|
On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. You're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You realize it's a balance team, not just David Kim, right?
Because it's not just David Kim. There's a team, with discussion, and they make decisions as a team.
|
" I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestuous organization."
Honestly need more even be said?
|
On January 12 2017 06:54 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. You're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You realize it's a balance team, not just David Kim, right? Because it's not just David Kim. There's a team, with discussion, and they make decisions as a team.
Sure there is a team, but it isn't a democracy. I believe very strongly in accountability and responsibility and he is the leader.
The bucks stops with him.
|
I won't comment on david kim and his position but did anyone really expect anything good from blizzard past lotv release?
Blizzard ignored the community during brood lord infestor era, they did not listen to map complaints during the blink era, they refuse to acknowledge obvious issues with PvT right now. Blizzard even ignored amazing economy design proposals during LotV beta.
I guess my point is that the laziness of map development and reuse of maps clearly imbalanced for LotV is not surprising
|
On January 12 2017 07:13 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 06:54 InfCereal wrote:On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. You're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You realize it's a balance team, not just David Kim, right? Because it's not just David Kim. There's a team, with discussion, and they make decisions as a team. Sure there is a team, but it isn't a democracy. I believe very strongly in accountability and responsibility and he is the leader. The bucks stops with him.
Sure, but he's just the public face.
You make Dkim resign, and the rest of the team is the same. Nothing changes.
I don't understand how people don't see that.
Edit: I think the team does a good job, for what it's worth.
|
On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view.
just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true.
You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it.
and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game...
Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
|
On January 12 2017 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say?
Because he ends up doing it anyway just months or years later, the proof is in the pudding!
Were siege tanks buffed like the I suggested? Yes.
Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes.
Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes.
Did Blizzard not allow warp in's on ramps months after I suggested it? Yes.
Did Carriers did buffed? Yes.
Those are facts. I can show you the threads I started suggesting them.
It goes on and on because this isn't about opinions, this is about facts. Fact is, the Warhound was a bad idea and Blizzard didn't end up implementing despite pushing it and wasting money and valuable beta time on it. Fact is, the Tempest wasn't needed to counter mass Mutalisks, and we knew that months before it was introduced. I can go on and on, but I don't think I need to. If you don't agree with me that is fine.
Accountability is a real thing.
|
On January 12 2017 07:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say? I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say? Because he ends up anyways, the proof is in the pudding.
Were siege tanks buffed like the suggested? Yes. Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes. Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes. It goes on and on.
So he put things in the game you posted in a forum... but you are upset that it didn't happen fast enough??
How entitled can you be? Just be happy that your ideas made it into the game and don't complain about it.
|
On January 12 2017 07:26 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 07:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say? I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say? Because he ends up anyways, the proof is in the pudding.
Were siege tanks buffed like the suggested? Yes. Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes. Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes. It goes on and on. So he put things in the game you posted in a forum... but you are upset that it didn't happen fast enough?? How entitled can you be? Just be happy that your ideas made it into the game and don't complain about it.
I don't settle. You shouldn't settle in life. If I take your opinions I end up living your lifestyle and I don't think I would like that.
I watched the game I love bleed players and viewers while Blizzard messed around with terrible ideas. If David Kim had the ability to know when he saw a good idea, my ideas and other good ideas from his design team and the community would have made the game much sooner.
And we wouldn't have had all the terrible ideas.
But that wasn't the case.
|
On January 12 2017 07:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say? I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say? Because he ends up doing it anyway just months or years later, the proof is in the pudding!Were siege tanks buffed like the I suggested? Yes. Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes. Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes. Did Blizzard not allow warp in's on ramps months after I suggested it? Yes. Did Carriers did buffed? Yes. Those are facts. I can show you the threads I started suggesting them. It goes on and on because this isn't about opinions, this is about facts. Fact is, the Warhound was a bad idea and Blizzard didn't end up implementing despite pushing it and wasting money and valuable beta time on it. Fact is, the Tempest wasn't needed to counter mass Mutalisks, and we knew that months before it was introduced. I can go on and on, but I don't think I need to. If you don't agree with me that is fine. Accountability is a real thing.
when i decided to track 1 of your big predictions that was really vague you refused to tighten up your projection into something meaningful. it was a polite request and you were mega confronttational ...your defense was you just wanted to rant and rave on here about how right you are.
with the low granularity and vagueness of many of your projections i'd say the signal to noise ratio of those projection posts is low.
Accountability is a thing. so far i'm happy with the cash i've spent on Blizzard and i'm communicating with them the best way i know how. i'm giving them more of my money.
Revenues , profits, share price, and PRODUCT ENGAGEMENT is through the roof in the years you've been pissing, moaning, whining and complaining. Every Blizzard game has a group of "hardcore fans" that says Blizzard is great at everything else EXCEPT the game they are "passionate" about. this same song is sung in the D3, WoW, Hearthstone, and Overwatch forums.
Blizzard knows what they're doing.
|
On January 12 2017 07:26 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 07:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say? I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say? Because he ends up anyways, the proof is in the pudding.
Were siege tanks buffed like the suggested? Yes. Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes. Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes. It goes on and on. So he put things in the game you posted in a forum... but you are upset that it didn't happen fast enough?? How entitled can you be? Just be happy that your ideas made it into the game and don't complain about it.
Its the job of the consumer to point out problems and suggest their wants
its the producers job to manufacture those wants.
coming up with ideas, having the community reject those ideas, then proceeding with the same rejected ideas anyways is a recipe for disaster.
Even though blizzard made a couple band-aid fixes, they were fixes that stemmed from poor to terrible design choices in the first place
|
On January 12 2017 07:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say? I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say? Because he ends up doing it anyway just months or years later, the proof is in the pudding!Were siege tanks buffed like the I suggested? Yes. Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes. Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes. Did Blizzard not allow warp in's on ramps months after I suggested it? Yes. Did Carriers did buffed? Yes. Those are facts. I can show you the threads I started suggesting them. It goes on and on because this isn't about opinions, this is about facts. Fact is, the Warhound was a bad idea and Blizzard didn't end up implementing despite pushing it and wasting money and valuable beta time on it. Fact is, the Tempest wasn't needed to counter mass Mutalisks, and we knew that months before it was introduced. I can go on and on, but I don't think I need to. If you don't agree with me that is fine. Accountability is a real thing.
all hail bronzeknee, savior of sc2, who singlehandedly convinced david kim to implement his genius level ideas
|
On January 12 2017 07:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Blizzard knows what they're doing.
Yes Blizzard knows how to make money. If that's the only factor we consider then you are 100% right. Obviously that's the only thing you care about for whatever reason.
On January 12 2017 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say?
Yes there are lots of opinions but juts because there are lots of opinions doesn't mean that every single one is worth the same. You can have an opinion without even thinking about the topic at hand for a single second. Instead of preaching that there are lots of opinions and that everything is fine, why not engage the complaints directly?
I am sure we all want the game to be as good as it can be, why not discuss specifics about the game instead of arguing if somebody has the right to be upset/make gamedesign related posts. Engage the arguments.
Why do you think the LOTV economy is better than the economy proposed by some TL guys during beta?
Why do you think it is ok to have warpgates in the game which violete defenders advantage? (not that this will ever change  )
Or to have something more relevant for this thread: Why do you think giving hydras +10 hp is a good change atm?
|
On January 12 2017 07:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Yes Blizzard knows how to make money. If that's the only factor we consider then you are 100% right. Obviously that's the only thing you care about for whatever reason.
product engagement is at record levels.
|
United States1906 Posts
|
On January 12 2017 07:59 The_Red_Viper wrote: Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say? Yes there are lots of opinions but juts because there are lots of opinions doesn't mean that every single one is worth the same. You can have an opinion without even thinking about the topic at hand for a single second. Instead of preaching that there are lots of opinions and that everything is fine, why not engage the complaints directly? I am sure we all want the game to be as good as it can be, why not discuss specifics about the game instead of arguing if somebody has the right to be upset/make gamedesign related posts. Engage the arguments. Why do you think the LOTV economy is better than the economy proposed by some TL guys during beta? Why do you think it is ok to have warpgates in the game which violete defenders advantage? (not that this will ever change ) Or to have something more relevant for this thread: Why do you think giving hydras +10 hp is a good change atm?
I don't have a problem with gamedesign-related posts.
I just didn't like his entitled tone in which he presented his opinions as facts and claimed DK is incompetent because he doesn't agree with those "facts" or implemented them to late.
I think the LOTV economy is better because it's less complicated and achieves pretty much the same (punish turtling players and force/incentive players to expand faster)
Warpgates are great because they are cool, give protoss a strong harassment tool with warpprism and compensate for the lack of mobility of protoss.
Hydras +10 is a good change because they really need a buff... and they shouldn't be one-shotted by liberators.
|
On January 12 2017 07:56 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 07:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 07:17 Charoisaur wrote:On January 12 2017 06:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 12 2017 05:45 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 12 2017 02:42 BronzeKnee wrote:
Blaming the community for complaining without solutions is just ridiculous.
Our job isn't to come up with solutions to problems, but that is the job of the developers. Our job, at most, is simply to report problems. The fact people go out of their way to "complain" and report problems should be something Blizzard cherishes, because it makes their job of improving the game easier. And it isn't hard to do, every time someone reports a problem for the game I work on, I thank them, even though they are handing me more work. Because it isn't about me or the person reporting the problem, it is about the game.
And when people come up with solutions they should be graciously thanked and recognized in the game in someway. But Blizzard has routinely ignored the communities best solutions (LOTV economy anyone?), dismissing powerful arguments approaching the length of a thesis that were done purely on a volunteer basis with little more than a sentence in a "Community Feedback Update."
I am embarrassed for Blizzard, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their arrogance knows no bounds.
Communicating internally is very different from communicating externally. David Kim tends to speak to the community the same way he would speak to his team. It's important to recognize that that is both a great thing and a worrisome thing. There is an inherent level of trust in discourse with peers. You actively listen and in turn make yourself vulnerable with the mutual understanding that you are both seeking the most positive outcome for the product. An example conversation between two level designers doing a peer review would sound something like this: Designer 1: "Okay I kinda see what you're going for here, but something's off about the progression flow from the natural to the third. I can't put my finger on it, but it's not a good experience, especially if I'm Zerg." Designer 2: "Right, so what I was trying to do was... see these rocks here? That's the main chokepoint, and it causes interesting medium-sized battles to happen. I wanted to keep that pacing so that players didn't feel like they had to turtle to 3 bases before doing anything, they could keep the pressure on." Designer 1: "So your goal with this map was to encourage repeated skirmishes, do I have that right?" Designer 2: "Sort of, but I don't want that to be the only playstyle that works, either. I don't want players to ban it for being one-dimensional." Designer 1: "Ah, I think I understand then. I think if you move the natural toward the center a little more and moved the third over about the same amount, you would still get the hard-to-defend aggressive style you're looking for while still having the option to play greedy." A conversation between David Kim and the Internet looks like this: DKim: "Okay guys, so this is our tentative plan. What are your thoughts on it? We're open to feedback." Internet: "It sucks." "Bad idea." "This is what you call a plan?" "Sure just keep buffing what's already OP, makes perfect sense!" There's no back-and-forth dialogue because most players aren't looking to have that. They just want to get in their zinger or quip and that's it. That's why David Kim has to preface everything he says with "please provide solutions with your feedback," because that's the broad, superficial nature of Internet comments. However, some players actually do put in the time to explain their point of view, and that's so critically important for the developers to hear and acknowledge. The tricky part is how much of that conversation remains one-way. Players just have to blindly hope that their feedback is actively being discussed and considered internally, and for various (usually logistical) reasons, they may never hear back at all. It definitely doesn't feel good if you go to so much effort, trying to relate on a peer level as in the level designer example, and not get the reciprocation you're expecting. I don't think David Kim is doing the wrong thing by trying to relate to players on a more personal and direct level, but there are certain realities that need to be acknowledged. As a game ambassador, he is still coming from a dictatorial position, and that means the community must realize that any feedback they offer may only be discussed internally within the team and potentially never externally. That creates an unfair perception, but it's better to identify that upfront as the nature of the relationship. I completely agree with your assessment, but perhaps we differ on the ability of David Kim. I think he is completely incompetent, downright arrogant and unable to manage SC2 in an effective way. He is like a terrible NFL coach that needs to be fired, but isn't due to an incestous organization. There are three points of data that I will lend to make my argument: #1 The inability to recognize a good idea when he sees one. The Korean Pros tell him the game is too hard, he says no. Team Liquid comes up with a better idea for the economy in LOTV, he dismisses it like he would dismiss a one line post saying that Marines are too strong on his forum. He releases Hellbats as is in HOTS and we get BFH 2.0 in TvT (which of course gets nerfed later...), despite dire warnings from the community including my big thread, where I also suggested buffing the Siege Tank damage and attack speed, removing the Immortal Hardened Shield, buffing Carriers, improving Protoss detection ect... all of which happened years later. It took years... And of course, the community asked for Lurkers, and eventually that good idea made the game... #2 The inability to recognize a bad idea when he sees one. Do you remember the Warhound? That idea shouldn't have made it to the Beta, honestly, it should not have left the game designers head. But it did, and David Kim pushed it along wasting valuable Beta time and money developing a broken idea to solve a problem (breaking Siege Tank line in TvT) that wasn't an actual game issue! That itself could be a fourth point, not understanding his game... remember the Tempest was designed to counter the mass Mutalisk problem that was long solved in PvT? Day 9 did a big daily months prior on how to stop Mutalisk and Zerg stop using them at a high level! How bout Replicant? Or the Tempest and the role it plays? He literally throws ideas at the game. #3 The inability to communicate with the community. You've made that case. And you're right David Kim needs to lead. He needs to go ahead and try to design a great game, say this is what we are doing and why, and push through the criticism with faith that his ideas are good and the end result will be great. That is what a good game designer would do. But the proof is always in the pudding, the end result determines the ability of the game designer.
And just like how he doesn't know how to communicate to us, he doesn't know how to design a game because the end result isn't good when he leads. The pudding simply isn't good, the Warhound was garbage... he clearly isn't capable of designing SC2. And we've been spinning our wheels for how many years? He needs to go, because he clearly can't do the job he is trying to do. The end result determines the ability of the game designer.
You say DK is arrogant but this post is literally the epitome of arrogance. Not everyone agrees with your view. just because you think something is a good idea or a bad idea it doesn't mean that's true. Just because you think the TL proposed economy is better it doesn't mean it's true. You can't just define what's good and what's not, people have different opinions on it. and then you are upset that DK doesn't put every design change you post in a forum immidiately into the game... Wow. Do you realize that you're just a random forum guy in his view? One out of hundreds. Why exactly should he do everything you say? I am one out of thousands. Why should he do exactly what I say? Because he ends up doing it anyway just months or years later, the proof is in the pudding!Were siege tanks buffed like the I suggested? Yes. Did Hellbats get nerfed? Yes. Did Immortals lose their hardened shield ability from WOL? Yes. Did Blizzard not allow warp in's on ramps months after I suggested it? Yes. Did Carriers did buffed? Yes. Those are facts. I can show you the threads I started suggesting them. It goes on and on because this isn't about opinions, this is about facts. Fact is, the Warhound was a bad idea and Blizzard didn't end up implementing despite pushing it and wasting money and valuable beta time on it. Fact is, the Tempest wasn't needed to counter mass Mutalisks, and we knew that months before it was introduced. I can go on and on, but I don't think I need to. If you don't agree with me that is fine. Accountability is a real thing. all hail bronzeknee, savior of sc2, who singlehandedly convinced david kim to implement his genius level ideas
I'm pretty sure he's pointing out, just like i have and many others, that the community and high level players know 9999% better than david kim ever will about this game. He implements the stuff we point out months or worse, a year later - rather than taking action on things in a timely manner.
It's one of the reasons SC2 has taken a fall in korea and even abroad. You can't have a competitive e-sport with integrity when the balance is so horrendous on launch and post-launch that you have players spamming 40 adepts every game and things of this nature.
Blizzard and the community still don't get it after all these years - SC2's success is DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY WHETHER OR NOT THE GAME IS FAIR AND BALANCED.
The balance of SC2 is a disgrace honestly among where it should be.
LOTV launched a little over a year ago...and invulnerable nydus network is still in the game.
Oh, and mech is less viable on the "mech patch" than it ever has been. ROFL.
*drops the mic and my keyboard*
|
Well I'm happy with the game, for the most part.
Maybe you should play something else, avilo
|
On January 12 2017 09:32 avilo wrote:
The balance of SC2 is a disgrace honestly among where it should be.
You tell them. Explain why P vs T is ridiculously Toss favored. I take you seriously, as does everyone else. You just gotta explain it better for us simpletons. Make a thread about it.
|
On January 12 2017 02:27 VitalPoint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2017 23:34 icesergio wrote:On January 11 2017 17:01 VitalPoint wrote:On January 11 2017 05:55 icesergio wrote:On January 11 2017 05:07 J. Corsair wrote:
I can't believe the whining. For once Terran is in a good place against Protoss and Protoss players just resort to whining. Everything was fine when you could adept shade into all 3 terran bases and kill 30 scvs with 6-8 adepts, right? Forcing the terran player to multi-task like bajeezus while you sit back and macro some more.
Now that Protoss is forced to multi-task as well it's suddenly a huge issue. Zerg players didn't moan nearly as much when they were considered underpowered towards the beginning of LOTV.
People mentioning a Byun vs Stats match as evidence Terran is too strong? Byun is literally the BEST Terran player in the world, of course he's going to make the race look good. The fact is, there is only a handful of Terran players capable of doing what these guys do with Terran, the rest struggle. Both Zerg and Protoss, as long as they have free supply, larvae and resources can insta-max. Don't forget that nice tidbit as well, If you lost 30 scvs to 6 adepts, which means an average of 2 adepts per base well then congratulations /s Multi task? What multi tasking do you expect to do against a terran who parks outside your ramp and rallies stuff across the map while you watch minerals go up and unable to spend them because EVERY single protoss unit apart from the zealot, which was made completely useless without charge, costs vespene gas, and a lot of it. Want to rush blink to defend? Gas. Sentries? Gas. Stalkers? Gas. Immortals are pretty cheap on the gas but 200/100 for robo tech and 250/100 for one immortal isn't exactly cheap. Meanwhile you just need 250 gas for two tanks, 150 for one lib, and 50 for a reactor on the rax. GG Terran can expand, upgrade and macro all while keeping the protoss inside his main. Even if a warp prism comes out the harass will be shut down by one-two widow mines or a tank to protect scvs And if the rush doesn't continue and toss manages to break through, terran will have such a big lead in macro and supply, by the time toss saturates the natural a big force of 1/1 MMM is knocking on the door. But hey, you're a terran player, I don't expect much from you. All I know is that the toss players will train against all odds and if/when the game gets balanced (maybe in a year) we'll be all so used to your bullshit that you'll just get steamrolled. Enjoy your months of glory  The minimal nerf won't change much for you. #goldleagueproblems Strange, you know nothing about me, yet you comment #goldleagueproblems 1. Being in gold is great, it means you have learned your race om enough to play decently 2. Gold, bronze, what does it matter? Everyone has the right to have fun and as such everyone's opinion should be taken into consideration 3. I am actually plat, hit dia and working towards getting back into it, so with your permission, I'd say I'm not exactly the newcomer here 4. You were the one who said you lost 30scvs to 6 adepts, so I guess #woodleagueproblems gold, decent level, pick one!
this is wh yi stopped posting on TL years ago. TL used to be good players mostly, and the balance whine was in ONE thread not all of them
tired of kids writing fuckin paragraphs about how OP X race is when the TvP matchup is hard for everyone outside of code s, i guess i should have known better than to open this thread in the first place
(I mean for both terrans and protoss, its a hard matchup to play for both side)
guys everyone has had that PvT where you lose to a doom drop in a totally equal game
likewise
everyone has that game where you dont really make any mistakes as Terran, but protoss doesnt either so you dont do dmg and he just wins in the macro game with warpins everywhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
