|
On August 09 2015 04:19 TheWinks wrote: David Kim on macro mechanics:
For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. So because of things like resource changes now you have to spread out your bases and expand more aggressively which means you have to manage multiple bases at once. And not only that, because of how the resourcing actually works in legacy of the void you gotta check back at each of those locations and manage the probes and worker lines a lot more efficiently as well. Our current thinking is that because we made it a little more difficult on this side, even if we take away a little bit from the macro mechanics we wonder if end result is that it’s a very skillful macro experience for players.
Awesome! Testing is what the beta is for.
|
On August 09 2015 04:19 TheWinks wrote: David Kim on macro mechanics:
For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. So because of things like resource changes now you have to spread out your bases and expand more aggressively which means you have to manage multiple bases at once. And not only that, because of how the resourcing actually works in legacy of the void you gotta check back at each of those locations and manage the probes and worker lines a lot more efficiently as well. Our current thinking is that because we made it a little more difficult on this side, even if we take away a little bit from the macro mechanics we wonder if end result is that it’s a very skillful macro experience for players. the biggest issues I see with it are that it might require complete rebalancing of the units from the races, especially zergs. At this point in the beta I'm not sure this is the right thing to do especially considering there are so many other problems right now. Also it is a massive buff to scan.
|
On August 09 2015 04:51 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 04:19 TheWinks wrote: David Kim on macro mechanics:
For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. So because of things like resource changes now you have to spread out your bases and expand more aggressively which means you have to manage multiple bases at once. And not only that, because of how the resourcing actually works in legacy of the void you gotta check back at each of those locations and manage the probes and worker lines a lot more efficiently as well. Our current thinking is that because we made it a little more difficult on this side, even if we take away a little bit from the macro mechanics we wonder if end result is that it’s a very skillful macro experience for players. the biggest issues I see with it are that it might require complete rebalancing of the units from the races, especially zergs. At this point in the beta I'm not sure this is the right thing to do especially considering there are so many other problems right now. Also it is a massive buff to scan.
They can nerf scan and buff zerg same with other races. There are ways to balance.
Its drastic ? Yes ! It is good ? Hell yeah !
Will get more players, no more abusable MULE, no more insta remax unless you have 8 - 9 hatches, less protoss all ins.
|
Isn't this game supposed to release this year? The rebalancing of units that will result from this is going to make LotV really rocky when it does release, as I do not think that they will have time based on their trajectory so far.
But I will trade the Mule hammer for stopping Zerg's insta-remaxing. Now what about warp ins - remove Warpgates and buff basic units (but nerf Adepts). After all what is Warpgate if not a macro booster.
|
It's funny, I remember so many people were screaming they want the macro mechanics to be removed.
|
On August 09 2015 04:19 TheWinks wrote: David Kim on macro mechanics:
For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. ...
And yet theorycrafting was sufficient cause for jettisoning the community submitted economic changes.
edit: Formatting the quote a bit more.
|
Community submitted economic changes? What are you referring to?
|
On August 09 2015 05:56 mishimaBeef wrote: Community submitted economic changes? What are you referring to? The big community suggestion for alternative economic models that did away with worker pairing. Blizzard's response was essentially "We don't feel like that would develop the game as we think it should be developed, so we're not going to try it." Their explanation for cutting macro mechanics is "We don't feel like we can come to a good conclusion regarding these mechanics without trying them ingame, so we're going to try it."
|
Option 2: Cut chrono Cut mule Spawn larva is autocast by default, but spawn only 2 larva
Litterally the most retarded thing i've ever heard since wol beta, who in blizzard did think of this ?
Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it, we’ve been exploring potentially cutting them or making them less important. This wont bring more twitch viewers, really.
I'm all for a warp in nerf but 16 sec might be a bit much.
|
On August 09 2015 05:41 Synastren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 04:19 TheWinks wrote: David Kim on macro mechanics:
For the multiplayer beta balance I just wanted to talk about two main things. The first is the macro mechanics being cut, something that we’ve been discussing with our community over the last week or so. I’d first like to thank everyone for giving us the feedback on both the pros and cons of potentially cutting this mechanic. And what we’ve kind of decided internally is we’d like to really try out in the next balance update how the game plays if we were to remove these macro mechanics from the game. And the reason for that is because we can theorycraft all day, but it’s really difficult to figure out the exact and specific reasons why these mechanics are good or bad for the game so we really want to identify those things. And the one other thing that I’d like to point out, as many of you guys in the community have pointed out also, is we have increased the difficulty of not just the micro in the game but also the macro as well. ... And yet theorycrafting was sufficient cause for jettisoning the community submitted economic changes. edit: Formatting the quote a bit more.
there were showmatch tournaments played using various "community submitted economic changes" and blizz playtested internally, they came to the conclusion that those economic models are not drastic enough and/or didn't do enough that lotv model didn't already do.
perhaps some theorycrafting was involved too but their reasons for not going with community eco models were certainly not just theorycrafting.
source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18183849206
words words words...
Community resourcing model suggestion We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some. Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm. Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.
...words words words
edit addition instead of double-post:
On August 09 2015 06:24 shid0x wrote:Show nested quote +Option 2: Cut chrono Cut mule Spawn larva is autocast by default, but spawn only 2 larva Litterally the most retarded thing i've ever heard since wol beta, who in blizzard did think of this ?
you are walking a fine line between rhetorical question and ad hominem, if the entirety of your comment can be summed up as an insult, then you simply shouldn't post it at all. in situations like this, you should present your argument for why it is "the most retarded thing you've ever heard". you might find that giving actual explanations is significantly more difficult than spouting rhetorical questions that does nothing for the discussion.
Show nested quote +Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it, we’ve been exploring potentially cutting them or making them less important. This wont bring more twitch viewers, really. ...
why do people automatically assume the changes are to increase twitch popularity? this particular change is to make your skillfulness be more visible primarily to your opponent and secondarily to yourself, the observers/viewers is a tertiary party that happen to benefit from such a change, twitch viewers is not the targeted audience so I don't see why "This won't bring more twitch viewers, really" is in any way a relevant comment.
edit 2: while randomly browsing wikipedia I found the name of the specific logical fallacy you are committing! :D Argumentum ad lapidem
|
On August 09 2015 06:32 Roblin wrote: perhaps some theorycrafting was involved too but their reasons for not going with community eco models were certainly not just theorycrafting. HotS and LotV are different games and the importance of those models weren't the specific models, but rather the general idea behind them. They justified not giving something like it a try on beta because of their internal testing. Here, they are admitting that their internal testing is inadequate for a change of this magnitude.
|
I will be the happiest man alive if they cut all macro mechanics.
SC2BW Here we come.
This should have been done 5 years ago, everyone who is mad get over it please....and all Oldschool bw players rejoice for this great change!
|
On August 09 2015 07:01 TheWinks wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 06:32 Roblin wrote: perhaps some theorycrafting was involved too but their reasons for not going with community eco models were certainly not just theorycrafting. HotS and LotV are different games and the importance of those models weren't the specific models, but rather the general idea behind them. They justified not giving something like it a try on beta because of their internal testing. Here, they are admitting that their internal testing is inadequate for a change of this magnitude. I feel like this post is missing a paragraph.
so what if they admit internal playtesting is insufficient here? that doesn't mean internal playtesting is inadequate for other things.
|
glad to see David Kim moving forward with more big changes.
i'd like to see Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void become radically different styles of games. This gives consumers a greater range of choice in what has become a barren RTS landscape.
|
On August 09 2015 07:29 GGzerG wrote: I will be the happiest man alive if they cut all macro mechanics.
SC2BW Here we come.
This should have been done 5 years ago, everyone who is mad get over it please....and all Oldschool bw players rejoice for this great change!
I'm all for cutting macro mechanics but it's not going to be BW, I do think it will improve the game though but your comment just seems a little silly, it's still going to be SC2 (as it should).
Really looking forward to the change though :D
|
will try and see how it works
|
On August 09 2015 08:07 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote:will try and see how it works that's the spirit!
|
On August 09 2015 07:31 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 07:01 TheWinks wrote:On August 09 2015 06:32 Roblin wrote: perhaps some theorycrafting was involved too but their reasons for not going with community eco models were certainly not just theorycrafting. HotS and LotV are different games and the importance of those models weren't the specific models, but rather the general idea behind them. They justified not giving something like it a try on beta because of their internal testing. Here, they are admitting that their internal testing is inadequate for a change of this magnitude. I feel like this post is missing a paragraph. so what if they admit internal playtesting is insufficient here? that doesn't mean internal playtesting is inadequate for other things.
They watched a handful of showmatches and maybe did some internal testing to determine that community-suggested harvesting modifications were "too similar to hots." Their goal is to get players to take more bases. There has been little to no acknowledgement that the economy is an important balance consideration, and no mention of changes they are considering as a consequence of the new economy.
What they are not doing is incentivizing aggressive expansion outside of "hope you expand enough or you die!" and they are refusing to consider any economic changes to Legacy, including changes to harvesting speed and changes to the starting number of workers. Instead, they're going to jettison a huge swath of the game which they have openly said was a part of their racial balancing.
It is completely mindboggling how they refuse to consider (at worst) or communicate (at best) changes or implications of different economic models (i.e., Swarm standard, Swarm DH, Legacy standard, etc.), but have seemingly randomly just decided to alter a huge component of their game!
I have no idea why Blizzard isn't testing more things in this beta, and, even more confusingly, I have no idea at all why Blizzard isn't soliciting tester feedback on these changes over and above what they can determine from gameplay. The data they have collected from players ingame is accurate, I'm sure, but the context in which these player behaviors were made is seemingly unaccounted for.
|
Starcraft 2 is a STRATEGY game. It means the major impact on the game should have strategy meanwhile currently it all comes to mechanics (maby not 100% but player with better strategy but worse mechanics gonna lose match most probably) it is not fun to watch if Gm r1 loses to korean beceuse of mechanics difference: gm should be the place where mechanics does not change a lot beceuse most people will do it well, but where these little strategy things start to profit, better postioning, mindgames, micro (its mechanical part but its fun to watach). I believe that decreasing or cutting these macro parts is good idea (if balanced properly). The Warpgate change also is great, however I'd rather change it to nexus with range of nexus overcharge. It is not a high cost to put a gateway near proxy pylon to get 14 seconds faster waro time and turn this defensive mechanic into offense, meanwhile I don't feel like anyone would like to put there nexus.
|
On August 11 2015 17:42 Irathil wrote: Starcraft 2 is a STRATEGY game. It means the major impact on the game should have strategy meanwhile currently it all comes to mechanics (maby not 100% but player with better strategy but worse mechanics gonna lose match most probably) it is not fun to watch if Gm r1 loses to korean beceuse of mechanics difference: gm should be the place where mechanics does not change a lot beceuse most people will do it well, but where these little strategy things start to profit, better postioning, mindgames, micro (its mechanical part but its fun to watach). I believe that decreasing or cutting these macro parts is good idea (if balanced properly). The Warpgate change also is great, however I'd rather change it to nexus with range of nexus overcharge. It is not a high cost to put a gateway near proxy pylon to get 14 seconds faster waro time and turn this defensive mechanic into offense, meanwhile I don't feel like anyone would like to put there nexus.
I not specifically against or pro macro mechanics, removal should be tried out too. But, Starcraft 2 is a "Real-time" Strategy game. The term "Real-time" adds a lot more into the equation. Say that "mechanics" "speed" "good control" etc.
|
|
|
|