|
Northern Ireland23096 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +Basically, I've been trying to think of a way to get Blizzard to pursue a better design philosophy in certain aspects. I believe a small, but potentially significant avenue is open to us on TL if we collate a lot of interlinked ideas and suggestions under one central thematic idea. This could potentially be forwarded to Blizzard when it's properly formed and formatted. Now, this isn't to say that they will necessarily listen or implement these changes or suggestions by any means. However, we would at least have a kind of manifesto-esque document. I mean, we could even recruit a pro player who had access to Blizzard to at least make sure they read such a document. They mightn't agree with any of it, but at least in that way we could be sure As I see it, so much of our perception of what Blizzard doing is based on conjecture and reading between the lines. I feel that they're balancing/designing the game, but without knowledge of certain aspects of the community's thinking, but that's not based upon any actual knowledge. However, if we make the attempt to at least find a way to present something to Blizzard that we know they have received and read (say by using a pro with access) at least moving on we know that the issues are something they are aware of, we eliminate the uncertainty of second-guessing Blizzard. By collating a kind of collection of ideas made by potentially many different posters into a single source, we also reinforce its potential, as opposed to say each of the contributors emailing Blizzard individually. This is a kind of, initial testing of the waters of this idea. I'm not going to put the effort in if the will of other members isn't actually there. Firstly, it defeats the cumulative power of crowdsourcing ideas, if the crowd isn't there. I also intend to fully keep up with the OP, and incorporate ideas into it regularly, formatting it properly and everything like that. Again, that's if the central premise is deemed worthwhile by you guys. My final stipulation, is that we can discuss things like potential problems of macro mechanics, but without suggesting things that Blizzard have explicitly said they will not do. This is both unrealistic and against the actual central point of the thread, which is to eliminate the transparency issue of the Blizzard-community relationship. Another part of this is factoring in Blizzard's potential workload, ideas that would improve the game but would take a ridiculous rebalancing of the entire game are kind of unrealistic/unfair to expect Blizzard to do, even if they would be good. An example is something like the pitfalls of the warpgate mechanic. People that would suggest removing it entirely would fall short of what we're looking to do, even though it's something I would like done. Blizzard have explicitly stated it's off the table, so the uncertainty problem that I outlined doesn't exist with this one, we know they're not going to do it. However, you can improve the warpgate mechanic and how it relates to both depth and enabling more varied Protoss playstyles in other subtle ways. That is the kind of thing that I believe it is possible to have occur. Accepting that macro mechanics won't be removed, but also accepting that they could be improved in subtle ways and figuring them out is the name of the game here folks! I have some 15,000 words of various ideas and game concepts that fit into this rough on my hard drive as we speak. Not all of these are mine of course, but they're there. I could, in terms of resources available, do this myself and stick it in a blog. It might be terrible, it might be the finest analytical piece TL had ever done. That's immaterial, we're trying to form a more coherent way to organise like-minded people. Bear in mind that I know these people do exist, we have interesting discussions all the time on fundamental design issues. So many of these posts are amazing concepts, but there isn't really a thread that I feel tries to link them, to weave them into a coherent narrative. I tend to run across these kind of posts everywhere from LR threads, to the strat forum and parts beyond. Some of these posts I feel are great in terms of critiquing or finding the reasoning behind issues, but perhaps have suggested solutions that are something I think is terrible. That's fine too! Mods and users alike I humbly submit this mere idea of a thread to your mercy. If you feel a thread about making a thread falls foul of standards, I'll happily attempt to make it more thread-worthy. If you think the idea is good and either want to contribute, or even just think it's a good idea in and of itself, I'd love to hear from you. Again, if the consensus is that this is a terrible idea that's fine, but I'd like to have people criticising my hypothesis, not anything to do with stuff like 'Blizzard won't do this' unless it's backed up by some kind of evidence. If on the other hand, you want to non-ironically 'TLDR' this, please fuck off and not bother posting 
Spoiled post is the original wall of text
*UPDATE*
The Idea itself
Finding shared grievances with certain design approaches or decisions that are shared across many groups. Many but not all of these are related to basic RTS fundamental design, but are often proposed by so diffuse a range of users that they don't attain any kind of collective weight. Some of the ideas also relate to other areas such as the social experience of SC. We share a feeling that Blizzard find it difficult to sort bad feedback from good, and we feel this project at least gives them a central source of 'good' feedback, if they desire it.
How to do this
Collect as much feedback as possible and find a way to organise it coherently in one place. The overall document must also be able to be edited by other users, subject to change flexibly and expand with new information becoming available.
Where we're currently at
1. I have got a lot of feedback from a wide variety of different groups and a lot of information
2. I have, in response to this feedback altered some of the basic structure and re-evaluated some approaches.
3.In response to other feedback I believe I have found a method to at least create the main chunk of content
I'm currently doing a very basic writeup on googledocs/googledrive which gives us:
-The ability to crowdsource writers and various other skillful people in this regards
-The ability to add constructive criticism to the document itself
-Additional benefits such as the ability to IRC while viewing the document, so we could edit in realtime
-A way to flexibly adjust the article in scope when required
What we currently need moving forward
1. Some more input from the pro community. We don't ask their help, but ask whether they think it's potentially productive as a method. Ideally, moving forward we'd also love either their creative input, or perhaps having some on board to publicise the document to Blizzard.
2. Some more input from certain areas of the playerbase. For example more mapmakers and casuals.
3. Some more input from creative people with presentation skills. Anything from good writers, people who are good with graphics and creative design, anything like that.
How you can help!
1. Give feedback and constructive criticism.
2. Help with sources that we may not be aware of that could be useful
3. Get involved yourself! This isn't a pet project of mine, so I am happy to delegate.
The Document as it Exists Currently
I was reluctant to put this up, because I've really only started it and it looks unimpressive thus far. However I do think it shows the potential is there now we have found at least some vague shared ideas and a method to write them up. It is also all subject to change!
Cheers in advance, and much gratitude for the many of you who have helped so far!
Wombat
|
I think this is a great idea! In addition to this, have you also thought about consolidating all, or at least a portion of, the design philosophy threads in teamliquid? There are plenty of good ones out there and it would be a shame if they were to be missed.
|
Northern Ireland23096 Posts
On December 04 2012 01:10 SharkBait wrote:
I think this is a great idea! In addition to this, have you also thought about consolidating all, or at least a portion of, the design philosophy threads in teamliquid? There are plenty of good ones out there and it would be a shame if they were to be missed.
I'm considering the actual methods we could employ to consolidate the information in a way that best suits the ideals of the thread. I mean it's a potential blog post, or even a potential full article that I could write and host on various sites. This is the kind of thing I need feedback on so cheers. Basically, this is assuming assuming the central ideas are, if not correct, at least possible. If it's merely 'good idea, Blizzard MIGHT be suffering from the problems you're describing', I'd still press on with the thread. In terms of intent, the ideal consequence would be changes made to the game for the better design wise at Blizzard's end. The underlying, main motivation, is to 100%, visibly try to prove if Blizzard are either aware of the issues, but unwilling to fix them, or aware of them and unsure of how to fix them.
I love that design section, basically I'm doing a really rough resource collection in a Word Doc, so I can use it as I see fit. Either I can type out everything, so I can cut/paste sections into any main body of the article, or I can just have all the hyperlinks as a kind of 'for further reading' kind of thing. I've got a few reference articles, but if you had any you think I might not have read, would love you to send me the links.
Here's an illustrative example as to why I actually think Blizzard are responding to community feedback, but from the wrong perspective. Thus there is at least a vague example of why I think the entire idea is important in the first place. They either responded to the wrong feedback, or interpreted the feedback wrongly, imo because it exemplifies them actually having good potential design concepts and then changing course for the worse. Now the specifics and broken builds etc, are immaterial to this particular example, it's to kind of get the concept across.
The Mothership Core and its changing design philosophy
In its original form, attached to the Nexus and with energise and its cannon it was good fundamental design. Regardless of the numbers and 'balance' Protoss had choices to make, conscious choices that enabled different approaches to be employed. Conscious choices that have a consequence that aren't random or inherently based on assumptions, but an example of deeper strategical approaches. For example of the kind of 'random' stuff that is a consequence of a conscious decision, but really fucking annoying, consider getting 6 pooled by a Zerg who guessed your spawn and you scouted him last. Now, in a tournament setting it's suicide to employ his strategy, but on ladder he can do something that you cannot predict and counter through good pre-emptive planning that is based on information.
Here's a further example of the tradeoffs the mothership core's original design created. Ignore the potential for abuse for certain builds for a second and instead think about the actual rationales. You can use all of these applications of the mothership core, but not all of them simultaneously.
1. Use its energise ability to give you more chronoboost to give you either a macro advantage in chronoing production, or really focusing on say upgrades to hit a timing.
2. Use energise in another way to say, give a sentry full energy and giving the capacity for more forcefielding to be available. This enables you to play greedier, but at the expense of doing what I mentioned it point 1. You can use the gas you save on creating extra sentries to go towards tech.
3. Pool energy blindly to use the cannon ability. This allows you to be more blindly safe, but at the expense of pushing other advantages, such as increased availability in chronoboost, which you again have to make a decision how to use (upgrades vs probes vs tech units like collosi)
4. Pool energy for recalls. This enables you to do more non-commital pressure
5. The mothership core was rooted to kind of stick around a nexus, but could teleport to another one. If I recall correctly this took energy as well. This again rewards good preemptive, smart play and punishes blind/risky greed if you don't think ahead. You couldn't have your mothership core on your main nexus say, and be using it to improve your ability to chronoboost pure probes, but yet be able to warp to your natural and use the Purify cannon. This would be a natural, unforced error/miscalculation, because you'd used up all the energy that would enable the Core to defend.
6. I thought of the Mothership Core as a kind of thing that let you augment Protoss macro mechanics and make them more important. This is another fringe benefit, I mean bar the early game, and for specific timings how many Protoss players in WoL use chronoboost properly, compared to Zergs and their use of injects. The Queen is also an example of a good unit that is also a macro-assistant unit, but that is currently flawed design wise. The tradeoffs with the Queen just aren't there in the current metagame. They're not overpowered at defending, or in the macro sense. However, in combination and with the addition of the consideration that it is always a good idea to get Queens pretty much, breaks this kind of relationship.
Old MSC, here was a balance between these potential issues in terms of tradeoffs. Even if one use was potentially broken individually and being abused, the fundamental design and the strategic options available were (potentially) SO good.
That kind of deep interaction is so interesting to me, in terms of enabling different styles to be prioritise and increasing stylistic differences between Protoss player. Unless it was economic suicide I would actually consider making a fucking MACRO NEXUS!!! if the abilities were on that structure. That's how much I loved the underlying concept.
I was flabbergasted when they changed it to its current, limited fucking form. They'd actually shown good basic game design and they reverted it because apparently people 'wanted a unit that moves' or 'felt like a unit'.
It also has another net, indirect benefit and the kind of actual changes to the overall game experience that I think would appeal to almost everyone. It increases strategic divergence, so people who want 'cool stuff to do' can kind of enjoy having more potential things to do. For mechanically strong players, they will benefit more in terms of using something like the chronoboost increasing potential to its effect, and a bad one. However, equally a mindless mechanics machine might not benefit as much as somebody who very smartly manages the Mothership Core's different functionalities.
This is the kind of thing I genuinely think would appeal to Blizzard. They're trying to find a balance between hardcores and casuals which I understand is hard. If you find something that makes the game better for all the different motivational factors that keep people in Starcraft, everyone will benefit, even Blizzard in terms of getting sales.
1. People who enjoy just screwing around have more options available to them. Even a bronze player who doesn't understand the game would probably rather have something with more abilities to explore. I'm making an assumption here.
2. People who play the game to win and are very competitive can benefit. They have an additional tool to reward their good play, if they use it well.
3. It doesn't artificially close the so-called skill gap. If you design something so that good players benefit from good use over worse players, but don't make it something frustrating, both hardcores and casuals are potentially placated. Assuming of course these factors correlate properly.
Thanks for the reply man, hopefully the first of many.
|
This Thread may interest you, going by the first couple of paragraphs.
|
On December 04 2012 01:56 Fencar wrote:This Thread may interest you, going by the first couple of paragraphs.
"That thread" is kinda stupid, because they have this illusion of "one community", which is false, and they have restricted themselves by saying that they dont want to think about "classic units" because Blizzard wont add them anyways. That is grade A stupid IMO, because there are only a limited number of working concepts of how units can deal damage before it gets ridiculous and BW units might be the best there can be after all.
|
I think the first thing we need to do is convince blizzard that NOW is the time to start experimenting and messing with the game. It's the end of the year, many players are taking a break, not many tournaments are happening right now, and we're getting ready for an expansion to come out. There has never been a more perfect time to make radical influential changes, yet blizzard still takes the "we can't do anything to majorly affect the game" mentality.
Also, we need to make it so that testing these changes are EASILY ACCESSIBLE so that more feedback is given. Why do I have to access a separate ptr large pack that ultimately becomes useless in a month or so in order to test the game? All this stuff should be within the main game client itself if blizzard was really serious about making the best possible rts e-sport in face of the earth.
I have more suggestions but these are the most important ones right now that I can list  . I'll add more as time goes on.
|
Northern Ireland23096 Posts
It has some good examples I hadn't considered though, that could serve for good illustration.
I mean, this is an attempt to find a commonality in, if not the solutions, then in the goal most of us share which is making Blizzard address design issues. To find a common ground between different backgrounds and starting points so that our 'group', who are otherwise all considered as fitting into certain niches of TL posters.
I mean to illustrate my point, unless you have seen me post to that effect, or know me personally. Yes/no please and I'll give you a reveal if you want. I don't think you can get 100% in this without that common knowledge (unless by chance) based solely on the interpretations of my ideas themselves. If you couldn't be bothered to do it, but see my point without the benefit of the whole perception/reveal thing going on, I'll understand.
1. Do I have a background in playing BW semi-seriously?
2. Do I have any background in game design in any capacity?
3. Do I have any kind of background in statistical analysis?
4. Do I ever play casual games as my 'main' game for any periods of time?
5. Do I play Starcraft 2 at a relatively high level?
6. Do I want the game to make my race more fun to play?
7. Do I want the game to make my race closer to 50/50 balance in all matchups?
If you can get all of these right, well done/lucky fucker . If not, it shows that the link between technical knowledge, skill, and the overarching goals etc are not as linked as you'd think.
This illustrates perfectly the fundamental reason it is inherently a good idea to separate our message from the messagers and present it as a kind of consensus, logic-driven collaborative process.
Consider that it is generally minority groups that tend to define themselves on the basis that they ARE a minority. Majority/dominant groups societally tend to fragment more, so that other aspects of how they choose their self-identity are given importance. If I extend this tenuous logical link..........
We ARE the majority
|
I have thought that getting a progamer or other celebrity (Day[9] was the guy I had thought of due to his interest in math, but then he made those stupid HotS battle reports for 9 year olds and I threw the idea overboard, because he is not tough enough to do it IMO.) on board would be a good idea as a last ditch effort to try and convince Browder and his bunch of "experts" that they are doing it wrong, but there is a catch attached. Not a lot of people in the progaming circuit are really impartial and distanced enough from the game to actually see the problem. Only if you are "not involved" can you change your perspective to look at things from different angles to notice problems. Blizzards devs share this problem, because they are never taking a step back, stand on their head and then look at SC2 ... let alone compare things to BW and ask themselves "Why did it work in BW but doesnt in SC2?"
An example: BONUS DAMAGE
This sounds like something GOOD, right? Well you are wrong in supposing that to be true. Basically bonus damage limits the usefulness of a unit against anything NOT of that type and thus creates a rock-paper-scissors system which is terrible. I firmly believe that not having as many bonus-damage-limited-units is part of the reason why Zerg are so good and EASY TO PLAY. Roaches are good against everything basically [Insert the "Mondragons answer to everything" graphic from TSL3 - I couldnt find it, but hopefully you remember] ... just as Zerglings. They might have vulnerabilities, BUT good tactics can still make them effective and the vulnerabilities dont count anymore.
Another example: QUEEN RANGE BUFF
This basically didnt balance units against each other, but it balanced macro mechanics instead. Due to the range buff the Zerg can macro up much more freely and thus have a clear advantage over the other two races ... which shows the stupidity of these production and economic boosts quite clearly if you are willing to see it.
The last example would be the unit density and pathing issue, but enough has been said about it already and if Blizzard hasnt understood it by now then they and the game are beyond saving.
+ Show Spoiler +1. Nope ... just played the game for fun.
2. Nope ... just an active brain and the ability to look at things from "unusual angles".
3. Nope ... just long experience in life to know that statistics can be faked in whatever way you choose and dont matter as much as brains and a good impartial judgement.
4. Nope ... SC2 isnt made for casual games anyways.
5. Nope ... I am too old to cope with the amounts of units required for that.
6. Nope ... all races must be equally fun to play.
7. Nope ... because 50/50 is auto-adjusted by the ladder anyways and the true challenge is to make the races equally difficult (or easy) to play.
P.S.: Yes/No answers are stupid without an explanation, because you can be "randomly correct" in any multiple choice test.
PP.S.: We are only theoretically the majority ... since too many people refrain from using their brains and rather sit comfortably at home and think "the president is always right" ... or rather "Blizzard is always right and will fix this, so why bother?"
|
I actually like the idea of the PTR outlined in the thread. However, I disagree that there is a major "going back to BW vs.leaving it in the past " split. There are elements of that in the community, but the vast makority of it seems to be misinformed players crying about balance.
On the design of the MsC, has moved from something that could've been really interesting to something that's kind of interesting, but doesn't really fulfill it's original purpose anymore. I think Blizzard should go back to it's idea of a defensive early-mid game unit, instead of just another unit that has to be included in the death ball.
Wombat, I think you should do a blog about this in additon to the discussion thread. It seems to me that you are really interested in this discussion (obviously) and that you have a lot to positively contribute to this area. I think the blog will help focus people's thoughts and allow for constructive feedback.
|
Oh I want a reveal! I know nothing about you other than the random post or two I catch, so I'm just going to guess.
1. Yes
2. Maybe a little?
3. No
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. I think you want that for all races
7. Same as 6
|
There was very little "game design" about Brood War that is worth revisiting beyond the occasional unit concept like the Lurker. I find it amusing that the same people who bitch endlessly about the Marauder and the Roach fail to see the significance of the Dragoon in their design.
|
Northern Ireland23096 Posts
On December 04 2012 05:13 Evangelist wrote:
There was very little "game design" about Brood War that is worth revisiting beyond the occasional unit concept like the Lurker. I find it amusing that the same people who bitch endlessly about the Marauder and the Roach fail to see the significance of the Dragoon in their design.
That's a misunderstanding of not necessarily why BroodWar is good in terms of retroactive logic I guess. It's a misunderstanding of the degrees to which design intentions, technical limitations and other factors relate to the outcome by assuming that good outcomes = good design in every case of cool unit interactions.
BW Design Intentions vs Outcomes
Apologies for invoking Godwin's Law folks, was pissed off but not trying to shock or anything
|
We also need to convince the Teamliquid mods themselves to capitalize on the BETA before things become permanent. I don't think anyone in charge of the forum realizes that the window for significant changes in the game is nearly closing.
Change freeze will probably happen on February. After that, we are going to be stuck on whatever design is in place.
I mean the Beta came out and they just renamed one sub-forum on TL. Have you read the guidelines? Here's what it says:
+ Show Spoiler +Note: The SC2 Single Player Forum is now the HotS Beta Forum until the expansion is released, and then it will be the Single Player forum again.
StarCraft 2 Single Player Forum Rules
1. No obvious spoilers.
Don't post spoilers in thread titles. The game has been out for a while at this point so general spoilers are fine, but if you're unsure, use a spoiler tag. Use your common sense, eg if someone is asking how to beat a certain mission, don't go spoiling stuff that happens after that mission.
2. Official Mission Threads
Try to keep general discussion about a single mission in one thread. But for other aspects of the Single Player, feel free to create as many threads as you'd like.
3. Guides and Walkthroughs
If you wish to make a guide or walkthrough for a particular mission, go ahead. Your guide may be used for Liquipedia. Or even better, you could edit the Liquipedia entry for that Single Player mission yourself. PM Aesop or any of the Liquipedia team if you want to help.
4. Newbies
Be nice and patient with the newbies. A lot of new users will be posting in this forum and thus there may be a large difference in knowledge or skill levels. Please give these new SC2 fans a warm TL welcome so they enjoy their time here.
5. Achievement Save Files
Please don't post or request these on our forums.
Most mods just ban and temp-ban guys for improper forum behavior. There is "forum policing" but no "forum management" or "forum guidance."
The HOTS forum needs to be cleaned and organized --strategies on one pile, suggestions on another and debates/whines on another. Right now they are just letting posts go at-it on a free-for-all arena.
There should be sub-forums for:
+ Show Spoiler +1. HOTS Beta Strategy - where actual Beta testers can discuss about actual gameplay problems and where Blizzard can get a glimpse of the metagame.
Most posts would be guides and requests for help and most important of all --actual Beta Testing threads.
I mean, whatever happened to having to post a reply?
+ Show Spoiler +2. HOTS Beta Suggestions - where constructive posts and replies will be taken --maybe even judged for merit.
If there was a specific sub-forum, with rules and guidelines on posting that stimulate and promote "suggestion quality" --one where lazy posts are weeded out-- then we can just ask Blizzard to basically view page 1 of that sub-forum and the best community ideas will be seen.
Beta testers and non-beta tester post would thrive, as long as ideas are constructive and helpful.
+ Show Spoiler +3. HOTS General Discussion - a place where everyone can just vent without burying the threads posted on those sub-forums I mentioned above.
This is where all balance discussions/rants/raves/news can be moved.
Why look for pro-gamer spokespeople for our ideas when this site already is the goto-site for Starcraft? This site can speak for us louder. No need to pursue Blizzard, Blizzard/Blizz Employees probably already read/post here. We should try to pursue the Teamliquid guys to make it so that Blizzard does not have to sift through hundreds of posts. Good posts will just be naturally highlighted weekly with proper forum regulation.
The OP author is already volunteering to edit threads to make them presentable, I bet if he became one of a few forum moderators on a suggestion forum he can find other guys and filter threads for "quality".
|
Northern Ireland23096 Posts
On December 04 2012 06:07 Don.681 wrote:We also need to convince the Teamliquid mods themselves to capitalize on the BETA before things become permanent. I don't think anyone in charge of the forum realizes that the window for significant changes in the game is nearly closing.Change freeze will probably happen on February. After that, we are going to be stuck on whatever design is in place. I mean the Beta came out and they just renamed one sub-forum on TL. Have you read the guidelines? Here's what it says: + Show Spoiler +Note: The SC2 Single Player Forum is now the HotS Beta Forum until the expansion is released, and then it will be the Single Player forum again.
StarCraft 2 Single Player Forum Rules
1. No obvious spoilers.
Don't post spoilers in thread titles. The game has been out for a while at this point so general spoilers are fine, but if you're unsure, use a spoiler tag. Use your common sense, eg if someone is asking how to beat a certain mission, don't go spoiling stuff that happens after that mission.
2. Official Mission Threads
Try to keep general discussion about a single mission in one thread. But for other aspects of the Single Player, feel free to create as many threads as you'd like.
3. Guides and Walkthroughs
If you wish to make a guide or walkthrough for a particular mission, go ahead. Your guide may be used for Liquipedia. Or even better, you could edit the Liquipedia entry for that Single Player mission yourself. PM Aesop or any of the Liquipedia team if you want to help.
4. Newbies
Be nice and patient with the newbies. A lot of new users will be posting in this forum and thus there may be a large difference in knowledge or skill levels. Please give these new SC2 fans a warm TL welcome so they enjoy their time here.
5. Achievement Save Files
Please don't post or request these on our forums. Most mods just ban and temp-ban guys for improper forum behavior. There is "forum policing" but no "forum management" or "forum guidance." The HOTS forum needs to be cleaned and organized --strategies on one pile, suggestions on another and debates/whines on another. Right now they are just letting posts go at-it on a free-for-all arena. There should be sub-forums for: + Show Spoiler +1. HOTS Beta Strategy - where actual Beta testers can discuss about actual gameplay problems and where Blizzard can get a glimpse of the metagame.
Most posts would be guides and requests for help and most important of all --actual Beta Testing threads.
I mean, whatever happened to having to post a reply? 2. HOTS Beta Suggestions - where constructive posts and replies will be taken --maybe even judged for merit.
If there was a specific sub-forum, with rules and guidelines on posting that stimulate and promote "suggestion quality" --one where lazy posts are weeded out-- then we can just ask Blizzard to basically view page 1 of that sub-forum and the best community ideas will be seen.
Beta testers and non-beta tester post would thrive, as long as ideas are constructive and helpful. 3. HOTS General Discussion - a place where everyone can just vent without burying the threads posted on those sub-forums I mentioned above.
This is where all balance discussions/rants/raves/news can be moved. Why look for pro-gamer spokespeople for our ideas when this site already is the goto-site for Starcraft? This site can speak for us louder. No need to pursue Blizzard, Blizzard/Blizz Employees probably already read/post here. We should try to pursue the Teamliquid guys to make it so that Blizzard does not have to sift through hundreds of posts. Good posts will just be naturally highlighted weekly with proper forum regulation. The OP author is already volunteering to edit threads to make them presentable, I bet if he became one of a few forum moderators on a suggestion forum he can find other guys and filter threads for "quality".
A progamer wouldn't be representing us necessarily, but kind of like our megaphone. Yeah, our message will be the same, but it'll be heard louder with a progamer standing arm in arm with us in solidarity. I would love a progamer to actually join the discussion though, somebody with the mechanical and timing knowledge to figure out potential pitfalls in potential solutions.
For example a progamer is the kind of person to point out that buffing gateway units would make proxy 2 gate builds much stronger, and would therefore require more number shifts to be actually implementable.
You miss my point, we assume Blizzard read these forums, and it's likely. Has anybody every seen somebody post from Blizzard though, or references to specific TL threads? We assume they are reading us, but we have no confirmation generally, apart from when pros are involved.
Why is the Carrier back in the game? Because of Nony's video, I believe 100% that's why. He didn't just say to bring it back though, he did it by illustrating visually the concepts that made Carrier micro GOOD design, and something that if included could make it viable again. I don't know whether this is necessarily being implemented, but Browder has said he would consider applying the concept of making a Carrier microable. A Carrier that is microable is a hell of a lot more useful to us than the Carriers we have now as Protoss, and expands our potential strategy set. That would slightly improve our compositions even in WoL by giving us a something that can only be good. Nony/Tyler's video was basically an intelligent, articulate Starcraft player presenting a longstanding, commonheld idea that we had been discussing here for at LEAST a year.
Why do people listen to Destiny's rants? Yeah, he makes some good points but the entire posts are often based on incredibly fallacious assumptions that discredit everything else he says. They pay attention because he's Destiny.
Here we've got a variety of perspectives, but the same central ideas - work with us on design issues and how they interract with the game, we'll do a lot of legwork and collate shitloads of examples.
Including one notable pro is really just exploiting people's tendency to defer to expertise/authority figures and what they say, regardless of the logic of what they say.
I firmly believe this can actually be done, if we even get one good idea through to Blizzard that they actually consider in a new light based on our pure theorycraft, that's more than would be done otherwise.
|
Nice Post.
As is the "One community" post linked above.
The problem is that everybody has their own opinion and there are not that many points everybody can agree on.
First step should probably be you and the one community people working together.
A form of community test map as a sort of PTR, which regularly integrates balance proposals and then captures feedback with polls would be a great thing. Let's say, for example, with iterations of 2-4 weeks.
Then the feedback is published and and changes are made and the next iteration starts.
The problem is to find a way to accept different balance proposals and theories and then make a choice between them by somehow capturing the feedback of the community in a definite way.
The only thing that most people agree on currently is that the infestor is overpowered and maybe that terran needs something more in HotS than what they got so far.
Some might agree that the vortex is a pretty bad spell and that the mothership forces a deathball even more.
A few people agree that forcefield is actually a bad mechanic (for various reasons) and that the warpgate is not implemented in the best possible way.
But these are mostly people who played for a long and think about game design a lot and I would think they are the minority. Most people tend to want to buff their race and nerf the other races.
If you have the energy, time and motivation to do it I would suggest trying to capture and combine the major ideas from the various great and well argumented posts around here, then list them and offer a set of polls for each major idea or concept. That would at least be a way to capture some feedback.
If, by some miracle the community could agree on certain ideas, it should not be a great problem to create the test map.
The "one community" guys are doing that and I myself also played around with the editor to create a testmap for my own ideas.
I did not get to test it with anyone though.
That's why some form of community support is needed.
Well, good write-up.
If you need any help or want to make some practice games, feel free to PM me.
|
This idea is hopeless as you won't even agree on what the problems are in the first place let alone potential solutions.
There are so many different views on what problems are and especially on what ideal solutions are. Some people suggest making interface changes like cap on unit selection (BW style), some suggest fundamental changes like pathing, minerals per base etc. while others just suggest unit changes. Even for a relatively simple 'problem' like the infestor at the moment and ZvT there are tons of different opinions.
I for example can't stand why people keep whining about warpgate so much. I think it's a brilliant design and really fits in making the races unique, of course it has some implications on gameplay but doesn't break the game in any way I feel.
|
Northern Ireland23096 Posts
On December 04 2012 10:47 Markwerf wrote:
This idea is hopeless as you won't even agree on what the problems are in the first place let alone potential solutions.
There are so many different views on what problems are and especially on what ideal solutions are. Some people suggest making interface changes like cap on unit selection (BW style), some suggest fundamental changes like pathing, minerals per base etc. while others just suggest unit changes. Even for a relatively simple 'problem' like the infestor at the moment and ZvT there are tons of different opinions.
I for example can't stand why people keep whining about warpgate so much. I think it's a brilliant design and really fits in making the races unique, of course it has some implications on gameplay but doesn't break the game in any way I feel.
The entire point is to find the points of convergence, so people with different desires in terms of specifics, can still get across their similar mentality.
For your example, warpgate. Had a PM discussion with a guy earlier on it, and he wants it 100% removed. I think that because Blizzard specifically said they won't do that, you can still balance it but in other ways. If Blizz won't do his favoured way, he'd still prefer my way of potentially looking at other ways. People who like warpgate existing, also don't have it removed if they think it's a cool mechanic to see Protoss teleporting in.
It's making them consider the root causes of balance complaints, rather than treating the symptoms. Specifics aren't overly important if they get the concepts being discussed, or at least why we think that. Perhaps people won't agree with that approach being enough to ever influence them, but as long as we make a proper attempt that'd be enough for me anyway. It's an attempt to productively pool our resources, for positive, constructive lobbying.
Think of it like an r/Starcraft emailing the sponsors campaign, but trying to do something positive for the game and the community at a base level.
Things you can try to find common ground on, regardless of whether these illustrative examples are right
Common misconceptions that damage the game for everyone, even if it's to small degrees, damage the game
'Casuals want an easy game, hardcore players want a hard game.'
'People want the game to be balanced primarily by win rates'
Common things I believe Blizzard neglects to factor in
Players want a balance, relatively equivalent between races in terms of variety/stylistic ways to play the game
Players want each race to reward each particular skill, as long as it doesn't sacrifice the kind of identity of the race.
|
On December 04 2012 10:57 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 10:47 Markwerf wrote:
This idea is hopeless as you won't even agree on what the problems are in the first place let alone potential solutions.
There are so many different views on what problems are and especially on what ideal solutions are. Some people suggest making interface changes like cap on unit selection (BW style), some suggest fundamental changes like pathing, minerals per base etc. while others just suggest unit changes. Even for a relatively simple 'problem' like the infestor at the moment and ZvT there are tons of different opinions.
I for example can't stand why people keep whining about warpgate so much. I think it's a brilliant design and really fits in making the races unique, of course it has some implications on gameplay but doesn't break the game in any way I feel. The entire point is to find the points of convergence, so people with different desires in terms of specifics, can still get across their similar mentality. For your example, warpgate. Had a PM discussion with a guy earlier on it, and he wants it 100% removed. I think that because Blizzard specifically said they won't do that, you can still balance it but in other ways. If Blizz won't do his favoured way, he'd still prefer my way of potentially looking at other ways. People who like warpgate existing, also don't have it removed if they think it's a cool mechanic to see Protoss teleporting in. It's making them consider the root causes of balance complaints, rather than treating the symptoms. Specifics aren't overly important if they get the concepts being discussed, or at least why we think that. Perhaps people won't agree with that approach being enough to ever influence them, but as long as we make a proper attempt that'd be enough for me anyway. It's an attempt to productively pool our resources, for positive, constructive lobbying. Think of it like an r/Starcraft emailing the sponsors campaign, but trying to do something positive for the game and the community at a base level. Things you can try to find common ground on, regardless of whether these illustrative examples are right Common misconceptions that damage the game for everyone, even if it's to small degrees, damage the game'Casuals want an easy game, hardcore players want a hard game.' 'People want the game to be balanced primarily by win rates' Common things I believe Blizzard neglects to factor inPlayers want a balance, relatively equivalent between races in terms of variety/stylistic ways to play the game Players want each race to reward each particular skill, as long as it doesn't sacrifice the kind of identity of the race.
the thing is, you're just stating the obvious now.
Do you honestly think blizzard doesn't know those things? They know they want balance and an interesting game but stating that doesn't help them in any way to get it...
Agreeing on more concrete things as a whole is virtually impossible though, every suggestion thread out there is basically an attempt at that already focussed on a single issue which rarely ends in concensus.
Blizzard shouldn't be communicating too much with the community, it only gives a false sense of choice. The moment you start to openly discuss idea's you only have to dissapoint people since you can't satisfy every wish anyway.
They should just come with concrete changes and monitor how they go, stealing any good idea they see. In the end it's all up to the developers though in which I unfortunately have zero trust considering what they've been doing so far. It it what it is though..
|
Northern Ireland23096 Posts
On December 04 2012 11:32 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 10:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 04 2012 10:47 Markwerf wrote:
This idea is hopeless as you won't even agree on what the problems are in the first place let alone potential solutions.
There are so many different views on what problems are and especially on what ideal solutions are. Some people suggest making interface changes like cap on unit selection (BW style), some suggest fundamental changes like pathing, minerals per base etc. while others just suggest unit changes. Even for a relatively simple 'problem' like the infestor at the moment and ZvT there are tons of different opinions.
I for example can't stand why people keep whining about warpgate so much. I think it's a brilliant design and really fits in making the races unique, of course it has some implications on gameplay but doesn't break the game in any way I feel. The entire point is to find the points of convergence, so people with different desires in terms of specifics, can still get across their similar mentality. For your example, warpgate. Had a PM discussion with a guy earlier on it, and he wants it 100% removed. I think that because Blizzard specifically said they won't do that, you can still balance it but in other ways. If Blizz won't do his favoured way, he'd still prefer my way of potentially looking at other ways. People who like warpgate existing, also don't have it removed if they think it's a cool mechanic to see Protoss teleporting in. It's making them consider the root causes of balance complaints, rather than treating the symptoms. Specifics aren't overly important if they get the concepts being discussed, or at least why we think that. Perhaps people won't agree with that approach being enough to ever influence them, but as long as we make a proper attempt that'd be enough for me anyway. It's an attempt to productively pool our resources, for positive, constructive lobbying. Think of it like an r/Starcraft emailing the sponsors campaign, but trying to do something positive for the game and the community at a base level. Things you can try to find common ground on, regardless of whether these illustrative examples are right Common misconceptions that damage the game for everyone, even if it's to small degrees, damage the game'Casuals want an easy game, hardcore players want a hard game.' 'People want the game to be balanced primarily by win rates' Common things I believe Blizzard neglects to factor inPlayers want a balance, relatively equivalent between races in terms of variety/stylistic ways to play the game Players want each race to reward each particular skill, as long as it doesn't sacrifice the kind of identity of the race. the thing is, you're just stating the obvious now. Do you honestly think blizzard doesn't know those things? They know they want balance and an interesting game but stating that doesn't help them in any way to get it... Agreeing on more concrete things as a whole is virtually impossible though, every suggestion thread out there is basically an attempt at that already focussed on a single issue which rarely ends in concensus. Blizzard shouldn't be communicating too much with the community, it only gives a false sense of choice. The moment you start to openly discuss idea's you only have to dissapoint people since you can't satisfy every wish anyway. They should just come with concrete changes and monitor how they go, stealing any good idea they see. In the end it's all up to the developers though in which I unfortunately have zero trust considering what they've been doing so far. It it what it is though..
Well yeah? Or at least it's possible.
The issue is that there IS a relationship established with the community, in terms of stuff like devs posting on Bnet about design, and pros being consulted. It's defining this relationship, and seeing how we can be more productive going forward.
It's an entire fucking waste of time to have to put in the effort and noise of the 'Save the Carrier' campaign to get anything done. It doesn't even change anything, it's still a terrible SC2 unit without the microability, which as I know thus far is being looked at.
I mean I played WC3 for years and there was no such relationship, so the expectation wasn't there. It wasn't an issue. You raise my central point is that there is now this relationship established, and it's not unidirectional you have to define the terms of it.
1. Blizzard monitor every Team Liquid design thread closely
2. They get somebody to sift through it in some capacity and filter out stuff.
3. They get most of their feedback from Bnet forums and battlenet
4. They'll do their own thing
5. They'll consult the pros and only the pros.
Now, if you think defining which of those 5, definitively is a case of stating the obvious, fair enough. I think there's a pretty conclusive case to be made for defining it.
If it wasn't for my interest in game design just in and of itself, I wouldn't bother to post most of my design theories and talk about balance. If the motivation in me was to get tangible changes made, and we found out Blizzard just freestyle it, then there's no need to worry about it. However if it's a case of they are listening to feedback, but it's the lowest common denominator kind of posts, then we can offer an alternative to that.
|
Northern Ireland23096 Posts
And now for the reveal! (drum roll is obligatory here) I don't have to really expand on each individual one to illustrate my point further, nor am I doing the reveal to tell you more about the mysterious Wombat. It's to illustrate that ideas, and the reasoning influencing the person proposing them are too often pigeonholed. Blizzard, imo are doing this at present with their approach to balancing and designing SC2. The attempt to make them consider this more into their thinking would 100% lead to a better game for everyone. Even Rabiator, who identified/factored in my general way of thinking and my psyche, wasn't able to predict my background. Blizzard are suffering from this problem too, it's pretty obvious when you look at some of their approaches to fixing issues.
1. Do I have a background in playing BW semi-seriously?- No
2. Do I have any background in game design in any capacity? No
3. Do I have any kind of background in statistical analysis? No
4. Do I ever play casual games as my 'main' game for any periods of time?Yes Even pretty recently
5. Do I play Starcraft 2 at a relatively high level? No -Relative to the playerbase yes, but considered lowskill on TL
6. Do I want the game to make my race more fun to play? Yes
7. Do I want the game to make my race closer to 50/50 balance in all matchups? Yes However, no if this is to the detriment of everything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
