| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On August 21 2016 06:00 Waxangel wrote: a vocal minority want an utterly different game; that's not realistic at all Who is vocal minority? I think both sides have a lot of supporters. More difficult game vs less spells/less complex game. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 21 2016 06:00 Waxangel wrote: a vocal minority want an utterly different game; that's not realistic at all "utterly different" doesn't mean anything though. It's not realistic because blizzard didn't use the two addons to try anything radical, i never played wc3 but people always tell me how different the game was after the expansion. You can say that it's a vocal minority, but that's probably ALWAYS true for any kind of game, that doesn't mean that these other people who don't have an opinion on it wouldn't like the game better if it changed though, most "casuals" simply don't give a damn about different game design concepts, etc. Add a real high ground advantage to sc2 right now and most people won't even notice it, that doesn't mean that the game wouldn't be better for them and people who actually care. Same with a lot of other things. This "vocal minority" concept is nice to deny any form of discussion about issues though, i don't think it's a good way to think about the scene though. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16694 Posts
On August 21 2016 06:08 Shield wrote: Who is vocal minority? I think both sides have a lot of supporters. More difficult game vs less spells/less complex game. i have several silver and gold friends who've solved this issue of too much complexity in LotV. they play WoL on 2v2 Ladder. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 21 2016 06:09 The_Red_Viper wrote: "utterly different" doesn't mean anything though. It's not realistic because blizzard didn't use the two addons to try anything radical, i never played wc3 but people always tell me how different the game was after the expansion. You can say that it's a vocal minority, but that's probably ALWAYS true for any kind of game, that doesn't mean that these other people who don't have an opinion on it wouldn't like the game better if it changed though, most "casuals" simply don't give a damn about different game design concepts, etc. Add a real high ground advantage to sc2 right now and most people won't even notice it, that doesn't mean that the game wouldn't be better for them and people who actually care. Same with a lot of other things. This "vocal minority" concept is nice to deny any form of discussion about issues though, i don't think it's a good way to think about the scene though. Virtually every change ever happens because a vocal minority wants something. Lobbies by definition are vocal minorities and drive much progress. Most people don't care enough to investigate certain issues, so that their voice carries little power to shape outcomes. Of course it comes in various forms and shapes, so that the situation where you have a small group of cranks perpetually whining about their unrealistic goals falls in the same category as, to pick an extreme example, civil rights activism. Studies show that for many domains the majority opinion will typically be correct, but there are many exceptions to this. In the case of this talk about fundamental design changes it is compounded by the fact that there is partly a discussion of values taking place: what type of game do you want Starcraft 2 to be? And whose voices should carry more weight? Yet there is also an element of what empirically might be most enjoyable for most people of some group, so that expert opinion does creep in. Many that call for fundamental changes believe that everyone will benefit from them. etc. I think it's a fairly interesting topic: when should you listen to a vocal minority? | ||
Waxangel
United States33360 Posts
On August 21 2016 06:09 The_Red_Viper wrote: "utterly different" doesn't mean anything though. It's not realistic because blizzard didn't use the two addons to try anything radical, i never played wc3 but people always tell me how different the game was after the expansion. You can say that it's a vocal minority, but that's probably ALWAYS true for any kind of game, that doesn't mean that these other people who don't have an opinion on it wouldn't like the game better if it changed though, most "casuals" simply don't give a damn about different game design concepts, etc. Add a real high ground advantage to sc2 right now and most people won't even notice it, that doesn't mean that the game wouldn't be better for them and people who actually care. Same with a lot of other things. This "vocal minority" concept is nice to deny any form of discussion about issues though, i don't think it's a good way to think about the scene though. I guess that on the other end, Blizzard's track record where they're willing to make drastic changes to "broken" games will always give fans hope that the game can change in the direction they want | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 21 2016 06:35 Grumbels wrote: Virtually every change ever happens because a vocal minority wants something. Lobbies by definition are vocal minorities and drive much progress. Most people don't care enough to investigate certain issues, so that their voice carries little power to shape outcomes. Of course it comes in various forms and shapes, so that the situation where you have a small group of cranks perpetually whining about their unrealistic goals falls in the same category as, to pick an extreme example, civil rights activism. Studies show that for many domains the majority opinion will typically be correct, but there are many exceptions to this. In the case of this talk about fundamental design changes it is compounded by the fact that there is partly a discussion of values taking place: what type of game do you want Starcraft 2 to be? And whose voices should carry more weight? Yet there is also an element of what empirically might be most enjoyable for most people of some group, so that expert opinion does creep in. Many that call for fundamental changes believe that everyone will benefit from them. etc. I think it's a fairly interesting topic: when should you listen to a vocal minority? Studies show that for many domains the majority opinion will typically be correct Can you give some examples here? Initially i wouldn't believe this at all tbh, i would argue that typically people don't have a real opinion on a lot of stuff, mostly because it wasn't important enough in their mind to actually think about it. Imo this is also true for sc2, it's kinda enjoyable and that is enough for the majority i think. But yeah you are right with: "what type of game do you want Starcraft 2 to be?" But again, i doubt many people actually think about this very question and thus their opinion is mostly about enjoyment atm, not if they would enjoy it more if x happens. On August 21 2016 06:48 Waxangel wrote: I guess that on the other end, Blizzard's track record where they're willing to make drastic changes to "broken" games will always give fans hope that the game can change in the direction they want Sure sc2 isn't really "broken", but that doesn't mean that it reaches its potential. Was Wc3 extremely broken before the addon? | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 21 2016 07:00 The_Red_Viper wrote: Can you give some examples here? Initially i wouldn't believe this at all tbh, i would argue that typically people don't have a real opinion on a lot of stuff, mostly because it wasn't important enough in their mind to actually think about it. Imo this is also true for sc2, it's kinda enjoyable and that is enough for the majority i think. But yeah you are right with: "what type of game do you want Starcraft 2 to be?" But again, i doubt many people actually think about this very question and thus their opinion is mostly about enjoyment atm, not if they would enjoy it more if x happens. Sure sc2 isn't really "broken", but that doesn't mean that it reaches its potential. Was Wc3 extremely broken before the addon? The game changed a lot in the expansion and subsequent patches: more macro oriented, more unit diversity, slower tech, higher unit count, less caster units, more expanding, resources became more important etc. The funny thing is that in retrospect most people will say that the game was broken (or at least one dimensional) before the expansion, even if that wasn't the prevailing opinion at the time. Can you give some examples here? To be honest I was thinking of this article I read a while ago. But I didn't mean to imply that the majority always knows best, I probably expressed myself clumsily. The point is that this is a topic which has been studied by psychologists and the like, so I would encourage everyone to track down some research on it and consider it from a scientific angle in terms of asking 'for what domains would the majority opinion be correct more often?' and so on. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
But in the case of sc2, what is this majority opinion? I absolutely believe that most people playing/watching the game right now are happy with it. I am kinda "happy" with it as well, the difference is that i think it could be better. I don't think that the majority thinks that it couldn't be better with some changes here and there. Would they actually think it is "better" with changes i would like? I don't know. It's just that in the case of sc2 these things are fairly vague, the only real option might be to simply test it. I feel blizzard didn't really do that with their expansions/betas. One big "problem" i personally think is still part of sc2 is that maxed army engagements are not fun to play or watch for the most time. I don't think anybody knows if the majority agrees with this or not. Btw in the case of art you could argue that majority opinion is always right because in the end people need to enjoy the product/work. Changes obviously a little bit with if we have clear expectations/target audiences. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16694 Posts
On August 21 2016 06:48 Waxangel wrote: I guess that on the other end, Blizzard's track record where they're willing to make drastic changes to "broken" games will always give fans hope that the game can change in the direction they want i think some people want the MULE, Chronoboost, Larva Inject removed as macro-mechanics.. and its clear from DKs paragraph about drastic changes that just ain't gonna happen. Red_Viper does make a good point though that DK's granularity was low making it hard to tell exactly what did and did not constitute a "drastic change". its clear DK is providing macro/big-picture type direction here. I can smell what hte Rock is cookin' with DK's comments though. | ||
|
Kit_Rochester
3 Posts
I’ve been reading some of the community feedback. Western feedback is positive, or takes a wait-and-see stance. I feel the Korean feedback has been very different. It’s a very ironic situation where the West is asking for things to be more like Brood War while the Koreans say that the game is too hard. Like others have said I'm not really sure what this means and I wish I knew how David Kim interpreted it. Between SC2 and BW there are many different kinds of difficulty and both games are harder and easier along different axes. Depending on which you're talking about it would be possible to make SC2 easier *by* making it more like BW. On August 21 2016 06:08 Shield wrote: Who is vocal minority? I think both sides have a lot of supporters. More difficult game vs less spells/less complex game. Are those really the sides? I get a sense that wanting to lessen the surface-level complexity of unit/ability bloat is a view shared by a lot of people with otherwise very different opinions about what the game should be. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
Plus most of the existing Korean pros come from a BW background. Arguably, it is the newer generation (i.e. ESL players) who have mostly dropped off the game, whilst KeSPA players being more resilient and staying in stronger. It's worrying that that former top players (e.g. Flash and Effort) are going back to BW, and even those who did well in SC2 (e.g. Rain and Soulkey) have given up. And worst of all, there is lack of new blood. Meanwhile, BW is gaining back hype amongst Korean viewers. It's quite clear that the Korean scene wants a return to a more BW-esque game play. Whether it's due to nostalgia or entertainment, it doesn't matter. They have spoken up, and the question is whether Blizzard wants to heed this 'vocal minority'. Of course, if Blizzard wants to build the SC2 scene around WCS and international tourneys, that's purely within its prerogative (and may actually work in widening its player base and popularity). But that would bring the end to the Korean SC2 scene. | ||
|
palexhur
Colombia730 Posts
On August 21 2016 12:12 RKC wrote: Of course, if Blizzard wants to build the SC2 scene around WCS and international tourneys, that's purely within its prerogative (and may actually work in widening its player base and popularity). But that would bring the end to the Korean SC2 scene. After reading news for SC2 and BW, I think that what you said is the target of Blizz, encouraging SC2 for the foreign scene, where it is still popular but declining, and support BW for Korea where BW is far more popular than SC2 and it just will be forever. The question for SC2 is with these changes they can make a wider scene? I doubt that seriously, the game reached its peak long time ago and now theres not way for this to recover. | ||
|
Penev
28475 Posts
On August 21 2016 06:00 Waxangel wrote: a vocal minority want an utterly different game; that's not realistic at all Is asking to stop buffing and start nerfing plus stop adding and maybe remove some abilities the same as asking for an utterly different game? | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 21 2016 08:04 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's an interesting article, thanks. But in the case of sc2, what is this majority opinion? I absolutely believe that most people playing/watching the game right now are happy with it. I am kinda "happy" with it as well, the difference is that i think it could be better. I don't think that the majority thinks that it couldn't be better with some changes here and there. Would they actually think it is "better" with changes i would like? I don't know. It's just that in the case of sc2 these things are fairly vague, the only real option might be to simply test it. I feel blizzard didn't really do that with their expansions/betas. One big "problem" i personally think is still part of sc2 is that maxed army engagements are not fun to play or watch for the most time. I don't think anybody knows if the majority agrees with this or not. Btw in the case of art you could argue that majority opinion is always right because in the end people need to enjoy the product/work. Changes obviously a little bit with if we have clear expectations/target audiences. I think it's a bit tricky, because obviously most players still left are the ones that enjoy the game. I guess this shows that when one considers majority opinions first one has to decide what group of people to listen to. And there are many such groups. And what should be the ranking? Progamers > current players > viewers > former players > casual fans > potential fans? Any discussion like that is a minefield. I sometimes think that if you don't play the game your opinion automatically should carry less weight, but at the same time I have opinions about what sort of changes would entice me to consider picking up the game again, since I haven't played LotV myself because I strongly suspected I wouldn't like it. I could understand if someone presently enjoying the gameplay would take a somewhat dismissive view of my perspective. Should Blizzard really risk potentially destructive overhauls of fundamentals only to chase after some elusive ex-player coming from a dysfunctional relationship with Starcraft 2? | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 22 2016 05:40 Grumbels wrote: I think it's a bit tricky, because obviously most players still left are the ones that enjoy the game. I guess this shows that when one considers majority opinions first one has to decide what group of people to listen to. And there are many such groups. And what should be the ranking? Progamers > current players > viewers > former players > casual fans > potential fans? Any discussion like that is a minefield. I sometimes think that if you don't play the game your opinion automatically should carry less weight, but at the same time I have opinions about what sort of changes would entice me to consider picking up the game again, since I haven't played LotV myself because I strongly suspected I wouldn't like it. I could understand if someone presently enjoying the gameplay would take a somewhat dismissive view of my perspective. Should Blizzard really risk potentially destructive overhauls of fundamentals only to chase after some elusive ex-player coming from a dysfunctional relationship with Starcraft 2? No i don't think that they should necessarily risk it, but i absolutely think that this isn't even the only option these days. Today it is easier than ever to simply test it and work with the community on iterations. Have a ptr, make it easily accessible for everyone, maybe even give people something for testing it. I mean even little indi studios do this with "open access" titles these days, the community is basically part of the development and i think that is great. You obviously still need a good idea in which direction the game has to go, but community feedback is a great tool imo. I will completely ignore the monatory aspect right now and if it's actually viable for blizzard to put in that much effort, but i surely would hope so, everything you can read about the future of sc2 would at least make it a realistic possibility. I mean blizzard's goal since forever was to destroy the "deathball". Did they do a good job with it? Not really imo. Was a different pathing system tested publicly? No. (they said they tested it internally, but i am not sure about that one tbh) Blizzard does somewhat listen to feedback, the problem (imo) is that their solutions are never all that great. We never tested more economy models (ok let's be real the current one is the same economy model, the maps changed not how the economy works) We never got a protoss redesign, we got "bandaid" fixes like the mothershipcore. Imo you can break down these things and make good points why their solutions aren't good. Most people playing some ladder games here and there will never actually think about any of that though. They will play, have a decent enough experience to come back later on but that's about it really. And as you said, the people still playing the game like it (enough) to still be here, that doesn't make it easier. | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4163 Posts
On August 21 2016 12:12 RKC wrote: So Korean pros are now the 'vocal minority'? Plus most of the existing Korean pros come from a BW background. Arguably, it is the newer generation (i.e. ESL players) who have mostly dropped off the game, whilst KeSPA players being more resilient and staying in stronger. It's worrying that that former top players (e.g. Flash and Effort) are going back to BW, and even those who did well in SC2 (e.g. Rain and Soulkey) have given up. And worst of all, there is lack of new blood. Meanwhile, BW is gaining back hype amongst Korean viewers. It's quite clear that the Korean scene wants a return to a more BW-esque game play. Whether it's due to nostalgia or entertainment, it doesn't matter. They have spoken up, and the question is whether Blizzard wants to heed this 'vocal minority'. Of course, if Blizzard wants to build the SC2 scene around WCS and international tourneys, that's purely within its prerogative (and may actually work in widening its player base and popularity). But that would bring the end to the Korean SC2 scene. At the same time, I feel like this is a wasted opportunity. Is the correct path to be more like Brood War or take the opportunity to have a different type of RTS experience? Yeah, you could argue that as a sequel, it should be very similiar to BW, but I think if they're going to go ahead and made an HD version of BW anymore, having 2 games that cover the same aspects of an RTS is redundant, wouldnt it make sense for SC2 to be different/cover a different skillset? Or is that alienating fans and potential players? | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On August 22 2016 06:24 lestye wrote: At the same time, I feel like this is a wasted opportunity. Is the correct path to be more like Brood War or take the opportunity to have a different type of RTS experience? Yeah, you could argue that as a sequel, it should be very similiar to BW, but I think if they're going to go ahead and made an HD version of BW anymore, having 2 games that cover the same aspects of an RTS is redundant, wouldnt it make sense for SC2 to be different/cover a different skillset? Or is that alienating fans and potential players? There is nothing wrong with Bliz trying to make a different RTS game with SC2 - different from even its prequel. Bliz has done it before, with some fair amount of success - it's called WC3. (Ironically, I sometimes feel SC2 resembles a lot like with WC3, due to the emphasis to heroes or 'OP units' that could make all the difference - for instance early game Demon Hunter and Blademaster harass feels like Oracle and dropship WP harass. And WC3 armies clump together, almost like SC2 death-balls, causing many games to be decided after a major engagement. But perhaps this is a debate for another day.) The difference is that the SC2 competitive scene rides on the wave and backbone of BW - at least for Korea. And in the early years, Bliz was happy for these two worlds to merge. So that makes both games intertwined. Perhaps some of the Korean pros (especially KeSPA) feel somewhat hurt and even betrayed that SC2 has been diverging further and further away from BW. This is not what they sign up for, so to speak, hence their frustration now. And maybe the feeling cascades to the fans, too. "This is not the game that we want to watch, let's watch some BW instead!" SC2 can still succeed in the future, by carving a new player and fan base across the world. And Bliz has every right to do so - it's their baby, after all. But doing so would likely be at the expense of killing off the SC2 Korean scene. That's all I'm concerned about. By dismissing them as 'vocal minority', I guess their fate is pretty much sealed.  | ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
On August 22 2016 06:24 lestye wrote: At the same time, I feel like this is a wasted opportunity. Is the correct path to be more like Brood War or take the opportunity to have a different type of RTS experience? Yeah, you could argue that as a sequel, it should be very similiar to BW, but I think if they're going to go ahead and made an HD version of BW anymore, having 2 games that cover the same aspects of an RTS is redundant, wouldnt it make sense for SC2 to be different/cover a different skillset? Or is that alienating fans and potential players? I agree with you in some degree. SC2 should be different from its prequel, because it`s been almost 20 yrs since BW was released. However, the problem is, it seems that SC2 developers are possessed with the idea that SC2 must not take a single part of BW. I cannot find any reason why they cherish this insane pace of the game but the antipathy against BW. | ||
|
coolman123123
146 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
CSO Contender
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
Esports World Cup
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
|
|
|
EPT
