|
It's that time again!
You might recognize me as the person who put out the last community attitudes questionnaire that wasn't a collection of strawpolls. You can find the TL thread on that here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/492649-community-questionnaire-about-macro-mechanics
Now that the changes are live, and we've had a couple of days to mess about with new Legacy of the Void, I want to see how community opinion has shifted.
To take the survey, hit up the following link!
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6HRPRS3
The survey will be open for a few days--or until we hit the limit where Survey Monkey is going to start charging me per-response--so that I can get a good read on community attitudes towards these sweeping changes. There are some additional questions to last time, but you will see a lot of the same items.
As usual, I'll be back with some analysis later! Hit me with questions, suggestions, or any particular analyses you would like to see from the finished product.
Updated with Results
edit: Copied the analysis from page 2! Enjoy!
Alrighty, guys, let's get cracking on some analysis!
As a reminder, this survey was released into the wild shortly after the change to remove macro mechanics had gone live. A lot of these data are thus immediate reactions to Blizzard's decision, and should be considered as such. This is not necessarily a well considered, deliberate set of decisions and feelings, but rather, this is the kneejerk reaction and initial impression of a drastic design decision. The survey was live during the 20-25 August.
For all of these graphs, I have removed the players who have said that they have not tested the changes at all in Void.
Some composite analysis:
Summary: + Show Spoiler +The sample was quite top heavy, with a lot of diamond+ players responding. Protoss was slightly underrepresented. More people are specializing in Void compared to last survey, and the vast majority of the respondents are at least interested in improvement.
The only real things the community agreed on are that balance will be skewed. There were a lot of extreme opinions regarding how this removal would affect desire to play the game, but they were so many that they virtually cancelled each other out.
While not many respondents said that they didn't care about the direction the game was taking due to these changes, the overall results suggest the community is neutral about the future based on these changes.
The change to reintroduce weaker macro mechanics is probably the best possible scenario that Blizzard could have gone with, at least looking at initial impressions. I would have suggested that Blizzard do that, but that's apparently what they're doing, so that's cool.
There was a BIG majority who said that original Void was too fast, and that Swarm is too slow. If there is a way for Blizzard to have a game whose speed is somewhere in the middle, that would make a lot of people happy, I think. Maybe a slightly reduced starting worker count (9 or 10?) in combination with the diminished macro mechanics?
Details! + Show Spoiler +League status: + Show Spoiler +We have a skewed distribution, with higher level players overrepresented. This is to be expected, given that we are soliciting players who are posting on third-party message boards! Race stats: + Show Spoiler +Terran and zerg are roughly equal, with protoss underrepresented. A surprising portion of the sample plays Random, though! Activity: + Show Spoiler +As compared to last time, more players are devoting more time to Void. Seriousity: Instead of posting the graph, I'm just going to say that about 37 players voted below 4 on a 7 point scale asking about how seriously they took the game. There were 431 responses to this question. Time testing: + Show Spoiler +Note that this illustrates that I cut out players who answered "none" to this question. At the point that this survey went live, the macro mechanics patch was quite recent. That there were so many players who had done such extensive play is quite impressive. The meaty parts: First spoiler is the graph, second spoiler is the chart. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The questions: + Show Spoiler + CasualAppeal - The removal of macro mechanics will help the game appeal to more casual players Insulted - The removal of macro mechanics makes me feel insulted NewMeta - The removal of macro mechanics will allow players to focus more on other aspects of the game, letting the meta develop in exciting new ways SkewBalance - The removal of macro mechanics will drastically skew the game balance somehow BetterView - The removal of macro mechanics will make the game more interesting to watch Abrupt - The removal of macro mechanics is sudden, and I am surprised to see Blizzard do it so abruptly OtherChanges - The testing of the removal of macro mechanics bothers me as no other drastic design changes were tested PlayLess - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less PlayMore - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less
Means - 4 is the midpoint, and expresses neutrality towards the statement given. A quick way to check and see how the community leans is to measure the absolute difference above or below 4.0 in the mean. For example, the community somewhat disagrees that the removal of macro mechanics is insulting (.8 below 4.0), and agrees about as much that the removal makes things better for casual players (.79 above 4.0). Means are of course skewed more by extreme values, so keep that in mind. Distribution - Looking at the shape of the distribution tells us more about how intensely the community feels about a particular issue. For example, in the "I want to play Void less because of the removal..." item, something like 68% of the sample said either "1" or "7," so there are a lot of very strong opinions about that. Does the removal suggest good things or bad things about Void? + Show Spoiler +Holy hell, that is a weird distribution. It's similar to a uniform distribution (each choice has an equal likelihood of being selected) except that virtually no one was neutral. So uh, the mean is basically Neutral. No one thinks "Eh, doesn't matter," but that's the consensus of the community. I kept the descriptives here just so you could see that. Would you like to see macro mechanics reinstated? + Show Spoiler +Generally, yes. Probably weaker, to make more people happy (read: less people unhappy). Game speed: Swarm vs OG Void vs something in the middle + Show Spoiler +OG Void is too fast, Swarm is too slow. This is an absolutely resounding consensus.
Racial comparisons! + Show Spoiler +The meat! Graphs! + Show Spoiler +Numbers! + Show Spoiler +Interpretation! + Show Spoiler +Terran is generally pissed off about the patch, in pretty much every measurable way. Zerg and protoss both feel like this helps casual appeal, terran definitely doesn't. Oddly terrans feel more insulted by the removal of MM, which is odd considering the community generally thinks that MULEs are the most forgiving. Maybe this has something to do with the viability of bio after the patch?
The community in general felt like balance would be skewed, but terran thought it would be fucked. In general, zerg and protoss both felt more optimistic about these changes, and that they would positively affect the game.
Design ramifications + Show Spoiler +Interpretation: + Show Spoiler +Terran: FUCK THIS GAME Zerg: I guess this is pretty good maybe? Protoss: ?????? MM Reinstatement: + Show Spoiler +Interpretation: + Show Spoiler +WE REALLY WANT MULES BACK, DAVID!!!! Zerg and protoss have similar proportions for wanting MM back, but holy shit that terran MULE passion. It feels like the diminished macro mechanics is a good choice for a future direction, based on this feedback. Game Speed: + Show Spoiler +
Thanks to everyone for stopping by! If you have questions, feel free to ask!
edit: Added text of questions in "the meat." Thought that was there; whoops!
|
when will the results be available?
|
Taken. I urge everyone to tell people to take the survey so your voices are heard.
|
On August 23 2015 06:55 HoZBlooddrop wrote: when will the results be available?
Probably next weekend, but it depends on how long the survey runs.
|
CBA filling this one out as I'm sceptical regarding the value of information we get in return.
Why would I change perception on - the abrubptness of the change? - Feeling insulted - Viewership appeal - etc
And for anything that isn't redundant, the timeframe is too short form your own educated opinion imo. Maybe I'll answer it later this week before 'deadline'? Probably not though.If you're gonna use this data, i would personally consider ignoring everyone with less than 50 games or at least take this into consideration when looking at the data. It's probably also gonna be really important to divide results by race. In the previous one this wasn't so important, but in this one I would say that it is.
Hell, I'll fill it out later if you provide the datasets so that people can look at it themselves.
|
On August 23 2015 07:32 flipstar wrote: CBA filling this one out as I'm sceptical regarding the value of information we get in return.
Why would I change perception on - the abrubptness of the change? - Feeling insulted - Viewership appeal - etc
And for anything that isn't redundant, the timeframe is too short form your own educated opinion imo. Maybe I'll answer it later this week before 'deadline'? Probably not though.If you're gonna use this data, i would personally consider ignoring everyone with less than 50 games or at least take this into consideration when looking at the data. It's probably also gonna be really important to divide results by race. In the previous one this wasn't so important, but in this one I would say that it is.
Hell, I'll fill it out later if you provide the datasets so that people can look at it themselves.
My reasoning for the current survey is: 1) Initial impressions of the change 2) There is a flurry of activity and interest, because the change was so recent 3) To get another timepoint for comparing against the pre-survey, and again for the next survey.
I will be running another survey in a week or two. Please don't think that this survey is all I'm interested in with regard to attitudes towards this change. However, neglecting the first impression would be bad, I think, as would ignoring this swell of activity and interest.
I've considered making the entirety of the data set(s) available to the community, but I want to see if Blizzard has any interest in getting the whole data first. If you are interested in getting all of the data I've collected, contact me directly. If nothing else, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
|
Will contact you directly later unless you satisfy my curiousity in one go. It's far from impossible. I'm happy you'll share with the ones interested, I consider it to be very important when it comes to statistics, for obvious reasons.
|
I miss mules .... please bring em back
|
It seems unfair to loose mules and chrono while zerg benefits. Auto injects sounds awesome! Why not just give us auto mules. But seriously we do need to revert mules and chrono. It makes the game way more fun. I am ok with auto injects but lets keep mules and chrono
|
United Kingdom20157 Posts
It seems unfair to loose mules and chrono while zerg benefits. Auto injects sounds awesome!
Zerg doesn't benefit that much at levels where it matters from auto injects. Sure, 15, 25 minutes into the game they'll have much higher inject uptime on average - but even offracing as a diamond zerg, i hit the first 6-8 injects perfectly every game on 2 hatcheries. That's a loss of 12-16 larvae with no compensation at a time when it's extremely important.
|
On August 23 2015 10:27 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +It seems unfair to loose mules and chrono while zerg benefits. Auto injects sounds awesome! Zerg doesn't benefit that much at levels where it matters from auto injects. Sure, 15, 25 minutes into the game they'll have much higher inject uptime on average With half the larvae injected.
That's the part that many complainers like to skip. Early game production past the first queen is nerfed quite a bit and late game production is also slowed down by a lot. To be able to quickly remax and tech, you need larvae. You should still be able to do it the first time, but with a much longer delay afterwards. And all the larvae intensive styles got nerfed.
It also makes it even more important to keep the larva count on each hatchery below 3, in order to get the natural larva production, since the queen injects are a lot less effective.
So no, it's far from being a 'simple' benefit for zerg. But it is a benefit for the game as a whole, which is much more important.
|
Survey complete~ I'll do whatever I can to bring back the old macro mechanics. I miss the fast paced legacy that was pre-patch.
|
Alright I did the survey based on my current opinion of the new patch of LotV, (maybe my opinion will change over the next couple of days.)
But I hope i was not bias in my survey, if I was hopely only a little bit.
|
On August 23 2015 10:27 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +It seems unfair to loose mules and chrono while zerg benefits. Auto injects sounds awesome! Zerg doesn't benefit that much at levels where it matters from auto injects. Sure, 15, 25 minutes into the game they'll have much higher inject uptime on average - but even offracing as a diamond zerg, i hit the first 6-8 injects perfectly every game on 2 hatcheries. That's a loss of 12-16 larvae with no compensation at a time when it's extremely important. playing as mutalingbling injects are insanely important until theres like 5 bases
|
United Kingdom20157 Posts
So no, it's far from being a 'simple' benefit for zerg.
That's literally what i said, that it's at least a huge nerf in the start of the game as any decent player will hit the first 2-3 injects per hatchery almost perfectly
|
On August 23 2015 13:43 Joedaddy wrote: Survey complete~ I'll do whatever I can to bring back the old macro mechanics. I miss the fast paced legacy that was pre-patch.
would you be willing to explore the possibility of an equally fast-paced game that doesn't have macro-mechanics? or would you prefer to just revert the removal and stop the testing simply for the sake of solving the pace problem as soon as possible? (p.s. solving problems with the most immediatly available solution is informally called a bandaid solution)
because I believe thats just a balance thing and the pace is influenced but not set by the existence of macro mechanics.
|
On August 24 2015 10:11 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2015 13:43 Joedaddy wrote: Survey complete~ I'll do whatever I can to bring back the old macro mechanics. I miss the fast paced legacy that was pre-patch. would you be willing to explore the possibility of an equally fast-paced game that doesn't have macro-mechanics? or would you prefer to just revert the removal and stop the testing simply for the sake of solving the pace problem as soon as possible? (p.s. solving problems with the most immediatly available solution is informally called a bandaid solution) because I believe thats just a balance thing and the pace is influenced but not set by the existence of macro mechanics.
I think there's a lot more to it than just the speed of the game. The speed is just what I feel the most at my own level of play. BeastyQT explained it better than I can.
|
I wish they still had mules, but maybe they mine 10 minerals instead of 30 and last a tad longer, so overall they mine around 100 minerals. I prefer toned down macro mechanics, not removed.
|
I don't think mules or chrono were essentially 'skillful' mechanics. I don't think my inability to drop mules at 50 energy reliably held me back as a player (in some situations it was good as it bailed me out of an awkward supply block or unscouted dts).
Chrono boost reduces some of the variations in protoss trickery even when you've seen the same buildings. Just prioritising the usage of it differently can greatly affect the game, so it's kinda lame that it goes in that sense.
But I think queens seem kind of dumb now they just sort of sit there next to the hatchery and autocast their thing. Why not just have it as a hatchery upgrade to allow it to produce more larvae faster. Just keep the queen as a separate defensive tool that will spread creep (i know this would break things as is, as youcan't skip getting larvae and you die to reapers without the queen, but it just makes the design feel really bad that it's really not at all about the queen any more but it still has to sit there...)
|
Since we're sitting at 475 respondents, and the rate of respondents has slowed considerably, I'm going to go ahead and close the poll.
Tune in this weekend to get a rundown of the results!
|
Ah I was just about to do the survey, but it appears I am too late. I am not sure how the survey is structured, but I am against automatic injects :-).
|
looking forward to seeing the results
|
On August 26 2015 05:12 Digitalz519 wrote:looking forward to seeing the results I apologize for the super late delivery! My semester has recently started, and I underestimated how swamped I would be, and was unable to find time to relay the results to you guys.
To partially make up for that, I'll be streaming as I make the analysis post, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you guys might have while doing so. You can catch it on www.twitch.tv/synastren
I'm intending to start at the turn of the next hour, which is 7 PM CDT (that's 8 PM Eastern US time, 5 PM Pacific time), so feel free to tune in if you are interested!
|
Alrighty, guys, let's get cracking on some analysis!
As a reminder, this survey was released into the wild shortly after the change to remove macro mechanics had gone live. A lot of these data are thus immediate reactions to Blizzard's decision, and should be considered as such. This is not necessarily a well considered, deliberate set of decisions and feelings, but rather, this is the kneejerk reaction and initial impression of a drastic design decision. The survey was live during the 20-25 August.
For all of these graphs, I have removed the players who have said that they have not tested the changes at all in Void.
Some composite analysis:
Summary: + Show Spoiler +The sample was quite top heavy, with a lot of diamond+ players responding. Protoss was slightly underrepresented. More people are specializing in Void compared to last survey, and the vast majority of the respondents are at least interested in improvement.
The only real things the community agreed on are that balance will be skewed. There were a lot of extreme opinions regarding how this removal would affect desire to play the game, but they were so many that they virtually cancelled each other out.
While not many respondents said that they didn't care about the direction the game was taking due to these changes, the overall results suggest the community is neutral about the future based on these changes.
The change to reintroduce weaker macro mechanics is probably the best possible scenario that Blizzard could have gone with, at least looking at initial impressions. I would have suggested that Blizzard do that, but that's apparently what they're doing, so that's cool.
There was a BIG majority who said that original Void was too fast, and that Swarm is too slow. If there is a way for Blizzard to have a game whose speed is somewhere in the middle, that would make a lot of people happy, I think. Maybe a slightly reduced starting worker count (9 or 10?) in combination with the diminished macro mechanics?
Details! + Show Spoiler +League status: + Show Spoiler +We have a skewed distribution, with higher level players overrepresented. This is to be expected, given that we are soliciting players who are posting on third-party message boards! Race stats: + Show Spoiler +Terran and zerg are roughly equal, with protoss underrepresented. A surprising portion of the sample plays Random, though! Activity: + Show Spoiler +As compared to last time, more players are devoting more time to Void. Seriousity: Instead of posting the graph, I'm just going to say that about 37 players voted below 4 on a 7 point scale asking about how seriously they took the game. There were 431 responses to this question. Time testing: + Show Spoiler +Note that this illustrates that I cut out players who answered "none" to this question. At the point that this survey went live, the macro mechanics patch was quite recent. That there were so many players who had done such extensive play is quite impressive. The meaty parts: First spoiler is the graph, second spoiler is the chart. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The questions: + Show Spoiler + CasualAppeal - The removal of macro mechanics will help the game appeal to more casual players Insulted - The removal of macro mechanics makes me feel insulted NewMeta - The removal of macro mechanics will allow players to focus more on other aspects of the game, letting the meta develop in exciting new ways SkewBalance - The removal of macro mechanics will drastically skew the game balance somehow BetterView - The removal of macro mechanics will make the game more interesting to watch Abrupt - The removal of macro mechanics is sudden, and I am surprised to see Blizzard do it so abruptly OtherChanges - The testing of the removal of macro mechanics bothers me as no other drastic design changes were tested PlayLess - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less PlayMore - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less
Means - 4 is the midpoint, and expresses neutrality towards the statement given. A quick way to check and see how the community leans is to measure the absolute difference above or below 4.0 in the mean. For example, the community somewhat disagrees that the removal of macro mechanics is insulting (.8 below 4.0), and agrees about as much that the removal makes things better for casual players (.79 above 4.0). Means are of course skewed more by extreme values, so keep that in mind. Distribution - Looking at the shape of the distribution tells us more about how intensely the community feels about a particular issue. For example, in the "I want to play Void less because of the removal..." item, something like 68% of the sample said either "1" or "7," so there are a lot of very strong opinions about that. Does the removal suggest good things or bad things about Void? + Show Spoiler +Holy hell, that is a weird distribution. It's similar to a uniform distribution (each choice has an equal likelihood of being selected) except that virtually no one was neutral. So uh, the mean is basically Neutral. No one thinks "Eh, doesn't matter," but that's the consensus of the community. I kept the descriptives here just so you could see that. Would you like to see macro mechanics reinstated? + Show Spoiler +Generally, yes. Probably weaker, to make more people happy (read: less people unhappy). Game speed: Swarm vs OG Void vs something in the middle + Show Spoiler +OG Void is too fast, Swarm is too slow. This is an absolutely resounding consensus.
Racial comparisons! + Show Spoiler +The meat! Graphs! + Show Spoiler +Numbers! + Show Spoiler +Interpretation! + Show Spoiler +Terran is generally pissed off about the patch, in pretty much every measurable way. Zerg and protoss both feel like this helps casual appeal, terran definitely doesn't. Oddly terrans feel more insulted by the removal of MM, which is odd considering the community generally thinks that MULEs are the most forgiving. Maybe this has something to do with the viability of bio after the patch?
The community in general felt like balance would be skewed, but terran thought it would be fucked. In general, zerg and protoss both felt more optimistic about these changes, and that they would positively affect the game.
Design ramifications + Show Spoiler +Interpretation: + Show Spoiler +Terran: FUCK THIS GAME Zerg: I guess this is pretty good maybe? Protoss: ?????? MM Reinstatement: + Show Spoiler +Interpretation: + Show Spoiler +WE REALLY WANT MULES BACK, DAVID!!!! Zerg and protoss have similar proportions for wanting MM back, but holy shit that terran MULE passion. It feels like the diminished macro mechanics is a good choice for a future direction, based on this feedback. Game Speed: + Show Spoiler +
Thanks to everyone for stopping by! If you have questions, feel free to ask!
edit: Added text of questions in "the meat." Thought that was there; whoops!
|
Germany25641 Posts
On September 03 2015 10:26 Synastren wrote:Alrighty, guys, let's get cracking on some analysis! As a reminder, this survey was released into the wild shortly after the change to remove macro mechanics had gone live. A lot of these data are thus immediate reactions to Blizzard's decision, and should be considered as such. This is not necessarily a well considered, deliberate set of decisions and feelings, but rather, this is the kneejerk reaction and initial impression of a drastic design decision. The survey was live during the 20-25 August. For all of these graphs, I have removed the players who have said that they have not tested the changes at all in Void. Some composite analysis: Summary: + Show Spoiler +The sample was quite top heavy, with a lot of diamond+ players responding. Protoss was slightly underrepresented. More people are specializing in Void compared to last survey, and the vast majority of the respondents are at least interested in improvement.
The only real things the community agreed on are that balance will be skewed. There were a lot of extreme opinions regarding how this removal would affect desire to play the game, but they were so many that they virtually cancelled each other out.
While not many respondents said that they didn't care about the direction the game was taking due to these changes, the overall results suggest the community is neutral about the future based on these changes.
The change to reintroduce weaker macro mechanics is probably the best possible scenario that Blizzard could have gone with, at least looking at initial impressions. I would have suggested that Blizzard do that, but that's apparently what they're doing, so that's cool.
There was a BIG majority who said that original Void was too fast, and that Swarm is too slow. If there is a way for Blizzard to have a game whose speed is somewhere in the middle, that would make a lot of people happy, I think. Maybe a slightly reduced starting worker count (9 or 10?) in combination with the diminished macro mechanics? Details! + Show Spoiler +League status: + Show Spoiler +We have a skewed distribution, with higher level players overrepresented. This is to be expected, given that we are soliciting players who are posting on third-party message boards! Race stats: + Show Spoiler +Terran and zerg are roughly equal, with protoss underrepresented. A surprising portion of the sample plays Random, though! Activity: + Show Spoiler +As compared to last time, more players are devoting more time to Void. Seriousity: Instead of posting the graph, I'm just going to say that about 37 players voted below 4 on a 7 point scale asking about how seriously they took the game. There were 431 responses to this question. Time testing: + Show Spoiler +Note that this illustrates that I cut out players who answered "none" to this question. At the point that this survey went live, the macro mechanics patch was quite recent. That there were so many players who had done such extensive play is quite impressive. The meaty parts: First spoiler is the graph, second spoiler is the chart. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The questions: + Show Spoiler + CasualAppeal - The removal of macro mechanics will help the game appeal to more casual players Insulted - The removal of macro mechanics makes me feel insulted NewMeta - The removal of macro mechanics will allow players to focus more on other aspects of the game, letting the meta develop in exciting new ways SkewBalance - The removal of macro mechanics will drastically skew the game balance somehow BetterView - The removal of macro mechanics will make the game more interesting to watch Abrupt - The removal of macro mechanics is sudden, and I am surprised to see Blizzard do it so abruptly OtherChanges - The testing of the removal of macro mechanics bothers me as no other drastic design changes were tested PlayLess - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less PlayMore - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less
Means - 4 is the midpoint, and expresses neutrality towards the statement given. A quick way to check and see how the community leans is to measure the absolute difference above or below 4.0 in the mean. For example, the community somewhat disagrees that the removal of macro mechanics is insulting (.8 below 4.0), and agrees about as much that the removal makes things better for casual players (.79 above 4.0). Means are of course skewed more by extreme values, so keep that in mind. Distribution - Looking at the shape of the distribution tells us more about how intensely the community feels about a particular issue. For example, in the "I want to play Void less because of the removal..." item, something like 68% of the sample said either "1" or "7," so there are a lot of very strong opinions about that. Does the removal suggest good things or bad things about Void? + Show Spoiler +Holy hell, that is a weird distribution. It's similar to a uniform distribution (each choice has an equal likelihood of being selected) except that virtually no one was neutral. So uh, the mean is basically Neutral. No one thinks "Eh, doesn't matter," but that's the consensus of the community. I kept the descriptives here just so you could see that. Would you like to see macro mechanics reinstated? + Show Spoiler +Generally, yes. Probably weaker, to make more people happy (read: less people unhappy). Game speed: Swarm vs OG Void vs something in the middle + Show Spoiler +OG Void is too fast, Swarm is too slow. This is an absolutely resounding consensus. Racial comparisons! + Show Spoiler +The meat! Graphs! + Show Spoiler +Numbers! + Show Spoiler +Interpretation! + Show Spoiler +Terran is generally pissed off about the patch, in pretty much every measurable way. Zerg and protoss both feel like this helps casual appeal, terran definitely doesn't. Oddly terrans feel more insulted by the removal of MM, which is odd considering the community generally thinks that MULEs are the most forgiving. Maybe this has something to do with the viability of bio after the patch?
The community in general felt like balance would be skewed, but terran thought it would be fucked. In general, zerg and protoss both felt more optimistic about these changes, and that they would positively affect the game.
Design ramifications + Show Spoiler +Interpretation: + Show Spoiler +Terran: FUCK THIS GAME Zerg: I guess this is pretty good maybe? Protoss: ?????? MM Reinstatement: + Show Spoiler +Interpretation: + Show Spoiler +WE REALLY WANT MULES BACK, DAVID!!!! Zerg and protoss have similar proportions for wanting MM back, but holy shit that terran MULE passion. It feels like the diminished macro mechanics is a good choice for a future direction, based on this feedback. Game Speed: + Show Spoiler +Thanks to everyone for stopping by! If you have questions, feel free to ask! edit: Added text of questions in "the meat." Thought that was there; whoops!
Please add this to the op! :D
|
Surprise surprise, Terrans want their ultra forgiving mechanic back
|
Love these surveys, thanks for collecting the data.
|
On September 03 2015 12:28 Little-Chimp wrote: Surprise surprise, Terrans want their ultra forgiving mechanic back
Not every Terarn want that, I Terran and want the mules to be casted into the fire on mount doom along with chrono and inject.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22271 Posts
I've decided to update the thread name and make the OP a little more straightforward so that this can be spotlighted.
|
What this survey highlights is the sad fact of SC2 right now:
No matter WHAT Blizzard does next - the community will hate them.
People have split into two camps, with very few taking the middle ground. Perhaps this is why the dev team waited 5 years for something like this? No matter what the final decision is a lot of people are going to be angry and feel betrayed - something the already shaky ground of SC2 really can't afford.
Is it possible to mend this divide and find a solution that pleases (most) everyone? Yes Are the developers capable of finding such a solution? I doubt it.
And that is not to bash Blizzard for their ability - the task of finding something that won't keep the divide is simply too great at this point.
|
So based on this survey the next patch, which returns MM to a nerfed form, is something that most people want, especially terran. Interesting.
|
On September 03 2015 12:28 Little-Chimp wrote: Surprise surprise, Terrans want their ultra forgiving mechanic back Suprise, Surprise, Zergs/Protoss want their free wins.
This does not go anywhere ZergingSheperdLight. Many Terrans would be glad to see the Mule and other macro boosters gone but want the race to be adjusted accordingly. Just as much of Protoss was balanced around chrono, Terran was heavily balanced around Mules.
|
On September 03 2015 22:09 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2015 12:28 Little-Chimp wrote: Surprise surprise, Terrans want their ultra forgiving mechanic back Suprise, Surprise, Zergs/Protoss want their free wins. This does not go anywhere ZergingSheperdLight. Many Terrans would be glad to see the Mule and other macro boosters gone but want the race to be adjusted accordingly. Just as much of Protoss was balanced around chrono, Terran was heavily balanced around Mules.
Actually I agree with you completely, balancing around no mules would be amazing. Bringing auto mules in is trash.
Also I don't know about other zergs but I'm totally down for some nerfs so i can get some zvp and zvt up in this ladder. The only free wins are from other races who switched to zerg thinking it's easy and rekking them in zvz.
|
I stopped playing Starcraft long time ago. Ive played lotv these past days and will happily continue playing if inject stays removed so i can play this strategy game and not inject hatchery bs .
|
Fascinating -- and a tremendous amount of work in the OP. Well done.
The Macro Mechanics (MM) discussion is extremely political. The regressives seem personally insulted that the game will be different, are hyper resistant to this change, and want to go backward; and the progressives are interested in breaking new ground and giving it a try. Similar to the Right and Left split in politics.
I definitely see both sides, but will present my argument as succinctly as possible.
Periodically--and manually--casting Spawn Larva, calling down MULEs, and assigning Chronoboost is rote. Their benefits are very obviously and fundamentally engrained in the asymmetric balancing act of the game. An interesting dynamic of the three is the two-way nature of each. Queens can fight, and be sniped. Both players have skin in the game. MULEs provide a necessary equalizer to Terran's income, and can be sniped. Again, both players have skin in the game. Chronoboost allows Protoss to change the timings in the game, integral to a variety of playstyles, but there is a tell, giving away--or deceiving--your intent. Both players have skin in the game.
The options: (1) Keep MMs and Keep them Manual: doesn't address the rote APM sinks. But maintains the two-way dynamics. This option would keep the larva reduction, cool down and range, and assignment, respectively.
(2) Keep MMs and implement autocast: fixes the rote APM sinks and maintains the two-way dynamics.
(3) Remove MMs entirely, and adjust economy / military balance for each race: fixes APM sinks. Removes two-way dynamics.
The asymmetry: I think the asymmetry of the three complicates the argument to the point where they almost can't and should't be called macro mechanics.
(a) Spawn Larva directly affects supply. (b) Calldown MULE directly affects mineral income. (c) Chronoboost directly affects time.
This is just my opinion, obviously, but it certainly seems like item (a) complicates any changes to a very large degree. The automated iteration of supply capability just feels like any non-Zerg opponent is up against mechanical perfection in order to keep up in supply. Let me be very clear about this: once the economies equalize with the return of MM's, I think Terran and Protoss should be able to keep up with Zerg better, and it will still be very difficult to play Zerg well against equally skilled opponents, but with that said: (a) has a direct effect on supply, while both (b) and (c) have an indirect and implicit effect on supply, which could shift the burden of keeping up in supply on to Terran and Protoss in a way that could be problematic.
These are my thoughts. I'm just some guy.
|
I'd be really interested to see this poll with a more accurate representation of the SC2 player base, instead of just plats and up. I'd be willing to bet if that was possible we would see much more of a swing towards the removal/nerf of MM.
|
United States248 Posts
Synestran the MVP
Interesting data to me to be honest. I'm surprised so many people think that the game speed of HOTS was slow. I'm wondering what they would like instead. Most games ended between 10/15 minutes for me.
|
On September 04 2015 03:00 ElMeanYo wrote: I'd be really interested to see this poll with a more accurate representation of the SC2 player base, instead of just plats and up. I'd be willing to bet if that was possible we would see much more of a swing towards the removal/nerf of MM.
It would be exceedingly difficult to find a large number of metal league players by soliciting participants on an online message board about the game. Generally speaking, people who play the game purely for enjoyment are less likely to be scouring the message boards to see what the latest news is. That being said, I imagine it would be similar to these data, perhaps with a slightly more favorable skew towards removed mechanics.
On September 06 2015 00:20 Jowj wrote: Interesting data to me to be honest. I'm surprised so many people think that the game speed of HOTS was slow. I'm wondering what they would like instead. Most games ended between 10/15 minutes for me.
My average game in swarm was between 15-25 minutes, whereas a surprising number of my games in Void are done in the 10-ish minute range. If one of us is cheesing, it may be over in less time than it took to find the game via matchmaking.
|
Would it be possible to export the results into an SPSS file? I can do a quick run on ANOVA and Cross-Tabulation to see if there is a statistically significant differences between races/ranks or other variables in the survey. If you are interested, shoot me a PM.
|
On September 06 2015 18:33 Veldril wrote: Would it be possible to export the results into an SPSS file? I can do a quick run on ANOVA and Cross-Tabulation to see if there is a statistically significant differences between races/ranks or other variables in the survey. If you are interested, shoot me a PM.
I'm not sure if you would have anything approaching the sample size necessary to look for statistical significance with race/league, and doing a bunch of different ANOVAs would drive up some serious Type 1 error. I mean, some sort of regression across league might have something interesting, but I'm not really sure that there would be any additional information discovered. Aside from my own professional irritation at ANOVA, I don't think that inferentials would tell us much more than the descriptives I've shown here.
The other big reason (probably the biggest, for me) to avoid inferential statistics is that presenting descriptives like this allows for readers to draw their own conclusion without requiring statistical training AND without me needing to go through lengthy statistical interpretation.
Crosstabs could be interesting, I guess, but, again, I'm not sure what additional information that would present.
If you want to poke around the data, send me a PM; I don't want to make it publicly available without request until I can chat with Blizzard about it (I have no idea if they want proprietary control over this data or not).
|
United Kingdom20157 Posts
My average game in swarm was between 15-25 minutes, whereas a surprising number of my games in Void are done in the 10-ish minute range
HOTS time is ~1.34x faster than Legacy (i forgot the exact multiplier) as well, remember
games do go fast though. The start is faster, naturals are dropped almost immediately by both sides in the majority of games and if you can stop someone from expanding or kill their most recent bases, you'll choke them out much faster. Compared to WOL/HOTS i'm spending very little time at 200/200 supply, too
|
So in one sentence: the community is disturbingly evenly divided on this issue, both sides with pretty strong feelings. :/
|
On September 07 2015 07:07 Cascade wrote: So in one sentence: the community is disturbingly evenly divided on this issue, both sides with pretty strong feelings. :/
Sounds like everything in the human race since the begining of times.
|
I'm sorry but these are some of the worst presented results I've ever seen. It's easier to analyse the raw data from scratch than get anything from your summary.
|
With the community so divided on this issue, it essentially gives Blizzard a free pass to do anything they want :D.
|
On September 08 2015 04:14 ZenithM wrote: With the community so divided on this issue, it essentially gives Blizzard a free pass to do anything they want :D.
We are dead D:
|
On September 08 2015 03:27 Haighstrom wrote: I'm sorry but these are some of the worst presented results I've ever seen. It's easier to analyse the raw data from scratch than get anything from your summary.
If you want the data, and feel you can give a better presentation of the results, PM me, and I will send them to you.
For what it's worth, this summary is literally drawn directly from the raw data, with no statistics aside from some descriptives used.
|
can you keep these surveys open for longer to collect a slightly larger sample too?
Also by thetime I see them each time, they've closed.
|
On September 08 2015 03:27 Haighstrom wrote: I'm sorry but these are some of the worst presented results I've ever seen. It's easier to analyse the raw data from scratch than get anything from your summary.
I found it quite clear. Dno what you're talking about :-)
|
On September 08 2015 03:27 Haighstrom wrote: I'm sorry but these are some of the worst presented results I've ever seen. It's easier to analyse the raw data from scratch than get anything from your summary.
I thought his presentation was excellent. Maybe Haighstrom wants a simple summary like what we are used to when we consume media produced by uneducated and sensationalist journalists, like only presenting the mean.
Terran is generally pissed off about the patch, in pretty much every measurable way. Zerg and protoss both feel like this helps casual appeal, terran definitely doesn't. Oddly terrans feel more insulted by the removal of MM, which is odd considering the community generally thinks that MULEs are the most forgiving. Maybe this has something to do with the viability of bio after the patch?
The community in general felt like balance would be skewed, but terran thought it would be fucked. In general, zerg and protoss both felt more optimistic about these changes, and that they would positively affect the game.
Interpretation:
Terran: FUCK THIS GAME Zerg: I guess this is pretty good maybe? Protoss: ?????? hahaha there's nothing odd and everything points to the fact that obviously MULEs are the best macro mechanic and the stats show that clearly, because other races don't mind a weaker macro mechanic if it means mules will be weaker :D
|
On September 08 2015 04:14 ZenithM wrote: With the community so divided on this issue, it essentially gives Blizzard a free pass to do anything they want :D. bad news
|
On September 07 2015 07:07 Cascade wrote: So in one sentence: the community is disturbingly evenly divided on this issue, both sides with pretty strong feelings. :/
its funny watching each side obliquely label the other side idiots.
long term its tough to say which design is better.. and of course both sides have lots of loud mouth know-it-alls claiming its obvious that long term the design they advocate is by far the best and they should not even have to waste their valuable time explaining why
i prefer no macro mechanics, but i can see why others prefer to have them in the game.
|
|
|
|