|
On January 12 2017 07:34 ruypture wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 07:26 Charoisaur wrote: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
this is so spot on and IDK why this guys devils advocating so hard
we feel entitled because as fans we trusted the devs with the responsibility of making this sequel, a lot of the older players were totally DISGUSTED by the balance at the games launch and subsequent decisions. its not like i can just go to a different starcraft 2 store because i dont like this one. this is it, man. we are entitled because we spam hundreds of ladder games and care deeply about this game, and they have consistently made it apparent that the devs do not value our feedback appropriately
|
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.
Ehm... I don't see what are you so proud of. These changes were terrible. And it only proves you and DK are both clueless.
Trolling aside. In all honesty. Can you tell how any of these exactly benefited the gameplay. or playerbase growth. or something. Because the only fact blizzard implemented them with or w/o your help doesnt prove anything. These "improvements" are just... "whatever". Nothing would have changed if they were not done (exept for may be hellbat nerf but it's kinda obvious broken stuff). Same goes for pair/double worker economy.
|
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.
Exactly this.
I understand that people have differrent opinions but it does not mean that all of them are worthwhile. That would mean we cannot separate good ideas from bad because all of them are equally "right". This is total relativism which I don't believe in. I think that when presented with some idea/opinion you can try to somehow partially objectively measure if it might be good or not.
This what TL eco article tried to do - measure and give facts about other economy version. How it would affect gameplay and why It might be good/better than LotV model. The same cannot be said about sc2 dev feedback on this topic where they just dismissed the idea not relating to any points and measurements given in TL article.
If measurements are wrong then please point the errors.
If there are other important things which haven't been mentioned - please point them.
If proposed solution goes the direction you're not interested in then please say which direction you want to go.
But please do not just dismiss multipage article with 2 sentences in community feedback.
This is what makes people angry and this where "whining, bitching and moaning" comes from.
|
On January 12 2017 19:05 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 07:59 The_Red_Viper 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? 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. Exactly this. I understand that people have differrent opinions but it does not mean that all of them are worthwhile. That would mean we cannot separate good ideas from bad because all of them are equally "right". This is total relativism which I don't believe in. I think that when presented with some idea/opinion you can try to somehow partially objectively measure if it might be good or not. This what TL eco article tried to do - measure and give facts about other economy version. How it would affect gameplay and why It might be good/better than LotV model. The same cannot be said about sc2 dev feedback on this topic where they just dismissed the idea not relating to any points and measurements given in TL article. If measurements are wrong then please point the errors. If there are other important things which haven't been mentioned - please point them. If proposed solution goes the direction you're not interested in then please say which direction you want to go. But please do not just dismiss multipage article with 2 sentences in community feedback. This is what makes people angry and this where "whining, bitching and moaning" comes from.
Yeah exactly. This "there are multiple opinions" argument is not valuable at all. Ofc there are multiple opinions, there are multiple opinions on anything. If there solid arguments brought forward then i don't care about that opinion. "I like sc2 as it is" is no solid argument because it implies that there is no way to improve the game.
You mention the economy, there are a lot of other things on top of that which were discussed a lot and blizzard more or less ignored it.
Maybe it is because the communication is flawed, maybe it is because the team simply doesn't have the ressources to do more than it does. Who knows, lots of possibilities on why there isn't much work being done.
|
On January 12 2017 20:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 19:05 egrimm wrote:On January 12 2017 07:59 The_Red_Viper 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? 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. Exactly this. I understand that people have differrent opinions but it does not mean that all of them are worthwhile. That would mean we cannot separate good ideas from bad because all of them are equally "right". This is total relativism which I don't believe in. I think that when presented with some idea/opinion you can try to somehow partially objectively measure if it might be good or not. This what TL eco article tried to do - measure and give facts about other economy version. How it would affect gameplay and why It might be good/better than LotV model. The same cannot be said about sc2 dev feedback on this topic where they just dismissed the idea not relating to any points and measurements given in TL article. If measurements are wrong then please point the errors. If there are other important things which haven't been mentioned - please point them. If proposed solution goes the direction you're not interested in then please say which direction you want to go. But please do not just dismiss multipage article with 2 sentences in community feedback. This is what makes people angry and this where "whining, bitching and moaning" comes from. Yeah exactly. This "there are multiple opinions" argument is not valuable at all. Ofc there are multiple opinions, there are multiple opinions on anything. If there solid arguments brought forward then i don't care about that opinion. "I like sc2 as it is" is no solid argument because it implies that there is no way to improve the game. You mention the economy, there are a lot of other things on top of that which were discussed a lot and blizzard more or less ignored it. Maybe it is because the communication is flawed, maybe it is because the team simply doesn't have the ressources to do more than it does. Who knows, lots of possibilities on why there isn't much work being done.
blizzard didn't ignore the TL proposed economy system, they gave detailed feedback on why they didn't want to do this change.
us.battle.net
+ Show Spoiler +Reducing the number of workers per base so that army sizes become bigger
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
We also looked into feedback suggesting we reduce the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch. This was aimed at making expanding result in a higher income more often than not, even when on an equal worker count. What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void, so this change does not feel all that different in terms of when you want to expand. Also, when you do expand faster and have your workers more spread out, it’s easier to replenish workers that you’ve lost to harassment. As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
|
To me this qualifies as "more or less ignored". If you look at what lvl the community back then engaged that topic this is just pathetic tbh
|
I feel like you people want a 24/7 live stream into the bizzard offices to be satisfied they do any work.
Come on.
|
On January 12 2017 21:30 InfCereal wrote:
I feel like you people want a 24/7 live stream into the bizzard offices to be satisfied they do any work.
Come on.
If you think "workers dying is cool and more spread out workers means less workers dying" is a good response then good for you. TBF i remember there to be more dialogue than that though, still it wasn't amazing considering the work the community did back then.
|
On January 12 2017 21:37 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 21:30 InfCereal wrote:
I feel like you people want a 24/7 live stream into the bizzard offices to be satisfied they do any work.
Come on. If you think "workers dying is cool and more spread out workers means less workers dying" is a good response then good for you. TBF i remember there to be more dialogue than that though, still it wasn't amazing considering the work the community did back then.
You really can't use amount of work as a metric of truth.
Hitler put a whole lot of work into killing all the jews, that doesn't mean he was right to do so. In fact, quite the opposite.
|
On January 12 2017 21:43 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 21:37 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 12 2017 21:30 InfCereal wrote:
I feel like you people want a 24/7 live stream into the bizzard offices to be satisfied they do any work.
Come on. If you think "workers dying is cool and more spread out workers means less workers dying" is a good response then good for you. TBF i remember there to be more dialogue than that though, still it wasn't amazing considering the work the community did back then. You really can't use amount of work as a metric of truth. Hitler put a whole lot of work into killing all the jews, that doesn't mean he was right to do so. In fact, quite the opposite.
I don't use it as a metric of truth. I use it to show that blizzard should respond in more detail, put more work into a response.
Personally i think the economy model proposed back then is superior, but blizzard didn't really show why it's not. That's the problem. Unless you look at "workers being killed is so cool" as a valid response which completely neglects all the positives of DH.
And it still shows today, if you wanna communicate with the community you better do so with actual arguments/reaosnings, etc. That way the community might actually be able to come up with solutions instead of only bitching. 
|
On January 12 2017 21:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:
To me this qualifies as "more or less ignored". If you look at what lvl the community back then engaged that topic this is just pathetic tbh
That kind of logic always seemed strange to me. What matters is a the result, not the amount of intellectual resources/time involved. You can do an enourmous research on any topic you find attractive with dozens of references/statistics/diagrams you name it, but that doesnt mean the other party is obliged to make a corresponding review/analysis of your work. Your work could be good/well written, even be valid to some extent, but it could, as well, be irrelevant/not suitable or else. Like, i don't need your detailed research on refrigerators while i'm looking for a conditioner. This is the exact example of this. We can't predict the outcome of implementing the community proposed economy changes (i, personally, feel like it wouldn't change much), but blizzard took them in consideration and made a decision that this model doesnt suit their understanding of what this game should look like (and their response was pretty reasonable). Blaming them for ignoring/not giving detailed answers is rediculous. I don't give a fuck about ignoring, i only want this game to be better, this way or another. And i fail to see any REAL advantages of proposed eco-changes that would benefit the gameplay.
|
Well yes the end result is what matters. The problem is that blizzard is the only one able to change the product. Which is why all the community really can do is write articles, give arguments, etc.
Which was done, in a very detailed way, showing the pros and cons. Blizzard decided to do community updates and more than once argued that the community should be constructive and bring solutions instead of being impatient.
Well maybe that would be easier if there was an actual conversation going on which is more detailed/in depth than what blizzard does. I won't reiterate the arguments in favor of DH and the problems with the "economy change" (map change) of LOTV at this point. It's all out there.
I mean at the end of the day Blizzard can do with the game whatever it wants, but don't pretend to care what the community has to say when in the end you respond with a few lines without any depth whatsoever. That is ridiculous.
|
It is pretty clear Blizzard was borderline incompetent in designing SC2 after release.
That said it's still a good game, they did good enough job on balancing, and even if we had competent design/balance team working on SC2 MOBAs would still be more popular and S. Korea would still lose interest in SC2 (mainly due to other games and matchfixing).
|
On January 12 2017 22:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well yes the end result is what matters. The problem is that blizzard is the only one able to change the product. Which is why all the community really can do is write articles, give arguments, etc.
Which was done, in a very detailed way, showing the pros and cons. Blizzard decided to do community updates and more than once argued that the community should be constructive and bring solutions instead of being impatient.
Well maybe that would be easier if there was an actual conversation going on which is more detailed/in depth than what blizzard does. I won't reiterate the arguments in favor of DH and the problems with the "economy change" (map change) of LOTV at this point. It's all out there.
I mean at the end of the day Blizzard can do with the game whatever it wants, but don't pretend to care what the community has to say when in the end you respond with a few lines without any depth whatsoever. That is ridiculous.
Like, i still fail to see any reason to blame them. They asked for feedback. But they didnt promise they are gonna use every idea community will propose. You are free to give it to them or not, you are not obliged. So you can't expect any sort of reward for you effort. Yes, i clearly get one's frustration when he/she is passionately striving to help someone while getting nothing in return but that's how it works in reality. This is not a family-based relationship. Devs cant afford to devote all their time to everyone who thinks he/she deserves it. I only see this communication as "brain-storm" scenario to help blizzard. We have numbers, so out goal is to shoot out any sort of ideas that cross our minds, while they are just scrolling these pages looking for things they could have missed. That's it. There is no other way as there is no such thing as community game-design.
|
I feel like we don't talk about the same issue. I am saying that i expect a more detailed "community update" when it's about important topics like economy, ESPECIALLY when the community invests as much time and work into it. (the quality was there).
You cannot blame the community in multiple posts: "We wanted to remind people once more that just complaining without solutions isn't helpful"
and when the community actually tries to bring the game forward with quality comment you post essentially "well we like workers being killed". Don't you see how absurd that is?
That the community arguably has better solutions on top of that is another issue. But that's the thing. There isn't enough arguments from blizzard's side on why they decide to do certain things. A lot of the time it's literally "because it is cool". Cmon
|
So your complaint is basically down to the following. "I'm more pissed off about being dumped w/o proper excuse than about actually being dumped". I can understand that, but i'm just another type of person. That kind of stuff just doesn't bother me.
|
On January 12 2017 22:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:
There isn't enough arguments from blizzard's side on why they decide to do certain things. A lot of the time it's literally "because it is cool". Cmon
Unfortunately this is the main reason they give for any change. It is much easier to say "we prefer dts being able to blink because it is cool and such wow" than giving adequate explanation how this change might positively affect interactions and enrich the game. It feels like there is little research being made and they are not going into depth with possible outcomes of changes they propose which is very saddening.
Most of the time when I read community feedback and look through the changes I'm under impression that they want to go "shortcuts". Try little tweak to stats and keep the fingers crossed that it won't break anything. Sometimes it might work (-1 dmg to adepts but it had good explanation and reasoning beforehand) but usually it changes little to nothing. I'd prefer trying bold changes like even removing units if they not fit than reiterating them patch to patch (swarmhosts?).
I think I'm just not happy with the general direction sc2 is taking :|
|
On January 07 2017 08:57 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Hydralisk buff is so much needed?
Not as much needed as a Terran nerf
|
On January 13 2017 01:54 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 22:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:
There isn't enough arguments from blizzard's side on why they decide to do certain things. A lot of the time it's literally "because it is cool". Cmon Unfortunately this is the main reason they give for any change. It is much easier to say "we prefer dts being able to blink because it is cool and such wow" than giving adequate explanation how this change might positively affect interactions and enrich the game. It feels like there is little research being made and they are not going into depth with possible outcomes of changes they propose which is very saddening. Most of the time when I read community feedback and look through the changes I'm under impression that they want to go "shortcuts". Try little tweak to stats and keep the fingers crossed that it won't break anything. Sometimes it might work (-1 dmg to adepts but it had good explanation and reasoning beforehand) but usually it changes little to nothing. I'd prefer trying bold changes like even removing units if they not fit than reiterating them patch to patch (swarmhosts?). I think I'm just not happy with the general direction sc2 is taking :|
In response to you, as well as the person your quoting, it's true that there's not enough arguments from Blizz's side on why they do certain things... but it's precisely because their PR team is running the show and not the developers.
It's frustrating as hell, when you see a change supported by the community, and they reject it for a reason that does not make sense. Then they implement something for the same exact reason. It makes the double standard obvious, and shows the reasoning we're being told is complete BS.
They put on an act if they want to do something that's not supported... they act as if they don't understand the feedback they are receiving. Like when people said LotV was too fast - they act like people are talking about the "physical speed of the game". It wasn't the physical speed of the game itself, the complaints were about the ECONOMY speed, which in turn speeds up how fast u must expand, build, etc.
They were doing good for awhile, especially leading up to LotV beta, but in summer of LotV beta they shit on everything when they reverted macro mechanic changes. The polls at that time were saying 80% support of COMPLETE macro mechanic removal. The 12 worker start was implemented and tested based on not having the income of macro mecahnics. The game was NOT too fast with the 12 worker start at that time.
Then they completely shit on everything they told us. They told us LotV would be longest beta they ever had for an RTS - then ended up releasing early and it was the same amount of months as HotS beta was. The Blizzard Store even said March 2016 release date! They told us the pros approved of the macro changes and they were moving forward, then decided to revert as they announce a release date 5 months earlier than they promised.
And... that's when the PR started. If you take their two quotes at the time, they literally straight up told us they knew MM removal was better design, but they DECIDED AGAINST IT. Yes, the GAME DESIGNERS, decided to go with a WORSE DESIGN for the game.
Then only a couple weeks of testing after a drastic change that affected the whole economy? It was rushed. Intentionally rushed. The only time I EVER seen Blizzard do that.
If you start reading the Community Feedback Updates from release until now, you will see the insanely ridiculous amount of PR and fluff found in every single post.
It's sickening. They don't really care what the players want, they are just keeping up a facade and trying to act like the community is supporting it, or the community is the blame.
Do something players dont like? Lets blame the players for not giving good enough feedback.
Decide against something that 80% players are begging for? Blame it on the "feedback you received from players".
It's a slap in the face. If your going to say you did a change "becuase of feedback from players", that should be a bulk of the feedback. Not feedback that was only 5% of the community...
The designers really need to work on the DESIGN of the game. They need to start caring about what the community actually wants to see in the game. The need to start thinking about "fun factor > cool factor". They need to be honest with the community about their reasoning. They need to stop the PR BS, because all it does is cause the community to argue with each other. They need to stop using the PR as a reason not to say "we need to hear more feedback on this matter" and then never bring the subject up again, or to do something that's not supported by the community.
I've pretty much given up at this point. Don't bother posting much anymore because it's clear they don't care.
It's painfully obvious that SC2's development is solely focused on mission packs & coop nowdays. My theory is another competitive RTS in the works to be released in 2 years (Blizzard Team 1 has been moved to a new project, and Team 1 is the RTS/moba team) - Blizz don't like to compete against themselves, so that would explain the complete lack of investment in competitive SC2 while still investing in the coop/mission segments.
But that still does not make any of their handling of SC2 right. Blizzard's team behind SC2 is the biggest tarnish on Blizzards name and reputation - far far worse than even D3. Never thought I would see Blizzard handle any game like this, much less the StarCraft series which is a lot of what made Blizzard the success tehy are today.
|
I'm not sure why some people identify their opinions with the "community's opinions"
Whining that Blizzard doesn't listen to the community because it doesn't implement *your* ideas is a bit shortsighted..
I work in a very competitive field, and I *never* see anyone addressing competitors, coworkers or people in the field with the tones used here: if I was a developer and I read only "pathetic, ridiculous, etc." addressed to me, I don't think I would read TL very often.. believe it or not, it's important to maintain a certain positivity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
