|
On August 19 2016 06:01 Barrin wrote: Running out of ways to improve SC2... it's never been better!
I find it odd that you think the game has never been better but it has a smaller player base, smaller prize pools and less tournaments than in WOL...
The very definition of the word better contradicts what you say.
|
And I feel that's the difference between SC2 and BW. SC2 has too many balls, BW has less. SC2 games end fast and anti-climatically because it forces so many required actions on the players, hence likely for a player to drop a ball within the first minute. But BW can go on and on, back and forth, because the game takes on more depth as it stretches on.
This.
|
On August 19 2016 08:29 sc2chronic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 06:04 NewSunshine wrote: I might not like the answers completely, but I liked the questions a lot. Nice interview. Exactly how I feel. Just because ur passionate about something doesn't make you good at it. He's a typical CEO type who thinks he knows what's best and does something just to exercise his power. 4 teenagers balancing StarBow blows his idea of a competent design team out of the water. Reminds me of the classic Skinner mindset: + Show Spoiler +But what can we do? We are all consumers of his product and in the end he gets the last word. Lucky kid.
Thanks for the complement, but I'm 31.
|
that's a fluff piece. No hard questions at all.
|
On August 19 2016 14:39 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 06:01 Barrin wrote: Running out of ways to improve SC2... it's never been better! I find it odd that you think the game has never been better but it has a smaller player base, smaller prize pools and less tournaments than in WOL... The very definition of the word better contradicts what you say. It's not contradicting. Better game does not equate a bigger game. Popularity isn't a 1:1 related to game's quality when they were released in different time frame
|
I wonder what kind of difficulty the Koreans are criticizing. Since they could mean difficulty in so many different ways.
|
Hm, not too many clear insights. Great questions and a big blob of many words with not that much content as an answer.
|
|
David Kim: What’s funny is that it’s not just the Korean community that says that, it’s also the pro players. When we meet with KeSPA—for example, our producer just went to Korea to meet with KeSPA around last week. I wanted to go also, but I had this event so I couldn't. One of the main feedback there from the KeSPA coaches was that the game is too hard [for pros].
We thought that was very interesting, because that’s not what the WCS pros say, right? Because they say the game should be HARDER so that no one can master it, in which case I think we're in a pretty good state there, but… ...I think the main goal for us is to have that game that is the most impossible to master in the world in StarCraft 2, because that’s what we’ve been working toward. And obviously there will be people who think, "I spent this much time as a pro player, maybe I should have perfectly mastered it." But the fact that they haven’t I think is kind of a cool factor. At the same time we don’t want to make it more difficult.
This sentiment from koreans gets brought up from time to time. I think their perception of "hardness" does not necessarily directly have to relate to mechanics. A game can also be perceived as hard because your attention is constantly interrupted by harassment. A game can feel very hard because the control and attention required to differentiate yourself from another player is super intense. A game can be perceived as hard because you need to respond in fractions of a second to every threat, lest you lose the game immediately. Usually I argue for the notion that macromanagement should made "harder" or rather a more prevalent aspect of Starcraft 2. I'm not sure whether David Kim views that position as equal to "wanting to make the game harder", but I suspect he does. But I do not think it's as simple as saying "more macro" = "harder game".
The perceived difficulty for professionals in a more macro focused game may be less than in an micro-intense game. I've always felt that macro focused gameplay has a bit more of a "preparatory" aspect attached to it. You can prepare and train the macro aspect -- because there is not as much interaction involved in macro. You cannot to as large of a degree "automate" the process for how you're gonna respond to high intensity micro situations. So I'd wish David Kim and that producer would try to clarify exactly what those koreans perceive makes the game "feel" hard. Personally I do not think it's as easy as "less macro" = "easier game".
I think that's looking at the issue in a shallow way. LotV is much more micro intense than previous iterations of the game. But micro intense action is very very disruptive to one's attention and very difficult to rote memorize, in contrast to macro play. That may be perceived as "hard" in comparison to something which can be trained and memorized.
|
A shame we don't get to here more of this indepth stuff from david kim, you sometimes forget that he's such a smart guy.
|
"I have an example when new designers come in and they say like “it’s only about the data, not what people think.” Yeah that makes sense this quote says it all. Screw the elite level players opinions who are at the highest level of the game instead lets listen to the balance junkies who are probably at platinum level and employed by Blizzard on the in house balance team that's why this game is broke as hell what a joke
|
|
On August 19 2016 17:48 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +David Kim: What’s funny is that it’s not just the Korean community that says that, it’s also the pro players. When we meet with KeSPA—for example, our producer just went to Korea to meet with KeSPA around last week. I wanted to go also, but I had this event so I couldn't. One of the main feedback there from the KeSPA coaches was that the game is too hard [for pros].
We thought that was very interesting, because that’s not what the WCS pros say, right? Because they say the game should be HARDER so that no one can master it, in which case I think we're in a pretty good state there, but… ...I think the main goal for us is to have that game that is the most impossible to master in the world in StarCraft 2, because that’s what we’ve been working toward. And obviously there will be people who think, "I spent this much time as a pro player, maybe I should have perfectly mastered it." But the fact that they haven’t I think is kind of a cool factor. At the same time we don’t want to make it more difficult. This sentiment from koreans gets brought up from time to time. I think their perception of "hardness" does not necessarily directly have to relate to mechanics. A game can also be perceived as hard because your attention is constantly interrupted by harassment. A game can feel very hard because the control and attention required to differentiate yourself from another player is super intense. A game can be perceived as hard because you need to respond in fractions of a second to every threat, lest you lose the game immediately. Usually I argue for the notion that macromanagement should made "harder" or rather a more prevalent aspect of Starcraft 2. I'm not sure whether David Kim views that position as equal to "wanting to make the game harder", but I suspect he does. But I do not think it's as simple as saying "more macro" = "harder game". The perceived difficulty for professionals in a more macro focused game may be less than in an micro-intense game. I've always felt that macro focused gameplay has a bit more of a "preparatory" aspect attached to it. You can prepare and train the macro aspect -- because there is not as much interaction involved in macro. You cannot to as large of a degree "automate" the process for how you're gonna respond to high intensity micro situations. So I'd wish David Kim and that producer would try to clarify exactly what those koreans perceive makes the game "feel" hard. Personally I do not think it's as easy as "less macro" = "easier game". I think that's looking at the issue in a shallow way. LotV is much more micro intense than previous iterations of the game. But micro intense action is very very disruptive to one's attention and very difficult to rote memorize, in contrast to macro play. That may be perceived as "hard" in comparison to something which can be trained and memorized.
Agreed, just like my juggling ball analogy
|
I might only play the test map once the matchmaking for it goes live.
Thanks for the great interview!
|
Great interview! Ty ! Always fun to see how much hard work it is, for a balance team, to get things right by listening every players. :D GL to the team!
|
I read an interesting post by an Overwatch designer where he talked about the "perception" of balance. This might just be me reading between the lines, but do you feel like you're forced to manage the community's perception of balance versus what the stats are telling you? David Kim's answer to this seemed a bit dubious, because balance is more than the one metric 50/50. I think he should have clarified here, because he makes it seem like any complaints about the balance are about a negative perception, like people worrying for their safety after watching too much fox news when actual crime numbers are down.
But there are other metrics that Blizzard doesn't take into account, the classic example being those situations where you can maintain parity with all-in attacks at varying stages. This is not perceived as balanced because you can't actually play a balanced game, you just happen to win 50% of the time.
|
interesting interview from the expert itself interviewing an other expert
|
I still think the adept needs a nerf
|
On August 19 2016 14:39 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 06:01 Barrin wrote: Running out of ways to improve SC2... it's never been better! I find it odd that you think the game has never been better but it has a smaller player base, smaller prize pools and less tournaments than in WOL... The very definition of the word better contradicts what you say.
By it's never been better, he's talking about the actual game itself, which is true. The game itself has never been better entertainment wise. It's way better then WOL and HOTS.
Just because it doesn't have as many tournaments, player base, etc doesn't take away from that point.
|
On August 19 2016 14:39 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2016 06:01 Barrin wrote: Running out of ways to improve SC2... it's never been better! I find it odd that you think the game has never been better but it has a smaller player base, smaller prize pools and less tournaments than in WOL... The very definition of the word better contradicts what you say.
BW has a smaller playerbase today than it did in 1998 so per defintion it must - according yo our logic - be a worse game.
Nonsense logic is nonsense logic.
|
|
|
|