On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
in the last 9 years i've spent $0 on SC2 so i'm not expecting some amazing level of service. I'm happy with what I'm getting.
They're not employees, they're volunteers. If they were working at a company and relied on it for a stable livelihood, then it'd be understandable to keep their privacy. They already have their employer Blizzard being the face and holding accountability for their work. Balance Council however aren't getting paid and chose to participate on their own decision. If they don't feel comfortable, then don't participate.
Think for example if conflicted interests ended up pushing some changes into the game that the community hates. What would we do then? With full privacy they can get away with whatever they want. If we know who they are and their reputation is on the line, then maybe good changes will be slower to implement but bad changes would also be harder to pass, and with a game that's been updated and patched for over a decade, it's better at this point to not risk fucking things up.
On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:59 CicadaSC wrote:
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
in the last 9 years i've spent $0 on SC2 so i'm not expecting some amazing level of service. I'm happy with what I'm getting.
They're not employees, they're volunteers. If they were working at a company and relied on it for a stable livelihood, then it'd be understandable to keep their privacy. They already have their employer Blizzard being the face and holding accountability for their work. Balance Council however aren't getting paid and chose to participate on their own decision. If they don't feel comfortable, then don't participate.
Think for example if conflicted interests ended up pushing some changes into the game that the community hates. What would we do then? With full privacy they can get away with whatever they want. If we know who they are and their reputation is on the line, then maybe good changes will be slower to implement but bad changes would also be harder to pass, and with a game that's been updated and patched for over a decade, it's better at this point to not risk fucking things up.
i do not expect the volunteers to put their life on the line so i can play SC2 for free. i'm spending no money on the game. i'm not expecting much.
On March 27 2024 09:07 Cyro wrote: Batshit insane and illegal agreement - in particular the section regarding waiving your legal rights - required to play SC2 (even offline) as of this patch.
The problem with complaining within the video game industry sphere is that people complain about numerous issues which are not that big a deal or there is zero evidence. You'd think Randy Pitchford ordered the deaths of 10 million people the way Borderlands fans talk about him.
Therefore, when something legit like this comes up... its hard for people outside the video game bubble to see how bad this is.
Recently, at the GDC a few people got roofied. No one cares man. There is so much whining and complaining from industry employees about nonsense issues that people have stopped listening to the whining.
I have pirated versions of almost everything I play. I recommend you do the same.
On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:59 CicadaSC wrote:
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
in the last 9 years i've spent $0 on SC2 so i'm not expecting some amazing level of service. I'm happy with what I'm getting.
They're not employees, they're volunteers. If they were working at a company and relied on it for a stable livelihood, then it'd be understandable to keep their privacy. They already have their employer Blizzard being the face and holding accountability for their work. Balance Council however aren't getting paid and chose to participate on their own decision. If they don't feel comfortable, then don't participate.
Think for example if conflicted interests ended up pushing some changes into the game that the community hates. What would we do then? With full privacy they can get away with whatever they want. If we know who they are and their reputation is on the line, then maybe good changes will be slower to implement but bad changes would also be harder to pass, and with a game that's been updated and patched for over a decade, it's better at this point to not risk fucking things up.
i do not expect the volunteers to put their life on the line so i can play SC2 for free. i'm spending no money on the game. i'm not expecting much.
I understand you're satisfied, but no one's asking them to put their lives on the line. They can sign up or not sign up. I bought all 3 expansions, I don't want them to remove or change things I like about the game. Unfortunately, I didn't have a choice who gets to join the balance council and change the game, but they're able to make that choice.
On March 27 2024 09:07 Cyro wrote: Batshit insane and illegal agreement - in particular the section regarding waiving your legal rights - required to play SC2 (even offline) as of this patch.
Saw this when it was posted, yeah it's pretty crazy.
I hope a gigantic bubble pops involving either blizzard or another company around this and similar issues.
Arbitrary terms of sale is fucking crazy.
Not to mention games like WoW implementing an entirely subjective "social contract" that is 'enforced' through an automated report system that is maliciously and heavily abused. The hilarity is two-fold, since people reporting maliciously don't get punished, and the 'appeals' are automated through AI. It actually happened to me but luckily I have contact with someone who used to be on the team and told me a method that auto flags your ticket to be viewed by an actual human.
LR's content is great, would be amazing if more people were exposed to it. Unfortunately most people are content being ignorant and oblivious, probably consuming some random garbage on their leased apple products.
balance wise I think terran will be fine but my problem with this patch is that it reduced variety. Before the patch you had the options to play bio mine or bio tank, now it seems bio tank will be the only option (other than mech)
But I think it's to promote Muta,Ling,Bane style, of course they don't tell you this, but we cannot read too much into the patch comments. They probably just decided the changes, then appointed one person to write some nice pr things for the patch notes. I wish we had no patches, I can make my sc2mod and not have it change every time they decide to patch the game. We can keep watching old replays and we don't get new potentially game breaking bugs. The patches don't actually accomplish fixing any problems, they just push numbers around, making it harder to remember the attributes of units and frankly making the game more silly, the Sentry change is a good example of this.
On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:59 CicadaSC wrote:
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
in the last 9 years i've spent $0 on SC2 so i'm not expecting some amazing level of service. I'm happy with what I'm getting.
They're not employees, they're volunteers. If they were working at a company and relied on it for a stable livelihood, then it'd be understandable to keep their privacy. They already have their employer Blizzard being the face and holding accountability for their work. Balance Council however aren't getting paid and chose to participate on their own decision. If they don't feel comfortable, then don't participate.
Think for example if conflicted interests ended up pushing some changes into the game that the community hates. What would we do then? With full privacy they can get away with whatever they want. If we know who they are and their reputation is on the line, then maybe good changes will be slower to implement but bad changes would also be harder to pass, and with a game that's been updated and patched for over a decade, it's better at this point to not risk fucking things up.
i do not expect the volunteers to put their life on the line so i can play SC2 for free. i'm spending no money on the game. i'm not expecting much.
On March 27 2024 09:07 Cyro wrote: Batshit insane and illegal agreement - in particular the section regarding waiving your legal rights - required to play SC2 (even offline) as of this patch.
The problem with complaining within the video game industry sphere is that people complain about numerous issues which are not that big a deal or there is zero evidence. You'd think Randy Pitchford ordered the deaths of 10 million people the way Borderlands fans talk about him.
Therefore, when something legit like this comes up... its hard for people outside the video game bubble to see how bad this is.
Recently, at the GDC a few people got roofied. No one cares man. There is so much whining and complaining from industry employees about nonsense issues that people have stopped listening to the whining.
I have pirated versions of almost everything I play. I recommend you do the same.
You keep harping on about random messages that people send on the internet, as if anything ever comes from it. Just look at all the ideas being posted in various politcal threads on this forum. Nothing ever comes of it. And just hiding behind "dEaTh tHrEaTs" is a really shit excuse to have completely intransparent balance making. Just as in government, public oversight is necessary to keep the decision makers in check.
Balance decisions, like government decisions, need the public eye to keep the participants honest.
I refuse to stand idly by, while people who want to have big sales $$ for zerospace, continue to ruin sc2.
On March 27 2024 09:07 Cyro wrote: Batshit insane and illegal agreement - in particular the section regarding waiving your legal rights - required to play SC2 (even offline) as of this patch.
Saw this when it was posted, yeah it's pretty crazy.
I hope a gigantic bubble pops involving either blizzard or another company around this and similar issues.
Arbitrary terms of sale is fucking crazy.
Not to mention games like WoW implementing an entirely subjective "social contract" that is 'enforced' through an automated report system that is maliciously and heavily abused. The hilarity is two-fold, since people reporting maliciously don't get punished, and the 'appeals' are automated through AI. It actually happened to me but luckily I have contact with someone who used to be on the team and told me a method that auto flags your ticket to be viewed by an actual human.
LR's content is great, would be amazing if more people were exposed to it. Unfortunately most people are content being ignorant and oblivious, probably consuming some random garbage on their leased apple products.
On March 27 2024 08:31 Drahkn wrote: Why is it every time Zerg gets a nerf they get an equally big buff to something else to compensate , which then get's abused by the top zergs and it turns out that became OP. You just nerfed kamikaze Infestor burrow fungals but now you basically buffed zerg late game army by giving Infestor 1 more range. 1 more range in hands of pro's is huge,1 range can decide a game easily. I seriously question whoever is on this balance council when you basically just buffed Infestor/Broodlord/Corruptor comps.
Infestor just needed a vision and or visual nerf so single burrowed infestors can't win games that's all you needed to do
When there is no oversight, and not necessity to take responsibility, the balance council can do whatever the fuxk it wants. So if there were a zerg bias in there, why should they ever act differently?
The only way towards accountability and responsibility is transparency. No more shady backroom "community"-council.
On March 27 2024 17:29 ejozl wrote: But I think it's to promote Muta,Ling,Bane style, of course they don't tell you this, but we cannot read too much into the patch comments. They probably just decided the changes, then appointed one person to write some nice pr things for the patch notes. I wish we had no patches, I can make my sc2mod and not have it change every time they decide to patch the game. We can keep watching old replays and we don't get new potentially game breaking bugs. The patches don't actually accomplish fixing any problems, they just push numbers around, making it harder to remember the attributes of units and frankly making the game more silly, the Sentry change is a good example of this.
Oh DAMN. You're totally right. Muta Ling Bling was so classic, but it's been out of style for many years now. WMs were just too scary vs muta flocks. This is a great change. It would suck if Bio WM isn't a thing anymore, but I think it will still be used as an option. It's OK if Bio Tank becomes the most popular option again.
Also, yeah I realized too the comments they share really don't cover all the important reasons for the changes. Just some of them. For example for the Cyclone change, it doesn't say any comment on how it's transferring power from being able to kill worker lines very fast, to being stronger in a straight up fight. Or anything about how making it weaker in the early game but stronger later will make it less popular of an opener for Bio players, while making Mech stronger.
Armory change said nothing about helping Mech, or Thor openings, or buffing those niche/cheesey Drilling Claw rush builds. Etc. Liberator change didn't mention how it'll give mapmakers more freedom.
Liberator range nerf can be interesting in TvT too. It can make Bio+Lib less strong lategame, benefitting Mech players who can build upgraded Thors.
not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
criticizing and opining that the changes are unnecessary is just discussion, that's nornal and totally different from people calling for "transparency" as if this were a government embezzling public funds
there's literally zero point in blasting the identities of the specific people being consulted on balance other than to give bored people an opportunity to send them verbal abuse. the phenomenon of gamers thinking they're entitled to a debate with game designers is incredibly silly (not just for starcraft) and like i said people need to get a grip
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
Aye but Brood War historically at least had third party ladders that enabled more radical map balancing than we’ve ever seen in SC2, so I can sort of get the different approaches. And even now with a more locked down Blizz ladder the maps are still way, way more divergent.
Output wise I’m honestly pretty happy with this current system, ideally would it be more transparent? Sure! But the old adage that there are only two things certain in this life, death and taxes is outdated and needs to include balance whining as another inevitability.
Whoever puts their head above the parapet is just going to get absolutely slammed by the more rabid elements of the fan base. And anyone who claims otherwise is either unbelievably optimistic or deluded.
I’m sure David Kim had a great time being chewed out constantly for years, and he was paid to do that. Why would volunteers put themselves in such a firing line?
On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
The patch that makes the game super fresh^3000 won't come either, so why not leave things as they are without risking introducing more and more bugs, let alone potentially worsen the UX with badly designed balance changes (not implying that the latest patch is super bad)?
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
criticizing and opining that the changes are unnecessary is just discussion, that's nornal and totally different from people calling for "transparency" as if this were a government embezzling public funds
there's literally zero point in blasting the identities of the specific people being consulted on balance other than to give bored people an opportunity to send them verbal abuse. the phenomenon of gamers thinking they're entitled to a debate with game designers is incredibly silly (not just for starcraft) and like i said people need to get a grip
Are these so-called 'game designers' who've been meticulously working on SC2's recent balance updates in a room with us right now?
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
Aye but Brood War historically at least had third party ladders that enabled more radical map balancing than we’ve ever seen in SC2, so I can sort of get the different approaches. And even now with a more locked down Blizz ladder the maps are still way, way more divergent.
Output wise I’m honestly pretty happy with this current system, ideally would it be more transparent? Sure! But the old adage that there are only two things certain in this life, death and taxes is outdated and needs to include balance whining as another inevitability.
Whoever puts their head above the parapet is just going to get absolutely slammed by the more rabid elements of the fan base. And anyone who claims otherwise is either unbelievably optimistic or deluded.
I’m sure David Kim had a great time being chewed out constantly for years, and he was paid to do that. Why would volunteers put themselves in such a firing line?
Yeah I don't expect anyone to take responsibility for making decisions but it honestly still seems a bit shady from the community perspective. I mean sure the Zerg Cabal thing is a meme but theoretically it could really be possible that balance gets run by a group of pro players wanting to strengthen their race and there's nothing the community could do about it, the other pro players have signed NDAs and wouldn't be able to talk about it... not sure if blizzard has any control mechanisms in place or if they have completely abandoned the game.
That's why I'm more in the camp of no more balance changes (well, not really, I've always been in that camp tbh)
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
criticizing and opining that the changes are unnecessary is just discussion, that's nornal and totally different from people calling for "transparency" as if this were a government embezzling public funds
there's literally zero point in blasting the identities of the specific people being consulted on balance other than to give bored people an opportunity to send them verbal abuse. the phenomenon of gamers thinking they're entitled to a debate with game designers is incredibly silly (not just for starcraft) and like i said people need to get a grip
Are these so-called 'game designers' who've been meticulously working on SC2's recent balance updates in a room with us right now?
not really sure i'm following your point or what your joke has to do with what i was saying
EPT
