretty unnecessary and useless to begin with - if you don't emphasize on its potential at all.
Technically yes (hence the “all things being equal” in the text), you could work around it to make good things. Unfortunately, nothing suggests they're interested in that. They merely want to stim LotV like they stimmed HotS.
The MSC is a typical case of crude design. Instead of reorganizing the basic Gateway/Warpgate tech tree to deal with the issues Protoss was facing, they added a Swiss Knife hero unit (initially, it even had detection!) and ruined what could have been a good idea, i.e. a microable flying unit with moderate harassment and scouting possibilities in the early game. Then, they keep building on top of this shaky fundation.
- TheDwf
This is the design/balance team's biggest flaw. Their bandaid type solutions make the game stale in the long run. That is why at the end of WoL we coulndt wait for HoTS, and now we cant wait for LotV.
Build the foundation right, which Blizzard has totally ignored, even to this day. It just means we all have an RTS game that becomes stale, instead of becoming more interesting.
On April 15 2015 20:27 Nebuchad wrote: That's not an explanation, that's an assertion. Players being frustrated happens in any situation, for any reason, ever.
No, it precisely doesn't happen for “any reason”. Phenomenons like bad faith, sore losers, cheating, rage, rudeness, etc., all stem from common patterns revolving around control and reward.
Notice you had to put "reward" in there. That's an elaborate way of saying the same thing I said, because when you go into it, any reason you could have to be frustrated in a competition is related to control or reward. Posit a game where "contraction of time" is exactly in the right place, it's not too slow, so people are still amazing for doing it right, and it's not too fast, so players don't experience lack of control. Are you under the impression that suddenly, people won't rage over the mistakes they make? Will people stop thinking that they should be doing better than they are, and should be recognized as such?
Would we find as many “Mr. Rage” in online chess “communities”?
We find plenty of them in live chess, so I can't imagine online chess is better. I had someone play a losing position for almost 2 hours more until I checkmated him because he didn't like the way he got into that losing position. I've seen a chessboard being thrown. I've seen two examples of cheating, and been incorrectly accused of cheating once. Nakamura exists. I googled "people killed over game of chess" and found results. More importantly, the demographic that plays online chess and the demographic that rages over starcraft are not exactly comparable. Put the second in an online chess tournament, you'll find the results are similar.
My point isn't about a “zero rage” mirage, it's about the surplus of frustration generated by the attributes of the game. Of course people are going to feel frustration as long as they get involved into a competitive mindset. My point isn't that there's no rage in chess players, but I do think there would be more of it in SC2, even with an “equal sample”. We'll never have confirmation anyway.
The notion of “reward” doesn't evacuate at all the question of control. Some will protest regardless of the conditions (partly because they lacked control… over themselves!), but it doesn't change anything to the objective effects of said conditions. Not to mention reward isn't unrelated to control.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the evidence you provided for being on the bad side of the time curve was that players were frustrated and strategy was stale. The counter for frustration is that players will still be frustrated in the best of situations, because players get frustrated over anything, that's how competition works. I don't think we disagree on that. As for strategy, we probably need a reset, cause I think I didn't get you right either. You seem to establish a connexion between what people do regularly and what people can do. I would have thought a better connexion was between what people do regularly and what people view as strong/too strong. Which is why I brought balance into it initially.
I wan't to discuss further the idea of a "tyranny of the viewer" in the SC2 design philosophy.
I'm a little on the fence with it. It reminds a lot of the "tyranny of the majority" argument, which is overused in public debate in France (but I think almost equally in all "democratic" countries).
Politicians spew continuously absurd bullshits? It's because "the majority" doesn't understand anything more complicated. Mass media are huge dumpster of gossip and morbid sensationalism? It's because "the majority" doesn't understand anything more complicated. SC2 is full of shiny brainless "big-armies-that-do-terrible-damage" fights? It's because "the majority" doesn't understand anything more complicated.
But "the majority" doesn't run for pbuilic office, doesn't write newspaper, and sure as hell it doesn't dsign SC2. It's maybe for the best but still: we are talking about the tyranny of the stereotyped image of the viewer, more than of the viewer itself.
We have to keep in mind that RTS-shows are not a "perfect market" in the technical sense, by an absurdly large margin. The average viewer can't pick between ten different games, "revealing" the "distribution of preferences" of the majority. Heck, for all we know, all other things being equal, the majority could prefer Broodwar of SC2, just not enough to watch korean steams with odd plug-ins.
I think that's why we are a lot here feeling robbed, and why the idea of a "razzia" fits so well.
Once upon a time, a little boy was asking his father for a new doll after the old one get finaly unsalvagably worn off. "Don't be silly" answered the father with force "I'm sure you'd much prefer some badass electric space avenger, like your younger brother Moby".
On April 17 2015 00:29 Nebuchad wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the evidence you provided for being on the bad side of the time curve was that players were frustrated and strategy was stale. The counter for frustration is that players will still be frustrated in the best of situations, because players get frustrated over anything, that's how competition works. I don't think we disagree on that.
Think of frustration like the sea level. There is the “natural” sea level, and there is the negative surplus coming from global warming. Here, it's the same thing. There's the “natural” level of frustration coming from competitiveness, limitations of one's self, etc., and there's what the game adds on top of that, by removing control through excessive contraction of time. The frustration I'm talking about is a symptom of that.
As for the reduction of strategic diversity, the examples of Marines/Tanks being dead in HotS standard TvZ or 4g mirrors in early WoL PvP should help you understand what I mean with hyper-development laminating options. On top of that, you have this:
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: One of SC2's problems is that, at times, the game punishes aggressive multitasking because of hyper-development. It is simply better to allocate your user resources to passive building rather than “being cute”.
I vote for the reset too, since in the end I'm not 100% sure to understand what you don't understand.
On April 17 2015 01:11 Karel wrote: we are talking about the tyranny of the stereotyped image of the viewer, more than of the viewer itself.
Yes, exactly. That's the thesis of the text (there are numerous allusions): “Mr. Viewer” is a creature of the Blizzsters, just like its twin brother “the casual”. Both of them are caricatural incarnations of the dumb and futile individual that “modernity” tries to manufacture en masse, just like mass media wallow in sensationalism and then dare to pretend that they simply sell “what people want to see,” etc. This is easily seen in the fact that many of those who adamantly defend the current conceptions in SC2 belong to the “new generation of gamers,” as sharks call them… That's also what embodies/fuels the eternal “BW vs SC2” debates. Mr. Viewer is an ideal, it's actually extremely rare to meet its purest incarnations; though we do find gems like that:
On July 02 2012 01:07 xsnac wrote: I dont understand why ppl dont like deathball ? a big battle with high tier units is the best thing you can ask for if you are a spectator .
So I'm sure you've looked at the TL economy recommendation but something was just posted that I felt was relevant. I was critical earlier in the thread because I just wasn't sure where exactly this thread could lead to in terms of actual game play implementations. I think this may provide a decent compromise with Blizzard.
On April 16 2015 23:32 Barrin wrote:
The important part is the 9 mineral harvesting curve. It seems to accomplish 2 things. Firstly the very earliest parts of the game are sped up and secondly the mid game development is slowed down. The income per base decreasing naturally limits all races' ability to simultaneously develop economy/tech/army. The compromise is that Blizzard still gets to cut out some of the early parts of the game but I feel the impacts are minimal. I think this is the best economy compromise that you could advocate for.
On April 15 2015 11:42 squrl wrote: well written and interesting. Best & most true post I've ever read on TL.
You've clearly missed out on all those "SKT best KT" post which are clearly better and more true.
SKT > KT, NaDa's Body > ManToss > BeSt body > Everyone else
Edit: Somebody forgot baller's Hydraroach...
Indeed, the thing is, what SC2 as a whole lacks and has been trying to apply band-aid solutions, is to provide enough tasks for the player to distinguish themselves, especially at the very top. Given how economic compression (less early-game options) and a weak economic model (more bases do not rarely if at all mean a raw economic efficiency advantage) make units less valuable early on (no sense sacrificing some early army units to get a large economic advantage f.e.), it makes no sense to play for an advantage, instead players end up playing for parity.
When matched with higher-tier units being more expensive per unit yet less impactful on an individual basis, it pushes play towards a unitary deployment (i.e. deathballs) instead of allowing high-impact units to multiply their force value via positioning. When coupled with game speeds disallowing players to distinguish themselves via raw macro capability (e.g. Sauron Zergs or mass T1/T2 armies instead of beelining to T3s) versus main engagement micro and/or harassment, it creates a singular focus on the main force, which becomes repetitive from a player PoV.
I have spent maybe two hours today reading your post. I am extremely impressed and I respect you a lot. thank you so much for explaining to me what I didn't know I agree fully with. Thank you for formulating well and precise, and I love that you are not afraid to say anything. You are so right in a lot of the things you say, and I have never heard anyone say them before (Maybe I haven't lurked enough)...
I hope SC2 takes a turn for the better.
Also: Type in first paragraph of chapter 13: "inespacable"
On April 17 2015 07:43 knyttym wrote: So I'm sure you've looked at the TL economy recommendation but something was just posted that I felt was relevant. I was critical earlier in the thread because I just wasn't sure where exactly this thread could lead to in terms of actual game play implementations. I think this may provide a decent compromise with Blizzard.
The important part is the 9 mineral harvesting curve. It seems to accomplish 2 things. Firstly the very earliest parts of the game are sped up and secondly the mid game development is slowed down. The income per base decreasing naturally limits all races' ability to simultaneously develop economy/tech/army. The compromise is that Blizzard still gets to cut out some of the early parts of the game but I feel the impacts are minimal. I think this is the best economy compromise that you could advocate for.
Yes, I saw. DH 8 is poetry.
On April 17 2015 23:04 hewo wrote: I have spent maybe two hours today reading your post. I am extremely impressed and I respect you a lot. thank you so much for explaining to me what I didn't know I agree fully with. Thank you for formulating well and precise, and I love that you are not afraid to say anything. You are so right in a lot of the things you say, and I have never heard anyone say them before (Maybe I haven't lurked enough)...
I hope SC2 takes a turn for the better.
Also: Type in first paragraph of chapter 13: "inespacable"
Really interesting article. I agree especially with the part about lack of control, and how it eventually turns players into spectators (being guilty of that myself). It also explains how troubling matchfixing is, since what was once a contest of control is instead predetermined, and therefore uninteresting.
As an aside, nice Charles de Gaulle reference. I don't remember much of my French history class, but French politicians do seem to have the best quotes. To paraphrase a different one, I hope this article achieves some changes, and you will be our sword, rather than our shield.
To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence. What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is.
On April 18 2015 09:38 grogburg wrote: but French politicians do seem to have the best quotes.
On April 18 2015 11:00 Nebuchad wrote: To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence. What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is.
OK. I can answer you, but first I must know if you are truly interested in the arguments, or if you simply intend to use hyper-rationalization ad infinitum to camp the shore of Great Relativism? (See for instance Thieving Magpie's posting.) Because if it's the latter, I shall not waste a single second arguing with nihilist posts which, ultimately, are all tantamount to the “vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas” words of the Qohelet.
I just keep wondering how Blizz messed up this big. There are so many problems, all of which suddenly need addressing with LotV. It's like not studying for a major exam till the last day. It should never have come to this. Blizz's laid back approach, confidence in themselves and that their product would sell no matter what has really come to bite them. Now with feedback from so many sources and just an overwhelming job to do, I doubt they can meaningfully assimilate everything and make the needed changes.
On April 19 2015 08:42 Xrero wrote: I just keep wondering how Blizz messed up this big. There are so many problems, all of which suddenly need addressing with LotV.
Everything has problems and games in particular are never perfect. So what are the "many" problems that are actually *so* bad that the game would be dead if they were not solved right now? The main apparent issue (I wanna say the only one?) is the economy. It directly relates to the subject of this thread (in a more realistic/practical way), and there's already another thread and article about it. In depth, with suggested solutions and ways to actually test them.
Other than that, what are the other major problems with the game, that can't be traced back to the economy and the 3-base cap?
It really feels like this thread is here to regroup all the negative minded people, and the one from ZeromuS is for those who actually believe LotV can and will be a very good game. And are willing to help however they can. Will it be perfect? No. But 3 weeks into the beta it's already well on it's way to be much better than HotS ever was. And let's just forget about WoL.
On April 19 2015 08:42 Xrero wrote: I just keep wondering how Blizz messed up this big. There are so many problems, all of which suddenly need addressing with LotV.
Everything has problems and games in particular are never perfect. So what are the "many" problems that are actually *so* bad that the game would be dead if they were not solved right now? The main apparent issue (I wanna say the only one?) is the economy. It directly relates to the subject of this thread (in a more realistic/practical way), and there's already another thread and article about it. In depth, with suggested solutions and ways to actually test them.
Other than that, what are the other major problems with the game, that can't be traced back to the economy and the 3-base cap?
It really feels like this thread is here to regroup all the negative minded people, and the one from ZeromuS is for those who actually believe LotV can and will be a very good game. And are willing to help however they can. Will it be perfect? No. But 3 weeks into the beta it's already well on it's way to be much better than HotS ever was. And let's just forget about WoL.
I agree that the game won't die without a huge unit interaction/design change. I also agree that economy plays a big part.
However, the start of WoL was much more interesting than the stale bw/infestor era that marked the end. The stat of HotS was much more action packed than the SH era that just ended. I don't see any reason to expect anything different with LotV (without some significant change).
The meta for sc2 has been to be "abuse" 1-2 base builds/timings until they get figured out or nerfed and then go into turtle/deathball "nr20".
It's possible (likely?) that a huge economic (worker function) change will fix that. However, I still think there's so much more that can (and should) be done on the individual unit (or army) interaction level.
In my opinion an issue is that special abilities aren't impactful enough and also that 1a or the basic attacking power of units is too strong.
SCBW is always going to be what we compare into, and take spider mines or vultures in general as an example. Even with 1a they can counter Zealots somewhat, but actually might even lose in a 1v1 against them. However, with patrol micro they suddenly defeat Zealots cleanly. In addition, spider mines are extremely powerful but require a lot of micro to place. On the other hand, a Protoss player can micro with Dragoons to counter them. Later on, spider mines can be used to great effect with siege tanks, but Zealots can be used to turn them against the Terran, which can itself be countered with tank spreading, intelligent mine placing and proper use of vultures. Defilers and Science Vessels etc. is another example of such interaction but I don't feel like going into a lot of detail.
Most of the counters and interactions that determine which player wins is all player skill, player skill, player skill and micro. A player with fewer units can still accomplish incredible things with proper control. In SC2 it tends to be "build this unit against this unit", which is just incredibly boring, and even supposedly micro intensive units like banelings are not nearly as interesting or micro intensive.
On April 18 2015 11:00 Nebuchad wrote: To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence. What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is.
OK. I can answer you, but first I must know if you are truly interested in the arguments, or if you simply intend to use hyper-rationalization ad infinitum to camp the shore of Great Relativism? (See for instance Thieving Magpie's posting.) Because if it's the latter, I shall not waste a single second arguing with nihilist posts which, ultimately, are all tantamount to the “vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas” words of the Qohelet.
If you don't do it for me, do it for the people who still think it's okay to require reasoning before they assume stuff. I'm sure you're cool with some of these people.
On April 18 2015 11:00 Nebuchad wrote: To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence. What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is.
OK. I can answer you, but first I must know if you are truly interested in the arguments, or if you simply intend to use hyper-rationalization ad infinitum to camp the shore of Great Relativism? (See for instance Thieving Magpie's posting.) Because if it's the latter, I shall not waste a single second arguing with nihilist posts which, ultimately, are all tantamount to the “vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas” words of the Qohelet.
If you don't do it for me, do it for the people who still think it's okay to require reasoning before they assume stuff. I'm sure you're cool with some of these people.
Clever answer.
Reality is a boomerang. You can send it away with hords of “anyway,” words and deeds remain.
(1) Thousands of players say the game is way too fast, volatile, unforgiving, etc.; because players do feel the excessive contraction of time, even if they don't have 50 pages treatises filled with graphs to demonstrate it; (2) Players act. In this case, pure and simple acts of defection. They stop playing. Collapse of the player base; and even among those who stay, the phenomenon is still observable, with the percentage of players who don't play each season; or the bonus pool stored by those who are placed in a league; or the time they spend playing on average when they're still active; or the exaggerated climate of racial wars; etc.; at the competitive level, signs include pros regularly looking bad or being inconsistent.
The argument about strategy is much more subtle than “people go for the same strategy most of the time” and aims at explaining why SC2 games, because of hyper-development, tend to degenerate towards (1) all-ins; (2) passive macro; (3) worker bowling. Yes, there will always be a standard, but it changes nothing to the question of its depth and/or its width; same for the other builds gravitating around it. This one is easily visible because of internal or transversal comparisons (one match-up over time, match-ups between them).
On April 18 2015 11:00 Nebuchad wrote: To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence. What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is.
OK. I can answer you, but first I must know if you are truly interested in the arguments, or if you simply intend to use hyper-rationalization ad infinitum to camp the shore of Great Relativism? (See for instance Thieving Magpie's posting.) Because if it's the latter, I shall not waste a single second arguing with nihilist posts which, ultimately, are all tantamount to the “vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas” words of the Qohelet.
If you don't do it for me, do it for the people who still think it's okay to require reasoning before they assume stuff. I'm sure you're cool with some of these people.
Hum. "Overcontracted" is "by design" a word with a relational meaning. Time can only be overcontracted relatively, with regards to another time frame. It's okay for the sake of simplicity to just say "time is overcontracted" instead of "the time is more contracted than in the case X (for instance, in the game of my dreams)", but asking for proof that time is in itself overcontracted is a bit pointless, and indeed rhetorical.
At the end of the day, the question of whether time "is" or "is not" overcontracted is a matter of taste. I think we are a lot here to think that the game would be better if time was less contracted, with regards to the BW example.
If it's not your case, it's perfectly fine. But I still encourage you to think about it, because as TheDwf explained it in the OP, time contraction is deeply entangled with a lot of "completely different" parts of the game, like the "hard-counter problem" or "the deathball problem".
On April 18 2015 11:00 Nebuchad wrote: To summarize what I meant to say, the problem I have with your argument is this
What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? Players are frustrated. Would players be frustrated if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence. What is the evidence that time is overcontracted? People go for the same strategy most of the time. Would players do that if time wasn't overcontracted? Yes. So that's not evidence.
As far as I can tell, the evidence that time is overcontracted is that you said it is.
OK. I can answer you, but first I must know if you are truly interested in the arguments, or if you simply intend to use hyper-rationalization ad infinitum to camp the shore of Great Relativism? (See for instance Thieving Magpie's posting.) Because if it's the latter, I shall not waste a single second arguing with nihilist posts which, ultimately, are all tantamount to the “vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas” words of the Qohelet.
If you don't do it for me, do it for the people who still think it's okay to require reasoning before they assume stuff. I'm sure you're cool with some of these people.
Hum. "Overcontracted" is "by design" a word with a relational meaning. Time can only be overcontracted relatively, with regards to another time frame. It's okay for the sake of simplicity to just say "time is overcontracted" instead of "the time is more contracted than in the case X (for instance, in the game of my dreams)", but asking for proof that time is in itself overcontracted is a bit pointless, and indeed rhetorical.
At the end of the day, the question of whether time "is" or "is not" overcontracted is a matter of taste. I think we are a lot here to think that the game would be better if time was less contracted, with regards to the BW example.
If it's not your case, it's perfectly fine. But I still encourage you to think about it, because as TheDwf explained it in the OP, time contraction is deeply entangled with a lot of "completely different" parts of the game, like the "hard-counter problem" or "the deathball problem".
If you've been following, the argument is that the time is contracted by this new expansion, and this is a bad thing because time was already overcontracted in SC2. So the relativity is mentioned: relative to where it should be optimally.
On April 20 2015 01:59 boxerfred wrote: Can someone, in short, explain why the brood war economy was so good please?
You didn't have worker pairing so if more than one worker mined the same patch the average mining per worker decreased. This makes it so that expanding is a more profitable thing to do. No worker pairing translated to SC2 means that 2 bases with, in total, 16 workers mine more minerals/ min than 1 base with 16 workers. In the current SC2 economy (incl. worker pairing), 2 bases with 16 workers mine as much as one base with 16 workers.
On April 20 2015 01:59 boxerfred wrote: Can someone, in short, explain why the brood war economy was so good please?
Adding an extra base always resulted in more mineral income without adding more workers.* Also, there was only one geyser per base, not two. These combined to result in an economy system where taking and holding an additional base and building a handful (5 or 6) of additional workers would result in a noticeable gain in economy. This especially matters for a for or fifth base when comparing to SC2. New bases also payed themselves off much faster.
The risk of trying to expand to a 4th mining base in BW was about the same in SC2, but the reward was substantially better, so people did it a lot more.
* Due to pathfinding, the difference in mining efficiency on various patches of the same base varied pretty widely. There were usually 4 to 5 good patches per base, so unless you weren't building workers at all, you could always get an income boost by spreading out workers.
As an additional thought, the income discrepancy of 5 or 6 bases to 3 bases allowed for a style of play that is almost entirely absent in SC2, where one player acquires such a sufficient income lead via greedy play and superior defense or following successful offensive engagements that they can close the game out by throwing their economy at their opponent, burying their opponent under a constant series of cost inefficient trades.
There are more benefits. You can continue to build workers on two bases to get an increase in income for longer in BW than in SC2. This means that if you're contained in BW it's not as destructive with regards to income as in SC2.
And if you lose a single worker in BW it's not as impactful as in SC2 because of the diminishing returns on workers, so this actually allows harassment units to be stronger. And it allows for more comebacks after losing workers to an early attack.
Maynarding is more useful, so is early game worker micro, these are two cool tricks for pro players to distinguish themselves with.
On April 20 2015 02:22 Grumbels wrote: There are more benefits. You can continue to build workers on two bases to get an increase in income for longer in BW than in SC2. This means that if you're contained in BW it's not as destructive with regards to income as in SC2.
And if you lose a single worker in BW it's not as impactful as in SC2 because of the diminishing returns on workers, so this actually allows harassment units to be stronger. And it allows for more comebacks after losing workers to an early attack.
Maynarding is more useful, so is early game worker micro, these are two cool tricks for pro players to distinguish themselves with.
"losing workers is not as impactful as in sc2 so harassment units are stronger" the logic of broodwar fanboys is mindboggling.
Hm, what was wrong with my comment? I try to write good English.
Logically if killing workers is less punishing then you don't have to restrict harassment capabilities as much which means you can have more powerful, flexible harassment units without the game being broken. Evaluating how this plays out in BW is beyond the scope of my post and is not something I'm willing to defend. Theoretically it should be an advantage to the BW economy though, or at least a potentially useful property.
On April 20 2015 03:02 solidbebe wrote: Definitely not a mistake in sentence, no that wouldnt explain it. Hes just an idiot broodwar fanboy!
This was not a mistake. If, out of 16 workers, the first 6 harvest as much as the next 10 ones (50:50), then losing 10 workers (16 → 6) "only" makes you lose 50% of your income. If, out of 16 workers, the income curve is (on average) a perfect line, this means the first 6 harvest only 6/16 (38:62), then losing 10 workers (16 → 6) makes you lose 62% of your income. Thus, losing workers is more painful.
But wouldnt the fact that losing workers is more impactful mean that harassment units are stronger? In the act of killing one worker, the harassment unit does more damage, thus is stronger.
On April 20 2015 03:46 solidbebe wrote: But wouldnt the fact that losing workers is more impactful mean that harassment units are stronger? In the act of killing one worker, the harassment unit does more damage, thus is stronger.
I think it's more that, when killing workers is more impactful, the harassment unit doesn't have to be strong to do its job. However, if workers dying is less significant, one can compensate by making harassment units more powerful; that is, that they have the power to kill more workers.
On April 15 2015 23:36 Grumbels wrote: But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
Good for TheDwf for keeping up the good fight. But at this point he is arguing to defend those who already know, rather than convince anyone else.
Most people lack the ability to reason, understand context and analogies and see the big picture. Therefore, they get caught up on minor points because they don't understand the argument itself, and often end up attacking the writer rather than the argument. They also fail to see that arguments stand independent of people, and that someone else could just as easily repeat the same argument, and then they would have to attack that person too.
So what happens is people just develop a label for people who think in ways they disagree with. "Broodwar Fan" is the label that is being thrown around here a lot, and is a catch all label for anyone who doubts the current direction of Starcraft.
At this point the ball is in Blizzard's court. Are they going to listen to the people who think and generate solutions and enter into a productive discourse with them or see them as "Broodwar Fans"?
On April 20 2015 03:46 solidbebe wrote: But wouldnt the fact that losing workers is more impactful mean that harassment units are stronger? In the act of killing one worker, the harassment unit does more damage, thus is stronger.
Exactly. This is why he wrote: so this [the BW economy] actually allows harassment units to be stronger. The current SC2 economy makes the harassment unit stronger by itself because of the absence of diminishing return before the 17-19th worker (which, in practice, is almost absent since people already optimize the economy with the 16/16/16 triangle). A contrario, if diminishing returns are triggered as early as the 6th worker (for instance), you can make harassment units a bit stronger since their impact will be slightly moderated.
Well, the larger idea behind the concept that I mentioned is creating robust systems that give freedom to the designer and improve the game. But it's a bit academic since it's a work-in-progress theory for which I can't really give good concrete examples.
The main idea is along these lines: that if smartcast exists spells should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If there are no diminishing returns on worker efficiency then harassment units should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If units work excessively well together in large groups because of the new pathing (like death balls) then army compositions should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If you remove strategic options to outplay your opponent then balancing the game becomes more difficult, so this requires more work yet again. There are more examples, but the point is that if you change the fundamentals so that designing becomes more difficult, that the game will be more likely to break at some point because you can't possibly balance everything perfectly well, unless you start to add more symmetry to the races and neuter the units.
On April 20 2015 04:28 Grumbels wrote: Well, the larger idea behind the concept that I mentioned is creating robust systems that give freedom to the designer and improve the game. But it's a bit academic since it's a work-in-progress theory for which I can't really give good concrete examples.
The main idea is along these lines: that if smartcast exists spells should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If there are no diminishing returns on worker efficiency then harassment units should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If units work excessively well together in large groups because of the new pathing (like death balls) then army compositions should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If you remove strategic options to outplay your opponent then balancing the game becomes more difficult, so this requires more work yet again. There are more examples, but the point is that if you change the fundamentals so that designing becomes more difficult, that the game will be more likely to break at some point because you can't possibly balance everything perfectly well, unless you start to add more symmetry to the races and neuter the units.
Do you think it actually becomes easier to design/balance if individual workers lost are less significant, or would it just a be a straight "all harass units have to do more damage" sort of thing? It doesn't seem that helpful tbh.
TheDwf, I just found that sentence in stuchiu's top* players of all times:
But because they were so dedicated to drop play, it meant that when speed boost came out for HotS, their style was naturally countered. While it seems illogical, think about it like this: once Blizzard implemented speed boost they decided that protoss and zerg defense wasn’t strong enough, so they created the mothership core and increase muta speed and regen.
Isn't that the perfect example for an unecessary change that takes control away from players for the sake of making games "more interesting to watch"?
On April 20 2015 03:02 solidbebe wrote: Definitely not a mistake in sentence, no that wouldnt explain it. Hes just an idiot broodwar fanboy!
User was warned for this post
I feel the post above this one could/ should get a warning, this one is clearly sarcastic of that unnecessarily insulting one..
I reported that post, and after reporting it saw it might have sarcastic tone and somewhat regretted it, but still am not sure if he was sarcastic or not. The one above is also bad, but figured I'd at least draw a moderator to this conversation for a bit.
On April 15 2015 23:36 Grumbels wrote: But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
Good for TheDwf for keeping up the good fight. But at this point he is arguing to defend those who already know, rather than convince anyone else.
Most people lack the ability to reason, understand context and analogies and see the big picture. Therefore, they get caught up on minor points because they don't understand the argument itself, and often end up attacking the writer rather than the argument. They also fail to see that arguments stand independent of people, and that someone else could just as easily repeat the same argument, and then they would have to attack that person too.
So what happens is people just develop a label for people who think in ways they disagree with. "Broodwar Fan" is the label that is being thrown around here a lot, and is a catch all label for anyone who doubts the current direction of Starcraft.
At this point the ball is in Blizzard's court. Are they going to listen to the people who think and generate solutions and enter into a productive discourse with them or see them as "Broodwar Fans"?
Just something to keep in mind along with this.
The "big picture" here is EXTREMELY complex and difficult to understand. If this was an easy problem, it would have been solved with a simple answer.
I read this article and had a difficulty or couldn't grasp some of the concepts. Great article though!
THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE FEATURED MORE!
Most of the balance arguments the community has feel circular to me, and have not lead to a solid solution. We should be having discussions like the ones listed in this article.
On April 15 2015 23:36 Grumbels wrote: But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
Good for TheDwf for keeping up the good fight. But at this point he is arguing to defend those who already know, rather than convince anyone else.
Most people lack the ability to reason, understand context and analogies and see the big picture. Therefore, they get caught up on minor points because they don't understand the argument itself, and often end up attacking the writer rather than the argument. They also fail to see that arguments stand independent of people, and that someone else could just as easily repeat the same argument, and then they would have to attack that person too.
So what happens is people just develop a label for people who think in ways they disagree with. "Broodwar Fan" is the label that is being thrown around here a lot, and is a catch all label for anyone who doubts the current direction of Starcraft.
At this point the ball is in Blizzard's court. Are they going to listen to the people who think and generate solutions and enter into a productive discourse with them or see them as "Broodwar Fans"?
Just something to keep in mind along with this.
The "big picture" here is EXTREMELY complex and difficult to understand. If this was an easy problem, it would have been solved with a simple answer.
I hate when people make game design out to be rocket science... it isn't. There are a lot of complex factors here, but this isn't mission impossible and even you can understand it! Don't make me go back through my old threads to Blizzard which were full of ideas that they ended up implementing six months to a year after I suggested them, and after their ideas failed.
And there are simple solutions. The double harvesting solution put forward by TL Strategy team is one of them.
The real issue here is the current generation of game designers, like Browder, won't be able to create a next generation RTS because he isn't evolving. He keeps trying to import ideas from past RTS games or even worse, ideas from MOBAs (how many spells do units have now?). That isn't where we should be going.
The SC2 team needs to finally clean up the bad ideas they had from WOL and built on during HOTS... like Force Fields, Colossus, Fungal Growth, the Viper, the Widow Mine, Photon Overcharge... ect...
On April 20 2015 03:02 solidbebe wrote: Definitely not a mistake in sentence, no that wouldnt explain it. Hes just an idiot broodwar fanboy!
User was warned for this post
I feel the post above this one could/ should get a warning, this one is clearly sarcastic of that unnecessarily insulting one..
I reported that post, and after reporting it saw it might have sarcastic tone and somewhat regretted it, but still am not sure if he was sarcastic or not. The one above is also bad, but figured I'd at least draw a moderator to this conversation for a bit.
I was being sarcastic, but oh well, no harm done. Shouldve paid more attention to the modnote.
On April 15 2015 23:36 Grumbels wrote: But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
Good for TheDwf for keeping up the good fight. But at this point he is arguing to defend those who already know, rather than convince anyone else.
Most people lack the ability to reason, understand context and analogies and see the big picture. Therefore, they get caught up on minor points because they don't understand the argument itself, and often end up attacking the writer rather than the argument. They also fail to see that arguments stand independent of people, and that someone else could just as easily repeat the same argument, and then they would have to attack that person too.
So what happens is people just develop a label for people who think in ways they disagree with. "Broodwar Fan" is the label that is being thrown around here a lot, and is a catch all label for anyone who doubts the current direction of Starcraft.
At this point the ball is in Blizzard's court. Are they going to listen to the people who think and generate solutions and enter into a productive discourse with them or see them as "Broodwar Fans"?
Just something to keep in mind along with this.
The "big picture" here is EXTREMELY complex and difficult to understand. If this was an easy problem, it would have been solved with a simple answer.
I hate when people make game design out to be rocket science... it isn't. There are a lot of complex factors here, but this isn't mission impossible and even you can understand it! Don't make me go back through my old threads to Blizzard which were full of ideas that they ended up implementing six months to a year after I suggested them, and after their ideas failed.
And there are simple solutions. The double harvesting solution put forward by TL Strategy team is one of them.
The real issue here is the current generation of game designers, like Browder, won't be able to create a next generation RTS because he isn't evolving. He keeps trying to import ideas from past RTS games or even worse, ideas from MOBAs (how many spells do units have now?). That isn't where we should be going.
The SC2 team needs to finally clean up the bad ideas they had from WOL and built on during HOTS... like Force Fields, Colossus, Fungal Growth, the Viper, the Widow Mine, Photon Overcharge... ect...
I actually quite disagree with this post for numerous reasons (though none of them vehemently :p).
Game design IS complicated. Let's not pretend it's not. There are thousands of factors that go into designing new units and concepts, and it's impossible to just locate anything to "the bad economy" -- when in fact we mean "worker pairing" -- or "the absence of space control" -- when in fact we mean "the effect of tanky basic units". It's way way too complicated to ever be talked about as a single conversation.
That said, I don't think that Browder and DK are having problems importing past RTS ideas; they seem to have the opposite problem. Instead of looking at what worked in the past and trying to recreate it, they see themselves as visionaries trying to create something new. Their work is not a methodical analysis of classic games, but an attempt to throw a bunch of paint on a canvas and see what comes out of it. While this worked out AMAZINGLY for games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm, the effect is very underwhelming in SC2. Again, this kind of goes back to the insanely complicated idea of "game design", and the fact that certain games are just more difficult to design and balance properly. For SC2 and RTS, we really need to commit to that paradigm of already successful games in order to create a decent game.
Finally, minor gripe: the viper is perhaps the best SC2 unit that Blizzard has produced so far. Although it kind of hard counters a lot of things currently (AKA mech), I attribute that more to the underwhelming power that space control already has. The viper is brilliant because it has 2 distinct abilities that require other units to be present, and making more than ~4 is a waste of money. This makes them niche units which add a ton of utility to an army -- something we should strive to create in an RTS (think of reavers, science vessels, defilers, etc.).
On April 20 2015 06:25 boxerfred wrote: TheDwf, I just found that sentence in stuchiu's top* players of all times:
But because they were so dedicated to drop play, it meant that when speed boost came out for HotS, their style was naturally countered. While it seems illogical, think about it like this: once Blizzard implemented speed boost they decided that protoss and zerg defense wasn’t strong enough, so they created the mothership core and increase muta speed and regen.
Isn't that the perfect example for an unecessary change that takes control away from players for the sake of making games "more interesting to watch"?
Buffing mutalisks is one of the greatest sins Blizzard has ever committed. I don't think the speed boost in and of itself was inherently a bad change, but it has caused a lot of problems, particularly in TvP and TvT where doom drops are devastating; getting caught out of position even once can mean the end of the game. If we were to think of a MOBA like League for a second, we could try to work out a fair tradeoff for mobility. For instance, if a lot of junglers are given increased mobility, the most intuitive counter is not to buff enemy champions to be faster, but to buff wards so that map vision is easier to get and maintain; with more vision, players can react faster and get to safety despite the increased mobility of the junglers. In other words, in SC2, perhaps buffs in detection and vision control (i.e. faster observers/build time, cheaper sensor towers, etc.) would have compensated better than a straight up core unit buff.
On April 20 2015 03:02 solidbebe wrote: Definitely not a mistake in sentence, no that wouldnt explain it. Hes just an idiot broodwar fanboy!
User was warned for this post
I feel the post above this one could/ should get a warning, this one is clearly sarcastic of that unnecessarily insulting one..
I reported that post, and after reporting it saw it might have sarcastic tone and somewhat regretted it, but still am not sure if he was sarcastic or not. The one above is also bad, but figured I'd at least draw a moderator to this conversation for a bit.
You should inform a mod about it now that it's clear.
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Why does Life's ultra micro has to be barely more efficient than the (inexistent) one from a low master?
To add relevant micro, Blizzard could use the following as their design strategy:
(1) For each race - get one or more top pro for that race - eg. Life / Parting / Maru - get a master level player for that race - rather not internal to avoid bias (2) Let them play in the unit tester with units and compositions of their race vs various compositions for a significant amount of time (3) Record the videos for every battle - and put them side by side, preferably anonymously (4) Observe differences and try to identify the world class player and the decent amateur player (5a) Interesting differences/interactions observed? You have meaningful micro in a unit! (5b) No interesting differences/interactions observed? Redesign and re-do!
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Why does Life's ultra micro has to be barely more efficient than the (inexistent) one from a low master?
To add relevant micro, Blizzard could use the following as their design strategy:
(1) For each race - get one or more top pro for that race - eg. Life / Parting / Maru - get a master level player for that race - rather not internal to avoid bias (2) Let them play in the unit tester with units and compositions of their race vs various compositions for a significant amount of time (3) Record the videos for every battle - and put them side by side, preferably anonymously (4) Observe differences and try to identify the world class player and the decent amateur player (5a) Interesting differences/interactions observed? You have meaningful micro in a unit! (5b) No interesting differences/interactions observed? Redesign and re-do!
I saw desrow microing marines vs. banes. That was a really good point where you could see the difference between a top korean sc2 player and a not-so-top foreigner (not implying an insult or anything towards desrow, I like the guy!). But tbh, that among with splitting units vs. mines is the only part of the game where micro is really, really important. Even if it comes down to Blink (which is an awesome spell!), it can be hard to distinguish between masters and super imba korean.
I really like your idea! Maybe we should realize this as a community project? I'm looking at you, BTTV! I'm sure TotalBiscuit would let Axiom players fulfill the pro role.
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Why does Life's ultra micro has to be barely more efficient than the (inexistent) one from a low master?
To add relevant micro, Blizzard could use the following as their design strategy:
(1) For each race - get one or more top pro for that race - eg. Life / Parting / Maru - get a master level player for that race - rather not internal to avoid bias (2) Let them play in the unit tester with units and compositions of their race vs various compositions for a significant amount of time (3) Record the videos for every battle - and put them side by side, preferably anonymously (4) Observe differences and try to identify the world class player and the decent amateur player (5a) Interesting differences/interactions observed? You have meaningful micro in a unit! (5b) No interesting differences/interactions observed? Redesign and re-do!
I saw desrow microing marines vs. banes. That was a really good point where you could see the difference between a top korean sc2 player and a not-so-top foreigner (not implying an insult or anything towards desrow, I like the guy!). But tbh, that among with splitting units vs. mines is the only part of the game where micro is really, really important. Even if it comes down to Blink (which is an awesome spell!), it can be hard to distinguish between masters and super imba korean.
I really like your idea! Maybe we should realize this as a community project? I'm looking at you, BTTV! I'm sure TotalBiscuit would let Axiom players fulfill the pro role.
Having top (and by top I mean world-class) players test their shit instead of (or in addition to) their "internal testing team" which allowed things such as Daedalus 1.0 on ladder would be indeed a pretty good idea
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Why does Life's ultra micro has to be barely more efficient than the (inexistent) one from a low master?
To add relevant micro, Blizzard could use the following as their design strategy:
(1) For each race - get one or more top pro for that race - eg. Life / Parting / Maru - get a master level player for that race - rather not internal to avoid bias (2) Let them play in the unit tester with units and compositions of their race vs various compositions for a significant amount of time (3) Record the videos for every battle - and put them side by side, preferably anonymously (4) Observe differences and try to identify the world class player and the decent amateur player (5a) Interesting differences/interactions observed? You have meaningful micro in a unit! (5b) No interesting differences/interactions observed? Redesign and re-do!
I saw desrow microing marines vs. banes. That was a really good point where you could see the difference between a top korean sc2 player and a not-so-top foreigner (not implying an insult or anything towards desrow, I like the guy!). But tbh, that among with splitting units vs. mines is the only part of the game where micro is really, really important. Even if it comes down to Blink (which is an awesome spell!), it can be hard to distinguish between masters and super imba korean.
I really like your idea! Maybe we should realize this as a community project? I'm looking at you, BTTV! I'm sure TotalBiscuit would let Axiom players fulfill the pro role.
Having top (and by top I mean world-class) players test their shit instead of (or in addition to) their "internal testing team" which allowed things such as Daedalus 1.0 on ladder would be indeed a pretty good idea
Imagine Blizz would pay for that. Boom no more match fixing because every pro is damn rich
On April 15 2015 23:36 Grumbels wrote: But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
Good for TheDwf for keeping up the good fight. But at this point he is arguing to defend those who already know, rather than convince anyone else.
Most people lack the ability to reason, understand context and analogies and see the big picture. Therefore, they get caught up on minor points because they don't understand the argument itself, and often end up attacking the writer rather than the argument. They also fail to see that arguments stand independent of people, and that someone else could just as easily repeat the same argument, and then they would have to attack that person too.
So what happens is people just develop a label for people who think in ways they disagree with. "Broodwar Fan" is the label that is being thrown around here a lot, and is a catch all label for anyone who doubts the current direction of Starcraft.
At this point the ball is in Blizzard's court. Are they going to listen to the people who think and generate solutions and enter into a productive discourse with them or see them as "Broodwar Fans"?
Just something to keep in mind along with this.
The "big picture" here is EXTREMELY complex and difficult to understand. If this was an easy problem, it would have been solved with a simple answer.
I hate when people make game design out to be rocket science... it isn't. There are a lot of complex factors here, but this isn't mission impossible and even you can understand it! Don't make me go back through my old threads to Blizzard which were full of ideas that they ended up implementing six months to a year after I suggested them, and after their ideas failed.
And there are simple solutions. The double harvesting solution put forward by TL Strategy team is one of them.
The real issue here is the current generation of game designers, like Browder, won't be able to create a next generation RTS because he isn't evolving. He keeps trying to import ideas from past RTS games or even worse, ideas from MOBAs (how many spells do units have now?). That isn't where we should be going.
The SC2 team needs to finally clean up the bad ideas they had from WOL and built on during HOTS... like Force Fields, Colossus, Fungal Growth, the Viper, the Widow Mine, Photon Overcharge... ect...
Game design mainly seems easy because we've had years to analyze game systems and come up with elegant solutions. But actually implementing those requires a certain creative mindset and can go horribly wrong, and when you're under time pressure to deliver a product it's more challenging as well. I mean, no amount of game design theory will generate a brilliantly designed unit for you, that's always dependent on the imagination of the designer.
Just because Blizzard can make bad mistakes and you can criticize them doesn't mean that finding the best solutions is a question of simple common sense.
There are a lot of complex factors here, but this isn't mission impossible and even you can understand it! Don't make me go back through my old threads to Blizzard which were full of ideas that they ended up implementing six months to a year after I suggested them, and after their ideas failed.
This comment actually shows that you do not understand game design. The idea is only 10% of the design-proces. The actual challenge is the implementation-proces (and this is where Blizzard repediately have failed).
On April 15 2015 23:36 Grumbels wrote: But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
Good for TheDwf for keeping up the good fight. But at this point he is arguing to defend those who already know, rather than convince anyone else.
Most people lack the ability to reason, understand context and analogies and see the big picture. Therefore, they get caught up on minor points because they don't understand the argument itself, and often end up attacking the writer rather than the argument. They also fail to see that arguments stand independent of people, and that someone else could just as easily repeat the same argument, and then they would have to attack that person too.
So what happens is people just develop a label for people who think in ways they disagree with. "Broodwar Fan" is the label that is being thrown around here a lot, and is a catch all label for anyone who doubts the current direction of Starcraft.
At this point the ball is in Blizzard's court. Are they going to listen to the people who think and generate solutions and enter into a productive discourse with them or see them as "Broodwar Fans"?
Just something to keep in mind along with this.
The "big picture" here is EXTREMELY complex and difficult to understand. If this was an easy problem, it would have been solved with a simple answer.
I hate when people make game design out to be rocket science... it isn't. There are a lot of complex factors here, but this isn't mission impossible and even you can understand it! Don't make me go back through my old threads to Blizzard which were full of ideas that they ended up implementing six months to a year after I suggested them, and after their ideas failed.
And there are simple solutions. The double harvesting solution put forward by TL Strategy team is one of them.
The real issue here is the current generation of game designers, like Browder, won't be able to create a next generation RTS because he isn't evolving. He keeps trying to import ideas from past RTS games or even worse, ideas from MOBAs (how many spells do units have now?). That isn't where we should be going.
The SC2 team needs to finally clean up the bad ideas they had from WOL and built on during HOTS... like Force Fields, Colossus, Fungal Growth, the Viper, the Widow Mine, Photon Overcharge... ect...
Game design mainly seems easy because we've had years to analyze game systems and come up with elegant solutions. But actually implementing those requires a certain creative mindset and can go horribly wrong, and when you're under time pressure to deliver a product it's more challenging as well. I mean, no amount of game design theory will generate a brilliantly designed unit for you, that's always dependent on the imagination of the designer.
Just because Blizzard can make bad mistakes and you can criticize them doesn't mean that finding the best solutions is a question of simple common sense.
A simple solution doesn't necessarily come from simple common sense, that isn't what I argued.
But you are correct in that is always dependent on the imagination of designer. I do believe it goes a little beyond that though.
I created a map for WC3 (Coming of the Horde that I am still working on) and years ago I had a contest where people created a set of ability for a hero (Medivh) I was putting into the game, and then people voted on what set they thought was best.
Lots of creative ideas came out, but I got a little terrified when the set of abilities people liked, though unique, were pretty gamebreaking and difficult to balance, with all or nothing spells like Abduct (that either landed and were incredibly strong, or the Viper gets feedbacked and they do nothing). They were bad for game play. So I submitted my own, and thankfully, my own set of abilities edged out the next closest by a single vote (255 to 256), though I included one spell from the
So creativity alone isn't what drives good game design. You've got to see the big picture and understand that certain things are simply not appropriate. The number of spells and the counter play between the spells in (Feedback and EMP, Force Fields and Corrosive Bile) isn't appropriate for an RTS. It shouldn't be about spells. It should be about strategy and everything that that entails.
There are a lot of complex factors here, but this isn't mission impossible and even you can understand it! Don't make me go back through my old threads to Blizzard which were full of ideas that they ended up implementing six months to a year after I suggested them, and after their ideas failed.
This comment actually shows that you do not understand game design. The idea is only 10% of the design-proces. The actual challenge is the implementation-proces (and this is where Blizzard repediately have failed).
I think you're wrong. The idea is everything.
Actually, to be more precise, I think we are both right, we just have a different understanding of what an idea is. To me, creating an idea is a process where you think of something, decide on how it fits into the game, decide what role it plays, work out the interaction between it and other parts of the game. It requires a massive amount of thought and possibly some diagramming. When I add something to COTH, I don't just throw it in there willy nilly.
And that is why Blizzard's ideas are terrible. They aren't well thought out. The Warhound never should have escaped a designers head, never should have made it to implementation. But it did, Blizzard spent a lot of time and money on that. And nothing to show for it.
Someone should have been fired. Probably multiple people, that is no way to run a business. Modern software design ensures that everything is diagrammed, written up, and well thought out before you begin actually coding.
Implementation and balance is the easy part. It's really easy to add or subtract something from the game, whether it be a unit itself or values to and from a unit. If the idea sucks, then it is going to suck, regardless of how much you play with the balance and implementation (see Vortex). But if the idea is good, it will be good.
Well, I certainly have been able to immediately criticize plenty of patches or new units, since even WoL beta, and then see Blizzard either eventually come to the same view or negative gameplay effects backing up my ideas still to this day. I hardly knew anything about designing back then compared to now. Blizzard, I think, has improved at reaching racial balance since then but I'm not sure their designs have gotten better.
I also blame us mapmakers for some of the problems with SC2, but only in the sense that we let Blizzard leave the game alone and made bad maps to help balance the competitive scene because we impatient. If Blizzard's good at anything, it's taking their time at things.
It's not easy knowing the perfect solution, though, when your dealing with stuff that hasn't been done before. I think they have a little bit of a problem analyzing their own work, but it's not entirely clear. "It shouldn't be about spells" is entirely subjective, for example.
The Warhound was something they designed as an anti-air unit to deal with Mutas, I think, and then they saw people figure out how to deal with Mutas TvZ and tried to change it into something else... So I guess it was in that process that they got lost. I can understand that process as I've gone through it myself with modding games back in the day where I take an existing unit, seeing no use for or disliking the previous implementation, and trying to do something new with it, but not really being inspired. I think the pressure for a minimum number of new units for an expansion got to them, which we see later in the changes to make the Battle Hellion more of its own new unit after the Warhound was cut. I'm sure it was renamed and made biological and such partly so they could market hots as having enough new units for Terran.
Coming up with new units for T has always been a challenge, and that shows in LotV, too. The solution to that doesn't seem clear at all. They even did a community contest and I don't think anything too amazing came out of that.
^ the tempest is another example where it started out as an anti-mutalisk unit and when that was deemed to be no longer necessary they had to invent another use for it. I think designers tend to be very economical, in that they don't want to waste resources. This probably even includes being economical with ideas, where you have the same designers keep reviving the same ideas that had to be scrapped in some other scenarios (and which are still terrible). That's why they say you have to Kill Your Darlings, to prevent this from happening.
On April 21 2015 03:01 Gfire wrote: Coming up with new units for T has always been a challenge, and that shows in LotV, too. The solution to that doesn't seem clear at all. They even did a community contest and I don't think anything too amazing came out of that.
It is super easy and effective to come up with unit that fits T. They have it implemented in campaign. It is called Goliath. Nice clean unit with no special abilities. Some other unit should be removed, off course. You know what I mean :-)
To me, creating an idea is a process where you think of something, decide on how it fits into the game, decide what role it plays, work out the interaction between it and other parts of the game
The problem is that interactions aren't created by theoretical exercises. Instead, they are created through careful tweaking of numbers so you make sure that micro is rewarded for both players. Unfortunately this is an aspect Blizzard has ignored for years. Besides the Warhound, generally Blizzard has had solid concepts. Oracle, Widow Mine, Viper were all fine theoretically sound. Even PDD which you could shoot down could have been cool. Unfortunately, there is just a difference between how you imagine it working in theory and how they function in the game with a poor implementation.
But because they were so dedicated to drop play, it meant that when speed boost came out for HotS, their style was naturally countered. While it seems illogical, think about it like this: once Blizzard implemented speed boost they decided that protoss and zerg defense wasn’t strong enough, so they created the mothership core and increase muta speed and regen.
Isn't that the perfect example for an unecessary change that takes control away from players for the sake of making games "more interesting to watch"?
It doesn't matter much, but stuchiu has the historical order wrong. The Medivac boost was only implemented in the patch #8, while Purify (the ancestor of Photon Overcharge) was there from the get-go. It is a very common mistake because of how things turned out afterwards, but initially Photon Overcharge had nothing to do with Medivac Boost. Nonetheless, they're linked indeed as both of them are pure creatures of the Warpgate folly.
(1) Despite the valiant strategic innovation from players, Protoss still had “troubles” expanding in PvP at the end of WoL, i.e. you had to fight for expands. They were not granted. The Blizzsters did not like that, and thus crafted an anti-rush button to weaken/nuke 1b pushes. (2) Besides, there was also the huge issue of Protoss being behind in the hyper-development race against Zerg during, hmm, at least the two thirds of WoL (the old gate expand vs FFE problem); so the MSC, by increasing the strength of gate expands and eventually allowing midgame mobility (Recall), would “solve” 3 problems in one. + Show Spoiler +
There was even much more to that, but I simplify the history.
(3) Then, they probably realized that the absurd combination of Warpgate + PO would completely kill the already moribund TvP drop pressure; and unsurprisingly, since violence calls for violence, their “solution” was another brutal contraction of time (+70% movespeed!).
As for the “unnecessary change” part—ah! There lies the trick. Because systems do have their internal logic, and once you enter the cycle of hyper-development, you're prisoner of the “always more” circle (see here). That's why HotS ended up giving birth to sinister synergies between the various new tools/units; that's why each expansion is a stimmed variant of the precedent one. As long as you don't attack hyper-development at its core, nothing will fundamentally change since the system is self-sustaining. That's also why the Blizzsters, as long as they refuse to abandon their initial direction, are doomed to apply “band-aids” which, inexorably, end up creating other problems, which call for other non-solutions, etc., etc.
As for players, the consequences are clear for them. I don't fully agree with the way stuchiu presents things here, but yes, players do lose a lot of control; tons of options are purely and simply erased because they don't stand the trial of the temporal environment. This forces players to adopt rigid, stereotyped approaches: they have to play the game of cubes, which naturally contributes to the aridity of the game. Spaghettification of strategy, spaghettification of skill.
Little of it is new criticism after the first couple of sections, and there is a lot of fairly tasteless hostility ("Blizzsters"?) for no real reason at all. There have been some excellent spotlight articles in the past with similar content that also suggest solutions and are less juvenile.
The first three sections are interesting, but that's all they are. There isn't any research into the topic to back up the author's predictions about the 12 worker change. He could be completely right, and he could be horribly wrong. 12-rax-rax marine "rushes" could be the new meta for all we know, and in that case, "the early game" has merely changed definition.
There are a very large number of conclusions drawn throughout the article without any prior support. Obviously, this isn't an academic paper, and I didn't expect cited sources or anything going into it. However, I also didn't expect to have to guess which new assumption the author was basing a paragraph on so frequently. The paragraph on ladder anxiety really sticks out as an obvious sign of this - I am not convinced in any way that ladder anxiety is more prevalent in SC2 than it is in any other RTS game. However, the article seems to take this as a given.
Section 6 is particularly awful (by far the worst part of the article) because, outside of the first paragraph, it isn't even about the game. It's about aspects of the development team that the author isn't even close to understanding. For example, both the "holy relevation" and "huge snag" explanations are wrong - it has to do with the development team being heavily restructured for LotV (mainly by coincidence). Blizzard has a single RTS team (Team 2), but now they have two products using the same engine with completely different design goals (StarCraft 2 and Heroes of the Storm). The original SC2 team that worked on WoL and HotS was split between the two games, and a lot of additional personnel were hired. Last I knew (summer 2013), it was still technically "one team", but a very significant number of people within the team were working exclusively on one game or the other. Somebody who was a level designer for Heart of the Swarm could now be a balance dev on Heroes of the Storm.
(If anyone knows something more recent about the SC2/Heroes team structure I'd be glad to hear it.)
On April 21 2015 03:01 Gfire wrote: Coming up with new units for T has always been a challenge, and that shows in LotV, too. The solution to that doesn't seem clear at all. They even did a community contest and I don't think anything too amazing came out of that.
Among the various things Terran needs, the following two come the closest to “new units”: (1) dividing the Thor by 3; (2) turning the Hellbat into something else than the current 1a melee bio unit.
Acknowledging demands is a golden opportunity for sources of power. It allows them to appear concerned, and it costs absolutely nothing. Thousands of years have taught sources of power the best way to proceed:
(1) Acknowledge the grievances, but distort and belittle them; (2) Sow confusion to reap division (“divide and rule”); (3) Concede a candy box to appear nice.
The last statement from the SC2 crew is a pure, textbook example of the way sources of power behave. First, the language: as we say in France, pure langue de bois (wooden language). Second, the message. Paragraph by paragraph:
§1: Acknowledge the claims. Why are there negative references to “emotion-based only” analysis? Because sources of power never intend to concede more than what circumstances force them to concede. Therefore, if there are grievances, they must all be “reasonable,” read: compatible with the agenda pursued by the source of power. Otherwise, they have to be delegitimized: enter the thought-terminating theme of “whine”. + Show Spoiler +
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: I hope people realize the “blind faith” attitude is no more productive than whatever “negative nancies” they want to see. “Heaven has its foundations, angels cannot lose their wings,” drone the zealots who claim we should not probe the bottom of the tank. There were lots of critics, of course, but always cultists found ways to excuse their divinity. Be content to enjoy a small part of their Eternal Grace. Trust the Holy Name of the Brand. Be patient. Be positive. But since 5 years that the joyous positivity of the gang of Care Bears exists, what did it achieve? How many of the original Care Bears themselves are still there? In the end, didn't they grow weary of reaping disenchantment after sowing expectations for so long?
§2: Remind beggars where the source of power lies. Hint: it's not at your door. In order not to be too heavy-handed, I will merely note that this paragraph does not lack flavor, coming from the crew responsible for terrible fiascos such as the Queen patch, the patch 2.0.12, the Warhound, the Swarm host, etc.
§3: Working as intended. Back to the basics of negotiation: if you want 100 from 50, ask 150. In the delicate comedy of bargaining, the game of mutual concessions will then shift the celestial body towards its natural orbit. Seen, for instance, in wage negotiations. See also the Widow Mine nerf in patch 2.0.12: initially, the Blizzsters had launched the 1.1 value, which allowed them to appear “reasonable” in conceding only 1.25 (down from 1.75). Everyone witnessed the wisdom of that concession afterwards.
§4: Sow confusion so as to reap division. By far the most classic rhetorical technique, the immortal straw man: “We should relax the laws,” says the progressist; “Why do you want crimes to go unpunished??” retort Neanderthals.
§5: The source of power states its next intents. Following the “principle of negotiation” seen in §3, a marginal change should do the trick. Instead of 1500/750, you will thus have 1500/900. Naturally, the dual, interlaced root of the issues in the SC2 economy (hyper-development and the {2;2;1} worker triplet) is absolutely untouched by this cosmetic tweak.
§6: Give the candy box. Any “no” is always sweetened by sugar. See for instance how parents negotiate with their children. You won't have X; but look, it's still great, you can get Y.
§7: The source of power reiterates its program. We said “no,” but we didn't say “no”.
So; let us now pay attention to the real—and in fact only—concrete element of the post: “Our current thinking is that some degree of increased pressure is good for the game.” (Emphasis mine.) Razzia des Blizzsters described at length this delicate euphemism:
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: In our domain, you cannot and should not be a “dictatorial designer”. This is another contradictio in adjecto. You're a creator. Your destiny is to be a fool. You craft the cocoon, and then you let the butterfly go.
Unfortunately, the Blizzsters were heavy-handed, and the intrusive creationist approach is a huge problem in SC2. This is directly correlated to the original philosophy of the “holy esport mantra”. (…) More control for the player = less control from the designer.
(…)
I spoke about the “control architecture” within the game, but it also exists around the game. In fact, it is no coincidence if this “omnipotence paradigm” can be felt everywhere. A third trait of “modernity” is that power in a given field tends to become increasingly intrusive because of hyper-rationalization. Blizzard wanted to control everything. (…) But you cannot control everything. The more you try to maintain your grip, the more you need increasing power to seize what inevitably tries to slip out of it. The terminal phase is that you end up choking what you wanted to control.
The expansionnist project has to stop somewhere. There should even be retraction.
(…)
The result of the intrusive creationist approach is a game of cubes. You insert cubes of different shapes into other cubes of different shapes according to the will of the designer.
(…)
Completeness is the natural consequence of the intrusive creationist design. Players are dispossessed from their own creative potential and only have to apply the instruction manual.
(…)
Yet what is the motto of the Blizzsters? “Forging ahead regardless”.
(…)
If the RT part of RTS is violently compressed then the S withers away too by force.
For sources of power, discussing with us beggars is always risky. Acknowledging grievances is one thing, but fully entering the cycle of discussion is another one—which is way too compromising. By far the greatest risk would be that beggars would increasingly realize that miscommunication is a typical excuse of “bad faith” from sources of power, which do have their vision and keep applying it regardless of their countless wanderings. + Show Spoiler +
As our dear Bilbo puts it:
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
In the current case, silence or an evasive “later” answer are the most likely outcomes, especially as the beta and data excuses are ready-made—despite contraction of time being blatant in every single LotV beta game played.
I just actually sent a message to someone regarding this very thing.
As someone who manages many people, I see a lot of parallels between Blizzard and bad managers. Bad managers never listen to anyone under them and do whatever they want. And if those managers are heavily disconnected from what actually is going on, then many issues arise. They do this because listening to people under them, in their view, endangers their position as the boss.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, some people will try and take advantage of it and think they can talk you into things because you've listened to their ideas in the past, but you just gently remind them who is the boss. And the solution to that problem is certainly not to listen to people in general.
Listening to people empowers you as a manager and strengthens the team.
I actually get the feeling that if you suggest a really good idea to Blizzard, that they go out of their way not to implement it, and try to find some other solution.
Case and point: I suggested removing the ability to warp in on ramps to fix the 4 gate in PvP. Even with a FF on the bottom of the ramp, if a player had pylons near the ramp they could warp in over that FF and get vision of the high ground, allowing them to warp in more units.
Nearly six months after I pushed and pushed that suggestion, Blizzard finally implemented it. But Blizzard decided to delay Warp Gate tech first, instead of doing the things that actually fixed the 4 gate when I had suggested the ramp fix, and their "fixes" caused so many problems for Protoss. Alone the ramp fix did not solve the 4 gate, but it was a piece of the puzzle and by the end of WOL the 4 gate was a non-issue. I watched every PvP for the Korean qualifiers for TSL4, and not a single 4 gate succeeded.
As for point 21 about active abilities and how Blizzard thinks it cool that phoenix can harass a mineral line by lifting up workers. Instead of additional units with active abilities there should be units with passive abilities that are triggered by the opponent like enrage (damage increase) or increased health regeneration while attacked. The Immortal shield is the only passive ability that comes to mind. It's an overlooked fix to encourage micro, positioning and counter play instead of the "click to die micro abilities" like fungal growth.
I like the comparisons to real sports, aka soccer/football. Football WORKS. People enjoy playing it and watching it. Fact. Yet there are a lot of aspects that are frustrating in theory, such as the arbitrary time add at the end of the game. There are a million things wrong with SC2, but very few of them are preventing it from being an amazing game. There are so many points to consider that SOMEONE must be right, but who that is exactly is very difficult to determine.. GL devs
On April 23 2015 07:03 BronzeKnee wrote: As someone who manages many people, I see a lot of parallels between Blizzard and bad managers. Bad managers never listen to anyone under them and do whatever they want. And if those managers are heavily disconnected from what actually is going on, then many issues arise. They do this because listening to people under them, in their view, endangers their position as the boss.
Bad managers also think their ideas are the best ideas. Is it possible that Blizzard's design team is, you know, listening to the ideas of their own employees first? I'm not sure where this analogy is going, since I don't believe anyone whinging on this thread works for blizzard.
The premise of op's article is that StarCraft 2 was and is being designed as an esport.
Compare the millions of sold SC2 copies with the SC2 esports scene. Then you can see that this premise doesn't hold true.
Starcraft as an esport is sort of a side project of Blizzard. The main project is to sell millions of copies of the game.
If the side project 'esport' doesn't work out, yet they still sell millions of copies, no Blizzard executive will be too pissed about it. That's why every design desicion has to be "casual first". Then worry about the esports aspect later. If you piss off a handful of esports enthusiasts in the process, so be it.
On April 28 2015 05:52 Ero-Sennin wrote: As much as I agree,
SC3 will probably be the revolution of SC2.
LOTV will be much improved but it will probably fall short.
If LOTV falls short, many people won't buy lotv or sc3. Blizzard has to prove itself again after their last batch of releases. They're not golden anymore.
On April 28 2015 19:21 mikedebo wrote: I'm not sure where this analogy is going, since I don't believe anyone whinging on this thread works for blizzard.
I didn't clearly define the analogy because it was assumed, but what I was saying was that Blizzard not listening to the community is the same as a manager not listening to his employees. There is no good reason for not listening in either case, and generally pride is problem.
It isn't like (all) the community ideas are terrible, the fact they are often implemented months later just makes Blizzard look terrible.
Perhaps the more obvious analogy is a company not listening to their customers since that is exactly what is happening here. Most businesses bend over backwards to deliver exactly the product the customer wants.
I don't know why Blizzard is trying to force their product on us.
On April 28 2015 05:52 Ero-Sennin wrote: As much as I agree,
SC3 will probably be the revolution of SC2.
LOTV will be much improved but it will probably fall short.
If LOTV falls short, many people won't buy lotv or sc3. Blizzard has to prove itself again after their last batch of releases. They're not golden anymore.
I don't know, do you think they won't buy it because it's Blizzard? I still think they would, but maybe I'm wrong.
On April 28 2015 22:35 BronzeKnee wrote: Perhaps the more obvious analogy is a company not listening to their customers since that is exactly what is happening here. Most businesses bend over backwards to deliver exactly the product the customer wants.
I don't know why Blizzard is trying to force their product on us.
Believe me, Blizzard is listening to their customers. Except that you, the op, the TL community or the esports scene are not their main customers.
On April 28 2015 22:35 BronzeKnee wrote: Perhaps the more obvious analogy is a company not listening to their customers since that is exactly what is happening here. Most businesses bend over backwards to deliver exactly the product the customer wants.
I don't know why Blizzard is trying to force their product on us.
Believe me, Blizzard is listening to their customers. Except that you, the op, the TL community or the esports scene are not their main customers.
So who are those ominous customers you are speaking of? And what channels of communication do they use that so massively influence what blizzard does, but goes completely under the radar of everyone here. Where have those demands been placed that you say blizzard is listening to and by whom if not by the active community?
On April 28 2015 22:35 BronzeKnee wrote: It isn't like (all) the community ideas are terrible, the fact they are often implemented months later just makes Blizzard look terrible.
Perhaps the more obvious analogy is a company not listening to their customers since that is exactly what is happening here. Most businesses bend over backwards to deliver exactly the product the customer wants.
I don't know why Blizzard is trying to force their product on us.
Because we are far from a unified voice.
We recently had the Terran LotV unit contest where the winner, the most popular idea in this community, is getting panned by other parts of this community as a really bad idea. Yet, we selected it by popular vote. Should Blizzard automatically implement the walking forcefield?
How many people want to get rid of smart casting? A small portion of our community. How many think smart casting is a good idea? A small portion of our community. How many people don't know what smart casting is? A large portion.
We can do that for almost every topic and get approximately the same answers. And then even when there is relative agreement, it doesn't mean that we're right for creating an interesting game. A large portion of this community for a long time has been pushing for faster and faster game mechanics... more active abilities, more things to do to really challenge the players because SC2 is an "easy game". Now we get this article and suddenly a whole lot of people are swaying the other way... that there are too many abilities and too much to do and that strategy is being killed by that compression of time.
There are plenty of other examples. When Barrin came up with FRB, it was very popular with pretty much anyone that read the proposal. Would it have been better than the normal game if it had been implemented by Blizzard? Maybe. However, the results from tournaments and show matches seemed inconclusive.
Now we've got the TL strategy article on double harvesting. It's wildly popular and I'd love to see Blizzard give it a try, but does it actually create better games on average? I have no idea. I do know that the twelve worker start has removed almost all of the uninteresting downtime at the beginning of the game... and yet it's getting criticized heavily by the community that mostly hasn't even tried it yet.
So if you can tell Blizzard exactly what portion of the community to listen to and what portion to ignore, then go right ahead. But for every time they take their time on a "good idea" or don't implement it at all, be glad that they didn't implement tens or hundreds of terrible community ideas. Because if you keep your eyes and ears open with a critical mind, you'll realize that the vast majority of the community ideas when related to actual game play are bad.
Sometimes I think a whole lot of people in this thread and others think that "Blizzard ideas = Bad, community ideas = Good" no matter what their actual merits are.
On April 28 2015 05:52 Ero-Sennin wrote: As much as I agree,
SC3 will probably be the revolution of SC2.
LOTV will be much improved but it will probably fall short.
If LOTV falls short, many people won't buy lotv or sc3. Blizzard has to prove itself again after their last batch of releases. They're not golden anymore.
I don't know, do you think they won't buy it because it's Blizzard? I still think they would, but maybe I'm wrong.
Speaking for myself, I'll buy it still because whatever bad things we might have to say about Blizzard or whatever frustrations I might have with the game, nobody except Blizzard is making a decent quality micro-oriented RTS.
On April 28 2015 22:35 BronzeKnee wrote: It isn't like (all) the community ideas are terrible, the fact they are often implemented months later just makes Blizzard look terrible.
Perhaps the more obvious analogy is a company not listening to their customers since that is exactly what is happening here. Most businesses bend over backwards to deliver exactly the product the customer wants.
I don't know why Blizzard is trying to force their product on us.
Because we are far from a unified voice.
We recently had the Terran LotV unit contest where the winner, the most popular idea in this community, is getting panned by other parts of this community as a really bad idea. Yet, we selected it by popular vote. Should Blizzard automatically implement the walking forcefield?
How many people want to get rid of smart casting? A small portion of our community. How many think smart casting is a good idea? A small portion of our community. How many people don't know what smart casting is? A large portion.
We can do that for almost every topic and get approximately the same answers. And then even when there is relative agreement, it doesn't mean that we're right for creating an interesting game. A large portion of this community for a long time has been pushing for faster and faster game mechanics... more active abilities, more things to do to really challenge the players because SC2 is an "easy game". Now we get this article and suddenly a whole lot of people are swaying the other way... that there are too many abilities and too much to do and that strategy is being killed by that compression of time.
There are plenty of other examples. When Barrin came up with FRB, it was very popular with pretty much anyone that read the proposal. Would it have been better than the normal game if it had been implemented by Blizzard? Maybe. However, the results from tournaments and show matches seemed inconclusive.
Now we've got the TL strategy article on double harvesting. It's wildly popular and I'd love to see Blizzard give it a try, but does it actually create better games on average? I have no idea. I do know that the twelve worker start has removed almost all of the uninteresting downtime at the beginning of the game... and yet it's getting criticized heavily by the community that mostly hasn't even tried it yet.
So if you can tell Blizzard exactly what portion of the community to listen to and what portion to ignore, then go right ahead. But for every time they take their time on a "good idea" or don't implement it at all, be glad that they didn't implement tens or hundreds of terrible community ideas. Because if you keep your eyes and ears open with a critical mind, you'll realize that the vast majority of the community ideas when related to actual game play are bad.
Sometimes I think a whole lot of people in this thread and others think that "Blizzard ideas = Bad, community ideas = Good" no matter what their actual merits are.
I think the problem stems from blizzard making hard to understand decisions, to put it nicely. It has little to do with them not listening or listening to the wrong people. It's their very own ideas that bug me the most. They are inconsitent with what they are saying: "we are bot going to put 2more units in every expansion", "lurkers didnt make it in because of overlap". A few years down the road we have 4-5 new units per race, amonst them the lurker... Or "we want mover-shooters". Proceed to add an activated ability on every unit in the game. "Game should be easy to learn, hard to master" - create an economy that kills you in 5mins when you havent mastered some key aspects of the game.
It's like all of their original intentions were good, but they got lost down the road of trying to compete with Mobas.
On April 28 2015 22:35 BronzeKnee wrote: It isn't like (all) the community ideas are terrible, the fact they are often implemented months later just makes Blizzard look terrible.
Perhaps the more obvious analogy is a company not listening to their customers since that is exactly what is happening here. Most businesses bend over backwards to deliver exactly the product the customer wants.
I don't know why Blizzard is trying to force their product on us.
Because we are far from a unified voice.
We recently had the Terran LotV unit contest where the winner, the most popular idea in this community, is getting panned by other parts of this community as a really bad idea. Yet, we selected it by popular vote. Should Blizzard automatically implement the walking forcefield?
How many people want to get rid of smart casting? A small portion of our community. How many think smart casting is a good idea? A small portion of our community. How many people don't know what smart casting is? A large portion.
We can do that for almost every topic and get approximately the same answers. And then even when there is relative agreement, it doesn't mean that we're right for creating an interesting game. A large portion of this community for a long time has been pushing for faster and faster game mechanics... more active abilities, more things to do to really challenge the players because SC2 is an "easy game". Now we get this article and suddenly a whole lot of people are swaying the other way... that there are too many abilities and too much to do and that strategy is being killed by that compression of time.
There are plenty of other examples. When Barrin came up with FRB, it was very popular with pretty much anyone that read the proposal. Would it have been better than the normal game if it had been implemented by Blizzard? Maybe. However, the results from tournaments and show matches seemed inconclusive.
Now we've got the TL strategy article on double harvesting. It's wildly popular and I'd love to see Blizzard give it a try, but does it actually create better games on average? I have no idea. I do know that the twelve worker start has removed almost all of the uninteresting downtime at the beginning of the game... and yet it's getting criticized heavily by the community that mostly hasn't even tried it yet.
So if you can tell Blizzard exactly what portion of the community to listen to and what portion to ignore, then go right ahead. But for every time they take their time on a "good idea" or don't implement it at all, be glad that they didn't implement tens or hundreds of terrible community ideas. Because if you keep your eyes and ears open with a critical mind, you'll realize that the vast majority of the community ideas when related to actual game play are bad.
Sometimes I think a whole lot of people in this thread and others think that "Blizzard ideas = Bad, community ideas = Good" no matter what their actual merits are.
I think the problem stems from blizzard making hard to understand decisions, to put it nicely. It has little to do with them not listening or listening to the wrong people. It's their very own ideas that bug me the most. They are inconsitent with what they are saying: "we are bot going to put 2more units in every expansion", "lurkers didnt make it in because of overlap". A few years down the road we have 4-5 new units per race, amonst them the lurker... Or "we want mover-shooters". Proceed to add an activated ability on every unit in the game. "Game should be easy to learn, hard to master" - create an economy that kills you in 5mins when you havent mastered some key aspects of the game.
It's like all of their original intentions were good, but they got lost down the road of trying to compete with Mobas.
I agree with you. Blizzard has been inconsistent and I do think it has hurt the product. However, this is a tangentially related topic to what I responded to. People say that Blizzard doesn't listen, and my response is, "Who are they supposed to listen to?"
Now, if we go back to your post, I think if you look at what has lead Blizzard to that inconsistency, you'll actually find that they listen to the customer too much. They don't have strong leadership with a solid vision for the future of the game. Instead, they flail around trying to please everyone. They didn't want lurkers due to some overlap (mostly with the now changed swarmhost), the community wanted it anyways, so we have lurkers. The community for a long time has been asking for more interesting units which used to mean more active abilities, so Blizzard added an active ability to damn near everything. The community has been demanding more multitasking, more spread out armies, and more bases, so Blizzard changed the economy to force more bases, more spread out armies, and more multitasking at the cost of "easy to learn". Now that we got what we (most of the community) asked for, we actually want to go back closer to what we had.
As I said, I agree with you on your post. But it's the reasoning of why we get here that has been proposed in this thread that I disagree with. It's not that Blizzard isn't listening. The problem is that they don't have a strong vision for the future of the game and to make up for it, they're listening too much.
I mean 1-3 seem to me like blatant statements rather than core conceptual theory as the author perceive it to be. If it were the case that 12 worker in the beginning and mineral changes "conctracts time"* in such a way that took away strategy from play and error were made all the time by the players, then you would see more games being very flipp-floppy where the momentum is swining like a pendulum from one side to another til the game ends/pendulum stops. Even so, a wild pendulum is funnier to watch and even play, than a pendulum that basically never moves when a mistake or build order advantage is made, llike in hots or wol.
*I would argue that it is removal of time since none of the core values like mining rate or mining time have been increased/decreased, they just cut off the early build up period, the game isn't moving faster economically you just cut of the slow period.
I applaud the Stardust accretion/last chapter it was right on.
On April 29 2015 11:36 RenSC2 wrote: Sometimes I think a whole lot of people in this thread and others think that "Blizzard ideas = Bad, community ideas = Good" no matter what their actual merits are.
You are arguing against that, but that isn't what I argued. Most of the community ideas are universally bad, most of us know that. I don't want a community made game, and I think I made that clear when I talked about my experience with a community made hero for Coming of the Horde which was nearly a disaster (my post page 16). But some community ideas are so good they are ground breaking for a RTS game.
The ability to weed the bad ideas from the good is the difficult, but it is what separates great design teams (and games) from mediocre and bad ones, regardless of where those ideas come from (ie externally from the community or internally from the design team).
When people give Blizzard a great solution to a problem, but Blizzard ignores it for months while they try their own bad solutions, then decide to implement said great solution 6+ months later, it is a sign that their design team cannot weed out bad ideas from good ones, again regardless of the source.
That is the root of the problem with SC2.
To highlight this point, I bring us back to the Warhound again (and I have many other examples):
To me, creating an idea is a process where you think of something, decide on how it fits into the game, decide what role it plays, work out the interaction between it and other parts of the game. It requires a massive amount of thought and possibly some diagramming. When I add something to COTH, I don't just throw it in there willy nilly.
And that is why Blizzard's ideas are terrible. They aren't well thought out. The Warhound never should have escaped a designers head, never should have made it to implementation. But it did, Blizzard spent a lot of time and money on that. And nothing to show for it.
Someone should have been fired. Probably multiple people, that is no way to run a business. Modern software design ensures that everything is diagrammed, written up, and well thought out before you begin actually coding.
The Warhound should have been weeded out before it was implemented, it was a terrible idea. And the fact it was not is very telling.
The only real solution here is the one I've been calling for since the release of HOTS, the design team needs to go. If it doesn't, we'll keep seeing bad ideas being put into the game.
A bit at random, I took the following high level TvZ bo7 from various periods of the game:
(1) MarineKing vs Nestea, GSL Open Season 2, November 2010; (2) Mvp vs Nestea, Blizzcon [3 series united], October 2011; (3) MarineKing vs DRG, MLG Spring Arena, April 2012; (4) Mvp vs Life, Code S finals, October 2012; (5) Bogus vs Soulkey, first HotS Code S finals, June 2013.
And I compared the average supply count of the Terran player at various points:
(Small mistake on the graphs, the Blizzcon 2011 is noted November instead of October.)
Despite the low sample size, we clearly visualize the evolution of openings and the movement towards “modern macro play”.
Note: even if “5 minutes” stands as our “point zero” here, don't think there is no hyper-development within the first 5 minutes of the game. Though dormant, the seed is fully here. It just so happens that the 2 rax of 2010 TvZ has been replaced with CC first into 1-1-1 or Reaper 3OC, which by force materialize the effect later. The consequences are best seen here:
And yet, on average, Zerg max less fast in Mvp vs Life (~18:10) than in MarineKing vs DRG (~14:15). What happened? Is time being de-contracted? Is hyper-development finally losing ground? Alas no: the phenomenon has become partially hidden. We are indeed only looking at raw supply, but we have no information about the quality of said supply. After the Queen patch, hyper-development actually became so violent that instead of maxing in 14 minutes on lings/banes/mutas—which Terran could stand—Zerg was now maxing in 15'45 on lings + broods/infests. (The drone barbecues coming from Mvp's Blue Flame openings did the rest to bend the curve.) The length of the curve increases, but its steepness too; it simply has to be converted into something else because of the protective barrier of the supply limit—whose raising would be an absolute disaster.
Past certain thresholds, investments in economy and technology become more interesting. (And actually forced!) This is why supply inflation in LotV is in fact an euphemism regarding the contraction of time between HotS and the current version of LotV. The extent of the phenomenon is best seen when comparing similar scenarii:
(1) Proxy rax attack vs 1b Roaches defence
If we compare what SuperNova owns at 5 SC2 minutes (~3'37 in LotV) with MarineKing's macro 2 rax on Steppes of War (lol), we see that SuperNova has much more despite (a) proxying further and (b) proxying harder (+1 rax). SuperNova's contain is stronger (4 bunkers to 2), yet he still starts his expand/transition (CC + dual gas) earlier. Thanks to the current LotV economy, at 5 minutes SuperNova has already 35% more resource value on the map than MarineKing. + Show Spoiler +
Values are roughly similar for Zergs. Quickly drawing dead, the poor Zergbong could not even do much with a pool/gas opening, while his spawn could afford to lose a hatch and still have much more than the Cerebrate.
It should also be noted that since proto-WoL, the basal income rate was slightly increased (auto-mining at start + AI worker fix).
(2) 2b mutas into Roaches against mech
Comparing SuperNova vs bly (set 2) and GuMiho vs Solar. bly's build is less economical (3Q speed + faster Lair vs gasless 4Q); his macro is of course considerably inferior to Solar's one; he loses more in harassment, and still:
LotV timings were converted in SC2 minutes.
When Solar reaches 180 supply, on 63 drones, he has not yet completed +1 armor, he has no transition and only 3 bases. When bly reaches 180 supply (one minute later), on 59 drones, he has way more tech (Hive and 2/2 on the way, Hydra den, Burrow…) + 5 bases ready. Solar can only dream of such a transition.
Thus, on LotV, players would max faster, on higher technology, if they were “allowed” to do so. But players cannot “glide” over the development curve all the way through. Interrupting the cycles, some forces say “no”. Which are? The very game and the opponent. Look indeed at the number of times both players reached a high threshold of development in Bogus vs Soulkey:
What happened? Did we go back to the youth of WoL? Yes, in a way. Players can indeed orient the missile of hyper-development towards three kinds of entrances, according to the ETA triad (Economy; Technology; Army). To break your opponent's flow, you can invest everything in army; but since your opponent is riding the “ET” wave, you better succeed now or you'll lose the ensuing battle of curves. Enter: all-ins.
In approximatively one minute, an extremely deadly “timing attack” is prepared and launched. The steady flow from Bogus' infrastructure kicks in too late: Bogus is wiped.
But there's more. Here, the eruption is still partially minimized, because (1) Queens don't belong to the attack and (2) Soulkey also turned all his Zerglings into Banelings. Army value thus represents slightly more accurately the productive surge:
Contraction of time at its finest.
In the span of a single minute (actually, 30 seconds for most of the herd), Soulkey's offensive army value is multiplied by 8.65. The game is riddled with surges like that (generally on a lesser scale, of course), turning the arena into a powder keg. And people wonder why SC2 is an untameable creature!?!
Let us be clear here: the larva mechanic produces by force such spikes. What is problematic is not their existence, but their extent. A peaceful 2b mutas would also produce a spike… but (1) Spire takes time; (2) mutas are expensive, which limits the brutal increase in supply; (3) they can't bulldoze your base like a Roach/Baneling bust!
I took Zerg as an example, but the same principle applies for Warpgate timings (example for a 2b all-in: here and there). Terran's old SC1 tractor is more wheezy, but the locomotive ends up cranking out a lot of stuff too with MULEs and Reactors… except it obeys to the basic principle of having to walk across the map!
Last but not least, the impact on units is immense. The mould comes before the model…
SC2 is a RTS suffering from autoimmune disease. Excessive contraction of time made the “RT” part grow cancerous, and it immediately started viciously attacking the “S” part, which was forced to retract under the assault:
On April 19 2015 22:46 TheDwf wrote: SC2 games, because of hyper-development, tend to degenerate towards (1) all-ins; (2) passive macro; (3) worker bowling.
If you have ever wondered why the frontier between timings and all-ins is sometimes so blurry in SC2 (particularly with the following characteristics), look no further: the culprit is, again, contraction of time. See Welcome to ZParcraft II for a few concrete applications in the context of the last major crisis of asymetric hyper-development.
Tons of pressure builds also died (or can't see the light) because hyper-development automatically made them become all-in… while of course they lack the strength of an all-in. Those builds thus face the ruthless following alternative: disparition or radicalization. Pressure disappears? The cursor moves towards passive macro. Pressure becomes more radical? Towards all-in. Spaghettification of strategy. + Show Spoiler +
In practice, some of those builds survive; they simply remain coinflippy/gimmicky, i. e. you just pray that your opponent is going the wrong route or blunders heavily, etc. This phenomenon is particularly visible in periods of massive imbalance, which is why players then feel that “nothing is solid”.
Hyper-development is also what makes some people say that “players have become so greedy”. Though the formulation is simplistic (as with most of the common vulgate), the idea behind it is sound: it just so happens that what was once “greed” is now standard. See for instance “One Core to Rule Them All” in Welcome to ZParcraft II.
You have surely noticed the worrying appearance of invincibility in LotV. Invincible Roach/Ravager Warpgate, invincible Disruptors. Why? Because otherwise, hyper-development defends too easily. The torrent of resources allows the defender to produce more units and defensive structures, so tech-based aggression/harassment tools have to follow the movement and become much more powerful to have an impact. And since it is still not enough in many cases, enter the ultimate “anyway”: instantaneity, invincibility.
In order to preserve “activity,” the hydra of hyper-development forces the Blizzsters to repeatedly kill the defender's advantage, replaced with the puzzling concept of the attacker's advantage.
Enter: Medivac Boost; proxy Hellbats [Hellions turning into Hellbats at Armory tech]; semi-teleporting Tanks; Enter: various bane busts; muta regen; Ravager busts; invincible Nydus; Enter: Warpgate; Blink; Recall; invincible Disruptor + Warp Prism picking from massive range; Enter: worker bowling. Etc.
(Notice how many of those attacks are proxy attacks to recreate windows that hyper-development + the basic time barrier that is space would otherwise shut close.)
Violence calls for violence. Contraction of time is a drug. Speed in one domain has to be echoed by more speed in another domain. Hyper-mobility is the natural child of hyper-development; nonsense, the proud third generation. + Show Spoiler +
This is also why the map equation is nigh unsolvable in SC2: maps have to endure the overwhelming burden of countless issues related to contraction of time.
Now; let us consider the past, and our bright future.
Again, at random: BW: PianO vs ZerO series (april 2014) + a few NaDa's TvZ games on his stream (april 2015); LotV: various TvZ games from MMA, Ryung and SuperNova, mostly from Legacy of the Olimoleague. I doubled the sample because the increased volatility makes the 15' SC2 minutes benchmark tricky. Time is converted in SC2 minutes.
It is actually harder to find a regular supply inflation in LotV's games with the 5-10-15 minutes system. One would probably have to refine to 5-10-12-14. Trades indeed don't occur randomly, and hyper-development further routinizes sequences. By the old 15 SC2 minutes benchmark, (1) probably more of the LotV games are already finished and (2) the “survivors” are already diving in the downwards spiral, particularly because of the decreased stock of minerals implemented by the SC2 crew (a very astute mechanic to obtain what they want). But the phenomenon is still visible at 5 and 10 minutes, though concealed/minimized by the ET substitution discussed above.
The second game between SuperNova vs bly is a good example of the insane rate of development in LotV: from 3 bases, Lair and 78 supply at 10 minutes to 5 bases, Vipers on the way and 200 supply at 15 minutes. All of this in 3 minutes 35 of real time. See “Spaghettification” for the inevitable consequences.
It is interesting to compare the relics of the first macro games in proto-WoL to the maturity of BW. In the MKP vs Nestea series, if we consider the only macro game which welcomed a third from the Terran, i. e. the Shattered Temple game (set2), we can draw the following comparison:
Not much difference, hmm? But we would again be fooled by the facial values. Just like the evolution of openings accelerated the average rate of development, we have to compare apples with apples. The benchmarks are roughly similar, except… the BW games were 1 rax FE, while MKP opened Thor drops (= high tech) with a 9'52 natural!! Despite expanding 6 minutes later, MKP outpaced his ancestors.
Le ver est dans le fruit since the beginning. Consider for instance the first game of the very first GSL finals between FruitDealer and Rainbow, another macro game from proto-WoL. At 15 minutes, FruitDealer was already on 170 supply out of a Speedling expand into 2b mutas, with 11'30 Hive into 15'30 ultras out. As for his opponent, Rainbow opened rax fact CC into 2 fact Tanks/Thors 3 rax third and still got 130 supply of biomech (= high infrastructure costs + high tech) at 15 minutes despite only securing his natural at 8'30! Of course, in this case the values are “brute” as no fights had occurred (passive macro!), and they had considerably less than their heirs because of the uneconomical openings, but still… SC2 is simply drown in resources.
Here lies the “seed” mentioned above: regardless of the stage in which it is materialized, SC2's eco-productive system suffers from a chronic state of hyper-development.
Hence the common steep landscape of SC2 games. Think of it like a cheetah. It accelerates extremely fast from 0 to 110 km/h, but can only run on a short distance before collapsing. For the economic aspect, breaking the {2;2;1} worker triplet is sound and obvious, but we also need to bend that curve: probably a tad faster at the start, but with a slower pace afterwards. Taming the beast! LotV does not do that: the eco curve simply enters depression a few minutes earlier than in HotS—the cheetah runs even faster at the start, but runs out of steam even more brusquely.
Hyper-development is structurally incapable of producing action-packed, back-and-forth games on a constant basis; such games happen against the power of the propulsion, thanks to various counter-forces and shock absorbers—notably the defender's advantage (which, ironically, is partly fueled by the massive production infrastructure coming from said hyper-development: think for instance about the speed of remax of Z/P in lategame TvZ/P). To get such games, one has to hope that timings/all-ins damage but don't kill; that fights are “stalemates”; and that economies stabilize on a “medium” setup, ideally decreasing the army size:reproducibility ratio. Naturally, in the modern era, planets rarely line up; which is why Neanderthal games are the rule while authentic gems are happy accidents. From here also comes the dreaded phenomenon of the “single engagement into victor”.
The rocket engine of hyper-development is indeed self-destructive. The brutal contraction of time tends to generate a chronic state of instability: after the initial push, a plateau is reached from which “over-critical” action occurs (e. g. players have to go “all-in” on certain decisions, or on the engagements). + Show Spoiler +
Overall, contraction of time is responsible for drastically skewing the impact of mistakes: some things matter way too much (certain slight mistakes are punished incredibly hard: the Spark) while others are too easily forgiven (the Pardon). Here again, ironically, hyper-development has sometimes stabilizing virtues…
Then, when economies crumble in macro games, it's often too delicate to catch up: under the threat of their opponent's huge army, players cannot redevelop without risking immediate checkmate. This is also what makes games predictable and anticlimatic, on top of frequently preventing better players from coming back in the game.
The LotV economy (12 workers + 1500x4 + 900x4) is a massive regression compared with the already terrible SC2 basis. There is not the slightest ounce of “progress” here. (People who consider the LotV economy as an improvement confuse the symptom and the disease; the LotV economy fixes nothing, it simply makes the disease worse, so new symptoms arise.) I am sure people remember MULEs on gold bases and the ridiculous spikes of income on eco charts, triggering the nerf and the increasing scarcity of Gold bases on maps? Well, for LotV, the Blizzsters decided that it was Christmas for all races: MULEs on Gold are no longer the exclusive property of Korhal peasants, they are now democratized. Hurray for equality! The economic changes in LotV are simply this: a “Golden economy” with a free, permanent MULE at the start. What kind of gameplay do we get from this? Unsurprisingly, not a stable one.
The first SuperNova vs bly game is, for instance, a dazzling example of the kind of complete nonsense that LotV currently delivers: proxy 3 rax bunk contain 3OC into defensive Tank and Cloak Banshees mech vs hatch sac into 1b burrowed Roaches Lair rush into 2b turbo Roaches mass Nydus (spotted but indestructible). Yay, OK.
So far, LotV is thus not an accident, but the accomplishment: the Blizzsters have finally the means to fully apply their original program…
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Why did SC2 purposefully, systematically remove control from the user in various domains? Because the Original Blizzsters thought that (1) spectators come first; (2) spectators must be excited; (3) excitement = randomness.
Contracting time = less control = more “time-based” mistakes = increased randomness. (…) If the RT part of RTS is violently compressed then the S withers away too by force.
… and they have many weapons at their disposal to keep contracting time. First, since boredom “de-contracts” time, “Mr. Viewer” comes to think that contraction of time is the key to solve the problem of… contraction of time. But “turtling deathballs” are merely the most visible symptom, so the problem is not at all defending or lesser mobility. The game ended up being too “slow” (= passive) because it is… too fast! same as camping partially comes from the fact that the defender's advantage is actually… too weak! The common misunderstanding allows the SC2 crew to tell the “community” what it wants to hear, while applying more of the methods which caused all the problems to begin with. Just consider the transition between the end of WoL and HotS: wasn't it exactly the same problematics? What little dark “miracle” turned Zerg (by essence supposed to be the anti-deathball race!) into a deathballing race? Answer: this horror was the rotten fruit of that one. Same as this or this come from this, MULEs rains in mech into air lategame scenarii are self-explanatory, etc. Then, after the scapegoat units were banned for political reasons (though WoL Infestors were of course a massive joke), HotS unsurprisingly had to recreate what WoL had refused to deconstruct… Out: broods/infests. In: SHosts/Corruptors/Viper. “But with LotV you precisely can't go broods/infests!” — Who cares! Symptoms change, disease remains. Sapping the eco substratum to weaken/prevent 200/200 accumulation changes nothing to the internal logic of hyper-development. Yeah, after the Roaches/Ravagers 3b all-ins are solved, you will a-click 170 supply of GMO mammoths instead. Anything new under the sun?
Second, the true-false concession of “less extra workers at the start”. They may concede less than +6. But then what? See for instance how politicians declare that “unemployment increased slower than foreseen this month” and claim that this is a decisive victory. Well, too bad unemployement still rose. Same idea here: hyper-development would still be deadlier, but less than with the 12 workers change. “Victory!” roars the big cat. Victoire sans lendemain.
Third, the total amount of minerals in a base: a worthy debate indeed, but one that leaves untouched the central question of hyper-development. If you remove 500 minerals from each node, or x minerals from y nodes, you didn't modify at all the basal rate of development! In fact, the sinister synergy between the 12 workers change and the decreased quantity of minerals in each base is a clever coup from the SC2 crew: they make sure that people cannot escape the game of cubes. The tour de force is to combine the “Golden economy” with various nonsensical tools (incarnations of the attacker's advantage) to further dive the game into a chronic state of instability, alternating short periods of passive, turbo build-up with high-stake “action”. Brutal propulsion into spectacular crashes—exactly what “Mr. Viewer” wants! Sense and strategy will further disappear in the wake of the razzia, but one cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs. And no sacrifice is too big to multiply Sparks and get what the Blizzsters truly want to enforce: Speedcraft.
Seems like sc2 is having identity crisis on what to be. Action packed fun "skill shot" micro from hero based MOBA or wc3 from game of numberous army with few high valued target but no "hero" unit.
Watching TLG today what Jakatak said resonated well with what I was brewing on. Blizzard also seems to be confused on what mech is- Its a philosophy of units that possesses heavy zone control units (siege tanks, vulture spider mines+harass, Goliath AA range) in trade for mobility and ability to recover to certain extent if not positioned well. Blizzard seems to go instead in direction of re-skinned durable bio ball approach- adding all-purpose Cyclone into arsenal while siege tank simply isnt doing the job it is supposed to be doing in zone control.
Just because it comes out of factory doesnt mean its "mech" unit at all. Thor is just a big clunky marauder with weak hard counter AA against mutalisks. Tanks simply dont do justice vs protoss at all even with emp. Blizzard's band-aid solution of adding mobility and speed buff to mech totally goes against its ideology in favor of high intensity explosions.
Why can't two tech trees remain seperate and distinct? Wouldn't make those 2 distinct playstyles be more "exciting" rather than 2 indistinguishable ball of mobility and all-roundness?
Wow, I finally got to play in the beta and it's more than just kinda rediculous how 'fast' the game is. My first game (so probably rediculously unrefined builds ect) and not even 4 minutes in I was dropping tanks in my opponent's natural. There's absolutely no place for passive playstyles in the current edition of LotV, my (admittedly limited number of) games feel more like clickfests than a strategy game.
edit: Everything seems to be happening so quickly there's barely room for micro. You just make the strongest mobile army you can and attack everywhere your opponent isn't while expanding everwhere. This is going to be a huge buff to units like DT's or Widow Mines that make the opponent play more cautious. Initial impressions ofc.
Lets compare the average number of units/buildings produced every minute in Brood war and Starcraft 2.
As Dwf has noted, the automation in macro and production mechanics seems to have wrecked the pacing of the game completely.
A possible solution could be to increase the overall production time proportionate to the amount of units of the same type being produced simultaneously.
An example would be a 5% increase in production time for each marine being produced at the same time.
This would disincentivize massing units; bottleneck and contain the production explosion, and actually force players to tech up organically.
Guys why is it that always when there is a thread like this, everyone just assumes that brood war is the game developed by God himself and thus is perfect in every way. And the goal of SC2 development should be to make it be played as close as possible in every way as BW. Everything that is different in sc2 somehow is a mistake.
Dwf's last post should be a thread on it's own, it is very impressive. I've been trying to put into words what he stated regarding harassment/aggressive tools for so long. They've made defensive tools stronger and stronger, but then had to make harassment/aggressive tools increasingly stronger to the point where now you really can't catch Medivac drops anymore because Medivacs are so quick. The end result is that now is that for me, a Protoss player, the cat and mouse game that was properly positioning my Observers and Stalkers around the map to pick off drops which required skill and control has been reduced to nothing. The Terran player gets caught, but boosts out greatly limiting damage taken. In the end the strategy is being bled out. It is mostly just act and react now. And we've reach the pinnacle as Dwf points out, where units are invincible.
On April 30 2015 08:15 TheDwf wrote: Here lies the “seed” mentioned above: regardless of the stage in which it is materialized, SC2's eco-productive system suffers from a chronic state of hyper-development...To get (good) games, one has to hope that economies stabilize on a “medium” setup, ideally decreasing the army size:reproducibility ratio..
Anyway, while I do think that the quoted statement above is true, it isn't necessarily a problem given certain circumstances. At the moment with LOTV, we aren't even close, but I believe strongly we came close to those circumstances at times with WOL. In fact, I believe that Starcraft is best when it achieves that sweet spot.
The difference in supply between BW and early WOL as you showed was similar, though the BW openings were certainly far more "economical." That isn't necessarily a good thing.
In the games from the second GSL Final between Nestea and MKP, the contraction of time that reduces control certainly isn't evident. The micro war between Nestea and MKP during the final game was between Marines without stim and SCVs versus Drones, Queens and Zerglings without speed provide both players with ample control opportunities, it certainly wasn't too fast.
But what WOL lost overtime was the what kept the supply of both players in check during that series and kept the game interesting: the ability to attack and end the game at anytime. Both players had to build units throughout the game, and not just low tech units, in order to hold attacks. What kept WOL interesting from a viewers perspective, and also for a player was that if you over-stepped your bounds economically, your opponent could punish you hard.
And that isn't a bad thing. Expansions had to be earned, they weren't just the standard way to play. And although that kept supplies in check, the improved economy in WOL (compared to Broodwar) allowed access to units like Thors and Void Rays that would be more difficult to afford on a single base in BW. One base play not only was an option, but far more of the tech tree was accessible early, allowing for more strategic variation.
Problems arose when Blizzard and map makers allowed things like three CC before gas builds to exist or when abilities like Photon Overcharge were added to the game. By allowing Terran to survive early timings by only building their most basic unit or giving Protoss Photon Overcharge meant that the aggressors improved one base economy and ability to access more parts of their tech tree (which gave the game strategic depth) was rendered useless, because none of those timings could hurt an economic build. That drastically slashed strategic variation.
Additionally, without anything to hold economies in check, the improved SC2 economy exploded and things spiraled out of control into the mess we have now. We need the tools to keep economies in check back. Expanding should not be a right. And if we get those tools back, then we'll constantly be on the edge of our seat because anytime anyone tries to step out of bounds, the other guy could attack and punish them. We'll have a plethora of medium income scrappy games, which are so exciting.
So, the best way to guarantee action, is to force both sides to build combat units (not purely defensive or harassment units, but combat units) early and often, like players had to do during early WOL. So let's remove tools like Photon Overcharge would allow players to not build combat units.
On April 30 2015 08:15 TheDwf wrote: (2) 2b mutas into Roaches against mech
Comparing SuperNova vs bly (set 2) and GuMiho vs Solar. bly's build is less economical (3Q speed + faster Lair vs gasless 4Q); his macro is of course considerably inferior to Solar's one; he loses more in harassment, and still:
[image loading]
LotV timings were converted in SC2 minutes.
When Solar reaches 180 supply, on 63 drones, he has not yet completed +1 armor, he has no transition and only 3 bases. When bly reaches 180 supply (one minute later), on 59 drones, he has way more tech (Hive and 2/2 on the way, Hydra den, Burrow…) + 5 bases ready. Solar can only dream of such a transition.
Thus, on LotV, players would max faster, on higher technology, if they were “allowed” to do so.
What you can see from this is that it takes an extra minute in LotV to get to the same supply. It takes longer, while you start with more workers and supply (it takes ~1m35s for Zerg to get 12 workers). So Hots reaches 180 supply 2m35s earlier than LotV. LotV is not faster. Solar could have built tons of stuff in 2m35.
Solar his income at 12.20 is 1920/576. Thus in 2m35s he could spend an additional ~4.8k minerals and ~1.4k gas. This easily pays for 2/2, a hydra den and a hive. He would finish most of these upgrades faster than bly too. But Solar has already won the game a minute later.
On May 02 2015 05:03 Grumbels wrote: Some counting: + Show Spoiler +
brood war: 3 hatchery 3 evolution chamber 2 spawning pool 3 hydralisk den 2 spire 3 queen's nest 3 defiler mound 2 ultralisk cavern 0 greater spire = 20 upgrades for 9 buildings and 12 units
starcraft 2 3 hatchery 3 evolution chamber 2 spawning pool 2 roach warren 1 baneling nest 2 hydralisk den 2 spire 0 greater spire 2 infestation pit 1 ultralisk cavern =18 upgrades for 10 buildings and 17 units
Why is Blizzard removing upgrades? Did BW just have too many or is SC2 too fast-paced to really allow for multiple upgrades per unit?
bw didn't have too many, i can think of situations where you would get every upgrade in ZvT i.e. if terran opened 2 port wraith into bio into lategame mech, that would hit basically every upgrade in the game for zerg.. also, there's 4 upgrades on lair in BW (burrow, ventral sacs, speed, antenna)
I think it's just because understanding how current upgrades influence how you optimally play a point of time in game is harder to wrap your head around than having a whole new unit, so sc2 focused on more units rather than upgrades to change the flow of the game. it's also potentially frustrating to new players to not have an easy visual indicator to see that your enemy has ling speed or hydra speed/range upgrade prior to engaging their forces, which can be very frustrating to new players (in bw), so they tried to get away from this with either visual indicators or just new units.
A bit at random, I took the following high level TvZ bo7 from various periods of the game:
(1) MarineKing vs Nestea, GSL Open Season 2, November 2010; (2) Mvp vs Nestea, Blizzcon [3 series united], October 2011; (3) MarineKing vs DRG, MLG Spring Arena, April 2012; (4) Mvp vs Life, Code S finals, October 2012; (5) Bogus vs Soulkey, first HotS Code S finals, June 2013.
And I compared the average supply count of the Terran player at various points:
(Small mistake on the graphs, the Blizzcon 2011 is noted November instead of October.)
Despite the low sample size, we clearly visualize the evolution of openings and the movement towards “modern macro play”.
Note: even if “5 minutes” stands as our “point zero” here, don't think there is no hyper-development within the first 5 minutes of the game. Though dormant, the seed is fully here. It just so happens that the 2 rax of 2010 TvZ has been replaced with CC first into 1-1-1 or Reaper 3OC, which by force materialize the effect later. The consequences are best seen here:
And yet, on average, Zerg max less fast in Mvp vs Life (~18:10) than in MarineKing vs DRG (~14:15). What happened? Is time being de-contracted? Is hyper-development finally losing ground? Alas no: the phenomenon has become partially hidden. We are indeed only looking at raw supply, but we have no information about the quality of said supply. After the Queen patch, hyper-development actually became so violent that instead of maxing in 14 minutes on lings/banes/mutas—which Terran could stand—Zerg was now maxing in 15'45 on lings + broods/infests. (The drone barbecues coming from Mvp's Blue Flame openings did the rest to bend the curve.) The length of the curve increases, but its steepness too; it simply has to be converted into something else because of the protective barrier of the supply limit—whose raising would be an absolute disaster.
Past certain thresholds, investments in economy and technology become more interesting. (And actually forced!) This is why supply inflation in LotV is in fact an euphemism regarding the contraction of time between HotS and the current version of LotV. The extent of the phenomenon is best seen when comparing similar scenarii:
(1) Proxy rax attack vs 1b Roaches defence
If we compare what SuperNova owns at 5 SC2 minutes (~3'37 in LotV) with MarineKing's macro 2 rax on Steppes of War (lol), we see that SuperNova has much more despite (a) proxying further and (b) proxying harder (+1 rax). SuperNova's contain is stronger (4 bunkers to 2), yet he still starts his expand/transition (CC + dual gas) earlier. Thanks to the current LotV economy, at 5 minutes SuperNova has already 35% more resource value on the map than MarineKing. + Show Spoiler +
Values are roughly similar for Zergs. Quickly drawing dead, the poor Zergbong could not even do much with a pool/gas opening, while his spawn could afford to lose a hatch and still have much more than the Cerebrate.
It should also be noted that since proto-WoL, the basal income rate was slightly increased (auto-mining at start + AI worker fix).
(2) 2b mutas into Roaches against mech
Comparing SuperNova vs bly (set 2) and GuMiho vs Solar. bly's build is less economical (3Q speed + faster Lair vs gasless 4Q); his macro is of course considerably inferior to Solar's one; he loses more in harassment, and still:
LotV timings were converted in SC2 minutes.
When Solar reaches 180 supply, on 63 drones, he has not yet completed +1 armor, he has no transition and only 3 bases. When bly reaches 180 supply (one minute later), on 59 drones, he has way more tech (Hive and 2/2 on the way, Hydra den, Burrow…) + 5 bases ready. Solar can only dream of such a transition.
Thus, on LotV, players would max faster, on higher technology, if they were “allowed” to do so. But players cannot “glide” over the development curve all the way through. Interrupting the cycles, some forces say “no”. Which are? The very game and the opponent. Look indeed at the number of times both players reached a high threshold of development in Bogus vs Soulkey:
What happened? Did we go back to the youth of WoL? Yes, in a way. Players can indeed orient the missile of hyper-development towards three kinds of entrances, according to the ETA triad (Economy; Technology; Army). To break your opponent's flow, you can invest everything in army; but since your opponent is riding the “ET” wave, you better succeed now or you'll lose the ensuing battle of curves. Enter: all-ins.
In approximatively one minute, an extremely deadly “timing attack” is prepared and launched. The steady flow from Bogus' infrastructure kicks in too late: Bogus is wiped.
But there's more. Here, the eruption is still partially minimized, because (1) Queens don't belong to the attack and (2) Soulkey also turned all his Zerglings into Banelings. Army value thus represents slightly more accurately the productive surge:
Contraction of time at its finest.
In the span of a single minute (actually, 30 seconds for most of the herd), Soulkey's offensive army value is multiplied by 8.65. The game is riddled with surges like that (generally on a lesser scale, of course), turning the arena into a powder keg. And people wonder why SC2 is an untameable creature!?!
Let us be clear here: the larva mechanic produces by force such spikes. What is problematic is not their existence, but their extent. A peaceful 2b mutas would also produce a spike… but (1) Spire takes time; (2) mutas are expensive, which limits the brutal increase in supply; (3) they can't bulldoze your base like a Roach/Baneling bust!
I took Zerg as an example, but the same principle applies for Warpgate timings (example for a 2b all-in: here and there). Terran's old SC1 tractor is more wheezy, but the locomotive ends up cranking out a lot of stuff too with MULEs and Reactors… except it obeys to the basic principle of having to walk across the map!
Last but not least, the impact on units is immense. The mould comes before the model…
SC2 is a RTS suffering from autoimmune disease. Excessive contraction of time made the “RT” part grow cancerous, and it immediately started viciously attacking the “S” part, which was forced to retract under the assault:
On April 19 2015 22:46 TheDwf wrote: SC2 games, because of hyper-development, tend to degenerate towards (1) all-ins; (2) passive macro; (3) worker bowling.
If you have ever wondered why the frontier between timings and all-ins is sometimes so blurry in SC2 (particularly with the following characteristics), look no further: the culprit is, again, contraction of time. See Welcome to ZParcraft II for a few concrete applications in the context of the last major crisis of asymetric hyper-development.
Tons of pressure builds also died (or can't see the light) because hyper-development automatically made them become all-in… while of course they lack the strength of an all-in. Those builds thus face the ruthless following alternative: disparition or radicalization. Pressure disappears? The cursor moves towards passive macro. Pressure becomes more radical? Towards all-in. Spaghettification of strategy. + Show Spoiler +
In practice, some of those builds survive; they simply remain coinflippy/gimmicky, i. e. you just pray that your opponent is going the wrong route or blunders heavily, etc. This phenomenon is particularly visible in periods of massive imbalance, which is why players then feel that “nothing is solid”.
Hyper-development is also what makes some people say that “players have become so greedy”. Though the formulation is simplistic (as with most of the common vulgate), the idea behind it is sound: it just so happens that what was once “greed” is now standard. See for instance “One Core to Rule Them All” in Welcome to ZParcraft II.
You have surely noticed the worrying appearance of invincibility in LotV. Invincible Roach/Ravager Warpgate, invincible Disruptors. Why? Because otherwise, hyper-development defends too easily. The torrent of resources allows the defender to produce more units and defensive structures, so tech-based aggression/harassment tools have to follow the movement and become much more powerful to have an impact. And since it is still not enough in many cases, enter the ultimate “anyway”: instantaneity, invincibility.
In order to preserve “activity,” the hydra of hyper-development forces the Blizzsters to repeatedly kill the defender's advantage, replaced with the puzzling concept of the attacker's advantage.
Enter: Medivac Boost; proxy Hellbats [Hellions turning into Hellbats at Armory tech]; semi-teleporting Tanks; Enter: various bane busts; muta regen; Ravager busts; invincible Nydus; Enter: Warpgate; Blink; Recall; invincible Disruptor + Warp Prism picking from massive range; Enter: worker bowling. Etc.
(Notice how many of those attacks are proxy attacks to recreate windows that hyper-development + the basic time barrier that is space would otherwise shut close.)
Violence calls for violence. Contraction of time is a drug. Speed in one domain has to be echoed by more speed in another domain. Hyper-mobility is the natural child of hyper-development; nonsense, the proud third generation. + Show Spoiler +
This is also why the map equation is nigh unsolvable in SC2: maps have to endure the overwhelming burden of countless issues related to contraction of time.
Now; let us consider the past, and our bright future.
Again, at random: BW: PianO vs ZerO series (april 2014) + a few NaDa's TvZ games on his stream (april 2015); LotV: various TvZ games from MMA, Ryung and SuperNova, mostly from Legacy of the Olimoleague. I doubled the sample because the increased volatility makes the 15' SC2 minutes benchmark tricky. Time is converted in SC2 minutes.
It is actually harder to find a regular supply inflation in LotV's games with the 5-10-15 minutes system. One would probably have to refine to 5-10-12-14. Trades indeed don't occur randomly, and hyper-development further routinizes sequences. By the old 15 SC2 minutes benchmark, (1) probably more of the LotV games are already finished and (2) the “survivors” are already diving in the downwards spiral, particularly because of the decreased stock of minerals implemented by the SC2 crew (a very astute mechanic to obtain what they want). But the phenomenon is still visible at 5 and 10 minutes, though concealed/minimized by the ET substitution discussed above.
The second game between SuperNova vs bly is a good example of the insane rate of development in LotV: from 3 bases, Lair and 78 supply at 10 minutes to 5 bases, Vipers on the way and 200 supply at 15 minutes. All of this in 3 minutes 35 of real time. See “Spaghettification” for the inevitable consequences.
It is interesting to compare the relics of the first macro games in proto-WoL to the maturity of BW. In the MKP vs Nestea series, if we consider the only macro game which welcomed a third from the Terran, i. e. the Shattered Temple game (set2), we can draw the following comparison:
Not much difference, hmm? But we would again be fooled by the facial values. Just like the evolution of openings accelerated the average rate of development, we have to compare apples with apples. The benchmarks are roughly similar, except… the BW games were 1 rax FE, while MKP opened Thor drops (= high tech) with a 9'52 natural!! Despite expanding 6 minutes later, MKP outpaced his ancestors.
Le ver est dans le fruit since the beginning. Consider for instance the first game of the very first GSL finals between FruitDealer and Rainbow, another macro game from proto-WoL. At 15 minutes, FruitDealer was already on 170 supply out of a Speedling expand into 2b mutas, with 11'30 Hive into 15'30 ultras out. As for his opponent, Rainbow opened rax fact CC into 2 fact Tanks/Thors 3 rax third and still got 130 supply of biomech (= high infrastructure costs + high tech) at 15 minutes despite only securing his natural at 8'30! Of course, in this case the values are “brute” as no fights had occurred (passive macro!), and they had considerably less than their heirs because of the uneconomical openings, but still… SC2 is simply drown in resources.
Here lies the “seed” mentioned above: regardless of the stage in which it is materialized, SC2's eco-productive system suffers from a chronic state of hyper-development.
Hence the common steep landscape of SC2 games. Think of it like a cheetah. It accelerates extremely fast from 0 to 110 km/h, but can only run on a short distance before collapsing. For the economic aspect, breaking the {2;2;1} worker triplet is sound and obvious, but we also need to bend that curve: probably a tad faster at the start, but with a slower pace afterwards. Taming the beast! LotV does not do that: the eco curve simply enters depression a few minutes earlier than in HotS—the cheetah runs even faster at the start, but runs out of steam even more brusquely.
Hyper-development is structurally incapable of producing action-packed, back-and-forth games on a constant basis; such games happen against the power of the propulsion, thanks to various counter-forces and shock absorbers—notably the defender's advantage (which, ironically, is partly fueled by the massive production infrastructure coming from said hyper-development: think for instance about the speed of remax of Z/P in lategame TvZ/P). To get such games, one has to hope that timings/all-ins damage but don't kill; that fights are “stalemates”; and that economies stabilize on a “medium” setup, ideally decreasing the army size:reproducibility ratio. Naturally, in the modern era, planets rarely line up; which is why Neanderthal games are the rule while authentic gems are happy accidents. From here also comes the dreaded phenomenon of the “single engagement into victor”.
The rocket engine of hyper-development is indeed self-destructive. The brutal contraction of time tends to generate a chronic state of instability: after the initial push, a plateau is reached from which “over-critical” action occurs (e. g. players have to go “all-in” on certain decisions, or on the engagements). + Show Spoiler +
Overall, contraction of time is responsible for drastically skewing the impact of mistakes: some things matter way too much (certain slight mistakes are punished incredibly hard: the Spark) while others are too easily forgiven (the Pardon). Here again, ironically, hyper-development has sometimes stabilizing virtues…
Then, when economies crumble in macro games, it's often too delicate to catch up: under the threat of their opponent's huge army, players cannot redevelop without risking immediate checkmate. This is also what makes games predictable and anticlimatic, on top of frequently preventing better players from coming back in the game.
The LotV economy (12 workers + 1500x4 + 900x4) is a massive regression compared with the already terrible SC2 basis. There is not the slightest ounce of “progress” here. (People who consider the LotV economy as an improvement confuse the symptom and the disease; the LotV economy fixes nothing, it simply makes the disease worse, so new symptoms arise.) I am sure people remember MULEs on gold bases and the ridiculous spikes of income on eco charts, triggering the nerf and the increasing scarcity of Gold bases on maps? Well, for LotV, the Blizzsters decided that it was Christmas for all races: MULEs on Gold are no longer the exclusive property of Korhal peasants, they are now democratized. Hurray for equality! The economic changes in LotV are simply this: a “Golden economy” with a free, permanent MULE at the start. What kind of gameplay do we get from this? Unsurprisingly, not a stable one.
The first SuperNova vs bly game is, for instance, a dazzling example of the kind of complete nonsense that LotV currently delivers: proxy 3 rax bunk contain 3OC into defensive Tank and Cloak Banshees mech vs hatch sac into 1b burrowed Roaches Lair rush into 2b turbo Roaches mass Nydus (spotted but indestructible). Yay, OK.
So far, LotV is thus not an accident, but the accomplishment: the Blizzsters have finally the means to fully apply their original program…
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote: Why did SC2 purposefully, systematically remove control from the user in various domains? Because the Original Blizzsters thought that (1) spectators come first; (2) spectators must be excited; (3) excitement = randomness.
Contracting time = less control = more “time-based” mistakes = increased randomness. (…) If the RT part of RTS is violently compressed then the S withers away too by force.
… and they have many weapons at their disposal to keep contracting time. First, since boredom “de-contracts” time, “Mr. Viewer” comes to think that contraction of time is the key to solve the problem of… contraction of time. But “turtling deathballs” are merely the most visible symptom, so the problem is not at all defending or lesser mobility. The game ended up being too “slow” (= passive) because it is… too fast! same as camping partially comes from the fact that the defender's advantage is actually… too weak! The common misunderstanding allows the SC2 crew to tell the “community” what it wants to hear, while applying more of the methods which caused all the problems to begin with. Just consider the transition between the end of WoL and HotS: wasn't it exactly the same problematics? What little dark “miracle” turned Zerg (by essence supposed to be the anti-deathball race!) into a deathballing race? Answer: this horror was the rotten fruit of that one. Same as this or this come from this, MULEs rains in mech into air lategame scenarii are self-explanatory, etc. Then, after the scapegoat units were banned for political reasons (though WoL Infestors were of course a massive joke), HotS unsurprisingly had to recreate what WoL had refused to deconstruct… Out: broods/infests. In: SHosts/Corruptors/Viper. “But with LotV you precisely can't go broods/infests!” — Who cares! Symptoms change, disease remains. Sapping the eco substratum to weaken/prevent 200/200 accumulation changes nothing to the internal logic of hyper-development. Yeah, after the Roaches/Ravagers 3b all-ins are solved, you will a-click 170 supply of GMO mammoths instead. Anything new under the sun?
Second, the true-false concession of “less extra workers at the start”. They may concede less than +6. But then what? See for instance how politicians declare that “unemployment increased slower than foreseen this month” and claim that this is a decisive victory. Well, too bad unemployement still rose. Same idea here: hyper-development would still be deadlier, but less than with the 12 workers change. “Victory!” roars the big cat. Victoire sans lendemain.
Third, the total amount of minerals in a base: a worthy debate indeed, but one that leaves untouched the central question of hyper-development. If you remove 500 minerals from each node, or x minerals from y nodes, you didn't modify at all the basal rate of development! In fact, the sinister synergy between the 12 workers change and the decreased quantity of minerals in each base is a clever coup from the SC2 crew: they make sure that people cannot escape the game of cubes. The tour de force is to combine the “Golden economy” with various nonsensical tools (incarnations of the attacker's advantage) to further dive the game into a chronic state of instability, alternating short periods of passive, turbo build-up with high-stake “action”. Brutal propulsion into spectacular crashes—exactly what “Mr. Viewer” wants! Sense and strategy will further disappear in the wake of the razzia, but one cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs. And no sacrifice is too big to multiply Sparks and get what the Blizzsters truly want to enforce: Speedcraft.
Quick question, are you comparing SC2 time to 'real' time or real time to real time?
On May 02 2015 03:33 BronzeKnee wrote: Anyway, while I do think that the quoted statement above is true, it isn't necessarily a problem given certain circumstances. At the moment with LOTV, we aren't even close, but I believe strongly we came close to those circumstances at times with WOL. In fact, I believe that Starcraft is best when it achieves that sweet spot.
I have no problem with players rushing Thor drops or Voids on one base. The economic development rate on a single base is not wildly off, to bend the curve you just need to cut 15-20% on max saturation and it's OK. The mould comes before the model, so units stats can be adjusted accordingly. Everything has to be tweaked when the economy changes anyway. 1 base play is 100% legit indeed, it simply went the wrong way in proto-WoL. It's a matter of finding the sweet spot, as you say. That's why bending a few curves would immediately do wonders, and then units would have fresh air again.
I will probably analyze that Nestea vs MKP game in some text later, because it's an interesting situation indeed.
On May 02 2015 03:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: There is no time contraction
I come back to you a bit later. I thought about our previous exchanges and now I know why you don't understand contraction of time. It's just a little confusion about the notion of development. Maybe with a visualization like this you would better understand it? + Show Spoiler +
Remember your own words:
On April 15 2015 04:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: A contraction of time would mean that things happen faster.
You simply isolate and consider “1” in a vacuum at the start and forget about the following notion of development (i.e. you don't simply bank minerals, you do stuff with it!). Note that “1” is contraction of time too, because here we have earlier = faster.
On May 02 2015 05:03 Grumbels wrote: Why is Blizzard removing upgrades? Did BW just have too many or is SC2 too fast-paced to really allow for multiple upgrades per unit?
Yep. The technology tree is bound to wither. As the storm rages on, the weaker branchs fall. That's for instance why Terran lost tons of upgrades in HotS. Terran is the only SC1 race left in SC2, but SC1 is quartered in SC2. Yet obviously you have to tune the violins, otherwise acute crisis of asymetric hyper-development occur. And upgrades are infrastructure costs which slow down development, inserting plateaux on the curve (what I called “principle of cascade” in ZParcraft II). So you just remove upgrades. Thus the water falls more smoothly and more violently.
Siege Mode removed because otherwise, all 1-1-1 openings die to the insane contraction of time in Blink timings. Tons of Roaches timings were borderline broken vs mech too at the end of WoL, the margin of error was nearly inexistent (e. g. see here, answer to SHODAN). Even within TvT itself, bio attacks often killed mech with pre-Siege timings in WoL (back then, the cursor was a tad too much towards bio for various reasons). Moebius Reactor removed against Protoss' hyper-development advantageously converted into Templar play. Transformation Servos removed so Terran could disrupt the Zerg curve with proxy Hellbats. Merged mech/air upgrades because mech passively suffers from hyper-development; since the midgame shrank, you fall back on lategame transitions (which actually become the focus of the strategy, instead of the “afterwards”).
Hence why LotV is already a graveyard of upgrades.
On May 02 2015 10:35 Pursuit_ wrote: Quick question, are you comparing SC2 time to 'real' time or real time to real time?
Your question has several meanings, I'm not sure which one I should pick. Can you precise?
On May 02 2015 10:35 Pursuit_ wrote: Quick question, are you comparing SC2 time to 'real' time or real time to real time?
Your question has several meanings, I'm not sure which one I should pick. Can you precise?
For example, on the graph showing supply at various timings including BW stats, are those the supply counts at the time according to SC2's internal timer (which runs ~1.38x faster than 'real' time), or did you (or whoever collected the data) convert the time for consistency or measure it with a stop watch? i.e. when you say MKP vs NesTea looks similar to the BW Chart, are you using a consistent time scale?
On May 02 2015 10:35 Pursuit_ wrote: Quick question, are you comparing SC2 time to 'real' time or real time to real time?
Your question has several meanings, I'm not sure which one I should pick. Can you precise?
For example, on the graph showing supply at various timings including BW stats, are those the supply counts at the time according to SC2's internal timer (which runs ~1.38x faster than 'real' time), or did you (or whoever collected the data) convert the time for consistency or measure it with a stop watch? i.e. when you say MKP vs NesTea looks similar to the BW Chart, are you using a consistent time scale?
thanks for the read. i can see you understand the game very well and especially understand to point out its flaws and problems. i absolutely agree, after playing the beta i have to say: it is even worse than i thought.
Thinking about hyper-development and such today I thought of a few things I wanted to say:
For the miltary-tech-economy triangle to work it's necessary that the military and tech can be aggressive before economy wins long game. Preferably aggression that isn't all-in. In SC2 we had all-ins and didn't like it so we tried to get rid of those and that just results in economy being the only real path.
Once players are on enough bases to be vulnerable to harassment they already have a booming economy (as much supply in workers as they'll want) and investing more in economy isn't really needed. So by the time military becomes a useful resource, economy becomes a useless thing to invest in. This totally kills the miltary/tech vs economy decision.
Players can't spread out across more harvesting locations (making military more useful for the opponent) without increasing the rate of worker production, which is one of the causes of this problem. Basically, only the econ player is vulnerable. Not only that, but they aren't really very vulnerable in SC2 until they are on 3-4 bases. By then they have as many workers as they want and investing more in econ isn't really needed. Their econ spending has payed off by the time they become vulnerable to anything but direct assaults, which would be all-in typically, at least if the third is close enough to the main and nat.
At first I was thinking this could be helped by slowing down the worker production or something like that. However, I've had another thought:
It would be nice if the shorter-term-focused player could be aggressive against any player going for a longer-term play. Expanding is the most obvious long-term play, but many others exist without spreading you out. Terran increases worker production (+mules) without expanding to a new location because of liftoff, and Zerg can pump drones instead of army without expanding. Protoss can Chrono probes which is an investment in econ rather than tech or military. Also any teching player has a long-term advantage and short-term disadvantage against a military player, right? So shouldn't they be vulnerable, too?
So it seems to me like a lower base count player should be more vulnerable to aggression. Of course, aggression designed to stop that player from running away with the game, and hopefully go into the next phase of the game with an advantage, not usually to win the game immediately.
SC's core design, in SC1 and SC2, seems to have a hard time supporting harassment or some type of aggression that isn't all-in against a lower base count. You defend at a single location, and if they can bust that they've killed your whole force so they just take the game, probably. You must have air units to harass usually, and even they don't seem that effective against two bases in SC2. BW, if nothing else, has the benefit of big army attacks being less effective since units don't work as well in larger groups... It's hard to actually identify too much that's better than SC2 in BW at this stuff, though. So I'm certainly not just wanting SC2 to be more like BW here...
Actually, I'll bring up the comparison to Age of Empires II. There you usually have a quite wide open space around your town center (basically a CC) and must expand your harvesting locations outward very early to get resources, as there are only a few trees and such near the town center. However, you take these locations with cheap, quick-to-build drop-off camps that don't train workers. You'll need to do this for each resource separately generally and there are 4, so it's like the equivalent of 1-basing is still spread between several locations. Even a tech/military player will be spread out. To stop rushes you can pop your workers into your town center and while inside they can shoot at nearby enemies. Therefore, it's very hard to kill a player outright but to deny harvesting or maybe kill a worker is totally possible. At least, this is my theory based on the mechanics. I don't really know how it is in practice in competitive AoE2. Maybe I should check that out some more.
On May 03 2015 14:51 Gfire wrote: Thinking about hyper-development and such today I thought of a few things I wanted to say:
For the miltary-tech-economy triangle to work it's necessary that the military and tech can be aggressive before economy wins long game. Preferably aggression that isn't all-in. In SC2 we had all-ins and didn't like it so we tried to get rid of those and that just results in economy being the only real path.
Once players are on enough bases to be vulnerable to harassment they already have a booming economy (as much supply in workers as they'll want) and investing more in economy isn't really needed. So by the time military becomes a useful resource, economy becomes a useless thing to invest in. This totally kills the miltary/tech vs economy decision.
Players can't spread out across more harvesting locations (making military more useful for the opponent) without increasing the rate of worker production, which is one of the causes of this problem. Basically, only the econ player is vulnerable. Not only that, but they aren't really very vulnerable in SC2 until they are on 3-4 bases. By then they have as many workers as they want and investing more in econ isn't really needed. Their econ spending has payed off by the time they become vulnerable to anything but direct assaults, which would be all-in typically, at least if the third is close enough to the main and nat.
At first I was thinking this could be helped by slowing down the worker production or something like that. However, I've had another thought:
It would be nice if the shorter-term-focused player could be aggressive against any player going for a longer-term play. Expanding is the most obvious long-term play, but many others exist without spreading you out. Terran increases worker production (+mules) without expanding to a new location because of liftoff, and Zerg can pump drones instead of army without expanding. Protoss can Chrono probes which is an investment in econ rather than tech or military. Also any teching player has a long-term advantage and short-term disadvantage against a military player, right? So shouldn't they be vulnerable, too?
So it seems to me like a lower base count player should be more vulnerable to aggression. Of course, aggression designed to stop that player from running away with the game, and hopefully go into the next phase of the game with an advantage, not usually to win the game immediately.
SC's core design, in SC1 and SC2, seems to have a hard time supporting harassment or some type of aggression that isn't all-in against a lower base count. You defend at a single location, and if they can bust that they've killed your whole force so they just take the game, probably. You must have air units to harass usually, and even they don't seem that effective against two bases in SC2. BW, if nothing else, has the benefit of big army attacks being less effective since units don't work as well in larger groups... It's hard to actually identify too much that's better than SC2 in BW at this stuff, though. So I'm certainly not just wanting SC2 to be more like BW here...
Actually, I'll bring up the comparison to Age of Empires II. There you usually have a quite wide open space around your town center (basically a CC) and must expand your harvesting locations outward very early to get resources, as there are only a few trees and such near the town center. However, you take these locations with cheap, quick-to-build drop-off camps that don't train workers. You'll need to do this for each resource separately generally and there are 4, so it's like the equivalent of 1-basing is still spread between several locations. Even a tech/military player will be spread out. To stop rushes you can pop your workers into your town center and while inside they can shoot at nearby enemies. Therefore, it's very hard to kill a player outright but to deny harvesting or maybe kill a worker is totally possible. At least, this is my theory based on the mechanics. I don't really know how it is in practice in competitive AoE2. Maybe I should check that out some more.
In my opinion, the key problem is the exponential growth.
Opponent interaction cannot smooth out the graph; it cannot make the growth linear.
So, it would end up having a binary impact of either succeeding or failing to prevent the critical mass required for economic explosion.
Even generally speaking, am skeptical of the approach of preventing faulty game states through adversarial player agency.
This reminds me of a discussion I had before the widow mine revert. Someone strongly asserted that the counter to mass mutalisks as terran is to stop the zerg from even reaching that point, which struck me as a perverse way to look at it. Understand where you are coming from, but not sure where I stand on this kind of thinking.
On May 03 2015 16:27 manwiththemachinegun wrote: Even generally speaking, am skeptical of the approach of preventing faulty game states through adversarial player agency.
Well that was the whole point of my big post half way down the last page.
If some of the defenders advantage is removed and people can actually attack when someone takes an expansion instead of being forced to match their expansion, then it can prevent the snowballing economic problems Dwf pointed out last page. And if that change is combined with the DH9 mod, we could have a really good game on our hands.
TheDWF, everything you point out was done on purpose by the devs. Let me explain.
You must realize that Dustin Browder and David Kim are career developers. That means, they have no inspiration, vision, innovation, or talent. One thing they do have in abundance is knowledge how to play the corporate ladder game.
The number one rule of that game is "Cover Your Ass!!!" (CYA). These are the people who move in after a franchise attains critical acclaim. The ones that play the internal politics game to get where they are.
So if DKim's job is to balance the game, what better way than to make it into an elaborately disguised game of rock, scissors, paper. In other words, completely random. His goal is to achieve the 200/200 game state as quick as possible. The 200/200 deathball clash or 200/200 base trade is where randomness is maximized because too many units and too many things going on at once is where control is minimized.
Any strategy/unit that consistently prevents the 200/200 state is nerfed. Everything is compressed and optimized for the 200/200 fight. Things like map control, terrain, or strategy? No DK doesn't want. He'll minimize and eliminate such extraneous variables so he can boil it down to the 200/200 situation where he can play the simple game of smashing two toy cars together to see which one flips. He'll tinker until every toy flips at the same rate. He'll show his bosses the random win-loss rate and sing his own praise. If all else fails, he has the ultimate excuse up his sleeve: the demise of RTS and rise of MOBA. In other words, the career developer has his ass covered from multiple angles.
At this point, I think it's time we examined the role of sites like TL. Ever since WOL, whenever there was a groundswell of criticism leveled at the devs, whenever the vitriol was about to boil over, whenever we had the chance to unleash a "Jay Wilson" like protest, sites like TL handed out bans in order to quell the tide. Oh what could have been if we were able to pull a Diablo3 and affect change to the SC2 dev team. I hope that's a lesson for TL if ever it becomes a major hub for some other games I see it's trying to branch out into, instead of the slow death it has chosen by being overly protective of the devs.
On May 03 2015 16:27 manwiththemachinegun wrote: Even generally speaking, am skeptical of the approach of preventing faulty game states through adversarial player agency.
Well that was the whole point of my big post half way down the last page.
If some of the defenders advantage is removed and people can actually attack when someone takes an expansion instead of being forced to match their expansion, then it can prevent the snowballing economic problems Dwf pointed out last page. And if that change is combined with the DH9 mod, we could have a really good game on our hands.
I think SC2 economic progression may still be too fast in general. Having the time to deal some damage to a eco-powering player (time before the eco kicks in) is important in addition to having real attacking opportunities. And of course in general if the game moves too fast I don't think that's a good thing, attacking opportunities aside. So although I was speaking of giving more attacker's opportunity, slowing down the progression is still quite important.
It would be nice if players who have a smaller military force would be vulnerable to some sort of aggression even without expanding so there could be downsides to cutting those corners.
"Defender's advantage" is an interesting term. I'd say attacker's do need more opportunities, but at the same time defender's advantage is quite low in SC2. It seems like it's too hard to attack until you have the opportunity to attack from multiple angles, which makes it harder for the defender, as they don't know where you'll come from. This is the natural attacker's advantage - I might say "attacker's opportunity" - which has to be countered with some defender's advantage. I think the problem is these opportunities don't really appear very much until your opponent is quite spread out.
It also typically requires air units. Maps with backdoors to the main, even if they are blocked with rocks, help with this. The ease of funneling all ground attacks through one location (a side effect in maps of low defender's advantage I'd say) is contributing to the problem. Since BW functions this way it's a weird thing to pick on, though.
My theory is that both defender's advantage and attacker's opportunity should be increased. At least, attacker's opportunity should appear sooner in the game. Critically, it needs to appear before the economy has developed most of the way, and the sooner the better I'd say, so long as these attacks don't completely end the game too often. Also it means you can apply pressure to a teching player or something like that, even if they aren't expanding, although containing them and transitioning into economic play yourself should be enough if you open with a military investment and they turtle and tech. That's more boring than having the opportunity to attack them, though, isn't it? Only super-turtling (to the point of being an unwanted strategy) should force that sort of play IMO, and that would be because that sort of counter shuts it down so hard it's not a viable strategy at all. At that point it doesn't matter what the counter is, because no one ever goes down that road.
SC2 seems like it has high defender's advantage, but that's because the maps are made that way. If you're evaluating the strength of defender's advantage in SC2 you have to take into account the possibility to change the maps to not give free natural and third bases.
I think SC2 economic progression may still be too fast in general. Having the time to deal some damage to a eco-powering player (time before the eco kicks in) is important in addition to having real attacking opportunities. And of course in general if the game moves too fast I don't think that's a good thing, attacking opportunities aside. So although I was speaking of giving more attacker's opportunity, slowing down the progression is still quite important.
But it is was that very economic progression that allowed people to access things like Thors and Voids on one base, and what allowed one basing to exist in WOL. That was a good thing.
The problem was that the defenders advantage became so great due to map and balance changes (like the addition of Photon Overcharge) that it snuffed out one basing in general. That is a real problem, because builds like three CC before gas became viable, and the game got ridiculously greedy. For a long time I've been saying that Blizzard should just start everyone on two bases if they want expanding to be a right and not a privilege. There is no point to early game build up.
The defenders advantage in HOTS, compared to WOL, is massive. Ridiculous even. And it is even more massive in LOTV due to how the economy scales with 12 worker starts compared to upgrade timings.
I remember the days I had to hold of one base three rax builds and the 1-1-1 without a MSC, and this was after going to school uphill both ways!
People who play now have it easy. Click on MSC, press F, click on Nexus, all-in held. And in some ways that is the communities fault, constant whining about 1 base play and cheesers like me. Anyone who thinks that Gaulzi didn't show real skill when he executed his WOL cannon rushes and didn't spend enough time with the game is dead wrong. They were so well thought out that I know he spent hours carefully checking each spawn location of each map figuring out the ideal way to cannon rush on that map. What is wrong with that? Why is that any worse than someone grinding out games for hours to tune there macro build order?
I think SC2 economic progression may still be too fast in general. Having the time to deal some damage to a eco-powering player (time before the eco kicks in) is important in addition to having real attacking opportunities. And of course in general if the game moves too fast I don't think that's a good thing, attacking opportunities aside. So although I was speaking of giving more attacker's opportunity, slowing down the progression is still quite important.
But it is was that very economic progression that allowed people to access things like Thors and Voids on one base, and what allowed one basing to exist in WOL. That was a good thing.
The problem was that the defenders advantage became so great due to map and balance changes (like the addition of Photon Overcharge) that it snuffed out one basing in general. That is a real problem, because builds like three CC before gas became viable, and the game got ridiculously greedy. For a long time I've been saying that Blizzard should just start everyone on two bases if they want expanding to be a right and not a privilege. There is no point to early game build up.
The defenders advantage in HOTS, compared to WOL, is massive. Ridiculous even. And it is even more massive in LOTV due to how the economy scales with 12 worker starts compared to upgrade timings.
I remember the days I had to hold of one base three rax builds and the 1-1-1 without a MSC, and this was after going to school uphill both ways!
People who play now have it easy. Click on MSC, press F, click on Nexus, all-in held. And in some ways that is the communities fault, constant whining about 1 base play and cheesers like me. Anyone who thinks that Gaulzi didn't show real skill when he executed his WOL cannon rushes and didn't spend enough time with the game is dead wrong. They were so well thought out that I know he spent hours carefully checking each spawn location of each map figuring out the ideal way to cannon rush on that map. What is wrong with that? Why is that any worse than someone grinding out games for hours to tune there macro build order?
It's a question of what you want from the game. I want a game that is about proper base- and army build up paired with army control and multitasking. Controlling one screen of units is not enough army control for my taste, and gambling on your opponent doing certain build orders has nothing to do with proper base- and composition building.
Oh, and I don't think that building hightech units on 1base being viable is a good thing. If that is viable it just means that the invesment costs for high tech are too low. If rushing one Thor for 600/425 (not counting the barracks that also is used for marines in that rush) overall investment is a viable strategy against stuff that only comes from the cheapest infrustructual investments possible, then you got yourself a serious costefficiency problem.
By economic progression I only mean the progression for the player who expands. One-base plays not included in what I meant. If reducing general economic progression hurts the non-expanding too much a more specialized solution would be necessary.
By the very nature of it, two bases is twice as much as one. It may be more optimal for your first expansion to only increase your rate of progression by %50, which may be why people push for two bases to be a right and not a privilege.
Just giving players two bases to start might be a good solution, but IMO to delay getting a booming economy too fast you'd need to do something like double the time it takes to build a worker, and maybe having fewer patches per base so you start losing worker efficiency soon enough. But having your first expansion only increase worker production by %50 and starting players out with two mineral lines to defend could do wonders for the game.
Just giving players 12 workers to start doesn't begin to bring those sorts of effects even if it's designed to cut out an early game with no strategic variety. I think it's a problem that in all the early game "downtime" players are rushing towards "complete" economies. If we want to get rid of strategic variety in the beginning so the game really begins when it gets good (more mineral lines to defend, your next expansion only increasing worker production by %50) and then cut out that period of downtime that seems understandable. But then the game starts too close to the point in time when the economy is at full force, I think, and that needs to be fixed as well.
It's a question of what you want from the game. I want a game that is about proper base- and army build up paired with army control and multitasking. Controlling one screen of units is not enough army control for my taste, and gambling on your opponent doing certain build orders has nothing to do with proper base- and composition building.
Oh, and I don't think that building hightech units on 1base being viable is a good thing. If that is viable it just means that the invesment costs for high tech are too low.
It isn't that you have to one base (although if you're playing PvP and someone is proxy 2 gating, you're gonna have to one base to hold the attack), it is that you need to expand safely, which means scouting properly and accounting for their build. If they are expanding too, then you can expanding more greedy, but if they are gearing up for an attack, you'll have to expand slower and get some tech units out.
And that is where the real decision making strategy comes out for the early game. If you saw someone taking a really greedy expansion in WOL and you've opened a safe route, there is nothing wrong with just canceling that Nexus and throwing down a few extra Gates and attacking.
That is the heart of strategy.
I started out playing SC2 only one basing. But as I began to lose and had to refine my gameplay I began to expand, first to two bases, then to more, and then played straight macro games. Macro certainly wasn't my strong point, I was still working on it, but I had really good timing attacks (all-ins) and really good defense versus all-ins. It is the natural progression of skill, learn a single relatively simple build to a masters level, realize it's strengths and weakness and then build from there. And since simple builds are all-ins (the game duration and actions are limited due the nature of all-ins), that is the best way to learn.
I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times. - Bruce Lee
But then there is people that want to manage a bunch of bases at once and wage this war of attrition against their opponent from the get-go. But that is something you earn by being a good player, and recognizing what your opponent is doing while reacting appropriately. An opponent may threaten with a timing, but realize it won't work after you skillfully scout it (a lesser player would attack anyway with said timing and lose, therefore you wouldn't realize your multiple base management and multitasking). Therefore, if you are matched against another good player, than that is what is going to happen. Good macro games are the result of refined skills, not a result of game design.
And that is what Blizzard is missing when it tries to control that. Blizzard needs to give us a balanced game (explained more in my response below) that opens up as many strategic avenues as possible and let the players refine their skills. The game will always trend toward macro games, because timings will be figured out (or balanced out) and better players will always want to extend games, giving them more time to use their superior skills.
On May 05 2015 14:20 Gfire wrote:
It may be more optimal for your first expansion to only increase your rate of progression by %50, which may be why people push for two bases to be a right and not a privilege.
I'd argue that the push for two bases comes because Blizzard has shown a clear inability to handle balancing one base play, where balance issues are the clearest.
Take for instance the Blink all-in in TvP, that should have been adjusted, but Blizzard has no idea what it is doing so it made some weird changes to the MSC sight range that didn't really solve anything at all. For more evidence, just look at how long the 4 Gate existed, or the 1-1-1 was a major problem. Many one base builds are held in check by the map makers, not Blizzard.
Past a single base, balance between units, and balance in general becomes far less of a problem as you can always point to player mistakes and say "well if he did X, then he would have been fine." And that is a real problem because good game design should allow for some mistakes. And SC2 doesn't do that well (unlike LOL) at a very high level, which is why I stopped playing it. I got sick of macroing for 30 minutes, then making a small micro error and losing the game.
But you know where you will see crazy comebacks? Low mining base economy game one and two base games. Check out Nestea vs MKP, Game 2 from the second GSL Final:
But it shouldn't surprise anyone that Blizzard, with an inability to actually balance their game, continues to force the game to higher speeds and strain multitasking, to mask game design problems.That way, in the future they can point the finger at player mistakes when anyone cries imbalance. The game above seems quite slow in comparison to today's game.
Therefore, the cries to expand safely which have lead to restrictions in map design are because early expanding should be a viable option. A two base player should be able to hold a Blink all-in TvP regardless of how large his main is, just like a two base Protoss should have been able to hold the 1-1-1.
On the same note, a one base Protoss should have a chance to attack and kill an early expanding Terran. It should all come down to skill.
Expanding on that post, which discussed the disastrous effects of hyper-development (i.e. the fact that you reach your “optimal infrastructure” way too fast) on SC2's gameplay:
On April 30 2015 08:15 TheDwf wrote: It is actually harder to find a regular supply inflation in LotV's games with the 5-10-15 minutes system. One would probably have to refine to 5-10-12-14. Trades indeed don't occur randomly, and hyper-development further routinizes sequences. By the old 15 SC2 minutes benchmark, (1) probably more of the LotV games are already finished and (2) the “survivors” are already diving in the downwards spiral, particularly because of the decreased stock of minerals implemented by the SC2 crew (a very astute mechanic to obtain what they want). But the phenomenon is still visible at 5 and 10 minutes, though concealed/minimized by the ET substitution discussed above.
BW = a few NaDa's TvZ games on his stream. HotS = all TvZ games from Code S Group E. LotV = MMA vs Nerchio (games 2 and 3) + MMA vs bly + Ryung vs Dimaga from the fourth Legacy of the Olimoleague.
Some notes:
(1) The increasing contraction of time is still undervalued because the variable chosen (raw supply) masks other relevant things, including the investments in infrastructure (the ET substitution).
(2) You can ignore the decline at the end of the BW curve, normally it would keep increasing. It just so happens that NaDa was bulldozed by ultra timings before!
(3) The LotV values are unstable as well at the end for various reasons.
(4) The “downwards spiral” described in the quote is visible in the LotV curve. (14-15 SC2 minutes = 10-11 RT minutes, which is where the LotV curve starts declining.) We can visualize it even more clearly with the last game from the MMA vs Nerchio series, where the “sharp bell-shaped curve” is characteristic:
On April 30 2015 08:15 TheDwf wrote: The rocket engine of hyper-development is indeed self-destructive. The brutal contraction of time tends to generate a chronic state of instability: after the initial push, a plateau is reached from which “over-critical” action occurs (e. g. players have to go “all-in” on certain decisions, or on the engagements). […] Then, when economies crumble in macro games, it's often too delicate to catch up: under the threat of their opponent's huge army, players cannot redevelop without risking immediate checkmate.
Ryung vs Dimaga: LotV, max in 9 minutes on 4M (3OC build). Flash vs Ret: beginning of HotS, near max very fast as well (3OC build). NaDa the Warrior on his joyous tractor—grandpa is in control. And TY vs ByuL, a case of “happy accident” …
On April 30 2015 08:15 TheDwf wrote: To get [action-packed, back-and-forth] games, one has to hope that timings/all-ins damage but don't kill; that fights are “stalemates”; and that economies stabilize on a “medium” setup, ideally decreasing the army size:reproducibility ratio. Naturally, in the modern era, planets rarely line up; which is why Neanderthal games are the rule while authentic gems are happy accidents.
… where the sequences of hyper-development were partially cut short/muted by the scenario of the game. A rare possibility that the LotV economy should further remove.
The folly of hyper-development is best seen when drawing the sharpest contrasts:
Yeah, no comment. Of course, sense, finesse and strategy can totally stand the shock of that contraction of time, with the development curve high on crack delivering +135 supply in 9 minutes… SC2 already came with Metabolic Boost researched, LotV adds Adrenal Glands.
Of course, it's only a problem of “unit design”: I'm sure we can grey out 95% of the tech tree to have stable worker fights, allowing the best player to come ahead through micro even in the hell of that mass production into huge high-stake engagements environment.
I would be extremely surprised if any significant change occurred to the economy during the beta + Show Spoiler +
which means that LotV will be a disaster
. The LotV economy (12 workers + reduced global amount of minerals per base on 8 nodes) is 100% successful for what it intends to achieve: big economies into big battles + death of the 3b symptom. If I was a Blizzster, I would barely bother to test another system. To add insult to injury, the LotV economy is even perfectly compatible with DH10 and DH9!
Although, may be... everithing intended for observer is not so bad. If a player do everything not to entertain himself but to prove his superriority to observer. How he can do that if none watching him?
On May 20 2015 00:20 Kangoroo wrote: An excellent post and word excess as well.
Although, may be... everithing intended for observer is not so bad. If a player do everything not to entertain himself but to prove his superriority to observer. How he can do that if none watching him?
I think the key point here is that the players, the people who actually spend money and invest time into the game (especially for a game as time and effort-intensive as Starcraft), need to be prioritized over "having more viewers". If a game is good, if people enjoy playing it, then the game will naturally lead to more interest and more viewers. The opposite is not true; more viewers will not make players playing a game they don't enjoy prosper.
And again, just to reiterate: TheDwf's main point here is that Blizzard has done a lot of things wrong with SC2, including killing the strategy part of RTS and hijacking tournaments, and we should be critical of them going into LotV or else we risk further damage.
If you look at industry standards for Project Management, stakeholders are anyone involved or could be affected by the outcome. IE us as paying individuals are. When Blizzard makes rash or dumb decisions for a game, then in turn it is affecting the stakeholders.
Companies tend to forget that its not the Product Owners, the Board Members, the CEO's care about the end state product. Sure they do to an extent, they want to get paid. But us as stakeholders, as paying customers, expect what we pay for and at times we do not receive this.
I think you are from the left wing of politics. I think you have a lot of a reporter in you. - Not necessarily good. I read a lot of assumptions and also some plain wrong stuff.
Still love the post and once i can muster up the patience to go through this, i will finish reading it. I was done around point 10 or something. Too tired.
Goob job Thedwf. What an excellent post with a bit of humor thrown in! I like how your writing skills (or style) ruffled a few feathers or as a matter of fact hit a few too many nerves for the select few members out there. Maybe some of them are the very blizzsters you were referring to *tin foil hat*.
One point that got me thinking is how they intended this to happen. Im sure alot of people on TL still believes to this day that the dev team behind SC2 is just a bunch of incompetent fools that have no idea what they are doing. I also used to be one of those people. I dont think this is the case or has been for many years. The dev team knows EXACTLY what they are doing and this goal/vision of theirs simply do not resonate at all with what the community wants. There are so many resources (from past games, the community etc) out there to put together a starcraft sequel that could imo potentially be greater than its predecessor or even the current incantation of the sequel. Yet most of the resources are left on the shelves and discarded simply because it doesn't meet their goals nor the vision of what they want sc2 to be. I guess in short, the product we have now wasn't an accident by any means.
I don't see them changing their design philosophy anytime soon. They will continue to reinvent the wheel although it would be quite hilarious if they do come full circle. At times like these, it would be great if there was a competing RTS game similar to SC because it would seriously give them a wakeup call.
On May 20 2015 02:06 SC2John wrote: TheDwf's main point here is that Blizzard has done a lot of things wrong with SC2, including killing the strategy part of RTS and hijacking tournaments, and we should be critical of them going into LotV or else we risk further damage.
I feel like we're too late. Honestly, I think WOL 2011 was the golden age of SC2, and HOTS was the chance to fix the major problems of WOL as it declined (Fungal, Vortex, Mech, ect...). But Blizzard's fixes were less than ideal, and the units they added did little to make the game better, and in most cases made it worse.
I am of the opinion now that the TL Strategy team should create their own version of SC2, with the lessons learned from Blizzard's mistakes. Maybe with their clout something can be put together that really shines. They have shown an ability to do what the Blizzard design team cannot, and that is listen to the community and weed out bad ideas from good ones. Anytime you hear someone say "we're going to do it our way" they are taking the easy way out because they can't communicate effectively, and that is what Blizzard is doing. Great things aren't created by taking the easy way out.
It would be hard work, people's feeling would get hurt, and some people would rage quit. But it would be worth it. Everything is better when many people give their input, and good ideas are implemented.
This was a really enlightening maga-post, just sharing my own 2 cents as well:
I play random at the low masters level, and yet I still have ladder anxiety against diamond and sometimes even plat players. I can scout for cheese and play super safe all I want, but the "loss of control" aspect is huge in the sense that hard-counters, forcefields, etc. will still contribute significantly to me losing games against inferior players in the most frustrating and helpless ways possible.
To further convey my point, when I face a superior player, I would abuse this "I'm a better player so I'll play safe and win later in a macro game" as much as I possibly can as well. PvZ against a high masters player? No problem, forge first into attempted triple pylon ramp block (very high success rate due to the BO1 nature of ladder play). Denied due a drone on patrol? No problem, pylon block at the natural AND at the 3rd while going either blink or immortal/sentry all-in behind it.
I'm a naturally competitive person, the type of player that watches replays of my own losses. I enjoy learning from my losses, and I usually GG even after humiliating losses IF I can attribute the losses to inadequacies in my own play. But in cases when I macro perfectly and only drone to 55 against immortal sentry all-ins yet still die to forcefields on maps like overgrowth (shit like snipe 3rd into recall, so fucking frustrating), or when I sacrifice 2 overlords and still scout nothing in a ZvT (usually on maps with larger mains where a Terran can hide an armory at the very back of his base) and later die to hellbats, I can't help but rage at least a little bit.
Granted, BO losses, hard counters and "OP" abilities existed even in BW, but they were much less frequent and felt much less helpless to play against. Dark swarm casted by defilers with infinite energy seems so overpowered on paper, but there were dynamics in BW TvZ where as long as the T entered the late game on a decent economy, the irradiate/plague/dark swarm dance would eventually produce a winner based on the merits of his own actions, namely the macro to produce the science vessels and defilers, and the micro to dodge scourges and constantly plague.
BW was such that Flash could easily beat me with a mass marine strategy 100 times in a row in TvP because the importance of mechanics was overwhelming. SC2 is the case where I would feel confident beating Flash a few times if I could practice a snipe build X200 to get the early game macro/micro good enough to hit the timing that I need. Finding the right balance is extremely challenging, but vital to the success of the game.
On May 20 2015 02:06 SC2John wrote: TheDwf's main point here is that Blizzard has done a lot of things wrong with SC2, including killing the strategy part of RTS and hijacking tournaments, and we should be critical of them going into LotV or else we risk further damage.
I feel like we're too late. Honestly, I think WOL 2011 was the golden age of SC2, and HOTS was the chance to fix the major problems of WOL as it declined (Fungal, Vortex, Mech, ect...). But Blizzard's fixes were less than ideal, and the units they added did little to make the game better, and in most cases made it worse.
I am of the opinion now that the TL Strategy team should create their own version of SC2, with the lessons learned from Blizzard's mistakes. Maybe with their clout something can be put together that really shines. They have shown an ability to do what the Blizzard design team cannot, and that is listen to the community and weed out bad ideas from good ones. Anytime you hear someone say "we're going to do it our way" they are taking the easy way out because they can't communicate effectively, and that is what Blizzard is doing. Great things aren't created by taking the easy way out.
It would be hard work, people's feeling would get hurt, and some people would rage quit. But it would be worth it. Everything is better when many people give their input, and good ideas are implemented.
On May 20 2015 13:15 EngrishTeacher wrote:BW was such that Flash could easily beat me with a mass marine strategy 100 times in a row in TvP because the importance of mechanics was overwhelming. SC2 is the case where I would feel confident beating Flash a few times if I could practice a snipe build X200 to get the early game macro/micro good enough to hit the timing that I need. Finding the right balance is extremely challenging, but vital to the success of the game.
Not everyone will agree with you that that's how the game should work.
I agree. I think that for the game to be a truly legitimate competitive sport (and I mean legitimate in a sense that is meaningful to me - others are welcome to think that it's already as legitimate as it needs to be), a GM player should NEVER IN HIS LIFE be able to beat a top-100 Korean pro in a Bo1. Never. I don't care how crazy cool his unique snowflake cannon rush is.
The game needs to require and reward some sort of fundamental skill-set that is independent of metas and patches.
My buddy who took home an MVP trophy for best soccer player in the province last year would never dream of stealing the ball from Lionel Messi in a one on one. You just can't do it. The hours of commitment that Korean pros make to their game isn't incomparable to the commitment sports pros make, and for all that, they're almost as susceptible to a blind Roach all-in (not the most complex of all-ins to execute "properly") as a Diamond leaguer.
On May 20 2015 09:05 NoSoldier wrote: 1. of all BW aint sc2. Yes sc2 is fucked up. But its like comparing cs 1.6 to source and GO. Its just not the same game. It doesnt work that way.
Yo, for the record, for people who are not familiar with CS, don't listen to this guy as he's dead wrong. The differences between the games in the CS series are much smaller than between BW and SC2 as well (although more insidious and elusive). Anyone who has played all games at a sufficiently high enough level can attest to this.
I think the key point here is that the players, the people who actually spend money and invest time into the game (especially for a game as time and effort-intensive as Starcraft), need to be prioritized over "having more viewers". If a game is good, if people enjoy playing it, then the game will naturally lead to more interest and more viewers. The opposite is not true; more viewers will not make players playing a game they don't enjoy prosper.
And again, just to reiterate: TheDwf's main point here is that Blizzard has done a lot of things wrong with SC2, including killing the strategy part of RTS and hijacking tournaments, and we should be critical of them going into LotV or else we risk further damage.
DWF had adversely mentioned casuals (they are most of real life people). Paradoxal but SC2 is designed to be playable by those casuals as well as watchable by observers. It is essential for the competitiveness of SC2.
CSGO is an e-sport and playable for casuals. ARMA is not playable for casuals and it is not esport. SC2 playable for them. In contrast: Wargame has steep learning curve. If a casual did a fatal mistake in the Wargame, mechanic/reaction (wich could be trained up to certain level quite fast and be used in many other games) probably won't save him. So he quit and probably forget forever that game.
I think the key point here is that the players, the people who actually spend money and invest time into the game (especially for a game as time and effort-intensive as Starcraft), need to be prioritized over "having more viewers". If a game is good, if people enjoy playing it, then the game will naturally lead to more interest and more viewers. The opposite is not true; more viewers will not make players playing a game they don't enjoy prosper.
And again, just to reiterate: TheDwf's main point here is that Blizzard has done a lot of things wrong with SC2, including killing the strategy part of RTS and hijacking tournaments, and we should be critical of them going into LotV or else we risk further damage.
DWF had adversely mentioned casuals (they are most of people from RL).
Nope. I mocked the hypocrisy of using the “casual excuse” to justify anything … especially as SC2 is 100% built against newcomers. All the so-called “casual-friendly” stuff hilariously backfired because the Blizzsters understood little of what players—particularly newbies and occasional players—want when they play Starcraft.
Loose design = find a way through constraints, solve the game yourself. Game of cubes = a decidated tool for every situation (the “completeness mindset”). Mondragon's trunk = http://i51.tinypic.com/2dglufr.jpg
The Blizzsters tried to chase chimeras instead. Just like they quartered the Dragoon into several wonky units, they quartered the player into caricatural prototypes like “Mr. Viewer” or “the Casual”. They were so eager to cater for the needs of those illusory creatures that they completely forgot about the grassroot origins of Starcraft… and alienated much of their historical basis in the process, without gaining anything since there was no social manna from the heavens to draw from. And now the game is almost unplayable for the overwhelming majority of players, i. e. newbies and upgraded newbies, while the pro scene suffers from (a) the obnoxious semi-tombola aspect generated by Spaghettification and (b) the distinguished mediocrity of the average SC2 game.
I think the key point here is that the players, the people who actually spend money and invest time into the game (especially for a game as time and effort-intensive as Starcraft), need to be prioritized over "having more viewers". If a game is good, if people enjoy playing it, then the game will naturally lead to more interest and more viewers. The opposite is not true; more viewers will not make players playing a game they don't enjoy prosper.
And again, just to reiterate: TheDwf's main point here is that Blizzard has done a lot of things wrong with SC2, including killing the strategy part of RTS and hijacking tournaments, and we should be critical of them going into LotV or else we risk further damage.
DWF had adversely mentioned casuals (they are most of people from RL).
Nope. I mocked the hypocrisy of using the “casual excuse” to justify anything … especially as SC2 is 100% built against newcomers. All the so-called “casual-friendly” stuff hilariously backfired because the Blizzsters understood little of what players—particularly newbies and occasional players—want when they play Starcraft.
Loose design = find a way through constraints, solve the game yourself. Game of cubes = a decidated tool for every situation (the “completeness mindset”). Mondragon's trunk = http://i51.tinypic.com/2dglufr.jpg
The Blizzsters tried to chase chimeras instead. Just like they quartered the Dragoon into several wonky units, they quartered the player into caricatural prototypes like “Mr. Viewer” or “the Casual”. They were so eager to cater for the needs of those illusory creatures that they completely forgot about the grassroot origins of Starcraft… and alienated much of their historical basis in the process, without gaining anything since there was no social manna from the heavens to draw from. And now the game is almost unplayable for the overwhelming majority of players, i. e. newbies and upgraded newbies, while the pro scene suffers from (a) the obnoxious semi-tombola aspect generated by Spaghettification and (b) the distinguished mediocrity of the average SC2 game.
While I love this graph in so many ways, I just wanted to hint that I was alluding mostly to the fact that 1) Blizzard never communicates well with the community, and very rarely gives the players what they would like to see in the game, and 2) The fucking BNet UI and features like skins/icons/accessories have been neglected for ~6 years now, in spite of numerous posts in support of them. It's amazing Blizzard was ever able to let Arcade go for free, but that's about the only time they've shown that they're willing to keep the players in mind; everything else has been about monetizing SC2 as an ESPORT.
I think the key point here is that the players, the people who actually spend money and invest time into the game (especially for a game as time and effort-intensive as Starcraft), need to be prioritized over "having more viewers". If a game is good, if people enjoy playing it, then the game will naturally lead to more interest and more viewers. The opposite is not true; more viewers will not make players playing a game they don't enjoy prosper.
And again, just to reiterate: TheDwf's main point here is that Blizzard has done a lot of things wrong with SC2, including killing the strategy part of RTS and hijacking tournaments, and we should be critical of them going into LotV or else we risk further damage.
DWF had adversely mentioned casuals (they are most of people from RL).
Nope. I mocked the hypocrisy of using the “casual excuse” to justify anything … especially as SC2 is 100% built against newcomers. All the so-called “casual-friendly” stuff hilariously backfired because the Blizzsters understood little of what players—particularly newbies and occasional players—want when they play Starcraft.
Loose design = find a way through constraints, solve the game yourself. Game of cubes = a decidated tool for every situation (the “completeness mindset”). Mondragon's trunk = http://i51.tinypic.com/2dglufr.jpg
The Blizzsters tried to chase chimeras instead. Just like they quartered the Dragoon into several wonky units, they quartered the player into caricatural prototypes like “Mr. Viewer” or “the Casual”. They were so eager to cater for the needs of those illusory creatures that they completely forgot about the grassroot origins of Starcraft… and alienated much of their historical basis in the process, without gaining anything since there was no social manna from the heavens to draw from. And now the game is almost unplayable for the overwhelming majority of players, i. e. newbies and upgraded newbies, while the pro scene suffers from (a) the obnoxious semi-tombola aspect generated by Spaghettification and (b) the distinguished mediocrity of the average SC2 game.
While I love this graph in so many ways, I just wanted to hint that I was alluding mostly to the fact that 1) Blizzard never communicates well with the community, and very rarely gives the players what they would like to see in the game, and 2) The fucking BNet UI and features like skins/icons/accessories have been neglected for ~6 years now, in spite of numerous posts in support of them. It's amazing Blizzard was ever able to let Arcade go for free, but that's about the only time they've shown that they're willing to keep the players in mind; everything else has been about monetizing SC2 as an ESPORT.
yet they managed to install a RMAH in d3 just fine for launch. blizzard just doesn't get it, if i had the option to buy a 300 dollar hatchery/lair/hive skin for broodwar that worked across fish and iccup (and all of my accounts), i would do it in a heart beat. I spend so much money on dota/csgo skins, and i just play those games for fun with friends.. If i actually cared about the games that had skins, you bet i would drop 120USD on an undying golden tombstone or 300 for a csgo knife...
edits~but=>buy
second edit~ John i also agree from your post earlier that blizz needs to focus on the game and not the spectators. Prime example of this working: everyone having to buddy up and navigate gom's korean website at the time to be able to watch tasteless's casts in 2008/9.. everyone staying up at like 3am to watch live tournies.. if the game is good, viewers will come.. cutting corners won't create an esport, and it certainly won't create a respectable sequel to bw's esport legacy
On May 20 2015 02:06 SC2John wrote: TheDwf's main point here is that Blizzard has done a lot of things wrong with SC2, including killing the strategy part of RTS and hijacking tournaments, and we should be critical of them going into LotV or else we risk further damage.
Honestly, I think WOL 2011 was the golden age of SC2
Most people don't realize WoL's set of units had amazing potential and could be made into greatness with only a few tweaks. But we all know what happened instead, from bad decisions (snipe redesign, fungal never nerfed...) to the many irreparable mistakes of HotS (medivac speed, muta regen -> mothership core -> stale game, swarm hosts, oracle, tempest)... And Blizzard is building on those mistakes, and even making things worse with every patch (siege drop).
At this point I feel we should just start again from WoL's set of units with a good snipe, 4 range phoenix and projectile fungal and try to give each race two useful units. Of course that's never going to happen, but that's how we'd achieve a great iteration of SC2.
I think the key point here is that the players, the people who actually spend money and invest time into the game (especially for a game as time and effort-intensive as Starcraft), need to be prioritized over "having more viewers". If a game is good, if people enjoy playing it, then the game will naturally lead to more interest and more viewers. The opposite is not true; more viewers will not make players playing a game they don't enjoy prosper.
And again, just to reiterate: TheDwf's main point here is that Blizzard has done a lot of things wrong with SC2, including killing the strategy part of RTS and hijacking tournaments, and we should be critical of them going into LotV or else we risk further damage.
DWF had adversely mentioned casuals (they are most of people from RL).
Nope. I mocked the hypocrisy of using the “casual excuse” to justify anything … especially as SC2 is 100% built against newcomers. All the so-called “casual-friendly” stuff hilariously backfired because the Blizzsters understood little of what players—particularly newbies and occasional players—want when they play Starcraft.
Loose design = find a way through constraints, solve the game yourself. Game of cubes = a decidated tool for every situation (the “completeness mindset”). Mondragon's trunk = http://i51.tinypic.com/2dglufr.jpg
The Blizzsters tried to chase chimeras instead. Just like they quartered the Dragoon into several wonky units, they quartered the player into caricatural prototypes like “Mr. Viewer” or “the Casual”. They were so eager to cater for the needs of those illusory creatures that they completely forgot about the grassroot origins of Starcraft… and alienated much of their historical basis in the process, without gaining anything since there was no social manna from the heavens to draw from. And now the game is almost unplayable for the overwhelming majority of players, i. e. newbies and upgraded newbies, while the pro scene suffers from (a) the obnoxious semi-tombola aspect generated by Spaghettification and (b) the distinguished mediocrity of the average SC2 game.
While I love this graph in so many ways, I just wanted to hint that I was alluding mostly to the fact that 1) Blizzard never communicates well with the community, and very rarely gives the players what they would like to see in the game, and 2) The fucking BNet UI and features like skins/icons/accessories have been neglected for ~6 years now, in spite of numerous posts in support of them. It's amazing Blizzard was ever able to let Arcade go for free, but that's about the only time they've shown that they're willing to keep the players in mind; everything else has been about monetizing SC2 as an ESPORT.
Per usual, it is time for the community to step up. Half-Life and WC3 were great games on their own, but it is Counter-Strike and DOTA (and spin-offs of those games) that are being played today.
That should tell everyone in this community something. If this is really going to be a game that lasts, we've got to create it.
As I said, I believe strongly that the TL Strategy team with their clout should create their own version of SC2, with the lessons learned from Blizzard's mistakes, probably beginning at the end of WOL. Maybe they can host some tournaments and get the ball rolling too. They have shown an ability to do what the Blizzard design team cannot, and that is listen to the community and weed out bad ideas from good ones.
SC2 can go back, some person or group of people just needs to light the way.
On May 23 2015 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote: Per usual, it is time for the community to step up. Half-Life and WC3 were great games on their own, but it is Counter-Strike and DOTA (and spin-offs of those games) that are being played today.
Um what. You realize War3 still has a very sizable following in China and South Korea? Still? As for Half-Life, it's worth noting that the vanilla game kept a healthy playerbase in Europe as well for nearly 10 years. Not in the States, where brainless console shooters swept the market, sure, but Half-Life was still alive, as were many mods other than CS.
Also, for all the people comparing SC2 to CS:GO and DotA 2.... you might be new to esports, or simply haven't followed it very closely, but here's another knowledge bomb: CS 1.6 at its peak had far more players than CS:GO does now, it always was much more popular than Source and many of the people who still played it casually up until say 2011-2012 transitioned to MOBAs rather than CS:GO. Again, not something you might know if you only follow esports in the US. As for DotA... there are still plenty of people playing the original, and up until recently most of the Chinese DotA community (read: most of the DotA community period, for obvious reasons) was unwilling to transition to DotA 2, even though some of the professional teams had done so (to great success).
Just things to keep in mind.
+EDIT:
And since we're on the topic of CS, here are some key reasons why it was so immensely popular for such a very long time, until it's place was taken by MOBAs (most of these also apply to Brood War and WarCraft 3 as I'm sure many of you are aware)
- It ran very well even on shitty computers - It was very easy to pirate and play multiplayer with a pirated copy - Barring that, it was also quite cheap (10 Euro vs 60, not even counting Steam sales these days) - It was reasonably balanced, intuitive and easy to get in to for pretty much everyone, but also very hard to master
But perhaps the most overlooked reason of all:
There were so, so very many server-side mods that you could play, that completely changed the experience, much in the same way as UMS maps for BW and WC3. Hide 'n' Seek, Kreedz climbing, Deathrun, Bunnyhop mods, Surfing, Zombie Plague, Diablo mod (which essentially added a rudimentary RPG system + passives and spells), War3 mod (same as the previous), GunGame (which CS:GO players might know as Arsenal nowadays), Paintball mod, hell even the humble old Deathmatch with respawn was quite popular.
And most of them had around as much depth, if not more, than the base game, to the point where some people would exclusively play that. For most of us, it was just something to casually enjoy every once in a while in between slightly more serious games on the standard game mode. But many people did indeed enjoy that.
Comparatively, the SC2 arcade is quite dead, and anything even remotely interesting or complex is buried.
On May 23 2015 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote: Per usual, it is time for the community to step up. Half-Life and WC3 were great games on their own, but it is Counter-Strike and DOTA (and spin-offs of those games) that are being played today.
Um what. You realize War3 still has a very sizable following in China and South Korea? Still? As for Half-Life, it's worth noting that the vanilla game kept a healthy playerbase in Europe as well for nearly 10 years. Not in the States, where brainless console shooters swept the market, sure, but Half-Life was still alive, as were many mods other than CS.
Also, for all the people comparing SC2 to CS:GO and DotA 2.... you might be new to esports, or simply haven't followed it very closely, but here's another knowledge bomb: CS 1.6 at its peak had far more players than CS:GO does now, it always was much more popular than Source and many of the people who still played it casually up until say 2011-2012 transitioned to MOBAs rather than CS:GO. Again, not something you might know if you only follow esports in the US. As for DotA... there are still plenty of people playing the original, and up until recently most of the Chinese DotA community (read: most of the DotA community period, for obvious reasons) was unwilling to transition to DotA 2, even though some of the professional teams had done so (to great success).
Just things to keep in mind.
I'm 30 years old. I played CS and DOTA from there very beginnings and watched them evolve.
I don't think you understood my point. My comment said was that while WC3 and Half-Life were great games, the DOTA and Counter-Strike player base were much bigger respectively, long before CSS came out and before DOTA 2 was in development. I didn't say that there wasn't a following for WC3 or Half-Life. It is just that those great games became engine platforms for community mods that set the gold standard and quickly outstripped the popularity of the game they were built on.
That hasn't changed. In fact the player base for Counter Strike continues to grow, as does the player base for MOBAs.
And your comment about CS 1.6 is misleading. From what we know CS:GO averages around 250-400k average players per day, and has peaked at 577,186 players (that is a record as of this month, the game is still growing!). CS 1.6 drew somewhere between an estimated 250-450k, but we don't know if that was peak numbers, or average numbers (it is likely those are peak numbers). Either way Counter Strike in all forms has grown, because you take those CS:GO numbers and add them to the CSS and CS 1.6 players and you'll have a higher number today than CS has ever had.
On May 23 2015 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote: Per usual, it is time for the community to step up. Half-Life and WC3 were great games on their own, but it is Counter-Strike and DOTA (and spin-offs of those games) that are being played today.
Um what. You realize War3 still has a very sizable following in China and South Korea? Still? As for Half-Life, it's worth noting that the vanilla game kept a healthy playerbase in Europe as well for nearly 10 years. Not in the States, where brainless console shooters swept the market, sure, but Half-Life was still alive, as were many mods other than CS.
Also, for all the people comparing SC2 to CS:GO and DotA 2.... you might be new to esports, or simply haven't followed it very closely, but here's another knowledge bomb: CS 1.6 at its peak had far more players than CS:GO does now, it always was much more popular than Source and many of the people who still played it casually up until say 2011-2012 transitioned to MOBAs rather than CS:GO. Again, not something you might know if you only follow esports in the US. As for DotA... there are still plenty of people playing the original, and up until recently most of the Chinese DotA community (read: most of the DotA community period, for obvious reasons) was unwilling to transition to DotA 2, even though some of the professional teams had done so (to great success).
Just things to keep in mind.
I'm 30 years old. I played CS and DOTA from there very beginnings and watched them evolve.
I don't think you understood my point. My comment said was that while WC3 and Half-Life were great games, the DOTA and Counter-Strike player base were much bigger respectively, long before CSS came out and before DOTA 2 was in development. I didn't say that there wasn't a following for WC3 or Half-Life. It is just that those great games became engine platforms for community mods that set the gold standard and quickly outstripped the popularity of the game they were built on.
That hasn't changed. In fact the player base for Counter Strike continues to grow, as does the player base for MOBAs.
And your comment about CS 1.6 is misleading. From what we know CS:GO averages around 250-400k average players per day, and has peaked at 577,186 players (that is a record as of this month, the game is still growing!). CS 1.6 drew somewhere between an estimated 250-450k, but we don't know if that was peak numbers, or average numbers (it is likely those are peak numbers). Either way Counter Strike in all forms has grown, because you take those CS:GO numbers and add them to the CSS and CS 1.6 players and you'll have a higher number today than CS has ever had.
I'm highly curious where you get those estimates of CS 1.6 from.
Now here's a caveat: I do not have any numbers either, or any kind of credible sources to cite, I have only my personal experience and if that's not enough then feel free to disregard everything I'm going to say.
With that in mind, I hail from an ex-communist Eastern European country. From the early 2000s up until the rise of LoL (followed by DotA2, CS:GO and various other games), if you picked any random male aged 12 to 30 who owned a personal computer at home, chances are they played Counter-Strike at least semi-frequently. If you picked any male student whose school or university had computer labs, chances are Counter-Strike was installed on every working PC there and was enjoyed frequently. Likewise, many an internet cafe made good money because people would come to play Counter-Strike, more than any other game.
But I have no numbers to give you. In fact I doubt any numbers could exist. Because you'd be dealing with a region where, for some reason or another (mostly economic), pretty much all gamers were pirates. The situation's only begun to change recently, what with Steam's convenience and sales, and oddly enough with skins in F2P games. But for a long time, it was almost unheard of to pay for games or software in general. Which is why games that were easy to pirate and play with friends were so popular, but CS more than any other.
To compare Steam stats alone would be to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Eastern European gamers that used to play 1.6 regularly. I don't know where the misconception among US gamers stems from, that 1.6 is long dead and all servers are filled with bots, but I can vouch that up until 2011 (which incidentally is when I too drifted off from 1.6), you could find literally thousands of servers, most of them with 20 or more slots, many of which were full pretty much all day. With real people. And cheating was far from rampant, most servers, especially the popular ones, would have an admin online pretty much at any given time.
Again, none of this is concrete or objective or conclusive proof, but it saddens me deeply to see these misconceptions about a phenomenal game, although at the same time I cannot necessarily fault you (or most gamers for that matter) for not knowing this.
Haven't posted here in ages. A fine post OP, might not agree with everything but certainly most of it. I still regard the Collosi as one of the great tragedies of Starcraft.
On May 23 2015 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote: Per usual, it is time for the community to step up. Half-Life and WC3 were great games on their own, but it is Counter-Strike and DOTA (and spin-offs of those games) that are being played today.
Um what. You realize War3 still has a very sizable following in China and South Korea? Still? As for Half-Life, it's worth noting that the vanilla game kept a healthy playerbase in Europe as well for nearly 10 years. Not in the States, where brainless console shooters swept the market, sure, but Half-Life was still alive, as were many mods other than CS.
Also, for all the people comparing SC2 to CS:GO and DotA 2.... you might be new to esports, or simply haven't followed it very closely, but here's another knowledge bomb: CS 1.6 at its peak had far more players than CS:GO does now, it always was much more popular than Source and many of the people who still played it casually up until say 2011-2012 transitioned to MOBAs rather than CS:GO. Again, not something you might know if you only follow esports in the US. As for DotA... there are still plenty of people playing the original, and up until recently most of the Chinese DotA community (read: most of the DotA community period, for obvious reasons) was unwilling to transition to DotA 2, even though some of the professional teams had done so (to great success).
Just things to keep in mind.
I'm 30 years old. I played CS and DOTA from there very beginnings and watched them evolve.
I don't think you understood my point. My comment said was that while WC3 and Half-Life were great games, the DOTA and Counter-Strike player base were much bigger respectively, long before CSS came out and before DOTA 2 was in development. I didn't say that there wasn't a following for WC3 or Half-Life. It is just that those great games became engine platforms for community mods that set the gold standard and quickly outstripped the popularity of the game they were built on.
That hasn't changed. In fact the player base for Counter Strike continues to grow, as does the player base for MOBAs.
And your comment about CS 1.6 is misleading. From what we know CS:GO averages around 250-400k average players per day, and has peaked at 577,186 players (that is a record as of this month, the game is still growing!). CS 1.6 drew somewhere between an estimated 250-450k, but we don't know if that was peak numbers, or average numbers (it is likely those are peak numbers). Either way Counter Strike in all forms has grown, because you take those CS:GO numbers and add them to the CSS and CS 1.6 players and you'll have a higher number today than CS has ever had.
I'm highly curious where you get those estimates of CS 1.6 from.
Now here's a caveat: I do not have any numbers either, or any kind of credible sources to cite, I have only my personal experience and if that's not enough then feel free to disregard everything I'm going to say.
With that in mind, I hail from an ex-communist Eastern European country. From the early 2000s up until the rise of LoL (followed by DotA2, CS:GO and various other games), if you picked any random male aged 12 to 30 who owned a personal computer at home, chances are they played Counter-Strike at least semi-frequently. If you picked any male student whose school or university had computer labs, chances are Counter-Strike was installed on every working PC there and was enjoyed frequently. Likewise, many an internet cafe made good money because people would come to play Counter-Strike, more than any other game.
But I have no numbers to give you. In fact I doubt any numbers could exist. Because you'd be dealing with a region where, for some reason or another (mostly economic), pretty much all gamers were pirates. The situation's only begun to change recently, what with Steam's convenience and sales, and oddly enough with skins in F2P games. But for a long time, it was almost unheard of to pay for games or software in general. Which is why games that were easy to pirate and play with friends were so popular, but CS more than any other.
To compare Steam stats alone would be to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Eastern European gamers that used to play 1.6 regularly. I don't know where the misconception among US gamers stems from, that 1.6 is long dead and all servers are filled with bots, but I can vouch that up until 2011 (which incidentally is when I too drifted off from 1.6), you could find literally thousands of servers, most of them with 20 or more slots, many of which were full pretty much all day. With real people. And cheating was far from rampant, most servers, especially the popular ones, would have an admin online pretty much at any given time.
Again, none of this is concrete or objective or conclusive proof, but it saddens me deeply to see these misconceptions about a phenomenal game, although at the same time I cannot necessarily fault you (or most gamers for that matter) for not knowing this.
My anecdotal evidence suggests that Age of Empires and Crash Bandicoot was a more popular esport than anything else during the mid 90's to the early 2000's.
That's kind of the problem with anecdotal evidence--we only remember what we remember seeing and not what actually happened.
On May 25 2015 06:29 Zorgaz wrote: Haven't posted here in ages. A fine post OP, might not agree with everything but certainly most of it. I still regard the Collosi as one of the great tragedies of Starcraft.
When I see how a game without colossi (they're still there but totally irrelevant) is shaping out, I think the colossus was not so bad.
On May 25 2015 06:29 Zorgaz wrote: Haven't posted here in ages. A fine post OP, might not agree with everything but certainly most of it. I still regard the Collosi as one of the great tragedies of Starcraft.
When I see how a game without colossi (they're still there but totally irrelevant) is shaping out, I think the colossus was not so bad.
nah, nerfing the collossus was basically the only good change that has been made in LotV.
On May 25 2015 06:29 Zorgaz wrote: Haven't posted here in ages. A fine post OP, might not agree with everything but certainly most of it. I still regard the Collosi as one of the great tragedies of Starcraft.
When I see how a game without colossi (they're still there but totally irrelevant) is shaping out, I think the colossus was not so bad.
nah, nerfing the collossus was basically the only good change that has been made in LotV.
And the Marauder nerf, makes PvT a lot less deathballish.
On May 25 2015 06:29 Zorgaz wrote: Haven't posted here in ages. A fine post OP, might not agree with everything but certainly most of it. I still regard the Collosi as one of the great tragedies of Starcraft.
When I see how a game without colossi (they're still there but totally irrelevant) is shaping out, I think the colossus was not so bad.
nah, nerfing the collossus was basically the only good change that has been made in LotV.
I'm not disagreeing with this ; but if we have to get all the gimmicks LotV is bringing with it just to get rid of the colossus, I'll keep my colossus please.
On May 25 2015 06:29 Zorgaz wrote: Haven't posted here in ages. A fine post OP, might not agree with everything but certainly most of it. I still regard the Collosi as one of the great tragedies of Starcraft.
When I see how a game without colossi (they're still there but totally irrelevant) is shaping out, I think the colossus was not so bad.
nah, nerfing the collossus was basically the only good change that has been made in LotV.
I'm not disagreeing with this ; but if we have to get all the gimmicks LotV is bringing with it just to get rid of the colossus, I'll keep my colossus please.
Totally agreed. I feel like the biggest problem with Blizzard is that they don't know how to solve the problems facing the game without just adding more gimmicks.
And then we get gimmicks built upon gimmicks and the whole thing just looks ridiculous now.
Can't believe how on-point this post is, and it was made a year ago. It's basically a collection of all the things I've known was going wrong with SC2, but I've only ever thought of those things piece by piece, I never stopped and compiled it all into one magnificent... frankly a book, that's how thick this is. Every paragraph I find myself thinking 'that's what I've been saying'. Not enough people have read this.
I have been thinking (and writing) about some of these problems in the past but my ideas were mostly spread out and caotic. I like to see that someone had the time to put it all into one article that, for the most part, covers most problems with SC2.
Unfortunately, humans are animals of habits and patterns and Blizzard has been showing its for a while now. I personally enjoyed WoL to a certain degree, but when HOTS was coming out, I decided I would stay away from it.
LotV... Well, I just dont see it working.
At least the UMS section is fun. I can still join some maps like Mineralz and spend hours in it. In fact, while I enjoy BW more than SC2, in most cases, I like SC@ UMS maps more than BW UMS maps.
This post has some interesting concepts when it comes to RTS design philosophy, but honestly I wish the OP had put the time he used to make that post into designing his own RTS game. There are far too many criticisms (many of them valid), and not enough solutions within the sc2 community. We need new RTS games, and right now the small blizzard team working on LOTV are part of a small group doing just that.
On April 16 2016 06:35 Green_25 wrote: This post has some interesting concepts when it comes to RTS design philosophy, but honestly I wish the OP had put the time he used to make that post into designing his own RTS game. There are far too many criticisms (many of them valid), and not enough solutions within the sc2 community. We need new RTS games, and right now the small blizzard team working on LOTV are part of a small group doing just that.
On April 15 2016 22:54 iloveav wrote: Unfortunately, humans are animals of habits and patterns and Blizzard has been showing its for a while now.
It is so true. Blizzard has been balancing this game in circles, removing one frustrating feature, only to add another.. "oh the community doesn't like abilities that prevent micro? Let's nerf Fungal and remove Vortex. Now let's switch gears and talk about our new abilities, Time Warp and Abduct."
At first, I was excited because I thought TheDwf had written a second part to this, but then I realized this thread got moved to the SC2 general forum. Odd choice for a year old thread, but it still rings true today and I believe it deserves a bigger discussion. It is never too late to change the direction of SC2 so we can relive the glory of 2011.
I wish Blizzard had taken what he had said to heart, this is one of the best articles written on this forum.
On April 18 2016 12:10 lichter wrote: haha not this again
This thread is my last bastion of hope. Elsewhere I start to wonder that maybe I'm the crazy one, for being utterly disappointed with this game. I loved this game, and I still want to, I really do. Blizzard just doesn't let me. All the time I wonder what could have been, this game could have so much better, more fun to play, to watch, to theorycraft, I saw something special back in WoL, they had a gem in their hands, but they fucked it up.
The points about the fact that blizzard tried to create an Esport from the beginning are so true. They refused to balanced the game and made decisions based on one game from a tournament because of watch-ability. I left the game in the HOTS beta because I could tell the new units were terrible (especially from the Terran perspective) I came back for LoTV and even though I'm enjoying it, David Kim needs to be fired ASAP if the game is to be relevant even next year. Make a fun game that people want to play and let the Esport happen on it's own. Look at LoL...
For me most of what you wrote made perfect sense. I have bought the LOTV for over two months now and I have not even tried to play it, and Starcraft is the only game I own and play. After all these years where I loved SC 2 I still love Brood War more and I think this is related to some of the things you wrote about. I even bought a Brood war battle chest and now I am replaying the campaigns.
Blizzard can do amazing things, they proved it so many times. But they also proved so many other times they do not know the recipe of their own success.
diversity is always the problem, i tried to post about this topic but i got downvoted so hard... now we are here palying the same games every time and blizz tries to make it interesting by forcing us to play different via maps.
why cant they just give us all the tools to decide ourselves? just think of tvt: in wol, there was marine tank, tank viking, mech, bio, all viable. now you can only play marine tank.
On April 18 2016 18:33 saddaromma wrote: Only solution I see, community needs to refrain from blizzard's version of competitive sc2 and actively support projects like Starbow.
On April 18 2016 18:33 saddaromma wrote: Only solution I see, community needs to refrain from blizzard's version of competitive sc2 and actively support projects like Starbow.
Wasn't Nathanias playing Starbow on stream yesterday?
I know that Tasteless and Artosis have already played starbow and stated that they enjoyed it;
On April 18 2016 18:33 saddaromma wrote: Only solution I see, community needs to refrain from blizzard's version of competitive sc2 and actively support projects like Starbow.
In what universe do you see this happening?
I think that's what would happen if/when Blizzard stops throwing money at SC2 to sustain its pro scene
On April 18 2016 18:33 saddaromma wrote: Only solution I see, community needs to refrain from blizzard's version of competitive sc2 and actively support projects like Starbow.
In what universe do you see this happening?
I think that's what would happen if/when Blizzard stops throwing money at SC2 to sustain its pro scene
Or Blizzard just goes for a damage nerf accross the board for all units. What would also be needed is much slower mining.
In other words, you get less units per time, it's easier to make them and once you have them, they can't die in 2 seconds because you weren't watching. Not watching your army costs you a handful of units, not your entire army.
That handful of units matters a lot in professional games where everything counts, but much less so in casual games where mistakes are more prone to happen.
In other words, there is a resource which is scarce in Starcraft: time.
Blizzard would need to make the game fun, not "you lose when you make your first mistake".
I mean, it's appealing to the hardcore RTS fans who are OK with the challenge, but you aren't going to attract and keep a casual audience.
There's also little room for strategy. Strategy is about making the right strategic decisions which allows for a player to attack another player with an inherent advantage (more units, better unit composition, etc.). In starcraft 2, "strategy" at most levels (until you hit Korean levels, I guess) is just about not missing depots or production cycles and attacking when your upgrades hit. You can't get an advantage using strategy like you can with with pure mechanics: how is that "fun"?
On April 18 2016 20:17 opisska wrote: How the hell did this thing get bumped again. Brace for a sharp increase in general smartassery across the boards.
It got moved to SC2 General.
Which is good, since it's still painfully relevant
On April 18 2016 20:17 opisska wrote: How the hell did this thing get bumped again. Brace for a sharp increase in general smartassery across the boards.
It got moved to SC2 General.
Which is good, since it's still painfully relevant
No it's not "relevant" to anything. It's vague enough that anyone who is either dissatisfied with SC2 or needs an excuse for his own suckiness can find enough useful material in it. It has never stimulated any useful discussion apart from confirmatory circlejerk.
On April 18 2016 18:33 saddaromma wrote: Only solution I see, community needs to refrain from blizzard's version of competitive sc2 and actively support projects like Starbow.
Living in the past can't be a solution and anyway SB<BW... simply cause the flaws in BW engine and design are a huge part of what made it great.
The solution will come from people giving actual relevant ideas that can be implemented in sc2 (and don't start me with the "Blizzard is not listening" BS, I don't have enough time to list all the times when community ideas went live in sc2)
TheDwf is the perfect example :
- in 2014, he makes ZParcraft article which has huge criticism but is still constructive : within 2 weeks game is patched and Terrans are balanced again
- in 2015, he makes this article but he has already abandoned all love for the game, it's just a testament before he totally leaves the game and the community. 100% criticism, 0% positivity, 0% solution providing. As a result, this article has 0% impact on the development of the game.
On April 18 2016 20:17 opisska wrote: How the hell did this thing get bumped again. Brace for a sharp increase in general smartassery across the boards.
It got moved to SC2 General.
Which is good, since it's still painfully relevant
No it's not "relevant" to anything. It's vague enough that anyone who is either dissatisfied with SC2 or needs an excuse for his own suckiness can find enough useful material in it. It has never stimulated any useful discussion apart from confirmatory circlejerk.
You're not exactly providing any compelling counter arguments.
On April 11 2015 08:54 HewTheTitan wrote: This sort of reminds me of the Kaufman translation of Nietzsche. Anyone else?
it more reminds me more of the Tony Clifton translation of Nietczsche.
Playability and thus “enjoyability” come from control over various aspects. This is why people involved in games of pure chance systematically develop absurd habits and beliefs in order to recreate the control they no longer have. Control should not be absolute
according to Conor Mcgregor superstition is feared manifested in a different form.
baseball players and golfers systematically develop absurd habits and i'm totally cool with the element of chance involved in their games.
Strategy relies on planning, which means enough time to think. If the RT part of RTS is violently compressed then the S withers away too by force.
this point seems to make a lot of apparent sense. however, for me and all my low-apm pals this has been true for a long time and is more pronounced in the other major RTS we play. we view not having time to think as part of the game.
to get into all forms of amazing strategy , planning and careful tactics we need a game played on slow that starts with 4 workers... that ain't happening.
Grey Goo gives you time to think. Hows that goin' ?
SC2 bears all the glaring flaws of a “forced child”. The original Blizzsters didn't try to make a good game, they tried to make an esport. That was the original sin of SC2. What had once been reached by accident would this time be fully enforced.
SC2's ceiling on quality game play lowered the day Pardo was removed from the project. Blizzard was not going to have a guy whose games make billions working on a genre that only generates millions.
i like SC2 a lot. its great fun. i have no doubt this would've been a better game if Pardo worked on it from start to finish. He was pulled off the project early and SC2 been through 3 chief visionaries. Pardo and Browder were simply following the money when they left. Its not like either guy got fired and i can't blame either guy for leaving.
my expectations for SC2 lowered once Pardo was not part of it. Its all ancient histroy now.
On April 18 2016 18:33 saddaromma wrote: Only solution I see, community needs to refrain from blizzard's version of competitive sc2 and actively support projects like Starbow.
Living in the past can't be a solution and anyway SB<BW... simply cause the flaws in BW engine and design are a huge part of what made it great.
The solution will come from people giving actual relevant ideas that can be implemented in sc2 (and don't start me with the "Blizzard is not listening" BS, I don't have enough time to list all the times when community ideas went live in sc2)
TheDwf is the perfect example :
- in 2014, he makes ZParcraft article which has huge criticism but is still constructive : within 2 weeks game is patched and Terrans are balanced again
- in 2015, he makes this article but he has already abandoned all love for the game, it's just a testament before he totally leaves the game and the community. 100% criticism, 0% positivity, 0% solution providing. As a result, this article has 0% impact on the development of the game.
You're shamelessly brushing aside the fact that he spent dozens (hundreds?) of hours making a major overhaul for SC2, which can be described as 0% criticism, ?% positivity and 100% solution providing. And I fail to see how things like StarBow or SCynergie are not "relevant ideas that can be implemented in SC2", since they are mods for SC2 that have been implemented, precisely, in SC2...
Contracting time = less control. Always, everywhere. Sometimes it is needed, sometimes not. Control doesn't have to be absolute, but there are thresholds to respect. There are different temporalities within the game and Blizzard has apparently failed to identify them. The quality of the game flows from its “control architecture”.
this now devolves into what you subjectively think is "enough control" versus what another guy thinks is "enough control but not absolute control"
Yeah quite a few haters are coming into the thread and looking to muck the discussion. Do you mind that we discuss our (subjective) views on the design flaws which are in Starcraft? No need to come it and call the article shit just because you don't agree with it.
Anyway, I'm curious as to what's going on With SCynergie. Where's that at?
On April 18 2016 21:59 Incognoto wrote: Yeah quite a few haters are coming into the thread and looking to muck the discussion. Do you mind that we discuss our (subjective) views on the design flaws which are in Starcraft? No need to come it and call the article shit just because you don't agree with it.
Anyway, I'm curious as to what's going on With SCynergie. Where's that at?
On April 18 2016 18:56 Incognoto wrote:You can't get an advantage using strategy like you can with with pure mechanics: how is that "fun"?
well im pretty sure any masters player can beat a silver/gold player using only 50 apm or less
You're confusing mechanics and APM. :/
"Mechanics" just means hitting all your production cycles, supply drops (depots, OLs, pylons) or injects perfectly. Yes, it's possible to do that with 50 apm, the point is that hitting your production cycles perfectly does more to help you win the game than strategy does.
"Strategy" being the big strategic decisions you make, so that when you fight your opponent, you're doing so with an inherent advantage. In Korea that would be the sniper builds. But strategy is only relevant if you've acquired sufficient mechanics in the first place.
In other words, to be good at Starcraft (under masters), the idea is to brainlessly make units with optimal macro: don't get supply blocked, don't get idle production time. That's ALL you need to focus on.
Strategy can only be applied when the mechanics are down near perfectly. That's the case in Korea, as well as the professional scene, but it's not the case for the casual player. Hence this articles' arguement that Starcraft is devoid of strategy.
On April 18 2016 18:56 Incognoto wrote:You can't get an advantage using strategy like you can with with pure mechanics: how is that "fun"?
well im pretty sure any masters player can beat a silver/gold player using only 50 apm or less
You're confusing mechanics and APM. :/
"Mechanics" just means hitting all your production cycles, supply drops (depots, OLs, pylons) or injects perfectly. Yes, it's possible to do that with 50 apm, the point is that hitting your production cycles perfectly does more to help you win the game than strategy does.
"Strategy" being the big strategic decisions you make, so that when you fight your opponent, you're doing so with an inherent advantage. In Korea that would be the sniper builds. But strategy is only relevant if you've acquired sufficient mechanics in the first place.
In other words, to be good at Starcraft (under masters), the idea is to brainlessly make units with optimal macro: don't get supply blocked, don't get idle production time. That's ALL you need to focus on.
Strategy can only be applied when the mechanics are down near perfectly. That's the case in Korea, as well as the professional scene, but it's not the case for the casual player. Hence this articles' arguement that Starcraft is devoid of strategy.
Strategy/tactics can be applied when both players playing against each other are close in mechanical skill. It doesn't matter if they are in bronze league or playing in gsl. To get better at the game improving your mechanics is the more efficient way, which isn't the same as "strategy not mattering till you are in league x"
To get better at the game improving your mechanics is the more efficient way, which isn't the same as "strategy not mattering till you are in league x"
Well obviously strategy will matter SOMEWHAT. You can't win in Plat if you perfectly mass a single unit and just a-move it. Strategy is still a magnitude behind macro mechanics when it comes to deciding a game at a lower level.
Didn't bother to read the whole thing then and ofc I won't now.
I actually think LotV is better than HotS and WoL ever were, from a spectator point of view TvT is the only exception. The matchup just sucks right now.
To get better at the game improving your mechanics is the more efficient way, which isn't the same as "strategy not mattering till you are in league x"
Well obviously strategy will matter SOMEWHAT. You can't win in Plat if you perfectly mass a single unit and just a-move it. Strategy is still a magnitude behind macro mechanics when it comes to deciding a game at a lower level.
No it's not. As i told you before as long as both players are similar in mechanical skill (which should be the case in pretty much any ladder game in sc2) the strategy is important. What you mean is getting better at the game, which is different though.
All right, it's grasping at semantics (I'll bite anyway), but let's just say that "when you want to get better at the game", it makes more sense to increase your mechanical ability than it does to increase your strategic understanding of the game.
That should indicate which aspect, in starcraft 2, actually makes a difference. Strategy is less important than macro when you're improving.
That makes sense, since strategy is based on proper macro anyway. Since proper macro is mostly unobtainable out of players below masters, strategy similarly takes the back seat when you want to improve.
On April 18 2016 20:17 opisska wrote: How the hell did this thing get bumped again. Brace for a sharp increase in general smartassery across the boards.
It got moved to SC2 General.
Which is good, since it's still painfully relevant
No it's not "relevant" to anything. It's vague enough that anyone who is either dissatisfied with SC2 or needs an excuse for his own suckiness can find enough useful material in it. It has never stimulated any useful discussion apart from confirmatory circlejerk.
A post like the OP focuses on general concepts because that's where the problems lie in SC2. Getting into specifics is mostly demonstrating why the overarching principles of the post have merit. It's not about 'excusing my suckiness', I never cared how good/bad I was when I played, what's bothered me is how frustrating it is to lose, even how frustrating it is to win sometimes. I can appreciate competition, but I play games for fun, SC2 was fun to me throughout the life of Wings, then, as units got added/changed in HotS, it was no longer fun. This is hardly a coincidence, and the number of people who are dissatisfied with SC2 at this point massively outnumber the people who aren't. Just look at past/present viewership on tournaments and streams. Even as I type this, BW streams are more popular than SC2, this is a very common occurrence.
When someone so thoughtfully explains the reasons why this game has become dissatisfying, and highlights the reasons why so many people have lost interest in it over the years, that is not something you should ignore. That is an opportunity to reflect. There's a real discussion here, if you don't want to take part in it then simply don't post. A post like this is born from a deep love of what SC2 was, and could have been with the proper care. If we didn't care, then like so many others, we would be gone and you wouldn't hear a word from us.
On April 18 2016 23:17 Salteador Neo wrote: Didn't bother to read the whole thing then and ofc I won't now.
I actually think LotV is better than HotS and WoL ever were, from a spectator point of view TvT is the only exception. The matchup just sucks right now.
So, you must not have noticed that the OP said one of blizzards mistakes with sc2 is making it a game for spectators, and not necessarily the players.
On April 19 2016 00:07 Incognoto wrote: All right, it's grasping at semantics (I'll bite anyway), but let's just say that "when you want to get better at the game", it makes more sense to increase your mechanical ability than it does to increase your strategic understanding of the game.
That should indicate which aspect, in starcraft 2, actually makes a difference. Strategy is less important than macro when you're improving.
That makes sense, since strategy is based on proper macro anyway. Since proper macro is mostly unobtainable out of players below masters, strategy similarly takes the back seat when you want to improve.
It's not semantics though, it's two different concepts people confuse all the time
The same is true for pretty much any game btw, strategy is only important when both players/teams are similar in mechanical skill. I don't see people complaining about that in other sports/esports
- in 2015, he makes this article but he has already abandoned all love for the game, it's just a testament before he totally leaves the game and the community. 100% criticism, 0% positivity, 0% solution providing. As a result, this article has 0% impact on the development of the game.
Most forums ban for personal attacks and stupid 3rd grade stuff that no one really cares about. I'd also ban for statements like this, that are seemingly intelligent and serious, but that completely misrepresent someone's argument, to the point it is offensive.
Calling someone stupid hurts no one feelings (or at least shouldn't). Misrepresenting his argument like this in an effort to show it is irrelevant is far more offensive and is wrong.
Solutions were proposed throughout. And if he abandoned all love for the game, he wouldn't have wrote the article and created his own mod. But instead of picking apart his points in the article, you attack his tone. Seriously what do you say to any of his points, even the simplest like "Problem Zealot, Solution Hellbat. Problem Mutalisk, Solution Tempest/Phoenix." Do you think there isn't a problem with hard counters?
People that spend hours critiquing something in a serious effort to improve it, are the ones that love it the most.
How many hours did you spend writing an article to help Starcraft? Maybe I am wrong and I missed your article, please link it to me. People spend their time on the things they love.
On April 18 2016 23:17 Salteador Neo wrote: Didn't bother to read the whole thing then and ofc I won't now.
I actually think LotV is better than HotS and WoL ever were, from a spectator point of view TvT is the only exception. The matchup just sucks right now.
So, you must not have noticed that the OP said one of blizzards mistakes with sc2 is making it a game for spectators, and not necessarily the players.
Didn't really need the OP to know that Blizz designed the game to be an e-sport. Has been said countless times and it's just obvious to me tbh.
Is it one of the factors that makes it lose players? Most likely. Did they achieve their esport purpose? Considering the 6 years it has been running as an esport from day one, I would say yes.
- in 2015, he makes this article but he has already abandoned all love for the game, it's just a testament before he totally leaves the game and the community. 100% criticism, 0% positivity, 0% solution providing. As a result, this article has 0% impact on the development of the game.
Most forums ban for personal attacks and stupid 3rd grade stuff that no one really cares about. I'd also ban for statements like this, that are seemingly intelligent and serious, but that completely misrepresent someone's argument, to the point it is offensive.
Calling someone stupid hurts no one feelings (or at least shouldn't). Misrepresenting his argument like this in an effort to show it isn't irrelevant is far more offensive and is wrong.
Solutions were proposed throughout. And if he abandoned all love for the game, he wouldn't have wrote the article and created his own mod. But instead of picking apart his points in the article, you attack his tone. Seriously what do you say to any of his points, even the simplest like "Problem Zealot, Solution Hellbat. Problem Mutalisk, Solution Tempest/Phoenix." Do you think there isn't a problem with hard counters?
People that spend hours critiquing something in a serious effort to improve it, are the ones that love it the most.
What have you done to help Starcraft? How many hours did you spend writing an article to help Starcraft? People spend their time on the things they love.
What exactly did this do to "improve starcraft" ? It was written in a way noone responsible for the game would take it seriously even if there are some points in it which are interesting to discuss. The title of this thread pretty much tells the whole story tbh. Don't compare this "narcissistic opinion piece" with actual good articles like A treatise on the economy of sc2 because it simply doesn't compare. Not saying there is nothing of value in it, but overall there is very little meat to this op in comparison to its length due to its unnecessary "philosophical" wording which in essence makes the arguments he has as abstract as possible. "Improving starcraft" ? Yeah no, pretty much anything in there was written in a better way before.
On April 18 2016 23:17 Salteador Neo wrote: Didn't bother to read the whole thing then and ofc I won't now.
I actually think LotV is better than HotS and WoL ever were, from a spectator point of view TvT is the only exception. The matchup just sucks right now.
So, you must not have noticed that the OP said one of blizzards mistakes with sc2 is making it a game for spectators, and not necessarily the players.
Didn't really need the OP to know that Blizz designed the game to be an e-sport. Has been said countless times and it's just obvious to me tbh.
Is it one of the factors that makes it lose players? Most likely. Did they achieve their esport purpose? Considering the 6 years it has been running as an esport from day one, I would say yes.
While it's still considered an e-sport, that's largely because Blizzard still supports it themselves, which misses the point. An e-sport is something created by a community, just like physical sports. Another thing they have in common is that they are designed to be interesting games, not designed for a spectator experience. They've had their grasp on this game since its inception, in a desperate bid to control everything and force it to happen. Blizzard has their e-sport, but it's nothing like any other e-sport I can point to, including other Blizzard games.
Hearthstone is a card game, and it's more of an e-sport than SC2 at this point. Team 5 isn't designing Hearthstone to be spectator-first, they're not concerned with that. They're just in it to make a great game. The SC2 team never understood this, they don't care about whether it's fun to play, they justify nearly every single change they make by what they think the spectator likes. So a necessary question comes out at this stage, when the team that develops a game doesn't care about the players, should it come as any surprise that the players react to this and stop playing?
On April 19 2016 02:07 The_Red_Viper wrote: What exactly did this do to "improve starcraft" ?
About as much as any other article, on average: nothing. Blizzard takes almost no feedback from the community, this is no secret. Just because writing an in-depth piece on the state of SC2 is a fool's errand, it doesn't take away from the fact that it comes out of a love for the game.
- in 2015, he makes this article but he has already abandoned all love for the game, it's just a testament before he totally leaves the game and the community. 100% criticism, 0% positivity, 0% solution providing. As a result, this article has 0% impact on the development of the game.
Most forums ban for personal attacks and stupid 3rd grade stuff that no one really cares about. I'd also ban for statements like this, that are seemingly intelligent and serious, but that completely misrepresent someone's argument, to the point it is offensive.
Calling someone stupid hurts no one feelings (or at least shouldn't). Misrepresenting his argument like this in an effort to show it isn't irrelevant is far more offensive and is wrong.
Solutions were proposed throughout. And if he abandoned all love for the game, he wouldn't have wrote the article and created his own mod. But instead of picking apart his points in the article, you attack his tone. Seriously what do you say to any of his points, even the simplest like "Problem Zealot, Solution Hellbat. Problem Mutalisk, Solution Tempest/Phoenix." Do you think there isn't a problem with hard counters?
People that spend hours critiquing something in a serious effort to improve it, are the ones that love it the most.
What have you done to help Starcraft? How many hours did you spend writing an article to help Starcraft? People spend their time on the things they love.
What exactly did this do to "improve starcraft" ? It was written in a way noone responsible for the game would take it seriously even if there are some points in it which are interesting to discuss. The title of this thread pretty much tells the whole story tbh. Don't compare this "narcissistic opinion piece" with actual good articles like A treatise on the economy of sc2 because it simply doesn't compare. Not saying there is nothing of value in it, but overall there is very little meat to this op in comparison to its length due to its unnecessary "philosophical" wording which in essence makes the arguments he has as abstract as possible. "Improving starcraft" ? Yeah no, pretty much anything in there was written in a better way before.
What did it do? It highlighted flaws, and significant ones in an eloquent way.
You may disagree with how it was written, but the ideas being written stands independent on how it was written, and would be taken to heart by anyone who is mature and has self respect. Someone may call you arrogant and in a rude way, but if you self reflect and realize you are arrogant then they aren't wrong, and you should change regardless of how the message was delivered.
Not working toward that change because you feel disrespected is not only immature, it holds you back. And why would you let someone else's rude tone hold you back? Why would you let them have power over you? That isn't what a mature person does.
Do people really have so much power over Blizzard that simply by being rude to them results in Blizzard not doing what they should do?
Whoops, I forgot, I was talking about Blizzard Entertainment here and the answer is yes:
David Kim wrote: There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team.
Yeah this design team needs to go... they aren't mature, and apparently they get demotivated by criticism. That isn't how you respond to criticism. Man up Blizzard.
And for the record, the "good article" you linked did absolutely nothing to change Starcraft either. But it isn't up the authors to change Starcraft, that is the role of the design team. It is up to the authors to highlight problems and/or suggest solutions (no you don't have to suggest solutions, simply highlighting problems is productive in itself, to someone who is mature and is interested in fixing their problems).
The article i linked didn't change the game no, but at least it got a response out of blizzard because it was written in a way people can actually discuss the arguments presented without having to interprete a lot of poor wording (in the context of such an article, this type of prose is simply bad for the purpose this text maybe had) Nothing to do with "mature" or not, if you wanna rgue that presentation isn't important than you are simply wrong. Coherent structure and language is extremely important, we don't wanna read flowery and abstract wording for an article which is about game design, that stuff belongs in other forms of literature.
Not even pointing out the problems of his argumentation itself, it's all in this thread already, no need to start from the beginning again. As i said before there are better blogs/articles/posts about sc2's problems and these weren't presented in the most narcissistic way possible (and usually they had more meat as well), which is why they are far superior.
But yeah sure, if you are going into this with the mindset of "blizzard sucks anyway", you probably can have fun with it i guess.
You've clearly never worked in software development. Do me a favor, go try to build something. Doesn't matter what. Tell me when you start so I can start spewing vitriol every step of the way. See how motivated you are to keep working on your product.
Blizzard is not a person. There are people behind that title, and they have to sludge through all this negative shit about their game any time they go online. Developing is so largely mental, and without motivation your productivity is going to drop fucking 80% or more.
Why in the world would someone want to put their 120% into a game seemingly no one enjoys in the least?
Of course they're demoralized. Starcraft is a fucking great game, but no one ever says that. Everyone has their own dream version of the game, and they're not even remotely happy with the game until it reaches that fantasy.
The only positive feed back you see from the community are "This is so much better than hots", followed by "Here's why it's still shit".
Yeah, good luck keeping your head above the water in that environment. They don't even have the luxury of being a top esport anymore for that ego boost.
so we have whining about polemics only to see polemics 2 paragraphs later.
basing a mass firing on PR style comments ... thanks for the laugh.
you can only get rid of them if you can with certainty replace them with something better. Blizzard has run out of RTS teams to raid.. they're all gone dude. Most of these knee-jerk style reaction firings result going from the frying pan and into the fire. As an independent software maker i love it when the CIO goes on a firing spree. i fill my pockets with boatloads of cash and always look like the hero that saved the project no matter whether it was easy-peazy or brutally complex.
Blizzard has gone on the record many times they have a hard time finding Blizzard level employees because they are picky. They can't snap their fingers and make 20 Rob Pardos appear in Anaheim.
you do not know enough about hiring game designers to state for certain the new group will be better. Also, they are not pulling their best guys off of billion dollar projects so they can sell a few more copies into a market that is sinking fast. Putting all kinds of effort into creating a new RTS team for a proven non-performer like the RTS genre is spending good money after bad.
Leave the RTS team the way it is and enjoy the last few viable years of the RTS genre; these final years are happening right in the SC franchise and no where else. The only place a following of any kind remains with Blizzard is precisely because Blizzard and its RTS team are the best in the biz.
On April 19 2016 03:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: The article i linked didn't change the game no, but at least it got a response out of blizzard because it was written in a way people can actually discuss the arguments presented without having to interprete a lot of poor wording (in the context of such an article, this type of prose is simply bad for the purpose this text maybe had) Nothing to do with "mature" or not, if you wanna rgue that presentation isn't important than you are simply wrong. Coherent structure and language is extremely important, we don't wanna read flowery and abstract wording for an article which is about game design, that stuff belongs in other forms of literature.
Not even pointing out the problems of his argumentation itself, it's all in this thread already, no need to start from the beginning again. As i said before there are better blogs/articles/posts about sc2's problems and these weren't presented in the most narcissistic way possible (and usually they had more meat as well), which is why they are far superior.
But yeah sure, if you are going into this with the mindset of "blizzard sucks anyway", you probably can have fun with it i guess.
The thing is that you and many other skeptics are going into this with the mindset of "this post sucks anyway". The style and form is admittedly very dry and harsh, that's how the author wants to convey his points. If you're attacking the form more than the actual content, then that to me indicates that you don't understand (or don't want to understand) the content in the first place. If you're writing a protest article (which is what this is), you aren't going to sugar coat what you're saying, are you?
The content itself has some pretty solid general points, though if you want to choose to completely ignore them, then why are you even in this thread?
On April 19 2016 03:14 InfCereal wrote: @BronzeKnee
You've clearly never worked in software development. Do me a favor, go try to build something. Doesn't matter what. Tell me when you start so I can start spewing vitriol every step of the way. See how motivated you are to keep working on your product.
give this man one of them blue stars, gold stars. some kind of star. when the top execs get flustered and start firing people i (as a hired gun) start making huge cash... its like robbery.. but without a mask.
On April 19 2016 03:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: The article i linked didn't change the game no, but at least it got a response out of blizzard because it was written in a way people can actually discuss the arguments presented without having to interprete a lot of poor wording (in the context of such an article, this type of prose is simply bad for the purpose this text maybe had) Nothing to do with "mature" or not, if you wanna rgue that presentation isn't important than you are simply wrong. Coherent structure and language is extremely important, we don't wanna read flowery and abstract wording for an article which is about game design, that stuff belongs in other forms of literature.
Not even pointing out the problems of his argumentation itself, it's all in this thread already, no need to start from the beginning again. As i said before there are better blogs/articles/posts about sc2's problems and these weren't presented in the most narcissistic way possible (and usually they had more meat as well), which is why they are far superior.
But yeah sure, if you are going into this with the mindset of "blizzard sucks anyway", you probably can have fun with it i guess.
When I read the OP I also felt the urge be a smartass about his writing but I decided not to and because, to be honest with myself, it is probably because I am jealous of his great writing skill and I get the feeling this is exactly why you are somewhat triggered by it. Do I think he could have been more down to earth with this article? Yeah I do, but why I do find it a great post nevertheless is because he does bring a new perspective to where the game fails and he does have something intelligent to say, unlike a lot of pretentious people here that just want to show off their writing skills and present nothing of substance.
On April 19 2016 03:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: The article i linked didn't change the game no, but at least it got a response out of blizzard because it was written in a way people can actually discuss the arguments presented without having to interprete a lot of poor wording (in the context of such an article, this type of prose is simply bad for the purpose this text maybe had) Nothing to do with "mature" or not, if you wanna rgue that presentation isn't important than you are simply wrong. Coherent structure and language is extremely important, we don't wanna read flowery and abstract wording for an article which is about game design, that stuff belongs in other forms of literature.
Not even pointing out the problems of his argumentation itself, it's all in this thread already, no need to start from the beginning again. As i said before there are better blogs/articles/posts about sc2's problems and these weren't presented in the most narcissistic way possible (and usually they had more meat as well), which is why they are far superior.
But yeah sure, if you are going into this with the mindset of "blizzard sucks anyway", you probably can have fun with it i guess.
The thing is that you and many other skeptics are going into this with the mindset of "this post sucks anyway". The style and form is admittedly very dry and harsh, that's how the author wants to convey his points. If you're attacking the form more than the actual content, then that to me indicates that you don't understand (or don't want to understand) the content in the first place. If you're writing a protest article (which is what this is), you aren't going to sugar coat what you're saying, are you?
The content itself has some pretty solid general points, though if you want to choose to completely ignore them, then why are you even in this thread?
Read again what i wrote, i actually said he has some points, but because of his abstract style there isn't a lot of meat to it in any form. He likes his wording a little bit noo much, it's self-defeating for the actual purpose of articles about game design.
The thing is that you and many other skeptics are going into this with the mindset of "this post sucks anyway"
That's nonsense, why should anybody do that? The post "sucks" because it has a lot of words in it without saying a lot at the same time. I would maybe enjoy his prose when it would actually benefit the topic, it doesn't here.
If you're attacking the form more than the actual content, then that to me indicates that you don't understand (or don't want to understand) the content in the first place
The "content" presented in this post was presented far superior in other blogs/articles/posts. In these the author didn't try to look smart, he/she just presented evidence for the thesis and argued with actual points. Dwf does this to some extent as well, but never as precise and cohesive as it should be. As i said before, i won't go into detail why a lot of his points aren't even that good to begin with because a lot of people already did it in this very thread, no need to start from the beginning here.
On April 19 2016 03:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: The article i linked didn't change the game no, but at least it got a response out of blizzard because it was written in a way people can actually discuss the arguments presented without having to interprete a lot of poor wording (in the context of such an article, this type of prose is simply bad for the purpose this text maybe had) Nothing to do with "mature" or not, if you wanna rgue that presentation isn't important than you are simply wrong. Coherent structure and language is extremely important, we don't wanna read flowery and abstract wording for an article which is about game design, that stuff belongs in other forms of literature.
Not even pointing out the problems of his argumentation itself, it's all in this thread already, no need to start from the beginning again. As i said before there are better blogs/articles/posts about sc2's problems and these weren't presented in the most narcissistic way possible (and usually they had more meat as well), which is why they are far superior.
But yeah sure, if you are going into this with the mindset of "blizzard sucks anyway", you probably can have fun with it i guess.
When I read the OP I also felt the urge be a smartass about his writing but I decided not to and because, to be honest with myself, it is probably because I am jealous of his great writing skill and I get the feeling this is exactly why you are somewhat triggered by it. Do I think he could have been more down to earth with this article? Yeah I do, but why I do find it a great post nevertheless is because he does bring a new perspective to where the game fails and he does have something intelligent to say, unlike a lot of pretentious people here that just want to show off their writing skills and present nothing of substance.
I don't agree with this. There os nothing particularly new about this post, it simply collects a lot of ideas which were brought up countless times before and presents it in the most narcissistic way possible. It's almost like he thinks he is an sc2 philosopher. Is there some substance to be found in this mess? Yeah sure but any really skilled writer would have needed a third of the words to convey the points and that probably with more actual meat for the arguments as well.
On April 19 2016 03:40 The_Red_Viper wrote: There os nothing particularly new about this post, it simply collects a lot of ideas which were brought up countless times before and presents it in the most narcissistic way possible.
I don't understand why you seem to be reading narcissism into the post. Does his word choice strike you as pretentious, therefore you extend that and take it as narcissism? I see a collection of well-explained comcepts, but I see the OP talk about himself at no point in the article, because it's not about him, it's about the game. Tell me where I'm wrong, because I simply don't see what you're seeing. When you finally get over the narcissism you read into his text, feel free to come back and discuss the content itself, but you don't seem particularly interested in it, you seem perfectly content to get upset about how someone words his phrases.
This post is a good one not because it says something nobody has said before, but because it collects all these things people have been saying throughout the years, and puts it all together in one place. I've tried writing posts about all the things I feel are wrong with SC2, and I can only ever think of a handful of things at once, the OP has managed to take all these different things and take the time to compile them, that's huge. It lets me point to one thread, and one thread alone, and say "here's what I don't like about the way SC2 is headed". Put form aside, address the content.
Back when this article came out I didn't understand how people could have major issues with this article, and I still don't understand how. Yes, it's not written like a scientific article, we all get that, and, guess what, I'm pretty sure it wasn't intended to be written like a scientific article. Yes, it's not based on analyzing numbers and doing pretty graphs ; it's based on more or less abstract ideas, based on what's beyond the numbers that other articles could analyze. Nonetheless, this has a logical construction, valid points, and is frankly not that hard to read : arguments are clearly expressed and logical links are most of the time well explained.
Using your own norm of how it should be written to sell this article as worthless just shows that you're superficially adopting a posture in order not to see the points made in the article.
On April 18 2016 18:33 saddaromma wrote: Only solution I see, community needs to refrain from blizzard's version of competitive sc2 and actively support projects like Starbow.
In what universe do you see this happening?
I think that's what would happen if/when Blizzard stops throwing money at SC2 to sustain its pro scene
Oh dont worry, they will stop. By now Blizzard most likely is not thinking "how can we get SC2 to become popular again", but rather "How do we make more money from it?"
At least that seems to be the case for Nova cover ops missions.
On April 19 2016 05:57 OtherWorld wrote: Back when this article came out I didn't understand how people could have major issues with this article, and I still don't understand how. Yes, it's not written like a scientific article, we all get that, and, guess what, I'm pretty sure it wasn't intended to be written like a scientific article. Yes, it's not based on analyzing numbers and doing pretty graphs ; it's based on more or less abstract ideas, based on what's beyond the numbers that other articles could analyze. Nonetheless, this has a logical construction, valid points, and is frankly not that hard to read : arguments are clearly expressed and logical links are most of the time well explained.
Using your own norm of how it should be written to sell this article as worthless just shows that you're superficially adopting a posture in order not to see the points made in the article.
The article still holds up very well and is -to my taste- pleasant to read. But reading the thread again I could understand why some people would dismiss TheDwf as an arrogant brat .
The article is actually really excellent in my opinion, I'm glad it was bumped so I could find it. As long as you agree with most of the points I don't see why the tone would be a problem. If you disagree, I guess you're more likely to use the tone/style as an excuse to dismiss it. The truth is, it's a pretty thorough and very reasonable critique of SC2 as a whole.
On April 19 2016 06:42 marttorn wrote: As long as you agree with most of the points I don't see why the tone would be a problem.
I agree with the points and I think the article is straight garbage. It reads like someone in their first year read Romantic-era literature after subsisting solely on diet of Dragonlance for their entire childhood... and decided that it was the pinnacle of modern literature and of course we'll sound so dignified if we write like that. For 100000 paragraphs more than necessary.
Anyhow, I didn't realize TheDwf had poofed. "oh well"
On April 19 2016 03:14 InfCereal wrote: @BronzeKnee
You've clearly never worked in software development. Do me a favor, go try to build something. Doesn't matter what. Tell me when you start so I can start spewing vitriol every step of the way. See how motivated you are to keep working on your product.
Blizzard is not a person. There are people behind that title, and they have to sludge through all this negative shit about their game any time they go online. Developing is so largely mental, and without motivation your productivity is going to drop fucking 80% or more.
Why in the world would someone want to put their 120% into a game seemingly no one enjoys in the least?
Of course they're demoralized. Starcraft is a fucking great game, but no one ever says that. Everyone has their own dream version of the game, and they're not even remotely happy with the game until it reaches that fantasy.
The only positive feed back you see from the community are "This is so much better than hots", followed by "Here's why it's still shit".
Yeah, good luck keeping your head above the water in that environment. They don't even have the luxury of being a top esport anymore for that ego boost.
LOL. They're a multimillion dollar company. They get PAID appropriately to deliver the best RTS in the world. If the current team isn't up to the challenge, hire a better one!
If there's so much vitriol, maybe it's time to actually start listening. They could of course also just give it another 5 years, by which time these fervent people's passion will have dwindled down to all but nothing.
It's mind-boggling David Kim still thinks the game will become more popular if he makes it more entertaining to watch despite the viewer numbers getting consistently lower. This guy is so stubborn.
On April 19 2016 03:14 InfCereal wrote: @BronzeKnee
You've clearly never worked in software development. Do me a favor, go try to build something. Doesn't matter what. Tell me when you start so I can start spewing vitriol every step of the way. See how motivated you are to keep working on your product.
Blizzard is not a person. There are people behind that title, and they have to sludge through all this negative shit about their game any time they go online. Developing is so largely mental, and without motivation your productivity is going to drop fucking 80% or more.
Why in the world would someone want to put their 120% into a game seemingly no one enjoys in the least?
Of course they're demoralized. Starcraft is a fucking great game, but no one ever says that. Everyone has their own dream version of the game, and they're not even remotely happy with the game until it reaches that fantasy.
The only positive feed back you see from the community are "This is so much better than hots", followed by "Here's why it's still shit".
Yeah, good luck keeping your head above the water in that environment. They don't even have the luxury of being a top esport anymore for that ego boost.
Hey bro, I work in software development, not that that matters, and I'm going to school for a masters in IT.
A lot of people criticize COTH endlessly, but I enjoy it and encourage and thank them for it because it makes the game better. SC2 isn't about the design team and their egos, just like COTH isn't about me, it is about the game so criticism is a good thing. And who cares how it is is presented. No one cares, you can't hurt my feelings and I don't need endless kind comments, I'm a big boy.
And a good idea is a good idea, so it makes the cut, no matter how it is presented. Because that is what is required to make a good game, don't give me this demotivating garbage. That is an excuse people use to justify failure, they blame someone else for why they failed. I don't believe in failure. And far less people play COTH, but I don't need a certain number of people to play to do a good job. I created what I wanted to play, and it just so happens a lot of people love it too.
So go to my forum, and spit whatever you want. Anyone successful in life leaves a path of losers and haters in their wake, and you can join the club if you want, I honestly don't care what you do.
To do anything great in the world, you only have to care about a single opinion, your own. And then you go and make something great. You cannot demotivate me, at all. It's impossible, I'm too proud to let you control me. Because I control me, and honestly I don't care at all what you think. What you say changes nothing, because I decide how I feel, at all times.
That is called mental fortitude, it is the attitude you have to have to be a champion at anything. Everyone who becomes a champion in anything becomes one in their own mind first, then goes out and shows the world. Ask one. Or better yet, read Mind Gym: http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Gym-Athletes-Guide-Excellence/dp/0071395970
So visit my forum, I get plenty of statements that would demotivate Blizzard, but this is also the kind of feedback I get:
"Bronze you are a f*cking genius you know that."
But I knew that before I made the game, because I am a champion in my own mind. And nothing you or anyone says or does is going to change that.
On April 19 2016 03:05 The_Red_Viper wrote: The article i linked didn't change the game no, but at least it got a response out of blizzard because it was written in a way people can actually discuss the arguments presented without having to interprete a lot of poor wording (in the context of such an article, this type of prose is simply bad for the purpose this text maybe had) Nothing to do with "mature" or not, if you wanna rgue that presentation isn't important than you are simply wrong. Coherent structure and language is extremely important, we don't wanna read flowery and abstract wording for an article which is about game design, that stuff belongs in other forms of literature.
Not even pointing out the problems of his argumentation itself, it's all in this thread already, no need to start from the beginning again. As i said before there are better blogs/articles/posts about sc2's problems and these weren't presented in the most narcissistic way possible (and usually they had more meat as well), which is why they are far superior.
But yeah sure, if you are going into this with the mindset of "blizzard sucks anyway", you probably can have fun with it i guess.
When I read the OP I also felt the urge be a smartass about his writing but I decided not to and because, to be honest with myself, it is probably because I am jealous of his great writing skill and I get the feeling this is exactly why you are somewhat triggered by it. Do I think he could have been more down to earth with this article? Yeah I do, but why I do find it a great post nevertheless is because he does bring a new perspective to where the game fails and he does have something intelligent to say, unlike a lot of pretentious people here that just want to show off their writing skills and present nothing of substance.
This have been proven true several time between your post and mine already...
On April 19 2016 06:42 marttorn wrote: The article is actually really excellent in my opinion, I'm glad it was bumped so I could find it. As long as you agree with most of the points I don't see why the tone would be a problem. If you disagree, I guess you're more likely to use the tone/style as an excuse to dismiss it. The truth is, it's a pretty thorough and very reasonable critique of SC2 as a whole.
The italics part appears to be true but it shouldn't be, I wish more people weren't so closed minded. Even if you disagree with everything in an article like this (including style) you could still learn from it, widen your own view about arguments discussed. Some people seem to take opinions of others they don't agree with as personal attacks which is, well, disappointing.
this WAS a good post, but it's incredibly hard to argue about it one year down the road, since it's hard to remember what context this was written in. some of the points made are really misleading though, such as what was said about football: there is a huge survival bias in the sports/hobbies that have survived from a few hundred years ago. history (and time) is the greatest producer of "intelligent design", through tinkering and trial-and-error. it is however impossible to adopt this approach on a MICRO scale, that is, creating the best game YOU want to. on the other hand, there is no doubt it is the same process that decides which games are popular when it comes to the entire market. the points about the game: I don't see the point in writing a 20 page essay about the alpha version of an expansion, of course everything is changing! and cherry-picking that ONE demuslim game destroys the post, who the hell is gonna cheese and practitce early timings in a beta version? it's totally stupid, you want to get a feel for the economy and late game before anyone else, not for the stupid cheese that will be patched if it's too strong... a lot of the post only holds if you accept that "contraction" idea. 1 year down the road we see that this is simply not true, the only difference is that we get to the same situation as we used to but more or less 10 minutes earlier. trust me, this really isn't hard on pros mechanically... talking about "strategy" and "mechanics" in an abstract way serves little purpose, there is no metric to compare these in and across games: you can't prove your point. one can made the opposite point and say that what looks like mechanics is mostly just a result of the strategy, if one guy has "much more stuff", it's often the result of his really good decisions. thinking you can just 1A at the highest level of the game is dillusional. even in masters league really...
What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
I think the basis for this misunderstanding is the vast difference in the current playerbase between the two games. Because it might well be that the percentage of players that really needs to care about strategy instead of just macroing better, is larger in BW than it is in SC2. But that's not because of a miraculously greater design of the former, but because all of the scrubs have left two decades ago.
I have never been better than diamond in SC2 and probably my macro sucks. I am quite sure that a high masters player can beat me with almost any "strategy". However that doesn't take anything from the fun of playing. Yes, I could rank higher if I focused on improving my macro, but why would I do that? What good would that do for me? I play the game because of the enjoyment and I do get exactly that. So I don't focus on macroing the best I could, instead I just enjoy all the options the game gives me. Thanks to the insanely good matchmaking system, I win about every other game.
Saying that there is not enough time for strategy at the top level is even more ridiculous, have you guys even watched a game lately?
On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote: What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
I think the basis for this misunderstanding is the vast difference in the current playerbase between the two games. Because it might well be that the percentage of players that really needs to care about strategy instead of just macroing better, is larger in BW than it is in SC2. But that's not because of a miraculously greater design of the former, but because all of the scrubs have left two decades ago.
I have never been better than diamond in SC2 and probably my macro sucks. I am quite sure that a high masters player can beat me with almost any "strategy". However that doesn't take anything from the fun of playing. Yes, I could rank higher if I focused on improving my macro, but why would I do that? What good would that do for me? I play the game because of the enjoyment and I do get exactly that. So I don't focus on macroing the best I could, instead I just enjoy all the options the game gives me. Thanks to the insanely good matchmaking system, I win about every other game.
Saying that there is not enough time for strategy at the top level is even more ridiculous, have you guys even watched a game lately?
Non-sequitur. You're trying to argue that because a game has a high mechanical requirement this somehow affects its extent of strategy? Unless the mechanical demand would be so high that a human can't reach it, this is clearly not the case.
Also a common misconception. Strategy matters very much between players of relatively equal skill in bw. The only place where strategy wouldn't matter much is when you have really large differences in skill such as A lvl player in bw playing vs a D lvl player or a pro player playing some random A lvl player.
On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote: What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
I think the basis for this misunderstanding is the vast difference in the current playerbase between the two games. Because it might well be that the percentage of players that really needs to care about strategy instead of just macroing better, is larger in BW than it is in SC2. But that's not because of a miraculously greater design of the former, but because all of the scrubs have left two decades ago.
I have never been better than diamond in SC2 and probably my macro sucks. I am quite sure that a high masters player can beat me with almost any "strategy". However that doesn't take anything from the fun of playing. Yes, I could rank higher if I focused on improving my macro, but why would I do that? What good would that do for me? I play the game because of the enjoyment and I do get exactly that. So I don't focus on macroing the best I could, instead I just enjoy all the options the game gives me. Thanks to the insanely good matchmaking system, I win about every other game.
Saying that there is not enough time for strategy at the top level is even more ridiculous, have you guys even watched a game lately?
Non-sequitur. You're trying to argue that because a game has a high mechanical requirement this somehow affects its extent of strategy? Unless the mechanical demand would be so high that a human can't reach it, this is clearly not the case.
Also a common misconception. Strategy matters very much between players of relatively equal skill in bw. The only place where strategy wouldn't matter much is when you have really large differences in skill such as A lvl player in bw playing vs a D lvl player or a pro player playing some random A lvl player.
No, that's what the people in this very thread are arguing! Well actually it turns out that if I wasn't lazy to go through the last couple of pages, I would have found that this idea comes mostly from one person, so I could have just quoted him to avoid the confusion. So, this
On April 18 2016 18:56 Incognoto wrote: There's also little room for strategy. Strategy is about making the right strategic decisions which allows for a player to attack another player with an inherent advantage (more units, better unit composition, etc.). In starcraft 2, "strategy" at most levels (until you hit Korean levels, I guess) is just about not missing depots or production cycles and attacking when your upgrades hit. You can't get an advantage using strategy like you can with with pure mechanics: how is that "fun"?
I think is pure bullshit for reasons stated above. I am being clear now?
Well I've never compared anything to Brood War, so I wouldn't know where that comes from.
I do believe that strong mechanics much more heavily influence the outcome of the game than strategy. Examples, I guess:
"I missed a few depots and was supply blocked for a minute" "I missed a production or warp-in cycle" "I missed a round of injects" "I failed to properly split my lings vs those banelings"
^Those will lose games, much more than:
"I took my third too late" "3 rax reaper should not work against that opening" "I opened with 6 hellions to take map control and thus delayed the zerg's third, which allowed me to gain a macro mechanic lead" "protoss made dark templar or oracles, which is easily countered by my safe build using an ebay" "I perfectly hit my 1-1 timing"
Take that last example, the 1-1 timing. A 1-1 timing only ever makes strategically sense if you applied that with perfect production. A 1-1 timing which hits after I've been supply blocked for a minute is much less powerful than simply hitting the same timing, without 1-1, without missing depots.
Strategy just doesn't influence the game to the same extent as mechanics due if you're under masters. The only thing which will ever lose you games is "I did not have enough units at the right time". :/
Assuming that both players do NOT get supply blocked, miss production cycles, or anything like that, then strategy becomes relevant. Because what becomes the limiting factor is the race you're playing itself, so that means that you need to have the right builds and make the right decisions. Below masters, the limiting factor is the player, so whichever player manages to macro less shittily than his opponent wins.
Go look at a platinum or gold level game. What decides those games is whoever had more units than the other guy whenever a fight took place. What decides THAT is the mechanics the player was able to perform during the game; the strategy chosen has little influence over that.
On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote: What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
The point isn't that SC2 is more "mechanically difficult." It's that mechanics trump strategy (tech, positioning) in SC2. In BW, strategy nullified mechanics. Do you know why no one builds marines and medics in BW TvP? Because they'll get a big old fuck off psi storm or scarab and there will be marine guts everywhere. In SC2 you stim2win, snipe that lonely, shitty colossus, and /dance in the protoss's natural. Everything has been tilted in favor of mechanics in SC2. Units are faster, AOE is weaker, and DPS is higher. Also why is it 2016 and mech still isn't viable? Because it results in slower games and we can't have that in esportsCraft.
As a big BW lover, mechanics also trumped strategy in BW. Probably even more than in SC2.
No matter how you look at it, if a player gathers and spends a thousand more of gas/minerals than the other, the strategies of choice won't matter much at that point. The player with more will win, almost always. The game would need to be flawed (have broken strategies) or to have a system of units with extreme hard counters to topple that difference imo.
Strategy is always based off of what is mechanically possible anyway.
There isn't a build out there which takes into account players missing supply or having idle production time. Nor should there be.
However, in Starcraft 2, macro mechanics are so fast-paced that strategy is really inaccessible to the casual player; mostly because macro mechanics just influence the outcome of the game so much more.
No one cares about a Carrier rush which I put together which works against Bronze level players. I can come up with 50 different working strategies for Bronze league, since mechanics are meaningless there. This also means that Bronze league strategies are equally meaningless.
On April 20 2016 00:31 Incognoto wrote: Strategy is always based off of what is mechanically possible anyway.
There isn't a build out there which takes into account players missing supply or having idle production time. Nor should there be.
However, in Starcraft 2, macro mechanics are so fast-paced that strategy is really inaccessible to the casual player; mostly because macro mechanics just influence the outcome of the game so much more.
No one cares about a Carrier rush which I put together which works against Bronze level players. I can come up with 50 different working strategies for Bronze league, since mechanics are meaningless there. This also means that Bronze league strategies are equally meaningless.
Why is it meaningless? Because it doesn't work on higher lvls? If you are in Bronze and you play vs other bronze players who are equally as good/bad as you in mechanical ability strategy becomes more important. The same is true for any match where two players of similar skill (which most of the time means mechanical skill) play against each other. That's not even a starcraft thing, this concept is universal. You still confuse "getting better in the game mostly about mechanics" with "strategy doesn't mean anything in any given game up until x" X is completely arbitrary btw
On April 20 2016 00:21 Salteador Neo wrote: As a big BW lover, mechanics also trumped strategy in BW. Probably even more than in SC2.
No matter how you look at it, if a player gathers and spends a thousand more of gas/minerals than the other, the strategies of choice won't matter much at that point. The player with more will win, almost always. The game would need to be flawed (have broken strategies) or to have a system of units with extreme hard counters to topple that difference imo.
Ok so you all you did was contradict me without providing any evidence or arguments to back it up. Here is an example of a player who has been outharassed, outmacroed, and outmicroed but still wins the game: Jangbi vs Nada. Jangbi was way behind due to some devastating vulture harassment leading up to this point. Nada has a huge army but Jangbi deletes it all with some money psi storms/stasis fields and ends up winning the game.
What annoys me about SC2 is when you counter a build and lose anyway. Marines should not beat psi storm or banelings. Look at that Jangbi video again. In BW marines do way worse against psi storm than tanks do. And yet in SC2 they just walk it off. Sigh. Maybe I should just go back to BW.
The style of thedwf is a pretty annoying and the party in which he talks about the communication of Blizzard seems a bit off, for me, they are just totally clueless and not even cynical, however, their intention of making a game for the viewers were clears and a fundamental error, I agree with that. Moreover, the part on the control is exactly what I feel about the game. An unit like the phoenix is a typical exemple of harass tool in which you have absolutly no control as a zerg, it just dépends of the protoss errors. It is the opposite of the hots version of the reaper harass and then the helion which involved great micro and control from both sides, no frustration, just skill and pleasure!
On April 19 2016 22:41 B-royal wrote: Unless the mechanical demand would be so high that a human can't reach it, this is clearly not the case.
I agree that strategy matters at all levels, assuming players have equal mechanical skill. Surely there becomes a point where strategy doesn't matter because one player is just so much better mechanically, but the reverse is true too. One player might have better mechanics, but if he is massing Zerglings versus Hellbats there is a point where macro won't be over to overwhelm that.
I do think the mechanical demand of SC2 is so high that a human can't reach it. I don't see how anyone could play the perfect game in all respects. As TheDwf pointed out, if you have 4 Banelings coming and you have 8 SCV's to split, that is much easier than 20 Banelings coming and 40 SCV's to split. So, the larger the army gets, the less effective any micro will be and more potential to play perfectly is lost. Which is again, why he pointed out that some of the best micro interactions that give the players the most control come during low unit count interactions.
And that is especially true with the amount of abilities Protoss units have. There is just too many units with too many abilities for anyone, even for top players to use all of them effectively. When a unit has no worth unless it gets significant attention (ie Disruptors) then it means you won't have the time to micro other units as effectively, no matter how fast you are.
There is a way to alleviate a significant portion of this problem, by allowing players to set hotkey that will work no matter what units you have select. So if you have a group of Sentries and High Templars, you can select that group and press F and get a Forcefield everytime, no matter if the High Templar is the priority unit in the selection.
I suggested that to Blizzard, but it went the same way pretty much every other community suggestion goes.
I'm actually in the opposing camp myself. In my opinion, the easier the game is mechanically, the less strategy there is.
If for example, all you do is set medivac on auto harass patrol, setting specific waypoints, or have marines auto split vs banelings, marauders autokite, spells being all on autocast, production automatic, then surely there will be more room for strategy, no? Actually no, then we will experience pure build order wins.
We are going in circles with this one. Give mbs, smartcast, unlimited unit selection. Whine that game is too easy. Give macro mechanics, spells galore to compensate. Whine that too much of it diminishes strategy. What do you people want now? Make spells even easier to cast or set on autocast? Then blizzard will introduce even more stupid mechanics to compensate.
It is mechanics that allow for strategy to exist. If you don't have the awerness and multitasking to do a double drop and macro at the same time, don't. Go for a different build. Devise a different strategy.
Hell, take mine example. I can't split and control ling bane muta, having switched to sc2 only at the start of this year. I despise the ravager. So I had to work on making my own style of ling festor corruptor work at diamond level. And damn, it was fun to play. Or in zvp, I exclusively play overpool aggression into tunnel roach harass into roach hydra lurker timing
On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote: What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
The point isn't that SC2 is more "mechanically difficult." It's that mechanics trump strategy (tech, positioning) in SC2. In BW, strategy nullified mechanics. Do you know why no one builds marines and medics in BW TvP? Because they'll get a big old fuck off psi storm or scarab and there will be marine guts everywhere. In SC2 you stim2win, snipe that lonely, shitty colossus, and /dance in the protoss's natural. Everything has been tilted in favor of mechanics in SC2. Units are faster, AOE is weaker, and DPS is higher. Also why is it 2016 and mech still isn't viable? Because it results in slower games and we can't have that in esportsCraft.
This is exactly the problem I was talking about. The only BW players left on this forum are too good to even appreciate that the bolded statement is purely absurd for anyone who would play BW even a little "casually". Most of you can probably beat me in BW even if we played TvP and you build nothing but pure marines, because you would simply have twice as many workers than myself come the fifth minute. Your, albeit anecdotal, view of SC2 is then purely simplistic and it resembles battle.net level balance whine.
I still also don't understand what exactly is that "strategy" you demand so badly. Would you prefer that both players just submit their build orders in writing and a jury decides the victor?
On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote: What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
The point isn't that SC2 is more "mechanically difficult." It's that mechanics trump strategy (tech, positioning) in SC2. In BW, strategy nullified mechanics. Do you know why no one builds marines and medics in BW TvP? Because they'll get a big old fuck off psi storm or scarab and there will be marine guts everywhere. In SC2 you stim2win, snipe that lonely, shitty colossus, and /dance in the protoss's natural. Everything has been tilted in favor of mechanics in SC2. Units are faster, AOE is weaker, and DPS is higher. Also why is it 2016 and mech still isn't viable? Because it results in slower games and we can't have that in esportsCraft.
This is exactly the problem I was talking about. The only BW players left on this forum are too good to even appreciate that the bolded statement is purely absurd for anyone who would play BW even a little "casually". Most of you can probably beat me in BW even if we played TvP and you build nothing but pure marines, because you would simply have twice as many workers than myself come the fifth minute. Your, albeit anecdotal, view of SC2 is then purely simplistic and it resembles battle.net level balance whine.
I still also don't understand what exactly is that "strategy" you demand so badly. Would you prefer that both players just submit their build orders in writing and a jury decides the victor?
What? I don't even... LOL. Pure marines new meta in BW? I like how you complain about absurd statements and people not understanding BW, then immediately follow it up with that. Nothing else to say really.
The mechanical barrier isn't really the issue, it's what you can or can't do with your units. Unmicroed, your units have 1x efficiency. In SC2, your units have a 1.2x efficiency with micro, if that. In BW, good micro could give your units up to a 10x efficiency. As a result, build orders in SC2 revolve so much more around the macro, and build timings, than they do with micro and controlling your units intelligently. In BW, certain builds could be made that were only possible because you were good enough at using your units a certain way, simply because the potential for good control was so high.
Another thing that SC2 is failing with is the importance of terrain. It started with the lack of proper high ground advantage like you had in BW, but it doesn't stop there. Since HotS, air units have been made to be increasingly powerful, which is a grave mistake. Air units are supposed to pay in some fashion for the fact that they fly. They ignore the terrain in a map, therefore they should be generally weaker than ground units to compensate, and make ground units appealing options as well. But they don't, Oracles destroy mineral lines in seconds if left unchecked, Mutalisks are a low-risk harassment option with their speed and regeneration, Medivacs and Oracles are also insanely fast, Liberators are extremely powerful and effective space control units, filling the role that should have been filled by the siege tank(a ground unit). In BW you could tailor a build to a map using the combination of your unit control and specific terrain features in the map. You can't do this in SC2, because unit control has a much smaller impact, and the terrain often has no impact.
On April 20 2016 07:24 NewSunshine wrote: The mechanical barrier isn't really the issue, it's what you can or can't do with your units. Unmicroed, your units have 1x efficiency. In SC2, your units have a 1.2x efficiency with micro, if that.
Unmicroed Sentries, Disruptors, Phoenixes, Stalkers, High Templars, Oracles, ect are all terrible. Protoss in particular has a lot of core units with abilities that require constant attention.
On April 20 2016 04:56 opisska wrote: Apparently, the main problem of SC2 is being too easy and too hard at the same time ...
On April 20 2016 00:15 BaronVonOwn wrote:
On April 19 2016 19:36 opisska wrote: What really boggles my mind is how people repeatedly argue that there is "not enough room for strategy" in SC2 and then the same people show BW as an example of a great game. If you think that "mechanics is everything" in SC2, have you even played BW? Because in BW, the mechanical skill needed for your strategy to begin to matter is almost incomparably higher than in SC2.
The point isn't that SC2 is more "mechanically difficult." It's that mechanics trump strategy (tech, positioning) in SC2. In BW, strategy nullified mechanics. Do you know why no one builds marines and medics in BW TvP? Because they'll get a big old fuck off psi storm or scarab and there will be marine guts everywhere. In SC2 you stim2win, snipe that lonely, shitty colossus, and /dance in the protoss's natural. Everything has been tilted in favor of mechanics in SC2. Units are faster, AOE is weaker, and DPS is higher. Also why is it 2016 and mech still isn't viable? Because it results in slower games and we can't have that in esportsCraft.
This is exactly the problem I was talking about. The only BW players left on this forum are too good to even appreciate that the bolded statement is purely absurd for anyone who would play BW even a little "casually". Most of you can probably beat me in BW even if we played TvP and you build nothing but pure marines, because you would simply have twice as many workers than myself come the fifth minute. Your, albeit anecdotal, view of SC2 is then purely simplistic and it resembles battle.net level balance whine.
I still also don't understand what exactly is that "strategy" you demand so badly. Would you prefer that both players just submit their build orders in writing and a jury decides the victor?
What? I don't even... LOL. Pure marines new meta in BW? I like how you complain about absurd statements and people not understanding BW, then immediately follow it up with that. Nothing else to say really.
Are you even trying to understand what other people say, or have you come here just to shout whatever just comes through your mind into an empty chamber?
in a strategy game there are a lot of moments where you decide micro isn't worth it. maybe you notice it and consciously do it, maybe not.
you need to decide what you're placing your focus and attention on and do one task at a time. multitasking is a small myth in groups of casual players because issuing long move commands and timing when you'll take control again is regarded as doing a couple different things at once. i don't think so. i think a lot of players have an aversion for using fancy mechanics that would most assuredly net an edge if done in tandem with macro. i very seldomly (let alone consistently) see players try to abuse ai by using one zergling to draw a pack of melee units around and buy time for a proper engagement--or rather, relying on such things and benefiting from the resources it frees up. this is all because it is already so difficult to manage your economy without hiccups and without something that's diverting your attention and is equally as important to focus on.
so with that in mind, i feel that strategy in these games deals with small decision making, almost entirely. because it is all real-time, that further adds onto the feeling that you're in control of everything about to happen.
the situation where you can lose workers and still eventually overtake in mining from a small base advantage is entirely to be expected from both players. there's the likelihood that the defending player is too taxed to minimize damage as well as continue producing, which makes that entire strategy plausible in the first place. your attacking player needs to decide whether to continue attacking or immediately take the opportunity to expand with the remaining control they have left.
there are examples earlier in this thread of situations that are more game-winning than others. i disagree with each one of them because there are ways to spin those moments around. my point is that most people won't even bother or think of doing it. it's the reward aspect of all of it.
as much as people will argue against it, i originally thought people just loved mech because they like how empowering it is and seeing blue goo all over the ground, and the sound of protoss units dying. i still don't think that's far off. i just don't like the idea of pretending that the reasons for it is more complicated than it really is. i guarantee that most people who main terran for this feeling will not be admitting that it's thrilling to play from the protoss perspective playing into the mech but have experiences of the opposite.
as much as starcraft 2 is about overarching strategy and being able to deal with certain builds from every race, on every map, scbw is about feel and pacing. feel and pacing is the way units control and represent a part of the map, respectively. a group of zerglings can be scarier for a longer time depending on if you know or how you typically deal with them. you can get away with a lot of stuff just by having the right unit and doing the right control.this plays into a lot of (potentially) complex situations where there's no obvious answer and low economy and a slower game becomes the standard.
in starcraft 2 the macro is quite easy to understand and to benefit from, so your stronger early-game strategies abuse and abuse until you need to move on in the game. there is still easy-to-medium obtainable tech that you can get to swing the situation around quite quickly.
i don't know how to explain the thought at all, but the games have and give you a different focus and both have limiting options influenced by your enjoyment [of] or preference in the mechanics involved. for all purposes i just like dragoons more than stalkers or vultures more than hellions. stalkers provide a lot more durability and movement compared to dragoons and so if i'm forced to make something else than dragoons then that's fine as well. i'll make zealots or reavers because those are cool with me too. in star2 i can continue producing batches of stalkers if i want to because they're good for many situations. or, i could just fast tech with the right scouting and pretend they never existed.
there tends to be a discussion on the fast pace of the game and the difficulty. i just don't see it. you make the game as difficult as it is both in the sense that there are less cushions and that your preferences reflect on your other options. i tend to think that lazier or more narrow-minded players feel more limited in how they can play or win.. which is totally fine. you know, you can't just do whatever you want and win however you want. you can't just not practice something and expect it to work; everyone understands this. someone is on the other side hopefully playing like you exist and as though have a mind of your own. it's just the level of thinking beyond all that is what is limiting players in starcraft 2 it feels--that, along with a less rewarding experience through it all. you want to do equally sick control as something you did in your BW BGH yesteryears? you can do that in sc2. you just have to work hard and obtain workable skills that incorporate that control and ultimately make it something meaningful.
" mechanics also trumped strategy in BW. Probably even more than in SC2."
Sorry but that's just not accurate, mechanics were important but they weren't to the point of doing constantly monotonous easily removed tasks so that your giant ball of junk can crush the enemy's giant ball in 2 inches off center of the map.
Positioning actually mattered, and not the composition hard counters you made.
I heard strategy means something about being smart - i'm a smart person - i'll claim strategy>mechanics, though i don't really understand what all these words mean and what makes a RTS gameplay.
With the latest community feedback discussing the possibility of re-introducing 4-larvae inject, it reminded me of some of the discussions from this thread.
I know that many of us felt the post was too long to read, or too wordy, or that the writing style clouds most of the underlying message TheDwf is trying to convey.
I may not agree with everything in it, but I do believe that the topics from the OP are worth discussing. So, for posterity, I've done my best to cover the talking points in each section (even ones I disagree with), but with less wordiness and hopefully a more matter-of-fact style of writing. Here goes.
--
Spaghettification
1. There is a difference between a "Real-time Strategy" game and just "Real-time". Starcraft is at its best when we have constant tension (e.g. multi-tasking) throughout the game while feeling in control. Unfortunately, Starcraft today feels like two players waiting for the first major blunder induced purely by time pressure.
Key point: If we slow down the battles, we will see even more impressive multi-tasking -- and isn't that when Starcraft is its most beautiful?
2. (something something Blizz is bad at its job) More harassment tools is not a silver bullet to the "one single max-army vs. max-army fight decides the game" problem. Now, your attention span is continuously consumed by a constant fear of your mineral lines evaporating in seconds, which can be paralyzing -- or at the very least, leaves players feeling frustrated and means spectators miss out on seeing more creative forms of multi-tasking on a regular basis.
Key point: We like harassment, but we need to do it in a way that makes both players feel in control, rather than just being frustrated when it finally happens. If we do this well, spectators will be rewarded with creative multi-tasking more often.
3. APM has human limits. So does attention & concentration. But, there is a difference between "wow I was outplayed" vs. "if only I had seen that widow mine 1ms earlier" or "if only I had moved my MSC 2 pixels higher." The difference between a huge win and a huge loss shouldn't be a tiny moment, otherwise it makes the rest of the game feel meaningless.
Worse, if it's too easy to decide a game in a single moment (the extreme was WoL TvT before blue-flame patch) we lose out on the most rewarding part of being a spectator: pros developing unique "play styles." Instead, most pros focus on mastering the same set of critical moments because no matter what play-style you have, and what advantage you have built up during a particular game, you still live or die by those tiny moments so you have no choice but to practice those instead of developing new play-styles.
(analogy about driving a car: driving at a normal speed, your skill determines when you crash. If you're going fast enough, basically only luck can determine when you crash.)
Key point: When small mistakes can have a huge cost, it reduces the creativity of play and quality displays of skill.
Supernova
4. (preamble about why people complain to Blizzard usually) Hard-counters, compared to soft-counters, leave fewer opportunities to display skill. Forced randomness, such as build-order losses, leave fewer opportunities to display skill. Easy actions with too large of an impact (WoL force field, Nexus overcharge, single widow mines, etc.) leave fewer opportunities for both sides to display skill.
Key point: It's okay when things that take a lot of work can swing a game hugely into your favor. But things that take a small amount of work should only be able to swing a game a small amount in your favor.
5. (various analogies)
Key point: As much as spectators believe that a player has "earned" a win, they should also feel that the opposing player "deserved" the loss.
6. What causes ladder anxiety? Probably a large part of it is that when you lose it doesn't feel like you deserved it. You don't always feel like you were outplayed. (something something Blizz is bad at its job) There is a way to make the game fun for players that makes it even more fun for spectators... but that's not approach we seem to have taken so far.
Key point: If players start to feel like they are in control, spectators will begin to see even more awesome stuff.
Meteorite bombing
7. Some of the best design choices were an accident. Towers were always intended for defence, but today cannon rushes are an expected aspect of the game. But this is great. Rather than stifle behavior that does not match the intended design, let players be creative. It is totally okay, and potentially even more rewarding to see the game you designed played out in ways you never imagined.
Key point: A willingness to take control away from players _during_ the game (easy actions having a large impact on the outcome) seems to parallel a willingness to take control away from the community while _discussing_ the game.
8. It's hard to make things that are "exciting" when everything has smartest & overkill prevention because now if something is powerful, it's quickly too powerful.
But did the same thing happen to macro mechanics? As an idea, macro mechanics are a neat idea: Add actions that are visible to the spectator that help your economy, not just battles. But it's a fine line, because making macro easier also means it's easier and faster to get and spend resources, which is a problem because it leads to bigger armies faster, which leads to deathballs because battles are too fast for most people to keep up with multiple battles at once.
Key points: Faster economies combined with faster battles strongly encourages passive, deathball play, rather than creative multi-tasking styles -- except for a small number of pros who can handle it. Why not encourage multi-tasking for more people? Would it hurt to have smaller armies or slower battles?
9. There is a difference between "micro-mechanics" and "exciting action." Most people agree that Siege Tanks are more interesting/exciting/fun than Colossus, even though Siege Tanks just sit there, while Colossus have to be moved around during battle. The reason is that Siege Mode creates real-time tension between decisions (should I unsiege or stay sieged?), whereas Colossus simply has one obvious goal "stay out of range and hit the enemy."
Key points: Add tension between decisions (e.g. Siege Mode) not just between clicks (faster or more precise = win).
10. What else adds tension between decisions? Making sure units have _weaknesses_. It is strategically interesting for Zerglings to be very fragile. It is strategically interesting for Siege Tanks to have a very slow attack rate.
What else encourages "max-army vs. max-army fights to decide the game"? It's hard to build smaller armies. Ultralisks can only be built 6 supply at a time. Despite their role, hydras and roaches can only be built 2 supply at a time (why not a half-as-effective hydralisk or roach @ 1 supply?), etc. Smaller cost less effective units naturally lead to more skirmishes ("you can split three Goliaths, [for the same cost] you cannot split a Thor". You can lose one Goliath at a time, but the Thor living or dying is all-or-nothing.).
(more examples)
Key point: It does not require an overhaul of the engine to make the changes I am asking for. Simple things like lowering hitpoints/armor/acceleration/attack rate/supply & resource costs, etc. could already make a huge difference.
11. --> Can read this section yourself. It's not super wordy and straight to-the-point.
The Mammoth in the Room
12. In WoL, Blizzard & the community had identified a "mutalisk problem" in PvZ. But in response, we went down what was likely the wrong path. We added counters, Phoenix range, anti-air AoE Tempest, etc. when the underlying problem was probably that Zerg reaches those huge Mutalisks flocks too easily. But the game continues to evolve and we are stuck with various "hard counters" to the mutalisk, which means "Mutas become cheesy, builds/counters become coinflippy and no one is happy." Slow down the economy, and a lot of what appear to be "unit" problems may go away.
Another example is given about the Ultralisk and how it became a hard counter that now needed its own hard counter, which then needed its own hard counter, etc.
Key point: When you make a change, that is supposed to fix a problem, and that change opens up a new problem elsewhere, instead of continuing to play whack-a-mole, why not just undo the original change and look for the deeper root cause?
13. Were the new HotS units really necessary, or could we just have fixed deficiencies in the existing units? (e.g. Tempests added despite Carriers never being used.)
(Specific discussions about specific units: Tank, Widow Mine, MSC, Oracle, Tankivac. Many aren't too wordy, probably ok to read yourself.)
Key point: "when assessing new units, the first question one should ask is: what does this unit do that an overhaul of the already existing ones—especially those who are underused—can't?"
The Fault in Our Stars
14. "Promoting aggressive multitasking means promoting low-medium risk, low-medium reward operations. Huge risk leads to deathballing: why would you move out if you risk losing everything, which means immediate checkmate?" BUT that doesn't mean ZERO-risk.
Zero risk reduces control, and leaves fewer opportunities to display skill. Many of the new designs are leading toward "zero risk" such as: "Recall from the MSC; Warp Prism pick-up range; Release Interceptors from the Carrier; Tactical Jump from the Battlecruiser; uncatchable units; possibly Medivacs picking up Tanks in Siege Mode; etc."
Key point: Risk & reward of particular actions should be low, not zero.
15. --> It's not too bad to read this section yourself.
16. [mostly paraphrased]
There appears to be some sentiment from Blizz that "aggression is good, defence is bad." However, aggression isn't always good -- it can be hollow. Similarly, defence isn't always bad -- it can't be skillful. (The 4-gate era of early WoL PvP was strictly built upon “constant aggression”; ask Protoss players if it was a satisfactory match-up.)
Better if we have legitimate defenders advantage. The attacker has the privilege to choose when and where he attacks, so the defender obviously needs “counter-privileges”. Defender's advantage comes from various things like terrain (ramps, chokes), superior vision (information), unit formation (concaves), closer production, artillery units, etc.
Certain concepts tend towards an inherent attacker's advantage (e.g. Warpgate, boost Medivacs, muta regen), which is fundamentally absurd. Spoon-feeding players with specific units like the MSC is crude."
17. --> Can read this section yourself. It's not super wordy and straight to-the-point.
Stardust accretion
18. (Tried my best, but couldn't figure out what the underlying message is here... maybe that "casual gamers" have been used as an excuse to dumb things down too much, and that we need to give them more credit?)
19. The community needs to come together to recognize what is a distraction and what are the deep problems to push for in LotV. Cyclones are "OP" (at the time of LotV beta) is not the root cause of our deeper problems. Same for “buffing is good, nerfing is bad” because obviously poorly selected buffs can break the game, and well-targeted nerfs can open tons of options.
Key point: Don't complain about the topic of the day. Remember to think back to what the deepest problems actually are.
20. Yes, everyone already knows players of all games crave the feeling of control; how else do you explain superstitions? There's nothing new here. But what we need to do is make sure Blizzard hears us this time. Let's not fight amongst each other (especially about "BW vs. SC2"). We're all in this together to make Starcraft better. Let's find a way to engage Blizzard in this conversation.
Key points: It's been 5 years (at the time of this article) since SC2 began, and many of the things in this article have not been addressed (or considered?) by Blizzard. There must be things that we, as a community, can be better at presenting this message to them?
21. Give control to the players. Make sure there is strategic tension between as many actions/decisions as possible. The best units offer complex interactions from simple concepts (not just more active abilities.)
TheDwf concludes with an example of a game that had 8(!) minutes of dead time where each player built up their economy followed by "bowling, with workers as pins falling left and right because bases are too spread to be protected."
--
@TheDwf: If I've missed or misunderstood anything, please let me know. Happy to correct it.
In my opinion, two factors could be stressed more:
1. The root cause for many of the (design) problems mentioned is the fact, that the design is controlled by a commercial company interested in increasing the shareholder value. There was no privately held company designing chess or football, even though now there are commercial organizations exploiting those games. But in SC2 an arbitrary team of designers is hired to ultimately maximize profit. This incentive is prone to lead to conflict of interest. Not the best game shall be engineered, but the most financially profitable.
2. Intentional design (as opposed to the mentioned and praised unintentional design) is not inherently bad. What makes it bad is the cognitive limits of humans who fail to account for the complexity. What is happening in SC2 reminds me of the various failed attempts of (e.g. communist) governments to plan an economy. In theory it is possible, but in practice the world is just too complex to be understood by a team of economists. Even if they are considered very good among their peers. Players don't behave as designers might have expected (see the example on defensive structures in the article). One way to overcome this is to use collective intelligence and listen to more people than just a small group of designers.
Conclusion: Yes, LOTV needs a revolution! This revolution should be an open-source version of the game, developed under the supervision of an independent non-profit council whose members are elected. The council acts according to a constitution, which states some general rules and goals. Examples of such a rule: - "Design shall attempt to achieve an equal distribution of all 3 races" - "Design shall attempt to increase the number of skill levels in the game" *
Companies who seek to exploit the game commercially can still do so, just as it is done in many other sports via tournaments, sponsorship, merchandise, selling of gears, etc. etc. The core game shall be optimized for the community (players and spectators), the rest can be optimized for profit.
* footnote: in other words: increase the skill gap between the best and the worst player. A skill level is defined given a probability as follows: If a player A beats a player B with a probability of P (say e.g. 90%) then A is one level above B. The more levels exist, the much better is the highest level player compared to the lowest level player. This means that the game has more depth and less chance. Chess has about 7 levels.
Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
lacks talented designers? What RTS is designed better than SC2? And don't say BW....
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
lacks talented designers? What RTS is designed better than SC2? And don't say BW....
Why not
I mean there aren't many rts titles which are close to starcraft in style so that's a tricky question tbh (because it's kinda hard to compare starcraft to say total annihilation). I guess it really depends what you are looking for in an rts
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
I don't buy this analogy. Yes, many great games were designed by small teams. But these games typically lack the complexity of SC2. Creating awesome 3D graphics may be difficult as well, but difficulty is rather linear. And talented soccer players do not need to design soccer, just perform within rules that are already designed.
Balancing 2 races with x different units such that every unit has its place is another category of complexity. Balancing 3 races even multiplies that complexity. Let's look at a very very simplified picture and assume the following:
We define "complexity" as having to look at how each unit interacts with other units (~ balancing them) Let's say each race has 10 units. Creating a meaningful mirror match then takes complexity 10 * 10 = 100. Creating a meaningful game for two different races: 10 * 10 = 100 as well This should be easy to comprehend because we look at the interactions of each unit with each other unit (10 * 10). By "meaningful" I mean that each unit has its place such that no unit is just strictly better than another one, considering abilities, attack, health, moving speed, cost to build, time to build, size, etc.
Thus: Game with 1 race: Complexity = 100
Game with 2 races: Complexity = (100 + 100) * 100 = 20'000 (balancing 2 independent mirrors AND the non-mirror matchup)
Game with 3 races: Complexity = (100 + 100 + 100) * 100 * 100 * 100 = 300'000'000 (balancing 3 independent mirrors AND all 3 non-mirror matchups)
btw. I use "+" because mirror matches can be balanced independently from each other, therefore complexity is just added, but I use "*" because non-mirrors are not independent of the mirror anymore. This can be seen easily by the following example: If I balance a marine vs a banshee for TvT it does not affect ZvZ, but it will affect TvZ.
As the above super-simplified illustration shows, complexity just explodes with 3 races to the point where I argue a small team of designers, even if they are very intelligent, won't be able to handle it.
Of course Blizzard has taken measures to reduce that complexity. For example you will notice, that non-mirrors never use all the units available in the game. Rather, overlapping subsets are used. For example, if hydras are only used in mirror and ZvP, but never in ZvT, this already reduces the complexity from 300 millions to (100 + 100 + 100) * 100 * 100 * 90 = 270 million. This is a 10% reduction. It's a neat and necessary trick, but it only emphasizes my point.
Again: managers who believe their design team can handle the complexity and foresee how the game develops are just ignorant. Designers will do their best to start well and then patch, but will over-compensate, introduce new problems, fail to recognize existing problems, etc. etc. ultimately leading to failure. Not because they're bad, but because they are humans.
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
I don't buy this analogy. Yes, many great games were designed by small teams. But these games typically lack the complexity of SC2. Creating awesome 3D graphics may be difficult as well, but difficulty is rather linear.
The counter argument, is that a small team of developers/designers have made an arguably more fun version of SC2 (i.e. Starbow).
You could just reddit this. Yet another blizzard bashing thread. I'm sure all of you know-how's would have made a way better RTS game than SC2... oh wait, SC2 is the best and the most popular in the genre.
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
lacks talented designers? What RTS is designed better than SC2? And don't say BW....
Why not
I mean there aren't many rts titles which are close to starcraft in style so that's a tricky question tbh (because it's kinda hard to compare starcraft to say total annihilation). I guess it really depends what you are looking for in an rts
You could argue that Brood War was not designed to be this way, though. All these bugs, all these gameplay elements that were found later on - these aren't things the developers looked at and said "Well, this is the way it should be. This way people can do all these cool things!".
They had a lot of technical limitations that SC2 did not have, thus leaving less room for these "happy little accidents" to happen.
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
I don't buy this analogy. Yes, many great games were designed by small teams. But these games typically lack the complexity of SC2. Creating awesome 3D graphics may be difficult as well, but difficulty is rather linear.
The counter argument, is that a small team of developers/designers have made an arguably more fun version of SC2 (i.e. Starbow).
Starbow maybe took 1% of the amount of work that it took to make SC2, though. And from a design perspective they mainly analysed what made fun in BW and tried to bring those things into SC2. So more of a "translation" than actual design from scratch.
(Completely leaving out the fact that whether or not Starbow is more fun is really subjective)
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
lacks talented designers? What RTS is designed better than SC2? And don't say BW....
Why not
I mean there aren't many rts titles which are close to starcraft in style so that's a tricky question tbh (because it's kinda hard to compare starcraft to say total annihilation). I guess it really depends what you are looking for in an rts
You could argue that Brood War was not designed to be this way, though. All these bugs, all these gameplay elements that were found later on - these aren't things the developers looked at and said "Well, this is the way it should be. This way people can do all these cool things!".
They had a lot of technical limitations that SC2 did not have, thus leaving less room for these "happy little accidents" to happen.
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
I don't buy this analogy. Yes, many great games were designed by small teams. But these games typically lack the complexity of SC2. Creating awesome 3D graphics may be difficult as well, but difficulty is rather linear.
The counter argument, is that a small team of developers/designers have made an arguably more fun version of SC2 (i.e. Starbow).
Starbow maybe took 1% of the amount of work that it took to make SC2, though. And from a design perspective they mainly analysed what made fun in BW and tried to bring those things into SC2. So more of a "translation" than actual design from scratch.
(Completely leaving out the fact that whether or not Starbow is more fun is really subjective)
Correct, I certainly won't take a side in this one as I agree it is to subjective.
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
lacks talented designers? What RTS is designed better than SC2? And don't say BW....
Why not
I mean there aren't many rts titles which are close to starcraft in style so that's a tricky question tbh (because it's kinda hard to compare starcraft to say total annihilation). I guess it really depends what you are looking for in an rts
You could argue that Brood War was not designed to be this way, though. All these bugs, all these gameplay elements that were found later on - these aren't things the developers looked at and said "Well, this is the way it should be. This way people can do all these cool things!".
They had a lot of technical limitations that SC2 did not have, thus leaving less room for these "happy little accidents" to happen.
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
I don't buy this analogy. Yes, many great games were designed by small teams. But these games typically lack the complexity of SC2. Creating awesome 3D graphics may be difficult as well, but difficulty is rather linear.
The counter argument, is that a small team of developers/designers have made an arguably more fun version of SC2 (i.e. Starbow).
Starbow maybe took 1% of the amount of work that it took to make SC2, though. And from a design perspective they mainly analysed what made fun in BW and tried to bring those things into SC2. So more of a "translation" than actual design from scratch.
(Completely leaving out the fact that whether or not Starbow is more fun is really subjective)
Yes there were as you call it "happy little accidents" for sure. But it's also unfair to say that everything about bw was coincidental I am not really interested in saying that bw is perfect or anything bw elitists would say, but at the same time i still think that there are a lot of elements in bw which would make sc2 a better game if implemented in some form or another. (like economy, different pathing, high ground advantage, basic unit interactions a lot of the time) While not everything was pre planned, i also don't think it really matters in the end. Blizzard's job should have been to analyze what made bw great (no matter if it was designed that way), implement it in sc2 and build on that basis. That way we would have had a way better game than what lotv is i think.
So yeah, i don't see why we shouldn't compare sc2 to bw and vice versa, i think comparing it to any game makes sense when we wanna improve it. It's just that a lot of hardcore bw people instantly bash sc2 and sc2 people get triggered when they see "bw" in a post. Hard to have a meaningful discussion :/
On July 29 2016 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote: So yeah, i don't see why we shouldn't compare sc2 to bw and vice versa, i think comparing it to any game makes sense when we wanna improve it. It's just that a lot of hardcore bw people instantly bash sc2 and sc2 people get triggered when they see "bw" in a post. Hard to have a meaningful discussion :/
I personally think that while both are RTS, BW and SC2 are completely different beasts designwise and liked for different reasons by different people. You can definitely compare the two games, but making a statement such as "this is what people like in BW, therefore people will like this in SC2 as well" cannot be universally made. People would hate Dragoon-AI in SC2, yet it worked out for BW just fine - just to give an example.
We're at a point where the vision for SC2 is just a different one that people have for BW/somewhat had for SC2. And can you blame Blizzard? Compared to BW, SC2 is the more succesful game worldwide(and it also probably maybe made them more money? Not sure on this one but I think it's likely). And in the end they need to post numbers, too.
Just look at the discussion of macro mechanics and how split it was within the community. For BW or "traditional starcraft" players it made sense to increase the mechanical gap(or rather to not decrease it), for a lot of other people though it made sense to ease the burden on players.
On July 29 2016 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote: So yeah, i don't see why we shouldn't compare sc2 to bw and vice versa, i think comparing it to any game makes sense when we wanna improve it. It's just that a lot of hardcore bw people instantly bash sc2 and sc2 people get triggered when they see "bw" in a post. Hard to have a meaningful discussion :/
I personally think that while both are RTS, BW and SC2 are completely different beasts designwise and liked for different reasons by different people. You can definitely compare the two games, but making a statement such as "this is what people like in BW, therefore people will like this in SC2 as well" cannot be universally made. People would hate Dragoon-AI in SC2, yet it worked out for BW just fine - just to give an example.
We're at a point where the vision for SC2 is just a different one that people have for BW/somewhat had for SC2. And can you blame Blizzard? Compared to BW, SC2 is the more succesful game worldwide(and it also probably maybe made them more money? Not sure on this one but I think it's likely). And in the end they need to post numbers, too.
Just look at the discussion of macro mechanics and how split it was within the community. For BW or "traditional starcraft" players it made sense to increase the mechanical gap(or rather to not decrease it), for a lot of other people though it made sense to ease the burden on players.
I can see what you are saying, but at the same time i am not advocating to simply use every bw element you can find just for the sake of it. I am more talking about the bigger things. Do i think 12 units per control group would be a good part of bw to implement in sc2? Probably not. Do i think a different pathing system would be better both gameplay wise and also aesthetically? Absolutely!
I think looking at design decisions made in both games (and maybe even other games, not even necessarily rts games) and analyzing the pro/cons and then trying to test it in some form (on a ptr would be the optimal solution, i dislike when i read "tested by out internal team") would be the dream. You are right that the vision is different and people like bw and sc2 for different things. Hey i actually like both games. That doesn't mean that adding certain elements of other games (including bw) wouldn't help if done correctly. And no i am not asking for dragoon ai necessarily
I agree that adding certain elements of games can improve the gameplay, but as with everything there are going to be people disagreeing. It's never going to be universally agreed on, at the very least people want to test these changes.
And at some point you have to ask yourself just how much "worth" there is in investigating these issues. These things would have to be implemented, tested, pushed out on PTR, reviewed, tested, adjusted, pushed out again, reviewed (...). All these steps cost a ton of money - will they increase sales though? Can they even increase sales or just bring players back that were playing before?
Changing the payment model to a microtransaction one is probably the first step Blizzard needs to take before the game can change in these ways, otherwise there will be no financial incentive for Blizzard to do so. I mean right now, outside of initial sales, Blizzard doesn't really profit from a larger active playerbase.
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent.
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players.
SC2 lacks talented designers.
I don't buy this analogy. Yes, many great games were designed by small teams. But these games typically lack the complexity of SC2. Creating awesome 3D graphics may be difficult as well, but difficulty is rather linear.
The counter argument, is that a small team of developers/designers have made an arguably more fun version of SC2 (i.e. Starbow).
actually that is the exact opposite of a counter argument. a counter-counter argument is you so will
Starbow is a community project attempting to transfer bw to the sc2 engine. This is the perfect example of what I am talking about: There is no small group thinking very hard in an ivory tower. Instead, the project uses the collective intelligence of the community and about 18 years of experience!
Chess had hundreds of years to refine*. I don't blame the Blizzard team for not achieving this in 6 years. I blame them for not crowd-sourcing game design using the probably best collective intelligence available: a large pool of dedicated players.
at some point many many years ago an individual "designer" suggested to increase the chess board to 10x10 fields because he thought the game was too easy
On July 29 2016 04:24 KeksX wrote: I agree that adding certain elements of games can improve the gameplay, but as with everything there are going to be people disagreeing. It's never going to be universally agreed on, at the very least people want to test these changes.
And at some point you have to ask yourself just how much "worth" there is in investigating these issues. These things would have to be implemented, tested, pushed out on PTR, reviewed, tested, adjusted, pushed out again, reviewed (...). All these steps cost a ton of money - will they increase sales though? Can they even increase sales or just bring players back that were playing before?
Changing the payment model to a microtransaction one is probably the first step Blizzard needs to take before the game can change in these ways, otherwise there will be no financial incentive for Blizzard to do so. I mean right now, outside of initial sales, Blizzard doesn't really profit from a larger active playerbase.
Sure money is probably the most important part atm and thus i hope their micro transaction model will work. At the same time it's also about their reputation though. In general Blizzard supports their games for many years and people know that. I would assume that helps their future sales as well if people are actually content with the patches/changes. (but yeah typically there are addons planned, so it makes more sense)
Still, at the community summits it was said that blizzard wants to support sc2 in the coming years, i would expect more effort tbh. New features/modes are cool, but the main game should get some love as well :D
You are obviously right that people will never agree on things in general. But let's be real: Do you actually think that the current iteration of the game is close to the point where changes wouldn't make the game more enjoyable to play/watch in general? At this point my hopes aren't high that blizzard is actually willing to change bigger things, they weren't really doing it with addons either, but you never know right.
[...] Changing the payment model to a microtransaction one is probably the first step Blizzard needs to take before the game can change in these ways, otherwise there will be no financial incentive for Blizzard to do so. I mean right now, outside of initial sales, Blizzard doesn't really profit from a larger active playerbase.
This is why I propose giving up control of the game, open-sourcing the code, and building a profit-oriented business model around the game instead. If the game itself is appealing to a large base of players and viewers, then there is plenty of money to be made. Pretty much everything that works in any other sport.
[...] Changing the payment model to a microtransaction one is probably the first step Blizzard needs to take before the game can change in these ways, otherwise there will be no financial incentive for Blizzard to do so. I mean right now, outside of initial sales, Blizzard doesn't really profit from a larger active playerbase.
This is why I propose giving up control of the game, open-sourcing the code, and building a profit-oriented business model around the game instead. If the game itself is appealing to a large base of players and viewers, then there is plenty of money to be made. Pretty much everything that works in any other sport.
also @Viper as well I guess my point applies to both of your posts:
I think that Blizzard, when initially developing SC2, did not see the development of online games and microtransaction coming. Thats their one big mistake. And judging by how long it takes them to come out with the changes despite having a large team working on it, it's not an easy feat.
But I suspect or rather hope that once they have changed SC2's business model (modernized it), we can expect some larger changes if that means that the playerbase will be bigger in the long run. If things like pathing were to be changed, it would be in such an environment, but not the current one.
The reduction in strategy/more mechanics based play was clamored for by much of the community. People did not like watching strategies like the 1/1/1 or other clever 1 base maneuvers. They wanted every game to get to 3 bases otherwise it was not considered a 'real game'. Even nowadays sometimes you hear casters say, "well I hope he doesn't cheese so we can watch a real game"
When you get rid of the entire early game, then cheeses become weak and long term play becomes king. The game is less about strategy and more about mechanics such as macro and harassing everywhere. Very little early to mid game variety nowadays.
I'm not saying right or wrong, but this type of game-play was pushed for by much of the community.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/691517WolfRider2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/390709Skillreduction.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/251829Control.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/478260MrViewer.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/317798Towerrush.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/9-17-2014/x17LSz.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/338973Ultralisk2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/830777MOBAfy3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/625995dustinbrowderstarcraftii.jpg)
Traduced is a false friend and I meant translated. I fixed it in the OP, thanks for pointing it out!
Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q3hcu3T.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mOTotVm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MNYqBJk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0oAFg1C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eaRtfTv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SM7kuz9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RU6Xc6O.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/gallery/0SVN8IHGWCKK1415304853360.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8oNOHW1.png)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/289280Hyperdv1b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/247190Hyperdv5b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/4314492bmutas.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/122547Hyperdv9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/427355Zerghyperdev4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/245769Hyperdv10.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/966818Hyperdv8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/892386Hyperdv7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.giphy.com/media/w8tgy9pWhutos/giphy.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/252663ProductionGrowthRate4.png)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/478383Hyperdv2a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/249039Hyperdv2b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/818016Hyperdv2e.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/946258Hyperdv2c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/667057Hyperdv2d.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/23173930princb.jpg)
