EPTOn November 18 2016 21:27 zyce wrote:
"Stop trying to make mech happen. It's not going to happen!"
"Stop trying to make mech happen. It's not going to happen!"
I guess Korea has been trying to say this about SC2 for a while now.
Community Feedback Update - November 17 - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
I guess Korea has been trying to say this about SC2 for a while now. | ||
|
gab12
Poland147 Posts
 ) | ||
monk
United States8476 Posts
On November 18 2016 14:11 BronzeKnee wrote: I find it very ironic that they mentioned Stephanos Roach Max as something that took time to figure it out how to stop. That very build changed the way maps had to be designed, because Protoss literally could not hold an open third versus that strategy. Blizzard did nothing effective to help prevent it, it was all map makers. New maps were definitely a big factor, but at the same time, it also took players a long time to figure out how to hold it. In the end, players figured out that there were only 3-4 very specific non-all-in builds that could hold something like that. | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
On November 18 2016 15:47 Couguar wrote: I am so tired of reading meaningless words like gimmick. I like photon overcharge. I like my darks to have blink. I like to forcefield ramp and blink up. I dont think gateway units are bad. Why should all of it be called gimmick and claimed to be bad, when its not. If you like shooting supply buildings (that can be used offensively), you have no idea how good game design works. If you like that a harass unit that already has escape mechanisms (cloack + high movespeed) gets another one, you have no idea how good game design works. If you like that a race that (had) such a weak core army needs to bend the map's features to survive, you have no idea how good game design works. Unfortunately, it seems that the dev team shares your uninformed and archaric vision for the game. I suppose that's why people actually playing the game is the lowest it's ever been. | ||
|
Jarviseru
1 Post
I don't know if they actually read the forum or they ignore it on purpose. Anyway, i posted a thread on the forum with all the current broken/imbalanced stuff that need to be fixed asap : http://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20752275811 Please check it out and upvote so we can make it more visible & actually reach DK ! Thx TLers ! | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On November 18 2016 21:27 zyce wrote: "Stop trying to make mech happen. It's not going to happen!" On a more serious note, there seems to be a deficit of Protoss voices/perspective both in the discussions and the community feedback threads. It's discomfiting, and it seems like they're becoming the whipping boy for other race's frustrations. I'd like to see a more holistic approach to game balance from all sides, particularly Blizzard's. This is just my own, personal observation, nothing scientific nor a comment on balance. Please dont hurt me Zerg/Terran users.  m80 that's because there's a lack of Protoss players in general. The problem with Protoss is a deep one though. It isn't "stalkers need 13.4% more hp". It's "turtling, timing attacks, or lose" isn't super fun to play. | ||
|
StatixEx
United Kingdom779 Posts
| ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On November 18 2016 22:41 JackONeill wrote: If you like shooting supply buildings (that can be used offensively), you have no idea how good game design works. If you like that a harass unit that already has escape mechanisms (cloack + high movespeed) gets another one, you have no idea how good game design works. If you like that a race that (had) such a weak core army needs to bend the map's features to survive, you have no idea how good game design works. Unfortunately, it seems that the dev team shares your uninformed and archaric vision for the game. I suppose that's why people actually playing the game is the lowest it's ever been. I get tired of reading comments like this. First of all, what he likes has no bearing on his knowledge of game design. You are fabricating a causation that isn't there. Second of all, your reasoning is based on opinion. Just because you don't like any of the things listed, doesn't mean they are not good game design. That is only your opinion. Not fact. If he likes the design, and he isn't alone (yes I like them also) than it must mean Blizzard did something right. You are forcing your opinion on him, while being an condescending asshole. I understand you don't like any of the changes Blizzard has down the pipeline, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss those that do like it by stating 'you have no idea how good game design works'. That's like me saying 'I like McDonalds' and you replying 'You have no idea how to cook good food'. | ||
|
Edowyth
United States183 Posts
On November 18 2016 21:27 zyce wrote: ... On a more serious note, there seems to be a deficit of Protoss voices/perspective both in the discussions and the community feedback threads. It's discomfiting, and it seems like they're becoming the whipping boy for other race's frustrations. ... On November 18 2016 19:32 ejozl wrote: You say you don't want gimmicks, but that's why you don't play Protoss. ... We don't have enough Protoss players standing up for their race, if Zerg and Terran players design the Protoss race, it will appeal to no one, it will just be whatever you guys like to play against. Protoss players should decide the future of the Protoss race, Protoss players unite! You're both right. Protoss players aren't speaking up because they're just leaving the race. We've spoken up repeatedly and simply get told "don't play that race" or "that's how it is" ... so people stop playing Protoss. You're quite literally telling us "don't provide that feedback, you should be playing a different race." and "We need more people to provide feedback for Protoss (but not that feedback)" at exactly the same time. With no other recourse (since you don't listen to our feedback), we stop playing Protoss -- and for most, the game. Protoss just this season dropped to ~25% of the player-base for the first time ever. This isn't a result of people "not liking" Protoss' colors, or unit design. These drops happened throughout HotS, but are most apparent in LotV. Our feedback was constantly ignored while others' feedback was listened to (very few Protoss players wanted adepts or disruptors ... yet we got those units. T / Z had been whining about warp-gate forever and now we have warp-prism-only proxy pylons. The immortal was changed for mech. etc etc etc). Since random comprised ~1% of the players at that point, Protoss should have been, ideally at 33%. Protoss is under-played by ~24% (25/33=75.7). That's a big deal. Protoss' design needs work. We've been saying it forever, but apparently that's not valid feedback. So we leave. (Where's the gateway unit that scales well enough, is mobile enough, and is damaging enough that Protoss players no longer have to rely upon PO? Why is forcefield still defining the sentry, when Protoss have repeatedly asked for something different [like a healing sentry with time-warp instead]? Why is the carrier still on a stupidly-long production time so that it's never remotely safe to actually build them?) I, personally, have followed the scene and been more and more dismayed by what's happened since HotS beta ... but I've not realistically played more than ~3 games a month (and fewer and fewer as time goes on. I've not played ladder in ... almost 2 years, I'd guess [ignoring LotV beta]) since HotS was released. I've been waiting a long time for Protoss' issues to be addressed (and talked about them a lot), but it seems like no one hears -- certainly nothing's been done to address our biggest concerns. Anyway. Not to whine, but you can't seriously say "this feedback is invalid from this race -- play a different race" and "we need more of this race to give feedback" at the same time. It doesn't make sense. | ||
|
Aegwynn
Italy460 Posts
On November 18 2016 23:46 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I get tired of reading comments like this. First of all, what he likes has no bearing on his knowledge of game design. You are fabricating a causation that isn't there. Second of all, your reasoning is based on opinion. Just because you don't like any of the things listed, doesn't mean they are not good game design. That is only your opinion. Not fact. If he likes the design, and he isn't alone (yes I like them also) than it must mean Blizzard did something right. You are forcing your opinion on him, while being an condescending asshole. I understand you don't like any of the changes Blizzard has down the pipeline, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss those that do like it by stating 'you have no idea how good game design works'. That's like me saying 'I like McDonalds' and you replying 'You have no idea how to cook good food'. He is right on every point and its common sense not opinion. Its like putting sugar in hamburgers. Its just bad cooking and its a fact. It doesn't matter if you are one of the few people who likes sweet hamburgers. | ||
|
xTJx
Brazil419 Posts
Besides, they certanly don't lack representation in pro matches. | ||
|
stink123
United States241 Posts
Likewise theres nothing inherently wrong from a game design perspective for blink dts and photon overcharge as long as they create interesting situations and arent too overpowered. Also its okay for there to be "asymmetrical skill" situations such as it being harder to defend certain attacks than it is to execute them. This is needs to be true or else no one will use this attack. Especially for a game that encourages aggression. Also it allows us to better appreciate players who can defend well. | ||
|
Edowyth
United States183 Posts
On November 19 2016 00:22 xTJx wrote: It's too late for protoss complaining. It worked for mech. Expect more of the same. | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
On November 18 2016 23:58 Aegwynn wrote: He is right on every point and its common sense not opinion. Its like putting sugar in hamburgers. Its just bad cooking and its a fact. It doesn't matter if you are one of the few people who likes sweet hamburgers. It isn't fact, nor is it common sense. Its just you and JackOneil have the same opinion or agree on something. You are an asshole if you think your opinion is fact, while another's opinion is wrong. What makes your opinion more right than someone else? It's ok to disagree with someone's opinion. It's not ok to say their opinion is wrong. | ||
|
Yiome
China1687 Posts
Still looking forward to the balance change though. Can't wait to get rekt on ladder when the patch went live. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
On November 18 2016 22:14 monk wrote: New maps were definitely a big factor, but at the same time, it also took players a long time to figure out how to hold it. In the end, players figured out that there were only 3-4 very specific non-all-in builds that could hold something like that. Sure it took time for players to figure it out, but only maps like Daybreak where the third could be blocked off easily. And all the maps released after that had closed up thirds. I don't seem to remember any strategy that could hold a wide open third, at all. That was during the time of the Soul Train, which work because it hit before the Roach Max. And the best way to open to try and take a third versus the Roach max was with a bunch of Immortals and Sentries (essentially Soul Train minus attacking) and the Roach max ran it over, easily. On November 19 2016 00:31 stink123 wrote: Likewise theres nothing inherently wrong from a game design perspective for blink dts and photon overcharge as long as they create interesting situations and arent too overpowered. There is something absolutely inherently wrong from a game design perspective with Photon Overcharge. It is called power without gameplay, as Zileas, the VP of Game Design for League explains: Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don't find satisfying or don't notice... The problem with using a "power without gameplay" mechanic is that you tend to have to 'over-buff' the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it. As a result, we tend to keep Auras weak, and/or avoid them altogether, and/or pair them on an active/passive where the active is very strong and satisfying, so that the passive is more strategic around character choice. For example, Sona's auras are all quite weak -- because at weak values they ARE appreciated properly. Photon Overcharge is a big benefit that isn't exactly satisfying to use. It is the definition of an overbuffed mechanic that has created a game balance problem so people can appreciate it. It is a skilless ability that has watered down the early game for matchups involving Protoss. It took real skill to hold early timings as a Protoss in WOL. Photon Overcharge was developed well after Zileas wrote that blog, but it is a textbook example of power without gameplay, because there is no game play, you click on the MSC, press F and click on a Pylon and you've held the early timing. http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417 | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17408 Posts
On November 18 2016 22:41 JackONeill wrote: If you like shooting supply buildings (that can be used offensively), you have no idea how good game design works. If you like that a harass unit that already has escape mechanisms (cloack + high movespeed) gets another one, you have no idea how good game design works. If you like that a race that (had) such a weak core army needs to bend the map's features to survive, you have no idea how good game design works. Unfortunately, it seems that the dev team shares your uninformed and archaric vision for the game. I suppose that's why people actually playing the game is the lowest it's ever been. i think you equating the game design team's knowledge of their profession to that of this poster is way off base. equating game quality with player base size is laughable. MsPacman is a far better designed game than Pacman. MsPacman's popularity was less than 25% of Pacman in the face of a growing over all marketplace. That's one very early example. i can name many more. the RTS crowd left for MOBAs once 10+ player low latency games become viable for all consumers spending less than $50/month on internet. Once the MOBA become technically viable for the general public the RTS was done. | ||
|
Couguar
Russian Federation54 Posts
On November 19 2016 02:17 BronzeKnee wrote: Sure it took time for players to figure it out, but only maps like Daybreak where the third could be blocked off easily. And all the maps released after that had closed up thirds. I don't seem to remember any strategy that could hold a wide open third, at all. That was during the time of the Soul Train, which work because it hit before the Roach Max. And the best way to open to try and take a third versus the Roach max was with a bunch of Immortals and Sentries (essentially Soul Train minus attacking) and the Roach max ran it over, easily. There is something absolutely inherently wrong from a game design perspective with Photon Overcharge. It is called power without gameplay, as Zileas, the VP of Game Design for League explains: Photon Overcharge is a big benefit that isn't exactly satisfying to use. It is the definition of an overbuffed mechanic that has created a game balance problem so people can appreciate it. It is a skilless ability that has watered down the early game for matchups involving Protoss. It took real skill to hold early timings as a Protoss in WOL. Photon Overcharge was developed well after Zileas wrote that blog, but it is a textbook example of power without gameplay, because there is no game play, you click on the MSC, press F and click on a Pylon and you've held the early timing. http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417 I think you just dont understand what is gameplay for starcraft if u still posting this thing time and time again. using msc need proper positioning(both msc and pylons), proper use of cast because of drops. It is your gameplay too. WOL had way less threats that could bypass your natural ramp or passage( as on daybreak) and do game-ending damage so toss had no need to split units that much, he just need to have units | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On November 18 2016 22:41 JackONeill wrote: If you like shooting supply buildings (that can be used offensively), you have no idea how good game design works. If you like that a harass unit that already has escape mechanisms (cloack + high movespeed) gets another one, you have no idea how good game design works. If you like that a race that (had) such a weak core army needs to bend the map's features to survive, you have no idea how good game design works. Unfortunately, it seems that the dev team shares your uninformed and archaric vision for the game. I suppose that's why people actually playing the game is the lowest it's ever been. This is completely on the money, if anyone here tries to argue with you that the MSC is cool and that Photon Overcharge is a good game mechanic then don't even waste your breathe. Anyone that knows anything about this game knows that PO, gimmick harass options to win, and hero units in SC2 is just cancer. | ||
|
stink123
United States241 Posts
If you read the quote carefully, you will see that Photon Overcharge is used very similar to Sonas ability. While Sona has an aura, she can also activate it for a larger more significant buff. Photon Overcharge works the same way, it must be activated and on top of the correct unit as well. Also, that quote isn't that relevant to an RTS as much since even aura units can be fine since the player must build and position them. A good example would be the WoL era immortal, where it had hardened shields as a passive. That was clearly "Power without Gameplay", but its not clear it was that much worse for the game. Then again, Blizzard has now changed the mechanic to be an activated ability. Also dont forget, Riot has said they are willing to violate design principles as long as it brings something special or unique that couldn't be accomplished otherwise. | ||
| ||
