| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17474 Posts
this is why the current patch was implemented in such a haphazard fashion with different servers on different patches for almost a week. i'm good though. i realize what is going on and my expectations are close to zero. which is in alignment with the budget for this project. if you want to get excited about the screw ups... have fun. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26658 Posts
On October 10 2023 05:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: in order to change, test, and implement anything requires money to pay employees to do these things. this is why the current patch was implemented in such a haphazard fashion with different servers on different patches for almost a week. i'm good though. i realize what is going on and my expectations are close to zero. which is in alignment with the budget for this project. if you want to get excited about the screw ups... have fun. What testing do you need beyond the initial ‘this cyclone change isn’t good’ that was generally a very strong majority when it WAS tested and floated? What does it have to do with budget? They DID the budget part in doing preview builds, sticking it in test realms. They have a whole ton of pros who, to my knowledge do it for free consulting with them who said the cyclone change was a bad idea. They had community hubs like TL where generally people said the cyclone change was a bad idea. The only deciding factor here is pushing different builds that already exist. They have the budget to at least make, test and roll out changes. What changes they actually choose to push to the live version of the game therefore are largely disassociated from budget no? You’re not seriously arguing this point, come on. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17474 Posts
you have to pay the team creating the new balance patch money. and that budget has declined. therefore, we are seeing mistakes. On October 10 2023 05:56 WombaT wrote: What testing do you need beyond the initial ‘this cyclone change isn’t good’ that was generally a very strong majority when it WAS tested and floated? What does it have to do with budget? They DID the budget part in doing preview builds, sticking it in test realms. They have a whole ton of pros who, to my knowledge do it for free consulting with them who said the cyclone change was a bad idea. They had community hubs like TL where generally people said the cyclone change was a bad idea. The only deciding factor here is pushing different builds that already exist. They have the budget to at least make, test and roll out changes. What changes they actually choose to push to the live version of the game therefore are largely disassociated from budget no? You’re not seriously arguing this point, come on. the patch was not tested because there is no testing budget. that is how a super obvious bug like the cyclone bug got through. Pig stated the pros didn't play much on the PTR because they were too busy playing tourneys. The big decrease in the budget for SC2 has had a negative impact on the quality and reliability of the balance patch process. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26658 Posts
On October 10 2023 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the team creating a new balance patch is not part of the team that makes game design decisions. you have to pay the team creating the new balance patch money. and that budget has declined. therefore, we are seeing mistakes. the patch was not tested because there is no testing budget. that is how a super obvious bug like the cyclone bug got through. Pig stated the pros didn't play much on the PTR because they were too busy playing tourneys. The big decrease in the budget for SC2 has had a negative impact on the quality and reliability of the balance patch process. The cyclone isn’t a bug though, it’s intended behaviour. Something like the Collosus gaining extra range and remaining unfixed for a decent chunk of time, absolutely is indicative of a lower dev/testing team and budget. That sort of thing didn’t used to happen. This is a different case. Most meaningful testing has always been done by the community because no QA team is big enough, or good enough at the top end to replicate a player base from scrub thru professionals. Historically Blizz either had confidence and just trusted their judgement and implemented a patch, or left it for the community to see how patches went down, were received and if unintended exploits became possible. In this instance there was feedback, from PTR tournaments, from the PTR and from people just logicing and theorycrafting that the cyclone change specifically was a bad idea. The budget for developing the change was already used in getting it ready and pushing it to the PTR. The testing has already generally returned the requisite feedback on these specific changes. One can always test more, and there’s quite a lot of overlapping changes in a game like this, as to whether the rest of the patch is good/bad maybe there isn’t enough yet. But yet the cyclone went in regardless of this. Why have a balance council in the first place if you disregard their judgement? I just don’t see how this specific call can be attributed to a lack in budget. You’ve built your new feature, you’ve surveyed users and they don’t like it largely. You doing it anyway isn’t due to a budget constraint but a poor judgement call | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3489 Posts
I also pick this patch because it is before the cabal took over. I think changes for the sake of changes will ultimately destroy your game. People expect changes to happen, so you want to adhere to this want. And so you trade goodness for something that is worse, but different. David Kim was right in his thought to try and make the perfect game. I'm not saying btw that this game does not need patches, but it should be to try to reach perfection, rather than doing random things. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17474 Posts
On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: I just don’t see how this specific call can be attributed to a lack in budget. You’ve built your new feature, you’ve surveyed users and they don’t like it largely. You doing it anyway isn’t due to a budget constraint but a poor judgement call call? the Cyclone is fucked. you can drill down to any single individual software development activity. and you can pull out the final step of the process and then observe that it took 1 minute and then claim the budget should be less than $1 for it. everything relies on budget. Pig explains it fairly well. I subscribe to his opinion. On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: The cyclone isn’t a bug though, it’s intended behaviour. you can brick your opponent's Cyclone by picking up its target and putting it in a transport like a Medivac or Warp Prism. that is intended behaviour? | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16062 Posts
On October 19 2023 21:54 ejozl wrote: I'm curious, if it is even possible for tournaments to run on old patches, like the Void Ray Patch. I liked the game back when there was a slimmer of hope of a Protoss victor in tournaments that matter, and before Terran got overbuffed. I also pick this patch because it is before the cabal took over. I think changes for the sake of changes will ultimately destroy your game. People expect changes to happen, so you want to adhere to this want. And so you trade goodness for something that is worse, but different. David Kim was right in his thought to try and make the perfect game. I'm not saying btw that this game does not need patches, but it should be to try to reach perfection, rather than doing random things. Yeah I've thought about that too, the way they are doing things by voting on different ideas that are thrown out basically means there can't be any overarching vision behind the changes. David Kim and the subsequent blizzard balance team surely made mistakes, but you could clearly see they had specific goals / a specific vision in mind on what they want to achieve - and ultimately they succeeded as at the point when they had to abandon the game, it was in a vastly better state than in early WoL, so they have overall improved the game tremendously. I can't say that for the current council, most of the changes seem okay on paper but they also seem quite random and not following any specific vision. I can't say they have improved the game at all. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host. And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26658 Posts
On October 19 2023 22:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote: call? the Cyclone is fucked. you can drill down to any single individual software development activity. and you can pull out the final step of the process and then observe that it took 1 minute and then claim the budget should be less than $1 for it. everything relies on budget. Pig explains it fairly well. I subscribe to his opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL-coOp5czM&t=1400s you can brick your opponent's Cyclone by picking up its target and putting it in a transport like a Medivac or Warp Prism. that is intended behaviour? Brick it how? Is it left unable to utilise its regular attack for a period or what? That’s new to me if that is happening, and would, I imagine be unintended. But pick-ups and blinks out of range have been counterplay options, and IMO good ones from the day the cyclone rolled out. Pig talks a lot of sense there, and I’ve not disputed budget is an overall factor, but specifically for the cyclone how is that the problem. They’ve got their volunteers in the balance council, they had a PTR run, they had people run PTR tourniesthey’ve plenty of avenues for feedback from players from the scrub to the pro tier. Feedback on that particular change? Pretty bloody negative. The budgetary constraint of what? One person taking a few hours to run through correspondence with the balance council, browse the TL PTR thread and r/Starcraft2 for a bit? Maybe a few Discord servers I’m still unsure why you’re arguing budgetary constraints rather than someone, somewhere being lazy or exercising poor judgement. The whole point of a patch is to improve the general experience, if you’re ignoring the market research you’ve already done, I don’t see how it can be anything else. If they didn’t do the market research of test PTR builds and just rolled out whatever, then yes maybe I would concede that the problem is budgetary but that isn’t the case here. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26658 Posts
On October 19 2023 23:20 Charoisaur wrote: Yeah I've thought about that too, the way they are doing things by voting on different ideas that are thrown out basically means there can't be any overarching vision behind the changes. David Kim and the subsequent blizzard balance team surely made mistakes, but you could clearly see they had specific goals / a specific vision in mind on what they want to achieve - and ultimately they succeeded as at the point when they had to abandon the game, it was in a vastly better state than in early WoL, so they have overall improved the game tremendously. I can't say that for the current council, most of the changes seem okay on paper but they also seem quite random and not following any specific vision. I can't say they have improved the game at all. Gamers are great at articulating what they don’t like, much less so at well, designing games that they actually enjoy. On the other hand top level players, particularly pros have more insight than anyone to the nitty gritty and the ramifications and potential enabled by changes. I feel like the best balance would have been the devs having that vision, informed by general user research, and the pros help to refine it and determine what would, wouldn’t work, and what potential undesirable externalities could be introduced. Consultants really over well, however the structure works currently | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17474 Posts
On October 20 2023 03:05 WombaT wrote: Brick it how? Is it left unable to utilise its regular attack for a period or what? That’s new to me if that is happening, and would, I imagine be unintended. But pick-ups and blinks out of range have been counterplay options, and IMO good ones from the day the cyclone rolled out. Pig talks a lot of sense there, and I’ve not disputed budget is an overall factor, but specifically for the cyclone how is that the problem. They’ve got their volunteers in the balance council, they had a PTR run, they had people run PTR tourniesthey’ve plenty of avenues for feedback from players from the scrub to the pro tier. Feedback on that particular change? Pretty bloody negative. The budgetary constraint of what? One person taking a few hours to run through correspondence with the balance council, browse the TL PTR thread and r/Starcraft2 for a bit? Maybe a few Discord servers I’m still unsure why you’re arguing budgetary constraints rather than someone, somewhere being lazy or exercising poor judgement. The whole point of a patch is to improve the general experience, if you’re ignoring the market research you’ve already done, I don’t see how it can be anything else. If they didn’t do the market research of test PTR builds and just rolled out whatever, then yes maybe I would concede that the problem is budgetary but that isn’t the case here. now that you know the Cylcone is bugged maybe you can better understand the problem. if you've been watching Groups A,B, and C of the GSL this season you'll notice the Cyclone has become an endangered species. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10366 Posts
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time. The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host. And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate. It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. | ||
|
Creager
Germany1923 Posts
On October 20 2023 03:15 WombaT wrote: Gamers are great at articulating what they don’t like, much less so at well, designing games that they actually enjoy. On the other hand top level players, particularly pros have more insight than anyone to the nitty gritty and the ramifications and potential enabled by changes. I feel like the best balance would have been the devs having that vision, informed by general user research, and the pros help to refine it and determine what would, wouldn’t work, and what potential undesirable externalities could be introduced. Consultants really over well, however the structure works currently Just because you are great at playing a particular game and have a very good understanding of how it internally works doesn't automatically make you a good game designer, but to be fair the problem with the whole thing isn't the proposed changes by themselves, but deploying them unaltered to live servers without any review/reflection process for adjustments. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26658 Posts
On October 20 2023 05:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote: now that you know the Cylcone is bugged maybe you can better understand the problem. if you've been watching Groups A,B, and C of the GSL this season you'll notice the Cyclone has become an endangered species. Odd in that there was a lot of Cyclone builds but ok just make stuff up | ||
|
Fanatic-Templar
Canada5819 Posts
On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. I wish Protoss could get reactored Phoenixes. I love the unit, but it's such a commitment and so hard to bounce back when you take losses. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17474 Posts
On October 20 2023 08:55 WombaT wrote: Odd in that there was a lot of Cyclone builds but ok just make stuff up Do you want to go through each game 1 by 1 in groups A, B, and C and count the Cyclones built. It is a low number. We can go through each game if you like though. You do not have a handle on the basic facts of this discussion if you did not know about the Cyclone brick bug. DUring Group A play a total of 4 Cyclones were built during 5 Terran games. We can go thru Group B and C as well if you like. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10366 Posts
On October 20 2023 11:22 Fanatic-Templar wrote: I wish Protoss could get reactored Phoenixes. I love the unit, but it's such a commitment and so hard to bounce back when you take losses. That would be sweet, I love Phoenixes too. | ||
|
Vision_
875 Posts
<3 <3 <3 Love Blizzard <3 <3 <3 For Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3489 Posts
On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank. The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game. The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay. The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10366 Posts
On October 23 2023 19:07 ejozl wrote: The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions. It doesn't really mean that it's a better unit. It's just that the Cyclone wants to fight at the edge of its range, but with Blink back micro you can negate the Cyclone's strength or force them to dive to kill hurt Stalkers, and they're not as good at trading in a straight up fight. Tanks counter Stalkers in a vacuum, but the shitty thing is that with the LotV economy changes, the timing is such that Blink Stalkers are strong vs Mech/Tanks early on, and make it hard to take a 3rd safely and early enough to keep the game even. That's part of what the new Cyclone is supposed to address, to round out the early game for Mech. If both early Cyclones and early Tanks struggle vs Blink openings, then Mech will still struggle to be viable. That said, the new Cyclone at least fares better vs blink than the old Cyclone. I'm not really proposing the Cyclone to be buffed exactly, but there are many possible ways to adjust it so that it's less impacted by Blink, and maybe weaker in other areas or stages of the game to balance it out. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Gerald vs herO
Clem vs Cure
ByuN vs Solar
Rogue vs MaxPax
ShoWTimE vs TBD
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
RSL Revival
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
