|
There's been a sentiment thats died down a bit but is still floating around - that we should trust in Blizzard to fix the sorts of issues that we've seen. I want to dispel this belief and show you why we need to push the sorts of issues that we see in the game. To be fair, I do believe that they are aware of the issues, but could still benefit from our developing of solutions and ideas.
I don't know how many of you have been around the SC/WC scene since Warcraft 3 beta, but I was a reader on Zileas' website back then. We went through the same motions as we are going through now:
1. Some part of the community claiming that the WC3 was going to fail as a game
2. Others countering by saying that WC3 is not SC and that the changes will work out and it's too early
Having gone through that and played WC3 to about top 200 level, I want to say quite frankly that the issues that the first group saw were right. Blizzard brought in Zileas to try to fix the game for TFT. It got closer, but as anyone proficient at the game will tell you, it is simply much more limited than SC.
Back then, we assumed that Blizzard was getting pro-player feedback. We assumed that they would make all the adjustments needed. In the end, it took a dramatic overhaul of the game in TFT to even get War3 close to where it is today. And today, TFT is still waiting for for the next balance patch because certain matchups are still fairly broken.
We need to make sure that none of this happens to SC2.
|
I agree that we, as a community, can affect the development of the game. But how? I don't really see you offer anyway to show that we don't want SC2 to be a gigantic failure. WC3 isn't a terrible game, but it sure as hell could be better.
I vote we start a letter-writing campaign. ^_^
|
Thats fine but there is a difference between feedback and mob mentality. I agree that feedback is crucial to the success of the game, as it gives the developers an extra set of minds to analyze all their hard work. But feedback needs to be constructive and not destructive. Its needs to be supportive and not disapproving. I'm one of the people who have said that we should trust Blizzard. When I say that, I do not mean we should stop posting, theorizing, and critiquing. I just mean that people should be a bit more hopeful about the outlook of the game. They shouldn't be too critical if a feature they didn't like was implemented; there are plenty of chances for Blizzard to decide that such a feature would be beneficial. Community feedback will likely play a role in this as well.
Having some faith in Blizzard and offering feedback, ideas, and solutions are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they go hand in hand to some degree. Why would one offer feedback if they felt they were not being heard? The problem is not the use of feedback, but destructive criticism and overly critical analysis. I think feedback is most useful when it is creative, constructive, insightful, and most of all, supported by evidence and explanation.
|
We don't need to write letters, rpf lol
In every interview, Blizzard has said that yes, they are listening. They look at forums and look for feedback from their SC community, which includes TL.
I agree that we shouldn't stop trying to come up with solutions to problems and posting those problems in the first place, but there's no reason to do more than we are doing now, which is posting on these forums.
if Blizzard is telling the truth, which we have to assume to be true, then they'll see what we complain about.
|
I was only half-serious, -orb-.
My point is that when Blizzard reads a forum, are they really able to distinguish between the legitimate complaints and concerns, and those of the random 12 year-olds who don't grasp the concept of balance and skill?
Most people at TL want the same thing for SC2: A good game that allows skill levels to show, and that is both fun to play and watch. I'm not confident that Blizzard will choose us, the competitive players over the larger mass of potential customers who want everything to be on easy mode with automated units that do everything on their own.
I was suggesting that if we, as a collective community, do something to show them what competitive gamers actually want and think of their product, they might listen or at least take it into account.
Maybe I'm wrong.
|
One of the issues that really should be pressed is having Blizzard figure out a way for units without attack animations not to come to a halt when attacking.
I know Karune vaguely addressed this issue in one of his Q&A's but from the looks of it they don't seem to have a single unit capable of doing hit&run or shooting while moving (like wraiths, corsairs, mutalisks, drones, vultures etc are able to do).
I'd like some feedback on this from Last Romantic and semioldguy (or anyone that has tried SC2). Were there any units that didn't have to stop or decelerate before fireing?
Judging from all the demos of the different races I've seen there hasn't been a SINGLE unit capable of doing this. But then again, the logical explanation is of course that Blizzard aren't bothering displaying fancy micro moves but are rather just attack-moving for demos. But I see a major difference from Starcraft. The units actually need to come to a full stop in Starcraft II before fireing, while in Starcraft they often shoot while decelerating even if attack-moved.
Especially the air units seem just so clumsy and slow now compared to Starcraft's units. Didn't look too fun when Savior was harassing Bisu's SCVs and bisu had his fortress up blasting at the stacked and halting mutalisks.
Vikings, phoenixes, corruptors, mutalisks, banshees... They all look clumsy. Even carriers seem to have lost their ability to keep the move-command active while deploying interceptors.
Again. I'm just speculating on what I've seen here. Hope someone who has played sc2 can confirm/deny all this. If this is an issue with the game engine, they better redesign the entire engine because it will have a huge impact.
|
In my opinion, I think that Starcraft II is the most important game for Blizzard since they first opened. In a recent interview with one of the head developers of Starcraft II (I forgot his name), the developer stated how it is such a very hard game to build, because it is so highly anticipated and the expectations for it are huge. Starcraft was the best selling RTS game and one of the best selling games of all time and as you can imagine it's sequel is expected by many people to beat that. My point is that Blizzard's excellent reputation is on the line more than any other game they have made or could have made instead of Starcraft II.
My two biggest expectations for Starcraft II are:
- Gameplay (economy and military factors) - Overall I'm looking for skillful, micro heavy and economy heavy game. I would like to stress that I would however not like it if it turned into Warcraft III were economy is 5 guys on Gold and 3 guys on Wood. I would also not like it if SCVs were not to auto-split along mineral fields, because this would turn it into a Warcraft III Gold Mine and I wouldn't prefer that.
- Graphics and Artwork - Starcraft II needs to maintain dark and dirty feel, graphics and artwork, unlike Warcraft III. The only race that should be an exception is Protoss. In addition, it would be better if Starcraft would not include a cartoonish atmosphere.
I think most of these things will be adressed, but there is a long way to go with still many months in production. Blizzard has always delivered high standard games, I don't think this'll be an exception.
|
Northern Ireland1200 Posts
I think you got to ask yourself does Blizzard want to develop a single player game with multiplayer and sell shed loads of the games to the masses, or do they want to produce a high quality balanced game that could revolutionize E-Sports as we know it? Because as of now, RTS at pro gaming level (other than Korea) is pretty crap. Imagine a world where e-sports really did get huge, and we had gaming channels on the TV.
This kind of revolution of e-sports won't happen overnight and it will take a mighty good game to do it. SC2 has the potential, but do Blizzard really want that?
|
I think e-sports will become the new real-life-sports in say a decades time. It will be televised and it will be extremly popular. Starcraft II, yes, has the potential to do it. I have no doubt that Blizzard has the initiative to do it and they want to, however it probably just isn't their primary concern right now. And you've got to respect that. I can't name any one Blizzard game that I have played and been dissapointed in. They have all been excellent. What makes anyone think that Starcraft II will be any different, I still don't know.
|
On March 27 2008 04:49 LaLuSh wrote:
One of the issues that really should be pressed is having Blizzard figure out a way for units without attack animations not to come to a halt when attacking ...
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=67930semioldguy's blog says:Show nested quote +On March 13 2008 17:55 Konni wrote:
Were you able to micro like you are able in SC1? I'm thinking that because of the 3D-look and feel it'd be more difficult. You have to get the right units, have an overview of the battle and recognize everything fast. Did it feel like SC1? Like, you were in charge of everything? yes and no, depending on the cases. For instance, I couldn't get Mutalisks to work like how I am used to with the original. This is actually something that was a bug in the first game and they are having touble including it now because their coding is much better. They are wokring on the programming to get Mutas to do this in SC2. But there are lots of micro opportunities that are in the game already, including dancing for units such as Dragoon and the new Roaches for Zerg. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=67871LastRomantic's blog says:Show nested quote +On March 12 2008 14:47 CDRdude wrote:
... How do you stack mutas? Do you still need to micro them in the same fasion to get the most use out of their range? ... ... Muta stack must be done ghetto way [right click on unit/mineral to stack] and cannot move while shoot. They're trying to fix that though. ...
Long story short, they are aware of the desire for such a tactic and are simply having problems implementing it.
On March 27 2008 18:18 Chewits wrote:
I think you got to ask yourself does Blizzard want to develop a single player game with multiplayer and sell shed loads of the games to the masses, or do they want to produce a high quality balanced game that could revolutionize E-Sports as we know it? Because as of now, RTS at pro gaming level (other than Korea) is pretty crap. Imagine a world where e-sports really did get huge, and we had gaming channels on the TV.
This kind of revolution of e-sports won't happen overnight and it will take a mighty good game to do it. SC2 has the potential, but do Blizzard really want that?
I think thats kind of an easy question to answer. The status of Starcraft in Korea has taken the game to levels of popularity no one imagined in the country. Personally, I think there is more money to be made in creating a runaway classic than a quick play through. Ideally though, they want to do both. Luckily, because Starcraft's single player campaign can be drastically different from its multiplayer mode, the developers shouldn't have a hard time marketing to two different audiences.
|
But how do we give them feedback? Do they actually read TL.net as in devs come to these forums and read threads? Or just periodic reports from community managers who get the Q/A together? Should I post reports on the beta forums once it comes? Well my chances of getting in it are the same as a random bnet spammer.
Because the official forums is ridiculous for gathering feedback, they'd take years to extract something useful out of that pool of mindless spamming.
TL.net is probably the best english speaking community for gathering good feedback. Just because it is much better moderated than others. Moderation which, Blizzard cannot do in their official forums because they rather keep the spammers who are also paying their bills, or just lack the infra-structure to deal with so many posters. I think they should have at least one representative reading each high moderated community around the world (I'm sure there are other good communities in german, korean, russian etc), those representetive would be active in these communities and report suggestions and feedback every week. But do they do that?
|
On March 27 2008 19:52 VIB wrote:
TL.net is probably the best english speaking community for gathering good feedback. Just because it is much better moderated than others. Moderation which, Blizzard cannot do in their official forums because they rather keep the spammers who are also paying their bills, or just lack the infra-structure to deal with so many posters. I think they should have at least one representative reading each high moderated community around the world (I'm sure there are other good communities in german, korean, russian etc), those representetive would be active in these communities and report suggestions and feedback every week. But do they do that?
o_O
Probably?
|
Osaka27172 Posts
On March 27 2008 19:52 VIB wrote:
But how do we give them feedback? Do they actually read TL.net as in devs come to these forums and read threads? Or just periodic reports from community managers who get the Q/A together? Should I post reports on the beta forums once it comes? Well my chances of getting in it are the same as a random bnet spammer.
- Through TL.net
- Yes they do.
- They read those too.
- Of course you should.
- No they aren't.
Because the official forums is ridiculous for gathering feedback, they'd take years to extract something useful out of that pool of mindless spamming.
- They are very aware of that, which is why they created the community project.
TL.net is probably the best english speaking community for gathering good feedback. Just because it is much better moderated than others. Moderation which, Blizzard cannot do in their official forums because they rather keep the spammers who are also paying their bills, or just lack the infra-structure to deal with so many posters. I think they should have at least one representative reading each high moderated community around the world (I'm sure there are other good communities in german, korean, russian etc), those representetive would be active in these communities and report suggestions and feedback every week. But do they do that?
Yes they do. Each major community site has a direct line of communication with Blizzard which includes but is not limited to the monthly reports. There are Blizzard employees that (not openly) debate in TL.net threads. Blizzard is inviting community sites to big events, and using those as venues to test the game and get feedback. When I met Mr. Browder and told him the site I was from, he shook my hand again and said he was a big fan.
When SC2 comes out, there will be plenty of people who will cry foul and swear it is terrible, just as there will be many people who will love it and play it. That is life, no matter what you do (look at TL.net as a case study). Blizzard's job is to do the best they can. They have taken steps to improve their game that no other gaming company is willing to even try. They are revolutionary in their approach to the gaming industry.
This opening post is a poor discussion piece, because it contains no solutions it only serves to stir up people's ignorance and insecurities. As you can see, it has already degenerated into pithy complaints about specific dislikes of the game (from people who I doubt have played it). It takes the WC3 situation and completely ignores everything that has happened in the production of SC2. Posting about your own worries is not sufficient for this forum, feel free to repost your worries in your blog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
