|
Blizzard cares about metrics like game length, session length, customer satisfaction. I don't know where I heard it, but I thought there was some reference by a Blizzard employee about how players want games to last around 15 minutes. That was probably the main reason they cut down on dungeon length in World of Warcraft and why they introduced many more one-off raid encounters which could easily be done in a single session. They pitched the shorter average game length as a unique advantage to Heroes of the Storm.
I can recall Dustin Browder talking about the brutality of the six-pool, and how this was an amazing part of SC2 gameplay, but I don't think this is current Blizzard policy. There is a reason DB talked about six-pool and not marine rushes or proxy gates, and it's because the zergling rush is a recognized trope in the wider gaming community, it is essentially part of the Blizzard brand. I honestly don't think the design team will put their money where their mouth is and make the game harsher and more uncompromising, and promote early game cheese in general. I literally can't remember even a single example of patching which seeks to strengthen, rather than weaken rushes.
Like I said earlier, progress marches on, and given that it's Blizzard who designs the game, this progress will be on Blizzard's terms and it means that games will become ever more streamlined, with ever more hard edges removed. The 12 worker start will never be changed, Blizzard already gambled to implement it (given that it risks destabilizing the balance), they balanced the game around the change, and it fits with their overall goals and direction for future games.
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On April 05 2017 18:33 Grumbels wrote:
Blizzard cares about metrics like game length, session length, customer satisfaction. I don't know where I heard it, but I thought there was some reference by a Blizzard employee about how players want games to last around 15 minutes. That was probably the main reason they cut down on dungeon length in World of Warcraft and why they introduced many more one-off raid encounters which could easily be done in a single session. They pitched the shorter average game length as a unique advantage to Heroes of the Storm.
I can recall Dustin Browder talking about the brutality of the six-pool, and how this was an amazing part of SC2 gameplay, but I don't think this is current Blizzard policy. There is a reason DB talked about six-pool and not marine rushes or proxy gates, and it's because the zergling rush is a recognized trope in the wider gaming community, it is essentially part of the Blizzard brand. I honestly don't think the design team will put their money where their mouth is and make the game harsher and more uncompromising, and promote early game cheese in general. I literally can't remember even a single example of patching which seeks to strengthen, rather than weaken rushes.
Like I said earlier, progress marches on, and given that it's Blizzard who designs the game, this progress will be on Blizzard's terms and it means that games will become ever more streamlined, with ever more hard edges removed. The 12 worker start will never be changed, Blizzard already gambled to implement it (given that it risks destabilizing the balance), they balanced the game around the change, and it fits with their overall goals and direction for future games.
If they care about metrics, I sent them a message by not playing the game, I hope their metrics are showing the interest =)
(on the other hand I already bought the game so why should they care)
Anyway, the 12 worker start isn't that bad on its own. It's just the change that can be easiest blamed because it does a lot of easy to see harm.
I would rather see a change with full bases. Or removing all the speed buffs in the game. Or removing all the units that can kill worker lines in few shots. There are so many changes that were not like and made the game more fragile and could be reverted yet no one tried  Or removing all the megasuperhyper damaging units. The time to kill an army is getting shorter with every expansion and the possibilities are growing(which means you need to look at more signs than before).
Generally speaking a lot of LotV changes are good - on their own. But combined together it just doesn't work for me.
|
People have such a narrow definition of early game. But if you widen it and say that it means the first 3-5 min, then we have a lot more variety.
Also really early stuff still exists, it is just not as game ending as before and not as all in. Isn't this a good thing?
For example instead of a 6pool you make a ling drop and just watch byun, he does really cheesy stuff, where you think that can't work vs protoss (or vs z or vs t) but he wins! There is also another player who plays only canon rushes in gm and wins enough games to stay in gm.
|
I really enjoy the econ changes in LotV, I hope they never revert it. LotV is way more interesting to watch too in my opinion.
|
On April 05 2017 20:37 todespolka wrote:
People have such a narrow definition of early game. But if you widen it and say that it means the first 3-5 min, then we have a lot more variety.
Also really early stuff still exists, it is just not as game ending as before and not as all in. Isn't this a good thing?
For example instead of a 6pool you make a ling drop and just watch byun, he does really cheesy stuff, where you think that can't work vs protoss (or vs z or vs t) but he wins! There is also another player who plays only canon rushes in gm and wins enough games to stay in gm.
By 5 minutes, you have a 3 base zerg defending double medivac stim drops. That is very much not early game tech.
|
On April 05 2017 19:09 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 18:33 Grumbels wrote:
Blizzard cares about metrics like game length, session length, customer satisfaction. I don't know where I heard it, but I thought there was some reference by a Blizzard employee about how players want games to last around 15 minutes. That was probably the main reason they cut down on dungeon length in World of Warcraft and why they introduced many more one-off raid encounters which could easily be done in a single session. They pitched the shorter average game length as a unique advantage to Heroes of the Storm.
I can recall Dustin Browder talking about the brutality of the six-pool, and how this was an amazing part of SC2 gameplay, but I don't think this is current Blizzard policy. There is a reason DB talked about six-pool and not marine rushes or proxy gates, and it's because the zergling rush is a recognized trope in the wider gaming community, it is essentially part of the Blizzard brand. I honestly don't think the design team will put their money where their mouth is and make the game harsher and more uncompromising, and promote early game cheese in general. I literally can't remember even a single example of patching which seeks to strengthen, rather than weaken rushes.
Like I said earlier, progress marches on, and given that it's Blizzard who designs the game, this progress will be on Blizzard's terms and it means that games will become ever more streamlined, with ever more hard edges removed. The 12 worker start will never be changed, Blizzard already gambled to implement it (given that it risks destabilizing the balance), they balanced the game around the change, and it fits with their overall goals and direction for future games. If they care about metrics, I sent them a message by not playing the game, I hope their metrics are showing the interest =) (on the other hand I already bought the game so why should they care) Anyway, the 12 worker start isn't that bad on its own. It's just the change that can be easiest blamed because it does a lot of easy to see harm. I would rather see a change with full bases. Or removing all the speed buffs in the game. Or removing all the units that can kill worker lines in few shots. There are so many changes that were not like and made the game more fragile and could be reverted yet no one tried Or removing all the megasuperhyper damaging units. The time to kill an army is getting shorter with every expansion and the possibilities are growing(which means you need to look at more signs than before). Generally speaking a lot of LotV changes are good - on their own. But combined together it just doesn't work for me.
There is often a common thread to the type of changes that Blizzard pushes, like speed buffs and neutering early game attacks. What annoys me is that they never come out and state this, instead they defend every individual change on its merits while (deliberately?) neglecting to look at it with a broader scope.
A lot of the minor changes Blizzard implements accumulate to destabilize the game because they all point into a certain direction. And I don't even know if this is a conscious process.
|
Has this been re-posted elsewhere (with author's consent, of course)?
I think it deserves far more views/discussion. As someone that stopped playing solely because of the 12-worker start, I really enjoy seeing this change broken down and dissected from more than just one angle (aka "no more 6 pools, so it must be a good change, right?).
|
On April 05 2017 20:59 IMSupervisor wrote:
LotV is way more interesting to watch too in my opinion.
In what way? Judging by the build deviation chart in the OP, it's not because of the variety of builds. Is it just the new units?
|
In LotV I find more interesting to watch only TvT, not sure if it is due to how strategic it is in regards to positioning, or due to how great the top Terrans are now -- for example Zerg players just don't seem to be that good themselves.
I think that with introduction of Adept, all Protoss matchups are less fun to watch, to play against, and even to play as. When they were introduced, DK said they will not be ashamed to replace Adept if it doesn't work out, and quite clearly it seems to me that it hasn't. They should replace it with another unit, or compensate with others; i.e to reintroduce Zealot as a primary unit
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On April 06 2017 02:54 seopthi wrote:
only TvT, not sure if it is due to how strategic it is in regards to positioning
That is for sure not why.
|
"Maru battering INnoVation into submission on Heavy Rain"
I'm pretty sure Maru and INno have never played a match on Heavy Rain?
|
United States1971 Posts
On April 06 2017 06:55 Edpayasugo wrote:
"Maru battering INnoVation into submission on Heavy Rain"
I'm pretty sure Maru and INno have never played a match on Heavy Rain?
You're right. They played on Anaconda which has the same tileset and very similar main base placement. Funny the things that slip by.
|
I still maintain that the unlimited unit selection in Starcraft 2 is what caused so many problems for the game. Think about the mentality that players have now that they are able to select an unlimited amount of units. Is there even a point too small skirmishes? Not really.
The idea behind the argument is that because of unlimited unit selection this led people to play more passively into the late game. Controlling max supply in Starcraft 2 is easy as hell in comparison to games like Brood War and Warcraft 3. Naturally, players are comfortable playing until that point. Thus, we got turtle games in Starcraft 2.
The focus of competition was on the different unit compositions and unit count, rather than, mechanical superiority. The game became more like Poker where outsmarting your opponent was how you won. Don't get me wrong, mechanics still matter, but not on the scale they used too. This passive style of games in Starcraft 2 led to the LOTV economy overhaul. Which in effect cuts off the early game and makes the mid game all about harassment and gaining a supply lead.
If a unit selection limit was still in the game I would be willing to bet (because empirically it is impossible to know) that the economy model would not have changed in LOTV.
|
I think another big game breaker besides the 12 worker start, are the reduced ressources per base. Why are we not talking about this ? It's a huge deal imo and it hurts the game so much more than we think.
Just take a look on the mapper scene, look how maps devolved in lotv. It's so hard to design a macro map in lotv, without making the map huge and spamming bases everywhere.
The reduced ressources per base hurt especially if you're playing terran, because mules suck out your minerals so incredible fast. When you're taking your 3rd base, your mainbaise is already almost outmined. It's just wrong, it feels wrong.
I miss the old days of intense macro games with nonstop armies trading and remaxing etc.
LotV's economy is extremely fragile. It's not healthy for a macro oriented RTS game.
|
On April 06 2017 02:54 seopthi wrote:
In LotV I find more interesting to watch only TvT, not sure if it is due to how strategic it is in regards to positioning, or due to how great the top Terrans are now -- for example Zerg players just don't seem to be that good themselves.
I think that with introduction of Adept, all Protoss matchups are less fun to watch, to play against, and even to play as. When they were introduced, DK said they will not be ashamed to replace Adept if it doesn't work out, and quite clearly it seems to me that it hasn't. They should replace it with another unit, or compensate with others; i.e to reintroduce Zealot as a primary unit
Yes i absolutely agree. I think adepts are horrible for a RTS game. They break the basic rules of RTS.
It's hard to watch SC2 esport these days. It's sad that i have to say this, because i love SC2 more than everything else. It's my favorite RTS of all time and i consider it to be one of my hobbies. I spent so much time with RTS and SC2.
LotV just feels like they are wasting so much potential. I think SC2 could be so much better.
|
On April 06 2017 01:07 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 20:59 IMSupervisor wrote:
LotV is way more interesting to watch too in my opinion. In what way? Judging by the build deviation chart in the OP, it's not because of the variety of builds. Is it just the new units?
Because there's lots of harassment and a need to keep spreading out bases, the games don't feel as stale especially early on. No more knowing that both players are going 3 base double upgrades while the casters talk about something else for 5 minutes and the first serious interaction between players happening after 10 minutes. LotV seems like a way better display of mechanic skill which is what I find interesting. The strategy side of Starcraft is not exciting to me, I reckon I could figure it out and understand it too, but the physical aspect of what happens at pro level play blows my mind and I like watching it for that.
|
I agree that I feel like the game starts too fast and it's too much about macro and gimmicky units...
|
On April 06 2017 07:44 StraKo wrote:
I think another big game breaker besides the 12 worker start, are the reduced ressources per base. Why are we not talking about this ? It's a huge deal imo and it hurts the game so much more than we think.
This has been discussed to death and back, and Blizzard is clearly unwilling to accept that the 20yo Brood War game does this infinitely better than their SC2. Probably some ego in the balancing team that refuses to go back to the roots (just like Goliaths would be infinitely more helpful in making Mech work than rebalancing the Thor twice a month, or how they finally implemented Lurkers)
Why isn't there a perfectly good BW mod working on SC2 engine
|
On April 06 2017 19:40 IMSupervisor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:07 Tachion wrote:On April 05 2017 20:59 IMSupervisor wrote:
LotV is way more interesting to watch too in my opinion. In what way? Judging by the build deviation chart in the OP, it's not because of the variety of builds. Is it just the new units? Because there's lots of harassment and a need to keep spreading out bases, the games don't feel as stale especially early on. No more knowing that both players are going 3 base double upgrades while the casters talk about something else for 5 minutes and the first serious interaction between players happening after 10 minutes. LotV seems like a way better display of mechanic skill which is what I find interesting. The strategy side of Starcraft is not exciting to me, I reckon I could figure it out and understand it too, but the physical aspect of what happens at pro level play blows my mind and I like watching it for that.
In real sports mistakes and execution is expected and you are impressed by the player that makes them the least often.
But elitist SC2 players will willingly say a match was awful because a player made a mistake. It boggles my mind how toxic SC2 fans are to the SC2 scene.
|
I stopped playing in LotV because of the change to 12 workers+new mineral constraints. I played a few handfuls of games well after I bought it to see if that break would change how I felt. After those...it was exactly what I thought it would be like months before.
You start with a fire in your arse compared to all versions of SC before this. It simply does not feel right to me at all. I went long enough for muscle memory to almost vanish, and it still felt bad.
I understand the arguments they made for forcing more expanding. However, they also stated they were going to test this, and literally would not even discuss it once implemented. Oh they did give a few more minerals per patch on the low ones, but that was it...and again with essentially zero discussion before or after. They just marched on.
I also basically stopped watching SC2 streams shortly after launch. Flying tanks (yeah these are finally gone), adepts all day everyday (absolutely loathe this unit design...and i played protoss a lot). Harrass harraass harrass...weee isn't killing workers fun! Not when this is the main dynamic of the game. Plus real risk taking cheeses, and macro styles are simply dead. It looks more static than HotS for a large part of its life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
