|
On February 26 2009 12:50 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2009 11:37 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 26 2009 10:53 inReacH wrote:
Um you can't test a game as an esport in 3 months no matter who's playing it. why not? a game can't be balanced in 3 months. all the bugs can't be fixed in 3 months. it's about making progress that couldnt be made without the simple power of large numbers of people. designing the game to be a successful e-sport is a goal that the developers have kept in mind during alpha and it has played a huge role in the changes they've made. having people in the beta focused on that objective is certain to be productive It's not at all what they should be focusing on, you really shouldn't have the competitive scene already developing before the game is out. I personally have a beta key from blizzcon and I still think it would be pretty lame for all the people that don't to go buy the game and then be 3 months behind all the people who were given betas because they were good in BW. It's just going to compound their advantage which could really stifle the potential for many competitive players. They should have the competitive scene as undeveloped as possible until the games release, it should be an as level playing field for people without beta keys Maybe it's not that big a deal but I'm sure it will turn off some peoples considerations of competitive aspirations. They are developing an entire new BNET and obviously with that will be a very simple patching method so that they can patch things quickly when they obviously need to be changed. The game is going to be patched a TON, the true competitive 'truths' won't even be able to be unraveled until the game has most of it's major changes behind it.
what nony said + you contradict yourself
last paragraph you talk about how the game will be changing a ton and and nothing will be set until the major changes are done (and if its like bw alot of it wont be set 5 years after the major changes are done). now if thats the case how does playing 3 months on a beta give players a competitive edge, when everythings gonna change with every balance patch? give the new players a week after the release to get comfortable with the interface and then it'll be a level playing field after the next balance patch.
|
On February 26 2009 13:56 Liquid`NonY wrote:
the beta isn't about the competitive scene. it's about making a game that'll be good as an e-sport. who cares about the sandy vaginas that think missing beta ruins their chances to be a good player. that's completely wrong. after release, reps will be everywhere because every sc2 site knows that they need to have a good rep section to stand a chance of survival. anyone with a good RTS mind and handspeed will be able to learn the popular strats in a week and get a very comfortable feel for the game within a month. the only thing that'll hinder the scene is having to ignore the blabbering idiots who swear they would've been #1 if they'd just played the beta. if the game is a good e-sport, then it'll last for years and anyone with skill and dedication will have their chance regardless of beta.
blizzard can much more comfortably make big changes during beta than after release. it's true that they can and will make changes after release, but i think the scope will change.
having a group of good BW players with good english providing good feedback who each put 500+ hours of playtime in is enough to provide meaningful insight on the game's capacity as an e-sport
Hmm well I was under the impression that they would be able to change almost anything in the game even after release.
I know they removed units in wc3 after release etc, I'm sure they can rework how Terran mules work etc if they want to.
If they can't then you've convinced me but if their ability to make drastic changes remains after release then I really think the beta should mainly be for debugging.
You can't argue that in 3 months testers will basically only get one chance to set up a couple waves of initial matchup trends which will definitely change drastically in the coming years. I don't know that they should be making so many huge competitive decision based on a relatively small group of gamers in such a short time-span.
I'm sure we at least agree that it would be best if blizzard can change almost anything they want even after release.
I basically just think the portions are too small to be able to come to reliable decisions about many important things.
Too few players, too few months.
I mean after release, when people are complaining about something being imbalanced, blizzard isn't going to patch it immediately. You have to give things time to make sure they actually need to be fixed and people aren't just whining.
It's fine though, I see your points, I just think it's more risky to do it that way and has some other undesirable side effects.
|
there is not some kind of impenetrable barrier between the beta and the release, the fact that its only 3 months, or however long, is irrelevant. its just getting a head start on the process that will continue through the release. and the limited number of players is also irrelevant because that limited number is gonna include basically every competitive rts player or everyone worthwhile involved in the rts community who wants to play it, you're gonna get far more out of a concentrated group of players like that than a big watered down community of the competitive players... and a bunch of people who dont know what theyre doing.
also you say it should be for bug testing, dont your arguments apply to that as well? if we only have 3 months and a limited player pool to look for bugs we'll never fix them all in time! better just wait for the release. doesnt make much sense does it?
|
On February 26 2009 14:51 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2009 12:50 inReacH wrote:On February 26 2009 11:37 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 26 2009 10:53 inReacH wrote:
Um you can't test a game as an esport in 3 months no matter who's playing it. why not? a game can't be balanced in 3 months. all the bugs can't be fixed in 3 months. it's about making progress that couldnt be made without the simple power of large numbers of people. designing the game to be a successful e-sport is a goal that the developers have kept in mind during alpha and it has played a huge role in the changes they've made. having people in the beta focused on that objective is certain to be productive It's not at all what they should be focusing on, you really shouldn't have the competitive scene already developing before the game is out. I personally have a beta key from blizzcon and I still think it would be pretty lame for all the people that don't to go buy the game and then be 3 months behind all the people who were given betas because they were good in BW. It's just going to compound their advantage which could really stifle the potential for many competitive players. They should have the competitive scene as undeveloped as possible until the games release, it should be an as level playing field for people without beta keys Maybe it's not that big a deal but I'm sure it will turn off some peoples considerations of competitive aspirations. They are developing an entire new BNET and obviously with that will be a very simple patching method so that they can patch things quickly when they obviously need to be changed. The game is going to be patched a TON, the true competitive 'truths' won't even be able to be unraveled until the game has most of it's major changes behind it. what nony said + you contradict yourself last paragraph you talk about how the game will be changing a ton and and nothing will be set until the major changes are done (and if its like bw alot of it wont be set 5 years after the major changes are done). now if thats the case how does playing 3 months on a beta give players a competitive edge, when everythings gonna change with every balance patch? give the new players a week after the release to get comfortable with the interface and then it'll be a level playing field after the next balance patch.
Hmm I didn't mean it would actually have a huge negative impact on people trying to go pro, I just meant it would be a big turn off to buy the game and then be 3 months behind and it might prompt some people to just go UMS.
Yes, I agree 3 months is not a very large chunk of time to overcome in an RTS.
Sorry for my poor wording.
|
On February 26 2009 15:03 IdrA wrote:
there is not some kind of impenetrable barrier between the beta and the release, the fact that its only 3 months, or however long, is irrelevant. its just getting a head start on the process that will continue through the release. and the limited number of players is also irrelevant because that limited number is gonna include basically every competitive rts player or everyone worthwhile involved in the rts community who wants to play it, you're gonna get far more out of a concentrated group of players like that than a big watered down community of the competitive players... and a bunch of people who dont know what theyre doing.
also you say it should be for bug testing, dont your arguments apply to that as well? if we only have 3 months and a limited player pool to look for bugs we'll never fix them all in time! better just wait for the release. doesnt make much sense does it?
Every competitive RTS player?
Everyone worthwhile in the RTS community?
Ummm.. no they aren't.
I'm not hard disagreeing with nony here, I just don't like the potential effects of having a group of competitive players begin the games evolution without the rest of the community.
And the difference is in bug finding it is much more obvious when something needs to be changed.
Balancing is much more complex than debugging, as well as needing much more time to make confident decisions.
|
Sorry I know I'm triple posting but I want makes sure this gets read.
Idra from your posts it sounds like you think the competitive community can't grow by a large amount when sc2 comes out, I really think and hope you are wrong and I think beginning evolution of competitive play before new players get their hands on the game could make this true.
|
On February 26 2009 15:07 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2009 14:51 IdrA wrote:On February 26 2009 12:50 inReacH wrote:On February 26 2009 11:37 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 26 2009 10:53 inReacH wrote:
Um you can't test a game as an esport in 3 months no matter who's playing it. why not? a game can't be balanced in 3 months. all the bugs can't be fixed in 3 months. it's about making progress that couldnt be made without the simple power of large numbers of people. designing the game to be a successful e-sport is a goal that the developers have kept in mind during alpha and it has played a huge role in the changes they've made. having people in the beta focused on that objective is certain to be productive It's not at all what they should be focusing on, you really shouldn't have the competitive scene already developing before the game is out. I personally have a beta key from blizzcon and I still think it would be pretty lame for all the people that don't to go buy the game and then be 3 months behind all the people who were given betas because they were good in BW. It's just going to compound their advantage which could really stifle the potential for many competitive players. They should have the competitive scene as undeveloped as possible until the games release, it should be an as level playing field for people without beta keys Maybe it's not that big a deal but I'm sure it will turn off some peoples considerations of competitive aspirations. They are developing an entire new BNET and obviously with that will be a very simple patching method so that they can patch things quickly when they obviously need to be changed. The game is going to be patched a TON, the true competitive 'truths' won't even be able to be unraveled until the game has most of it's major changes behind it. what nony said + you contradict yourself last paragraph you talk about how the game will be changing a ton and and nothing will be set until the major changes are done (and if its like bw alot of it wont be set 5 years after the major changes are done). now if thats the case how does playing 3 months on a beta give players a competitive edge, when everythings gonna change with every balance patch? give the new players a week after the release to get comfortable with the interface and then it'll be a level playing field after the next balance patch. Hmm I didn't mean it would actually have a huge negative impact on people trying to go pro, I just meant it would be a big turn off to buy the game and then be 3 months behind and it might prompt some people to just go UMS. Yes, I agree 3 months is not a very large chunk of time to overcome in an RTS. Sorry for my poor wording.
'i agree its irrelevant'
'but it would still turn people off'
?
no, if its irrelevant it wont turn anyone off.
|
On February 26 2009 15:13 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2009 15:03 IdrA wrote:
there is not some kind of impenetrable barrier between the beta and the release, the fact that its only 3 months, or however long, is irrelevant. its just getting a head start on the process that will continue through the release. and the limited number of players is also irrelevant because that limited number is gonna include basically every competitive rts player or everyone worthwhile involved in the rts community who wants to play it, you're gonna get far more out of a concentrated group of players like that than a big watered down community of the competitive players... and a bunch of people who dont know what theyre doing.
also you say it should be for bug testing, dont your arguments apply to that as well? if we only have 3 months and a limited player pool to look for bugs we'll never fix them all in time! better just wait for the release. doesnt make much sense does it?
Every competitive RTS player? Everyone worthwhile in the RTS community? Ummm.. no they aren't.
aaaand what makes you believe this?
I'm not hard disagreeing with nony here, I just don't like the potential effects of having a group of competitive players begin the games evolution without the rest of the community.
And the difference is in bug finding it is much more obvious when something needs to be changed.
Balancing is much more complex than debugging, as well as needing much more time to make confident decisions.
if its much more complex then it is much more important to have people who know what theyre doing. if you think competitive players are gonna bitch and whine over something being imbalanced instead of finding a solution for it, how well do you think its gonna work out with casual players?
|
On February 26 2009 15:24 inReacH wrote:
Sorry I know I'm triple posting but I want makes sure this gets read.
Idra from your posts it sounds like you think the competitive community can't grow by a large amount when sc2 comes out, I really think and hope you are wrong and I think beginning evolution of competitive play before new players get their hands on the game could make this true.
of course it can grow, but the new people in the competitive community are not going to be competitive right away. people who were good at sc, or war3, or any other competitive rts' are gonna have a significant leg up from the start. everyone was a newbie at some point, and their opinion was essentially worthless while they were. the new players who are going to add to the competitive community are still going to be new players.
|
On February 26 2009 15:55 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2009 15:07 inReacH wrote:On February 26 2009 14:51 IdrA wrote:On February 26 2009 12:50 inReacH wrote:On February 26 2009 11:37 Liquid`NonY wrote:On February 26 2009 10:53 inReacH wrote:
Um you can't test a game as an esport in 3 months no matter who's playing it. why not? a game can't be balanced in 3 months. all the bugs can't be fixed in 3 months. it's about making progress that couldnt be made without the simple power of large numbers of people. designing the game to be a successful e-sport is a goal that the developers have kept in mind during alpha and it has played a huge role in the changes they've made. having people in the beta focused on that objective is certain to be productive It's not at all what they should be focusing on, you really shouldn't have the competitive scene already developing before the game is out. I personally have a beta key from blizzcon and I still think it would be pretty lame for all the people that don't to go buy the game and then be 3 months behind all the people who were given betas because they were good in BW. It's just going to compound their advantage which could really stifle the potential for many competitive players. They should have the competitive scene as undeveloped as possible until the games release, it should be an as level playing field for people without beta keys Maybe it's not that big a deal but I'm sure it will turn off some peoples considerations of competitive aspirations. They are developing an entire new BNET and obviously with that will be a very simple patching method so that they can patch things quickly when they obviously need to be changed. The game is going to be patched a TON, the true competitive 'truths' won't even be able to be unraveled until the game has most of it's major changes behind it. what nony said + you contradict yourself last paragraph you talk about how the game will be changing a ton and and nothing will be set until the major changes are done (and if its like bw alot of it wont be set 5 years after the major changes are done). now if thats the case how does playing 3 months on a beta give players a competitive edge, when everythings gonna change with every balance patch? give the new players a week after the release to get comfortable with the interface and then it'll be a level playing field after the next balance patch. Hmm I didn't mean it would actually have a huge negative impact on people trying to go pro, I just meant it would be a big turn off to buy the game and then be 3 months behind and it might prompt some people to just go UMS. Yes, I agree 3 months is not a very large chunk of time to overcome in an RTS. Sorry for my poor wording. 'i agree its irrelevant' 'but it would still turn people off' ? no, if its irrelevant it wont turn anyone off.
Sorry you're just wrong, you really think that everyone who could be an added and valued member of the competitive community will immediately realize that it is irrelevant.
I know from experience it is VERY common for people to dismiss playing competitively because they feel like they are too late or missed the boat.
I can't imagine you disagreeing unless you have a very narrow view of human behavior.
As much as I agree with NoNy that they are 'whining sandy vaginas', it's still something that would be nice to avoid.
|
no its not that theyre sandy vaginas
anyone who thinks theyre too far behind cuz of 3 months of beta testing is fucking retarded, and fucking retarded people dont tend to be very valuable for anything.
|
On February 26 2009 15:56 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2009 15:13 inReacH wrote:On February 26 2009 15:03 IdrA wrote:
there is not some kind of impenetrable barrier between the beta and the release, the fact that its only 3 months, or however long, is irrelevant. its just getting a head start on the process that will continue through the release. and the limited number of players is also irrelevant because that limited number is gonna include basically every competitive rts player or everyone worthwhile involved in the rts community who wants to play it, you're gonna get far more out of a concentrated group of players like that than a big watered down community of the competitive players... and a bunch of people who dont know what theyre doing.
also you say it should be for bug testing, dont your arguments apply to that as well? if we only have 3 months and a limited player pool to look for bugs we'll never fix them all in time! better just wait for the release. doesnt make much sense does it?
Every competitive RTS player? Everyone worthwhile in the RTS community? Ummm.. no they aren't. aaaand what makes you believe this? Show nested quote +
I'm not hard disagreeing with nony here, I just don't like the potential effects of having a group of competitive players begin the games evolution without the rest of the community.
And the difference is in bug finding it is much more obvious when something needs to be changed.
Balancing is much more complex than debugging, as well as needing much more time to make confident decisions.
if its much more complex then it is much more important to have people who know what theyre doing. if you think competitive players are gonna bitch and whine over something being imbalanced instead of finding a solution for it, how well do you think its gonna work out with casual players?
Ok well I don't want to get into the whole who qualifies as a worthwhile member of the RTS community but I'm sure most of TL(of which I would agree not all are worthwhile) who aren't getting beta keys would disagree with you.. I personally know a lot of people who would be great help in the beta who aren't being given one by blizzard.
I admittedly know very few who are being given one, what indications do you have that many people who are merely 'worthwhile members of the RTS community' are going to be given one?
As far as the difference between balancing and debugging..
They aren't comparable. Once a bug is found it can be determined whether a change needs to be made by a single person, balancing needs many people to agree that something has to change.
This sect of our conversation started with you falsely comparing the two so I won't bother continuing with it..
If I do I might end up pointing out a certain competitive player who bitches and whines and bring this conversation somewhere I really don't want it to go.
|
On February 26 2009 16:18 IdrA wrote:
no its not that theyre sandy vaginas
anyone who thinks theyre too far behind cuz of 3 months of beta testing is fucking retarded, and fucking retarded people dont tend to be very valuable for anything.
Dude.. no.. You say that because you know and have many examples of that kind of thing being overcome all around you all the time.
You don't have to be so critical to people for misjudging something that is so obvious to you.
Have you ever heard people talking about missing the boat on poker and that's why they aren't interested? Well it's the same thing, yes it could be overcome but it's a certain degree harder and everyone's threshold is somewhere.
I agree with you that it's dumb to think that way but that doesn't make them retarded or reduce the validity of their potential competitive goals.
|
On February 26 2009 16:23 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2009 15:56 IdrA wrote:On February 26 2009 15:13 inReacH wrote:On February 26 2009 15:03 IdrA wrote:
there is not some kind of impenetrable barrier between the beta and the release, the fact that its only 3 months, or however long, is irrelevant. its just getting a head start on the process that will continue through the release. and the limited number of players is also irrelevant because that limited number is gonna include basically every competitive rts player or everyone worthwhile involved in the rts community who wants to play it, you're gonna get far more out of a concentrated group of players like that than a big watered down community of the competitive players... and a bunch of people who dont know what theyre doing.
also you say it should be for bug testing, dont your arguments apply to that as well? if we only have 3 months and a limited player pool to look for bugs we'll never fix them all in time! better just wait for the release. doesnt make much sense does it?
Every competitive RTS player? Everyone worthwhile in the RTS community? Ummm.. no they aren't. aaaand what makes you believe this?
I'm not hard disagreeing with nony here, I just don't like the potential effects of having a group of competitive players begin the games evolution without the rest of the community.
And the difference is in bug finding it is much more obvious when something needs to be changed.
Balancing is much more complex than debugging, as well as needing much more time to make confident decisions.
if its much more complex then it is much more important to have people who know what theyre doing. if you think competitive players are gonna bitch and whine over something being imbalanced instead of finding a solution for it, how well do you think its gonna work out with casual players? As far as the difference between balancing and debugging.. They aren't comparable. Once a bug is found it can be determined whether a change needs to be made by a single person, balancing needs many people to agree that something has to change.
really?
theres still disagreement about some 'bugs' 10 years after bw release.
This sect of our conversation started with you falsely comparing the two so I won't bother continuing with it..
If I do I might end up pointing out a certain competitive player who bitches and whines and bring this conversation somewhere I really don't want it to go.
oh noes the horror
i might have to quote some of your replies in the inflation thread. i think that would be a bit more effective.
|
On February 26 2009 16:27 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2009 16:18 IdrA wrote:
no its not that theyre sandy vaginas
anyone who thinks theyre too far behind cuz of 3 months of beta testing is fucking retarded, and fucking retarded people dont tend to be very valuable for anything. Dude.. no.. You say that because you know and have many examples of that kind of thing being overcome all around you all the time. You don't have to be so critical to people for misjudging something that is so obvious to you. Have you ever heard people talking about missing the boat on poker and that's why they aren't interested? Well it's the same thing, yes it could be overcome but it's a certain degree harder and everyone's threshold is somewhere. I agree with you that it's dumb to think that way but that doesn't make them retarded or reduce the validity of their potential competitive goals.
?
3 months of a TESTING PHASE.
if that holds a 'competitive player' back from a game thats gonna be the biggest thing esports has ever seen then yes, they are literally retarded.
if you mean people who might eventually become competitive players, but arent now, why would they care about a head start if they arent already interested in playing competitively?
|
I'm done..
For the record, publicly humiliating yourself(not talking about the games) when everyone is watching is not as bad as me pointing out that people didn't think he was trolling?
I don't even know what you would possibly say about that thread.. That guy trolled.. I called him a troll.. and then people started defending him like I was just calling him a troll to burn him.
Yeah. I'm sure that will have the same effect on me as what you did to yourself will have on you.
F91 won't even give you a re and talked down about you like your this idiot who needs special treatment so you don't further fuck up your perception of the world and what it means to be a professional. And he would be right if you weren't so clearly beyond help.
Ok, 1 more thing... it's not that they don't think they can overcome the disadvantage, it's just that it is VERY VERY VERY easy to just say "ugh whatever these fags got to play all during beta and now I'm behind"
Again, it's not that they think they can't, it's just they feel jipped and that can lead to dismissiveness.
And I'm not saying it's not wrong to think that I'm just saying it will have a negative impact on the size of the community.
God wtf happened in this thread, I got to start off talking to a rational nony and ended up in this debate with someone who literally doesn't know the difference between right and wrong as far as social and professional conduct goes.
|
On February 26 2009 17:07 inReacH wrote:
I'm done..
For the record, publicly humiliating yourself(not talking about the games) when everyone is watching is not as bad as me pointing out that people didn't think he was trolling?
I don't even know what you would possibly say about that thread.. That guy trolled.. I called him a troll.. and then people started defending him like I was just calling him a troll to burn him.
Yeah. I'm sure that will have the same effect on me as what you did to yourself will have on you.
F91 won't even give you a re and talked down about you like your this idiot who needs special treatment so you don't further fuck up your perception of the world and what it means to be a professional. And he would be right if you weren't so clearly beyond help.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=87765
dumbass
Ok, 1 more thing... it's not that they don't think they can overcome the disadvantage, it's just that it is VERY VERY VERY easy to just say "ugh whatever these fags got to play all during beta and now I'm behind"
Again, it's not that they think they can't, it's just they feel jipped and that can lead to dismissiveness.
well once again if they are already competitive players then theyre basically giving up on rts esports for god knows how long because of.. 3 months that are barely relevant to the game. once again theyre as retarded as you if that holds them back.
And I'm not saying it's not wrong to think that I'm just saying it will have a negative impact on the size of the community.
ok? but it wont. if they arent already competitive players theyre not gonna care about a little headstart, if they are already competitive players then theyre gonna be playing sc2 regardless of anything.
God wtf happened in this thread, I got to start off talking to a rational nony and ended up in this debate with someone who literally doesn't know the difference between right and wrong as far as social conduct goes.
nope comments that were perfectly rational were shown to an ignorant community that i didnt want to see them, big difference there.
|
On February 26 2009 17:18 IdrA wrote:
dumbass
ZING GOOD ONE LOL YOU WIN
|
nothing more is needed to address someone like you
to be clear, you have no idea what you're talking about and no rational response to what im saying so you attempt to drive the discussion off into personal insults to obscure the real argument.
|
"nope comments that were perfectly rational were shown to an ignorant community that i didnt want to see them, big difference there."
Just for anyone who didn't catch that,
IdrA = rational
Rekrul and 30 pages of comments and opinions = ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
