|
This is exactly why most developers/publishers DON'T provide feedback to the community like this. Game design is slow and painful. A LOT of factors have to be considered for every direction they take. Now plug in thousands of opinions, all fighting against each other, things are only going to get more complicated- and slow.
True, but consider this perspective:
- drop the single player paid DLC and new cinematics 4 months after release.
- drop the community updates and just listen to what we say on the internet. Save the precious time.
- edit the text file with cyclone hitpoints=x and cyclone range=y with a few extra points (say 5) and post the test map to see how it plays out. Then later, maybe adjust it a bit then test some more.
A bit simplistic on my last point perhaps but I do not think that I am out of my mind on these suggestions.
Deliver what you said we were swiping our credit cards for with LOTV and then work on new paid DLC say a year after. Do they think people will just forget their past comments? If so I may have to dig up some more and edit my list and keep reposting it. 
|
Pardo was anti-feedback and felt Blizz divulged too much info...
the biggest misconception of this community is that a better game play experience will somehow make the game more popular... it won't.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Prion is in GSL too, and much like the ladder, you can veto it - and once you do, you have super favourable maps for protoss in pvz, so why complain about one map and only nitpick stats?
Prion is in GSL too
Never been played PvZ, not even once.
5 of the 7 GSL maps are not in the ladder/WCS pool.
2 of the maps that GSL uses were removed from ladder this season and among the best PvZ / ZvP maps of Legacy - Orbital Shipyard and Ruins of Seras - both relatively safe maps for both races that are 50/50 +-2%.
much like the ladder, you can veto it
Two things here:
1; The map pools are different, so there are ideally less unfavorable maps and the unfavorable maps are less extremely unfavorable. You can make more difference with fewer vetos if that's the case.
2; When a best of 7 is played, there are no vetos. When a best of 5 is played, there is only one veto each because there are 7 maps in the pool. Sure on ladder you and your opponent can veto 6 of the 7 maps but that just does not happen in tournament play. It's not acceptable for a map that is 70/30 to be in tournament play for more than one season; i'l be shocked if GSL doesn't remove it next season. Blizzard already kept it for a second.
and once you do, you have super favourable maps for protoss in pvz
Such as?
Prion is literally 70/30 in favor of zerg by todays stats.
The three most popular PvZ maps in GSL are 48%, 51% and 61% win ratio for zerg by TLPD numbers and the map diversity is pretty low as well, so that's 25 of the 30 games that have been played.
so why complain about one map and only nitpick stats?
I'm not and i don't see anybody else doing that either. There are multiple questionable maps right now and the current system for maps in WCS events and ladder is not ideal; I've made more than my fair share of long comments going into more detail about that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As another note of less relevance, it's less fun to play ladder for a hundred or two games over 3 months with a map pool of 4 because you permaveto'd 43% of the map pool. If you veto 3 maps and your opponents of one race tend to veto 2 different ones, you'll disproportionately hit them on only 2 of the 7 maps in the pool and this is very noticable over dozens of games.
Here are my stats for 65 games so far in 2016 season 2 - not the best sample size, but enough for some patterns to show. I'l be taking a closer look after more games.
Frozen Temple: 54% terran, 25% zerg, 21% protoss
Dusk Towers: 44% terran, 19% zerg, 37% protoss
Ruins of Endion: 46% terran, 54% zerg. 0 protoss in 13 games
Ulrena: 25% terran, 17% zerg, 58% protoss
|
Pretty sure 5 out of the 7 gsl maps were in the ladder/wcs pool last season, back when GSL started, so I don't understand why that changes anything? And whenever terran and protoss players were able to veto prion in gsl, they dominated zerg, so clearly the other maps must be good against zerg - especially keeping in mind that zergs ALSO have veto's and remove the maps they feel are the worst.
Now I understand that protoss players have this absolute love for tlpd and/or aligulac stats because it's the only thing that actually supports(albeit tlpd only barely does) their balance whining (meanwhile in Korea, uncontestedly the only source of high end games, zerg is by far the weakest race) - stop looking at tlpd and aligulac, both track a plethora of games that are just not even remotely close to the highest level, I don't care about bad players in go4sc or american cups when it comes to balance, and neither should anyone else.
I 100% agree that prion is the best map for zerg, both in this ladder map pool and the last one - I assume anyone else would agree with this too - but that's why there is a veto system, the ONLY time a t or p is forced to play vs z on prion is in a bo7 tournament as you mentioned aswell - holy fuck who cares? Do you know how many people that will effect? Literally 0.001% of players - and WHEN it happens, the zerg is also forced to play on whatever is the WORST zerg map - which definitely helps balance it out, and if the map pool as a whole is p and/or t over zerg favoured (which we can see in gsl it clearly is) then being forced to play 7 games because of prion is obviously not advantageous to the zerg at all?
Furthermore, as for the oh so elusive GSL only maps that make all the difference apparently - zvp has been played a grand total of 4 times in GSL on rak'shir and sky shield combined, and the zergs went 1-3, which doesn't change anything.
Lastly, you stated that it's not acceptable for a map that is 70/30 to be in a tournament, first of all it's not 70/30 in Korea, frankly we don't know what it would be because it hasn't been played - so we can't actually know, I'll admit there is a distinct chance that prion would also show very good zvt/zvp stats in korea if it HAD been played though. But if you want to start removing the 70/30 or thereabout maps, looking at the code S stats you would have to remove the majority of them - including dusk towers which both protoss and terran players have hyped as the "best" and "most balanced" map in all of lotv.
|
On April 21 2016 12:21 Avi-Love wrote:
Pretty sure 5 out of the 7 gsl maps were in the ladder/wcs pool last season, back when GSL started, so I don't understand why that changes anything? And whenever terran and protoss players were able to veto prion in gsl, they dominated zerg, so clearly the other maps must be good against zerg - especially keeping in mind that zergs ALSO have veto's and remove the maps they feel are the worst.
Now I understand that protoss players have this absolute love for tlpd and/or aligulac stats because it's the only thing that actually supports(albeit tlpd only barely does) their balance whining (meanwhile in Korea, uncontestedly the only source of high end games, zerg is by far the weakest race) - stop looking at tlpd and aligulac, both track a plethora of games that are just not even remotely close to the highest level, I don't care about bad players in go4sc or american cups when it comes to balance, and neither should anyone else.
I 100% agree that prion is the best map for zerg, both in this ladder map pool and the last one - I assume anyone else would agree with this too - but that's why there is a veto system, the ONLY time a t or p is forced to play vs z on prion is in a bo7 tournament as you mentioned aswell - holy fuck who cares? Do you know how many people that will effect? Literally 0.001% of players - and WHEN it happens, the zerg is also forced to play on whatever is the WORST zerg map - which definitely helps balance it out, and if the map pool as a whole is p and/or t over zerg favoured (which we can see in gsl it clearly is) then being forced to play 7 games because of prion is obviously not advantageous to the zerg at all?
Furthermore, as for the oh so elusive GSL only maps that make all the difference apparently - zvp has been played a grand total of 4 times in GSL on rak'shir and sky shield combined, and the zergs went 1-3, which doesn't change anything.
Lastly, you stated that it's not acceptable for a map that is 70/30 to be in a tournament, first of all it's not 70/30 in Korea, frankly we don't know what it would be because it hasn't been played - so we can't actually know, I'll admit there is a distinct chance that prion would also show very good zvt/zvp stats in korea if it HAD been played though. But if you want to start removing the 70/30 or thereabout maps, looking at the code S stats you would have to remove the majority of them - including dusk towers which both protoss and terran players have hyped as the "best" and "most balanced" map in all of lotv.
PvZ has been broken ever since beta, global pro stats show that there is something wrong going on for 5 months straight since launch that is statistically comparable to the BL/Infestor era, a couple of people have been vocal about it, Blizzard responds by nerfing overcharge and adepts because Terrans whined enough to make it seem like a more urgent matter and by fucking making natural gold on Prion Terraces and a terrible pool for season 2 (so terrible that Korean organizers don't want them), and you think that Protoss players whine too much? What the heck? I get the feeling that ever since BW Protoss players have been the less whiny ones and that might be why they often get the short straw. Now that they somehow dare to mention that it's been enough stalling (aka. the infamous "waiting for the meta to settle") and being the scapegoat for everything that is wrong with Starcraft, they somehow get to be the most whiny ones. Lol. Talking about mote and beam.
|
the biggest misconception of this community is that a better game play experience will somehow make the game more popular... it won't.
You are definitely right to some extent, but at least if they get 1 out of 2 right (assuming SC2 continues to decline in popularity), they can show that the Blizzard brand can still eventually get it right by fixing problematic releases like LOTV and vanilla D3. Better than scoring 0/2 on gameplay and popularity.
I am slowly coming to grips with the fact that the Blizzard of old is gone. Now it's all about pleasing the masses including the shareholders.
|
On April 21 2016 21:51 PressureSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +
the biggest misconception of this community is that a better game play experience will somehow make the game more popular... it won't.
You are definitely right to some extent, but at least if they get 1 out of 2 right (assuming SC2 continues to decline in popularity), they can show that the Blizzard brand can still eventually get it right by fixing problematic releases like LOTV and vanilla D3. Better than scoring 0/2 on gameplay and popularity. I am slowly coming to grips with the fact that the Blizzard of old is gone. Now it's all about pleasing the masses including the shareholders.
Damn right. I wish they were still there but I trust they will never make a great game again. Better turn our attention and support to other developpers. It will be hard to find new gems in the genres that Blizzard developped before, because what they did in RTS or hack'n slash (or MMO if you want to count Wow vanilla, I think I would though it's not as close to perfection as Starcraft/D2/War3 imo) was pretty much unequaled. The name of the company has stayed but Blizzard is really gone.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
the biggest misconception of this community is that a better game play experience will somehow make the game more popular... it won't.
Worse gameplay & watching experience will make the game decline faster, though
|
|
|
Are there reliable statistics on number of 1v1 multiplayer games, or twitch viewers, etc.? I would be interested to see the graphs. My impression is that streamers and viewers are slowly moving away from it, in particular for about the last month.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 21 2016 23:20 PressureSC2 wrote:
Are there reliable statistics on number of 1v1 multiplayer games, or twitch viewers, etc.? I would be interested to see the graphs. My impression is that streamers and viewers are slowly moving away from it, in particular for about the last month.
At the end of HotS there were 250k(more or less) active accounts for 1v1 at nios.kr. I looked at it in January and the number for LotV active accounts was 300k.
nios is no longer active and for some of the reasons I may accept that the LotV number isn't correct.
I dare to say the population at the start of the year was the same as at the end of HotS(remember, taht some people were mostly active in the beta of LotV)
|
Interesting. Does this include everyone active and playing the fresh single player campaigns?
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
And plenty of people don't or think that there is a lot of room for improvement, i'm not sure where this is going. Healthy criticism is not only good but neccesary.
--------
@above - http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/ has a lot of stats like nios did, it says that 198k people played legacy 1v1 last season
It also shows representation by league and by race so there are a lot of stats to look at (6.5 - 7% of overall players in masters, 39% Z + 23% P in eu masters)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
