I can't help but feel Blizzard is totally out of touch with the community. Sure I don't surf on Battle.net all that often, but often a lot of the complaints mimic those of Teamliquid.
I can also see why when Blizzard has meetings with the Prime team and other pro-gamers, such as the recent Browder & Sen interview, that almost no changes result from them.
EDIT: Issues on Maps I am adding this in because I don't think I came across correctly when I was talking about communication (its hard to get a grasp of the feeling you are presenting to another person sometimes, its not meant to be an angry post, but more of a comical one).
The problem I am mainly pointing out is Blizzards ability to ignore other peoples suggestions until they eventually "cave in" from a lot of pressure (e.g "Do you really want chat channels?").
So yes, Blizzard does a lot of interviews, talks to the community a lot, organise meetings with pro-gamers, the way they go about this process by side-stepping or denying questions, often results in not achieving a lot.
So in this case, Blizzard caves in to a lot of pressure for new maps. But ultimately Blizzard chooses which GSL map to be put in, and the modifications they want done to it. When the suggestion to not change certain aspects was given, this was not actually taken into account.
LSPrime, congratulations on having your map Tal’Darim Altar get into the Blizzard ladder pool, that is excellent! Can you tell us about how that came to be? Did Blizzard contact you to discuss the map? Or did you sign on to play one day and say, “WHAT–THAT’S MY MAP?!”
LSP: Two months ago I got a message from David Kim that they were going to put Tal’Darim Altar in the ladder, but they wanted to make some changes which I debated. We debated how many resources to have at the 2 multi (foreigners say third base), but by the game’s conventions the resources should be 8 minerals and 2 gas (I was angry they wanted to sacrifice balance for the convention).
David Kim suggested adding destructible rocks but I didn’t agree with him, because the rocks are temporary ["the rocks are temporary" is the direct translation but it doesn't seem to be the true meaning.]
Eventually the base had 8 minerals and 2 gas as Blizzard wanted and they decided if they see a problem they will change it. And from the North American server I heard Protoss is too strong on Tal’Darim, but I’m not sure if Blizzard will change it.
Now Blizzard did do a poll on destructible rocks. (I think this was a good move by Blizzard, I believe they should do this more)
The point remains that Blizzard still maintained their authoritarian stance, even after massive amounts of pressure to add new maps or even GSL maps. When they finally decided to add one GSL map, it still had to be "their" way. Which isn't really good form given Blizzards history with maps, compared to an experienced map-maker.
So whether it is a pro-gamer, a pro map-maker, or a group. It doesn't matter whether they are wrong or right, the problem I see is not that they are not listening, its the process in which they listen.
Hence you can still have bad communication and be out of touch with the community, even if you actively talking to them.
Issues on Gameplay To take a quote (translation) from the most recent Browder / Sen interview.
Sen & Interviewers: a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
Dustin Browder: no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
Sen & Interviewers: but the rush are stronger than BW
Dustin Browder: we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
Its not like theres a communication issue, I feel that is more of a pride issue. It's hard to believe a lot these issues aren't known by Blizzard, but it feels more like they are blinded by their own pride, and therefore these issues don't exist, to them.
As shown in the recent interviews with Browder, instead of acknowledging problems, these problems are seemingly "refuted" by pointing at numbers or giving an irrelevant (and disappointing) example which shows a quite distinct lack of knowledge of the game.
I feel that an appropriate response would have been to tell the dev team to have a look into it, rather than saying its because of good pathing, and then segwaying into "go back to Brood War", as this is Sen we are talking about here.
Youtube video should automatically fast-forward to 10:30.
Here is the clip. You can listen to it. 10:30 all the way to the end. Feel free to give your own interpretation.
I will say that Browder is definitely incorrect one point. There are plenty of games with great pathing, without unit clumping. For example Company of Heroes. And hey, wasn't it achieved in the dynamic pathing mod?
However the point I'm trying to get across is the side-stepping by segwaying into a go back to BW statement. Obviously Sen as an SC2 pro-gamer cannot do that.
Apart from balance, the situation where one unit counters another unit is quite serious. This makes it very hard to stage a comeback in games. In Starcraft 1, players could make comebacks through the use of various strategies or through some other means. However, it is very difficult to do make combacks in Starcraft 2. What do you think about this issue? (Interview here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217398)
Dustin Browder:
Let's look at another situation, where we have banshees against marines. In a straight up fight, the marines will definitely win the fight. Yet, if the banshee has cloak, the situation would be different. Let's look at yet another situation, marauders against stalkers. If both sides a-move, clearly the marauder will win. However, if the stalker has blink, and uses blink well, the situation might turn out different as well.
Dustin Browder:
This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
I'm sure Browder and the rest of the design team are very smart, but I can't help but feel that they are stuck in their own little world.
For example I just don't understand Blizzards fascination with "meat shield units".
I mean honestly, every meat shield unit in SC2 is almost universally hated. Thor, Marauder, Roach, Immortal.
Blizzard unit design philosophy 101
Every race must have a dragoon!
A zerg dragoon!
A dragoon with stim!
Oh wait now protoss isn't as unique, we must make this meat-shield unit, more of a meat-shield!
Issues on Unit Design Heres a quote from their most recent interview on Heart of the Swarm.
David Kim:
As far as learning through the multiplayer, we learned that not everything works exactly as planned - the different roles for the units didn't work as well as we had planned. We planned to have the immortal be more of a meat shield, and have the hardened shield be one of the core mechanics; however, the burst damage ended up being the more important part of the unit.
David Kim: For example, the Overseer is not a cool unit, it's basically a glorfied scout at this point. We're looking at either taking out or replacing these units that aren't as cool. The other thing that we need to watch out is how these units interact in combination.
According to Blizzard the Overseer and Immortal are a high priority for redesign.
However the community thinks otherwise (by a huge margin).
how do you balance the game: we use pro feedbacks, forums, and stat
Balance process: we have to make sure the balance problem is real, then the balance design team will suggest a fix, if the suggestion solve the problem (should be through test sever), we will apply it to the game
Stat are garther accross bnet and tournament around the world. Currently winrate of all match up are close to 50% so we are satisfied. There is no obvious problem but we are ready to deal with anything pop up. The only recent change is to the 4 gate nerf in PvP to create more play styles. Early indication show that it was a successful patch.
Sen asked: close spawn on maps are zerg imba, is ther solution? we will fix it in the "next season"(?) with half of the current ladder map will be replaced.
Zerg too passive due to design? there is no way for us to know how pros playing the game. there are cases pros fixed things b4 the patch came out. There will be no big change coming out, at least not until HoTS came out. If we find a race is broken, we will most likely to fix it in HoTS. The chance of it being fixed in wings is really small.
Ladder maps are for all players so we intentionally have rush maps in ladder pool. So people in lower league can learn the game. We aware that this will cause pros wont have as much fun on ladder as casual gamers but we have confident that the community wont use the maps that dont work for them in tournaments play.
a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
but the rush are stronger than BW we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
(i cant really hear the question here, the woman speak in low voice =_=) something about HoTS we dont know yet, we are trying to make something that is worthy with this name and to last many years to come...
(they tried some kinda trick questions to make dustin reveal new units in HoTS multi) no we have no idea, we had some horrible stupid units in the pass like the Soul Hunter for example. We still discussing about it.
do you have a timetable to anounce new units? we dont know yet, we will when we have a good idea. "its done when its done"
it is confirmed that we will have new units in multi players. yes
are they being added or replace we dont know yet
beside new units whats gona change in multi players dont know, sorry
are you know but you are just avoiding? no, im truely dont know. i have some personal idea but my team could think its stupid. We will reveal it in blizzcon.
about starcraft 2 dota... you mean blizzard dota
yes, people asking when is it gona be releash we are wasting time, when its ready!
is there anything speacial about this map u wana talk about? its gona be awesome. we are working on the shops. we are recreating the heros completely new from last blizzcon. new systems, new features, new gameplay. we are hoping a game will be 20-30 minutes long compare to normal dota 30-45 minutes so that you can play more games.
all heros from last year has changed? yes
will you borrow stuff from war3 to dota? no,we are trying to design something new completely. the inventory and shop system still there but will be different. We dont know yet but we still working on it.
will there a cross region feature for GM in different sever? our current technology does not allow us to do that just yet. We will look into it but unlikely.
do you think sc2 is harder to watch compare to BW? unit clumps and AoE spell... (they tried to link this to balance design) unit clums means not "horrible pathing". For mordern RTS we NEED good pathing and we think its the future. Its is true that its harder to see if unit clumps but we are trying our best to solve that with the UI. About the AoE, i feel like it makes the battle much more fun to watch (micro challenging). If you dont think Sc2 is a good game to watch, BW is still out there and a lots of people still watch it. SC2 is a different game and different people. Please go back to BW if you think sc2 is not suited for you.
for different players skill are different. in sc2 every units DPS are higher than BW. this make battle happen too fast for lower league. Why dont we adjust the game according to player players? We thought about this but its better to learn the game from the beginning. The exp could be accumulated over time. If you need to learn something, we want you to learn the game as what it is.
more newer player we have added stuff to help them in the single players as well as practice league. We tried to relies mostly on tool to help people improve quickly in lower league.
Some question about the percentage of zerg workers (drone) compare to BW... calculation no, its just what player doing and its not intentional design. infact we expect that question when we decided we will have 2 gas geyser instead of 1 but it turns out ok...
picture taking, hand shaking etc...
edit: im on part 3/4 right now.... gona watch live on three and comeback edit2: done!
In the end its us who buys the games, and the pro-gamers who try to create interesting builds and fun games to watch that increases the longevity of the game. I believe the community should be listened to more, especially in interviews, rather than just refuting them with useless examples.
I'm pretty sure after a year of constant complaining, when Blizzard caved in and decided to make better maps, that there was an improvement. I mean even back then, the community was given terrible reasons for small maps, I don't see how its any different now with things like dynamic pathing, map control, etc.
It was just plain embarassing listening to the recent Browder / Sen interview, where every time some problematic issue was brought up, it was just ignored.
I hope Blizzard will listen to the community once more and make the drastic changes that are fundamental to the games progress as both a fun game and an E-Sport.
Probably the only real answer I've read in the entire thread. Even if I kind of disagree, it would be unfair not to put in the OP for objectivity.
On June 13 2011 03:25 theburricane wrote: Design is hard
Designing stuff is hard. Designing games is hard, designing thermostats is hard, designing web sites is hard. I think all of us will generally agree that this stuff is hard. But many people don’t know why it’s hard.
One of the reasons designing stuff is so hard is because there are no solutions to any problems, at least not in a larger, systemic view.
“But theburricane! What about chat channels at release? That seems like a pretty simple freakin’ thing to include that everybody and their dog wanted!”
Fair enough, if Blizz had included chat channels at release that would have solved the “have chat channels at release problem”. But if they had spent time on chat channels, something else would have had to fall off the radar. Maybe we would have had no Achievements.
“Pffft. Those are unimportant to competitive play.”
Perhaps we would have had no FFA matchmaking.
“Again, how does that affect the serious gamers?”
Maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps we wouldn’t have had the RealID friend system when the game launched.
“You mean facebook integration? Guffaw. Puh-lease.”
But you see the point? Design is not about solving problems, because those solutions will invariably cause problems elsewhere. Design is about making conscious tradeoffs to address the problems that are most impactful, and address them at the appropriate time.
Takeaway 1
I’m not saying “hey man, lay off Blizzard they’re tryin’ real hard here!” They are, but that’s no reason to lay off them. We simply have to sit down and ask, “Why is Blizzard making/not making this change at this time?” I guarantee you the answer is not because they have “bad communication”, are “blinded by their own pride”, or are “[fascinated] with ’meat shield units’.”.
Blizzard’s “bad communication”
It is easy to interpret good user research as bad communication. Research participants will make suggestions, “I think you should do X here”, but when they see the finished/updated product, their suggestions won’t be included. The designers will have implemented something that addresses that problem in a different way, and all the participant can see is “Well this solution doesn’t fix everything mine did! Why didn’t they go with what I had suggested?”
An example: Everybody and their dog says to Blizzard, “You really need to change your maps. Seriously, Steppes of War? Seriously?!” So Blizzard begins to add new maps into their map pool, and look to community feedback as to what maps they would like to see. “GSL maps, of course!” But when we finally get Tal’Darim Altar, it’s got a bunch of destructible rocks and giant chokes and crap.
“That’s not what we suggested! This doesn’t solve the problem. Look at LSPrime, he even gave them reasons why they shouldn’t do what they did. And they still did it. That’s aggravating.” (Of course, what LSPrime was arguing for, the imbalance achieved by a 3rd base with 8 minerals 2 gas, is something that will go unfelt by everyone up to very tippy-top of Masters League. How many of us have honestly thought to ourselves, “The third has 8 minerals?! Great, that means I can run Plexa’s Shock and Awe build more effectively once I take it!”, or something similar?)
However, from Blizzard’s perspective they are making balancing their solution so that it applies positively to every group. To simplify it, “We are giving the ‘competitive’ players larger maps, and we are giving the ‘casual’ players maps that limit their options enough to suggest clear goals.”
Takeaway 2
Think systemically when you encounter a solution different from the one you’ve proposed. Chances are either ‘solves’ the problem in an entirely different way, or it solves problems you didn’t even know existed.
Know your audience
It is very easy for us at teamliquid to labor under the misapprehension that we make up the majority of the SC2 community. Or that we + the reddit community are the majority. Or that we + all the online SC2 communities are the majority of SC2 players. But the truth is if you walked up to every SC2 player individually and said, “My opening build order is 10 depot, 12 rax, 13 gas” more than half would respond, “Why do you build 10 depots? Don’t you just have one SCV building depots the whole game?”
Most SC2 players lack even the basic vocabulary that we as a competitive community have developed as a tool to help us think critically and reflectively about the way we play. Most SC2 players don’t know why Steppes of War was removed, unless they’ve read the Blizzard Situation Report explaining why. They probably had no idea it was blacklisted by thousands of people.
Blizzard has the daunting, grizzling task of designing a product that meets the expectations and needs of an infinitely large and diverse user group. All designs suffer from this requirement to varying extent, but Blizzard in particular has a very polar user base. Bronze league 4v4ers versus Grandmasters 1v1 Rank 1.
Takeaway 3
When Blizzard designs for their broader user base, it feels like they are not listening to their competitive, online communities. Because we live in our dream world where everyone has a finely-crafted opening BO, aggressive yet thoughtful 3rd base timing, and over-arching gameplan, we can completely ignore the huge number of people who enter a game thinking nothing but “I’m going to make a forge right away so I can get a cannon up in case he zergling rushes me.”
When we encounter a decision by Blizzard that impacts us ‘negatively,’ we also need to think about the people who are being affected ‘positively’ and how their experience playing this game is going to change.
Overall takeaway
I have a lot of respect for sluggaslamoo, who took the time to voice the opinions of many community members. Specifically opnions regarding how Blizzard is out of touch with its player base via poor communication and decision making, even though they think they are right next to us, hwaiting all the way. Although I disagree with him whole-heartedly, I agree that the overall experience TL’ers have expressed, the feelings and emotions they have felt, over the past few months is that whatever Blizzard hands them is 50% treasure, 50% trash.
I think this is a mindset problem, however. We need to realize that what we as reflective, competitive gamers define as trash is really treasure for a gigantic number of ‘casual’, one-game-a-day players. They have extremely different needs than we do, and it is something Blizzard owes to everyone who pays them to play their game to provide the best experience possible. They have a duty to systemically support all of their user bases as they continue to design and implement two more expansions.
Although this answers the unexpected changes, the willingness to side-track and "share their knowledge of the game" rather than respond to the answer is not something that can be explained through logic, but more or less psychology and attitude.
Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored. So what was the purpose of the interview in the first place?
I believe this is part of the problem, they throw out questions, but when they are given an answer they don't like, it somehow doesn't register.
If you look at the poll released by BattleNet, the majority found destructible rocks as "They're annoying. I'd rather focus on the battle than watch rocks, and I don't like losing games because of a map that changes". So then if Blizzard needs to cater to the casuals as well, why were destructible rocks put on Tal Darim?
Catering to the casuals is also unnecessary. I have many friends that are extremely casual SC2 players. Will not play 1v1, will only do team mono-battles or starjeweled and left 2 die, to the one game a day semi-competitive players. Although your point addresses the thinking behind blizzard rather than what you actually desire.
I know, these guys would not care if there were a change in maps, units, etc. If units got harder, they would just use different ones that were easy to use (e.g lots of zerglings/hydras like beginners in BW).
The higher you go, the more changes have an effect. And when part of SC2's longevity is banking on televised games like BW, then I think this is quite important.
On June 13 2011 17:03 theburricane wrote: I agree with part of your. I like the idea of “going back to BW” for someone who doesn’t like SC2, just as I like the idea of someone going back to soccer if they find out they can’t get into basketball. But I agree it’s a really crappy way to defend a burgeoning design, especially when the issue you’re dealing with is the experience of a large group of people who have invested a lot of time, money, and effort into something new.
You’re right about the poll, 39% said destructible rocks suck, while only 11% said they’re great. However, 28% said they think “a changing map makes the game more interesting.” While I think “changing map” is a loaded term, the sentiment behind the answer is positive. The other 21% left gave a neutral answer. So 39% of people don’t like it and 61% are either neutral or like it. Not great, but not wretched either. If the poll appeared on TL I’m sure it would be much more heavily skewed towards the “rocks get out” side of the fence. (I’ve got a lot more problems with how that poll was designed, from a user research perspective, but I think that’s for another discussion.)
Even the idea that BattleNet is the forum of the unwashed masses is a fallacy. The bridge between the ‘casual’ players and those who visit BattleNet regularly is very wide. To be frank, I don’t have the numbers to back this up. I can’t tell you how many players are ‘casual’, how many are ‘semi-casual’, or anything like that. But I can tell you that it is a very regular phenomenon for the majority of users’/players’ experience with a product/game to end with their actual interaction with it.
People who love to play (American) football don’t necessarily contribute to the NFL fan forums. People who love playing games on their PS3s don’t necessarily contribute to the PlayStation community forums. People who love Call of Duty: Black Ops as a series don’t necessarily contribute to the official CoD forums. Hell, most people who play World of WarCraft don’t regularly visit and contribute to the WoW forums.
Therefore it stands to reason that a very large amount of SC2 players will have little to no interaction with even BattleNet, the “dregs” of the SC2 community. And part of supporting those people, from Blizzard’s standpoint at least, is transitioning them from very casual players to people who are invested in the game and the community.
If I were given the task of reverse-engineering Blizzard’s design choices on the matter I would say that the point of adding destructible rocks to these maps isn’t to make maps easier to digest for the lower-end players, it’s to make them question the choices they make in any game. Back when BW started, the idea of expanding was nuts. Like, why would you make a new base before your current base was mined out, wouldn’t that just keep you from building more units now? It was actually a stroke of inspiration that allowed someone to come up with the idea of a “fast expansion.” Things like Xel’Naga watchtowers and destructible rocks are there to facilitate that kind of inspiration in players whose SC2 experience only extends to what they and their bronze level opponents do.
Which brings us to what I believe is your most valid point. “SC2’s longevity is directly tied to the ‘high-level’, the televised games.” But I also believe that it’s tied to another thing: supporting the development of the casual base over the X years it takes for the expansions to come out, not only in terms of unit sales, but also in terms of getting the casual base to transition to consumers of the ‘high-level’, of the televised games. So what we should do is ask, “Do we think Blizzard’s current strategy is supporting both of these goals in the long-term?”
The easy answer is “No, we are seeing detrimental affects to the highest levels of play. Unless competitive play is completely balanced and supported by Blizzard, we shall not rest.” The hard answer is identifying where we’re willing to surrender to the ‘casuals’, and where we have to dig in our heels and demand that the pendulum swings in our direction.
I think it's a pretty ridiculous leap to conclude that the immortal is the most likely unit to be changed because they said "instead of the hardened shields people like it for the burst damage".
the developers/in-house testers never reach the skill level to adequately understand the game they create, but they sure do like to act like they understand
On June 12 2011 14:24 rawb wrote: I think it's a pretty ridiculous leap to conclude that the immortal is the most likely unit to be changed because they said "instead of the hardened shields people like it for the burst damage".
I think its pretty ridiculous to assume that its the only unit that will be changed. HotS may see tons of changes. Hell, just introducing new units might bring changes to existing unit functions.
the developers/in-house testers never reach the skill level to adequately understand the game they create, but they sure do like to act like they understand
I think SC2 is incredibly fun and fairly balanced. I play it everyday. I'm happy with the game Blizzard has made and the balance changes they've implemented so far. I would like a slightly better map pool but even that issue is relatively minor; I'm fairly pleased with the current pool.
On June 12 2011 14:26 Herper wrote: I wonder.. is it viable to bring back the reaver and take out the colossus?
they would have to change some stuff because scarabs with how much units clump and smart AI so they don't all fire at 1 unit would be so strong I would cry everytime I played against protoss :p
I'm fairly certain they want to remake the overseer because it doesn't fill its role well and is uninteresting, while the roach/marauder may be uninteresting, I'd say they do their respective jobs pretty well.
They're sometimes out of touch but they're not entirely off the chart right and wrong. They get some things right, that's for sure. Whatever game philosophy they have in mind doesn't always work out.
I can't help but agree. I think their methods to tell balance, although statistics, are not the correct approach of designing a game, and although the game will take years to be close to perfection, I feel they are taking the wrong steps such as the map pool of 1 rush map, 1 normal map, and 1 macro map in HotS.
I think maybe you, the OP, is out of touch? Blizzard has proven it listens to the community, and no, it can't make sweeping changes randomly in WoL. I would suggest you wait till HoS, where they're clearly going to take the game in a whole new direction.
so blizz doesn't think rush = evil, macro = good. so what?
and meat shields? marauders are just awesome against armored ground units. that makes them solely a meat shield....how? they might tank baneling damage, but that's about it. i agree their comments about immortals are weird though...
Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
But you barely have to micro immortals because of hardened shield, while if you don't position and micro colossi well they'll get killed by vikings or corruptors in a few seconds.
I don't understand. The blizzard interviews were talking about balance, unit roles etc. And you base the need for redesign on the "Most UNINTERESTING unit". What the fuck? Characteristics that contribute to a unit being "Uninteresting" don't exactly correlate with it's use and it's balance.
I could say x unit is uninteresting because I don't like it's colour...A more accurate poll would ask the question directly.
Will they plan on adding the DA/ Corsair / Arbiter / Reaver back in? They were pretty unique... especially the Reaver with its ultra slow movement that required some micro to use it or used in conjunction with the shuttle or warp prism. DA could be useful vs biological units with the maelstorm spell. Arbiters with the good ol mobility + recall into someone's base would be pretty fun...
hmm, the only really strong rush I find is the 2 rax bunker rush (coming from a terran)
it has very good potential to do great damage whether they know it's coming or not, and it has a good follow up as long as you don't lose everything for nothing
the game as a whole is pretty balanced, and certain races have advantages over each other at certain points of the game, but I don't see any glaring balance issues as a whole; the player who played better will win, and if someone loses we can point out where they went wrong 99% of the time
certain units are pretty boring though, colossus, marauder, and corrupter I'll agree with
When I learned that Dustin B also made Red Alert 2 everything just made sense... RA2 was a great game but its not SC... And I feel Dustin B made SC2 feel more like C&C than SC. I might be wrong, but hey that's how sometimes I feel the battles go.
On June 12 2011 14:30 DeepBlu2 wrote: I can't help but agree. I think their methods to tell balance, although statistics, are not the correct approach of designing a game, and although the game will take years to be close to perfection, I feel they are taking the wrong steps such as the map pool of 1 rush map, 1 normal map, and 1 macro map in HotS.
They dont look at only statistics, they also analyze games, have their in-house high level player and they regularly communicate with many other high level players (and pros)... all of this on top of statistics.
personally i think I should trust in the developers instead of the 'pros.' aka, 1 person named sen.
Developers went through this for years already and already explain how they collect data for balance. I don't think the developers should listen and give into the community easily because some of the time, the community doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. There might be a handful of people that have good opinions, but they can be hidden behind the massive zerg tears.
SC2 isn't a bad game by no measure, but compared to Brood War it does seem to lack something its predecessor had. However, its not really Blizzard's fault since even the most hardcore BW enthusiasts never really figured out what made BW entertaining until after SC2 came out.
It's easier to criticize when we have something to compare to BW.
so many comparisons to BW, people are really expecting it to be BW plus new graphics and better UI. I don't know how many times people have to say "it's a different game" before people start to realize that while the games are similar, they still are different games.
The colossus is actually a pretty fascinating unit, being vulnerable to AtA while only hitting ground and cliff walking. What biases the poll, is that they are used so often because other tech routes are generally less popular, since the robotics gives access to observers etc etc. Blizzard is very clearly in touch with the community more so than any other game company by a long shot. Just because they don't make the changes you want them to, doesn't mean they haven't heard your suggestions. As far as balance, it also is clearly close, just look at 3 recent tournaments with a mostly Terran GSL, all Protoss Star Wars, and mostly Zerg MLG in this last week or so. If the game was far off balance, such wouldn't happen. Still, game play issues were meant to be further addressed and refined by tournament maps, which was left to the community to explore. Bashing Blizzard is not only unhelpful, it's just a waste of time.
Or maybe they think these things aren't actually problems, and have tons of knowledge about the game that other people don't have to base their facts off of? What SC2 lacks is the hard mechanical requirements of Brood War that truly separated top people from okay people, whereas in SC2 with a good build order and a bit of luck anyone can beat the best player in the world. It's just too easy of a game at the highest levels and it doesn't reward multitasking and speed nearly as much. That's what feels empty about Starcraft 2, not "uninteresting design of the colossus (which I don't even see as true, how is it any less interesting than any other unit in the game? because it doesn't require tons of micro? neither do 9/10 other units) ". Stuff feels imba when it's not, it's just powerful in certain situations and if that situation arises there is nothing you can do.
As for stuff like "early rushes being too strong", most of them are being figured out anyway. It's not like this is the first month where everyone did a one base and hoped that one base beat someone else's.
On June 12 2011 14:27 IPA wrote: I think SC2 is incredibly fun and fairly balanced. I play it everyday. I'm happy with the game Blizzard has made and the balance changes they've implemented so far. I would like a slightly better map pool but even that issue is relatively minor; I'm fairly pleased with the current pool.
Do you think it is a bad game?
Its a good game, but it could be so much better. It's probably the best modern RTS that's out. But as a bw successor, I find it disappointing. I don't have much fun playing it anymore and find it highly overrated, but I'll definitely jump back on when HotS is out to see the changes and for the story.
I always wonder how much Browder follows the pro scene and plays his own game, it seems hes just like WELL THIS UNIT LOOKS SUPER KEWL BETTER PUT IT IN THE GAME!
Of course blizzard is out of touch with the community. You can see this in things like the fact they keep crap maps that everyone hates in the pool for so long, like Steppes... and DQ is STILL in the pool.
Meanwhile every major tournament has eliminated close positions because of the obvious imbalances it creates, and they have fixed the ramps with neutral depots. But blizzard is still behind the curve on this as well.
No one is whining about the overseer not being "cool." You don't see huge engagements with overseers... You see colossi stupidly standing in the back of an army and shooting lasers everywhere.
I don't see how the Colossus isn't interesting. It may need to be tweaked for better balance but uninteresting isn't the word I would use. It's a giant robot that shoots dual lazers across hordes of enemies. Seems pretty cool to me.
Mothership and battlecruiser is what I would consider boring and not all that great. I don't play zerg but I find just about all of their units interesting to watch and play against.
Haha interviews like this crack me up. Browder dodges some questions and hints that they want to change some units. He brings up units that are at or near bottom of list. Then threads like this are created so he gets his answers from the players. His approach is kinda trolling but works. After months of Col QQ I'll say in the interview we'll change immortal and overseer that'll get em going.
On June 12 2011 14:35 Lokian wrote: personally i think I should trust in the developers instead of the 'pros.' aka, 1 person named sen.
Developers went through this for years already and already explain how they collect data for balance. I don't think the developers should listen and give into the community easily because some of the time, the community doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. There might be a handful of people that have good opinions, but they can be hidden behind the massive zerg tears.
No... Simply no. The developpers are there to make a game with enough units to have diversified games and relatively fair matches. But they will never have the deep comprehension of the game a pro gamer has. They don't play 10/12 hours every day, they don't win money by playing the game. All they did was putting relatively fair numbers fopr units at the start so progamers can start with something, but now they need to listen to the community.
Collecting data for balance isn't the best thing to do either. The game needs to be balanced at the highest level possible, but only a few percentage of the players playing on the ladder are at this level. The only way this could work if is they only collect data from grandmaster league, but even then it could only mean players are better than others. I don't think win/loss data is the way to go about balance; recurrences (like when a matchup is always dominated by 1 kind of unit, or 1 kind of strategy) mean a lot more IMO.
But I don't think balance is a big problem IMO; we only need to let the game live longer to solve this issue. The real problem is that most of the units used in matchups are not appealing and fun to play. Roaches are too often used, wich is against the feeling of the playing zerg where you are supposed to have weak but quick units running around the map.
On June 12 2011 14:29 Skwid1g wrote: I'm fairly certain they want to remake the overseer because it doesn't fill its role well and is uninteresting, while the roach/marauder may be uninteresting, I'd say they do their respective jobs pretty well.
yea, roaches and marauders win games pretty easily, that's their job right?
On June 12 2011 14:44 AfroJimbo wrote: What do you mean by 'uninteresting'?
I don't see how the Colossus isn't interesting. It may need to be tweaked for better balance but uninteresting isn't the word I would use. It's a giant robot that shoots dual lazers across hordes of enemies. Seems pretty cool to me.
Mothership and battlecruiser is what I would consider boring and not all that great. I don't play zerg but I find just about all of their units interesting to watch and play against.
Do you mean weak units?
Uninteresting in that they have overreaching utility but very little micro or thought behind em. Collosus i just poop out of my robo and park behind my units. They look cool, but the fact that i can just sit there and oogle at it's pretty lasers and not really need to do much else make it pretty boring.
It wouldn't be that bad if they weren't such a pivotal part of a protoss army, but as of right now they are THE most pivotal part in many cases.
Dustin Browder: Let's look at yet another situation, marauders against stalkers. If both sides a-move, clearly the marauder will win. However, if the stalker has blink, and uses blink well, the situation might turn out different as well.
Steamed marauders get owned by blink stalkers ?.....really ?
On June 12 2011 14:44 AfroJimbo wrote: What do you mean by 'uninteresting'?
I don't see how the Colossus isn't interesting. It may need to be tweaked for better balance but uninteresting isn't the word I would use. It's a giant robot that shoots dual lazers across hordes of enemies. Seems pretty cool to me.
Mothership and battlecruiser is what I would consider boring and not all that great. I don't play zerg but I find just about all of their units interesting to watch and play against.
Do you mean weak units?
No, he means interesting as in it requires micro and has a lot of creative uses. The problem with the colossus is that it moves very slowly and cannot be micro'd very much, and that it is pretty much used to get a deathball and then push.
On June 12 2011 14:44 AfroJimbo wrote: What do you mean by 'uninteresting'?
I don't see how the Colossus isn't interesting. It may need to be tweaked for better balance but uninteresting isn't the word I would use. It's a giant robot that shoots dual lazers across hordes of enemies. Seems pretty cool to me.
Mothership and battlecruiser is what I would consider boring and not all that great. I don't play zerg but I find just about all of their units interesting to watch and play against.
Do you mean weak units?
Uninteresting in that they have little utility and little micro. Collosus i just poop out of my robo and park behind my units. They look cool, but the fact that i can just sit there and oogle at it's pretty lasers and not really need to do much else make it pretty boring.
It wouldn't be that bad if they weren't such a pivotal part of a protoss army, but as of right now they are THE most pivotal part in many cases.
honestly, SC2 has had so many unit ideas from Command and Conquer since Browder came into power. Dustin, we want you to know that SC1 was much more popular than C&C for a reason..
On June 12 2011 14:44 AfroJimbo wrote: What do you mean by 'uninteresting'?
I don't see how the Colossus isn't interesting. It may need to be tweaked for better balance but uninteresting isn't the word I would use. It's a giant robot that shoots dual lazers across hordes of enemies. Seems pretty cool to me.
Mothership and battlecruiser is what I would consider boring and not all that great. I don't play zerg but I find just about all of their units interesting to watch and play against.
Do you mean weak units?
No, he means interesting as in it requires micro and has a lot of creative uses. The problem with the colossus is that it moves very slowly and cannot be micro'd very much, and that it is pretty much used to get a deathball and then push.
On June 12 2011 14:44 AfroJimbo wrote: What do you mean by 'uninteresting'?
I don't see how the Colossus isn't interesting. It may need to be tweaked for better balance but uninteresting isn't the word I would use. It's a giant robot that shoots dual lazers across hordes of enemies. Seems pretty cool to me.
Mothership and battlecruiser is what I would consider boring and not all that great. I don't play zerg but I find just about all of their units interesting to watch and play against.
Do you mean weak units?
I'd say its uninteresting because of the type of games it produces. The unit itself maybe interesting, but the problem is it forces cat and mouse chase or long stalemate once you get to 200/200. It also makes worse the infamous 1a deathballs into 3 second clash that many people are complaining about.
The Terran is too afraid to attack because of the AoE damage of the colossus and the fact that it doesn't have to seige to do that damage, so you can't really catch a colossus off guard except with vikings. Unfortunately for the vikings you have blink stalkers and phoenixs so its hard to engage.
At the same time the Protoss is too afraid to engage because of viking snipes, ghosts and stim-marauder dps. So you end up with a huge stalemate till someone decides to attack and the battle is ended and won in 3 seconds.
I'm sure someone will whine to me about all the things players can do to prevent this, but I'm merely stating my view off what I've seen in progames.
I seriously believe the only problem with SC2's design is.....
Dustin Browder himself.
I mean really, he gives the GODDAMN WORST interviews ever. He has this "I'm too good for you people" attitude when talking about SC2, and is doesn't really come off as a smart guy. I know they hired him based on his experience on RTS design, but he really doesn't have much of a career on that field either, I mean, C&C RA2 and generals weren't really THAT good,they were barely decent.
I truly feel that Dustin is hurtful to SC2's design and to blizzard as a whole, and shows a huge difference from what Blizzard design used to mean. I'm not sure I can explain it too well. He just... doesn't feel right at all.
On June 12 2011 14:48 DannyJ wrote: Uninteresting in that they have overreaching utility but very little micro or thought behind em. Collosus i just poop out of my robo and park behind my units. They look cool, but the fact that i can just sit there and oogle at it's pretty lasers and not really need to do much else make it pretty boring.
Not to mention those pretty lazers mostly just clutter up the screen and reduce visual clarity. Ultra-flashy visual effects should be reserved for campaign only units.
On June 12 2011 14:53 Dommk wrote: I don't get how the Colossus is the most uninteresting unit.
It is a 9range AOE unit that can be attacked by air and move up and down cliffs
How is that not interesting?
You're right that it's not the most uninteresting unit - that would be the marauder or immortal - but that it can be attacked by air and walk up cliffs just makes it a quasi-flying unit, really. The most interesting thing about it is that it deals damage by converging on a point with two lines, but unfortunately it attacks so fast that micro (or counter-micro) isn't much of a factor.
On June 12 2011 14:49 Razyel wrote: Dustin Browder: Let's look at yet another situation, marauders against stalkers. If both sides a-move, clearly the marauder will win. However, if the stalker has blink, and uses blink well, the situation might turn out different as well.
Steamed marauders get owned by blink stalkers ?.....really ?
Yeah, this was very confusing. I literally had no basis for understanding it.
On June 12 2011 14:44 jdseemoreglass wrote: Meanwhile every major tournament has eliminated close positions because of the obvious imbalances it creates. But blizzard is still behind the curve on this as well.
To defend them a little bit, I can somewhat understand why lower-mid level players prefer closer spawn positions in the map pool; it's a bit simpler and games don't take as long. Of course that's no excuse for it, since I still don't see what's wrong with using different map pools for different league (i.e. diamond+ don't have close spawns).
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
actually if we're going by tournament player feedback, capcom outclasses blizzard easily.
I think you are grossly misinformed about the amount of player feedback the developers get ;o, David Kim quite literally PM'd Minigun whilst he was in a game and asked him what he thought about a change... AFAIK, the vast majority of Pro players get polled on the state of balance, at least that is the way PainUser was making it out to be when he was on SOTG
blizzard balancing sc2 is not based entirely on stats FYI. they listen to pros/community/ladder/games... almost everything I can ever think of anyways...
here's why Pro gamers suck at balancing the game: They wan't their race to be more powerful so they can get more money. Why do you think they're playing SC2? Cuz its a good game? For money. Pros will be pros. Why would they want other races to be more powerful, get what I mean? Theres a lot of facades in pros IMO. The community can be lackluster in experience. Blizzard shoudl rely on specific games / overall games more than other sources IMO.
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and the way Dustin Browder responds to a lot of questions, and slag pits.
Col are awesome. I think the most uninteresting unit is the roach by far. Dustin Browder gets tons of flack but sc2 turned out to be an awesome game with tons of people playing it so I have to give credit where credit is due. There's obviously tons of things I hate about sc2 but it's by far better than any other game and it's tough to live up to the legend that is bw. Even with bw the game wasn't even closed to balanced for a really long time and I'm not sure why it took so long to nerf zerg so that people couldn't ling rush every game.
The main problem is that even Blizzard's most skilled employee is several levels of skill lower than a top tier professional. It will probably be 1-2 years for Blizzard to figure out why skill isn't being rewarded nearly enough
Any Code B scrub would wipe the floor with him. Look, what I see here is Blizzard may listen to the community and pros and be all the good we want them to be but Dustin Browder is the figurehead and he can't go a single interview without looking bad and saying things that don't add up. I'll base my opinions of starcraft 2 ON starcraft 2 and let my concerns and complaints be known instead of targeting one person.
Dustin Browder is comes across as the king of the kiddy pool standing in the ocean shouting his superiority. Just don't listen to him and hope they don't put any more stupid references to him into the game.
-Colossus is the most uninteresting replacement for the reaver they could have done. Jinro said it better than I can.
-Immortal pretty much kills mech in TvP which I hate, it's a boring unit that's only purpose in the game is making sure you don't invest too much on building whatever it counters. Not interesting.
-Overseer is a glorified scout. Zerg was fine with overlords detecting, why did this need to be complicated? Waste of a unit slot.
We're at the point where Blizzard needs to stop thinking about "cool unit ideas" and look at the bigger picture. What would be cool for the matchups?
edit: if there was a 4th pick I'd go with corruptor. They could have definitly made that more interesting.
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and slag pits.
They introduced Slag pits because in actual fact, people who played ladder liked those kinds of maps. Tal'Darin is currently the 8th least down voted map (Bottom 3). They wanted a mix of maps
I don't know what moving shot has to do with anything, you can easily look at some change and act as if there was a big player uproar, in the same vain, the Roach range buff to 4 range received a huge uproar--pro players were saying it was a bad change, some good Zergs saying it should have been 3.5 Range instead of 4range...6months later the unit isn't that amazing.
And how much insight do you actually have in development? Unless you've seen first hand how they communicate with players, I don't think you should be making outlandish statements
Blizzard employees and community managers are extremely aware at both the state of the game and its players. They read almost every popular community website on a day-to-day basis, and while fans may find their resolution lacking, it is without a doubt that they try their best to find a compromise between their vision of the game and our own.
Well, before we truly learn what changes HotS will bring im not going to lambaste blizz, but there definitely is one thing they are simply letting us down with - close positions. Like really, just make the change blizz
The only way for S class players to always beat B Class players is to change AI movement back to BW. Make it so you can't select a lot of units at once. Instead you need five hotkeys for zerg army and maybe 2 for the rest. Take out production units queueing up with a single button.
Make controlling harder, remove easy macro... Basically make everything retarded so that pros can gain meaningless 'skills' that seperates them from players that can't handle high APM and precision.
This will definitely give the koreans the advantage since everyone else won't spend days memorizing keystrokes and crap.
You know what that is... it's like playing an instrument. And maybe 20% game. BW... is like a full blown orchestral piece now.
Well, look. Games should have less to do with non-gaming 'skills' and more with decisions like chess. This is why a lot of top players lose, since its basically whoever outsmarts the other, or get lucky. And sc2 complexity is not comparable to chess since there's too much room for mistakes
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and slag pits.
They introduced Slag pits because in actual fact, people who played ladder liked those kinds of maps. Tal'Darin is currently the 8th least down voted map (Bottom 3). They wanted a mix of maps
I don't what moving shot has to do with anything, you can easily look at some change and act as if there was a big player uproar, in the same vain, the Roach range buff to 4 range received a huge uproar--pro players were saying it was a bad change, some good Zergs saying it should have been 3.5 Range instead of 4range...6months later the unit isn't that amazing.
And how much insight do you actually have in development? Unless you've seen first hand how they communicate with players, I don't think you should be making outlandish statements
Explain shattered temple and xel naga caverns being the top 1v1 maps on multiplayer custom?
If you look at many of the TL articles that arose in BETA looking for change, then look at the changes that were made due to those articles. You would see that the problem domain addressed by Blizzard and the solution created, was not what the article was looking for.
For example moving shot (please read the article). It did not ask for phoenix's to shoot while moving (without even needing to attack), it asked for more micro-ability such as moving shot for all air-units. E.g mutalisk, phoenix, viking, etc.
I feel its something Blizzard needs to improve in.
Dustin Browder says that some of the ladder maps are still in the map pool to add more variety to a entire spectrum of players, both hardcore and casual. Rush maps are included, because apparently casual players like them, which I find hard to believe. Problem is, there are two types of "casual players", those that don't play competitively, and those who have no time to play competitively. For those who play for fun and not competitively, they don't really care in the first place. Those who have no time to play competitively probably prefer to have maps that don't involve rushing. The rest of the people, those caught in between "casual" and "pro", probably want non-rush maps as well. I mean, think about it, if you follow Starcraft & the SC2 competitive scene, then you'd like to play on the maps pros play, use strats the pros use.
Secondly, just because a map is a large map or "macro favored" (what Blizzard calls macro favored, I actually call standard), does not mean that all-in/aggressive strats cannot be used. They'll be less effective, but the ultimate goal of the map pool should be to have maps where all styles of play can be utilized, not individual maps where a single style should be used.
And, I posted this up before, but I'll post it again: In BW, there is this unit called a hydralisk. It has 2 upgrades, one for range, and one for speed. It has no extra functions, except for morphing into a lurker. It is cheap to produce and easy to mass. It is, in a sense, the perfect A-move unit. It is used in the staple of ZvP. However, you NEVER A-Move this unit. Protoss had Psi Storm and Reavers. You have to storm dodge to get the most out of your hydralisks, and have to scourge the shuttles/move hydras out of the way to not lose your army. An A-Move unit ceases to be an A-move unit as soon as it becomes necessary to micro them.
Of course they are out of touch, they have other job other than watching SC2 VODS all day and read forums.
Hell, I'd even say they are doing a hell of a job by having their devs play the game to see how they feel whereas not many developers would do that.
Also this is a key answer that you seem to have interpreted badly IMO:
Dustin Browder: no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
They provides us the tool(game) for us to do as we please. Hell, he even said that he will pass the complaint to the balance team. I don't know what you want, for them to read TL? For them to hire pro gamers with little to no experience in game design (probably) to help with something as fickle as blance, or something as subjective as fun? Sponsor a nerd to play Random all day at top level in tourneys so they can get feedback from him?Or just let the community develop the game(seriously a lot of the balance threads just give out flat out terrible ideas)
Seriously, they only have 1 job, to develop a game, if you don't find it interesting or fun, its ok don't play it nobody will think any less from you.
And seriously Pride issue? Do you seriously think that a lot of people are so collectively petty that they won't acknowledge that they made a mistake? Is Blizzard a Hive mind? Do they fire people who don't agree with DB? Do they really want to potentially lose a lot of money just because of pride?
One thing I can agree with you is this: In the end its us who buys the games, and the pro-gamers who try to create interesting builds and fun games to watch that increases the longevity of the game.
Exactly, its us the gamers the ones who give life to the game. Developers just give us the tools to play around with.
I believe the community should be listened to more, especially in interviews, rather than just refuting them with useless examples.
They are listening to the community,thing is that the community doesn't even freaking know what they want, because the community is not a f@$#@ing Hive mind.I'd even say that they have spoiled the community with so many balance patches. Every single time a strategy that seems to have any kind of potential emerges a large part of the community cries "IMBA" instead of adapting(and seriously I can't stress it enough the community is not a Hive mind) maybe its because I am used to BW but seriously, after the last patch came in 2002(?) we kinda just accepted the game as it was and dealt with it.
They(the developers) are doing their best, they have stated that they listed to the community, that they see pro games, that they are in contact with pro gamers. Seriously what do you want? For them to cater to you? Its obvious that the community has a lot of different views about ...everything.
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and slag pits.
They introduced Slag pits because in actual fact, people who played ladder liked those kinds of maps. Tal'Darin is currently the 8th least down voted map (Bottom 3). They wanted a mix of maps
I don't what moving shot has to do with anything, you can easily look at some change and act as if there was a big player uproar, in the same vain, the Roach range buff to 4 range received a huge uproar--pro players were saying it was a bad change, some good Zergs saying it should have been 3.5 Range instead of 4range...6months later the unit isn't that amazing.
And how much insight do you actually have in development? Unless you've seen first hand how they communicate with players, I don't think you should be making outlandish statements
Explain shattered temple and xel naga caverns being the top 1v1 maps on multiplayer custom?
If you look at many of the TL articles that arose in BETA looking for change, then look at the changes that were made due to those articles. You would see that the problem domain addressed by Blizzard and the solution created, was not what the article was looking for.
For example moving shot (please read the article). It did not ask for phoenix's to shoot while moving (without even needing to attack), it asked for more micro-ability such as moving shot for all air-units. E.g mutalisk, phoenix, viking, etc.
I feel its something Blizzard needs to improve in.
Yeah I remember reading the article and saying to myself "yeah, I miss how I could do that with corsairs, that should totally be in the game. Bring a bit more micro to it." Then they changed the pheonix, and I was confused. I did want it to to be able to move and shoot, but not like this.... I feel stupid right clicking, watching them shoot :/
I'll wait until the HotS multiplayer preview to make any judgements, but for a set of developers out of touch, they sure have been doing a good job with the patches.
I think it's just that they wanted to "save something" for the expansions, but they don't want to say "Yeah, the Reaver is cool enough we figured you'd spend an extra $20 for it", so it comes off as muddied. (And, lest we start throwing around the phrase Acti-Blizzard, SC1 did this too, to get people to buy Brood War). Also, just because Blizzard doesn't explicitly say "HERP DE DERP WE FUCKED UP WITH THE COLOSSUS", doesn't mean that they're not aware that it has issues.
They may also want to deal with the Colo issue indirectly, by introducing a new unit that interacts with it in an interesting way, or something like that. The Colossus itself is not conceptually flawed (High AOE damage, but big, can be hit as both a ground unit and as an air unit, and low health. Super glass cannon). The problem is that it's too hard to properly snipe them, so a protoss just kind of has to keep his gateway units in the front. If, for instance, HotS brought the Scourge back, the Colossus would become indirectly more interesting in that matchup because P would have to be more careful with it.
tl;dr: Blizzard often lies, and they may want to fix units like the colossus by adding a better way to snipe them, which brings it in line with the original design idea.
People also SEVERELY underestimate how hard fine-tuning something like this can be.
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and slag pits.
They introduced Slag pits because in actual fact, people who played ladder liked those kinds of maps. Tal'Darin is currently the 8th least down voted map (Bottom 3). They wanted a mix of maps
I don't what moving shot has to do with anything, you can easily look at some change and act as if there was a big player uproar, in the same vain, the Roach range buff to 4 range received a huge uproar--pro players were saying it was a bad change, some good Zergs saying it should have been 3.5 Range instead of 4range...6months later the unit isn't that amazing.
And how much insight do you actually have in development? Unless you've seen first hand how they communicate with players, I don't think you should be making outlandish statements
If you look at many of the TL articles that arose in BETA looking for change, then look at the changes that were made due to those articles. You would see that the problem domain addressed by Blizzard and the solution created, was not what the article was looking for.
For example moving shot (please read the article). It did not ask for phoenix's to shoot while moving (without even needing to attack), it asked for more micro-ability such as moving shot for all air-units. E.g mutalisk, phoenix, viking, etc.
I feel its something Blizzard needs to improve in.
People who create TL articles are not infallible nor does it mean they never took it into consideration. Phoenix still remain as one of the more APM intensive units in this game right now.
It is very easy to sit back in the comfort of your own home and make fallacious statements about Blizzard and how they develop this game but unless you actually interact with Blizzard (as some pro players do) or know first hand what the development process is like, your argument is made up of nothing more than logical fallacies and anecdotal evidence
Explain shattered temple and xel naga caverns being the top 1v1 maps on multiplayer custom?
How can I possibly explain that? I have no idea why people like the maps that they do, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they DO like it.
But there is a need to keep variety within the pool, they have made their point pretty clear that ladder maps are not meant to be the same as tournament maps...or rather the ladder has a different purpose, if there is overlap (which there will always be) then it works out well, but just because Slag pits is in the map pool does not mean tournaments have to use it.
Also a pretty interesting note, (well reading a post from Jinro), David Kim is the person who created Xel'Naga Caverns.
On June 12 2011 15:07 DannyJ wrote: Well, before we truly learn what changes HotS will bring im not going to lambaste blizz, but there definitely is one thing they are simply letting us down with - close positions. Like really, just make the change blizz
According to the Sen/Browder interview, this apparently will be addressed in the next season with the new maps, which is in....July, I think? 3 month seasons?
the developers/in-house testers never reach the skill level to adequately understand the game they create, but they sure do like to act like they understand
David Kim has been top 200 NA Random player for almost forever. Only recently has he dropped to top 300. Matthew Cooper has also been pretty close, but about 100 ranks lower (assuming that the highest ranked Gnome I see in the NA ranking is Matthew Cooper's account).
I think it's same to assume from this that David Kim understands the game at a high "enough" level.
Also, I agree with others this OP is assuming or making things more serious or bad looking for Blizzard than they are.
we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
That's all that needs to be said. People have GOT to stop comparing them. Stop the maps without xelnaga towers, or rocks, etc. Things that make SC2 good make SC2 good. We want SC2, not BW 12 year expansion pack.
Again, the game isn't even a year old yet. Remember that.
Its not like theres a communication issue, I feel that is more of a pride issue. It's hard to believe a lot these issues aren't known by Blizzard, but it feels more like they are blinded by their own pride, and therefore these issues don't exist, to them.
I would like to point out that Blizzard has made a lot of balance fixes that have significantly weakened rushes. So I don't understand the issue.
Here are some examples of what people DON'T mean when they talk about micro.
Then those people should explain themselves better. If you just mean "movement micro" or "positioning micro" or "non-special-ability micro", then you should say so. They can't read your mind.
A zerg dragoon!
Which was a lot less "Dragoonish" when it was in development. Back when it was Tier 2 and had 100Hp. Blame the balance of the game, not the original design of the unit.
A dragoon with stim!
Which allows Barracks play to not be completely useless against the Protoss and Terran the way it was in SC1.
Oh wait now protoss isn't as unique, we must make this meat-shield unit, more of a meat-shield!
Except that the Immortal was first. The Marauder certainly was not designed before the Immortal. The Marauder was introduced in early 2008; the Immortal was shown off in the initial reveal in mid-2007.
Your knowledge of SC2's development history is sadly lacking.
According to Blizzard the Overseer and Immortal are a high priority for redesign.
However the community thinks otherwise (by a huge margin).
Shocking though it may be to believe, Blizzard did not go through every unit and give a thumbs up/down vote on it in their interview. They mentioned two; that doesn't mean that those were the only two they were taking a look at. And they didn't even say that the Immortal was being redesigned. The Overseer one was an example of a unit that wasn't working, and it's hard to deny that this is true.
The Colossus is many things. But it certainly works. The poll was about the least interesting units, not the least functional ones. So for all you know, they're in complete agreement with the community. Nobody asked them directly about the Colossus being a boring unit.
Also, I trust Blizzard more than the community on this. I guarantee you that most of the votes for "Colossus" just want Reavers back, and that's no way to design a sequel. I personally have no particular love for the Colossus, but I absolutely don't want to see Reavers return. I want something new.
Yeah SC2 is of course fun and all, but as a Zerg player, I never liked the Roach from the beginning, I mean, they just look lame. Did anyone at any point looked at the Roach and have said, "Wow, that thing looks so cool.. or wow they look so bad ass"?? And I dont like that fact the blizzard did not know what to do with the lame ass unit they have already created and tweaked it so many times. Oh and corrupters are pretty lame too..
Baneling on other hand were nicely designed and has the wow factor.
The reason I still trust blizzard is for two reason.
A. Their track record is amazing. They haven't given me any reason to doubt them.
B. This game still has two expansions. Blizzard is extremely smart. They have two chances to add units or adjust them to fit the style of game play they want. The game we play now and the complaints we have will be moot points in a few years when the final product is in place.
If anything, I feel that there are too many units right now. There was a speculation of taking away units in HotS and future expansions and I think this is just a very poor design, units should never actually be removed.
Also there is a problem with adding 'new' units across the board - there aren't THAT many unique attributes to a unit, you'll eventually end up with slight overlap in abilities/design and then people will whine that 'omg it's the same unit'
On June 12 2011 15:05 Lovedrop wrote: Blizzard employees and community managers are extremely aware at both the state of the game and its players. They read almost every popular community website on a day-to-day basis, and while fans may find their resolution lacking, it is without a doubt that they try their best to find a compromise between their vision of the game and our own.
Unfortunately SC2 isn't so much a piece of design that identifies its artist's style; its a game, an interactive tool of competition, used by millions. All competition requires (and undergoes) changes to address the needs of those who play, either to make it more difficulty, more easy, or even more interesting.
The way Blizzard has gone about SC2 has been very authoritarian, and very presumptuous. They force ideas and concepts onto the community despite feedback that it simply doesn't work or is wanted. Chat channels is the glorified example of Blizzard's mentality towards the community; examine how long it took them to finally "cave" into the wishes of the community and further, for implementation of the feature.
But even for this thread, examining a unit - the reaper, which we had to suffer two months of 5 rax reaper before blizzard finally nerfed it into oblivion, which really only existed because of the "cool idea" to give it an impossibly cheap speed upgrade in the first place.
And even the corrupter, where Browder has admitted numerous times they had no fucking idea what to do with it as far as ability, or even attack went, but stayed in the game for god knows why? Because it looks cool? Yet they admit the Archon could have been on the cutting table.
Dear teamliquid, some of you put far too much blind faith into blizzard just because of their past 'record' and the fact they are 'game developers'. They are not supreme, mensa-like beings. They are humans with ideas, and some of their ideas worked, and some of them didn't.
Being critical of the game doesn't mean you hate it. The OP of this thread is very critical of the game design but calmly and professionally presents the information in such an eloquent way. The more you can be critical of the game, the more blizzard can hear your voices, and the more your ideas can help make the game better in the long run, because the game is made for the community, not for blizzard.
On June 12 2011 14:32 nalgene wrote: Will they plan on adding the DA/ Corsair / Arbiter / Reaver back in? They were pretty unique... especially the Reaver with its ultra slow movement that required some micro to use it or used in conjunction with the shuttle or warp prism. DA could be useful vs biological units with the maelstorm spell. Arbiters with the good ol mobility + recall into someone's base would be pretty fun...
The Phoenix is far, far, FAR superior compared to the Corsair. The Graviton Beam makes mass air much more useful compared to... the Disruption Web. It actually makes Phoenixes much more viable. Not only that, their move shot allows them to kite Mutalisks while taking no damage. At best, Corsairs could only move shot Mutalisks while being on the offensive.
The Reaver is good. But I abuse the fact that Colossi can shoot regardless of whether or not it's up on the high ground. The Reaver's Scarab AI depends on ground pathing. This doesn't really show an improvement of performance in units from BW to SC2.
Dark Archons barely see any use. They're not as useful as you'd think. High Templars already have Feedback as their native spell, any decent Protoss will still use Forcefields to trap Zerg units (thereby having virtually the same effect as Maelstrom), and we already see how Mind Control is being used through Neural Parasite. There's only an offensive use, and there's no real bonus in controlling enemy units in SC2 in any other way.
The only thing I agree with is replacing the Mothership with the Arbiter. Vortex is an overall downgrade from Stasis Field, and other than that the Mothership is a glorified Arbiter that comes with spells without research.
If it hasn't been said, then I'll just point out that their target market isn't really ESPORTS, sadly.
They're looking to make real money, not ESPORTS DOLLARS, even if they might make more money by making more ESPORTS DOLLARS, it might not make sense to their marketing team. Eh.
But David Kim is usually pretty intelligent when he talks, and he's the balance designer, not Browder.
EDIT: Also, the players want a lot of things. I personally don't think SC2 should be democratically designed. Especially with how often the metagame changes at this stage in SC2.
Wow didn't know/remember that the Arbiter needed to research stuff, I always thought the Mothership was weird after realizing it was pretty much an Arbiter. But I guess that's slightly wrong.
You say Vortex is an overall downgrade; that may be true, but I just want to say I really like how you can use Vortex with splash to do a shit ton of damage. It really adds to the late late game power of Protoss. I just hope we get to the late late game more xD
On June 12 2011 14:32 nalgene wrote: Will they plan on adding the DA/ Corsair / Arbiter / Reaver back in? They were pretty unique... especially the Reaver with its ultra slow movement that required some micro to use it or used in conjunction with the shuttle or warp prism. DA could be useful vs biological units with the maelstorm spell. Arbiters with the good ol mobility + recall into someone's base would be pretty fun...
The Phoenix is far, far, FAR superior compared to the Corsair. The Graviton Beam makes mass air much more useful compared to... the Disruption Web. It actually makes Phoenixes much more viable. Not only that, their move shot allows them to kite Mutalisks while taking no damage. At best, Corsairs could only move shot Mutalisks while being on the offensive.
The Reaver is good. But I abuse the fact that Colossi can shoot regardless of whether or not it's up on the high ground. The Reaver's Scarab AI depends on ground pathing. This doesn't really show an improvement of performance in units from BW to SC2.
Dark Archons barely see any use. They're not as useful as you'd think. High Templars already have Feedback as their native spell, any decent Protoss will still use Forcefields to trap Zerg units (thereby having virtually the same effect as Maelstrom), and we already see how Mind Control is being used through Neural Parasite. There's only an offensive use, and there's no real bonus in controlling enemy units in SC2 in any other way.
The only thing I agree with is replacing the Mothership with the Arbiter. Vortex is an overall downgrade from Stasis Field, and other than that the Mothership is a glorified Arbiter that comes with spells without research.
Agreed, the phoenix is a better unit, except for the fact that it can shoot while moving without any micro, which is silly. Kiting should be done actively, not passively.
I have a feeling 100% of the people who voted marauder don't play terran. As a terran I think the Marauder is a very interesting unit. I love early micro tvp where I have 1 marauder kiting a zealot while another marauder kills the stalker then i kill the zealot to take no losses. It's one of the most interesting units in my mind for terran because you can micro them to great effect.
I'm not sure why the overseer needs an overhaul either. I don't think it 'needs' to be interesting. It's job is to detect and scout enemy bases... it does that... oh yea, it can also contaminate... what am i missing?
I've been very critical in the past of balance issues, but I think the game is in a very good spot right now. I'm not a big fan of how much micro I must do in order to beat a zerg who attack moves with banelings, but it's nothing I can't handle and I enjoy the challenge.
All-in-all I think blizzard is doing a pretty good job of balance. I feel T is slightly behind in TvZ, but that may be due to the fact that i play terran primarily and it's only in the power of the infestor that i believe this.
I know that in CN the protoss players are cleaning house so I'd like to know specifically what it is they find to be imbalanced? I open 1 rax expand 80% of the time and I fear very little early agression so yea... :D
I'd like to see Hunter Seeker Missiles not be 100% useless. A good player will simply move the targeted unit away. The fact that it does less dmg than a storm and costs more energy, money, and is from a more expensive unit, and hurts my own units boggles my mind.
On June 12 2011 14:32 nalgene wrote: Will they plan on adding the DA/ Corsair / Arbiter / Reaver back in? They were pretty unique... especially the Reaver with its ultra slow movement that required some micro to use it or used in conjunction with the shuttle or warp prism. DA could be useful vs biological units with the maelstorm spell. Arbiters with the good ol mobility + recall into someone's base would be pretty fun...
The Phoenix is far, far, FAR superior compared to the Corsair. The Graviton Beam makes mass air much more useful compared to... the Disruption Web. It actually makes Phoenixes much more viable. Not only that, their move shot allows them to kite Mutalisks while taking no damage. At best, Corsairs could only move shot Mutalisks while being on the offensive.
The Reaver is good. But I abuse the fact that Colossi can shoot regardless of whether or not it's up on the high ground. The Reaver's Scarab AI depends on ground pathing. This doesn't really show an improvement of performance in units from BW to SC2.
Dark Archons barely see any use. They're not as useful as you'd think. High Templars already have Feedback as their native spell, any decent Protoss will still use Forcefields to trap Zerg units (thereby having virtually the same effect as Maelstrom), and we already see how Mind Control is being used through Neural Parasite. There's only an offensive use, and there's no real bonus in controlling enemy units in SC2 in any other way.
The only thing I agree with is replacing the Mothership with the Arbiter. Vortex is an overall downgrade from Stasis Field, and other than that the Mothership is a glorified Arbiter that comes with spells without research.
Agreed, the phoenix is a better unit, except for the fact that it can shoot while moving without any micro, which is silly. Kiting should be done actively, not passively.
Phoenix was dogshit before the change. I think it's fine the way it is. It has an active ability that must be used smartly that detracts from your attention and I don't think it's op.
You do not have to be a top tier player to understand the game. Most of the coaches, scouts, gms of professional sports teams are lower tier players or sometimes even people who didn't play professionally.
I agree that Blizzard does seem very out of touch with the community and their own game. SC2 has a lot of potential and would only require some tweaks to be a awesome game.
On June 12 2011 14:32 nalgene wrote: Will they plan on adding the DA/ Corsair / Arbiter / Reaver back in? They were pretty unique... especially the Reaver with its ultra slow movement that required some micro to use it or used in conjunction with the shuttle or warp prism. DA could be useful vs biological units with the maelstorm spell. Arbiters with the good ol mobility + recall into someone's base would be pretty fun...
The Phoenix is far, far, FAR superior compared to the Corsair. The Graviton Beam makes mass air much more useful compared to... the Disruption Web. It actually makes Phoenixes much more viable. Not only that, their move shot allows them to kite Mutalisks while taking no damage. At best, Corsairs could only move shot Mutalisks while being on the offensive.
The Reaver is good. But I abuse the fact that Colossi can shoot regardless of whether or not it's up on the high ground. The Reaver's Scarab AI depends on ground pathing. This doesn't really show an improvement of performance in units from BW to SC2.
Dark Archons barely see any use. They're not as useful as you'd think. High Templars already have Feedback as their native spell, any decent Protoss will still use Forcefields to trap Zerg units (thereby having virtually the same effect as Maelstrom), and we already see how Mind Control is being used through Neural Parasite. There's only an offensive use, and there's no real bonus in controlling enemy units in SC2 in any other way.
The only thing I agree with is replacing the Mothership with the Arbiter. Vortex is an overall downgrade from Stasis Field, and other than that the Mothership is a glorified Arbiter that comes with spells without research.
Agreed, the phoenix is a better unit, except for the fact that it can shoot while moving without any micro, which is silly. Kiting should be done actively, not passively.
I've seen beta videos of the Phoenix before the shooting while moving change.
...
Dear lord that thing sucked the Corsair's left nut.
On June 12 2011 15:40 I Hott Sauce I wrote: All Blizzard has to do is take out sentries from this game, and bam, near perfection.
Then give back Hydra speed :-(
You basically want Protoss to be absolutely unplayable in the early game? PvT would be impossible since every Protoss would roll over and die to even a 2 rax Shell rush. PvZ would end up with Protosses rolling over and dying to masses of Zerg units from Spawn Larva. Far from even being "near perfection."
And it seems like someone doesn't even spread their creep. And why would you want Hydras to have their speed upgrade again? Their role in the game is already non existent. Changing their speed wouldn't have much of an impact.
I think the OP is poorly formed and makes bad arguments. Also the community is fucking stupid if you've not noticed. The roach is boring? The fuck? It burrows, regens, moves, tanks, kites and has good dynamics in the matchups. Just because it's a unit you build tons of (who'd of thought ZERG builds tons of UNITS to SWARM people?) doesn't make it boring. Same goes for the Marauder, which we don't see as much as we used to (people still crying about these fucking things?)
Blizzard knows when the listen to us and when not to. It's worked pretty well for us so far as far as patch changes go and as far as maps go. They don't rush to do thing and they do them well. Huzzah for blizzard!
The way Blizzard has gone about SC2 has been very authoritarian, and very presumptuous. They force ideas and concepts onto the community despite feedback that it simply doesn't work or is wanted. Chat channels is the glorified example of Blizzard's mentality towards the community; examine how long it took them to finally "cave" into the wishes of the community and further, for implementation of the feature.
I find that quite funny as community, TL in particular, are very authoritarian and presumptuous with the changes they want as well, most people here hold Broodwar fairly dear to their hearts and consider it perfect and without fail often bring units from Broodwar as suggestions to what needs to be introduced to this game rather than creating new units based on what is currently lacking.
Broodwar is a great game but that doesn't mean the units were designed that well, it just happened to work out.
I disagree with most of your points, since you seem to be angry because you disagree with browders responses in that interview.
I agree with his point on ladder maps, they are fine now. Sure theres a couple of close spawns but its not a tourny its just practice. If newbies want a couple rush maps I dont see a problem, jus vetoe it if its that big a problem.
Uninteresting units can be classified by different factors. Blizzard obviously want to make cool looking interesting units to a new player picking up the game. As such their example that they give seem reasonable with this line of thinking. Your examples (taken from TL a biased viewpoint) are reflections on the way people with a BW background or of people who are annoyed with current trends in the game. Your three units given are arguably some of the three most used units in competitive play (except for probably marines).
I agree that he should listen to community but to be honest in terms of balance I prefer that they dont listen to this community or the bnet one as a primary source. This is for 2 reasons. 1. The community just whines about any little thing they are having trouble with before they actively try new things. New strategies dont come about immediately and thats what makes them interesting and awesome! 2. People are often incorrect and biased, even when they have tried many things to get around a problem (sen, idra). Sure they are amazing inventive, skilled players but they are still biased and often neglect trying new things to try and force old strategies to work - often this is frustrating and leads to public displays of balance complaints.
I do not claim this game is balanced and neither does blizzard, but I think its a bit rich to say "Blizzard is totally out of touch with the community" They stated they use multiple methods to identify and act on balance, and all of the information sources he recommended seem logical, and I would be dissapointed if they ignored those in favour of a 1000 page thread saying collosus should be removed. If they instead removed collosus, the game would be irreversably changed and the interim period of trying to fix it back up is not worth the (possible?) improvement.
In response to your quotes about browder not understanding micro/game terminology. I dont feel like he should/needs to, you have to bear in mind this guy is the head developer he leads a team on balance as only a part of his job, which involves organising press, coming up with new ideas etc etc. Obviously he is no pro SCII player and may misunderstand the intricacies of gameplay but that is what his team is for. Also those quotes are not from this interview and I mean if you go back into the history of any person Im sure you can find them saying stupid shit too. Just ask incontrol im sure he would agree hes said some dumb shit which he would not want quoted to his current point of view.
I think the point of view you are representing is very one-sided and biased. That poll for example, is more of a 'what unit do you hate and never want to see again?' that 'most uninteresting unit'. I dont think anybody is not interested when a protoss has 4+ collosi, they are either scared for the zerg/terran or happy cos the protoss is looking powerful. How can that be called "uninteresting"? I believe browder and team have improved the game substantially in balance since initial release and rarely have new patches created a worse game than previously.
Moving away from balance as that is not in respect to this OP, game design is a difficult concept made more difficult when you take into account the casual gamer up to the pro. All pro concerns are valid there is no doubt, however over time they will change somewhat due to new strategies. What will not change is a casual gamers impression of the game when a mothership pops. Listening to any community is dangerous in terms of game design since so many have a vested interest in certain areas. I think that they do listen to community perhaps not as directly as you like but it would be pretty ignorant to say they ignore it. Any more and I fear the result of what the game would turn into. Just because their opinions dont match up to a poll of 155 of TL's most passionately biased voters who are too scared to play so they troll forums and rage about collossi is not a good indication of game design.
This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
Holy fuck I think I just got dumber by reading that example. Hey Dustin.. DO HTs BEAT ZERGLINGS IN SC2 NOW???
You do not have to be a top tier player to understand the game. Most of the coaches, scouts, gms of professional sports teams are lower tier players or sometimes even people who didn't play professionally.
On June 12 2011 14:32 nalgene wrote: Will they plan on adding the DA/ Corsair / Arbiter / Reaver back in? They were pretty unique... especially the Reaver with its ultra slow movement that required some micro to use it or used in conjunction with the shuttle or warp prism. DA could be useful vs biological units with the maelstorm spell. Arbiters with the good ol mobility + recall into someone's base would be pretty fun...
The Phoenix is far, far, FAR superior compared to the Corsair. The Graviton Beam makes mass air much more useful compared to... the Disruption Web. It actually makes Phoenixes much more viable. Not only that, their move shot allows them to kite Mutalisks while taking no damage. At best, Corsairs could only move shot Mutalisks while being on the offensive.
The Reaver is good. But I abuse the fact that Colossi can shoot regardless of whether or not it's up on the high ground. The Reaver's Scarab AI depends on ground pathing. This doesn't really show an improvement of performance in units from BW to SC2.
Dark Archons barely see any use. They're not as useful as you'd think. High Templars already have Feedback as their native spell, any decent Protoss will still use Forcefields to trap Zerg units (thereby having virtually the same effect as Maelstrom), and we already see how Mind Control is being used through Neural Parasite. There's only an offensive use, and there's no real bonus in controlling enemy units in SC2 in any other way.
The only thing I agree with is replacing the Mothership with the Arbiter. Vortex is an overall downgrade from Stasis Field, and other than that the Mothership is a glorified Arbiter that comes with spells without research.
Agreed, the phoenix is a better unit, except for the fact that it can shoot while moving without any micro, which is silly. Kiting should be done actively, not passively.
I've seen beta videos of the Phoenix before the shooting while moving change.
...
Dear lord that thing sucked the Corsair's left nut.
On June 12 2011 15:40 I Hott Sauce I wrote: All Blizzard has to do is take out sentries from this game, and bam, near perfection.
Then give back Hydra speed :-(
You basically want Protoss to be absolutely unplayable in the early game? PvT would be impossible since every Protoss would roll over and die to even a 2 rax Shell rush. PvZ would end up with Protosses rolling over and dying to masses of Zerg units from Spawn Larva. Far from even being "near perfection."
And it seems like someone doesn't even spread their creep. And why would you want Hydras to have their speed upgrade again? Their role in the game is already non existent. Changing their speed wouldn't have much of an impact.
dude changing the speed of the hydras would have a dramatic effect...we can finally freaking stutter micro them and run away when off creep. currently, if you commit in an engagement with hydras off creep, you are forced to fight to the death because they can't run at all.
i wish they would make ovie speed faster so we can lift up hydras and run away; as it stands now...ovies are stupid slow.
But even for this thread, examining a unit - the reaper, which we had to suffer two months of 5 rax reaper before blizzard finally nerfed it into oblivion, which really only existed because of the "cool idea" to give it an impossibly cheap speed upgrade in the first place.
That's not how it happened.
For most of the Reaper's development, it didn't have a speed upgrade. It had D-8 Charges, which were an activated ability that threw timed explosives. When they made D-8 into a building attack rather than an ability (which they did fairly late. D-8 charges were still in Battle Report 4), they then added speed. It wasn't a "cool idea;" it was just something to give Reapers some kind of upgrade.
And even the corrupter, where Browder has admitted numerous times they had no fucking idea what to do with it as far as ability, or even attack went, but stayed in the game for god knows why? Because it looks cool? Yet they admit the Archon could have been on the cutting table.
So, where was the community outcry when the Corruptor was shown during SC2's development? Oh that's right, there wasn't one. Nobody cared about it, nobody said it should be removed. There was no community outcry at all.
Remember: this thread is about Blizzard being supposedly out of touch with the community.
I'm not sure why the overseer needs an overhaul either. I don't think it 'needs' to be interesting. It's job is to detect and scout enemy bases... it does that... oh yea, it can also contaminate... what am i missing?
It needs an overhaul because it doesn't do anything except that. And the Zerg already have the fewest units of any race; if one of their units could stop sucking, then they effectively get an additional unit. And that opens up a range of possibilities.
The OP didn't even watch the video with the Dustin Browder and Sen interview. They were discussing if rushes in starcraft 2 were too safe, and the response was that at this point, they weren't aware of any safe rush builds currently being used. (4 warpgate was mentioned, which was a safe rush build, but that was nerfed)
Not to mention, it's pretty hard to find any big studios who pays as much attention to their community as Blizzard. Capcom is probably the sole exception.
To me it seems that the OP is about a year late. Most of those arguments were made when the game was in its infancy and it definitely seems like Blizzard is listening as of late.
Your first part about rushes seems really outdated. The smallest of maps are gone and the tournaments are picking their own specific maps that make rushing really difficult. This problem is basically fixed right now.
Also, you mentioned that bit about the redesigning of units based off the community poll and I think they are right to not listen to the community there. Colossus might be uninteresting, but changing it or redesigning it would not be a great idea. It is the backbone to the late game Toss army and any changes to that will severely change the balance of the game. Roaches are definitely fine, although boring, and zealots are boring too. Overseers will not place high in votes like that because non-zerg players could care less and they are not as popular of a unit as the rest of the vote-getters.
Also, you think that because 500 or so community members voted on a silly poll that Blizzard should listen? Aren't there like 2 million other people who bought this game?
My thoughts as to why Blizzard is out of touch is a little removed from gameplay mechanics and is mostly focused on no cross realm play and no LAN support.
But even for this thread, examining a unit - the reaper, which we had to suffer two months of 5 rax reaper before blizzard finally nerfed it into oblivion, which really only existed because of the "cool idea" to give it an impossibly cheap speed upgrade in the first place.
That's not how it happened.
For most of the Reaper's development, it didn't have a speed upgrade. It had D-8 Charges, which were an activated ability that threw timed explosives. When they made D-8 into a building attack rather than an ability (which they did fairly late. D-8 charges were still in Battle Report 4), they then added speed. It wasn't a "cool idea;" it was just something to give Reapers some kind of upgrade.
And even the corrupter, where Browder has admitted numerous times they had no fucking idea what to do with it as far as ability, or even attack went, but stayed in the game for god knows why? Because it looks cool? Yet they admit the Archon could have been on the cutting table.
So, where was the community outcry when the Corruptor was shown during SC2's development? Oh that's right, there wasn't one. Nobody cared about it, nobody said it should be removed. There was no community outcry at all.
Remember: this thread is about Blizzard being supposedly out of touch with the community.
I'm not sure why the overseer needs an overhaul either. I don't think it 'needs' to be interesting. It's job is to detect and scout enemy bases... it does that... oh yea, it can also contaminate... what am i missing?
It needs an overhaul because it doesn't do anything except that. And the Zerg already have the fewest units of any race; if one of their units could stop sucking, then they effectively get an additional unit. And that opens up a range of possibilities.
nobody cried about corruptor back then cuz they could shut down buildings and cannons instantly....
corruption is a joke right now. sorry I tried it but it's a joke. we need something flashier for sure.
On June 12 2011 15:56 StifSokSamurai wrote: My thoughts as to why Blizzard is out of touch is a little removed from gameplay mechanics and is mostly focused on no cross realm play and no LAN support.
The thing is, those are the two things that Browder and his design team have the least input on. Browder doesn't get to decide if the game has cross-realm or LAN play; those decisions happen above his pay grade.
But even for this thread, examining a unit - the reaper, which we had to suffer two months of 5 rax reaper before blizzard finally nerfed it into oblivion, which really only existed because of the "cool idea" to give it an impossibly cheap speed upgrade in the first place.
That's not how it happened.
For most of the Reaper's development, it didn't have a speed upgrade. It had D-8 Charges, which were an activated ability that threw timed explosives. When they made D-8 into a building attack rather than an ability (which they did fairly late. D-8 charges were still in Battle Report 4), they then added speed. It wasn't a "cool idea;" it was just something to give Reapers some kind of upgrade.
And even the corrupter, where Browder has admitted numerous times they had no fucking idea what to do with it as far as ability, or even attack went, but stayed in the game for god knows why? Because it looks cool? Yet they admit the Archon could have been on the cutting table.
So, where was the community outcry when the Corruptor was shown during SC2's development? Oh that's right, there wasn't one. Nobody cared about it, nobody said it should be removed. There was no community outcry at all.
Remember: this thread is about Blizzard being supposedly out of touch with the community.
I'm not sure why the overseer needs an overhaul either. I don't think it 'needs' to be interesting. It's job is to detect and scout enemy bases... it does that... oh yea, it can also contaminate... what am i missing?
It needs an overhaul because it doesn't do anything except that. And the Zerg already have the fewest units of any race; if one of their units could stop sucking, then they effectively get an additional unit. And that opens up a range of possibilities.
nobody cried about corruptor back then cuz they could shut down buildings and cannons instantly....
corruption is a joke right now. sorry I tried it but it's a joke. we need something flashier for sure.
I'm not disagreeing with your point that the Corruptor could be much improved. I'm just saying that Blizzard was not "out of touch" when they developed the Corruptor.
And I wasn't talking about the Beta changes. I was talking about the years before then. Back when the Corruption mechanic was turning killed air units into air turrets. You know, back when Blizzard had the time to rip out units and add new ones.
But even for this thread, examining a unit - the reaper, which we had to suffer two months of 5 rax reaper before blizzard finally nerfed it into oblivion, which really only existed because of the "cool idea" to give it an impossibly cheap speed upgrade in the first place.
That's not how it happened.
For most of the Reaper's development, it didn't have a speed upgrade. It had D-8 Charges, which were an activated ability that threw timed explosives. When they made D-8 into a building attack rather than an ability (which they did fairly late. D-8 charges were still in Battle Report 4), they then added speed. It wasn't a "cool idea;" it was just something to give Reapers some kind of upgrade.
And even the corrupter, where Browder has admitted numerous times they had no fucking idea what to do with it as far as ability, or even attack went, but stayed in the game for god knows why? Because it looks cool? Yet they admit the Archon could have been on the cutting table.
So, where was the community outcry when the Corruptor was shown during SC2's development? Oh that's right, there wasn't one. Nobody cared about it, nobody said it should be removed. There was no community outcry at all.
Remember: this thread is about Blizzard being supposedly out of touch with the community.
I'm not sure why the overseer needs an overhaul either. I don't think it 'needs' to be interesting. It's job is to detect and scout enemy bases... it does that... oh yea, it can also contaminate... what am i missing?
It needs an overhaul because it doesn't do anything except that. And the Zerg already have the fewest units of any race; if one of their units could stop sucking, then they effectively get an additional unit. And that opens up a range of possibilities.
nobody cried about corruptor back then cuz they could shut down buildings and cannons instantly....
corruption is a joke right now. sorry I tried it but it's a joke. we need something flashier for sure.
I'm not disagreeing with your point that the Corruptor could be much improved. I'm just saying that Blizzard was not "out of touch" when they developed the Corruptor.
And I wasn't talking about the Beta changes. I was talking about the years before then. Back when the Corruption mechanic was turning killed air units into air turrets. You know, back when Blizzard had the time to rip out units and add new ones.
I'm confused, the community wasn't playing the game back then, it was all in house. How can they be out of touch or in touch? The community has no way of knowing how a unit works out except from 4 vods, where David Kim just stomps other game testers.
I'm saying they are out of touch because of the responses they give compared to what the community wants.
"Do you really want chat channels?" as an example, when the community wanted chat channels for at least 10 months, and it took only around 1 month after the decision to implement it.
But even for this thread, examining a unit - the reaper, which we had to suffer two months of 5 rax reaper before blizzard finally nerfed it into oblivion, which really only existed because of the "cool idea" to give it an impossibly cheap speed upgrade in the first place.
That's not how it happened.
For most of the Reaper's development, it didn't have a speed upgrade. It had D-8 Charges, which were an activated ability that threw timed explosives. When they made D-8 into a building attack rather than an ability (which they did fairly late. D-8 charges were still in Battle Report 4), they then added speed. It wasn't a "cool idea;" it was just something to give Reapers some kind of upgrade.
And even the corrupter, where Browder has admitted numerous times they had no fucking idea what to do with it as far as ability, or even attack went, but stayed in the game for god knows why? Because it looks cool? Yet they admit the Archon could have been on the cutting table.
So, where was the community outcry when the Corruptor was shown during SC2's development? Oh that's right, there wasn't one. Nobody cared about it, nobody said it should be removed. There was no community outcry at all.
Remember: this thread is about Blizzard being supposedly out of touch with the community.
I'm not sure why the overseer needs an overhaul either. I don't think it 'needs' to be interesting. It's job is to detect and scout enemy bases... it does that... oh yea, it can also contaminate... what am i missing?
It needs an overhaul because it doesn't do anything except that. And the Zerg already have the fewest units of any race; if one of their units could stop sucking, then they effectively get an additional unit. And that opens up a range of possibilities.
nobody cried about corruptor back then cuz they could shut down buildings and cannons instantly....
corruption is a joke right now. sorry I tried it but it's a joke. we need something flashier for sure.
I'm not disagreeing with your point that the Corruptor could be much improved. I'm just saying that Blizzard was not "out of touch" when they developed the Corruptor.
And I wasn't talking about the Beta changes. I was talking about the years before then. Back when the Corruption mechanic was turning killed air units into air turrets. You know, back when Blizzard had the time to rip out units and add new ones.
dude we are not saying that the blizz is out of touch when they FIRST developed the corruptor. I mean come on we would KILL to have corruptors that turn air units into turrets. We ain't saying anything bad about that.
Instead, we are just sad about how the corruptor is NOW.
On June 12 2011 15:56 StifSokSamurai wrote: My thoughts as to why Blizzard is out of touch is a little removed from gameplay mechanics and is mostly focused on no cross realm play and no LAN support.
The thing is, those are the two things that Browder and his design team have the least input on. Browder doesn't get to decide if the game has cross-realm or LAN play; those decisions happen above his pay grade.
I agree I should have emphasized that it is mostly Activision where my resentment in this regard lies.
On June 12 2011 14:31 jalstar wrote: Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
But you barely have to micro immortals because of hardened shield, while if you don't position and micro colossi well they'll get killed by vikings or corruptors in a few seconds.
Immortals are one of my favorite units in the game. I really wish I had more opportunities to build them. Colossi are just terrible units.
Phoenix before moving shot was actually worthless against air units. I dont know if they were bugged, or something else... but they were the worst unit imaginable.
On June 12 2011 16:06 TheRabidDeer wrote: Phoenix before moving shot was actually worthless against air units. I dont know if they were bugged, or something else... but they were the worst unit imaginable.
I actually enjoyed how in order to micro them "properly" you had to control it like a vulture more or less. That being said I wasn't a wealth of knowledge with the protoss units so if there were other glaring issues with them I missed it.
On June 12 2011 16:06 TheRabidDeer wrote: Phoenix before moving shot was actually worthless against air units. I dont know if they were bugged, or something else... but they were the worst unit imaginable.
I actually enjoyed how in order to micro them "properly" you had to control it like a vulture more or less. That being said I wasn't a wealth of knowledge with the protoss units so if there were other glaring issues with them I missed it.
There was no "proper" micro with them, they had a delayed attack and slide too much, they could never beat muta's because of it.
On June 12 2011 14:30 Jtn wrote: I think maybe you, the OP, is out of touch? Blizzard has proven it listens to the community, and no, it can't make sweeping changes randomly in WoL. I would suggest you wait till HoS, where they're clearly going to take the game in a whole new direction.
This topic is unneeded.
Stopped scrolling down the page here. Blizzard doesn't listen to it's community because there is no Blizzard anymore. There is only Activision-Blizzard. Important distinction to make when discussing how the community is treated/responded to, particularly given Activision's history with the subject (it's poor, to put it kindly, if you follow the kinds of changes Activision brought to Blizzard).
As for the OP: Ties into what I said above, ATVI really doesn't like being contradicted when it comes to their games, and since Sen's points were so painfully obvious, it really bugs me that they wouldn't even give a "real" answer to his concerns. Oh, and I can't stand roaches. Good unit, sure, but just so.. Uninteresting. Maybe it's a lore thing, maybe it's that they just spit some green stuff in a bored kind of way.
At least in Brood War, when a hydralisk spit some green stuff, it had a decent sound associated with it.
The way Blizzard has gone about SC2 has been very authoritarian, and very presumptuous. They force ideas and concepts onto the community despite feedback that it simply doesn't work or is wanted. Chat channels is the glorified example of Blizzard's mentality towards the community; examine how long it took them to finally "cave" into the wishes of the community and further, for implementation of the feature.
Pretty sure you can blame Activision on that and not Blizzard, as Activision handled Bnet 2.0 and let Blizzard handle the actual "gameplay" (campaign, multiplayer). I remember reading this somewhere, correct me if it's wrong.
dude changing the speed of the hydras would have a dramatic effect...we can finally freaking stutter micro them and run away when off creep. currently, if you commit in an engagement with hydras off creep, you are forced to fight to the death because they can't run at all.
They're the same speed as terran infantry.
Yes, we have stim, but you can't constantly stim. You have creep. Which is just LIKE having stim movement speed for hydras.
Just saying. I agree they're under used, but nothing drastic like a speed change.
HOW can colossus be uninteresting? Lol I'm sorry but that's the most retarded thing I've read on team liquid. Colossus may be inherently overpowered but I don't see how it's uninteresting... I play protoss and I can go colossus every game and not be "uninterested". What does uninteresting even mean? Boring? And I play random as well in team leagues and I know an alarm goes off every time I go up against colossus, because it becomes prioritized as something I need to take out asap. People just mad cuz colossus are strong
And why aren't tanks uninteresting? They slow every game the fuck down, especially TvT
On June 12 2011 16:06 TheRabidDeer wrote: Phoenix before moving shot was actually worthless against air units. I dont know if they were bugged, or something else... but they were the worst unit imaginable.
I actually enjoyed how in order to micro them "properly" you had to control it like a vulture more or less. That being said I wasn't a wealth of knowledge with the protoss units so if there were other glaring issues with them I missed it.
There was no "proper" micro with them, they had a delayed attack and slide too much, they could never beat muta's because of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUMGw9ayWo
People often tend to look back with rose tinted spectacles, happens quite a bit with Broodwar
On June 12 2011 16:06 TheRabidDeer wrote: Phoenix before moving shot was actually worthless against air units. I dont know if they were bugged, or something else... but they were the worst unit imaginable.
I actually enjoyed how in order to micro them "properly" you had to control it like a vulture more or less. That being said I wasn't a wealth of knowledge with the protoss units so if there were other glaring issues with them I missed it.
There was no "proper" micro with them, they had a delayed attack and slide too much, they could never beat muta's because of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUMGw9ayWo
People often tend to look back with rose tinted spectacles, happens quite a bit with Broodwar
Yea, its sad really... especially in the modern times when things are so well documented. Also, note the absurdly loud sounds the phoenix make. They were deafening.
Reading the OP and responses, I feel that a lot of separate design issues are being conflated. The balance between rushing and macro games, the balance between races, and the overall interestingness of units are all distinct considerations, even if they overlap in complicated ways.
Starcraft (1) was not made to be E-sport, and units like the Reaver and Vulture and Zergling were not designed via the consultation of professional gamers. If anything, I think Blizzard is doing a characteristically exceptional job of listening to its community. They may not always obey, but they listen, and when Dustin Browder seems to be out of touch I think it's probably a case of misunderstanding him. And ignoring the question of whether it's 100% balanced yet, most would probably agree that SC2 has gotten more balanced since release. That particular quadrant of the sky is not falling.
But "interesting units"? Those come out of plain old creativity coupled with good design, not adherence to the opinions of pro gamers or community polls. (Full disclosure: I don't believe the Colossus or Marauder were born out of either creativity or good design. The roach was at first but got watered down into something else because of balance considerations.)
On June 12 2011 16:06 TheRabidDeer wrote: Phoenix before moving shot was actually worthless against air units. I dont know if they were bugged, or something else... but they were the worst unit imaginable.
I actually enjoyed how in order to micro them "properly" you had to control it like a vulture more or less. That being said I wasn't a wealth of knowledge with the protoss units so if there were other glaring issues with them I missed it.
There was no "proper" micro with them, they had a delayed attack and slide too much, they could never beat muta's because of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUMGw9ayWo
People often tend to look back with rose tinted spectacles, happens quite a bit with Broodwar
Except a lot of people still play and watch BroodWar, and no one uses old phoenix's
imo its okay that blizz is "ignoring" the community, there are several examples from the past where the game designer took advices from their community and at the end the game sucked badly...so i rely fully on blizz, they did great (no one's perfect) work in the past and will in the future - without community advice
Seems to me that Blizzard is content with how their game works, which is sad. Watching the MSL finals just reminded me of how boring and bad SC2 is. Sure it is a new game, does not mean they couldnt try to make it a really good game, they have the recipe for making an incredible game after all.
Hopefully they will make more units that do not work together well in a ball, so that you have to control your units more separetely instead of just a-moving.
This has been pointed out but I think that it should be emphasized that even if everyone is screaming for a balance patch Blizzard should probably wait a decent amount of time before they implement anything, for one thing to make Starcraft a real competitive game things can't be changing at the base gameplay level every few weeks, also it discourages innovation and ignores the changing metagame. For example it would have been very bad if Blizzard had significantly nerfed Protoss for the long time that a large portion of the community thought that it was OP, especially versus Zerg. Sure a nerf would have looked nice to many people but we either wouldn't have had the shift where right now Zerg is doing as well as or better than most Protoss in ZvP, or we would have and Zerg would be OP. Blizzard's job isn't to keep the professional metagame fair and so that every matchup is always 50/50 in pro games, it's to give a good general game and let pros develop strategies and counter strategies over time. These strategies have and will lead to some races doing better than others at times but this shifting set of strategies and standards is a major part of the game, Blizzard doing much more would only interfere with that.
On June 12 2011 14:32 SecondChance wrote: I don't understand. The blizzard interviews were talking about balance, unit roles etc. And you base the need for redesign on the "Most UNINTERESTING unit". What the fuck? Characteristics that contribute to a unit being "Uninteresting" don't exactly correlate with it's use and it's balance.
I could say x unit is uninteresting because I don't like it's colour...A more accurate poll would ask the question directly.
David Kim specifically mentions units that aren't cool. Actually, if you follow SC2 development, you can often hear DB - I can't remember the words exactly - talking about making individual units interesting first.
On June 12 2011 14:32 SecondChance wrote: I don't understand. The blizzard interviews were talking about balance, unit roles etc. And you base the need for redesign on the "Most UNINTERESTING unit". What the fuck? Characteristics that contribute to a unit being "Uninteresting" don't exactly correlate with it's use and it's balance.
I could say x unit is uninteresting because I don't like it's colour...A more accurate poll would ask the question directly.
David Kim specifically mentions units that aren't cool. Actually, if you follow SC2 development, you can often hear DB - I can't remember the words exactly - talking about making individual units interesting first.
That is the base of the unit. They then take that interesting unit and try to balance it and tweak it.
dude changing the speed of the hydras would have a dramatic effect...we can finally freaking stutter micro them and run away when off creep. currently, if you commit in an engagement with hydras off creep, you are forced to fight to the death because they can't run at all.
They're the same speed as terran infantry.
Yes, we have stim, but you can't constantly stim. You have creep. Which is just LIKE having stim movement speed for hydras.
Just saying. I agree they're under used, but nothing drastic like a speed change.
Marines also don't cost gas and have more hit points per cost (ESPECIALLY after combat shield.)
And if hydras on creep shot 50% faster, i probably wouldnt be saying they're useless, either.
They're still extremely necessary, because no other zerg unit fills their role (high single target dps per food/cost unit, even ignoring the "shoots up" property)
Or if they had 90-110 hp (double that of marines!... they cost and damage double of marines, + don't have stim and cost 50 gas in addition, is that too much to ask for?) or something.
Speed upgrade is probably the easiest to add without breaking too much, though. (i wouldn't even mind if hydras lost their exceptional on-creep move boost)
well let's be honest, bnet 2 = failure, sc2 is not failture, but it's def not on the same level as bw... i doubt it will ever be, even with the expansions.. i dont rly think a few units added to the mix can rly solve the problem... As others have also said, knowing bowder's background kinda explains alot i think... Ah well let's hope for the best, maybe they can still fix it somehow
On June 12 2011 15:10 Lokian wrote: The only way for S class players to always beat B Class players is to change AI movement back to BW. Make it so you can't select a lot of units at once. Instead you need five hotkeys for zerg army and maybe 2 for the rest. Take out production units queueing up with a single button.
Make controlling harder, remove easy macro... Basically make everything retarded so that pros can gain meaningless 'skills' that seperates them from players that can't handle high APM and precision.
This will definitely give the koreans the advantage since everyone else won't spend days memorizing keystrokes and crap.
You know what that is... it's like playing an instrument. And maybe 20% game. BW... is like a full blown orchestral piece now.
Well, look. Games should have less to do with non-gaming 'skills' and more with decisions like chess. This is why a lot of top players lose, since its basically whoever outsmarts the other, or get lucky. And sc2 complexity is not comparable to chess since there's too much room for mistakes
You make no sense. Players get beat all the time by players worse than them in BW, hence the reason someone can be "dominant" with a 70% win-rate.
Pros - Blizzard at least recognizes esports and pays SOME attention to the community - Listening to SOME feedback about how to properly manage the game - Is doing fairly good overall
Cons - They seem to ignore pleas for some BW mechanics that made BW the amazing game that it was and would do the same for SC2. They think that it will be too much like BW however what people are asking for some BW MECHANICS...not BW as a game. - They are ignoring a lot of high level players questionings/pleas. - They are focusing on single player.
I don't want sc2 to become brood war but I think it needs changing, and Browder seems extremely defensive, and the way he addressed Sen seemed disrespectful at times...
Don't get me wrong, the game is actually quite well balanced, but the design of the game is terribad. In my opinion terran is the only well designed race. Protoss is just one big joke (not talking about imbalance), FFs are ridiculous, colossi are boring, blink micro is too efficient and the warp in mechanic is ruining the whole race. Protoss needs a whole new rework. Zerg is not even finished having the least amount of combat units.
Watching this interview it kinda looks like Dustin Browder was looking down on the guys pointing out the imbalances. He pretends he was giving a shit, but from the bottom of his heart he's just thinking "shut up you retard, we won't change anything anyways". Maybe it aint like that, but it certainly feels that way.
I just hope that Heart of the Swarm will be much, much better. Wings of Liberty is so disappointing.. I literally stopped playing, because the game design is pissing me off more and mroe and I was close to gettin to grandmasters.
"We have no plans to implement LAN support at this time..." Yes they are very very out of touch. In terms of balance, I honestly don't think anybody can say if they are or not. Many people claim that Zerg is UP. However, recent results on ladder/tourneys say other wise.
On June 12 2011 15:53 Golgotha wrote: dude changing the speed of the hydras would have a dramatic effect...we can finally freaking stutter micro them and run away when off creep. currently, if you commit in an engagement with hydras off creep, you are forced to fight to the death because they can't run at all.
i wish they would make ovie speed faster so we can lift up hydras and run away; as it stands now...ovies are stupid slow.
Welcome to every PvZ engagement ever (on protoss side).
Another thing...I do agree that the meet-ups with Sen and the pro-gamers are near useless. Why meet up with the top pros if Blizzard is not even going to listen to them? They ARE in their own little world. I believe the only reason they meet up with the pros is for PR to show the public that, "we are listening to you guys!", which really isn't true.
Let's look at another situation, where we have banshees against marines. In a straight up fight, the marines will definitely win the fight. Yet, if the banshee has cloak, the situation would be different. Let's look at yet another situation, marauders against stalkers. If both sides a-move, clearly the marauder will win. However, if the stalker has blink, and uses blink well, the situation might turn out different as well.
was he serious with this statement? or did he forget the fact that marauders have fucking stim AND conncussive shells? even with super heavy blink micro, marauders will win every single time. and that is WITHOUT MEDIVACS.
now lets add medivacs to this situation. im willing to bet not even a single marauder will die. do these guys have any idea on how to play there own game? no ammount of blink micro in the fucking universe will save u against stimmed concussive shell marauders when its pure marauder vs pure stalker.
On June 12 2011 15:53 Golgotha wrote: dude changing the speed of the hydras would have a dramatic effect...we can finally freaking stutter micro them and run away when off creep. currently, if you commit in an engagement with hydras off creep, you are forced to fight to the death because they can't run at all.
i wish they would make ovie speed faster so we can lift up hydras and run away; as it stands now...ovies are stupid slow.
Welcome to every PvZ engagement ever (on protoss side).
Protoss can sacrifice a ton of Forcefields to retreat.
Of course, Zerg can sacrifice a ton of Zerglings or Fungals to do the same.
On June 12 2011 16:28 DisaFear wrote: Hmm, wonder why people dislike Roaches and Marauders. I don't see anything wrong with Marauders at least
It's essentially a jumbo-sized marine mostly distinguished by a limitation (can't shoot up), its armor/damage type, and a passive that negates micro to some extent and counters melee. The Roach has a similar kind overlap with the Hydralisk, although it's actually more interesting than the Hydra because of burrow movement. The reason it gets more negative attention is because it's less iconic. The Immortal overlaps with the Stalker similarly as well. It's a bulkier, higher damage stalker with a different damage type, a severe limitation, and a gimmicky passive that makes it counter tanks and such.
These are all indicative of a slightly AoE-ish approach to design, whereby you take an existing unit and superficially change it so that it has a different set of counters.
I agree with blizzard that SC2 is not broodwar. It shouldn't be just broodwar in a new engine, but it should be superior to BW.
One of my problems with units is that a lot of them are very boring right out the box with exception of spell casters.
Zealot just pretty much just a melee unit, similar to a zergling w/o speed. Stalker, roach, marauder are very uninteresting right out the box. Things like stim/concussive shell/blink makes things interesting.
On June 12 2011 16:58 Hikari wrote: I agree with blizzard that SC2 is not broodwar. It shouldn't be just broodwar in a new engine, but it should be superior to BW.
One of my problems with units is that a lot of them are very boring right out the box with exception of spell casters.
Zealot just pretty much just a melee unit, similar to a zergling w/o speed. Stalker, roach, marauder are very uninteresting right out the box. Things like stim/concussive shell/blink makes things interesting.
I disagree with you about the Zealot. It's intended to be a meat shield unit, with a very different strategic application than the zergling.
I think SC2 lacks the depth that bw had. Me and all of my friends stopped playing sc2 because of the monotone gameplay. The game lacks reavers, lurkers and in fact its difficult to ever reach a point of the game where you build bcs or carriers.
What im trying to point out is that a lot of sc2 games look the same. Some kind of early timing push 6 mins 8 mins 10 mins, and after that the game is over 9/10 (team games).
I would love it if blizzard added like 6 units to MP and nerfed rush.
356 players out of 3 million players is a pretty good sample if it is randomly sampled FYI.
Teamliquid is not a random sample.
Still 356 players out of 3 million is a pretty good sample. at least this is a pretty good sample on teamliquid. and if you really want a random sample from the community go out and ask them. most would give u a neutral or negative result obviously.
For example, the Overseer is not a cool unit, it's basically a glorfied scout at this point. We're looking at either taking out or replacing these units that aren't as cool. The other thing that we need to watch out is how these units interact in combination.
if they take out the overseer they better damn well replace it with a very good scouting unit because the overseer is the best scouting unit we have. since scouting is sooooooo important in SC2 that makes the overseer and the changeling a very critical unit, but the main problem with overseers is that they come to late and there to gas heavy.
I agree with Dustin Browder on a lot of parts: they made a game, and the progamers made the builds and all that stuff. Without high niveau play blizzard really cannot know how the game will turn out, and if stuff like the 5rax reaper build turn up and are completly imbalanced or boring, they will fix it.
For those who simply think BW is better, they should go and play BW.
Personally: I have no problem with stronger rushes in SC2. (if only 2base+ play should by viable, people should just start with 2bases+) However, I do have a problem with these rushes only being available for 2/3 races once you hit a higher niveau of play, and with to many things being coinflips in the game, what makes it balanced but not really well-designed. Yet I do understand, that some changes just cannot be expected without lots and lots of testing, saying that they will probably occur never, or at least only within of a big gamechange (like an expansion). On a sidenote: I think people should stop giving their personal opinion about unit X when they talk about gamedesign, as it usually turns out to be:
On June 12 2011 14:26 Herper wrote: I wonder.. is it viable to bring back the reaver and take out the colossus?
On June 12 2011 14:31 jalstar wrote: Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
On June 12 2011 14:32 nalgene wrote: Will they plan on adding the DA/ Corsair / Arbiter / Reaver back in? They were pretty unique.
On June 12 2011 14:44 AfroJimbo wrote: Mothership and battlecruiser is what I would consider boring and not all that great.
On June 12 2011 16:28 DisaFear wrote: Hmm, wonder why people dislike Roaches and Marauders. I don't see anything wrong with Marauders at least
It's essentially a jumbo-sized marine mostly distinguished by a limitation (can't shoot up), its armor/damage type, and a passive that negates micro to some extent and counters melee. The Roach has a similar kind overlap with the Hydralisk, although it's actually more interesting than the Hydra because of burrow movement. The reason it gets more negative attention is because it's less iconic. The Immortal overlaps with the Stalker similarly as well. It's a bulkier, higher damage stalker with a different damage type, a severe limitation, and a gimmicky passive that makes it counter tanks and such.
These are all indicative of a slightly AoE-ish approach to design, whereby you take an existing unit and superficially change it so that it has a different set of counters.
Marines and Goliaths were both simple, interesting units that worked fine in the same race in Broodwar. Although they controlled very differently.
On June 12 2011 14:31 jalstar wrote: Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
But you barely have to micro immortals because of hardened shield, while if you don't position and micro colossi well they'll get killed by vikings or corruptors in a few seconds.
I couldn't agree more. I hope more people realise this.
356 players out of 3 million players is a pretty good sample if it is randomly sampled FYI.
Teamliquid is not a random sample.
It's random enough to a point where the results of the poll are easily skewed. This entire thread is worthless in my opinion, and proves nothing about what the developers do or don't know about imbalance. All this thread has done is quote a few interviews where the message could really be skewed either way. Also, it says only China's pro players are complaining about balance, yet everyone else is oblivious?
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is a valid discussion about balance in any type of way. Quoting and attacking the developers is definitely not helping.
Im glad they dont listen to the majority of the community, i mean, look at this thread and its topic. Drawring conclusion out of the thin air, claiming that collosus is the most boring unit ( Immortals are WAY more boring, they are just the /a unit). Whining about imbalance 247, and what not. Just see what Blizzard did to WoW, when they started listening to the players.
If Blizzard designed the game around making units interesting rather than making them work well with the game I'm sure it would be far far worse than it is now.
On June 12 2011 17:09 Benkestok wrote: Im glad they dont listen to the majority of the community, i mean, look at this thread and its topic. Drawring conclusion out of the thin air, claiming that collosus is the most boring unit ( Immortals are WAY more boring, they are just the /a unit). Whining about imbalance 247, and what not. Just see what Blizzard did to WoW, when they started listening to the players.
They put back Ring of Valor arena when 99% of the community hated it?
It's random enough to a point where the results of the poll are easily skewed. This entire thread is worthless in my opinion, and proves nothing about what the developers do or don't know about imbalance. All this thread has done is quote a few interviews where the message could really be skewed either way. Also, it says only China's pro players are complaining about balance, yet everyone else is oblivious?
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is a valid discussion about balance in any type of way. Quoting and attacking the developers is definitely not helping.
It seems our use of the word "random" has created a misunderstanding.
He was saying that 356 is a "random sample" in the way that it represents the 3 million players accurately enough since the 356 are "random".
However, I was pointing out that 356 voters all from the same website and community cannot possibly represent the 3 million players nearly as accurately as if they were randomly picked, hence my post.
So I agree with you but I think you misunderstood me.
Edit:
Unless you were more replying to the poster I quoted, rather than me.
It's random enough to a point where the results of the poll are easily skewed. This entire thread is worthless in my opinion, and proves nothing about what the developers do or don't know about imbalance. All this thread has done is quote a few interviews where the message could really be skewed either way. Also, it says only China's pro players are complaining about balance, yet everyone else is oblivious?
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is a valid discussion about balance in any type of way. Quoting and attacking the developers is definitely not helping.
It seems our use of the word "random" has created a misunderstanding.
He was saying that 356 is a "random sample" in the way that it represents the 3 million players accurately enough since the 356 are "random".
However, I was pointing out that 356 voters all from the same website and community cannot possibly represent the 3 million players nearly as accurately as if they were randomly picked, hence my post.
So I agree with you but I think you misunderstood me.
Edit:
Unless you were more replying to the poster I quoted, rather than me.
Yeah, I misunderstood you. We definitely agree, haha. I was also kind of replying to the dude you quoted too I guess?
On June 12 2011 14:31 jalstar wrote: Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
But you barely have to micro immortals because of hardened shield, while if you don't position and micro colossi well they'll get killed by vikings or corruptors in a few seconds.
I couldn't agree more. I hope more people realise this.
Really? I find Immortals very interesting units. It's just that they're bad. They're the quality of unit I'd expect to warp in, but instead they build in place from a more expensive production center.
On June 12 2011 17:09 Benkestok wrote: Im glad they dont listen to the majority of the community, i mean, look at this thread and its topic. Drawring conclusion out of the thin air, claiming that collosus is the most boring unit ( Immortals are WAY more boring, they are just the /a unit). Whining about imbalance 247, and what not. Just see what Blizzard did to WoW, when they started listening to the players.
You're comparing balance of a MMO to a RTS? They have to balance PVE and PVP with the same skillset and it's a completely different genre...There's too much content to only test internally.
Remember when they removed shakuras from the ladder pool because they thought it was too easy to get your natural up?
(4)Shakuras Plateau This map we decided to remove for a different reason. There isn't a huge problem with this map, but we felt there aren't enough interesting features of this map. The natural expansion is easy to take and defend; there are only two possible attack paths only one of which is generally used, and main bases aren't easy to harass. For a change, we wanted to replace this relatively plain map with something new.
And then they proceeded to add slag pits, the ugliest joke of a map, to the map pool. Of course they added shakuras back later, but only after everyone complained. I think that they generally don't know what we want, or the people who do know what we want have no way or are bad at communicating it to those who can make it happen.
Edit: also, rocks. Someone at blizzard has a rock fetish. I don't know who is giving them positive feedback on the rocks.
Yeah, I misunderstood you. We definitely agree, haha. I was also kind of replying to the dude you quoted too I guess?
Haha cool let's say that
@Gheed
That was a weird ass situation report. But from that, I learned and realized and was reminded that (as should others) different people in Blizzard handle different things (wow really?).
For example, whoever wrote the part about Slag Pits being a macro map was probably not David Kim. Same thing for Shakuras. It was probably the map designer or someone else. Heck, it might have even been a communication error (Slag Pits a macro map? huh?).
Balance is not easy. No-one here can release patch notes that everyone can agree on. There are very few RTS games that have the balance that SC2 has. Although BW is the pinnacle of balance, it's had a very long time to be balanced, and things were back and forth. In WC3 there are still imbalances.
A lot of what they are talking about is game design rather than balance.
On June 12 2011 17:05 Severedevil wrote: Marines and Goliaths were both simple, interesting units that worked fine in the same race in Broodwar. Although they controlled very differently.
Goliaths didn't have stim and weren't made at a barracks, or healed by medics, and as you say they controlled quite differently. You make a good point, and I nearly mentioned that the extent of unit overlap in BW was between the Goliath and Marine, but they were still more distinct than the marauder and marine.
Thats not a very scientific vote. all youve really done as is ask some people and got the answer you wanted. 400 people does not account for the community and presumably the people that voted were just people that dont like or cant deal with the colossus (i didnt bother voting as its clearly pointless).
I also dont think that the issues sen raised were generally problematic. while rush speed is pretty fast in sc2 - so too is the general game speed pretty high so defence is in place faster.
This is a giant qq thread but instead of specific complaints you have generalized it to just everything that you dont like.
I wouldn't say they are out of touch, ignorant but not out of touch. I wish they cared more then what they do now as right now its just kind of not very existent. I feel they should have added replay sharing, clan support but for some reason its just so hard for them it makes me sad :/.
Honestly I think the Roach is one of the most 'Zergy' Zerg units available. They're cheap and fairly quick, they utilise burrow in a really cool way and they're specialised for a role. I think most animosity towards them comes from the fact they stole the Hydra's spot in tier one personally.
The Marauder is another unit I think is quite cool, though the speed they can stim down buildings bugs me a little I don't think that makes it uninteresting.
The Colossus though..range 9, sit at the back of the army with no micro required unless something gets to it, walk away from melee and massive damage by virtue of just a-move, that in my opinion is an uniteresting unit.
The thing is though there'd be 0 chance of this interview, this far from HotS saying "We're going to be changing/removing the Colossus" because that'd be all that's bitched about by a lot of people from now until months after release. I strongly suspect they picked the most mundane examples in case it was brought up so as to not get the usual floods of crap they get until they could actually show the changes working. For instance, would anyone really be upset to see the Overseer changed or removed for something else?
I hope Protoss get something really cool and interesting to replace the Colossus, even 2 units if that's what it takes, but as it stands that unit is boring and there's no chance of something like that being announced yet.
Anybody who agrees with the OP needs to go watch the actual video of Dustin Browder's interview. The text does not fully convey what Dustin was trying to say with his answers. In fact, I don't know where these transcripts came from because they are not word-for-word what Browder said.
He responded to the question about stronger rushes by saying he has not heard that feedback before and it does not align with his experience, but he will bring it up with the balance team as something to consider. The whole "SC2 is not BW" thing was a response to a question about unit pathing, specifically clumping of units compared to BW. The interviewers kept asking him questions comparing SC2 to BW, so Browder responded by saying they are different games. BW had a horrendous interface and AI system. Browder's point is that SC2 fixed most of those problems and any differences that arise from that are just part of the game. It's not something that they are willing to change just to make it more like BW.
Finally, the Immortal and the Overseer were just examples of units that didn't work out as they had planned. I am confused as to where you got the notion that those two units are Blizzard's highest priority for fixing. Browder didn't say anything like that at all.
Please, just go watch the actual video of the interview. Those transcripts are garbage.
On June 12 2011 14:31 jalstar wrote: Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
But you barely have to micro immortals because of hardened shield, while if you don't position and micro colossi well they'll get killed by vikings or corruptors in a few seconds.
You at least have to target fire with immortals, if you want to use them well at least..
On June 12 2011 17:39 noelsusman wrote: The whole "SC2 is not BW" thing was a response to a question about unit pathing, specifically clumping of units compared to BW. The interviewers kept asking him questions comparing SC2 to BW, so Browder responded by saying they are different games. BW had a horrendous interface and AI system. Browder's point is that SC2 fixed most of those problems and any differences that arise from that are just part of the game. It's not something that they are willing to change just to make it more like BW.
I'm disappointed that the question was presented that way then. Don't change SC2's pathing to make it more like BW, change it to make the game better. It's just the truth that it's very difficult to control large armies in SC2 if you want them to move in any other formation than a dense blob. Or, if you use multiple control groups, several dense blobs. I don't see this as ideal personally, but if Browder does I'd like to hear his reasoning beyond just "this aint BW".
I gotta say, imo this thread is extremely biased and really just venting more than anything. Those quotes are mostly out of context and as a player and a member of the community I don't understand where this feeling of Blizzard not being "in touch" is coming from.
You have to see it from Blizzards perspective. If they changed the game every time a thread like this came up it would never stop and never achieve balance. Cries of imba or op change every month. Is the game that broken that all of these are issues or are people just venting? If I recall correctly weren't people complaining about Blizzard swaying to the communities demands too much? Food for thought.
Also, as for rushes being too strong, I will say that they are strong but the more I play I find them easier to counter, easier to punish, and ultimately a trick strat that is good to have but definitely not something you can rely on for long.
Those quotes are pretty hard to take out of context.
Here's what blizzard's perspective seems like: "Hey we haven't patched in a while, unit x isn't doing the role we had in mind and should be changed." The community: "change unit y because of these reasons...". which were discussed in depth in huge threads and with clear majority opinions... yet blizzard doesn't touch them
Rushes are stronger than i'd like. it's not that a specific type of rush is too powerful.. it's that many different ones are very powerful and only if you know which one is coming can you defend it and easily counter. And you can't always scout which one is coming...
On June 12 2011 14:31 jalstar wrote: Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
But you barely have to micro immortals because of hardened shield, while if you don't position and micro colossi well they'll get killed by vikings or corruptors in a few seconds.
I couldn't agree more. I hope more people realise this.
Really? I find Immortals very interesting units. It's just that they're bad. They're the quality of unit I'd expect to warp in, but instead they build in place from a more expensive production center.
the reasons immortals are so boring is because there not very cost effective units. u make them mainly for either tanks, mass roaches, or marauders. immortals get raped by anything that does less then 10-12 dmg at a fast rate like marines, hydras, lings,etc. and often times u have to focus fire the immortals on the correct unit because they would usually atk the wrong unit. like roach ling the immortal will almost always target the lings if u dont focus fire them on the roaches.
blizz wanted the immortals to be a meat tank. they wanted roaches to also be a meat shield. they failed on both accounts.
Colossus may be uninteresting but I'm surprised how low baneling is on that uninteresting poll. After all baneling is amove lurker. They just decided to make a unit that is easier to control.
Blizzard isn't out of touch. Did you see the April Fool's patch notes? They basically addressed every single issue that everyone supposedly thought they were overlooking. I know that it's frustrating when LAN and group replay features are not added but just because there aren't balance changes every week doesn't mean blizzard doesn't know that there are these huge complaints in the community. Yes, they're being extremely slow and perhaps even alienating the community by not implementing certain features, but these are conscious choices and they obviously know that there are these complaints.
You know, I think the colossus would be more interesting and have that micro factor if people used more cliff stuff / warp prism colossus stuff but most people use it for deathballs only
"will there a cross region feature for GM in different sever? our current technology does not allow us to do that just yet. We will look into it but unlikely."
Lol. So something that has been in games since the 90's isn't available technology to them?
I realize some people still think blizzard cares about making SC2 a good game but when they say shit like this I just can't believe them.
On June 12 2011 18:20 adeezy wrote: You know, I think the colossus would be more interesting and have that micro factor if people used more cliff stuff / warp prism colossus stuff but most people use it for deathballs only
there's no point! why use a warp prism when colossus can already walk up cliffs also cliffs don't save you from the colossus' only threats: vikings and corrupter
SC2 in general is less interesting than brood war. So many of the new units are simply attack move units. Just look at the units that they replaced and compare their abilities. For example, what's more interesting? Stim and attack move marauders or constant siegeing/unsiege and mine spread around the map. Or Colossus attack move lol, or reaver harass that had high risk/reward. SO MANY of the new units in sc2 are either attack move or "meatshield" units that just stand there and take hits and attack(Roaches, Thors, Immortals).
Also, some of the spells/abilities in sc2 are lacking a bit more diversity and spark(for lack of a better term). Take the 250 mm strike cannon, corruption, auto-turret, pdd, and spawning infested terran. What would you rather see? Sc2 spells or Dark Epic Swarm, plagooo, irradiate, sexy disruption build by bisu, defensive matrix, etc..
people answering colossus are basically suggesting which unit they want changed the most not which unit is the least interesting. overseers and immortals are MUCH less interesting than colossus, but people hate the design of colossus more because it has insane potential for damage and is easy to micro, not because its a unit with no features that fills the role of another unit.
I couldn't take this post seriously when it said that Immortal is a meat-shield, when it exists almost explicitly for DPS in contemporary play. And the role of Marauders/Roaches couldn't be different.
We need less whiners, and more constructive thoughts. Our understanding of Brood War is far more advanced than SC2. And watching professional games, I think that the criticism of rush availability is both exaggerated and ignorant of the age of the game.
I agree. Blizzard said Zerg does not have any issue on early game scouting, rather, he said all races have bad early game scouting. I don't disagree with it completely but zerg requires to play much more reactively, which is why early scout for zerg is more crucial than other races.
But it seems he failed to take a note of this side of the story
Is Blizzard out of touch? If you mean out of touch as in they don't follow all the tourneys and ladder 3 hours a day, then they probably are. But it's not really their fault.
During part of the interview, I think it was for World of Warcraft, one of the guys mentioned that they crunched for two years to get the game out on time. These guys at the company crunched for two fucking years to get a game out while under the "it's done when it's done" philosophy. That's probably something like 15 hour days for 2 years straight to make the best games on the market today. That doesn't leave a lot of room for "being in touch". The programmers and designers can get info from their market research teams and balance teams (David Kim etc.), but there's only so much they can get out of it without actually spending so many hours "following the scene".
Think about it: you're taking 1-2 hours every day to "be in touch" when you feel like it with a game that they're working on pretty much during all waking hours. It's a bit silly to ask for more from people who are already giving it their all.
I disagree that they're loosing touch. For heavens sake they've just made the best fucking game to grace the earth and are constantly trying to improve it. Less can be said for pretty much any other developer out there - god we're spoiled...
Regarding the most uninteresting unit, it has to go to the colossus. I play protoss and I pretty much never make it. I just refuse. T_T Fucking hate it.
the voters propably were angry zergs, not getting the poll question, because the colossus has an unique design with its cliffwalking and height. the poll does not say : which unit is used too much ?
Yeah. I agree that Blizzard have got this sort of stubborn thing that this his how things have to be. When I watch the SC2 games I can't help but feel that their vision of how starcraft 2 is meant to be is at odds with what people here think is fun. There have been 100s of threads here discussing these things and all have their merit. Here is my perspective on what I think is wrong currently
Unit Pathing - I know there is a general sentiment that unit pathing in starcraft 2 is much better than SC1. In general it is true for most cases except one. Have any of you seen in real life soldiers bumping into each other ? or tanks colliding ? This is what I see in SC2 and it bothers me a lot. Soldiers IRL walk in a nice orderly manner, in a formation with gaps between them. SC1 had this part correct. I have no idea why the so called "advanced" pathing in SC2 cannot get this right. If this is fixed then we will have more spread out armies and more epic battlers. High Ground Advantage I think the earlier system of not doing full damage was pretty good. Now there is no defenders advantage and this contributes to why all the early rushes are so powerful. If there was high ground advantage a small army sitting on high ground could hold off a much larger army. Now all that is needed is for someone to float a unit over and suddenly everyone is on the same footing. Marauders - I am not sure what blizzards vision is for new units. So units are far too powerful for their roles that they influence balance in a big way while not being too exciting. Case in points are marauders which are beefy, have slow and do massive DPS. In past abilities like slow (which is a warcraft ability) were given to units that had certain disadvantages, like low dps. But Marauders have none of those. Collosus I don't even know where to start on this. A seige unit with mobility ? Can travel up/down cliffs ? What was blizzard thinking ? Also probably the most boring unit to watch in battles. They replaced a perfectly fine unit in the reaver with this ? Colossi being overpowered is probably why gateway units are so weak.
SC2 has potential but I think that is being robbed because of Blizzard trying too hard to differentiate it from SC1. This makes them change and remove stuff that was not broken to begin with.
On June 12 2011 18:56 Dyon wrote: the voters propably were angry zergs, not getting the poll question, because the colossus has an unique design with its cliffwalking and height. the poll does not say : which unit is used too much ?
On June 12 2011 18:25 SEANSYE wrote: SC2 in general is less interesting than brood war. So many of the new units are simply attack move units. Just look at the units that they replaced and compare their abilities. For example, what's more interesting? Stim and attack move marauders or constant siegeing/unsiege and mine spread around the map. Or Colossus attack move lol, or reaver harass that had high risk/reward. SO MANY of the new units in sc2 are either attack move or "meatshield" units that just stand there and take hits and attack(Roaches, Thors, Immortals).
Also, some of the spells/abilities in sc2 are lacking a bit more diversity and spark(for lack of a better term). Take the 250 mm strike cannon, corruption, auto-turret, pdd, and spawning infested terran. What would you rather see? Sc2 spells or Dark Epic Swarm, plagooo, irradiate, sexy disruption build by bisu, defensive matrix, etc..
Well go back to BW then!
Just kidding. If you're like me you're still playing BW regularly alongside SC2. I agree that in general SC2 is less interesting, but it still has its charms, and is probably the best RTS released since WC3. Someone said a moment ago that banelings are just a-move lurkers. That claim makes zero sense to me. I'll never get tired of seeing well-placed baneling landmines, baneling overlord drops, or tense ling/baneling micro battles in ZvZ. And as a terran player I'm in love with roasting workers with hellions, even if I miss spider mines. So at the best of times, SC2 is not only as exciting as BW but exciting in its own way. It just has a lot of room for improvement.
Luckily, two expansions are on the way. I only hope that Blizzard listens to the constructive criticism of real fans rather than the idiot chorus of fanboys.
Meh BW isn't a godsent game, nostalgia, memories, myth and plain old 10 years of playing it has refined it to some state of mind that can't be rivaled. I for one think it is overcredited and alot of the whine comes from Pro's who just don't spend enough time with SC2. IdrA is one of the few people who can rival koreans when it comes to practice but even they have a better practice regime aswell as an envoirment where all the players are good and they can funnel ideas inbetween eachother and become stronger through it... the only thing IdrA can learn from InControl/EG is that he should stop quitting every fucking game even if it makes him angry because he'll never be the best if he does. Point is: Westerners are just not very good at Starcraft BW or Starcraft 2, there ARE alot of great people who CAN rival Koreans, but they're very few.
Now I do hate Blizzard in that sense of discussion but they have a hard position no doupt.
But I heard something interesting on Steve Bonell(Or was it Destiny's stream I forgot) about how depressed they got viewing the zerg forums and all the balance and how they just really didn't want to play the game, until they stopt viewing the forums and just kept trying to win the game and explore new ways of doing it. I think SC2 has had a rough time in balance because people mix in way to much whine than actual pure balance in the discussion, and way to few people actually try to figure out how they can circumvent these problems.
Do agree with that every unit doesn't feel like it has a good place/role nor that Mauraders/Roaches/Stalkers make for amazing games but sometimes they do when players know how to play it right.
On June 12 2011 18:47 Caphe wrote: I want my precious reaver and lurker back!!! and I play Terran T_T. Screw Blizzard!
go play brood war then
honestly though, lurkers are many times more interesting fun to watch than banelings. sure, people getting rolled with banelings is fun, but it's also a very short fun. on the other hand, lurkers were so good at defending places and let the games be more strategical. i wish they come back in sc2:hots, but i doubt it.
as for reavers, i don't think they'll appear again. if they do, they would need to be nerfed severely because blizzard won't put them back in the game being as "bugged" as they were in BW.
On June 12 2011 18:56 Dyon wrote: the voters propably were angry zergs, not getting the poll question, because the colossus has an unique design with its cliffwalking and height. the poll does not say : which unit is used too much ?
Yeah I play zerg and I want protoss to have reaver and arbiter instead of collossus and mothership. And it has nothing to do with balance, I just want interesting units in the game.
Collossus may have an unique design but it's really bad unit for and esports game.
On June 12 2011 18:38 Huludite wrote: Why isn't the Colossus interesting? Mobile, fragile aoe is very interesting in high dps fights in my opinion
Because you a-move it and kill everything? Compare this unit with reaver from BW. Reaver 10x more fun, interesting and micro intensive.
If that's the only problem there can be other solutions than just completely removing it (maybe decreasing it's range or giving it a special ability) But I think the collossus stalker sentry vs bio viking micro is pretty interesting, could be better of course, but not horrible enough to completely remove the unit (then we have to start balancing from square one again)
On June 12 2011 19:02 decaf wrote: If they'd stream IdrA talking to Dustin Browder I'm sure 50k people would tune it to watch it.
If they took IdrA's advice I would have to go shoot Dustin Browder.
Can you elaborate on that a bit more? IdrA's advice isn't in favor of Zerg, he seeks for overall balance - it was him suggesting nerfing the roach during the beta so I'd like to see you backing that statement up.
On June 12 2011 18:47 Caphe wrote: I want my precious reaver and lurker back!!! and I play Terran T_T. Screw Blizzard!
go play brood war then
This is the thing.
Dustin Browder said something like: "Dont like to watch SC2? Go watch BW.". That is, in my opinion, a poisonous statement. It shows that the dev team doesn't WANT to change the game for the better. I'm not saying it should be like BW, I'm saying that they like the game as it is now, when people have a lot of legitimate complaints, and are unwilling to listen.
That statement, the "go back to bw", is clearly showing Blizzard to be at least somewhat out of touch with it's community. I really really really want a great expansion pack, but Blizzard doesn't really want to show anything that makes me want to buy it.
On June 12 2011 19:02 decaf wrote: If they'd stream IdrA talking to Dustin Browder I'm sure 50k people would tune it to watch it.
If they took IdrA's advice I would have to go shoot Dustin Browder.
Can you elaborate on that a bit more? IdrA's advice isn't in favor of Zerg, he seeks for overall balance - it was him suggesting nerfing the roach during the beta so I'd like to see you backing that statement up.
The same guy who prematurely leaves games? or doesn't even give an effort when he is a little bit behind. Like InControl said, "he plays like a robot".
On June 12 2011 19:02 decaf wrote: If they'd stream IdrA talking to Dustin Browder I'm sure 50k people would tune it to watch it.
If they took IdrA's advice I would have to go shoot Dustin Browder.
Can you elaborate on that a bit more? IdrA's advice isn't in favor of Zerg, he seeks for overall balance - it was him suggesting nerfing the roach during the beta so I'd like to see you backing that statement up.
The same guy who prematurely leaves games? or doesn't even give an effort when he is a little bit behind. Like InControl said, "he plays like a robot".
Can you elaborate on how this makes him any less credible? IdrA did not know about MMA blowing up his own CC and for him it was the perfect reaction to someone not "sucking". IdrA still gives the best advice.
I feel like this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people trying to shit on the game for no reason =/ comments like "dustin bowder is the reason sc2 is terrible" are just so far from the trust its insane... the quotes from sen about balance, well, I think SC2 is pretty well balanced for being less than a year old. It's not perfect but all races are at least playable at the top level. Re: marauder, roach, immortal - the stigma against these units its pretty unjustified. Yes the roach and the marauder are very powerful units but theres nothing wrong with either of them =/ why are they hated? because they're so damn effective. If you were to ask people what was the most "uninteresting" unit when the void ray was still way OP then I'm sure the VR would be up there as "uninteresting". Sorry but your entire post is just bias and wrong ...
On June 12 2011 19:02 decaf wrote: If they'd stream IdrA talking to Dustin Browder I'm sure 50k people would tune it to watch it.
If they took IdrA's advice I would have to go shoot Dustin Browder.
Can you elaborate on that a bit more? IdrA's advice isn't in favor of Zerg, he seeks for overall balance - it was him suggesting nerfing the roach during the beta so I'd like to see you backing that statement up.
The same guy who prematurely leaves games? or doesn't even give an effort when he is a little bit behind. Like InControl said, "he plays like a robot".
How does that have anything to do with his take on game balance?
If anything i think this and all the other hardcore communities are out of touch rather than Blizzard
Every game has its own online community that is, for their own good, too hardcore and tend often to not see the big picture.
You may think this is just online games that have a large esport following but i can give you an example of even the Silent Hill community who argues and demands that Team Silent and Konami redo some of the games and still after 10 years explain what this or that meant in Silent Hill 2.
There isent a developer out there who is more in touch with its community than Blizzard, their constant updates for their games, even ancient ones like Diablo 2 and BW would make most other devs and publishers slit their own wrists by the mere thought of having to update or rebalance. Yet Blizzard does it
SC2 is not BW, and because Blizzard still supports BW (hey can you play Halo 2 online on Xbox Live? No you cant, cause they do not support it) means that SC2 can and should be different than Brood War as the choice is always which you rather play.
I used Halo 2 as an example but it is common in console gaming to eventually yank the servers down for even the most popular games so people are forced to go out and buy the newest release. Blizzard has not done this to any of their games, Brood War is right there, as is Diablo 1 and Warcraft 2.
I remember alot of people in beta for SC2 bashing the game on a constant basis, wanting it to fail badly, having some sort of elitist grudge against Bowder because he was not there when Brood War was made thus he had no "right" to make the sequal to your game. All that hate aside, the sales numbers and the large esports community behind SC2 shows that Bowder got 1-0 all the people who wanted him to fail.
And let us not forget what happened to Warcraft 3 and how that game (despite having no Dustin Bowder) did not manage to capture the esports community as much as SC2 has done so far. So clearly Bowder has taken Blizzard RTS games and put them back on track where they should be
On June 12 2011 18:38 Huludite wrote: Why isn't the Colossus interesting? Mobile, fragile aoe is very interesting in high dps fights in my opinion
Because AOE siege unit should not be that mobile just because they have the wekness to be able to be hit by air weapons.
Lurker had to burrow, Tanks need to siege, Broodlords and Templar are slow as hell. Colossi are Ultra mobile siege aoe unit with a fancy weakness, that's bad design.
On June 12 2011 19:20 Plexa wrote: I feel like this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people trying to shit on the game for no reason =/ comments like "dustin bowder is the reason sc2 is terrible" are just so far from the trust its insane... the quotes from sen about balance, well, I think SC2 is pretty well balanced for being less than a year old. It's not perfect but all races are at least playable at the top level. Re: marauder, roach, immortal - the stigma against these units its pretty unjustified. Yes the roach and the marauder are very powerful units but theres nothing wrong with either of them =/ why are they hated? because they're so damn effective. If you were to ask people what was the most "uninteresting" unit when the void ray was still way OP then I'm sure the VR would be up there as "uninteresting". Sorry but your entire post is just bias and wrong ...
you only reply to part of his post and then say it's entirely wrong... fact is that blizz is not rly listening to the community (i feel this is they main point actually) and sticks their head in the sand... no need to deny it, best example is bnet 2 which still lacks so much functionality, but also in sc2 there are numerous things that the community would like to see changed, but won't happen... they just seem to deny there is an issue... i agree on your part about the units tho, it's balanced they are hated cause they are quite effective... still it's nowhere near perfect so there's lots of room for improvement...
On June 12 2011 19:20 Plexa wrote: I feel like this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people trying to shit on the game for no reason =/ comments like "dustin bowder is the reason sc2 is terrible" are just so far from the trust its insane... the quotes from sen about balance, well, I think SC2 is pretty well balanced for being less than a year old. It's not perfect but all races are at least playable at the top level. Re: marauder, roach, immortal - the stigma against these units its pretty unjustified. Yes the roach and the marauder are very powerful units but theres nothing wrong with either of them =/ why are they hated? because they're so damn effective. If you were to ask people what was the most "uninteresting" unit when the void ray was still way OP then I'm sure the VR would be up there as "uninteresting". Sorry but your entire post is just bias and wrong ...
I'd rather say that its a bunch of people disappointed that their favorite game is not heading where it should be.
On June 12 2011 19:02 decaf wrote: If they'd stream IdrA talking to Dustin Browder I'm sure 50k people would tune it to watch it.
If they took IdrA's advice I would have to go shoot Dustin Browder.
Can you elaborate on that a bit more? IdrA's advice isn't in favor of Zerg, he seeks for overall balance - it was him suggesting nerfing the roach during the beta so I'd like to see you backing that statement up.
The same guy who prematurely leaves games? or doesn't even give an effort when he is a little bit behind. Like InControl said, "he plays like a robot".
How does that have anything to do with his take on game balance?
Well what kind of balance has he suggested? All I've heard from him are the lack of scouting for zerg early game. The rest are Protoss OP, Protoss not suppose to beat zerg, forcefield imba, buildings can kill a race. He's QQ'er... and thinks he would be the best if he actually played protoss instead of zerg which is bullshit. He even admits he doesn't practice as hard anymore and says the game is too easy. But look at the koreans who practice like 10+ hours everday and thats why they always get the best results.
I think your biggest problem is that you consider the majority or the "hivemind" to actually know everything better. On TL for example the hivemind seems to think that SC2 needs to be as close to BW as possible, or else it will fail. The most common balance suggestion is to make everything like it was in BW, but why would the game need to copy everything from BW to be successful?
Yet still only as a year old SC2 feels very balanced to me, and in the current patch more balanced than it has ever been. I don't feel like there's been a single big blunder Blizzard has done in balancing the game since the beta, so they can hardly be blamed for being terribly out of touch. People just go out of they way to complain about things that would take extreme measures to fix, not really understanding that you can't just remove/nerf colossus and expect everything to go a-okay. Blizzard has worked years to achieve the very balanced situation we are in now, I think they deserve some credit.
On June 12 2011 19:20 Plexa wrote: I feel like this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people trying to shit on the game for no reason =/ comments like "dustin bowder is the reason sc2 is terrible" are just so far from the trust its insane... the quotes from sen about balance, well, I think SC2 is pretty well balanced for being less than a year old. It's not perfect but all races are at least playable at the top level. Re: marauder, roach, immortal - the stigma against these units its pretty unjustified. Yes the roach and the marauder are very powerful units but theres nothing wrong with either of them =/ why are they hated? because they're so damn effective. If you were to ask people what was the most "uninteresting" unit when the void ray was still way OP then I'm sure the VR would be up there as "uninteresting". Sorry but your entire post is just bias and wrong ...
I'd rather say that its a bunch of people disappointed that their favorite game is not heading where it should be.
Yeah, why isn't this game being remade into Brood War with HD graphics, and into something else entirely? That's what everyone on this forum wants right? An updated Brood War?
Threads like these make me so sad. Why must there always be a bunch of vocal people claiming the people behind THE VERY GAME THAT IS THE REASON YOU ARE HERE is stupid/incompetent/dont know what they're doing. If that was the case, you wouldnt be here. Starcraft would only be another random shit game which gets released and then forgotten a few months later. And we're also talking about the company which made the warcraft, diablo and WoW series.
How can you even live with yourself trying to make them out as incompetent? Im honestly baffled those thoughts can go through peoples minds. And whats up with trying to put all the blame on one person? Holy crap do you have any idea whatsoever about how Blizzard work? And do you think this one guy is in charge of everything and make stupid calls and then an army of blind followers carry out those stupid calls and implement them in the game? Seriously, what world are you living in? And on top of it people sit back in their chair at home and claim to know better. What. Is. Worng. With. You?
And yes, constructive criticism is good. But reasoning that problems exist because the makers of the far most successful esport game and some of the most classic game titles ever are incompetent, I dont have words for it.
I think i will never understand, why people have the feeling, that their opinion matters in any way, concerning the design of Starcraft 2. In the end we are the consumer of Starcraft. Just like in other areas of life, if you are not happy with the product provided by a company it is your choice to not use it. However for some strange reason, people feel that with Starcraft 2, they should be allowed to have influence on the way the Game is designed. Do you guys feel, that you should have an influence on your local grocerie store and their selection of fruit? And from where do you get the feeling that their opinion is more valid than what the people, working at Blizzard, think?
On June 12 2011 19:41 Kreb wrote: Threads like these make me so sad. Why must there always be a bunch of vocal people claiming the people behind THE VERY GAME THAT IS THE REASON YOU ARE HERE is stupid/incompetent/dont know what they're doing. If that was the case, you wouldnt be here. Starcraft would only be another random shit game which gets released and then forgotten a few months later. And we're also talking about the company which made the warcraft, diablo and WoW series.
How can you even live with yourself trying to make them out as incompetent? Im honestly baffled those thoughts can go through peoples minds. And whats up with trying to put all the blame on one person? Holy crap do you have any idea whatsoever about how Blizzard work? And do you think this one guy is in charge of everything and make stupid calls and then an army of blind followers carry out those stupid calls and implement them in the game? Seriously, what world are you living in? And on top of it people sit back in their chair at home and claim to know better. What. Is. Worng. With. You?
And yes, constructive criticism is good. But reasoning that problems exist because the makers of the far most successful esport game and some of the most classic game titles ever are incompetent, I dont have words for it.
BW was a fluke made by different people and SC2 merely copied the magical formula that made it so successful. Making a good game based off the best RTS ever made is not an impressive feat.
On June 12 2011 19:20 Plexa wrote: I feel like this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people trying to shit on the game for no reason =/ comments like "dustin bowder is the reason sc2 is terrible" are just so far from the trust its insane... the quotes from sen about balance, well, I think SC2 is pretty well balanced for being less than a year old. It's not perfect but all races are at least playable at the top level. Re: marauder, roach, immortal - the stigma against these units its pretty unjustified. Yes the roach and the marauder are very powerful units but theres nothing wrong with either of them =/ why are they hated? because they're so damn effective. If you were to ask people what was the most "uninteresting" unit when the void ray was still way OP then I'm sure the VR would be up there as "uninteresting". Sorry but your entire post is just bias and wrong ...
This. And then theres also a poll about "uninteresting units" and at the end of the poll he states that the colossus is much more "hated" than those Blizz mentioned? What? The poll was about uninteresting units? Not hated? Where did hated come from at all?
On June 12 2011 19:41 Kreb wrote: Threads like these make me so sad. Why must there always be a bunch of vocal people claiming the people behind THE VERY GAME THAT IS THE REASON YOU ARE HERE is stupid/incompetent/dont know what they're doing. If that was the case, you wouldnt be here. Starcraft would only be another random shit game which gets released and then forgotten a few months later. And we're also talking about the company which made the warcraft, diablo and WoW series.
How can you even live with yourself trying to make them out as incompetent? Im honestly baffled those thoughts can go through peoples minds. And whats up with trying to put all the blame on one person? Holy crap do you have any idea whatsoever about how Blizzard work? And do you think this one guy is in charge of everything and make stupid calls and then an army of blind followers carry out those stupid calls and implement them in the game? Seriously, what world are you living in? And on top of it people sit back in their chair at home and claim to know better. What. Is. Worng. With. You?
And yes, constructive criticism is good. But reasoning that problems exist because the makers of the far most successful esport game and some of the most classic game titles ever are incompetent, I dont have words for it.
BW was a fluke made by different people and SC2 merely copied the magical formula that made it so successful. Making a good game based off the best RTS ever made is not an impressive feat.
On June 12 2011 19:41 Kreb wrote: Threads like these make me so sad. Why must there always be a bunch of vocal people claiming the people behind THE VERY GAME THAT IS THE REASON YOU ARE HERE is stupid/incompetent/dont know what they're doing. If that was the case, you wouldnt be here. Starcraft would only be another random shit game which gets released and then forgotten a few months later. And we're also talking about the company which made the warcraft, diablo and WoW series.
How can you even live with yourself trying to make them out as incompetent? Im honestly baffled those thoughts can go through peoples minds. And whats up with trying to put all the blame on one person? Holy crap do you have any idea whatsoever about how Blizzard work? And do you think this one guy is in charge of everything and make stupid calls and then an army of blind followers carry out those stupid calls and implement them in the game? Seriously, what world are you living in? And on top of it people sit back in their chair at home and claim to know better. What. Is. Worng. With. You?
And yes, constructive criticism is good. But reasoning that problems exist because the makers of the far most successful esport game and some of the most classic game titles ever are incompetent, I dont have words for it.
BW was a fluke made by different people and SC2 merely copied the magical formula that made it so successful. Making a good game based off the best RTS ever made is not an impressive feat.
Sources please? How do you know it was different people? How do you know their work was just about copying the magic formula of BW? Hell, what is the magic formula of BW anyway?
Oh, and I very much disagree with it being unimpressive. Why dont you think more people do it then?
On June 12 2011 19:20 Plexa wrote: I feel like this thread is nothing more than a bunch of people trying to shit on the game for no reason =/ comments like "dustin bowder is the reason sc2 is terrible" are just so far from the trust its insane... the quotes from sen about balance, well, I think SC2 is pretty well balanced for being less than a year old. It's not perfect but all races are at least playable at the top level. Re: marauder, roach, immortal - the stigma against these units its pretty unjustified. Yes the roach and the marauder are very powerful units but theres nothing wrong with either of them =/ why are they hated? because they're so damn effective. If you were to ask people what was the most "uninteresting" unit when the void ray was still way OP then I'm sure the VR would be up there as "uninteresting". Sorry but your entire post is just bias and wrong ...
you only reply to part of his post and then say it's entirely wrong... fact is that blizz is not rly listening to the community (i feel this is they main point actually) and sticks their head in the sand... no need to deny it, best example is bnet 2 which still lacks so much functionality, but also in sc2 there are numerous things that the community would like to see changed, but won't happen... they just seem to deny there is an issue... i agree on your part about the units tho, it's balanced they are hated cause they are quite effective... still it's nowhere near perfect so there's lots of room for improvement...
There are improvements to battle.net which need to be made which I have been assured are being made (but obviously progressing at a "blizzard soon" pace). But so far as the actual game is concerned (which is the part DB has been most involved with afiak) I have no major gripes. I don't think anyones said its perfect though, and bnet2 is going to be the platform for every blizzard game in the foreseeable future so one can only hope that it gets better with time.
On June 12 2011 19:41 Kreb wrote: Threads like these make me so sad. Why must there always be a bunch of vocal people claiming the people behind THE VERY GAME THAT IS THE REASON YOU ARE HERE is stupid/incompetent/dont know what they're doing. If that was the case, you wouldnt be here. Starcraft would only be another random shit game which gets released and then forgotten a few months later. And we're also talking about the company which made the warcraft, diablo and WoW series.
How can you even live with yourself trying to make them out as incompetent? Im honestly baffled those thoughts can go through peoples minds. And whats up with trying to put all the blame on one person? Holy crap do you have any idea whatsoever about how Blizzard work? And do you think this one guy is in charge of everything and make stupid calls and then an army of blind followers carry out those stupid calls and implement them in the game? Seriously, what world are you living in? And on top of it people sit back in their chair at home and claim to know better. What. Is. Worng. With. You?
And yes, constructive criticism is good. But reasoning that problems exist because the makers of the far most successful esport game and some of the most classic game titles ever are incompetent, I dont have words for it.
BW was a fluke made by different people and SC2 merely copied the magical formula that made it so successful. Making a good game based off the best RTS ever made is not an impressive feat.
Sources please? How do you know it was different people? How do you know their work was just about copying the magic formula of BW? Hell, what is the magic formula of BW anyway?
Oh, and I very much disagree with it being unimpressive. Why dont you think more people do it then?
He's correct. Most of the original design team no longer work at blizzard.
On June 12 2011 19:02 decaf wrote: If they'd stream IdrA talking to Dustin Browder I'm sure 50k people would tune it to watch it.
If they took IdrA's advice I would have to go shoot Dustin Browder.
Can you elaborate on that a bit more? IdrA's advice isn't in favor of Zerg, he seeks for overall balance - it was him suggesting nerfing the roach during the beta so I'd like to see you backing that statement up.
The same guy who prematurely leaves games? or doesn't even give an effort when he is a little bit behind. Like InControl said, "he plays like a robot".
Can you elaborate on how this makes him any less credible? IdrA did not know about MMA blowing up his own CC and for him it was the perfect reaction to someone not "sucking". IdrA still gives the best advice.
idra thinks he should win every single game
not to mention he always whined about terran being weak in bw and now flash is just dominating everyone
On June 12 2011 19:41 Kreb wrote: Threads like these make me so sad. Why must there always be a bunch of vocal people claiming the people behind THE VERY GAME THAT IS THE REASON YOU ARE HERE is stupid/incompetent/dont know what they're doing. If that was the case, you wouldnt be here. Starcraft would only be another random shit game which gets released and then forgotten a few months later. And we're also talking about the company which made the warcraft, diablo and WoW series.
How can you even live with yourself trying to make them out as incompetent? Im honestly baffled those thoughts can go through peoples minds. And whats up with trying to put all the blame on one person? Holy crap do you have any idea whatsoever about how Blizzard work? And do you think this one guy is in charge of everything and make stupid calls and then an army of blind followers carry out those stupid calls and implement them in the game? Seriously, what world are you living in? And on top of it people sit back in their chair at home and claim to know better. What. Is. Worng. With. You?
And yes, constructive criticism is good. But reasoning that problems exist because the makers of the far most successful esport game and some of the most classic game titles ever are incompetent, I dont have words for it.
BW was a fluke made by different people and SC2 merely copied the magical formula that made it so successful. Making a good game based off the best RTS ever made is not an impressive feat.
Im sorry, so are you saying that the magical formula to make a good RTS that has a competitive scene is to base it off one of the first RTS's ever? And most likely the most popular. If that is so why is sc2 unrivalled in western culture as the most played RTS game. Why have other companies not stolen blizzards idea? I think people complaining about starcraft 2 in a starcraft 2 forum is the exact same as going to an artist you dislike's youtube video and then saying they suck. It achieves nothing.
Also cmon, how can the collosus be the most boring unit. Its not an "amove and win" unit at all, positioning and micro are key. Its the whole deathball which is "A-move and win" in certain scenarios.
Boring units one dimensional units like the reaper and the overseer, they will never be used as blizzard sees them. The reaper because helions are so much better for harass and drops are so much better for sniping tech, the overseer strikes me as a unit that blizzard decided would be awesome on paper but just has not lived up to its potential.
I'm not sure anything productive can come out of this thread, you try to jump to far reaching conclusions from a few interviews, whereas the game itself is good. Until you see something in the patch notes, you can't accuse them of doing any wrong and so far, every single balance patch made the game better. Think about that.
Im sorry, so are you saying that the magical formula to make a good RTS that has a competitive scene is to base it off one of the first RTS's ever? And most likely the most popular. If that is so why is sc2 unrivalled in western culture as the most played RTS game. Why have other companies not stolen blizzards idea? I think people complaining about starcraft 2 in a starcraft 2 forum is the exact same as going to an artist you dislike's youtube video and then saying they suck. It achieves nothing.
Sc2 is popular because it is polished, has nice controls and a rather healthy unit mixture and race variation to be enjoyed. Its success is mostly because there exists a real RTS market and no company has thus far provided for it. Unless you consider failure games like CnC which are utter garbage.
Also cmon, how can the collosus be the most boring unit. Its not an "amove and win" unit at all, positioning and micro are key. Its the whole deathball which is "A-move and win" in certain scenarios.
Collossus is bad because it is too strong. Scratch that, it is too strong and its too easy to use for its effectiveness. From bronze to grandmasters if you get a good number of collossus you should win the game, its that simple. Also they are not as vulnerable as people like to say they are, having a huge health pool and being backed up by a ton of stalkers underneath them.
Take the overused reaver comparison: if a random nub gets reavers they will fire a couple shots, kill some clumped units and then lose them. A gosu will kill that many more units while controling them. The reaver was a unit for which positioning and micro was key, all much more than for the collosus.
On June 12 2011 19:41 Kreb wrote: Threads like these make me so sad. Why must there always be a bunch of vocal people claiming the people behind THE VERY GAME THAT IS THE REASON YOU ARE HERE is stupid/incompetent/dont know what they're doing. If that was the case, you wouldnt be here. Starcraft would only be another random shit game which gets released and then forgotten a few months later. And we're also talking about the company which made the warcraft, diablo and WoW series.
How can you even live with yourself trying to make them out as incompetent? Im honestly baffled those thoughts can go through peoples minds. And whats up with trying to put all the blame on one person? Holy crap do you have any idea whatsoever about how Blizzard work? And do you think this one guy is in charge of everything and make stupid calls and then an army of blind followers carry out those stupid calls and implement them in the game? Seriously, what world are you living in? And on top of it people sit back in their chair at home and claim to know better. What. Is. Worng. With. You?
And yes, constructive criticism is good. But reasoning that problems exist because the makers of the far most successful esport game and some of the most classic game titles ever are incompetent, I dont have words for it.
BW was a fluke made by different people and SC2 merely copied the magical formula that made it so successful. Making a good game based off the best RTS ever made is not an impressive feat.
Sources please? How do you know it was different people? How do you know their work was just about copying the magic formula of BW? Hell, what is the magic formula of BW anyway?
Oh, and I very much disagree with it being unimpressive. Why dont you think more people do it then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty BW was designed by Chris Metzen and James Phinney, SC2 was designed by Mr. Browder. Since we're talking about Dustin Browder's judgement the designers are the only people who I care about for this argument. So yes, I absolutely know they were different people, though I thought that was common knowledge by this point. I would have provided sources in my previous post if I thought anyone didn't know that.
Magic formula of BW is the race dynamics, basic unit design (interesting that the BW units are the ones no one ever complains about...), the resource and macro systems, the emphasis on APM and macro caused by the need to constantly be building stuff, the general flow of the game, everything that makes it Starcraft. SC2 shares these features, so yes, it did copy the magic formula.
As for why people haven't copied it, that's a very good point. Unless...
Oh wait, they totally have. And why isn't it as successful? Well, apart from the obvious problem of an RTS not being a PC game, it doesn't have the races and lore and more importantly it doesn't have the names Starcraft or Blizzard anywhere on it.
Incidentally, before anyone asks "well if you love BW so much why don't you marry it" or says something equally stupid, SC2 is what got me into competitive RTS. I love this game, and I want it to succeed. I never played BW back in the day (except for the single player, but that's a totally different game), and it's so damn difficult that I have no desire to learn it. I watch it from time to time, but I can't manage the macro, I can't handle the pathing or the unit selection limit, I don't have any real understanding of the metagame and I like my almost-daily dose of Tastosis too much to switch. But just because I prefer SC2 doesn't mean I can't appreciate its predecessor. I want SC2 to succeed, and I understand that there's a reason BW became so popular. I see flaws in SC2's design that BW did not have, and I want those flaws fixed. I want SC2 to become a proper sequel that truly deserves its name, and the nonsense some people shout about "how dare you question the divine will of blizzard" and "its a different game stop comparing it to its main competitor" does not help.
hm, what the players want is not always good for a game. i feel if they would do something against close spawn on their laddermaps and some tweak for infestor / marauder / ultra i would be totally happy :3
On June 12 2011 19:41 Kreb wrote: Threads like these make me so sad. Why must there always be a bunch of vocal people claiming the people behind THE VERY GAME THAT IS THE REASON YOU ARE HERE is stupid/incompetent/dont know what they're doing. If that was the case, you wouldnt be here. Starcraft would only be another random shit game which gets released and then forgotten a few months later. And we're also talking about the company which made the warcraft, diablo and WoW series.
How can you even live with yourself trying to make them out as incompetent? Im honestly baffled those thoughts can go through peoples minds. And whats up with trying to put all the blame on one person? Holy crap do you have any idea whatsoever about how Blizzard work? And do you think this one guy is in charge of everything and make stupid calls and then an army of blind followers carry out those stupid calls and implement them in the game? Seriously, what world are you living in? And on top of it people sit back in their chair at home and claim to know better. What. Is. Worng. With. You?
And yes, constructive criticism is good. But reasoning that problems exist because the makers of the far most successful esport game and some of the most classic game titles ever are incompetent, I dont have words for it.
BW was a fluke made by different people and SC2 merely copied the magical formula that made it so successful. Making a good game based off the best RTS ever made is not an impressive feat.
Im sorry, so are you saying that the magical formula to make a good RTS that has a competitive scene is to base it off one of the first RTS's ever? And most likely the most popular. If that is so why is sc2 unrivalled in western culture as the most played RTS game. Why have other companies not stolen blizzards idea? I think people complaining about starcraft 2 in a starcraft 2 forum is the exact same as going to an artist you dislike's youtube video and then saying they suck. It achieves nothing.
A much better comparison would be like, going on a Metallica fansite and saying that their newest album sucks in comparison to Master of Puppets.
That being said eh, yeah Blizzard's design team seems largery uninterested in trying to make the game have as much competitive depth as possible and instead focuses on catering to your average teenager gamer with rich parents with all the flashy stuff etc.
It's too bad, really. Especially since I really like the gameplay otherwise, they just have made numerous completely nonsensical development decisions.
BW's, CS's, DotA's success wasn't made by the producers or developers of the game but from the community so I don't know how you can side with blizzard with this bullshit going on.
Blizzard did a great job and will continue to do so. The pool is missleading, in fact the collosus, the marauder and also the roach are interesting units, just a bit overused and therefor possibly considered uninteresting when in reality I feel they are, compared to the alternatives, very, possibly a bit too strong choices. This is mostly due to the fact that they are easy to handle. I personally would like to see some tweaks for hydra, for ultra, for reaper (maybe another unit there), changed to the immortal (possibly another unit there), to give more options..nothing more boring then collosus pushes, mass roach play and a lot of marauder balls. But again I have faith in Blizzard and also in Dustin Browder.
They can't really do anything to colossus without scrapping warpgates, or something else drastic. I doubt the redesign the whole race even in the expansions.
haha thats a good one blizzard not listening to the community. Then explain why the game went from a trilogie where only the single player part would change and multiplayer would always stay the same. To an expansion system. (my opinion is because of the we want more units qqers) And why do we have chat channels now after bnet2 was build for a console. Or why do scvs have now only 45 health T-T.
The actual problem is they listened to the community to much, or made it to obvious that they listened. Now everyone beliefs their changes are the best for the game and if they aren't applied asap, blizzard is evil again. From the patches we received i always was impressed how good they solved some problems. (i still think they overreact with their patches though, but they have to be done before HotS to start again ...)
They for sure wont redesign the core elements, such as warpgate..they will hopefully make interesting changes that lead to even more interesting games. I for one hope that they dont listen too much to the biased progamers..there own race is "too weak" etc...lot of rubbish from most of them. Also the community at large is not an indication for bad balance or anything..only an indication on how much FUN the game actuallly is...they wil do their job as good as possible and so far this has proved to be brilliant almost every time.
Thanks for a good post, I think it needs more attention that blizzard's design team for SC2 are somewhat incompetent and not worthy of the engagement and dedication that the game receives from the community. Sad, but true.
On June 12 2011 20:22 aimaimaim wrote: BW's, CS's, DotA's success wasn't made by the producers or developers of the game but from the community so I don't know how you can side with blizzard with this bullshit going on.
Umm, what exactly are you implying? That BW/BS/Dota developers couldnt make a good game without the community help but that SC2 developers could?
Actually Banelings are a really boring units too, well at least in ZvT. Making tons of them (like 80) and a-moving them to PF/Bunkers/Tank lines followed with Mutas is not the game I want to play. Their splash radius and damage to buildings are just ridiculous. And the amount of micro Terrans has to put in this matchup because of banelings is quite unfair.
On June 12 2011 20:29 m0ck wrote: Thanks for a good post, I think it needs more attention that blizzard's design team for SC2 are somewhat incompetent and not worthy of the engagement and dedication that the game receives from the community. Sad, but true.
they MADE the game ...they are incompetent?...you must be kidding.
On June 12 2011 20:17 {ToT}ColmA wrote: hm, what the players want is not always good for a game. i feel if they would do something against close spawn on their laddermaps and some tweak for infestor / marauder / ultra i would be totally happy :3
who do you trust more when it comes to starcraft game design? the "players" which dedicated the last 10 years of their lifes to starcraft and know/understand the game at its deepest levels or some random command & conquer dev that just wants some "cool" (cnc units,war of the worlds tripod..) stuff ?
for me sc2 is already getting somewhat boring. i havent playd a ladder game in 2 months and i just watch the big events more for the community then for the actual games instead of soaking evrything up sc related like some months ago. and at this point i dont have much hope for the addons. dont get me wrong, i still love starcraft and will 100% buy both of them but i doubt that team can get sc2 even close to the brilliance of broodwar.
i think broodwar was more of a really lucky shot anyways but they could atleast try to learn from their legacy and the best mulitplayer rts ever made.
Nice thread. Evidently there is something wrong with this design team compared to the one from bw. Check this new units: -Roach -Marauder -Collosi Those are the most boring units of all, also prolly the most powerful ones, and all are 1a unit style.
On June 12 2011 19:02 decaf wrote: If they'd stream IdrA talking to Dustin Browder I'm sure 50k people would tune it to watch it.
If they took IdrA's advice I would have to go shoot Dustin Browder.
Can you elaborate on that a bit more? IdrA's advice isn't in favor of Zerg, he seeks for overall balance - it was him suggesting nerfing the roach during the beta so I'd like to see you backing that statement up.
The same guy who prematurely leaves games? or doesn't even give an effort when he is a little bit behind. Like InControl said, "he plays like a robot".
Can you elaborate on how this makes him any less credible? IdrA did not know about MMA blowing up his own CC and for him it was the perfect reaction to someone not "sucking". IdrA still gives the best advice.
idra thinks he should win every single game
not to mention he always whined about terran being weak in bw and now flash is just dominating everyone
Using Flash to indicate how strong terrans are in BW? I hope you realize how wrong and stupid you sound, right ?
On June 12 2011 20:32 Huragius wrote: Actually Banelings are a really boring units too, well at least in ZvT. Making tons of them (like 80) and a-moving them to PF/Bunkers/Tank lines followed with Mutas is not the game I want to play. Their splash radius and damage to buildings are just ridiculous. And the amount of micro Terrans has to put in this matchup because of banelings is quite unfair.
It is boring cause you think it is too strong?..prove of exactly what I said. Have you played bw? How many times have you lost units to lurkers for example..you think the micro/scannning etc is unfair there aswell? Hopefully Blizzard wont listen to people such as you..learn to play first.
On June 12 2011 15:05 Lovedrop wrote: Blizzard employees and community managers are extremely aware at both the state of the game and its players. They read almost every popular community website on a day-to-day basis, and while fans may find their resolution lacking, it is without a doubt that they try their best to find a compromise between their vision of the game and our own.
This actually changed my mind since my post. Quality reposne from Lovedrop.
dude changing the speed of the hydras would have a dramatic effect...we can finally freaking stutter micro them and run away when off creep. currently, if you commit in an engagement with hydras off creep, you are forced to fight to the death because they can't run at all.
They're the same speed as terran infantry.
Yes, we have stim, but you can't constantly stim. You have creep. Which is just LIKE having stim movement speed for hydras.
Just saying. I agree they're under used, but nothing drastic like a speed change.
This on the other hand is like a bad joke. Stutter stepping hydras on creep... yeah. Terrans can constantly stim and move faster than a hydra on creep (assuming medivacs are present) and stim can be used anywhere, including to kite around hydras.
On June 12 2011 16:30 Veritassong wrote: Bowder looks like a Marauder.. ooo their names rhyme too
Thats not a coincidence. He was plugged into the game left and right. From lines in the campaign to units, his face is everywhere. I'd play zerg just not to have to be reminded of it.
On June 12 2011 20:32 Huragius wrote: Actually Banelings are a really boring units too, well at least in ZvT. Making tons of them (like 80) and a-moving them to PF/Bunkers/Tank lines followed with Mutas is not the game I want to play. Their splash radius and damage to buildings are just ridiculous. And the amount of micro Terrans has to put in this matchup because of banelings is quite unfair.
It is boring cause you think it is too strong?..prove of exactly what I said. Have you played bw? How many times have you lost units to lurkers for example..you think the micro/scannning etc is unfair there aswell? Hopefully Blizzard wont listen to people such as you..learn to play first.
Please, please, please upload a replay of someone with 80 banelings that wins a game. I'd love to know how to spend 2000 gas and 4000 minerals on suicide units and have an army left over to hold off a counter attack.
On June 12 2011 19:02 decaf wrote: If they'd stream IdrA talking to Dustin Browder I'm sure 50k people would tune it to watch it.
If they took IdrA's advice I would have to go shoot Dustin Browder.
Can you elaborate on that a bit more? IdrA's advice isn't in favor of Zerg, he seeks for overall balance - it was him suggesting nerfing the roach during the beta so I'd like to see you backing that statement up.
The same guy who prematurely leaves games? or doesn't even give an effort when he is a little bit behind. Like InControl said, "he plays like a robot".
Can you elaborate on how this makes him any less credible? IdrA did not know about MMA blowing up his own CC and for him it was the perfect reaction to someone not "sucking". IdrA still gives the best advice.
idra thinks he should win every single game
not to mention he always whined about terran being weak in bw and now flash is just dominating everyone
Using Flash to indicate how strong terrans are in BW? I hope you realize how wrong and stupid you sound, right ?
Boxer oov Nada Flash. It's pretty obvious Terran is the strongest race in BW. Props mostly go to Boxer for showing it when no one would've believed it.
On June 12 2011 20:32 Huragius wrote: Actually Banelings are a really boring units too, well at least in ZvT. Making tons of them (like 80) and a-moving them to PF/Bunkers/Tank lines followed with Mutas is not the game I want to play. Their splash radius and damage to buildings are just ridiculous. And the amount of micro Terrans has to put in this matchup because of banelings is quite unfair.
It is boring cause you think it is too strong?..prove of exactly what I said. Have you played bw? How many times have you lost units to lurkers for example..you think the micro/scannning etc is unfair there aswell? Hopefully Blizzard wont listen to people such as you.
Yes I did play BW. But did you ? Don't even try to compare cracklings/lurker micro to a-moving banelings into your PF.
This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
I'm sure Browder and the rest of the design team are very smart, but I can't help but feel that they are stuck in their own little world.
For example I just don't understand Blizzards fascination with "meat shield units".
I mean honestly, every meat shield unit in SC2 is almost universally hated. Thor, Marauder, Roach, Immortal.
Blizzard unit design philosophy 101
Every race must have a dragoon!
A zerg dragoon!
A dragoon with stim!
Oh wait now protoss isn't as unique, we must make this meat-shield unit, more of a meat-shield!
Issues on Unit Design Heres a quote from their most recent interview on Heart of the Swarm.
As far as learning through the multiplayer, we learned that not everything works exactly as planned - the different roles for the units didn't work as well as we had planned. We planned to have the immortal be more of a meat shield, and have the hardened shield be one of the core mechanics; however, the burst damage ended up being the more important part of the unit.
David Kim: For example, the Overseer is not a cool unit, it's basically a glorfied scout at this point. We're looking at either taking out or replacing these units that aren't as cool. The other thing that we need to watch out is how these units interact in combination.
According to Blizzard the Overseer and Immortal are a high priority for redesign.
However the community thinks otherwise (by a huge margin).
(Sorry if I left out any units in the vote, I can only list so many).
________________________________________
If you tally up the count. You would find that the most hated unit in SC2 (the Colossus) is 10.75 times more hated than the Overseer which Blizzard considers in dire need of redesign.
Here is the total tally of the 3 most uninteresting units according to the community. Colossus: 43 Roach: 20 Marauder: 17
What Blizzard considers needs redesigning. Overseer: 4 Immortal: 2
However as this is a list of the most uninteresting units, it is suffice to say that a lot of these units probably need redesigning.
________________________________________
Heres the 3/4 translation from the recent Browder / Sen interview.
On June 09 2011 07:49 NB wrote: sum up for people lazy of loading the video:
how do you balance the game: we use pro feedbacks, forums, and stat
Balance process: we have to make sure the balance problem is real, then the balance design team will suggest a fix, if the suggestion solve the problem (should be through test sever), we will apply it to the game
Stat are garther accross bnet and tournament around the world. Currently winrate of all match up are close to 50% so we are satisfied. There is no obvious problem but we are ready to deal with anything pop up. The only recent change is to the 4 gate nerf in PvP to create more play styles. Early indication show that it was a successful patch.
Sen asked: close spawn on maps are zerg imba, is ther solution? we will fix it in the "next season"(?) with half of the current ladder map will be replaced.
Zerg too passive due to design? there is no way for us to know how pros playing the game. there are cases pros fixed things b4 the patch came out. There will be no big change coming out, at least not until HoTS came out. If we find a race is broken, we will most likely to fix it in HoTS. The chance of it being fixed in wings is really small.
Ladder maps are for all players so we intentionally have rush maps in ladder pool. So people in lower league can learn the game. We aware that this will cause pros wont have as much fun on ladder as casual gamers but we have confident that the community wont use the maps that dont work for them in tournaments play.
a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
but the rush are stronger than BW we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
(i cant really hear the question here, the woman speak in low voice =_=) something about HoTS we dont know yet, we are trying to make something that is worthy with this name and to last many years to come...
(they tried some kinda trick questions to make dustin reveal new units in HoTS multi) no we have no idea, we had some horrible stupid units in the pass like the Soul Hunter for example. We still discussing about it.
do you have a timetable to anounce new units? we dont know yet, we will when we have a good idea. "its done when its done"
it is confirmed that we will have new units in multi players. yes
are they being added or replace we dont know yet
beside new units whats gona change in multi players dont know, sorry
are you know but you are just avoiding? no, im truely dont know. i have some personal idea but my team could think its stupid. We will reveal it in blizzcon.
about starcraft 2 dota... you mean blizzard dota
yes, people asking when is it gona be releash we are wasting time, when its ready!
is there anything speacial about this map u wana talk about? its gona be awesome. we are working on the shops. we are recreating the heros completely new from last blizzcon. new systems, new features, new gameplay. we are hoping a game will be 20-30 minutes long compare to normal dota 30-45 minutes so that you can play more games.
all heros from last year has changed? yes
will you borrow stuff from war3 to dota? no,we are trying to design something new completely. the inventory and shop system still there but will be different. We dont know yet but we still working on it.
will there a cross region feature for GM in different sever? our current technology does not allow us to do that just yet. We will look into it but unlikely.
do you think sc2 is harder to watch compare to BW? unit clumps and AoE spell... (they tried to link this to balance design) unit clums means not "horrible pathing". For mordern RTS we NEED good pathing and we think its the future. Its is true that its harder to see if unit clumps but we are trying our best to solve that with the UI. About the AoE, i feel like it makes the battle much more fun to watch (micro challenging). If you dont think Sc2 is a good game to watch, BW is still out there and a lots of people still watch it. SC2 is a different game and different people. Please go back to BW if you think sc2 is not suited for you.
for different players skill are different. in sc2 every units DPS are higher than BW. this make battle happen too fast for lower league. Why dont we adjust the game according to player players? We thought about this but its better to learn the game from the beginning. The exp could be accumulated over time. If you need to learn something, we want you to learn the game as what it is.
more newer player we have added stuff to help them in the single players as well as practice league. We tried to relies mostly on tool to help people improve quickly in lower league.
Some question about the percentage of zerg workers (drone) compare to BW... calculation no, its just what player doing and its not intentional design. infact we expect that question when we decided we will have 2 gas geyser instead of 1 but it turns out ok...
picture taking, hand shaking etc...
edit: im on part 3/4 right now.... gona watch live on three and comeback edit2: done!
In the end its us who buys the games, and the pro-gamers who try to create interesting builds and fun games to watch that increases the longevity of the game. I believe the community should be listened to more, especially in interviews, rather than just refuting them with useless examples.
I'm pretty sure after a year of constant complaining, when Blizzard caved in and decided to make better maps, that there was an improvement. I mean even back then, the community was given terrible reasons for small maps, I don't see how its any different now with things like dynamic pathing, map control, etc.
It was just plain embarassing listening to the recent Browder / Sen interview, where every time some problematic issue was brought up, it was just ignored.
I hope Blizzard will listen to the community once more and make the drastic changes that are fundamental to the games progress as both a fun game and an E-Sport.
Wow, I don't remember him saying the first bit. Was that in the Sen meets Blizzard video? Because I watched it, but I really don't remember him making that comment. That's really off putting considering units in SC2 are the opposite of that. There are more hard counters in this game than not. :/
We have known this since the first Blizzard reactions after we knew the philosophy behind SC2. This we knew after the first Blizzcon where SC2 was playable. Especially the Testie interview.
Browder himself admitted they are out of touch with the TL community. It is not a problem for him. The game sells. Especially among TL members. Go look at the 'how many copies of HotS' will you buy. TL screamed about boycotting SC2. But in the end those who screamed the loudest bought the most copies of SC2.
On June 12 2011 19:53 Itsmedudeman wrote: not to mention he always whined about terran being weak in bw and now flash is just dominating everyone
Uuh, don't comment if you never played SC BW. Terran by far requires the most skill. This is also why Flash is so strong with Terran. This is also why protoss have so much problems. If Flash played Protoss he wouldn't have a way to be so skilled. SC BW isn't balanced either. People forget this. Blizzard never balanced SC BW. It was balanced through maps. This is why on progamer maps at low amateur skill PvT is incredibly imbalanced. P is just too easy to play and T just way way too hard. When both players get more skilled Terran becomes stronger. P hits the skill ceiling way early because there is little to do with the skill you have. Remember Kwark? He basically hits the mechanical ceiling with Protoss playing with 70 apm. Above his level there is just no way you can outmacro or outmicro an opponent. It has to come from strategy, mind games, etc.
Flash just is so skilled he can use almost all the potential of terran. This is why he is so strong. Because terran was so hard to play, their units could be stronger and have more potential. No one would ever make that potential. Because it is so easy to not make micro mistakes or have bad macro with Protoss, you can have weak units and they will appear to be strong.
Another thing here is zerg and how they make drones or attacking units. This is a very problematic mechanic. If both player agree it is kind of figured out how to play the game, zerg has a huge advantage. Zerg has to go pure drones for a long time and then go pure units with an exact timing. Zerg has to be vulnerable to a timing attack so it can actually have a timing itself. If zerg just makes drones and units at equal amounts he will never be strong and never be weak. If the game is new and the metagame is not fixed, zerg has a huge disadvantage because the enemy can attack at any moment. If there are known fixed and set timings, zerg this now becomes an advantage.
The more perfectly the game is played strategically, the stronger zerg becomes. There is no way for Blizzard to fix this unless they remove drones and larva.
On June 12 2011 19:02 decaf wrote: If they'd stream IdrA talking to Dustin Browder I'm sure 50k people would tune it to watch it.
If they took IdrA's advice I would have to go shoot Dustin Browder.
Can you elaborate on that a bit more? IdrA's advice isn't in favor of Zerg, he seeks for overall balance - it was him suggesting nerfing the roach during the beta so I'd like to see you backing that statement up.
The same guy who prematurely leaves games? or doesn't even give an effort when he is a little bit behind. Like InControl said, "he plays like a robot".
Can you elaborate on how this makes him any less credible? IdrA did not know about MMA blowing up his own CC and for him it was the perfect reaction to someone not "sucking". IdrA still gives the best advice.
idra thinks he should win every single game
not to mention he always whined about terran being weak in bw and now flash is just dominating everyone
Using Flash to indicate how strong terrans are in BW? I hope you realize how wrong and stupid you sound, right ?
how about boxer,nada,xellos,oov etc then? terran never was weak after boxer showed the world what a "micro" is
terran was hard to play but never weak. that said idra matured alot in the last 1-2 years and while he still likes to make super bold statements hes much more credible now then he was back then.
On June 12 2011 20:43 Cheebah wrote: "The tendency to whining and complaining may be taken as the surest sign symptom to little souls and inferior intellect."
~Lord Jeffrey
Quotation is a far better sign..you see what I did there? ^^
On June 12 2011 20:43 Cheebah wrote: "The tendency to whining and complaining may be taken as the surest sign symptom to little souls and inferior intellect."
~Lord Jeffrey
"shut up and accept evrything shitty or you're stupid"
~Lord Jeffrey
in this context your precious quote is exactly this,great job.
On June 12 2011 20:32 Huragius wrote: Actually Banelings are a really boring units too, well at least in ZvT. Making tons of them (like 80) and a-moving them to PF/Bunkers/Tank lines followed with Mutas is not the game I want to play. Their splash radius and damage to buildings are just ridiculous. And the amount of micro Terrans has to put in this matchup because of banelings is quite unfair.
Yes that is actually just terrible. Once the banelings get to a certain number you just a-move them and shit over the entire army and main of the opponent.
SK-Terran vs lurkers were easier to play against than banelings
On June 12 2011 20:29 m0ck wrote: Thanks for a good post, I think it needs more attention that blizzard's design team for SC2 are somewhat incompetent and not worthy of the engagement and dedication that the game receives from the community. Sad, but true.
they MADE the game ...they are incompetent?...you must be kidding.
they arent incompetent but as the OP stated, blizzard design teams (maybe all design teams i cant comment) have a pride issue.
for anyone who played competitive wow back when people cared about that, there were huge obvious flaws in the game. the problem was "delete this whole ability, its just stupid" was never an acceptable choice for them, too much pride that they might be so wrong that something needs removal. i feel like its similar to that in sc2.
as much fun as it is that "marauder lose to immortals unless theres a ghost, then marauders win" the battles are so 1 sided its rediculous. a few immortals in a normal deathball just rape marauders, and marines are useless by this stage. but land a few emps and the whole protoss army falls over.
its GREAT that units and upgrades affect even the most basic match ups, but it shouldnt swing from roflstomp for 1 side, to facerape for the other in 1 moment.
On June 12 2011 20:43 Cheebah wrote: "The tendency to whining and complaining may be taken as the surest sign symptom to little souls and inferior intellect."
On June 12 2011 20:32 Huragius wrote: Actually Banelings are a really boring units too, well at least in ZvT. Making tons of them (like 80) and a-moving them to PF/Bunkers/Tank lines followed with Mutas is not the game I want to play. Their splash radius and damage to buildings are just ridiculous. And the amount of micro Terrans has to put in this matchup because of banelings is quite unfair.
Yes that is actually just terrible. Once the banelings get to a certain number you just a-move them and shit over the entire army and main of the opponent.
SK-Terran vs lurkers were easier to play against than banelings
This is such a dumbass argument.
"Once the tanks get to a certain number you just siege mode them and shit over the entire army and main of the opponent". Fun fact: banelings are a suicide unit.
why did the polls ask most uninteresting unit then in the analysis right after, it changed to most hated? Uninteresting doesn't always equal hated. I find the overseer uninteresting but I don't hate it.
i dont understand why people feel the colossus is the most uninteresting unit. I think the way the unit functions is pretty interesting (large range, cliff walk). it just sucks that everything else in the protoss arsenal is so weak they need a colo (or HT) to survive.
On June 12 2011 20:33 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: who do you trust more when it comes to starcraft game design? the "players" which dedicated the last 10 years of their lifes to starcraft and know/understand the game at its deepest levels or some random command & conquer dev that just wants some "cool" (cnc units,war of the worlds tripod..) stuff ?
I would choose the developer. Most of the players with 10 years of BW experience who are vocal about SC2 are hopelessly stuck in the BW mindset and are biased beyond any reason. The only thing you could expect them to design is a BW clone that would never be appealing to anyone without BW background.
Browder & co. are walking a very thin line between being able to please the competitive community and being able to justify a $100 million budget for an "outdated" old-school game, with free multiplayer service and continuous balance tweaks and support. They, and Blizzard as a whole deserve huge respect and our deepest thanks for even trying to make a modern competitive game of this quality, which in the context of current industry state makes no sense financially. Yet the majority of the "community feedback" is just whining threads like this with silly demands. "Bring back this", "bring back that", "BW was so much better!".
Show some respect to the company that still bothers to make good games for the old generation!
On June 12 2011 20:32 Huragius wrote: Actually Banelings are a really boring units too, well at least in ZvT. Making tons of them (like 80) and a-moving them to PF/Bunkers/Tank lines followed with Mutas is not the game I want to play. Their splash radius and damage to buildings are just ridiculous. And the amount of micro Terrans has to put in this matchup because of banelings is quite unfair.
Yes that is actually just terrible. Once the banelings get to a certain number you just a-move them and shit over the entire army and main of the opponent.
SK-Terran vs lurkers were easier to play against than banelings
I can say same thing with collossus. When you get 7 of them it's gg for any zerg, unless zerg's army consists of pure corruptors lol.
The biggest complaint you hear is that Blizzard is "balancing the game" or "making maps" or "changing Battlenet 2.0" for the casual gamer. As if those bastards of society even deserve our marvelous paradise of a game.
Now, we have a post where the OP is complaining that Blizzard isn't listening to the community?
It's one or the other here folks. Either Blizzard is listening to large a swath of the community, or they aren't listening. It's either or. One or the other.
As far as your actual complaints:
I think the developers have a stronger grasp of the game than Sen, and the chinese pro-gamers that have had the game for....what, three months now? Sen said: "a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced." Unless I'm reading that completely wrong, Sen is trying to put forward Chinese pro-gamer knowledge as some kind of trump card, and when Dustin Browder refutes it by saying "uhhh...yeah....we didn't develop the game to be Brood War. Rushes might be stronger, but that's inherently part of a different game, this game, stop making comparisons with Brood War kthnxbye" and people are mad?
The units he was looking at to change as being "boring" are legit too. Immortals are so fucking boring. They don't even do anything. The coolest thing was when I heard rumors of a Phoenix graviton beam micro to pick them up out of the Thor strike cannon. Then the nerf came, and Immortals were given up for anything but them. Who would pick shitty, boring Immortals when you can just go Templar and feedback the bitch? Immortals were dynamic when they were needed to slay Thors. Not anymore.
Overseers I'm fine with seeing gone, or reworked, if that means a faster Overlord for Zerg. Dear god do they need a scout. Colossus being boring is just an artifact of them being used so much in every Protoss match up because they're the only really viable and reliable tech for Protoss. Give them some other units, like reworking the Immortal a bit, and voila. Colossus won't be as boring because people are using more unit combinations, and we aren't seeing Colossus as much. The really boring units are those that you never see but are still fucking boring when you do. Ala the fucking Immortal.
Forgive me, but I'm pretty sure the rest of the post was nothing but "Wah, they are out of touch because they didn't listen to Sen" stuff.
On June 12 2011 20:55 B.I.G. wrote: i dont understand why people feel the colossus is the most uninteresting unit. I think the way the unit functions is pretty interesting (large range, cliff walk). it just sucks that everything else in the protoss arsenal is so weak they need a colo (or HT) to survive.
Cliff walking walking through units 9 range Fast T3 unit speed
All of these makes the colosuss require 0 micro. It's such a powerful unit yet even someone in practice league can use it perfectly. HTs are much better because it takes some form of skill to make them more effective.
I find it amazing so many Protoss are defending the Colossus. If Blizzard ever gets player support to balance the game I sure as hell don't want them getting it from Protoss players.
On June 12 2011 20:53 turdburgler wrote: its GREAT that units and upgrades affect even the most basic match ups, but it shouldnt swing from roflstomp for 1 side, to facerape for the other in 1 moment.
In my opinion this is the most crucial point - Tyler has also mentioned this repeatedly on his stream. At least in PvT engagements, if one side wins, then it wins by a LOT. There are no "close" battles, either storm/colossi stomp everything into the ground, or EMP prevails...then P is dead. As protoss player this is that has been bothering me the most since release. Either I win the "game-deciding" battle or lose it, but there are hardly any games with back and forth action let alone cool comebacks. Once one side gains a lead in midgame, it's actually way too easy to follow up on that.
On June 12 2011 20:55 Random() wrote: Browder & co. are walking a very thin line between being able to please the competitive community and being able to justify a $100 million budget for an "outdated" old-school game, with free multiplayer service and continuous balance tweaks and support. They, and Blizzard as a whole deserve huge respect and our deepest thanks for even trying to make a modern competitive game of this quality, which in the context of current industry state makes no sense financially. Yet the majority of the "community feedback" is just whining threads like this with silly demands. "Bring back this", "bring back that", "BW was so much better!".
Part of this is that Blizzard is pretty committed to incremental changes to their games. They're not going to go out and remove units and drop in sort-of related units from another game without doing some serious testing first. If they just held a poll and implemented whatever the community wanted we'd have 1 supply flying ultralisks that cast vortex and had colossus lasers (and probably no sentries). That's the big reason I don't think we'll see any huge in-game changes for HoTS. I think we may see tweaks in how a mechanic is implemented but I don't think we'll see anything that fundamentally changes how a race is played.
On June 12 2011 20:55 B.I.G. wrote: i dont understand why people feel the colossus is the most uninteresting unit. I think the way the unit functions is pretty interesting (large range, cliff walk). it just sucks that everything else in the protoss arsenal is so weak they need a colo (or HT) to survive.
Cliff walking walking through units 9 range Fast T3 unit speed
All of these makes the colosuss require 0 micro. It's such a powerful unit yet even someone in practice league can use it perfectly. HTs are much better because it takes some form of skill to make them more effective.
I find it amazing so many Protoss are defending the Colossus. If Blizzard ever gets player support to balance the game I sure as hell don't want them getting it from Protoss players.
Are you saying the colossus is boring due to it's function and needs a redesign or that it's too powerfull and needs a redesign ?
Gamers are out of touch. Go to blizzards head office and sit down with the boss of sc2 and tell him his game is shit compared to bw. Get a bunch of "we'll fix it if its broken but we arent making a bw clone" responses and all of a sudden they have lost touch.
In case you have forgotten there was no communication with the community when scbw was made or wc3. They wanted to make a game based around their ideas and that is what they did. Whether the game is good or bad they know very well that it was off their decisions and vision and they dont need to seek anyones approval for it.
On June 12 2011 20:55 B.I.G. wrote: i dont understand why people feel the colossus is the most uninteresting unit. I think the way the unit functions is pretty interesting (large range, cliff walk). it just sucks that everything else in the protoss arsenal is so weak they need a colo (or HT) to survive.
Cliff walking walking through units 9 range Fast T3 unit speed
All of these makes the colosuss require 0 micro. It's such a powerful unit yet even someone in practice league can use it perfectly. HTs are much better because it takes some form of skill to make them more effective.
I find it amazing so many Protoss are defending the Colossus. If Blizzard ever gets player support to balance the game I sure as hell don't want them getting it from Protoss players.
Are you saying the colossus is boring due to it's function and needs a redesign or that it's too powerfull and needs a redesign ?
On June 12 2011 20:33 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: who do you trust more when it comes to starcraft game design? the "players" which dedicated the last 10 years of their lifes to starcraft and know/understand the game at its deepest levels or some random command & conquer dev that just wants some "cool" (cnc units,war of the worlds tripod..) stuff ?
I would choose the developer. Most of the players with 10 years of BW experience who are vocal about SC2 are hopelessly stuck in the BW mindset and are biased beyond any reason. The only thing you could expect them to design is a BW clone that would never be appealing to anyone without BW background.
Browder & co. are walking a very thin line between being able to please the competitive community and being able to justify a $100 million budget for an "outdated" old-school game, with free multiplayer service and continuous balance tweaks and support. They, and Blizzard as a whole deserve huge respect and our deepest thanks for even trying to make a modern competitive game of this quality, which in the context of current industry state makes no sense financially. Yet the majority of the "community feedback" is just whining threads like this with silly demands. "Bring back this", "bring back that", "BW was so much better!".
Show some respect to the company that still bothers to make good games for the old generation!
I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. I try to take OP's at face value without inferring too much. This OP reads like a "whine with pictures" - a whine with effort put in.
I'll trust the devs judgement anyday over that of the biased community. I have a feeling if we left game design up to some in the community it would be BW with updated skins. Actually, scratch the updated skins, that would ruin the feel.
All I can say is get over yourselves. There comes a point in game design where things are added by feel and judgement. What you are basically doing is saying that yours would be superior to that of the person who does it for a living. If thats the case go to Blizzard and take his job with your superb credentials.
this thread is bullshit. sorry but let me explain why. first of all the interview is not written down word by word. its freely written down how the OP felt it was. second dustin is not trolling anyone. whats the word in english for this.. quote mining?. i highly suggest the youtube videos are attached to this OP so no one is missled. this OP is full of wrong statements and i highly recommend ignoring all of it and watching the interviews for yourself.
second the rush thing too is completly false quoted. the question was something like this " in sc1 rushs were risky and all in while you can rush safely and still win if it fails".. and dustin did not agree which is completly right. again. watch the freaking videos and ignore this thread.
what the fuck. colossi are boring? huge laser robots? yea totally legit its not because everyone gets killed by them it is because they are boring. sure.. lololol.......... worst thread ever.
Roach, corruptor, colossi, I've had that trio in the reversed order since Beta. The reason why people talk about them is that they're actually used and seen a lot, but they are obviously a ton of units which have a design problem.
Overseer/mothership/carriers/warp-prism/raven/reapers needs redesigning as well. They have almost no purpose, are never seen and suck on all aspects. Immortal i'm not so sure of how to tweak that unit and not make it either a joke or too strong.
But people need to keep in mind that all units are inter-connected. You don't need to buff individually each of these units to make them effective. If the corruptors disappeared, carriers against Zerg in the late-game would be a "decent" option... same thing with terran vikings...etc...
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
On June 12 2011 20:55 B.I.G. wrote: i dont understand why people feel the colossus is the most uninteresting unit. I think the way the unit functions is pretty interesting (large range, cliff walk). it just sucks that everything else in the protoss arsenal is so weak they need a colo (or HT) to survive.
It's boring in my opinion because it makes the game boring. It's so strong you need to make gateway units weaker to compensate. On top of that, it's a unit that's terrible in small numbers but very strong once you get a desired collosus count (usually 4-6). This just leads to gameplay where Protoss doesn't actually have a midgame beyond going for a mass warpgate all in, and has to play extremely passive, uneventful games where they get a 3rd base, defend, and get their desired lategame army. Collosus based PvZ is the most boring thing in the game in my opinion. we have a few Protoss trying out non-collosus play, and hopefully those types of strategies get developed further.
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
Aww, i was expecting a cover of the amazing "Out of Touch" by Hall and Oates
Actually someone should do that. Please?
I think a lot of people are just being nostalgic, sc2 is a new game, and i'm sure blizzard is perfectly in touch with the community. They also try and not make any drastic changes which i like, and so far i'd say the game is heading in the right direction.
People who played BW will always like BW more, same reason i still think Starfox 64 was one of the best games of all time.
On June 12 2011 20:55 B.I.G. wrote: i dont understand why people feel the colossus is the most uninteresting unit. I think the way the unit functions is pretty interesting (large range, cliff walk). it just sucks that everything else in the protoss arsenal is so weak they need a colo (or HT) to survive.
Cliff walking walking through units 9 range Fast T3 unit speed
All of these makes the colosuss require 0 micro. It's such a powerful unit yet even someone in practice league can use it perfectly. HTs are much better because it takes some form of skill to make them more effective.
I find it amazing so many Protoss are defending the Colossus. If Blizzard ever gets player support to balance the game I sure as hell don't want them getting it from Protoss players.
Are you saying the colossus is boring due to it's function and needs a redesign or that it's too powerfull and needs a redesign ?
Function.
"i maek colossus and win game"
Terrans could say the same of the baneling or infestor. They are certainly very powerful situationaly, same as the colossus. But there are way to deal with both. Same with the colossus.
It's true that the colossus doesnt require a ton of micro and that it is generaly a very powerful T3 unit but that doesnt mean that it's broken and needs a complete redesign.
I think it's very important to remember the difference between powerful, hard-to-deal-with units and boring, rarely used units.
On June 12 2011 21:17 Shagg wrote: Dissapointed in Blizzard being so ignorant.
This, but I just don't get it. Blizzard are not supposed to be ignorant. During Beta and even after all patchs, it was obvious that they had been looking on our forums and were trained to tell exactly what we wanted to hear.
It's true that Blizzard doesn't give a fuck about the master/grand master leagues which represent 1-2% of their overall turnover, but they are supposed to pretend otherwise...
edit:maybe had they larger expectations for the eSports scene and now think that it is a financial blackhole...
On June 12 2011 20:39 StarStruck wrote: Wow, I don't remember him saying the first bit. Was that in the Sen meets Blizzard video? Because I watched it, but I really don't remember him making that comment. That's really off putting considering units in SC2 are the opposite of that. There are more hard counters in this game than not. :/
It wasn't in the Sen / Browder video. It was in another interview.
On June 12 2011 20:55 B.I.G. wrote: i dont understand why people feel the colossus is the most uninteresting unit. I think the way the unit functions is pretty interesting (large range, cliff walk). it just sucks that everything else in the protoss arsenal is so weak they need a colo (or HT) to survive.
Cliff walking walking through units 9 range Fast T3 unit speed
All of these makes the colosuss require 0 micro. It's such a powerful unit yet even someone in practice league can use it perfectly. HTs are much better because it takes some form of skill to make them more effective.
I find it amazing so many Protoss are defending the Colossus. If Blizzard ever gets player support to balance the game I sure as hell don't want them getting it from Protoss players.
And yet all of my diamond opponents can't manage their colossii for shit. I'm not kidding, any kind of attempt to get 6 colossus in my experience ends in 6 corruption spell casts and 6 dead colossii. I know there are players out there with the skill to micro them away from my corruptors while sniping them with their stalkers or void rays while not getting demolished by roaches but I don't meet them on the ladder.
I'd like you to stop with these ridiculous claims that MC and BelowBronzeBob have the same effectiveness as each other when using any unit, let alone a T3 cliffwalking Colossus. You and many others are making thinly veiled OP balance complaints when you should be discussing whether a unit is interesting/useful or not. And I'll be damn blind and deaf before I believe anyone that says colossii are useless .
On June 12 2011 21:15 Deadlyfish wrote: Aww, i was expecting a cover of the amazing "Out of Touch" by Hall and Oates
Actually someone should do that. Please?
I think a lot of people are just being nostalgic, sc2 is a new game, and i'm sure blizzard is perfectly in touch with the community. They also try and not make any drastic changes which i like, and so far i'd say the game is heading in the right direction.
People who played BW will always like BW more, same reason i still think Starfox 64 was one of the best games of all time.
I would say that cod mod 1 was better than cod 3 or the other predecessors. I would consider WoW better than the games it was designed after. Final fantasy 7 is better than FF1-4 imo. Just maybe..... SC:BW is better because it's a better game.....
Really though, I just don't understand how the reaver and lurker aren't as iconic as the tank :'(. Or how the sci vessel and defiler can't be in the game but the ht can. Or why the marauder is added to counter the roach but the hydralisk doesn't do anything to terran in general. I can even accept that the stalker replaced the goon because too many goons died at the end of bw. I'm fine with the scout going away (miss the Sair tho, even tho it was effectively replaced by the phoenix). I like that they didn't change the marine too much. I like the upgrades to the ui and stuff. I don't like the pathing but that is because sc1's pathing was soo bad. Anyways. just a point.
On June 12 2011 20:39 StarStruck wrote: Wow, I don't remember him saying the first bit. Was that in the Sen meets Blizzard video? Because I watched it, but I really don't remember him making that comment. That's really off putting considering units in SC2 are the opposite of that. There are more hard counters in this game than not. :/
It wasn't in the Sen / Browder video. It was in another interview.
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
Maybe shift the game to be loss volatile. Encourage more use of mechanical play. That's where the real fun and entertainment value is at IMO, whether competitively as a spectator or just laddering for fun.
So tired of all the doom and gloom posts. SC2 isn't perfect but it's still developing and games are way, way better than they were a couple of months ago. I also dislike the way you argue using the word "community" as if the SC2 community is in any way a homogenous group that likes and dislikes the same things. You have opinions, they are shared by some and some don't agree. Trying to back your statements by saying the community feels a certain way is bollocks as there's just way to many people with differing opinions on everything in this game.
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
I never said that, I just said your "don't insult Sc2 developers because you can't do any better" line of thinking is stupid.
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
Maybe shift the game to be loss volatile. Encourage more use of mechanical play. That's where the real fun and entertainment value is at IMO, whether competitively as a spectator or just laddering for fun.
Key words here are "IMO". You feel you know better than them, and so do I sometimes, but neither of us have the experience or the expertise to know what makes a great game. It's a science, but the fans always seem so convinced they'd do a better job.
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
I never said that, I just said your "don't insult Sc2 developers because you can't do any better" line of thinking is stupid.
A lot of arguments for a lot of reasons in here, but I think maybe this could become more one sided if we changed the topic:
Is Dustin Browder out of touch?
Based on the things he's said when comparing BW and SC2, and the controversial Sen discussion, that can be said almost conclusively. It's obvious he hasn't watched much if any competitive Brood War, and if he did he didn't pay much attention to it.
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
I never said that, I just said your "don't insult Sc2 developers because you can't do any better" line of thinking is stupid.
That's your solution then? Insult the developers?
What? I wasn't insulting the developers, just saying your line of thinking is stupid.
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
Maybe shift the game to be loss volatile. Encourage more use of mechanical play. That's where the real fun and entertainment value is at IMO, whether competitively as a spectator or just laddering for fun.
Key words here are "IMO". You feel you know better than them, and so do I sometimes, but neither of us have the experience or the expertise to know what makes a great game. It's a science, but the fans always seem so convinced they'd do a better job.
I never claimed to have the ability to do what I believed the direction of the game should go, but they do. I don't like the way SC2 consists of a lot of 1a2a3a into your opponent with one massive army. There just seems to be too little emphasis on strategic play. This could be a result of the lack of time that there has been to develop better play, but it almost seems like the game rewards people too much for, arguably, not very much work.
From a spectator point of view, BW just seems like a much more interesting game in terms of shear gameplay and excitement. Make larger maps and tune the game to compensate? That would be an interesting step to at least take and see what would result. Experimentation on PTRs wouldn't hurt to see what directions the game COULD take and see what the players want or don't want.
if anything, the dustin browder interview shows that he has a greater understanding of the game than the OP.
1. the game is close to balance - you can't expect the game to give you a 50/50 in every situation. the only way to do this would be to remove two races from the game. the whole point is to control the game and prevent getting into a situation which would flip the scales against you... this was the same in broodwar.
2. maps - map design is the most determining factor with regards to balance at this point in time. this is how it should be. close positions make rushing powerful, in broodwar rushes almost only ever worked with proxy, and i can't remember any competitive 1v1 maps. blizzard have wised up to this, hence the release of more and more large scale 4 player maps.
3. units to redesign - immortal, mothership and overseer definitely feel awkward. units like thor and raven would be fine with improvements to their researched spells. i've found that immortal are especially awkward, their short range causes the stalker/immortal synergy to suck. they should have a longer range than stalker if anything. but over the last year blizzard has made tweaks such as this to keep people generally happy.
4. colossus, marauder and roach whining - are we back in april 2010 again? i wasn't a huge fan back then, but they're a core part of the game now... if you change them, you have no idea what will happen due to the metagame butterfly effect. also, colossus is already being phased out in the metagame since they get killed off by air units before dealing significant damage.
frankly, i'm suprised people are whining about roach, when it's clearly the hydralisk that demands attention in the zerg camp. everyone knows that if you make a single hydralisk against terran, you instantly lose the match.
Roach, Marauder, Colossus, etc are units designed to do quite well when a moved. It is the reason why a lot/ most of SC2 players exists in the first place. Imagine if mech was the only way to play TvP. If there were Reavers instead of Colossus and you had to micro the hell out of that shuttle to gain any sort of rewards. If there were no a move banelings and instead you had Lurkers that need very precise timing and positional awareness to be used. Great for high level play, impossible for Bronze-Diamond players to do.
This are compromises made to have the game appeal to a larger audience. It is the reason why E-sports is growing in the west. It is the "easy to learn" part in the "easy to learn, hard to master" description.
Why blizzard appears not to listen to the community? Did you read all the balance shit on TL/ B-net forums? People do not want balance in the first place (not that they understand what that is anyway), they want to win games easier. Pro gamers often included in this to.
In other games, developers listen to the community yes, by making another game with only very little differences, for an extra 60$. One game a year (to improve and show that we care about the community o.O).
There is a lot to be done with SC2. In micro and general tactics in general. The game is evolving.
To sum it up, this thread is a massive knee jerk, a "WTF" i want to be heard cry, a shit sense of entitlement. SC2 will be doomed the day Blizz makes patches based on polls/ general consensus and other general BS coming from the community. Trying to be objective in an environment where most people are either only interested in wining easier on the ladder or in tournaments to make more money is, extremely hard. Grow up!
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
Maybe shift the game to be loss volatile. Encourage more use of mechanical play. That's where the real fun and entertainment value is at IMO, whether competitively as a spectator or just laddering for fun.
Key words here are "IMO". You feel you know better than them, and so do I sometimes, but neither of us have the experience or the expertise to know what makes a great game. It's a science, but the fans always seem so convinced they'd do a better job.
I never claimed to have the ability to do what I believed the direction of the game should go, but they do. I don't like the way SC2 consists of a lot of 1a2a3a into your opponent with one massive army. There just seems to be too little emphasis on strategic play. This could be a result of the lack of time that there has been to develop better play, but it almost seems like the game rewards people too much for, arguably, not very much work.
People continue to say stuff like this yet i feel like i've watched alot of great matches recently.
Losira vs MMA at MLG, Line vs Top at GSL etc. Those matches showed alot of strategy/micro and entertainment.
Sen & Interviewers: a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
Dustin Browder: no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
Sen & Interviewers: but the rush are stronger than BW
Dustin Browder: we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
Never understood that first question, i just presumed it was a miss translation presume they meant timing pushes. Rushes aren't very strong (6pool terrible never wins, 2gate moderately strong but not to hard to deal with, 2rax + bunkers moderately hard but defend able only one there which may be a slight problem is 2rax but only because zergs don't want to get the early lings. Not sure about fast marauder vs P but I'd imagine zealot sentry kills it fairly easy)
On June 12 2011 14:37 Daiki wrote: i gave up on dustin when he stated that sc2 is more micro intensive than bw. Imo, he also ruined command and conquer generals.
I think it was day9 who said game has potential to be more micro intensive than broodwar just players need to develop better skills.
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and the way Dustin Browder responds to a lot of questions, and slag pits.
Which similar sized company communicates to their fan base more or as much as blizzard?
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
I never said that, I just said your "don't insult Sc2 developers because you can't do any better" line of thinking is stupid.
That's your solution then? Insult the developers?
What? I wasn't insulting the developers, just saying your line of thinking is stupid.
OK then I must be completely misinterpreting what you are saying. In my mind, you can't tell someone else they don't know what they're doing without knowing better yourself. You see, because you'd need to be qualified to make that assessment.
In my mind, SC2 is a pretty great game. I played BW for a long time, and while I still think BW is superior, I think SC2 has the potential to become greater. SC2 is a year old, and it has decent balance. We are expecting two more expansions.
In my mind, the absolute worst move a game company can make is listen to the community too much. Because most of the community, much like the average voter, is retarded, and don't know what they want.
Yes, goddamnit, the same thing goes for me. Show some humility once in a while, it's good for you.
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
Maybe shift the game to be loss volatile. Encourage more use of mechanical play. That's where the real fun and entertainment value is at IMO, whether competitively as a spectator or just laddering for fun.
Key words here are "IMO". You feel you know better than them, and so do I sometimes, but neither of us have the experience or the expertise to know what makes a great game. It's a science, but the fans always seem so convinced they'd do a better job.
I never claimed to have the ability to do what I believed the direction of the game should go, but they do. I don't like the way SC2 consists of a lot of 1a2a3a into your opponent with one massive army. There just seems to be too little emphasis on strategic play. This could be a result of the lack of time that there has been to develop better play, but it almost seems like the game rewards people too much for, arguably, not very much work.
People continue to say stuff like this yet i feel like i've watched alot of great matches recently.
Losira vs MMA at MLG, Line vs Top at GSL etc. Those matches showed alot of strategy/micro and entertainment.
I'm not trying to diminish the talent these players have. The games are exciting, but these exciting games are too few. I even want to put part of the blame on us, the players. Our work ethic pales in comparison to these elite players and stifles innovation and high level play that excites spectators.
Sen & Interviewers: a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
Dustin Browder: no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
Sen & Interviewers: but the rush are stronger than BW
Dustin Browder: we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
Never understood that first question, i just presumed it was a miss translation presume they meant timing pushes. Rushes aren't very strong (6pool terrible never wins, 2gate moderately strong but not to hard to deal with, 2rax + bunkers moderately hard but defend able only one there which may be a slight problem is 2rax but only because zergs don't want to get the early lings. Not sure about fast marauder vs P but I'd imagine zealot sentry kills it fairly easy)
On June 12 2011 14:37 Daiki wrote: i gave up on dustin when he stated that sc2 is more micro intensive than bw. Imo, he also ruined command and conquer generals.
I think it was day9 who said game has potential to be more micro intensive than broodwar just players need to develop better skills.
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and the way Dustin Browder responds to a lot of questions, and slag pits.
Which similar sized company communicates to their fan base more or as much as blizzard?
I watched the last Blizzcon and no other developers seem that open with what they want, how they want to change things and being blunt and saying that they don't know if they really don't.
Look at all the differing opinions in this thread about the game, balance, individual units. Keeping in mind that this particular forum is only a small part of the SC2 community, how exactly can you say that Blizz is out of touch? There are hundreds of differing opinions, even pros and analysts argue a lot (balance talk on SotG?). It isn't like a vast majority of the SC2 community is begging for things that Blizz is ignoring. The SC2 community doesn't have a consensus about anything; even the TL forum (again, only a small part of SC2) can't reach an agreement about almost anything.
How you can blame a company that's made a game that's given us this many amazing tournaments in less than a year for not being in touch with millions of customers with different opinions is beyond me.
Sen & Interviewers: a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
Dustin Browder: no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
Sen & Interviewers: but the rush are stronger than BW
Dustin Browder: we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
Never understood that first question, i just presumed it was a miss translation presume they meant timing pushes. Rushes aren't very strong (6pool terrible never wins, 2gate moderately strong but not to hard to deal with, 2rax + bunkers moderately hard but defend able only one there which may be a slight problem is 2rax but only because zergs don't want to get the early lings. Not sure about fast marauder vs P but I'd imagine zealot sentry kills it fairly easy)
On June 12 2011 14:37 Daiki wrote: i gave up on dustin when he stated that sc2 is more micro intensive than bw. Imo, he also ruined command and conquer generals.
I think it was day9 who said game has potential to be more micro intensive than broodwar just players need to develop better skills.
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and the way Dustin Browder responds to a lot of questions, and slag pits.
Which similar sized company communicates to their fan base more or as much as blizzard?
I hate arguing on these threads but I just want to say that you are completely wrong about all of your points.
Rushing isn't punished as severely as it was in BW. Comparing 6 pool and 2 gate as the rush standards are ridiculous because those are extremes and nobody even does them anyway. If you did a 3 gate all-in like you did in BW you could not expand off of that, you would simply lose if you didn't do enough damage.
Just because Day[9] says it might be potential to have more micro than BW, that means hardly anything I'm sorry. With smartcasting and the current units SC2 has they will never come close to BW micro. Smartcasting makes micro 10X easier. Compare the use of storm in SC1 vs SC2...that's as simple as it gets. In SC1 manually select each templar and cast storm...in SC2 press 1 hotkey and spam TTTT. Having all your units on 1-3 hotkeys max as opposed to having them on 5-6 hotkeys is also 10X easier. Have you ever controlled lurker/ling/defiler/scourge? What about marine/medic/tank/vessel? Corsair/shuttle/reaver? They are so difficult to control it's hard to even describe. Try it out yourself and get good with it to see what I mean.
Edit:
For reference I love SC2...I just hate misinformed/ignorant opinions like yours, sorry to say.
On June 12 2011 22:01 dormer wrote: How you can blame a company that's made a game that's given us this many amazing tournaments in less than a year for not being in touch with millions of customers with different opinions is beyond me.
Game is good, but it could have been much better. Especially for high level of play, for pros, grandmasters, etc. Skill ceiling between good player and excellent player isn't that big. Good player can still easily win a game vs. a better player. And one of the reasons is that because of a-move units like collossus, marauders, etc, which does not require much skill. I think most of community agrees that boring units should be changed.
This shows Blizzard is 'out of touch'? I fail to see how what Browder said isn't basically correct. Most pros these days seem to agree the game is fairly balanced right now (even Artosis!), and while rushes are certainly stronger, it is a different game, and these rushes are not for the most part game-breaking. And the fact that they don't mention the same unit off-the-top-of-their-heads as an example of a boring unit as an anonymous poll on TL proves they're "out of touch" with the community? Really?
Sen & Interviewers: a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
Dustin Browder: no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
Sen & Interviewers: but the rush are stronger than BW
Dustin Browder: we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
Never understood that first question, i just presumed it was a miss translation presume they meant timing pushes. Rushes aren't very strong (6pool terrible never wins, 2gate moderately strong but not to hard to deal with, 2rax + bunkers moderately hard but defend able only one there which may be a slight problem is 2rax but only because zergs don't want to get the early lings. Not sure about fast marauder vs P but I'd imagine zealot sentry kills it fairly easy)
On June 12 2011 14:37 Daiki wrote: i gave up on dustin when he stated that sc2 is more micro intensive than bw. Imo, he also ruined command and conquer generals.
I think it was day9 who said game has potential to be more micro intensive than broodwar just players need to develop better skills.
On June 12 2011 14:58 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and the way Dustin Browder responds to a lot of questions, and slag pits.
Which similar sized company communicates to their fan base more or as much as blizzard?
I hate arguing on these threads but I just want to say that you are completely wrong about all of your points.
Rushing isn't punished as severely as it was in BW. Comparing 6 pool and 2 gate as the rush standards are ridiculous because those are extremes and nobody even does them anyway. If you did a 3 gate all-in like you did in BW you could not expand off of that, you would simply lose if you didn't do enough damage.
Just because Day[9] says it might be potential to have more micro than BW, that means hardly anything I'm sorry. With smartcasting and the current units SC2 has they will never come close to BW micro. Smartcasting makes micro 10X easier. Compare the use of storm in SC1 vs SC2...that's as simple as it gets. In SC1 manually select each templar and cast storm...in SC2 press 1 hotkey and spam TTTT. Having all your units on 1-3 hotkeys max as opposed to having them on 5-6 hotkeys is also 10X easier. Have you ever controlled lurker/ling/defiler/scourge? What about marine/medic/tank/vessel? Corsair/shuttle/reaver? They are so difficult to control it's hard to even describe. Try it out yourself and get good with it to see what I mean.
Edit:
For reference I love SC2...I just hate misinformed/ignorant opinions like yours, sorry to say.
So we should take your word for micro and disregard Day9's why? It's kinda weird that you just disregard what he says then list a bunch of stuff from BW as some kind of proof. We don't know what kind of micro can be achieved in SC2 yet. There's a shitload more micro in games now than 6 months ago, that's for sure.
I get really annoyed when random people on the internet is saying how Blizzard does not know how to make a game. Do you, random idiot, do you know? If you were in charge, everything would turn out perfectly, wouldn't it?
That being said, of course Blizzard are not perfect. I also happen to think the Colossus is the most boring unit of SC2. I think overseers dropping infested terrans was the best idea ever, and instead of balancing it (or leaving it the fuck alone for a long enough period of time to let players adapt) they just removed it. The immortal, I don't mind, I think the danger it poses and the need to single it out, therefore forcing the opposite player to micro it away, is fun. But as far as I'm concerned, the protoss meathshield is the zealot, and the immortal would be just as fun without the hardened shield, because doing high damage against armored is it's role.
Anyway. Dustin Browder is not Blizzard. I'm sure there are just as many people on his team slapping their foreheads at what he says in interviews as there are in the community. Per capita of course.
Regarding the bolded part, it's a stupid statement because we don't have the same training and expertise a developer does. You have to look at evertything relatively. Are blizzard developers better than random joe on teamliquid? No shit. The question you have to ask is are blizzard developers better than other developers? Better than Brood War's developers? Because the fact that they can make a game better than me means nothing considering I know nothing about making games
So when you say SC2 developers don't know what they're doing, exactly what are you proposing they do? Go dig up the old BW developer team and put them all in charge? That's fucking brilliant.
I never said that, I just said your "don't insult Sc2 developers because you can't do any better" line of thinking is stupid.
That's your solution then? Insult the developers?
What? I wasn't insulting the developers, just saying your line of thinking is stupid.
OK then I must be completely misinterpreting what you are saying. In my mind, you can't tell someone else they don't know what they're doing without knowing better yourself. You see, because you'd need to be qualified to make that assessment.
In my mind, SC2 is a pretty great game. I played BW for a long time, and while I still think BW is superior, I think SC2 has the potential to become greater. SC2 is a year old, and it has decent balance. We are expecting two more expansions.
In my mind, the absolute worst move a game company can make is listen to the community too much. Because most of the community, much like the average voter, is retarded, and don't know what they want.
Yes, goddamnit, the same thing goes for me. Show some humility once in a while, it's good for you.
I understand, but I think there's a lot of people in this community that have the ability to critique this game without being a designer themselves. Don't agree with you saying you can't judge how well Blizzard has done with Sc2 beucase you're not a designer yourself.
On June 12 2011 22:04 Zapdos_Smithh wrote: Rushing isn't punished as severely as it was in BW. Comparing 6 pool and 2 gate as the rush standards are ridiculous because those are extremes and nobody even does them anyway. If you did a 3 gate all-in like you did in BW you could not expand off of that, you would simply lose if you didn't do enough damage.
SC2 allins might be too strong, or it may just be that the game isn't discovered enough yet. Either way, they really are all-in. Can you name 3 GSL games where an allin has failed and the player went on to win anyway? It happened in the past I guess, but nowadays it's either win or gg.
Just because Day[9] says it might be potential to have more micro than BW, that means hardly anything I'm sorry. With smartcasting and the current units SC2 has they will never come close to BW micro. Smartcasting makes micro 10X easier. Compare the use of storm in SC1 vs SC2...that's as simple as it gets. In SC1 manually select each templar and cast storm...in SC2 press 1 hotkey and spam TTTT. Having all your units on 1-3 hotkeys max as opposed to having them on 5-6 hotkeys is also 10X easier. Have you ever controlled lurker/ling/defiler/scourge? What about marine/medic/tank/vessel? Corsair/shuttle/reaver? They are so difficult to control it's hard to even describe. Try it out yourself and get good with it to see what I mean.
No one is even remotely close to perfect micro though, so it doesn't matter that theoretically it's easier. There's still far, far too much stuff for any human to do. See the automaton 2000 stuff for examples. And that's just the discovered micro. Let's not forget that something like marine splitting, seen in every ZvT now, basically didn't exist before MKP!
For storm...yeah it's easier to lay storms. It's also easier for your opponent to EMP all your shit. It kinda evens out.
On June 12 2011 22:01 dormer wrote: How you can blame a company that's made a game that's given us this many amazing tournaments in less than a year for not being in touch with millions of customers with different opinions is beyond me.
Game is good, but it could have been much better. Especially for high level of play, for pros, grandmasters, etc. Skill ceiling between good player and excellent player isn't that big. Good player can still easily win a game vs. a better player. And one of the reasons is that because of a-move units like collossus, marauders, etc, which does not require much skill. I think most of community agrees that boring units should be changed.
Seen this argument 100 times in threads like this. Yet i read that Idra mostly destroys people on the ladder. Koreans kicked serious ass at MLG, showing that there's a difference even between the very, very top players in the world. That should mean that the difference between a good player and a great one should be quite large.
Also "A-move" units that are weak to alot of stuff. A-move your colossus and see them die to superior Viking placement or sniped by Marauders. A-move your Marauders and watch a protoss proceed to force field half of them and then destroy them using zealots+colossus fire.
Let's quit with the hyperbole, saying a-move units etc. It's not true in high level play and it doesn't help the argument.
Big problem in sc2 is that there is just not enough micro intensive units. And as far as I see from interviews blizzard does not even understand that (turning banshee cloak on is "micro" according to Dustin Browder, lol).
Marine splitting vs. banelings is action which may drastically change your win rate. In masters 90% of players can't even execute marine split, while players like marineking or bratok can do miracles with them. That's a very good thing for esports. Pretty much same with blink stalkers - perfectly used that can be deadly. But what more micro-intensive units you know? I can't really think of anything else, why? Because there is none. Especially for zerg. You have a roach/hydra army as zerg and you a-move into collossus ball and hope his keyboard broke and he won't cast forcefields (which negates any micro). Is this a good design?
Sen & Interviewers: a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
Dustin Browder: no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
Sen & Interviewers: but the rush are stronger than BW
Dustin Browder: we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
Never understood that first question, i just presumed it was a miss translation presume they meant timing pushes. Rushes aren't very strong (6pool terrible never wins, 2gate moderately strong but not to hard to deal with, 2rax + bunkers moderately hard but defend able only one there which may be a slight problem is 2rax but only because zergs don't want to get the early lings. Not sure about fast marauder vs P but I'd imagine zealot sentry kills it fairly easy)
On June 12 2011 14:37 Daiki wrote: i gave up on dustin when he stated that sc2 is more micro intensive than bw. Imo, he also ruined command and conquer generals.
I think it was day9 who said game has potential to be more micro intensive than broodwar just players need to develop better skills.
On June 12 2011 14:58 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and the way Dustin Browder responds to a lot of questions, and slag pits.
Which similar sized company communicates to their fan base more or as much as blizzard?
I hate arguing on these threads but I just want to say that you are completely wrong about all of your points.
Rushing isn't punished as severely as it was in BW. Comparing 6 pool and 2 gate as the rush standards are ridiculous because those are extremes and nobody even does them anyway. If you did a 3 gate all-in like you did in BW you could not expand off of that, you would simply lose if you didn't do enough damage.
Just because Day[9] says it might be potential to have more micro than BW, that means hardly anything I'm sorry. With smartcasting and the current units SC2 has they will never come close to BW micro. Smartcasting makes micro 10X easier. Compare the use of storm in SC1 vs SC2...that's as simple as it gets. In SC1 manually select each templar and cast storm...in SC2 press 1 hotkey and spam TTTT. Having all your units on 1-3 hotkeys max as opposed to having them on 5-6 hotkeys is also 10X easier. Have you ever controlled lurker/ling/defiler/scourge? What about marine/medic/tank/vessel? Corsair/shuttle/reaver? They are so difficult to control it's hard to even describe. Try it out yourself and get good with it to see what I mean.
Edit:
For reference I love SC2...I just hate misinformed/ignorant opinions like yours, sorry to say.
So we should take your word for micro and disregard Day9's why? It's kinda weird that you just disregard what he says then list a bunch of stuff from BW as some kind of proof. We don't know what kind of micro can be achieved in SC2 yet. There's a shitload more micro in games now than 6 months ago, that's for sure.
#1. Find the source for me where Day[9] says that SC2 micro > BW micro, or will be some day.
#2. It's basic facts. SC2 is user-friendly, Browder even said it himself. BW is not user-friendly. With the current units available...I can't see any micro being at a HIGHER level than BW. I can see it being high for sure....not higher though. I like hearing about positive statements for SC2's future...I absolutely cannot bear reading statements by people who obviously have never played BW at a competitive level trying to bring down BW. SC2 will be better for sure...but why bring BW into the picture? BW deserves a little more respect on these forums.
Btw if you would like to continue to refute my points, please provide your BW history. Basically if you played PGT/iccup and what was the highest rank you achieved. For me I was a C- zerg on the brink of C at my peak in about 2008/9 or so. The reason I say this is because it's useless to argue with somebody who is comparing the 2 games when he/she clearly hasn't even played it at a competitive level.
I think the biggest issue with this is the constant comparing to SC2 to BW, if they were meant to be the same then SC2 would have been sold/marketed as a revamp/expansion pack, which it certainly is not. Also its talking about balance without even mentioning the metagame, Blizzard can only do so much to design and make units, yet if players use them in a totally different way well then thats nothing to do with Blizzard. SC2 is pretty well balanced, and any issues are only minor/ metagame driven. In my opinion if someone thinks thats BW had better design and better units, well, then they can just play BW and stop moaning about SC2
While I won't conclusively say I do think they're out of touch, based on some of the stuff they've said I would absolutely not be surprised, and it would certainly validate my frustrations.
On June 12 2011 21:46 shizna wrote: frankly, i'm suprised people are whining about roach, when it's clearly the hydralisk that demands attention in the zerg camp. everyone knows that if you make a single hydralisk against terran, you instantly lose the match.
On June 12 2011 21:48 Sapphire.lux wrote: There is a lot to be done with SC2. In micro and general tactics in general. The game is evolving.
To sum it up, this thread is a massive knee jerk, a "WTF" i want to be heard cry, a shit sense of entitlement. SC2 will be doomed the day Blizz makes patches based on polls/ general consensus and other general BS coming from the community. Trying to be objective in an environment where most people are either only interested in wining easier on the ladder or in tournaments to make more money is, extremely hard. Grow up!
You're both completely correct in the statements I've quoted.
The hydralisk comment hits home to most too. Some times I get a knee jerk nostalgia reaction and try to make hydras against terran >,> never a good idea.
Sen & Interviewers: a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
Dustin Browder: no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
Sen & Interviewers: but the rush are stronger than BW
Dustin Browder: we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
Never understood that first question, i just presumed it was a miss translation presume they meant timing pushes. Rushes aren't very strong (6pool terrible never wins, 2gate moderately strong but not to hard to deal with, 2rax + bunkers moderately hard but defend able only one there which may be a slight problem is 2rax but only because zergs don't want to get the early lings. Not sure about fast marauder vs P but I'd imagine zealot sentry kills it fairly easy)
On June 12 2011 14:37 Daiki wrote: i gave up on dustin when he stated that sc2 is more micro intensive than bw. Imo, he also ruined command and conquer generals.
I think it was day9 who said game has potential to be more micro intensive than broodwar just players need to develop better skills.
On June 12 2011 14:58 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote: Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close.
Well
1. That's not true
2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant.
Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and the way Dustin Browder responds to a lot of questions, and slag pits.
Which similar sized company communicates to their fan base more or as much as blizzard?
I hate arguing on these threads but I just want to say that you are completely wrong about all of your points.
Rushing isn't punished as severely as it was in BW. Comparing 6 pool and 2 gate as the rush standards are ridiculous because those are extremes and nobody even does them anyway. If you did a 3 gate all-in like you did in BW you could not expand off of that, you would simply lose if you didn't do enough damage.
Just because Day[9] says it might be potential to have more micro than BW, that means hardly anything I'm sorry. With smartcasting and the current units SC2 has they will never come close to BW micro. Smartcasting makes micro 10X easier. Compare the use of storm in SC1 vs SC2...that's as simple as it gets. In SC1 manually select each templar and cast storm...in SC2 press 1 hotkey and spam TTTT. Having all your units on 1-3 hotkeys max as opposed to having them on 5-6 hotkeys is also 10X easier. Have you ever controlled lurker/ling/defiler/scourge? What about marine/medic/tank/vessel? Corsair/shuttle/reaver? They are so difficult to control it's hard to even describe. Try it out yourself and get good with it to see what I mean.
Edit:
For reference I love SC2...I just hate misinformed/ignorant opinions like yours, sorry to say.
So we should take your word for micro and disregard Day9's why? It's kinda weird that you just disregard what he says then list a bunch of stuff from BW as some kind of proof. We don't know what kind of micro can be achieved in SC2 yet. There's a shitload more micro in games now than 6 months ago, that's for sure.
#1. Find the source for me where Day[9] says that SC2 micro > BW micro, or will be some day.
#2. It's basic facts. SC2 is user-friendly, Browder even said it himself. BW is not user-friendly. With the current units available...I can't see any micro being at a HIGHER level than BW. I can see it being high for sure....not higher though. I like hearing about positive statements for SC2's future...I absolutely cannot bear reading statements by people who obviously have never played BW at a competitive level trying to bring down BW. SC2 will be better for sure...but why bring BW into the picture? BW deserves a little more respect on these forums.
Btw if you would like to continue to refute my points, please provide your BW history. Basically if you played PGT/iccup and what was the highest rank you achieved. For me I was a C- zerg on the brink of C at my peak in about 2008/9 or so. The reason I say this is because it's useless to argue with somebody who is comparing the 2 games when he/she clearly hasn't even played it at a competitive level.
I really don't care about BW. I don't see anyone so far that's anywhere close to reaching the cieling of SC2 micro/multitasking. That's all i'm saying. You can post you ICCUP stats and talk about how hard BW is. It does nothing to change the fact that we might see higher apm and more micro in SC2 in a year or two than we ever saw in BW. I'm saying i don't know, you're saying you know cause you played BW.
I have no interest in "bringing BW down". I'm just saying that there's potential for micro in SC2 and stating some micro intesive BW tasks don't prove or disprove anything.
he literally said "if you don't like sc2 go play bw" what the fuck kind of argument is that
he is right, I'm tired of this BW bullshit in the SC2 area... I don't give a shit for why BW was good, SC2 is not BW, get over it... and yes, I played BW before SC2
What I got from this is that since it's Dustin Browder who's sort of the head honcho designing SC2, the whole "we dont want to take from Brood War" argument isn't going to budge because he wants to make this his own thing. I can understand that.
However... Brood War was a lot better then Command and Conquer.
Im just saying. There's clearly something that the original designers got right that he keeps missing out on, even today as he's working on SC2.
People who say they don't care about SC BW are just playing SC2 because it is new and have no feel or understanding about why SC BW was such a good RTS.
Blizzard being out of touch with TL is the same as TL being out of touch with most of the rest of the game industry. It is true.
I expect SC3 will be played with Kinetic. You vote with your wallet, people. If you don't like a game or a trend, don't pay for it. If you do, you tell Blizzard "We want more of this."
Browder said he wants mothers of WoW players to play SC2. That's why the game is designed as it is. And now we have mothers of WoW players on TL telling us they don't care about esports or SC BW.
How often have you seen people on TL say: "Lol why do you care so much about esports?" since Sc2 was released?
We have to realize we are out of touch with the younger generation. Blizzard is too big to make a worthy successor to SC BW because it's too much of a fringe market. We will have to wait for a small studio to attempt it. Maybe S2 games can do it. They seem a lot and a lot more keen on understanding what this fringe market wants. Not sure about their RTS expertize.
But first SC2 must be out of the way. No company is going to try to compete with Blizzard on a successor of SC BW. Blizzard is just too big of a name and has too much money.
We the fringe group lost our successor to SC BW when Pillars left the dev team. People could have known what would happen. We got many clues and stories about how discussions went inside the dev team and how hard a time David Kim had. Somehow he was able to not get frustrated like Pillars and quit. But he must have run into a brick wall on a daily basis.
Cowsgomoo gave us some insights about this. I remember how he talked about maps when it was still early internal beta.
So let's hope SC2 goes out of the way quickly and Blizzard moves on and see who dares to jump in the gap Blizzard has left. Most people that cared about SC BW gave up on SC2 a long time ago. You see all the famous people moved on to SC2 but they just do it because of the money and popularity. A lot of the top players deeply dislike SC2. I remember all the criticism from these people. But when they decided internally they wanted SC2 to succeed and SC2 wasn't going to change anymore, they stopped talking about it. Nony, Artosis, Tasteless, Idra, etc. Ret at first wasn't going to play SC2. We know he dislikes the game. But he plays anyway.
Day9 is a special case. He has always been a Blizzard apologist. He is just a bit nutty, let me put it like this. People who know him better and played many games with him know what I mean. His position to refuse imbalance can exist is just an example of this because actually a game ca never be perfectly balanced unless there is perfect symmetry. So was his argument against extended series he once made on SotG.
As much as colossus are boring units, it doesn't make them the most uninteresting to me. They do have a neat ability to move up and down cliffs and their AoE is somewhat interesting too as it isn't in a radius, so much.
I'd say it annoys me that there are a ton of early tank-like units, like the roach that serve no other real big purpose. It's not to say progamers cannot make it work, but I cannot help but think roach and marauder weren't looked at very well.
I don't want them to take every aspect of Brood War, but obviously some should have been taken into some inspiration.
I suppose the other thing that kills me is how general purpose truly defines the marine in SC2, compared to Brood War. But that's more of a personal thing.
I'd just say that Dustin Browder should really just consider what other players are saying rather than saying it's supposed to be different. Especially if he's asking for insight from others, and then later on saying that things weren't working as intended as time passed by.
he literally said "if you don't like sc2 go play bw" what the fuck kind of argument is that
he is right, I'm tired of this BW bullshit in the SC2 area... I don't give a shit for why BW was good, SC2 is not BW, get over it... and yes, I played BW before SC2
Maybe that would be a valid argument if the name of the game wasn't STARCRAFT 2
You're pretty delusional if you think that people won't judge a sequel by using the games that came before it in the same series as a metric... much less anticipate general game concepts carrying over.
On June 12 2011 22:36 Hekisui wrote: People who say they don't care about SC BW are just playing SC2 because it is new and have no feel or understanding about why SC BW was such a good RTS.
Blizzard being out of touch with TL is the same as TL being out of touch with most of the rest of the game industry. It is true.
I expect SC3 will be played with Kinetic. You vote with your wallet, people. If you don't like a game or a trend, don't pay for it. If you do, you tell Blizzard "We want more of this."
Browder said he wants mothers of WoW players to play SC2. That's why the game is designed as it is. And now we have mothers of WoW players on TL telling us they don't care about esports or SC BW.
How often have you seed people on TL say: "Lol why do you care so much about esports?" since Sc2 was released?
Man, those are some great generalizations. I was 14 when SC1 was released. I played it alot over 56k modem and LAN. I still prefer playing and watching SC2 over BW.
Equating having a game with a bit less demand on mechanics to playing brainless party games on the "Kinetic" is just stupid.
Many games are getting Kinetic now, including Mass Effect 3.
Mass Effect actually comes from a tradition that started with a hardcore PC game. These are the trends of mainstream games. We are talking about a newer generation now. But there will be a new generation after that.
I don't care how old you are. The argument goes two ways. If Blizzard wasn't in touch with those that are going to buy most of their games, they will go broke. They need to be out of touch with TL. If they don't, they go broke.
Blizzard is actually in a scary position. Shareholders demand the stock rises all the time. Blizzard had WoW which will now be on the decline and I can't imagine how they will ever make a game more successful than WoW. But this is what is expected. They will risk a lot to try to increase their stock. And that may actually be their downfall. People at Blizzard realize this, but they have no choice.
Whenever I read a post by any of the die hard SC2 apologists I get an impression that if one were to poll them, asking a question:
#1 Do you want SC2 to be more like BW?
They'd be like "HELL NO!"
And if you asked them:
#2 Do you want SC2 to have more unit relationships like Marines vs. Banelings (where micro is the deciding factor), no deathballs, no ball vs. ball gameplay, units that allow for positional battles?
They'd be like "HELL YES!"
Those two are synonymous. Nobody is asking for BW with newer graphics. Being more like BW does not mean copying everything from BW. Marines vs. Banelings is very BW-esque. Do you want to get rid of it and make Banelings rape Marines because it's similar to how BW worked? Armies of Exigo was very different from BW in terms of the actual abilities, units, etc., but was still VERY BW-like. Nothing stops SC2 from following that route.
On June 12 2011 22:49 Hekisui wrote: Many games are getting Kinetic now, including Mass Effect 3.
Mass Effect actually comes from a tradition that started with a hardcore PC game. These are the trends of mainstream games. We are talking about a newer generation now. But there will be a new generation after that.
I don't care how old you are. The argument goes two ways. If Blizzard wasn't in touch with those that are going to buy most of their games, they will go broke. They need to be out of touch with TL. If they don't, they go broke.
Blizzard is actually in a scary position. Shareholders demand the stock rises all the time. Blizzard had WoW which will now be on the decline and I can't imagine how they will ever make a game more successful than WoW. But this is what is expected. They will risk a lot to try to increase their stock. And that may actually be their downfall. People at Blizzard realize this, but they have no choice.
SC2 is doing quite well in sales. WoW is losing customers but Blizzard already has another MMO in the works. To me your posts sound like alot of loose speculation.
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Do you want Marine vs. Baneling micro removed because it's similar to BW, too?
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
We want the GOOD aspects of BW. Why can't you SC2 noobies not understand this? Like a post above this...don't you LIKE marine/baneling relationships? How one unit is supposed to counter another which with good micro can beat another which with good micro on the other end can beat them? Don't you like this stuff? BW mechanics will bring this stuff! We want SC2 to be great as well!
Sometimes I feel like I am getting trolled here....
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Do you want Marine vs. Baneling micro removed because it's similar to BW, too?
Lol I love how some people are like "FUCK BW! I HATE BW!!!!!"...yet they want zerglings, zealots, marines, tanks. If you don't like SC1...well...you are pretty well playing it with a couple new units and graphics. It's it also ironic how the SC1 strict units are the least complained about
I edited the OP to try and give a clearer understanding of what I meant by communication and out of touch.
I think people are getting angry that I am quoting when Blizzard says something silly and then somehow trying to deny it, even though it was Blizzard that said it. I would like it if someone could explain why quoting Blizzard = insulting them.
It wasn't hard to find these answers honestly. If you read the interviews, when they hit the part about a topic which points at a particular problem, 9 times out of 10 it is either dodged, refuted with a silly example, or flat out denied ("Do you really want chat channels?"). When the best way would be to acknowledge the problem and provide a proper response. If every time this happens they give a response which doesn't make any sense (ling vs templar as an example), then it shows that they are out of touch, and there needs improvement in understanding the game.
There are many times when Blizzard "caving in" to significant pressure has improved the game.
Early game reapers Many other balance changes Chat Channels Better Maps (Hopefully after the recent poll) Less destructible rocks Quite a few more
Unfortunately this is the only way Blizzard will change things. While they do interviews with GSL map makers, pro-gamers, and so on and so forth. They won't listen to their advice and not a lot comes out of them.
That said feel free to give your opinion on why I am wrong. I still believe this is an area Blizzard has significant room to improve.
And sigh I really wasn't arguing about SC2 vs BW. If anything the BW reference has to do with how Browder dismissed Sen's questions. (T_T)
On June 12 2011 22:48 Archerofaiur wrote: *pops into an interesting thread ready to give his personal take on this complex issue*
On June 12 2011 22:54 karpo wrote: SC2 is doing quite well in sales. WoW is losing customers but Blizzard already has another MMO in the works. To me your posts sound like alot of loose speculation.
Maybe you should count better. SC2 cost a lot more to make than SC and sold a lot less.
Not going broke doesn't mean their stock rises. Their stock needs to rise somehow. They have to aim to get more subscribers from their new MMO than they had at the peak of WoW.
But instead SC2 declined after SC and the new MMO will likely be a decline compared to WoW. With D3 Blizzard has to move the game to console or else it will also sell less while costing more than D2.
WoW was a bit of a fluke. We had EQ and UO and those MMOs got old and were never mainstream. There was a gap for a modern new solid MMO. WoW was that. And based on market research they decided to make a very casual MMO compared to the others and this was jackpot. Blizzard has learned this lesson very well and with SC2 they aimed to do the same.
It's hard to see how their new MMO will get so many subscribers when there is now a lot of competition. Blizzard knows this is difficult. So they are worried about coming up with something new that can do the same as WoW in another way.
An esports RTS isn't that. Likely, they will be looking at a console oriented game aiming for Call to Duty and Halo people. They still have their frozen Starcraft Ghost. Ideally they want to get unto that market.
PC gaming is not where the money is unless it's MMO of facebook games. Hardcore gaming on PC is basically dead. Games like Civ5 and SC2 are proof of that.
Zapdos if you go back a few pages and read what the people you're arguing with are saying you'll realize the main sentiment here is I WANT TO WIN EASIER LOL. Theres a lot of pretty crap posting going on this morning and I'm not excluded from that.
On June 12 2011 23:05 Hekisui wrote:
Maybe you should count better. SC2 cost a lot more to make than SC and sold a lot less.
Here's a great example. A comparison between a 11 year old game and a less than 1 year old game in terms of sales.
It's a sad state when you need the insights of someone who never bought the game, isn't it?
I am not bringing SC2 down. I am giving Blizzard credit for being out of touch with TL.
I don't like laggy games. But other people love them. SC2 esports outside Korea is a lot bigger than SC BW was. People don't notice or care about the lag because they don't know any better. Blizzard knew this because that's how they experienced it as well. The 250 delay isn't obvious to many. When you are used to a non micro game with 250 delay, it's not an issue anymore.
In SC2 you don't have worker battles like you have almost every progame in SC BW. Does this break the game? Apparently not.
I think the devs are more or less very pleased with themselves over how SC2 worked out (as in it's not a flaming wreck of a game and has a big competitive scene)
The results is them trying to deflect or dodge as many legitimate questions about the game as they can that would result in acknowledgement of its shortcomings. Dustin especially seems to try to justify a lot of stupid shit and make tremendously dumb comparisons to BW as if he has absolutely no interest in changing anything about SC2.
I think they care a whole lot less about what we think or say and more about what we do, which so far has been buy their game, play their game, and make it a commercial and competitive success
Most of them are facts, not opinions. If they are factually incorrect it would be easy to show. Instead you try to insult and ridicule. There's a lot of people who are biased and will accept any post that supports their rhetoric. I am not worried about those people at all.
On June 12 2011 23:36 floor exercise wrote: I think they care a whole lot less about what we think or say and more about what we do, which so far has been buy their game, play their game, and make it a commercial and competitive success
I think you make a very good point. I saw someone else say earlier that Blizzard people seemed to be very well trained in saying things that would please the TL audience while they didn't at all seem to understand what was meant.
In some cases this resulted in some hilarious things. I still think that the Phoenix ability to attack-move is a result of such a hilarious misunderstanding. It seems to show how decisions are made. Somehow they got the idea that competitive players want something that can attack while moving. So that is what they put into the game.
To me the way blizzard are flip-flopping on so many issues, most recently and most noteably the tvp thor nerf, seems to suggest that they don't really know what they're doing. It at least shows that they're just a bunch of everyman, joe schmo game developers with no particularly deep understanding of their game. They seem to be frantically trying things out, and killing a ton of potential strategies in the process.
Their reasoning for the thor nerf is just weird to me. In the latest situation report, Kim said
First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible.
the first question is, why is it bad that thors are massed? Blizzard's reasoning so far has been "we don't want thors massed." Don't want is the reasoning of a six-year old. The second question is, why is the thor singled out for visually obscuring other units, when the same can be said for every other massive unit in the game, except for the archon? Blizzard's myopic way of balancing and their inability to think holistically about their game, which forces match-ups like tvp to be extremely boring and stereotyped, basically killed any faith I had in them as developers. The fact that SC2 is as balanced as it is because the balancing team are willing to sacrifice variety in strategies for stereotyped balance (ie, terran HAS to all-in early or go mmm/v/g in tvp), and also due to simple luck. SC2 could easily have been a HUGE mess with these people at the helm.
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
On June 12 2011 23:45 Quotidian wrote: To me - as a terran player - the way blizzard are flip-flopping on so many issues, most recently and most noteably the tvp thor nerf, seems to suggest that they don't really know what they're doing. It at least shows that they're just a bunch of everyman, joe schmo game developers with no particularly deep understanding of their game. They seem to be frantically trying things out, and killing a ton of potential strategies in the process.
Their reasoning for the thor nerf is just weird to me. In the latest situation report, Kim said
First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible.
the first question is, why is it bad that thors are massed? Blizzard's reasoning so far has been "we don't want thors massed." Don't want is the reasoning of a six-year old. The second question is, why is the thor singled out for visually obstructing other units, when the same can be said for every other massive unit in the game, except for the archon? Blizzard's myopic way of balancing and their inability to think holistically about their game, which forces match-ups like tvp to be extremely boring and stereotyped, basically killed any faith I had in them as developers. The fact that SC2 is as balanced as it is because the balancing team are willing to sacrifice variety in strategies for stereotyped balance (ie, terran HAS to all-in early or go mmm/v/g in tvp), and also due to simple luck. SC2 could easily have been a HUGE mess with these people at the helm.
Holy shit I never realized how juvenile Blizzard's balancing reasoning is haha.
"We don't want people to make a lot of Thors because they obscure the other units visually, so we nerfed them."
Maybe they should change something about the way the game works other than changing the stats of 1 unit? Just a thought. Wow.
While everyone is busy with this sc2 vs bw silliness, the op missed what I feel is perhaps the biggest issue with sc2 and esports. It's not balance, it's basic functionality. No Lan? I mean seriously is there anyone who calls themselves a fan who doesn't want this? I've literally lost count of how many events have been plagued by disconnects and lag. I can understand not releasing a version with lan to everyone, but Blizzards official partners like MLG and GSL should have some kind of in house server to prevent these issues. It's just a matter of time before the validity of an event finals comes into serious question because of these issues, which is horrible for esports. (see: power outage, or remember TTone vs jinro at mlg?)
Overall, I think highly of David Kim. He seems to have a good grasp of things, even though we don't agree on everything, his opinion has merit (because he appears to use actual logic). Dustin Browder on the other hand, has given enough ridiculous, naive, and misguided responses to questions that I have zero confidence in him. In my opinion, he is completely blinded by his own ego and utterly incompetent. He is the main reason I am filled with doubt that the game design for future sc2 expansions will leave us with a balanced, fun, macro oriented game, when the final patch is laid after Legacy of the void.
In my opinion they don't have the best track record for balancing. When the reaper build was a problem they nerfed reaper speed (by requiring a factory), they buffed roach range (which created drastic changes in pvz), and added the supply depot before barracks requirement. Don't change 1v1 balance because of 2v2.
They nerfed the zealot build time because low level players couldn't stop zealot rushes. God forbid they just learn to scout. "Wow no cybercore and 2 gates, hmmmm wonder what he's going to do?" Is it really harder to stop a zealot rush than a 6 pool or 5 racks marine rush?
They change the bunker in every patch. Do they really think the bunker is central to balancing terran?
The last patch they nerfed pylon radius and warp gate research time to "fix" pvp. Yet 4 gate is still the core of pvp and now protoss is just harder vs zerg (see: roach ling rush to deny 3gate expo) and the pylon radius makes basic building placement problematic, forge expanding is very annoying now.
I think it is almost universally accepted that most of the deadliest rushes and allins out there are 10x easier to execute than to survive. Yet Browder blatantly denies this in his interview?
I learned a long time ago, when you spew B.S. you usually only end up fooling yourself. Dustin Browder, if you think you're fooling us with these kind of responses, then you are lying to yourself and denial can be an ugly thing.
I'd like to see a poll on how many people think Sc2's future would be in better hands if Dustin Browder was fired or moved to another part of Activision and David Kim was promoted to lead design of Sc2. I have a hunch that I'm not the only one who holds the opinions in this post.
The whole colossus argument is ridiculous. I don't even see MC use colossi anymore unless hydras are on the field or in certain PvP 2+ base scenarios, he mostly goes gateway. He must feel at the highest level that control of his units is superior to any a-move AOE. They aren't overpowered, they just allow for lesser protoss to be able to hold off roach/hydra 1a and marine/marauder t1a with their equivalent 1a. A lot of Korea seems to be moving away from colossi in general because it's not exactly fun babysitting your glass cannon and praying to god that it does enough damage before corruptors and vikings snipe them, because your zealots and stalkers units suck against marauders and roaches.
The entire reason the colossus is so "OP" is because of the difficulty of doing anything BESIDES colossi unless you are extremely skilled and cost-efficient with your other units. What else would you do besides go colossi against things like hydras and MMM? Sink so much gas into HT and hope that they don't know how to move their units, and you have no khydarian amulet if you get EMP'd/sniped/they just move away?
People say colossi is OP because it prevents them from being able to just win games easily with 1a. They complain about 1a but what are you doing? Are you consistently dropping? Dropping with banelings? Flanking? Forcing forcefields? No, chances are you are just a-moving then you whine like IdrA that you just can't win despite being CLEARLY the superior player.
If you are going to remove or change the colossi for the benefit of casual/mediocre players unable to deal with it, change MMM and roach/hydra.
Where is Brood Lord on the uninteresting unit list? Everybody complains about how few cool tricks the colossus can employ, but the Brood Lord is even worse. You just sit it there, and watch it deal damage. At least the colossus can be used for cliff walking, and has pretty laser beams.
On June 12 2011 23:49 Reborn8u wrote: While everyone is busy with this sc2 vs bw silliness, the op missed what I feel is perhaps the biggest issue with sc2 and esports. It's not balance, it's basic functionality. No Lan? I mean seriously is there anyone who calls themselves a fan who doesn't want this? I've literally lost count of how many events have been plagued by disconnects and lag. I can understand not releasing a version with lan to everyone, but Blizzards official partners like MLG and GSL should have some kind of in house server to prevent these issues. It's just a matter of time before the validity of an event finals comes into serious question because of these issues, which is horrible for esports. (see: power outage, or remember TTone vs jinro at mlg?)
Overall, I think highly of David Kim. He seems to have a good grasp of things, even though we don't agree on everything, his opinion has merit (because he appears to use actual logic). Dustin Browder on the other hand, has given enough ridiculous, naive, and misguided responses to questions that I have zero confidence in him. In my opinion, he is completely blinded by his own ego and utterly incompetent. He is the main reason I am filled with doubt that the game design for future sc2 expansions will leave us with a balanced, fun, macro oriented game, when the final patch is laid after Legacy of the void.
In my opinion they don't have the best track record for balancing. When the reaper build was a problem they nerfed reaper speed (by requiring a factory), they buffed roach range (which created drastic changes in pvz), and added the supply depot before barracks requirement. Don't change 1v1 balance because of 2v2.
They nerfed the zealot build time because low level players couldn't stop zealot rushes. God forbid they just learn to scout. "Wow no cybercore and 2 gates, hmmmm wonder what he's going to do?" Is it really harder to stop a zealot rush than a 6 pool or 5 racks marine rush?
They change the bunker in every patch. Do they really think the bunker is central to balancing terran?
The last patch they nerfed pylon radius and warp gate research time to "fix" pvp. Yet 4 gate is still the core of pvp and now protoss is just harder vs zerg (see: roach ling rush to deny 3gate expo) and the pylon radius makes basic building placement problematic, forge expanding is very annoying now.
I think it is almost universally accepted that most of the deadliest rushes and allins out there are 10x easier to execute than to survive. Yet Browder blatantly denies this in his interview?
I learned a long time ago, when you spew B.S. you usually only end up fooling yourself. Dustin Browder, if you think you're fooling us with these kind of responses, then you are lying to yourself and denial can be an ugly thing.
I'd like to see a poll on how many people think Sc2's future would be in better hands if Dustin Browder was fired or moved to another part of Activision and David Kim was promoted to lead design of Sc2. I have a hunch that I'm not the only one who holds the opinions in this post.
Sorry, but a lot of what you said is wrong lol..Although I agree with most. As a Protoss player, 2 gate was to powerful, especially in close positions against Zerg (Although they should get rid of close pos already). 4 Gate is definitely not the core build in pvp anymore, nor does the WG build time affect anything with the roach/ling aggression. But yes I definitely do agree with 1 base timings because retarded. Even though their fairly easy to hold if you have a firm grasp on how the game works, it still hurts me everytime I vs a Terran player on ladder that has a 2:1 w/l ratio in masters, and I see he's match history is all him doing the same mass marine all in everygame.
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
This is the biggest DUH post I have ever seen in my life. Of course people bought the game because of Brood War/has similar gameplay mechanics...its the next freaking game.
Also, I don't think this game is way worse than BW. Is it easier for new players to get into? Of course, most series that are big always tone it down so that new players can get into it. But to say that it is worse or the "little sister" is pretty silly.
On June 12 2011 23:36 floor exercise wrote: I think the devs are more or less very pleased with themselves over how SC2 worked out (as in it's not a flaming wreck of a game and has a big competitive scene)
The results is them trying to deflect or dodge as many legitimate questions about the game as they can that would result in acknowledgement of its shortcomings. Dustin especially seems to try to justify a lot of stupid shit and make tremendously dumb comparisons to BW as if he has absolutely no interest in changing anything about SC2.
I think they care a whole lot less about what we think or say and more about what we do, which so far has been buy their game, play their game, and make it a commercial and competitive success
On June 12 2011 23:36 floor exercise wrote: I think they care a whole lot less about what we think or say and more about what we do, which so far has been buy their game, play their game, and make it a commercial and competitive success
I think you make a very good point. I saw someone else say earlier that Blizzard people seemed to be very well trained in saying things that would please the TL audience while they didn't at all seem to understand what was meant.
In some cases this resulted in some hilarious things. I still think that the Phoenix ability to attack-move is a result of such a hilarious misunderstanding. It seems to show how decisions are made. Somehow they got the idea that competitive players want something that can attack while moving. So that is what they put into the game.
That so happens to be one of my favorite examples.
There is clear miscommunication when it comes to stuff like that.
On June 12 2011 23:49 Reborn8u wrote: While everyone is busy with this sc2 vs bw silliness, the op missed what I feel is perhaps the biggest issue with sc2 and esports. It's not balance, it's basic functionality. No Lan? I mean seriously is there anyone who calls themselves a fan who doesn't want this? I've literally lost count of how many events have been plagued by disconnects and lag. I can understand not releasing a version with lan to everyone, but Blizzards official partners like MLG and GSL should have some kind of in house server to prevent these issues. It's just a matter of time before the validity of an event finals comes into serious question because of these issues, which is horrible for esports. (see: power outage, or remember TTone vs jinro at mlg?)
Overall, I think highly of David Kim. He seems to have a good grasp of things, even though we don't agree on everything, his opinion has merit (because he appears to use actual logic). Dustin Browder on the other hand, has given enough ridiculous, naive, and misguided responses to questions that I have zero confidence in him. In my opinion, he is completely blinded by his own ego and utterly incompetent. He is the main reason I am filled with doubt that the game design for future sc2 expansions will leave us with a balanced, fun, macro oriented game, when the final patch is laid after Legacy of the void.
In my opinion they don't have the best track record for balancing. When the reaper build was a problem they nerfed reaper speed (by requiring a factory), they buffed roach range (which created drastic changes in pvz), and added the supply depot before barracks requirement. Don't change 1v1 balance because of 2v2.
They nerfed the zealot build time because low level players couldn't stop zealot rushes. God forbid they just learn to scout. "Wow no cybercore and 2 gates, hmmmm wonder what he's going to do?" Is it really harder to stop a zealot rush than a 6 pool or 5 racks marine rush?
They change the bunker in every patch. Do they really think the bunker is central to balancing terran?
The last patch they nerfed pylon radius and warp gate research time to "fix" pvp. Yet 4 gate is still the core of pvp and now protoss is just harder vs zerg (see: roach ling rush to deny 3gate expo) and the pylon radius makes basic building placement problematic, forge expanding is very annoying now.
I think it is almost universally accepted that most of the deadliest rushes and allins out there are 10x easier to execute than to survive. Yet Browder blatantly denies this in his interview?
I learned a long time ago, when you spew B.S. you usually only end up fooling yourself. Dustin Browder, if you think you're fooling us with these kind of responses, then you are lying to yourself and denial can be an ugly thing.
I'd like to see a poll on how many people think Sc2's future would be in better hands if Dustin Browder was fired or moved to another part of Activision and David Kim was promoted to lead design of Sc2. I have a hunch that I'm not the only one who holds the opinions in this post.
Sorry, but a lot of what you said is wrong lol..Although I agree with most. As a Protoss player, 2 gate was to powerful, especially in close positions against Zerg (Although they should get rid of close pos already). 4 Gate is definitely not the core build in pvp anymore, nor does the WG build time affect anything with the roach/ling aggression. But yes I definitely do agree with 1 base timings because retarded. Even though their fairly easy to hold if you have a firm grasp on how the game works, it still hurts me everytime I vs a Terran player on ladder that has a 2:1 w/l ratio in masters, and I see he's match history is all him doing the same mass marine all in everygame.
Question wasn't if the 2 gate was too powerful, but if it was any harder to stop than a 6pool or marine all in. Also, I've been watching a lot of NASL, GSL, and Streams and from what I've seen 4gate is still the most popular pvp build. On SOTG Naniwa said "I don't think the warp gate nerf changed pvp at all" and I share that sentiment. The warp gate nerf is central to why the roach ling aggression works, because at the timing when toss wants to be putting down the nexus they only have 3 or 4 units and warpgate is about 20 seconds from being completed. So the first warp wave, and every subsequent warp wave is pushed back by 20 seconds because of the nerf. If you watch games with roach ling aggression to deny the natural (or just win the game) protoss having 3 more units easily changes the result.
i find thread OP to be very misleading of the topics he discussed and is only trying to promote blizzard hate because this game is not Brood War clone.
I for one am quite happy with what sc2 has turned out to be, be honest guys, if sc2 was really a bad game, why so many tournaments? why do you get nerd chills watching MLG??
cut some slack to blizzard .
@ the issue on maps Blizzard said time and time again, that they balance for all leagues, the reason for not having a tons of huge maps is for 2 reasons, 1) low level players would win games just by putting up sneeky expands, literally for the low level players all the game would end up being is who snuck in the expand . and 2 ) dont you think certain races are favored on large maps ? cough zerg
@Issues on Gameplay i agree with dustin, please tell me what "rush strategys" there are that always win the game. the guy said about 50% of the games are rush, but failed to mention how much are actually successful . and what is rush????, how do we define what is rush, its just a rather stupid statement to say based on " he say"
For the close positions= thats the only valid point i see here, they dodged the question but they did mention some new maps.
@Dynamic Pathing
what is your issue on pathing? believe it or not, fixing pathing to be like broodwar WILL DUMB DOWN THIS GAME make no mistake, fixed pathing will dumb down this game. Why???? because YOU do not want clumped units against aoe as you said, So if the game automatically spreads out for you, that removes skill. Every player in their right fucking mind wants to spread out. marine splits? pre - army spreading vs colosus, you name it. ppl really fail to notice that this pathing is encouraging SKILL. your point is moot on this issue.
@ every race having a dragoon = i welcome this change, you failed to mention in your hard counter speech that sc2 has wayyyyy more units at any given time.
in bw..... you harder ever saw more than 3 different units at once per matchup. look at sc2....
tvt runs threw the entire arensal tvz everything is used except for raven and battlecruiser tvp everything can be used EVERYTHING.
zvz = i see every unit used zvp = i see every unit used zvt= i see every unit used
pvp= this one is the most unimpressive pvt = every unit but the mothership/carrier used pvz = every unit but the carrier used
Just look at that design success rate.
haters gonna hate.
Heart of the swarm will improve upon the areas that were least used, but right now as it stands, their is way more different type of unit use per matchup, So your point here is also moot.
Blizzard has done a fantastic job so far and its going to turn into an even better game for the expansions.
On June 12 2011 23:49 Reborn8u wrote: While everyone is busy with this sc2 vs bw silliness, the op missed what I feel is perhaps the biggest issue with sc2 and esports. It's not balance, it's basic functionality. No Lan? I mean seriously is there anyone who calls themselves a fan who doesn't want this? I've literally lost count of how many events have been plagued by disconnects and lag. I can understand not releasing a version with lan to everyone, but Blizzards official partners like MLG and GSL should have some kind of in house server to prevent these issues. It's just a matter of time before the validity of an event finals comes into serious question because of these issues, which is horrible for esports. (see: power outage, or remember TTone vs jinro at mlg?)
Overall, I think highly of David Kim. He seems to have a good grasp of things, even though we don't agree on everything, his opinion has merit (because he appears to use actual logic). Dustin Browder on the other hand, has given enough ridiculous, naive, and misguided responses to questions that I have zero confidence in him. In my opinion, he is completely blinded by his own ego and utterly incompetent. He is the main reason I am filled with doubt that the game design for future sc2 expansions will leave us with a balanced, fun, macro oriented game, when the final patch is laid after Legacy of the void.
In my opinion they don't have the best track record for balancing. When the reaper build was a problem they nerfed reaper speed (by requiring a factory), they buffed roach range (which created drastic changes in pvz), and added the supply depot before barracks requirement. Don't change 1v1 balance because of 2v2.
They nerfed the zealot build time because low level players couldn't stop zealot rushes. God forbid they just learn to scout. "Wow no cybercore and 2 gates, hmmmm wonder what he's going to do?" Is it really harder to stop a zealot rush than a 6 pool or 5 racks marine rush?
They change the bunker in every patch. Do they really think the bunker is central to balancing terran?
The last patch they nerfed pylon radius and warp gate research time to "fix" pvp. Yet 4 gate is still the core of pvp and now protoss is just harder vs zerg (see: roach ling rush to deny 3gate expo) and the pylon radius makes basic building placement problematic, forge expanding is very annoying now.
I think it is almost universally accepted that most of the deadliest rushes and allins out there are 10x easier to execute than to survive. Yet Browder blatantly denies this in his interview?
I learned a long time ago, when you spew B.S. you usually only end up fooling yourself. Dustin Browder, if you think you're fooling us with these kind of responses, then you are lying to yourself and denial can be an ugly thing.
I'd like to see a poll on how many people think Sc2's future would be in better hands if Dustin Browder was fired or moved to another part of Activision and David Kim was promoted to lead design of Sc2. I have a hunch that I'm not the only one who holds the opinions in this post.
Sorry, but a lot of what you said is wrong lol..Although I agree with most. As a Protoss player, 2 gate was to powerful, especially in close positions against Zerg (Although they should get rid of close pos already). 4 Gate is definitely not the core build in pvp anymore, nor does the WG build time affect anything with the roach/ling aggression. But yes I definitely do agree with 1 base timings because retarded. Even though their fairly easy to hold if you have a firm grasp on how the game works, it still hurts me everytime I vs a Terran player on ladder that has a 2:1 w/l ratio in masters, and I see he's match history is all him doing the same mass marine all in everygame.
Question wasn't if the 2 gate was too powerful, but if it was any harder to stop than a 6pool or marine all in. Also, I've been watching a lot of NASL, GSL, and Streams and from what I've seen 4gate is still the most popular pvp build. On SOTG Naniwa said "I don't think the warp gate nerf changed pvp at all" and I share that sentiment. The warp gate nerf is central to why the roach ling aggression works, because at the timing when toss wants to be putting down the nexus they only have 3 or 4 units and warpgate is about 20 seconds from being completed. So the first warp wave, and every subsequent warp wave is pushed back by 20 seconds because of the nerf. If you watch games with roach ling aggression to deny the natural (or just win the game) protoss having 3 more units easily changes the result.
1. You shouldn't be losing to 6 pool if you're good. 2. 2 gate still works now against Zerg, if it the build time got lowered by 5 seconds it would be retarded. 3. Nani said that when the new patch was very new, pretty much no one 4 gated in MLG? I've only seen 1 4 gate in NASL by cruncher and it cost him the game 4. The problem why Roach/ling is working in the first place was because Protoss were making to many probes/teching to fast, so they were constantly missing warp ins, has nothing to do with WG build time 5. Honestly if your not high masters I probably wouldn't be commentating so much about the balance, no offense.
You know why I feel like Dustin Browder said fuck you to every Zerg player?
On June 12 2011 20:21 Micket wrote: Blame Blizzard, tournaments prevent these things from happening. It's an unwinnable situation as Zerg is on 1 base, with no tech, with no drones, and has to sacrifice a lot just do move out of his base. Completely unwinnable. Sometimes, if you had a drone out on the map, you can ninja expand, and it will be ok.
Wall off zergs ramp on the ladder and win. And win. And win. And win. And win. And screw youyou Dustin.
People don't rush all that much... except half the ladder games I play. It doesn't even matter the rush distance some times but at least versus Terran if its not a Steppes of War minus the annoying walk distance like Shattered close pos (I exaggerate, they're actually close to equal) at LEAST the marines have to walk over there.
I hope I'm wrong and the solution is we pool too late and 12 pooling can be economically if you do this this and this and be safe from "early aggression" (Cheese with a straight face) bunkers or bloody pylon walls.
This thread is just so sad .. flame after flame after flame .. This is gonna get closed me thinks. Anyway, sucks to be playing the inferior game in the eyes of the pros that plays it for a living. SC2 is being compared to BW because it needs to be compared.SC2 was built upon the idea of its predecessor. Like how kings are compared to the old ones, or how governments are compared before and after a revolution. It's really dumb if you think otherwise or you are just butthurt that the pros that plays your game think the game they are playing sucks and they have to live with these clueless developers.
On June 13 2011 00:17 jinixxx123 wrote: i find thread OP to be very misleading of the topics he discussed and is only trying to promote blizzard hate because this game is not Brood War clone.
I for one am quite happy with what sc2 has turned out to be, be honest guys, if sc2 was really a bad game, why so many tournaments? why do you get nerd chills watching MLG??
cut some slack to blizzard .
@ the issue on maps Blizzard said time and time again, that they balance for all leagues, the reason for not having a tons of huge maps is for 2 reasons, 1) low level players would win games just by putting up sneeky expands, literally for the low level players all the game would end up being is who snuck in the expand . and 2 ) dont you think certain races are favored on large maps ? cough zerg
@Issues on Gameplay i agree with dustin, please tell me what "rush strategys" there are that always win the game. the guy said about 50% of the games are rush, but failed to mention how much are actually successful . and what is rush????, how do we define what is rush, its just a rather stupid statement to say based on " he say"
For the close positions= thats the only valid point i see here, they dodged the question but they did mention some new maps.
@Dynamic Pathing
what is your issue on pathing? believe it or not, fixing pathing to be like broodwar WILL DUMB DOWN THIS GAME make no mistake, fixed pathing will dumb down this game. Why???? because YOU do not want clumped units against aoe as you said, So if the game automatically spreads out for you, that removes skill. Every player in their right fucking mind wants to spread out. marine splits? pre - army spreading vs colosus, you name it. ppl really fail to notice that this pathing is encouraging SKILL. your point is moot on this issue.
@ every race having a dragoon = i welcome this change, you failed to mention in your hard counter speech that sc2 has wayyyyy more units at any given time.
in bw..... you harder ever saw more than 3 different units at once per matchup. look at sc2....
tvt runs threw the entire arensal tvz everything is used except for raven and battlecruiser tvp everything can be used EVERYTHING.
zvz = i see every unit used zvp = i see every unit used zvt= i see every unit used
pvp= this one is the most unimpressive pvt = every unit but the mothership/carrier used pvz = every unit but the carrier used
Just look at that design success rate.
haters gonna hate.
Heart of the swarm will improve upon the areas that were least used, but right now as it stands, their is way more different type of unit use per matchup, So your point here is also moot.
Blizzard has done a fantastic job so far and its going to turn into an even better game for the expansions.
Starcraft 2 is a great spectator sport, I from time to time will watch tournament games of other games I have no idea how to play but will enjoy.
Wow I just realized you're in bronze league and your argument points are fucking terrible
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
Nice posts, I liked the analogy of broodwar's little sister. Such a slut if you want to know. Hopefully, when she grows up she'll become as interesting as her brother.
tbh, blizzard is patching at a blistering pace! I think they're doing a great job, and most of the un-interesting/no micro units will be removed in HotS
If we make SC2 -> BW w/ 3d graphics, its basically a port.
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
This is the biggest DUH post I have ever seen in my life. Of course people bought the game because of Brood War/has similar gameplay mechanics...its the next freaking game.
Also, I don't think this game is way worse than BW. Is it easier for new players to get into? Of course, most series that are big always tone it down so that new players can get into it. But to say that it is worse or the "little sister" is pretty silly.
If it's such a "duh" argument, than no one should be stating that SC2 and BW are different games and should not be compared. We just read in OP that Blizzard thinks they shouldn't be compared and many on this thread agrees.
Blizzard told us many times, over and over again, that this game was going to be focused for competitive play. There are not much about this game that spells competitive, let alone a replacement of BW.
BW didn't need to be easy to be highly successful. Your points are just speculations based on "DUH" - non-factual, your idea of "common sense". What about creating a good game? Making SC2 easier didn't stop a bronze from being a bronze and a master from being a master. If the game was more difficult (and good), bronze players will still have fun among themselves in their own way while pro's are more interesting to watch because the bronze players cannot do what pros are doing.
A possible reason to still have DQ in the map pool is if the balance on that map seems somewhat even, or zerg favored. Regardless of that, it's not a very good map. People maybe sound like they're saying it's unfair for zerg, but they're really just saying it's a bad map for zerg. That doesn't mean it's unfair. Maybe you can play differently/risky and break even or better, it's just not a fun map to play by anyones standards.
On June 12 2011 14:22 sluggaslamoo wrote: I can't help but feel Blizzard is totally out of touch with the community.
There is an inherent flaw in this statement and that is the use of the term "the community." There is no one Starcraft community, there are many individual communities each with their own views and goals. Attempting to satisfy the wants of one is bound make Blizzard seem "out of touch" with another.
On June 12 2011 20:21 Micket wrote: Blame Blizzard, tournaments prevent these things from happening. It's an unwinnable situation as Zerg is on 1 base, with no tech, with no drones, and has to sacrifice a lot just do move out of his base. Completely unwinnable. Sometimes, if you had a drone out on the map, you can ninja expand, and it will be ok.
Wall off zergs ramp on the ladder and win. And win. And win. And win. And win. And screw youyou Dustin.
People don't rush all that much... except half the ladder games I play. It doesn't even matter the rush distance some times but at least versus Terran if its not a Steppes of War minus the annoying walk distance like Shattered close pos (I exaggerate, they're actually close to equal) at LEAST the marines have to walk over there.
I hope I'm wrong and the solution is we pool too late and 12 pooling can be economically if you do this this and this and be safe from "early aggression" (Cheese with a straight face) bunkers or bloody pylon walls.
What is it with zerg players and this little-man complex that makes them take balance so personally. Its remarkable how ever-present it is. Relax. He might just be ignorant.
On June 12 2011 23:33 Hekisui wrote: It's a sad state when you need the insights of someone who never bought the game, isn't it?
I am not bringing SC2 down. I am giving Blizzard credit for being out of touch with TL.
I don't like laggy games. But other people love them. SC2 esports outside Korea is a lot bigger than SC BW was. People don't notice or care about the lag because they don't know any better. Blizzard knew this because that's how they experienced it as well. The 250 delay isn't obvious to many. When you are used to a non micro game with 250 delay, it's not an issue anymore.
In SC2 you don't have worker battles like you have almost every progame in SC BW. Does this break the game? Apparently not.
BTW, learn to insult.
People noticed the lag in bw thats why there was hamachi and lan lat implemented in iccup. Blizzard basically fucked us by using server side bullshit
On June 12 2011 20:21 Micket wrote: Blame Blizzard, tournaments prevent these things from happening. It's an unwinnable situation as Zerg is on 1 base, with no tech, with no drones, and has to sacrifice a lot just do move out of his base. Completely unwinnable. Sometimes, if you had a drone out on the map, you can ninja expand, and it will be ok.
Wall off zergs ramp on the ladder and win. And win. And win. And win. And win. And screw youyou Dustin.
People don't rush all that much... except half the ladder games I play. It doesn't even matter the rush distance some times but at least versus Terran if its not a Steppes of War minus the annoying walk distance like Shattered close pos (I exaggerate, they're actually close to equal) at LEAST the marines have to walk over there.
I hope I'm wrong and the solution is we pool too late and 12 pooling can be economically if you do this this and this and be safe from "early aggression" (Cheese with a straight face) bunkers or bloody pylon walls.
If you leave your second overlord near your ramp, you'll see the pylons going down.
If a Protoss goes blocks with pylons, kill them with lings. Your expo is late, but he burnt a lot of money, so you're only a little behind and it's your own fault for not paying attention to the ramp.
If he blocks with pylons and cannons, pump lings and roaches while teching to Nydus (preferably in his base, but just outside is also good, and then you can pop a drone through it to take your third as your natural) and just go fucking kill him because he won't have any units because he went forge pylon pylon pylon cannon opening.
"Nydus is a counter to contains" was a concept we first saw all the way back in one of the battle reports. I'm baffled that people don't at least try it, especially on the ladder where most people you block your ramp or so awful that a nydus completely fucking rolls them.
On June 12 2011 14:27 IPA wrote: I think SC2 is incredibly fun and fairly balanced. I play it everyday. I'm happy with the game Blizzard has made and the balance changes they've implemented so far. I would like a slightly better map pool but even that issue is relatively minor; I'm fairly pleased with the current pool.
Do you think it is a bad game?
I think its more like C&C than its roots BW.
I feel the OP's sentiments completely. It wasnt until GOM started making its own maps, which forced Blizzard to act. Maps are part of the balance issues but not as big as unit design like you said. No I dont think this games "fun" factor is making it more like BW, I love alot of different rts games even C&C. But SC2 (to me) lacks the magic that other games have.
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
On June 13 2011 00:37 ArrozConLeche wrote: Only masters and grand masters should be allow to talk about balance, anything lower is just retarded....
I agree, but blizzard doesnt. They have made (and openly said) they make changes for all levels of play. Which means this game will never achieve the balance everyone wants so bad.
On June 13 2011 00:37 ArrozConLeche wrote: Only masters and grand masters should be allow to talk about balance, anything lower is just retarded....
I agree, but blizzard doesnt. They have made (and openly said) they make changes for all levels of play. Which means this game will never achieve the balance everyone wants so bad.
Blizzard also balances stuff for team game (including 3v3)... => That was the reason given for the huge HSM and reaper nerfs
The finality of all that is not only utopist, it is stupid as well, because claiming to know after 5 months of Beta that you know for sure that HSM and reaper will dominate team-games is beyond stupid.
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
Love your post!
i disagree with this one, if you want to make up something that is not fact, ill do the same right now in another direction
lets say blizzard didnt make starcraft 1, but they still made warcraft 1 /2 /reign of chaos and frozen throne(im referring to the RTS warcraft games not the MMO)
Blizzard would still be a big name in the RTS industry so any RTS that does come out by them will be played with a lot of interest since , after all they did make diablo too........... Starcraft 1 is not the only success blizzard has had to make its name. So with that said, lets say there was no starcraft francise.
Now lets pretend starcraft 1 didnt exist and they slapped starcraft 2 as the first of the starcraft franchise. I bet ppl will be in AWE of amazement rather than heavily criticizing . The game will not have the nostalgia Broodwar crowd to live up to " thus more ppl will enjoy the game for what it is" rather than judge it on what it didnt do from its past ( of which is non existent in pretend story)
i have not heard a single complaint that didnt stem from "well this is how it was in broodwar". ppl will be alot more open minded towards this game and will gladly ride threw the waves this game goes threw as it gets better and better with each patch/expansion .
i can make up stories too, though this one is more realistic
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
This is the biggest DUH post I have ever seen in my life. Of course people bought the game because of Brood War/has similar gameplay mechanics...its the next freaking game.
Also, I don't think this game is way worse than BW. Is it easier for new players to get into? Of course, most series that are big always tone it down so that new players can get into it. But to say that it is worse or the "little sister" is pretty silly.
If it's such a "duh" argument, than no one should be stating that SC2 and BW are different games and should not be compared. We just read in OP that Blizzard thinks they shouldn't be compared and many on this thread agrees.
Blizzard told us many times, over and over again, that this game was going to be focused for competitive play. There are not much about this game that spells competitive, let alone a replacement of BW.
BW didn't need to be easy to be highly successful. Your points are just speculations based on "DUH" - non-factual, your idea of "common sense". What about creating a good game? Making SC2 easier didn't stop a bronze from being a bronze and a master from being a master. If the game was more difficult (and good), bronze players will still have fun among themselves in their own way while pro's are more interesting to watch because the bronze players cannot do what pros are doing.
I really didn't seen an argument, but ok. They can be compared, but they are STILL different games. They can be compared only in the right that they are in the same game series. If I picked up SC2 and it was exactly the same as BW, I would be PISSED, and so would many other people.
Also, where did Blizzard say that the game is going to be focused on competitive play? Even then, what makes you feel like the game doesn't feel competitive? Because its too easy? Even though prize pools for tournaments are huge, there are tons of tournaments, and entire world is involved in SC rather than just Korea. Just because a game is easy, doesn't mean it isn't competitive.
You say that my points are just speculations, while yours are just merely opinions. Also, no game has to be easy to be successful...but they don't have to be hard either. Tetris is as basic as they come and it is simply putting blocks in a line. The game is good, and while there are some balance issues, it isn't prohibiting ME from liking the game.
lol its not like everyone is hating on SC2, its a good game, but it could be so much better, and since expansions are a staple in making games better(Frozen throne made Warcraft III insanely good, with alot of freaking tweaks).
People are simply worried because they care about SC2.
SC2 is a good game, but it could be so much more, and expansions is where the major changes can occur which will make it from good to excellent.
People talk in this thread as if Blizz actually knows how things will turn out, or rather SHOULD know how the game should turn out, disregarding if a change is done or not to the game.
It's just sad. I mean they will do changes that they feel are needed to be done based on feedback and internal testing, but that doesnt mean that it will actually turn out the way they planned and that's the most normal thing in the world for any company in any business... People are so ignorant it's sad. T_T
Balance and design is a process that takes time, and that should be obvious, but since people always act like kids that kick, scream and point at what they want with no patience it's no wonder that there are so much hate and bs flying around...
I really wonder what happens when HotS will be released. New units and balance changes and so the whole Race XYZ is imba will begin again.
Remember BW took YEARS to be as it is nowadays. SC2 is out for just a small period of time! I think Blizz takes SC2 very serious (although it doesn't always seem so).
I will say that I regularly facepalm at what Dustin Browder says in interviews, and am not particularly optimistic about HotS. Hopefully, he's either doing PR, or he's just a figurehead for a team of designers who actually have a clue about how their game works at a competitive level (David Kim appears to understand it).
Still, I do believe SC2 is, at the moment, a badly designed game at its core. That doesn't necessarily stop it from being balanced, but the balance team will have to keep sacrificing gameplay for balance like they have up till now, most likely. Which probably won't end well.
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
Love your post!
i disagree with this one, if you want to make up something that is not fact, ill do the same right now in another direction
lets say blizzard didnt make starcraft 1, but they still made warcraft 1 /2 /reign of chaos and frozen throne(im referring to the RTS warcraft games not the MMO)
Blizzard would still be a big name in the RTS industry so any RTS that does come out by them will be played with a lot of interest since , after all they did make diablo too........... Starcraft 1 is not the only success blizzard has had to make its name. So with that said, lets say there was no starcraft francise.
Now lets pretend starcraft 1 didnt exist and they slapped starcraft 2 as the first of the starcraft franchise. I bet ppl will be in AWE of amazement rather than heavily criticizing . The game will not have the nostalgia Broodwar crowd to live up to " thus more ppl will enjoy the game for what it is" rather than judge it on what it didnt do from its past ( of which is non existent in pretend story)
i have not heard a single complaint that didnt stem from "well this is how it was in broodwar". ppl will be alot more open minded towards this game and will gladly ride threw the waves this game goes threw as it gets better and better with each patch/expansion .
i can make up stories too, though this one is more realistic
Your story is just that, a "story". The one Im quoting is fact. BW is the big sister to SC2. Ultimately blizzard wants SC2 to be a better game than BW, but there's one problem: money. If they were to take esports more seriously than they might lose part of their fanbase, and what company would make that decision? I dont want SC2 to be BW in 3d, but the game does have ciritical flaws. But these flaws could be easily fixed, but time and time again bliz either turns a blind eye, or so many people are pulling out the torches and pitchforks which then bliz will act. If blizzard is this all knowing insanely rich company, why is the SC2 team so small? Would it be really that hard to hire a few people to help with all the work they are doing?
Please dont take this as a BW vs SC2 (we've had enough of those). The OP and my posts are purely focus on SC2, and not "this needs to be like it was in BW".
I love SC2, but I seriously wished it was better. Some of it can probably be attributed to Blizzard being out of touch, while other might just be a competence issue. The competitive community is awesome, and this just further emphasis how Blizzard does not deserve the success it achieved. The passionate competitors, sponsors, and fans deserves LAN mode. They deserve better than one-dimensional art-driven units that make matchups boring. They deserve better than all these units that clump and can't be micro'd.
I am frustrated at all this potential that will never be met cause they don't get it.
On June 12 2011 23:52 Heavenly wrote: The whole colossus argument is ridiculous. I don't even see MC use colossi anymore unless hydras are on the field or in certain PvP 2+ base scenarios, he mostly goes gateway. He must feel at the highest level that control of his units is superior to any a-move AOE. They aren't overpowered, they just allow for lesser protoss to be able to hold off roach/hydra 1a and marine/marauder t1a with their equivalent 1a. A lot of Korea seems to be moving away from colossi in general because it's not exactly fun babysitting your glass cannon and praying to god that it does enough damage before corruptors and vikings snipe them, because your zealots and stalkers units suck against marauders and roaches.
The entire reason the colossus is so "OP" is because of the difficulty of doing anything BESIDES colossi unless you are extremely skilled and cost-efficient with your other units. What else would you do besides go colossi against things like hydras and MMM? Sink so much gas into HT and hope that they don't know how to move their units, and you have no khydarian amulet if you get EMP'd/sniped/they just move away?
People say colossi is OP because it prevents them from being able to just win games easily with 1a. They complain about 1a but what are you doing? Are you consistently dropping? Dropping with banelings? Flanking? Forcing forcefields? No, chances are you are just a-moving then you whine like IdrA that you just can't win despite being CLEARLY the superior player.
If you are going to remove or change the colossi for the benefit of casual/mediocre players unable to deal with it, change MMM and roach/hydra.
On June 12 2011 23:52 Heavenly wrote: The whole colossus argument is ridiculous. I don't even see MC use colossi anymore unless hydras are on the field or in certain PvP 2+ base scenarios, he mostly goes gateway. He must feel at the highest level that control of his units is superior to any a-move AOE. They aren't overpowered, they just allow for lesser protoss to be able to hold off roach/hydra 1a and marine/marauder t1a with their equivalent 1a. A lot of Korea seems to be moving away from colossi in general because it's not exactly fun babysitting your glass cannon and praying to god that it does enough damage before corruptors and vikings snipe them, because your zealots and stalkers units suck against marauders and roaches.
The entire reason the colossus is so "OP" is because of the difficulty of doing anything BESIDES colossi unless you are extremely skilled and cost-efficient with your other units. What else would you do besides go colossi against things like hydras and MMM? Sink so much gas into HT and hope that they don't know how to move their units, and you have no khydarian amulet if you get EMP'd/sniped/they just move away?
People say colossi is OP because it prevents them from being able to just win games easily with 1a. They complain about 1a but what are you doing? Are you consistently dropping? Dropping with banelings? Flanking? Forcing forcefields? No, chances are you are just a-moving then you whine like IdrA that you just can't win despite being CLEARLY the superior player.
If you are going to remove or change the colossi for the benefit of casual/mediocre players unable to deal with it, change MMM and roach/hydra.
excellent post, I agree completely. People need to stop with their IdrA syndrome whining about every little thing there is no immediate solution to.
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
Love your post!
i disagree with this one, if you want to make up something that is not fact, ill do the same right now in another direction
lets say blizzard didnt make starcraft 1, but they still made warcraft 1 /2 /reign of chaos and frozen throne(im referring to the RTS warcraft games not the MMO)
Blizzard would still be a big name in the RTS industry so any RTS that does come out by them will be played with a lot of interest since , after all they did make diablo too........... Starcraft 1 is not the only success blizzard has had to make its name. So with that said, lets say there was no starcraft francise.
Now lets pretend starcraft 1 didnt exist and they slapped starcraft 2 as the first of the starcraft franchise. I bet ppl will be in AWE of amazement rather than heavily criticizing . The game will not have the nostalgia Broodwar crowd to live up to " thus more ppl will enjoy the game for what it is" rather than judge it on what it didnt do from its past ( of which is non existent in pretend story)
i have not heard a single complaint that didnt stem from "well this is how it was in broodwar". ppl will be alot more open minded towards this game and will gladly ride threw the waves this game goes threw as it gets better and better with each patch/expansion .
i can make up stories too, though this one is more realistic
What the fuck is "nostalgia Brood War crowd"? If you scroll down, there's actually a BW section, in case you didn't know. Yesterday there was an MSL final. That is nostalgia? Do you even know what that word means? Or are you just repeating it mindlessly like most sc2 fanboys?
Your argument basically is "if there were no chess, we'd be satisfied with checkers". Incredibly stupid, no offence. ;/
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
Love your post!
i disagree with this one, if you want to make up something that is not fact, ill do the same right now in another direction
lets say blizzard didnt make starcraft 1, but they still made warcraft 1 /2 /reign of chaos and frozen throne(im referring to the RTS warcraft games not the MMO)
Blizzard would still be a big name in the RTS industry so any RTS that does come out by them will be played with a lot of interest since , after all they did make diablo too........... Starcraft 1 is not the only success blizzard has had to make its name. So with that said, lets say there was no starcraft francise.
Now lets pretend starcraft 1 didnt exist and they slapped starcraft 2 as the first of the starcraft franchise. I bet ppl will be in AWE of amazement rather than heavily criticizing . The game will not have the nostalgia Broodwar crowd to live up to " thus more ppl will enjoy the game for what it is" rather than judge it on what it didnt do from its past ( of which is non existent in pretend story)
i have not heard a single complaint that didnt stem from "well this is how it was in broodwar". ppl will be alot more open minded towards this game and will gladly ride threw the waves this game goes threw as it gets better and better with each patch/expansion .
i can make up stories too, though this one is more realistic
Sc2 is a great game on it's own merits but when it's predecessor is pretty much the perfect RTS and spawned competitive RTS gaming....of course people are going to have higher standards. We're not just looking at a game like Age of Empires played for fun. We want a game that will spearhead the growth of e-sports and remain as challenging, entertaining, and competitive in the highest levels of competition for years to come. Different standards apply. There's a distinction between people who want Sc2 to be a carbon copy of Brood War with better graphics, and people who want Sc2 to better incorporate all the elements that made Brood War the fantastic game it is.
I don't think Sc2 sucks, it's an amazing game, but right now it's still lacking if it wants to remain a competitive "esport" game in the future.
On June 12 2011 23:52 Heavenly wrote: The whole colossus argument is ridiculous. I don't even see MC use colossi anymore unless hydras are on the field or in certain PvP 2+ base scenarios, he mostly goes gateway. He must feel at the highest level that control of his units is superior to any a-move AOE. They aren't overpowered, they just allow for lesser protoss to be able to hold off roach/hydra 1a and marine/marauder t1a with their equivalent 1a. A lot of Korea seems to be moving away from colossi in general because it's not exactly fun babysitting your glass cannon and praying to god that it does enough damage before corruptors and vikings snipe them, because your zealots and stalkers units suck against marauders and roaches.
The entire reason the colossus is so "OP" is because of the difficulty of doing anything BESIDES colossi unless you are extremely skilled and cost-efficient with your other units. What else would you do besides go colossi against things like hydras and MMM? Sink so much gas into HT and hope that they don't know how to move their units, and you have no khydarian amulet if you get EMP'd/sniped/they just move away?
People say colossi is OP because it prevents them from being able to just win games easily with 1a. They complain about 1a but what are you doing? Are you consistently dropping? Dropping with banelings? Flanking? Forcing forcefields? No, chances are you are just a-moving then you whine like IdrA that you just can't win despite being CLEARLY the superior player.
If you are going to remove or change the colossi for the benefit of casual/mediocre players unable to deal with it, change MMM and roach/hydra.
I don't think collosus are overpowered, I just think they lead to very boring and uneventful games. I really wouldn't mind collosus being removed or nerfed and gateway units being buffed or templar tech being a little faster to attain.
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote: I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Ah....
Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us.
SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right?
Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW.
The problem is, that they do worse.
Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider.
My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis".
Love your post!
i disagree with this one, if you want to make up something that is not fact, ill do the same right now in another direction
lets say blizzard didnt make starcraft 1, but they still made warcraft 1 /2 /reign of chaos and frozen throne(im referring to the RTS warcraft games not the MMO)
Blizzard would still be a big name in the RTS industry so any RTS that does come out by them will be played with a lot of interest since , after all they did make diablo too........... Starcraft 1 is not the only success blizzard has had to make its name. So with that said, lets say there was no starcraft francise.
Now lets pretend starcraft 1 didnt exist and they slapped starcraft 2 as the first of the starcraft franchise. I bet ppl will be in AWE of amazement rather than heavily criticizing . The game will not have the nostalgia Broodwar crowd to live up to " thus more ppl will enjoy the game for what it is" rather than judge it on what it didnt do from its past ( of which is non existent in pretend story)
i have not heard a single complaint that didnt stem from "well this is how it was in broodwar". ppl will be alot more open minded towards this game and will gladly ride threw the waves this game goes threw as it gets better and better with each patch/expansion .
i can make up stories too, though this one is more realistic
What the fuck is "nostalgia Brood War crowd"? If you scroll down, there's actually a BW section, in case you didn't know. Yesterday there was an MSL final. That is nostalgia? Do you even know what that word means? Or are you just repeating it mindlessly like most sc2 fanboys?
Your argument basically is "if there were no chess, we'd be satisfied with checkers". Incredibly stupid, no offence. ;/
Actually, I think he meant it for the people that play SC2 and say, I wish it was like Brood War. That type of reminiscent behavior that is kind of popular in this thread.
I think Blizzard has gone the wrong (easy) way with balancing the game (nerfing things, taking things out). My biggest concern at this point is the fact that the ladder maps SUCK. Of all the GSL maps, I'd have to say Tal'darim is probably the worst -- yet, that's the only one Blizzard decided to incorporate into the map pool. The maps haven't changed for months even when there are hundreds of great community maps and dozens of ICCup and GSL maps that have been tested in tournaments just waiting to be used.
On June 12 2011 23:45 Quotidian wrote: To me - as a terran player - the way blizzard are flip-flopping on so many issues, most recently and most noteably the tvp thor nerf, seems to suggest that they don't really know what they're doing. It at least shows that they're just a bunch of everyman, joe schmo game developers with no particularly deep understanding of their game. They seem to be frantically trying things out, and killing a ton of potential strategies in the process.
Their reasoning for the thor nerf is just weird to me. In the latest situation report, Kim said
First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible.
the first question is, why is it bad that thors are massed? Blizzard's reasoning so far has been "we don't want thors massed." Don't want is the reasoning of a six-year old. The second question is, why is the thor singled out for visually obstructing other units, when the same can be said for every other massive unit in the game, except for the archon? Blizzard's myopic way of balancing and their inability to think holistically about their game, which forces match-ups like tvp to be extremely boring and stereotyped, basically killed any faith I had in them as developers. The fact that SC2 is as balanced as it is because the balancing team are willing to sacrifice variety in strategies for stereotyped balance (ie, terran HAS to all-in early or go mmm/v/g in tvp), and also due to simple luck. SC2 could easily have been a HUGE mess with these people at the helm.
Holy shit I never realized how juvenile Blizzard's balancing reasoning is haha.
"We don't want people to make a lot of Thors because they obscure the other units visually, so we nerfed them."
Maybe they should change something about the way the game works other than changing the stats of 1 unit? Just a thought. Wow.
their reasoning is especially problematic considering "fixing" the thor doesn't fix the same supposed problem in other units, like the colossus or broodlord.
I think blizzard can do a better job balancing the game than people whining on forums. most of the complaining about colossi are either: People who whine because they lost a game to somebody who made collossi. Protoss players who want the reaver back.
And there are many people who think this game should be exactly like BW, when it is obviously not BW. Blizzard listens to the community, and they do a great job.
On June 12 2011 15:31 Taiyoken wrote: If anything, I feel that there are too many units right now. There was a speculation of taking away units in HotS and future expansions and I think this is just a very poor design, units should never actually be removed.
Also there is a problem with adding 'new' units across the board - there aren't THAT many unique attributes to a unit, you'll eventually end up with slight overlap in abilities/design and then people will whine that 'omg it's the same unit'
$0.02
Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. You say there are too many units, but don't want anything to be done about it. Simple logic would dictate that if you believe "there are too many units" then there are two options. The first option would be to remove some units, which you specifically say should never be done. The second option is that you think nothing should be done at all. The second option infers that it is as good as its going to get, or the risk of changing things is not worth it.
There is a concept in development referred to as killing your child. This is in regards to the idea that sometimes a developer gets too attached to an idea. Down the road they realize there are some troubles with this idea and they are faced with two possibilities. The first being to make it work and that is sometimes the right path to take; however, forcing something to work can damage the quality of the product which leads to option two. Which is to scrap the idea.
The pont you make about having too may units is completely valid, and Blizzard was very adamant about that point as well. So it all boils down to three main points.
1. We agree that there can be too many units. 2. I stipulate that it is ok to remove units, especially units that are not fun, not interesting, or ones that do not fulfill their role. 3. These weak units can be replaced with better units. This helps prevent the issue of having too many units while also removing bad units and preventing overlap.
If you disagree with any of those points, then you would have to agree that no units should have been removed during alpha or beta.
I think Blizzard are being a lot more controlling of StarCraft 2 then they were with Brood War. They need to realize that if they want SC 2 to reach the level BW was at, they need to give more power to the community, not less. Hiring professional map makers to make the maps for Ladder is something they can do quite easily that will solve a lot of problems.
With balance things are a bit trickier, but so far their reasoning has been a bit too much about how 'they' want the units the be used. They need to allow more space for the pro gamers to develop the metagame, and base any changes off that.
Its simple really, they want it to be like Brood War, so use Brood War's development as their model.
Designing stuff is hard. Designing games is hard, designing thermostats is hard, designing web sites is hard. I think all of us will generally agree that this stuff is hard. But many people don’t know why it’s hard.
One of the reasons designing stuff is so hard is because there are no solutions to any problems, at least not in a larger, systemic view.
“But theburricane! What about chat channels at release? That seems like a pretty simple freakin’ thing to include that everybody and their dog wanted!”
Fair enough, if Blizz had included chat channels at release that would have solved the “have chat channels at release problem”. But if they had spent time on chat channels, something else would have had to fall off the radar. Maybe we would have had no Achievements.
“Pffft. Those are unimportant to competitive play.”
Perhaps we would have had no FFA matchmaking.
“Again, how does that affect the serious gamers?”
Maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps we wouldn’t have had the RealID friend system when the game launched.
“You mean facebook integration? Guffaw. Puh-lease.”
But you see the point? Design is not about solving problems, because those solutions will invariably cause problems elsewhere. Design is about making conscious tradeoffs to address the problems that are most impactful, and address them at the appropriate time.
Takeaway 1
I’m not saying “hey man, lay off Blizzard they’re tryin’ real hard here!” They are, but that’s no reason to lay off them. We simply have to sit down and ask, “Why is Blizzard making/not making this change at this time?” I guarantee you the answer is not because they have “bad communication”, are “blinded by their own pride”, or are “[fascinated] with ’meat shield units’.”.
Blizzard’s “bad communication”
It is easy to interpret good user research as bad communication. Research participants will make suggestions, “I think you should do X here”, but when they see the finished/updated product, their suggestions won’t be included. The designers will have implemented something that addresses that problem in a different way, and all the participant can see is “Well this solution doesn’t fix everything mine did! Why didn’t they go with what I had suggested?”
An example: Everybody and their dog says to Blizzard, “You really need to change your maps. Seriously, Steppes of War? Seriously?!” So Blizzard begins to add new maps into their map pool, and look to community feedback as to what maps they would like to see. “GSL maps, of course!” But when we finally get Tal’Darim Altar, it’s got a bunch of destructible rocks and giant chokes and crap.
“That’s not what we suggested! This doesn’t solve the problem. Look at LSPrime, he even gave them reasons why they shouldn’t do what they did. And they still did it. That’s aggravating.” (Of course, what LSPrime was arguing for, the imbalance achieved by a 3rd base with 8 minerals 2 gas, is something that will go unfelt by everyone up to very tippy-top of Masters League. How many of us have honestly thought to ourselves, “The third has 8 minerals?! Great, that means I can run Plexa’s Shock and Awe build more effectively once I take it!”, or something similar?)
However, from Blizzard’s perspective they are making balancing their solution so that it applies positively to every group. To simplify it, “We are giving the ‘competitive’ players larger maps, and we are giving the ‘casual’ players maps that limit their options enough to suggest clear goals.”
Takeaway 2
Think systemically when you encounter a solution different from the one you’ve proposed. Chances are either ‘solves’ the problem in an entirely different way, or it solves problems you didn’t even know existed.
Know your audience
It is very easy for us at teamliquid to labor under the misapprehension that we make up the majority of the SC2 community. Or that we + the reddit community are the majority. Or that we + all the online SC2 communities are the majority of SC2 players. But the truth is if you walked up to every SC2 player individually and said, “My opening build order is 10 depot, 12 rax, 13 gas” more than half would respond, “Why do you build 10 depots? Don’t you just have one SCV building depots the whole game?”
Most SC2 players lack even the basic vocabulary that we as a competitive community have developed as a tool to help us think critically and reflectively about the way we play. Most SC2 players don’t know why Steppes of War was removed, unless they’ve read the Blizzard Situation Report explaining why. They probably had no idea it was blacklisted by thousands of people.
Blizzard has the daunting, grizzling task of designing a product that meets the expectations and needs of an infinitely large and diverse user group. All designs suffer from this requirement to varying extent, but Blizzard in particular has a very polar user base. Bronze league 4v4ers versus Grandmasters 1v1 Rank 1.
Takeaway 3
When Blizzard designs for their broader user base, it feels like they are not listening to their competitive, online communities. Because we live in our dream world where everyone has a finely-crafted opening BO, aggressive yet thoughtful 3rd base timing, and over-arching gameplan, we can completely ignore the huge number of people who enter a game thinking nothing but “I’m going to make a forge right away so I can get a cannon up in case he zergling rushes me.”
When we encounter a decision by Blizzard that impacts us ‘negatively,’ we also need to think about the people who are being affected ‘positively’ and how their experience playing this game is going to change.
Overall takeaway
I have a lot of respect for sluggaslamoo, who took the time to voice the opinions of many community members. Specifically opnions regarding how Blizzard is out of touch with its player base via poor communication and decision making, even though they think they are right next to us, hwaiting all the way. Although I disagree with him whole-heartedly, I agree that the overall experience TL’ers have expressed, the feelings and emotions they have felt, over the past few months is that whatever Blizzard hands them is 50% treasure, 50% trash.
I think this is a mindset problem, however. We need to realize that what we as reflective, competitive gamers define as trash is really treasure for a gigantic number of ‘casual’, one-game-a-day players. They have extremely different needs than we do, and it is something Blizzard owes to everyone who pays them to play their game to provide the best experience possible. They have a duty to systemically support all of their user bases as they continue to design and implement two more expansions.
The thing I don't like is that when a map maker spends time and effort to make a new map and Blizzard redesigns that map without permission. If I were the map maker, that would be the last time I make any map.
On June 12 2011 15:44 iaguz wrote: I think the OP is poorly formed and makes bad arguments. Also the community is fucking stupid if you've not noticed. The roach is boring? The fuck? It burrows, regens, moves, tanks, kites and has good dynamics in the matchups. Just because it's a unit you build tons of (who'd of thought ZERG builds tons of UNITS to SWARM people?) doesn't make it boring. Same goes for the Marauder, which we don't see as much as we used to (people still crying about these fucking things?)
Blizzard knows when the listen to us and when not to. It's worked pretty well for us so far as far as patch changes go and as far as maps go. They don't rush to do thing and they do them well. Huzzah for blizzard!
Well, except for the LAN thing of course.
Your argument seems to be that Blizzard knows what they are doing and are always right. This information comes from your second paragraph where you basically say Blizzard knows better than everyone else, they always do the right thing at the right pace.
You then counter your argument by saying Blizzard is not doing the right thing in regards to LAN. So at this point we are both in agreement that Blizzard can be wrong and the community right. At this very point the foundation for your argument falls apart because Blizzard is now fallible.
Now we proceed with the agreement that Blizzard can be wrong and make mistakes. The next step will be to look at the maps. You state that Blizzard knows when to listen to the community and proceeds at the right pace. There are three maps I want to discuss here: Steppes of War Xel Naga Caverns Shattered Temple
If Blizzard proceeded at the right pace, you would then be agreeing that Steppes of War was a good map to have for 6 months. I would disagree with and I am confident most if not all of the community would agree.
Xel Naga Caverns was made by David Kim after the community complained about the map pool a lot. This proves that the community can be right and that Blizzard can listen to us.
Shattered Temple is a redesign of the classic Lost Temple. Lost Temple was not a well balanced map at all, in fact I would stipulate that it was a terrible map when close positions and cliff abuse is taken into account. The revised version is better, but it is still heavily Terran favored against Zerg.
Terran has a 71.6% win rate against Zerg on that map in Tournaments. That means there is no close spawning allowed. Terran also has a 56.9% win rate against Protoss on that map. Those statistics make the map look really bad actually, and that is without close spawns.
I think it is quite fair to say that Blizzard has plenty of room to improve when it comes to maps.
On June 13 2011 03:54 shmoo wrote: Terran has a 71.6% win rate against Zerg on that map in Tournaments. That means there is no close spawning allowed. Terran also has a 56.9% win rate against Protoss on that map. Those statistics make the map look really bad actually, and that is without close spawns.
I think it is quite fair to say that Blizzard has plenty of room to improve when it comes to maps.
Not that I think the map is good, but the numbers are much closer to 50/50 on ST 1.1. Metagame issues can make a map look bad if they're around when that map is used.
Anyway non-Blizz maps don't exactly have great balance stats either.
On June 12 2011 14:37 ptrpb wrote: so many comparisons to BW, people are really expecting it to be BW plus new graphics and better UI. I don't know how many times people have to say "it's a different game" before people start to realize that while the games are similar, they still are different games.
Honestly, if you play that SC2 BW mod... It's just really so much more fun... Maybe it's the BW maps, maybe it's the BW units, maybe it's the nostalgia but I don't know man. Sc2 is fun but it could a lot more fun (not saying it should be BW with new graphics, just pointing out SC2 could really be much more interesting and diverse and versatile.)
On June 13 2011 03:25 theburricane wrote: Design is hard
Designing stuff is hard. Designing games is hard, designing thermostats is hard, designing web sites is hard. I think all of us will generally agree that this stuff is hard. But many people don’t know why it’s hard.
One of the reasons designing stuff is so hard is because there are no solutions to any problems, at least not in a larger, systemic view.
“But theburricane! What about chat channels at release? That seems like a pretty simple freakin’ thing to include that everybody and their dog wanted!”
Fair enough, if Blizz had included chat channels at release that would have solved the “have chat channels at release problem”. But if they had spent time on chat channels, something else would have had to fall off the radar. Maybe we would have had no Achievements.
“Pffft. Those are unimportant to competitive play.”
Perhaps we would have had no FFA matchmaking.
“Again, how does that affect the serious gamers?”
Maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps we wouldn’t have had the RealID friend system when the game launched.
“You mean facebook integration? Guffaw. Puh-lease.”
But you see the point? Design is not about solving problems, because those solutions will invariably cause problems elsewhere. Design is about making conscious tradeoffs to address the problems that are most impactful, and address them at the appropriate time.
Takeaway 1
I’m not saying “hey man, lay off Blizzard they’re tryin’ real hard here!” They are, but that’s no reason to lay off them. We simply have to sit down and ask, “Why is Blizzard making/not making this change at this time?” I guarantee you the answer is not because they have “bad communication”, are “blinded by their own pride”, or are “[fascinated] with ’meat shield units’.”.
Blizzard’s “bad communication”
It is easy to interpret good user research as bad communication. Research participants will make suggestions, “I think you should do X here”, but when they see the finished/updated product, their suggestions won’t be included. The designers will have implemented something that addresses that problem in a different way, and all the participant can see is “Well this solution doesn’t fix everything mine did! Why didn’t they go with what I had suggested?”
An example: Everybody and their dog says to Blizzard, “You really need to change your maps. Seriously, Steppes of War? Seriously?!” So Blizzard begins to add new maps into their map pool, and look to community feedback as to what maps they would like to see. “GSL maps, of course!” But when we finally get Tal’Darim Altar, it’s got a bunch of destructible rocks and giant chokes and crap.
“That’s not what we suggested! This doesn’t solve the problem. Look at LSPrime, he even gave them reasons why they shouldn’t do what they did. And they still did it. That’s aggravating.” (Of course, what LSPrime was arguing for, the imbalance achieved by a 3rd base with 8 minerals 2 gas, is something that will go unfelt by everyone up to very tippy-top of Masters League. How many of us have honestly thought to ourselves, “The third has 8 minerals?! Great, that means I can run Plexa’s Shock and Awe build more effectively once I take it!”, or something similar?)
However, from Blizzard’s perspective they are making balancing their solution so that it applies positively to every group. To simplify it, “We are giving the ‘competitive’ players larger maps, and we are giving the ‘casual’ players maps that limit their options enough to suggest clear goals.”
Takeaway 2
Think systemically when you encounter a solution different from the one you’ve proposed. Chances are either ‘solves’ the problem in an entirely different way, or it solves problems you didn’t even know existed.
Know your audience
It is very easy for us at teamliquid to labor under the misapprehension that we make up the majority of the SC2 community. Or that we + the reddit community are the majority. Or that we + all the online SC2 communities are the majority of SC2 players. But the truth is if you walked up to every SC2 player individually and said, “My opening build order is 10 depot, 12 rax, 13 gas” more than half would respond, “Why do you build 10 depots? Don’t you just have one SCV building depots the whole game?”
Most SC2 players lack even the basic vocabulary that we as a competitive community have developed as a tool to help us think critically and reflectively about the way we play. Most SC2 players don’t know why Steppes of War was removed, unless they’ve read the Blizzard Situation Report explaining why. They probably had no idea it was blacklisted by thousands of people.
Blizzard has the daunting, grizzling task of designing a product that meets the expectations and needs of an infinitely large and diverse user group. All designs suffer from this requirement to varying extent, but Blizzard in particular has a very polar user base. Bronze league 4v4ers versus Grandmasters 1v1 Rank 1.
Takeaway 3
When Blizzard designs for their broader user base, it feels like they are not listening to their competitive, online communities. Because we live in our dream world where everyone has a finely-crafted opening BO, aggressive yet thoughtful 3rd base timing, and over-arching gameplan, we can completely ignore the huge number of people who enter a game thinking nothing but “I’m going to make a forge right away so I can get a cannon up in case he zergling rushes me.”
When we encounter a decision by Blizzard that impacts us ‘negatively,’ we also need to think about the people who are being affected ‘positively’ and how their experience playing this game is going to change.
Overall takeaway
I have a lot of respect for sluggaslamoo, who took the time to voice the opinions of many community members. Specifically opnions regarding how Blizzard is out of touch with its player base via poor communication and decision making, even though they think they are right next to us, hwaiting all the way. Although I disagree with him whole-heartedly, I agree that the overall experience TL’ers have expressed, the feelings and emotions they have felt, over the past few months is that whatever Blizzard hands them is 50% treasure, 50% trash.
I think this is a mindset problem, however. We need to realize that what we as reflective, competitive gamers define as trash is really treasure for a gigantic number of ‘casual’, one-game-a-day players. They have extremely different needs than we do, and it is something Blizzard owes to everyone who pays them to play their game to provide the best experience possible. They have a duty to systemically support all of their user bases as they continue to design and implement two more expansions.
I wish I could give you a million dollars. People feel that the game needs to be balanced around the highest tier of players. While this is largely true, people often times forget that competitive players aren't the entire market for this game, and thus shouldn't get upset that Blizzard doesn't bend to their very will.
On June 12 2011 14:37 ptrpb wrote: so many comparisons to BW, people are really expecting it to be BW plus new graphics and better UI. I don't know how many times people have to say "it's a different game" before people start to realize that while the games are similar, they still are different games.
Honestly, if you play that SC2 BW mod... It's just really so much more fun... Maybe it's the BW maps, maybe it's the BW units, maybe it's the nostalgia but I don't know man. Sc2 is fun but it could a lot more fun (not saying it should be BW with new graphics, just pointing out SC2 could really be much more interesting and diverse and versatile.)
Maybe it's because you used to play BW and are a bit biaseed as well... As you say yourself, nostalgia is most likely a huge factor.
As for maps... I don't think it's a huge problem. Having "somewhat unbalanced" maps is fine, as long as it's not a main trend. It makes wins on that particular map more important to progress. Take savior for example. He dominated terrans in maps which had like 80% TvZ win rate. It's one of the reasons he became a bonjwa. His ability to overcome a seemingly overwhelming situation.
This makes thing more epic. When Bisu 3-0's Savior in what was previously considered the worst matchup ever and makes a "revolution" that's what epicness means.
I don't really care if maps are a bit unbalanced, they'll always be, and it's normal, it also makes sets more interesting strategically. It makes a Bo7 have more depth.
On June 12 2011 17:44 Dismantlethethroat wrote: Pros will always complain because all they care about is winning, and not the game.
Other than Idra close to no pros complain at all. 99% of the complaining comes from gold league and below, tbh.
You are both wrong to a degree.
I do agree that most of the whining comes from casual players who think they are good, but there are plenty of pros who will complain about balance.
I cannot think of any that do it on the level that Idra does, but there are plenty that do it.
Examples could include: The Brotoss party on SotG a few weeks ago Jinro has made some statements about balance on his stream MC has said zerg is op. I believe MVP said terran was weak.
A lot of it is likely just venting due to frustration, but plenty of pros complain about balance at some point.
There's a lot of pressure on blizzard from activision's standpoint to make the game as playable at lower levels as it is at upper levels. This probably drastically effects balance changes as some things can be ridiculously broken at lower levels and not too much of a concern at higher levels.
That being said balancing the game at higher levels really then only caters to a small part of the community. How can they make the game completely even on a higher playing field while making sure everything below it remains unaffected? If I had to guess I'd say this is their main concern. Broodwar is an amazing game no doubt, but the niche of playing it and playing it well is a lot smaller than in sc2. Activision's pressures on blizzard to make the game "balanced" at all levels so as many people as possible can pick up the game and play it is their business objective.
Designing stuff is hard. Designing games is hard, designing thermostats is hard, designing web sites is hard. I think all of us will generally agree that this stuff is hard. But many people don’t know why it’s hard.
One of the reasons designing stuff is so hard is because there are no solutions to any problems, at least not in a larger, systemic view. (etc)
Completely agree. When I read the OP's "Blizzard is out of touch", my first thought was "most likely you don't know all the factor that influence their design".
If tournament maps are perfectly balanced for pro players, and ladder maps are better for the less skilled player, including myself, I have no problems with that.
I'm sure Browder and the rest of the design team are very smart, but I can't help but feel that they are stuck in their own little world.
This expresses my feelings too.
I think they are still thinking like computer game designers. They think in 5-year game design cycles and in broadening market appeal with "cool" units. NOT as the creators of a possible global spectator sport. I have seen plenty of more sensible ideas in the TL forums than anything I've heard Mr. Browder say.
I'm sad to say this but it may come to the point where the community is better off taking control of game design, much like what the CS mod did for HL deathmatch, or how the DotA mod revitalized WC3.
No he's not. Any Code A scrub would wipe the floor with him.
Code A players are some of the best players in the world. There are tons of dedicated Korean sc2 gamers training everyday in hopes of making code A, and a majority of them will not make it.
I'm sure Browder and the rest of the design team are very smart, but I can't help but feel that they are stuck in their own little world.
This expresses my feelings too.
I think they are still thinking like computer game designers. They think in 5-year game design cycles and in broadening market appeal with "cool" units. NOT as the creators of a possible global spectator sport. I have seen plenty of more sensible ideas in the TL forums than anything I've heard Mr. Browder say.
I'm sad to say this but it may come to the point where the community is better off taking control of game design, much like what the CS mod did for HL deathmatch, or how the DotA mod revitalized WC3.
Those two mods were nothing like the original multiplayer for both games. And it wasn't "the community" taking control. It was a couple of guys striking gold with a brilliant idea.
Designing stuff is hard. Designing games is hard, designing thermostats is hard, designing web sites is hard. I think all of us will generally agree that this stuff is hard. But many people don’t know why it’s hard.
One of the reasons designing stuff is so hard is because there are no solutions to any problems, at least not in a larger, systemic view. (etc)
Completely agree. When I read the OP's "Blizzard is out of touch", my first thought was "most likely you don't know all the factor that influence their design".
If tournament maps are perfectly balanced for pro players, and ladder maps are better for the less skilled player, including myself, I have no problems with that.
This is an interesting point you bring up. Why can't pro players and competitive players have a different map pool than lower tier players?
You have stated that tournaments, thus pro and competitive players, playing on different maps than you a lower tier player do is ok. The issue with having different map pools is it makes it difficult for lower players to progress. They learn things that do not work at a higher level, they are unable to play higher end players because of the difference in maps, and this makes it harder on players looking to improve.
The sad thing is we basically have separate map pools already because of the large difference in ladder maps and tournament maps. Players looking to get better who ladder a lot are deprived of the opportunity to play on maps used in most tournaments.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
First off - No one cares. Secondly - Posting flammatory crap like this adds nothing but tension and hate between fans of either game.
Edit: Oh after reading your blog i see you're still in high school. Guess kids will be kids...
On June 12 2011 17:44 Dismantlethethroat wrote: Pros will always complain because all they care about is winning, and not the game.
Other than Idra close to no pros complain at all. 99% of the complaining comes from gold league and below, tbh.
You are both wrong to a degree.
I do agree that most of the whining comes from casual players who think they are good, but there are plenty of pros who will complain about balance.
I cannot think of any that do it on the level that Idra does, but there are plenty that do it.
Examples could include: The Brotoss party on SotG a few weeks ago Jinro has made some statements about balance on his stream MC has said zerg is op. I believe MVP said terran was weak.
A lot of it is likely just venting due to frustration, but plenty of pros complain about balance at some point.
That Brotoss party was a total joke, by the way. No one ACTUALLY thought Protoss was underpowered in that episode; they were just trolling all the zergs.
they could probably stand to be a little more responsive, or maybe give more insight into why they take their time with certain changes. but the fact of the matter is, it's their game. they invested the budget into their game and made the product, and it's their responsibility to think of the long term survival of their product. if it looks "authoritarian" to you, it's probably because blizzard doesn't want to put a bunch of fidgety nerds that are nostalgic for a 12 year old game in the driver's seat of their huge investment. getting feedback from pro players is not the same thing as acquiescing to every little complaint they have, cos here's the facts: most of these people aren't game designers. they're good at a game that already exists cos they're talented at playing games, but when they make suggestions, it all looks remarkably like brood war. it's easy enough to make balance suggestions when they're all identical to a game that already exists. i can't say if i were in browder's shoes i wouldn't take all the whining with a huge, huge grain of salt.
bottom line is, while blizzard are no doubt passionate about their products, they're a business and they can't risk jumping just because you said jump.
LOL I come now and then and watch threads like these, guys balance will go from one place to the other for a few years, dont complaint, give feedback. WoL era is coming to its final stages, HotS will come, shit will change, we knew this from the start if we look at all blizzard games even Diablo II changed a lot when LoD came out. So did SC when BW hit shelves. This won't be any different. Balance will find a way to drift into place and if you think when new units come into play new balance problems wont emerge you're in for a surprise.
Yes maybe the guys in charge of balancing is not what we wanted but at least they have experience, and don't say they don't listen to the community because you know they do. I say we continue to give feedback and stop whining about balance atm which isnt that bad at all and start whining about things we should've fucking had since release. Like B.net 2.0 being a crock of shit, and all we wanted was B.net 1.0 with more stuff added on to it. Clan capabilities? wc3 had this and we don't wtf. Chat channels currently are uninspired I still dont feel like what i felt in sc1 B.net, and yet this is so simple to just make. These guys prolly dished out so much R&D money for a worthless 2.0 B.net I would say is blizzards greatest flop of all time. Luckily it wasn't a game, but jut a feature.
i think they designed the game based on bw but making it more flashy and interesting. we can see this through more units and having spells early in the game. in doing so, sc2 has become a double edged sword instead of a good balance between sword and shield. what i mean by this is commonly agreed "strong timing attack", "strong ealry/mid game", etc. where the tide of the battle can change so quickly. things like baneling vs ling, mmm vs wg units, feedback vs casters, etc.
they have emphasized on having hero units or having strong single units like thor, ms, ultra, col, etc. the problem with having hero(1 stand out strong unit) is that they can be focused down so easily by firepower or neural parasite.
strong spells like mind control and feedback has become much for available. what used to be late spells in bw have become early to mid game. what used to be considered late-late game abilities because its so strong has become a everyday thing - feedback, mindcontrol/np, fungal/plague, FF/stasis, emp, etc.
i believe it was to make the game more action packed and exiting, however i think its overdone.
i think blizzard needs to scale it down a little bit. amount of damage, availability(timing) of abilities, number of units.
As much as everyone likes to see SC2 as the flagship of E-sports around the world, this thread only reassures me in my opinion that it's really not that good of a thing at all - it's very clear that making the game competitive and good to spectate isn't on top of Blizzard's priority list. If SC2 really succeeds, it will probably be in spite of Blizzard's balancing efforts.
You can't have it both ways. Either you balance the game for the top end, or for the "casuals", they all play the same game. If they keep doing this, I kind of hope SC2 fails as a competitive game, if only to serve as a lesson for companies trying to achieve similar things (like Valve's Dota2) in the future.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
First off - No one cares. Secondly - Posting flammatory crap like this adds nothing but tension and hate between fans of either game.
Edit: Oh after reading your blog i see you're still in high school. Guess kids will be kids...
You know, the fact that you actually went to the trouble of searching his blog for personal attack ammo is kind of pathetic. :/
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
Tell me, how does this kind of comment brings the conversation forward? no one really cares about you, or what you do. Post something smart next time, and try not to make gamers hate each other for no apparent reason.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
yes my friend.
And you're posting in a SC2 thread...why? Speaks volumes.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
Tell me, how does this kind of comment brings the conversation forward? no one really cares about you, or what you do. Post something smart next time, and try not to make gamers hate each other for no apparent reason.
Don't be so hard on him. Everyone has to congratulate themselves on something. Maybe playing BW helps boost his self-esteem? Or maybe he feels bad that he was in kindergarten when it came out, so he missed out on BW's golden age. It's always exciting to uncover "hidden gems" years later.
I think Blizzard is doing a great job - better than pretty much any other company out there. That said, they are still falling short in a lot of categories, and the game is missing some pretty obvious things that made BW such a great e-sport. I definitely think Dustin Browder (or just his attitude/way he conducts himself in interviews) is becoming a liability for Blizzard - the man demonstrates that he really has no clue what's going on while trying to pretend he does and he has a rather immature attitude about SC2 being "Blizzard's game" and that it's going to be made how they want it to be and that's that.
Nice writeup, I agree with the majority of it and those interviews were horrible. It felt like all he wanted was "cool units" and then just let things happen and screw everything else. I'm sure they don't feel that way but it ends up coming out that way with the terrible maps we have, it feels like that shows it more than anything that they don't care at all what other people want to input. Ask one pro-gamer if they want to ladder and practice on DQ...lol come on man I don't see why that shitty maps around at all.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
First off - No one cares. Secondly - Posting flammatory crap like this adds nothing but tension and hate between fans of either game.
Edit: Oh after reading your blog i see you're still in high school. Guess kids will be kids...
On it's own SC2 is well balanced overall, they're may be some imbalances here and there or that yet to be discovered but SC2 is still growing and changing rapidly plus HOTS will give the Dev team a chance to sit down and make some bigger changes, possible overhauls.
On June 13 2011 06:58 Ubes wrote: Too many people want SC1 part 2. This is SC2 a different game.
If SC2 wants to ride on Starcraft's competitive success, it can't fling 'different game' at every critique.
This doesn't even make sense. SC2 might gain some early sales due to BW, but long term - as with any sequel - it survives or falls on its own. It's long past the point of riding on BW's success.
On June 13 2011 06:58 Ubes wrote: Too many people want SC1 part 2. This is SC2 a different game.
If SC2 wants to ride on Starcraft's competitive success, it can't fling 'different game' at every critique.
This doesn't even make sense. SC2 might gain some early sales due to BW, but long term - as with any sequel - it survives or falls on its own. It's long past the point of riding on BW's success.
especially considering the amount of flak it catches from the BW community, it's possible SC2 actually suffers from that association.
People overidealise BW while completely failing to realise starcraft 1 had terrible balance when it was first released; think the beginning of starcraft 2 and multiply it by a 1000. The reason it turned into what BW is now is because of blizzards hard work and dedication over more than 10 years, yet the same people are so quick to dismiss the balance in starcraft 2 after less than a year and before any expansion has been released. Seriously, people, rome wasn't build in a day; SC:BW sure as hell wasn't balanced/super awesome at the start and neither is SC2, but if you think blizzard will suddenly give up on SC2 (like they've never done on any of their games, there is no reason at all to think that) you're just wrong. The main thing that sucks from the transition from SC1 to SC2 is the people; everyone has turned into whiny, demanding and over-entitled people. You are what's wrong with SC2.
On June 13 2011 07:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: People overidealise BW while completely failing to realise starcraft 1 had terrible balance when it was first released; think the beginning of starcraft 2 and multiply it by a 1000. The reason it turned into what BW is now is because of blizzards hard work and dedication over more than 10 years, yet the same people are so quick to dismiss the balance in starcraft 2 after less than a year and before any expansion has been released. Seriously, people, rome wasn't build in a day; SC:BW sure as hell wasn't balanced/super awesome at the start and neither is SC2, but if you think blizzard will suddenly give up on SC2 (like they've never done on any of their games, there is no reason at all to think that) you're just wrong. The main thing that sucks from the transition from SC1 to SC2 is the people; everyone has turned into whiny, demanding and over-entitled people. You are what's wrong with SC2.
Sorry? Blizzard didn't make ANY balance patch on SC1 for 10 years. 1.08 being the very last balance patch. They indeed neglected BW completely afterwards, letting hackers run rampant so the community had to find a solution by creating its own ladders and maps.
BW was balanced and carried on through the community, NOT blizzard.
In regards to people saying the roach and marauder are uninteresting, i see how that may be true but every single unit in the game doesn't have to do some cool thing or some interesting spell. The races need that core "meaty" unit that can deal decent damage and be the brunt of their army.
I think the main problem obviously lies within the collosus. The unit itself is pretty uninteresting, but because of how powerful it is, it forces units that are made to counter it, intern creating more uninteresting units.
The corruptor, in my opinion, is flat out the worst unit in the game. It's only really good against the collosus and phoenix. It fails against void rays and is essentially useless there are collosi. Blizzard just needs to take a good hard look at the collosus and the units that revolve around it's purpose, and go back to the drawing board.
On June 13 2011 07:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: People overidealise BW while completely failing to realise starcraft 1 had terrible balance when it was first released; think the beginning of starcraft 2 and multiply it by a 1000. The reason it turned into what BW is now is because of blizzards hard work and dedication over more than 10 years, yet the same people are so quick to dismiss the balance in starcraft 2 after less than a year and before any expansion has been released. Seriously, people, rome wasn't build in a day; SC:BW sure as hell wasn't balanced/super awesome at the start and neither is SC2, but if you think blizzard will suddenly give up on SC2 (like they've never done on any of their games, there is no reason at all to think that) you're just wrong. The main thing that sucks from the transition from SC1 to SC2 is the people; everyone has turned into whiny, demanding and over-entitled people. You are what's wrong with SC2.
Sorry? Blizzard didn't make ANY balance patch on SC1 for 10 years. 1.08 being the very last balance patch. They indeed neglected BW completely afterwards, letting hackers run rampant so the community had to find a solution by creating its own ladders and maps.
BW was balanced and carried on through the community, NOT blizzard.
This is true. Too bad the community has barely any say on the map pool (except for Taldarim Altar, a map that was made imbalanced by Blizzard's modifying of it for ladder play)
Not to say that this is SC2s only problem, but one of many.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
yes my friend.
And you're posting in a SC2 thread...why? Speaks volumes.
I still watch SC2, care very much about all the foreigners and their careers, but I stopped playing for a couple reasons (not balance issues)
1) I used to have 3 of my cousins and about 4 or 5 friends come over, have pizza, soda and beer and we'd play hours of BW.
Cant do that now cause A) no lan B) most of my friends computers dont have the system requirements for SC2 and cant blame them for not wanting to buy a new comp just for casual SC2 gaming.
2) the friends who did play SC2 have all stopped for one reason or another. Whether its because they are bored with the game, or are upset that they cant enjoy it with their friends who cant play for reasons listed above.
So I just dont have the time for BW with friends, work, wife, Halo Reach (on occasion with friends) and SC2. I like gaming with my friends, so if im to sacrifice something its SC2.
edit: and im congratulating him on playing BW.... for all the good times it provided.
On June 13 2011 07:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: People overidealise BW while completely failing to realise starcraft 1 had terrible balance when it was first released; think the beginning of starcraft 2 and multiply it by a 1000. The reason it turned into what BW is now is because of blizzards hard work and dedication over more than 10 years, yet the same people are so quick to dismiss the balance in starcraft 2 after less than a year and before any expansion has been released. Seriously, people, rome wasn't build in a day; SC:BW sure as hell wasn't balanced/super awesome at the start and neither is SC2, but if you think blizzard will suddenly give up on SC2 (like they've never done on any of their games, there is no reason at all to think that) you're just wrong. The main thing that sucks from the transition from SC1 to SC2 is the people; everyone has turned into whiny, demanding and over-entitled people. You are what's wrong with SC2.
This is an old argument and a really bad one. We have gained significantly more knowledge from when BW first came out - this means that SC2 definitely shouldn't take anywhere near the amount of time it took BW to balance out (BW's last balance patch came out 3 years after it was released, so no it wasn't even close to 10 years). There are a number of things that are very easy to take away from BW now that we have that experience, and the complaints are that the development team is simply ignoring what made BW the best e-sport in the world and just shouting "It's a different game!" at anyone who critiques them for it.
The fact that lost temple still had cliffs when SC2 was released says something about how "out of touch" they can be.
Probably not enough to draw conclusions but it's always at the back of my mind when I read these interviews (along with the zergling-templar example from now on ).
The OP is extremely well written and is pointing out all the flaws in Browder's logic. I don't understand how this thread has derailed into a BW vs SC2 thread. It's clear the lead designer of the game is too arrogant and ignorant to understand what makes the game interesting. If you enjoy the current state of pro-SC2, which is watching 100 games and hoping to see 5 epic ones then yes, the game is amazing.
SC2 is plagued with cheese, gimmicks, and almost always a "one huge battle and gg" games. This makes it boring by definition. I've lost interest completely and hoping "hots will fix it". If you can't understand how BW is superior as a spectator e-sport compared to SC2 then it's clear you haven't watched testeless cast WCG's and Gom seasons 1-3.
Browder is a bad game designer and he will continue to be set the foundations for the future of SC2. And I seriously doubt the game's success up to this point has anything to do with how "cool" marauders/colosuss/roaches are.
Sometimes I feel sad about how much better SC2 could of been.
You know, I was pretty outspoken through beta about balance and maps especially, but at least things seem to be moving (albeit slowly) in the right direction over time.
Right now the thing that really stands out to me is how ridiculously unprofessional the lack of LAN becomes in major tournaments. What a complete joke it is to have all the lag and problems resulting from players and casters being messaged during extremely high profile games.
On June 13 2011 07:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: People overidealise BW while completely failing to realise starcraft 1 had terrible balance when it was first released; think the beginning of starcraft 2 and multiply it by a 1000. The reason it turned into what BW is now is because of blizzards hard work and dedication over more than 10 years, yet the same people are so quick to dismiss the balance in starcraft 2 after less than a year and before any expansion has been released. Seriously, people, rome wasn't build in a day; SC:BW sure as hell wasn't balanced/super awesome at the start and neither is SC2, but if you think blizzard will suddenly give up on SC2 (like they've never done on any of their games, there is no reason at all to think that) you're just wrong. The main thing that sucks from the transition from SC1 to SC2 is the people; everyone has turned into whiny, demanding and over-entitled people. You are what's wrong with SC2.
This is an old argument and a really bad one. We have gained significantly more knowledge from when BW first came out - this means that SC2 definitely shouldn't take anywhere near the amount of time it took BW to balance out (BW's last balance patch came out 3 years after it was released, so no it wasn't even close to 10 years). There are a number of things that are very easy to take away from BW now that we have that experience, and the complaints are that the development team is simply ignoring what made BW the best e-sport in the world and just shouting "It's a different game!" at anyone who critiques them for it.
In korea you mean, starcraft 1 died everywhere but korea. Hell even tastless/artosis and every pro player of sc2 is in amazement at how much tournaments are going on right now due TO STARCRAFT 2.
if this game never came along, starcraft 1 "the so called great e-sport" = still be dead to the foreigners .
im really sorry that i have to point out facts, Some more facts are , if this game(sc2) was made more mechanically demanding (mbs, automineing removed) all the naniwa's , idra's = JOKE
sc2 is the reason foreigners even have a chance. Idra was always B team korea , never would he even remotely be able to win any korean league or tournmanent if it was sc1.
i mean , i just stating things here to point out WHY sc2 has a better esport scene for the entire world compared to sc1.
Lets say blizzard says, hey you guys want starcraft 1 back? , okay have it, heart of swarm comes out, it releases no automine/multiple selection . Please tell me what foreigeer will be able to beat a pro korean? we cant even beat them in a simpler game(SC2 MLG cough).
ill tell you what will happen, foreigers will relize they have no chance again . and the forieng scene will die off much like sc1 did , so only the koreans will play and we would be back to square one where the only thing a non korean can look forward to is qualify for stuff like wcg in his own realm to get dominated by koreans when he arrives to the wcg finals.
before ppl troll me for these statements, ( i know its coming), you guys know deep down its true.
sc2 is the best thing for the entire world due to the choices the designers made. THAT IS FACT.
On June 13 2011 07:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: People overidealise BW while completely failing to realise starcraft 1 had terrible balance when it was first released; think the beginning of starcraft 2 and multiply it by a 1000. The reason it turned into what BW is now is because of blizzards hard work and dedication over more than 10 years, yet the same people are so quick to dismiss the balance in starcraft 2 after less than a year and before any expansion has been released. Seriously, people, rome wasn't build in a day; SC:BW sure as hell wasn't balanced/super awesome at the start and neither is SC2, but if you think blizzard will suddenly give up on SC2 (like they've never done on any of their games, there is no reason at all to think that) you're just wrong. The main thing that sucks from the transition from SC1 to SC2 is the people; everyone has turned into whiny, demanding and over-entitled people. You are what's wrong with SC2.
This is an old argument and a really bad one. We have gained significantly more knowledge from when BW first came out - this means that SC2 definitely shouldn't take anywhere near the amount of time it took BW to balance out (BW's last balance patch came out 3 years after it was released, so no it wasn't even close to 10 years). There are a number of things that are very easy to take away from BW now that we have that experience, and the complaints are that the development team is simply ignoring what made BW the best e-sport in the world and just shouting "It's a different game!" at anyone who critiques them for it.
In korea you mean, starcraft 1 died everywhere but korea. Hell even tastless/artosis and every pro player of sc2 is in amazement at how much tournaments are going on right now due TO STARCRAFT 2.
if this game never came along, starcraft 1 "the so called great e-sport" = still be dead to the foreigners .
im really sorry that i have to point out facts, Some more facts are , if this game(sc2) was made more mechanically demanding (mbs, automineing removed) all the naniwa's , idra's = JOKE
sc2 is the reason foreigners even have a chance. Idra was always B team korea , never would he even remotely be able to win any korean league or tournmanent if it was sc1.
i mean , i just stating things here to point out WHY sc2 has a better esport scene for the entire world compared to sc1.
Lets say blizzard says, hey you guys want starcraft 1 back? , okay have it, heart of swarm comes out, it releases no automine/multiple selection . Please tell me what foreigeer will be able to beat a pro korean? we cant even beat them in a simpler game(SC2 MLG cough).
ill tell you what will happen, foreigers will relize they have no chance again . and the forieng scene will die off much like sc1 did , so only the koreans will play and we would be back to square one where the only thing a non korean can look forward to is qualify for stuff like wcg in his own realm to get dominated by koreans when he arrives to the wcg finals.
before ppl troll me for these statements, ( i know its coming), you guys know deep down its true.
sc2 is the best thing for the entire world due to the choices the designers made. THAT IS FACT.
So that's the reason why SC2 is good? Oh boy... What else should be given on a silver platter to gamers such as yourself?
On June 13 2011 07:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: People overidealise BW while completely failing to realise starcraft 1 had terrible balance when it was first released; think the beginning of starcraft 2 and multiply it by a 1000. The reason it turned into what BW is now is because of blizzards hard work and dedication over more than 10 years, yet the same people are so quick to dismiss the balance in starcraft 2 after less than a year and before any expansion has been released. Seriously, people, rome wasn't build in a day; SC:BW sure as hell wasn't balanced/super awesome at the start and neither is SC2, but if you think blizzard will suddenly give up on SC2 (like they've never done on any of their games, there is no reason at all to think that) you're just wrong. The main thing that sucks from the transition from SC1 to SC2 is the people; everyone has turned into whiny, demanding and over-entitled people. You are what's wrong with SC2.
This is an old argument and a really bad one. We have gained significantly more knowledge from when BW first came out - this means that SC2 definitely shouldn't take anywhere near the amount of time it took BW to balance out (BW's last balance patch came out 3 years after it was released, so no it wasn't even close to 10 years). There are a number of things that are very easy to take away from BW now that we have that experience, and the complaints are that the development team is simply ignoring what made BW the best e-sport in the world and just shouting "It's a different game!" at anyone who critiques them for it.
In korea you mean, starcraft 1 died everywhere but korea. Hell even tastless/artosis and every pro player of sc2 is in amazement at how much tournaments are going on right now due TO STARCRAFT 2.
if this game never came along, starcraft 1 "the so called great e-sport" = still be dead to the foreigners .
im really sorry that i have to point out facts, Some more facts are , if this game(sc2) was made more mechanically demanding (mbs, automineing removed) all the naniwa's , idra's = JOKE
sc2 is the reason foreigners even have a chance. Idra was always B team korea , never would he even remotely be able to win any korean league or tournmanent if it was sc1.
i mean , i just stating things here to point out WHY sc2 has a better esport scene for the entire world compared to sc1.
Lets say blizzard says, hey you guys want starcraft 1 back? , okay have it, heart of swarm comes out, it releases no automine/multiple selection . Please tell me what foreigeer will be able to beat a pro korean? we cant even beat them in a simpler game(SC2 MLG cough).
ill tell you what will happen, foreigers will relize they have no chance again . and the forieng scene will die off much like sc1 did , so only the koreans will play and we would be back to square one where the only thing a non korean can look forward to is qualify for stuff like wcg in his own realm to get dominated by koreans when he arrives to the wcg finals.
before ppl troll me for these statements, ( i know its coming), you guys know deep down its true.
sc2 is the best thing for the entire world due to the choices the designers made. THAT IS FACT.
So that's the reason why SC2 is good? Oh boy... What else should be given on a silver platter to gamers such as yourself?
i mainly argued the point where he said starcraft 1 had the best esport in the world, my correction to him was that korea was the only one with a esport scene, Starcraft 1 failed to make an impact on the non korea scene, unless you want to tell me i'm wrong?
i also pointed out earlier in this thread that i like the game for a lot of other reasons mentioned, so read back and dont come to conclusions so fast okay? sorry for disturbing you with these points that i made, you can now jump back on the sc2 hate train.
i just find it weird that some of the main problems people have with sc2 are that it doesn't share brood war's technological and design limitations. like 'hey you know how to make sc2 better? make the pathing AI retarded just like in brood war!'... and you know, various other artificial limitations. i have a lot of respect for the mechanical geniuses that can thrive in a clunky game like brood war, but freaking come on.
i kinda like to relate to my experience as a musician. which instrument is harder to play - trumpet or piano? well i challenge you to pick up a trumpet and play a high c above the staff, and if you can indeed reach that high c, then i challenge you to play it without it sounding like a leprechaun farting. a high c on the piano, on the other hand, is the easiest thing in the world. you just press it - the piano is all buttons, and when you press it, the piano plays the note for you. but because piano is so theoretically and physically simple and elegant, the pianist is free to play crazy complicated stuff with both hands that is physically impossible on most other instruments. so basically what i'm saying is uh if you think you've got apm to burn, find something to spend it on.
On June 12 2011 14:31 jalstar wrote: Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
But you barely have to micro immortals because of hardened shield, while if you don't position and micro colossi well they'll get killed by vikings or corruptors in a few seconds.
This isn't entirely true. Immortals are one of those most important-to-micro units in that if you don't micro them and they're attacking zergslings/marines instead of roaches/marauders/tanks they're being almost useless and aren't being used to even close to their full potential.
Target firing is somewhat important for colossi too but not nearly as important.
pretty much agree with everything the OP said... one of the most interesting things to me is that they want to keep close positions in to "promote variety" because "some players enjoy rush games"... I'd like to see the players they're talking about O_______O seems to me like 99% of the community wants rush distance removed or doesn't care either way. it seems like they're just keeping them in the game for the sole reason of they want a game with variety, even if that variety makes the game worse
I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win.
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is.
On June 13 2011 11:35 Doc Daneeka wrote: i just find it weird that some of the main problems people have with sc2 are that it doesn't share brood war's technological and design limitations. like 'hey you know how to make sc2 better? make the pathing AI retarded just like in brood war!'... and you know, various other artificial limitations. i have a lot of respect for the mechanical geniuses that can thrive in a clunky game like brood war, but freaking come on.
i kinda like to relate to my experience as a musician. which instrument is harder to play - trumpet or piano? well i challenge you to pick up a trumpet and play a high c above the staff, and if you can indeed reach that high c, then i challenge you to play it without it sounding like a leprechaun farting. a high c on the piano, on the other hand, is the easiest thing in the world. you just press it - the piano is all buttons, and when you press it, the piano plays the note for you. but because piano is so theoretically and physically simple and elegant, the pianist is free to play crazy complicated stuff with both hands that is physically impossible on most other instruments. so basically what i'm saying is uh if you think you've got apm to burn, find something to spend it on.
I like this analogy. Starcraft 1 & 2 is more similar than piano and trumpet, but that doesn't really detract from what you want to say.
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win.
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is.
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win.
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is.
Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability.
Micro would be kiting marines.
Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro.
On June 13 2011 07:46 Karthane wrote: In regards to people saying the roach and marauder are uninteresting, i see how that may be true but every single unit in the game doesn't have to do some cool thing or some interesting spell. The races need that core "meaty" unit that can deal decent damage and be the brunt of their army.
I think the main problem obviously lies within the collosus. The unit itself is pretty uninteresting, but because of how powerful it is, it forces units that are made to counter it, intern creating more uninteresting units.
The corruptor, in my opinion, is flat out the worst unit in the game. It's only really good against the collosus and phoenix. It fails against void rays and is essentially useless there are collosi. Blizzard just needs to take a good hard look at the collosus and the units that revolve around it's purpose, and go back to the drawing board.
you know what zerg used to tank damage for their main damage dealers in brood war?
On June 13 2011 07:46 Karthane wrote: In regards to people saying the roach and marauder are uninteresting, i see how that may be true but every single unit in the game doesn't have to do some cool thing or some interesting spell. The races need that core "meaty" unit that can deal decent damage and be the brunt of their army.
I think the main problem obviously lies within the collosus. The unit itself is pretty uninteresting, but because of how powerful it is, it forces units that are made to counter it, intern creating more uninteresting units.
The corruptor, in my opinion, is flat out the worst unit in the game. It's only really good against the collosus and phoenix. It fails against void rays and is essentially useless there are collosi. Blizzard just needs to take a good hard look at the collosus and the units that revolve around it's purpose, and go back to the drawing board.
you know what zerg used to tank damage for their main damage dealers in brood war?
zerglings
Late game zerg didn't need meatshield because it had DARK SWARM.
On June 13 2011 03:25 theburricane wrote: Design is hard
Designing stuff is hard. Designing games is hard, designing thermostats is hard, designing web sites is hard. I think all of us will generally agree that this stuff is hard. But many people don’t know why it’s hard.
One of the reasons designing stuff is so hard is because there are no solutions to any problems, at least not in a larger, systemic view.
“But theburricane! What about chat channels at release? That seems like a pretty simple freakin’ thing to include that everybody and their dog wanted!”
Fair enough, if Blizz had included chat channels at release that would have solved the “have chat channels at release problem”. But if they had spent time on chat channels, something else would have had to fall off the radar. Maybe we would have had no Achievements.
“Pffft. Those are unimportant to competitive play.”
Perhaps we would have had no FFA matchmaking.
“Again, how does that affect the serious gamers?”
Maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps we wouldn’t have had the RealID friend system when the game launched.
“You mean facebook integration? Guffaw. Puh-lease.”
But you see the point? Design is not about solving problems, because those solutions will invariably cause problems elsewhere. Design is about making conscious tradeoffs to address the problems that are most impactful, and address them at the appropriate time.
Takeaway 1
I’m not saying “hey man, lay off Blizzard they’re tryin’ real hard here!” They are, but that’s no reason to lay off them. We simply have to sit down and ask, “Why is Blizzard making/not making this change at this time?” I guarantee you the answer is not because they have “bad communication”, are “blinded by their own pride”, or are “[fascinated] with ’meat shield units’.”.
Blizzard’s “bad communication”
It is easy to interpret good user research as bad communication. Research participants will make suggestions, “I think you should do X here”, but when they see the finished/updated product, their suggestions won’t be included. The designers will have implemented something that addresses that problem in a different way, and all the participant can see is “Well this solution doesn’t fix everything mine did! Why didn’t they go with what I had suggested?”
An example: Everybody and their dog says to Blizzard, “You really need to change your maps. Seriously, Steppes of War? Seriously?!” So Blizzard begins to add new maps into their map pool, and look to community feedback as to what maps they would like to see. “GSL maps, of course!” But when we finally get Tal’Darim Altar, it’s got a bunch of destructible rocks and giant chokes and crap.
“That’s not what we suggested! This doesn’t solve the problem. Look at LSPrime, he even gave them reasons why they shouldn’t do what they did. And they still did it. That’s aggravating.” (Of course, what LSPrime was arguing for, the imbalance achieved by a 3rd base with 8 minerals 2 gas, is something that will go unfelt by everyone up to very tippy-top of Masters League. How many of us have honestly thought to ourselves, “The third has 8 minerals?! Great, that means I can run Plexa’s Shock and Awe build more effectively once I take it!”, or something similar?)
However, from Blizzard’s perspective they are making balancing their solution so that it applies positively to every group. To simplify it, “We are giving the ‘competitive’ players larger maps, and we are giving the ‘casual’ players maps that limit their options enough to suggest clear goals.”
Takeaway 2
Think systemically when you encounter a solution different from the one you’ve proposed. Chances are either ‘solves’ the problem in an entirely different way, or it solves problems you didn’t even know existed.
Know your audience
It is very easy for us at teamliquid to labor under the misapprehension that we make up the majority of the SC2 community. Or that we + the reddit community are the majority. Or that we + all the online SC2 communities are the majority of SC2 players. But the truth is if you walked up to every SC2 player individually and said, “My opening build order is 10 depot, 12 rax, 13 gas” more than half would respond, “Why do you build 10 depots? Don’t you just have one SCV building depots the whole game?”
Most SC2 players lack even the basic vocabulary that we as a competitive community have developed as a tool to help us think critically and reflectively about the way we play. Most SC2 players don’t know why Steppes of War was removed, unless they’ve read the Blizzard Situation Report explaining why. They probably had no idea it was blacklisted by thousands of people.
Blizzard has the daunting, grizzling task of designing a product that meets the expectations and needs of an infinitely large and diverse user group. All designs suffer from this requirement to varying extent, but Blizzard in particular has a very polar user base. Bronze league 4v4ers versus Grandmasters 1v1 Rank 1.
Takeaway 3
When Blizzard designs for their broader user base, it feels like they are not listening to their competitive, online communities. Because we live in our dream world where everyone has a finely-crafted opening BO, aggressive yet thoughtful 3rd base timing, and over-arching gameplan, we can completely ignore the huge number of people who enter a game thinking nothing but “I’m going to make a forge right away so I can get a cannon up in case he zergling rushes me.”
When we encounter a decision by Blizzard that impacts us ‘negatively,’ we also need to think about the people who are being affected ‘positively’ and how their experience playing this game is going to change.
Overall takeaway
I have a lot of respect for sluggaslamoo, who took the time to voice the opinions of many community members. Specifically opnions regarding how Blizzard is out of touch with its player base via poor communication and decision making, even though they think they are right next to us, hwaiting all the way. Although I disagree with him whole-heartedly, I agree that the overall experience TL’ers have expressed, the feelings and emotions they have felt, over the past few months is that whatever Blizzard hands them is 50% treasure, 50% trash.
I think this is a mindset problem, however. We need to realize that what we as reflective, competitive gamers define as trash is really treasure for a gigantic number of ‘casual’, one-game-a-day players. They have extremely different needs than we do, and it is something Blizzard owes to everyone who pays them to play their game to provide the best experience possible. They have a duty to systemically support all of their user bases as they continue to design and implement two more expansions.
Thanks for this answer, it is well written and thought-out. Putting it in OP, I think that it would be unfair not to, even if I kind of disagree.
EDIT: And here is my answer
Although this answers the unexpected changes, the willingness to side-track and "share their knowledge of the game" rather than respond to the answer is not something that can be explained through logic, but more or less psychology and attitude.
Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored. So what was the purpose of the interview in the first place?
I believe this is part of the problem. If you look at the poll released by BattleNet, the majority found destructible rocks as "They're annoying. I'd rather focus on the battle than watch rocks, and I don't like losing games because of a map that changes". So then if Blizzard needs to cater to the casuals as well, why were destructible rocks put on Tal Darim?
Catering to the casuals is also unnecessary. I have many friends that are extremely casual SC2 players. Will not play 1v1, will only do team mono-battles or starjeweled and left 2 die, to the one game a day semi-competitive players. Although your point addresses the thinking behind blizzard rather than what you actually desire.
I know, these guys would not care if there were a change in maps, units, etc. If units got harder, they would just use different ones that were easy to use (e.g lots of zerglings/hydras like beginners in BW).
The higher you go, the more changes have an effect. And when part of SC2's longevity is banking on televised games like BW, then I think this is quite important.
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win.
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is.
Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability.
Micro would be kiting marines.
Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro.
Harvesting is micro? What?
Given the nature of the question Browder was answering, what he said came off as ignorant. If you're going to talk about how micro can change a matchup between two units, you should say "a banshee can kite marines and kill a whole group of them" not "banshees can cloak". You shouldn't say a stalker can beat a marauder, that's doesn't even make sense... you can't use blink to help you kill a marauder.
Those are the two examples he brought up and they both show a lack of basic understanding.
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win.
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is.
Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability.
Micro would be kiting marines.
Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro.
What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not.
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win.
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is.
Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability.
Micro would be kiting marines.
Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro.
What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not.
correct. he was taking the definition of "Unit Management" too literal :l and can a blink stalker really outmicro a marauder on flatgrounds? o_o..
On June 13 2011 12:45 mrtomjones wrote: Whiner topic.... I think colossus are one of the cooler units and I like roaches and think they suit the zerg very well.
I dont understand Roach hate but Colossi make TvP retarded beyond belief (Vikings.. r u 4 rela)
ALSO, Browder saying SC2 counters are not as terrible as BW? ?????? ?????? what the fuck
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win.
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is.
Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability.
Micro would be kiting marines.
Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro.
What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not.
I did not say just "using abilities". I said using abilities is a part of micro. Anything you do with your units is micro. Moving units? Micro. Positioning your units, sieging up your tanks at a specific location? Micro. Banshee harrass including pressing the c button to cloak at the right moment, and uncloak when leaving? Micro. HuK's hero probe and mineral harrass? Micro. The harvesting part is perhaps not very difficult to perform, but ordering your probe to specific mineral patches so the patches closest to your nexus are harvested first with 2 probes (overriding the probe ai so it does not select a different patch which could be farther away) is micro.
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win.
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is.
Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability.
Micro would be kiting marines.
Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro.
What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not.
correct. he was taking the definition of "Unit Management" too literal :l
No, I disagree. It is not too literal, every nuisance you can do with your unit is micro. It doesn't have to be hard, but remembering to actually cloak at specific moments and remembering to uncloak to save energy (which alot of people forget to do) is microing.
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win.
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is.
Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability.
Micro would be kiting marines.
Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro.
What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not.
correct. he was taking the definition of "Unit Management" too literal :l
No, I disagree. It is not too literal, every nuisance you can do with your unit is micro. It doesn't have to be hard, but remembering to actually cloak at specific moments and remembering to uncloak to save energy (which alot of people forget to do) is microing.
On June 13 2011 12:22 bovineblitz wrote: Honestly the most disturbing thing to me is that Browder thinks a blink stalker can outmicro a marauder and win.
Second most is that he seems to think pressing "c" to cloak a banshee is micro.
Wtf is that?
It IS micro. Pressing A to build a marine is macro. He stated the obvious, but now I'm not so sure how obvious it is.
Cloak isn't micro, it's an ability.
Micro would be kiting marines.
Using abilities is micro. It is what you do with your units. Sieging up is micro, blink is micro, using PDD is micro, hell, even harvesting is micro.
What you've defined is the technical definition, which holds almost no significance over the coined and more used/accepted definition that does NOT include just "using abilities" such as siege and cloak. If I had to speak for most people, micro would be the movement of units in order to gain a better, positional advantage. The key difference is the ability's function to gain a positional advantage, which is what Blink does and siege/cloak/harvesting arguably do not.
I did not say just "using abilities". I said using abilities is a part of micro. Anything you do with your units is micro. Moving units? Micro. Positioning your units, sieging up your tanks at a specific location? Micro. Banshee harrass including pressing the c button to cloak at the right moment, and uncloak when leaving? Micro. HuK's hero probe and mineral harrass? Micro. The harvesting part is perhaps not very difficult to perform, but ordering your probe to specific mineral patches so the patches closest to your nexus are harvested first with 2 probes (overriding the probe ai so it does not select a different patch which could be farther away) is micro.
I don't think you understand. It was the fact he answered a question, by making up an answer, rather than saying something he actually knows. This is also a problem because in in-house development, you can't have some guy just making stuff up. Otherwise you will get patches like "Added blink to stalker to help make them more effective against Marauders".
This is why understanding the game and listening to the community is so important. Its so they don't make mistakes like these.
Edit: Updated the OP with the question instead. Even if Browder segwayed into talking about micro encounters, I hope this clears any confusion.
On June 13 2011 07:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: People overidealise BW while completely failing to realise starcraft 1 had terrible balance when it was first released; think the beginning of starcraft 2 and multiply it by a 1000. The reason it turned into what BW is now is because of blizzards hard work and dedication over more than 10 years, yet the same people are so quick to dismiss the balance in starcraft 2 after less than a year and before any expansion has been released. Seriously, people, rome wasn't build in a day; SC:BW sure as hell wasn't balanced/super awesome at the start and neither is SC2, but if you think blizzard will suddenly give up on SC2 (like they've never done on any of their games, there is no reason at all to think that) you're just wrong. The main thing that sucks from the transition from SC1 to SC2 is the people; everyone has turned into whiny, demanding and over-entitled people. You are what's wrong with SC2.
And you have no clue what you are talking about.
BW is balanced primarily because of the maps the community made along with the interesting micro quirks the game engine provides.
Do not give Blizzard credit it does not deserve, it does a horrible disservice to the hard work the community put into the game.
This argument is also old as hell and has no real bearing. You learn things from balancing something for "over 10 years." As untrue as this actually is Blizzard should have a far more balanced game than it does now. Or maybe listen to the community some more because it's been proven the high tier gamers actually know how to fix the game better than the devs do most of the time.
I'm not trying to argue what micro is, that's derailing my point. I was saying that his answer to the question is disconcerting, his examples of micro are very poor choices.
Apart from balance, the situation where one unit counters another unit is quite serious. This makes it very hard to stage a comeback in games. In Starcraft 1, players could make comebacks through the use of various strategies or through some other means. However, it is very difficult to do make combacks in Starcraft 2. What do you think about this issue?
Dustin : That is actually not the case. This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
I've watched quite a number of tournaments. We have lots of situations where player A wins the first game, and player B comes back to win the second game. Within the games themselves, we also see the advantage keep swinging from one player to another. This shows that the state of Starcraft 2 is not that one sided. Perhaps, the situation in these tournaments are not completely accurate, but from what I see now in the top tournaments, unit counters are actually quite relative. (T/N : I have a feeling this paragraph was translated pretty badly, but I translated it to the best of my abilities. If anyone can do a better job with this question, please don't be shy to contribute.)
For example, let's look at a situation where we have banelings fighting against marines. If they were to just clash against each other without any micro, the banelings will definitely kill off a lot of marines. However, if the marines have stim, I believe you can use micro to come out ahead in the engagement. Let's look at another situation, where we have banshees against marines. In a straight up fight, the marines will definitely win the fight. Yet, if the banshee has cloak, the situation would be different. Let's look at yet another situation, marauders against stalkers. If both sides a-move, clearly the marauder will win. However, if the stalker has blink, and uses blink well, the situation might turn out different as well.
On June 13 2011 13:09 bovineblitz wrote: I'm not trying to argue what micro is, that's derailing my point. I was saying that his answer to the question is disconcerting, his examples of micro are very poor choices.
Apart from balance, the situation where one unit counters another unit is quite serious. This makes it very hard to stage a comeback in games. In Starcraft 1, players could make comebacks through the use of various strategies or through some other means. However, it is very difficult to do make combacks in Starcraft 2. What do you think about this issue?
Dustin : That is actually not the case. This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
I've watched quite a number of tournaments. We have lots of situations where player A wins the first game, and player B comes back to win the second game. Within the games themselves, we also see the advantage keep swinging from one player to another. This shows that the state of Starcraft 2 is not that one sided. Perhaps, the situation in these tournaments are not completely accurate, but from what I see now in the top tournaments, unit counters are actually quite relative. (T/N : I have a feeling this paragraph was translated pretty badly, but I translated it to the best of my abilities. If anyone can do a better job with this question, please don't be shy to contribute.)
For example, let's look at a situation where we have banelings fighting against marines. If they were to just clash against each other without any micro, the banelings will definitely kill off a lot of marines. However, if the marines have stim, I believe you can use micro to come out ahead in the engagement. Let's look at another situation, where we have banshees against marines. In a straight up fight, the marines will definitely win the fight. Yet, if the banshee has cloak, the situation would be different. Let's look at yet another situation, marauders against stalkers. If both sides a-move, clearly the marauder will win. However, if the stalker has blink, and uses blink well, the situation might turn out different as well.
It makes you wonder if they even watched a replay or VOD and was high when he casted those Dayvie games before the game was released
Anyways, you could further argue that the Terran will need to position (and therefore micro) his marines along with Scans to take out Cloak banshees or prevent harassment.
On June 13 2011 13:09 bovineblitz wrote: I'm not trying to argue what micro is, that's derailing my point. I was saying that his answer to the question is disconcerting, his examples of micro are very poor choices.
Apart from balance, the situation where one unit counters another unit is quite serious. This makes it very hard to stage a comeback in games. In Starcraft 1, players could make comebacks through the use of various strategies or through some other means. However, it is very difficult to do make combacks in Starcraft 2. What do you think about this issue?
Dustin : That is actually not the case. This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
I've watched quite a number of tournaments. We have lots of situations where player A wins the first game, and player B comes back to win the second game. Within the games themselves, we also see the advantage keep swinging from one player to another. This shows that the state of Starcraft 2 is not that one sided. Perhaps, the situation in these tournaments are not completely accurate, but from what I see now in the top tournaments, unit counters are actually quite relative. (T/N : I have a feeling this paragraph was translated pretty badly, but I translated it to the best of my abilities. If anyone can do a better job with this question, please don't be shy to contribute.)
For example, let's look at a situation where we have banelings fighting against marines. If they were to just clash against each other without any micro, the banelings will definitely kill off a lot of marines. However, if the marines have stim, I believe you can use micro to come out ahead in the engagement. Let's look at another situation, where we have banshees against marines. In a straight up fight, the marines will definitely win the fight. Yet, if the banshee has cloak, the situation would be different. Let's look at yet another situation, marauders against stalkers. If both sides a-move, clearly the marauder will win. However, if the stalker has blink, and uses blink well, the situation might turn out different as well.
Sorry for the derailing. I agree with your outlines, those examples were poor.
I was watching ProLeague last night and the game was Bisu vs. Action. Protoss felt more inspired to play than it is today. Bisu would make shuttle with speed, corsairs, reavers, dark templars. Protoss in SC2 feels stagnant and linear. I love White-ra trying to integrate Void Prisms, but overall I don't feel inspired when I see Protoss. Perhaps I am biased.
Blizzard designers are too much in love with their rushes and the excuse of doing it for the Bronze leaguers so they learn to play witht that is just as fake as it gets, because Bronze league players will probably downvote these maps. Steppes of War was just such an example. The reason why rushes dont work well for SC2 is that the game is too volatile and the extremes between "macro build" and "rush build" are too great when it comes to the number of units. Thus rushes are too powerful on maps designed for them, but have an acceptable risk on maps which are large.
Lets just wait and see what is coming with the next change in maps for the ladder ... being a pessimist I dont think it will be free of close spawns.
On June 13 2011 06:58 Ubes wrote: Too many people want SC1 part 2. This is SC2 a different game.
If SC2 wants to ride on Starcraft's competitive success, it can't fling 'different game' at every critique.
Most of the points brought up are not critiquing SC2, they're trying to make it like SC1.
And this is bad?
There are a very few "structural improvements" which kinda break SC2 compared to SC1: 1. The macro mechanics speed up the game by giving more resources faster. This makes rushes more (too?) powerful and the whole game more volatile. 2. The perfect movement AI (plus unlimited unit selection) of SC2 gives attacking armies a maximum density and thus a maximum dps per attacking square. This requires perfect balancing of units, while the imperfect movement AI of SC1 made this attacking dps density much less and thus it wasnt as important if a siege Tank or Psi Storm or Reaver shot was totally IMBA, because they didnt kill the whole enemy army in one shot.
Using the most convenient and best programming for the game doesnt actually help making it easier to balance / play. Thus the comparisons to SC1 - as being the great game it is - are totally valid. Sadly some people at Blizzard dont think that way and they are still in their "lets have more explosions and units and stuff, because that will make the game better"-mode of too many action movies. Well, more explosions and stuff dont automatically make the game better ...
This thread has a lot of content, but not much substance.
Most of the OP's points are moot or, highly debatable or plain wrong.
Blizzard are not "out of touch". They aren't perfect, but they need to keep their interference in the game to a minimum far more critically than making changes based off community trends.
Stop asking Blizzard to fix the game and learn to play it as it is!
I'd be happy if they didn't patch anything until the expansion - the game hasn't been explored 10%. Every month the "OP" race changes without balance or maps changes; just metagame shifts.
Maps don't make a the determining difference till the race's strategies have been fully explored - this is what we learned from BW. So maps are fundamentally irrelevant until there have been no balance changes for at least 12 months.
As for the units - their suggested changes are excellent. The overseer and immortal are uninteresting units. They don't do anything dynamic to the game. The units people are choosing as 'uninteresting' are simply balance whining in a different form. Colossus UNINTERESTING?? BS. They are fascinating units. Aoe, massive, cliff-walking. ranged, vulnerable to air...so many mechanics in one unit. Amazing. Balanced? Who knows. They may make the GAME uninteresting because they're strong, but that's a different issue to being a boring UNIT.
No, the colossus is boring. It has vulnerabilities no doubt, but the general way to use this unit is to a-move and then move it back when enemy units come forward to attack it. There is no point doing anything else with the colossus. Even if you tried to do it differently, nothing will come out of it.
Blizzard is out of touch with BW and how it became an e-sport. SC2 has the most of what I like to call "generic ranged units" that are just meant to be massed and attack.
On June 13 2011 14:28 shadymmj wrote: No, the colossus is boring. It has vulnerabilities no doubt, but the general way to use this unit is to a-move and then move it back when enemy units come forward to attack it. There is no point doing anything else with the colossus. Even if you tried to do it differently, nothing will come out of it.
Blizzard is out of touch with BW and how it became an e-sport. SC2 has the most of what I like to call "generic ranged units" that are just meant to be massed and attack.
These units dominate every matchup for the most part. It gives very little racial identity.
These boring units exist but Zerg has banelings with burrow, roach burrow, infestors with burrow. Terran has marines, tanks, medivacs to micro. Protoss has blink stalkers, forcefield, phoenixes, chargelots, HT/DT
All these things are highly microable and make for very, very interesting games.
If you think Protoss is boring watch HuK play, I dont even play toss but I have the biggest man-boner for HuKs play.
If you think Zerg is boring watch Sen Baneling bomb the shit out of everything.
If you think Terran is boring, were not playing the same game.
complexity kills a game... i love the supply cap...too much to do with too many units really scares potential players from testing out and being able to participate.
smart AI pathing would help a lot of newer players out
proposal: 1) have the option for continuous production out of a building 2) have options to scale priority for continuous production either by which building was built first or for the player to choose (50 minerals to a worker, next 50 minerals to marine) no queue 3) have smarter AI micro (i like the baneling unburrow autocast) i would also love to see spell-casters shoot spells on auto-cast (i would also love queens to inject larvae or be given the option to keep her energy low by spreading creep and for creep tumors to spread automatically after being given a general direction.)
EDIT: I think I like the way the game is right now. It works - best not screw it up.
On June 13 2011 14:28 shadymmj wrote: No, the colossus is boring. It has vulnerabilities no doubt, but the general way to use this unit is to a-move and then move it back when enemy units come forward to attack it. There is no point doing anything else with the colossus. Even if you tried to do it differently, nothing will come out of it.
Blizzard is out of touch with BW and how it became an e-sport. SC2 has the most of what I like to call "generic ranged units" that are just meant to be massed and attack.
These units dominate every matchup for the most part. It gives very little racial identity.
These boring units exist but Zerg has banelings with burrow, roach burrow, infestors with burrow. Terran has marines, tanks, medivacs to micro. Protoss has blink stalkers, forcefield, phoenixes, chargelots, HT/DT
All these things are highly microable and make for very, very interesting games.
If you think Protoss is boring watch HuK play, I dont even play toss but I have the biggest man-boner for HuKs play.
If you think Zerg is boring watch Sen Baneling bomb the shit out of everything.
If you think Terran is boring, were not playing the same game.
The problem with said units aren't that they are generic a-click units. The problem is that you can't make a bigger use of said units by microing. (most of them at least)
You can't do anything with roaches besides A-Click. There aren't any ability for zergs to make the roaches more useful than A-Click. There isn't a sinergy to make the unit better. The same goes for the hydra for instance.
What Sc2 is lacking is units that support each other and make them more powerful in the right hands, OR give units a unique ability that gives the better played a tool to make the unit more efficient.
For instance a stalker. A-clicking them is shit. If you have blink and blink back the wounded ones, they get more efficient. It's something for the eye and gives the player a chance to outplay the opponent with micro.
The other choice is by supplementing an unit to make it more efficient. For instance Marine Tank. The marine on itself is a great unit and deals great damage on its own. But it gets even more deadlier and better with the right support unit that improve their efficiency through right usage.
Sadly, Sc2 lacks such combination. Broodwar for example had many of them, either by positioning and unit micro, or with spells. Vultures / Tanks, lurker / defiler, shuttle / reaver and there are many more.
Sc2 should aim for more of those. They need to creature dynamics between units. The roach doesn't have any synergy with any zerg unit, the same goes for the hydra. There is no way to make the roach more efficient. And that's why people think they are bad units. Maybe they are overall bad, but maybe if something right was added, they could become interesting.
On June 13 2011 14:28 shadymmj wrote: No, the colossus is boring. It has vulnerabilities no doubt, but the general way to use this unit is to a-move and then move it back when enemy units come forward to attack it. There is no point doing anything else with the colossus. Even if you tried to do it differently, nothing will come out of it.
Blizzard is out of touch with BW and how it became an e-sport. SC2 has the most of what I like to call "generic ranged units" that are just meant to be massed and attack.
These units dominate every matchup for the most part. It gives very little racial identity.
These boring units exist but Zerg has banelings with burrow, roach burrow, infestors with burrow. Terran has marines, tanks, medivacs to micro. Protoss has blink stalkers, forcefield, phoenixes, chargelots, HT/DT
All these things are highly microable and make for very, very interesting games.
If you think Protoss is boring watch HuK play, I dont even play toss but I have the biggest man-boner for HuKs play.
If you think Zerg is boring watch Sen Baneling bomb the shit out of everything.
If you think Terran is boring, were not playing the same game.
The problem with said units aren't that they are generic a-click units. The problem is that you can't make a bigger use of said units by microing. (most of them at least)
You can't do anything with roaches besides A-Click. There aren't any ability for zergs to make the roaches more useful than A-Click. There isn't a sinergy to make the unit better. The same goes for the hydra for instance.
What Sc2 is lacking is units that support each other and make them more powerful in the right hands, OR give units a unique ability that gives the better played a tool to make the unit more efficient.
For instance a stalker. A-clicking them is shit. If you have blink and blink back the wounded ones, they get more efficient. It's something for the eye and gives the player a chance to outplay the opponent with micro.
The other choice is by supplementing an unit to make it more efficient. For instance Marine Tank. The marine on itself is a great unit and deals great damage on its own. But it gets even more deadlier and better with the right support unit that improve their efficiency through right usage.
Sadly, Sc2 lacks such combination. Broodwar for example had many of them, either by positioning and unit micro, or with spells. Vultures / Tanks, lurker / defiler, shuttle / reaver and there are many more.
Sc2 should aim for more of those. They need to creature dynamics between units. The roach doesn't have any synergy with any zerg unit, the same goes for the hydra. There is no way to make the roach more efficient. And that's why people think they are bad units. Maybe they are overall bad, but maybe if something right was added, they could become interesting.
roach infestor synergy not as good as lurker/defiler, but synergy none-the-less
actually i agree with you... sc2 is a bit like macro vs macro...who can get more units and A-move with the best concave...however, what could you propose?
i see some synergy such as zealot/sentry collosus/stalker infestor really synergizes well with anything i love marine/medivac/scv...honestly funny to be building mass bunkers with a good spread of stimmed marines (great for 3v3 games...don't try in 1v1s lol)
SC2 is a great game and all that, but the skill level required to compete at the top in BW compared to SC2 doesn't even... it's not.. it just.. it isn't the same.
When I played BW I was always so incredibly amazed by all the little things players were doing in the game, it didn't matter that the engine was outdated or anything like that, just the sheer amount of things going on at once was incredible, compared to how I played at the time and what I could do compared to them.
I remember seeing a game just a while ago on Grubby's stream where he hadn't gone for some cheesy deathball, and the zerg he was playing against was counterattacking with lings at all four of his bases at once, and it was amazing and great to watch, which is what made BW so great as an esport (and still does).
I wish Blizzard would move away from the 200/200 clustered armies, and the 6 gate all-ins and aim for a happy medium like in BW whilst having a huge emphasis on unit control.
Zerg at the moment is almost completely 1a2a3a in SC2, and it's kinda disappointing, I would love to see units that require more micro, especially for Zerg. Terran already have stutter-step and Protoss already have blink and forcefield - which isn't really micro, but at least you're participating in the fight and not just watching after a-moving.
I dunno, seeing players that are painfully average (getting supply blocked LITERALLY every 20 supply) who are in grandmasters is just heartbreaking because they can 1a2a and win with cheese and poorly built all-ins, knowing that they would be in D+ on iccup.
On June 13 2011 07:24 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: People overidealise BW while completely failing to realise starcraft 1 had terrible balance when it was first released; think the beginning of starcraft 2 and multiply it by a 1000. The reason it turned into what BW is now is because of blizzards hard work and dedication over more than 10 years, yet the same people are so quick to dismiss the balance in starcraft 2 after less than a year and before any expansion has been released. Seriously, people, rome wasn't build in a day; SC:BW sure as hell wasn't balanced/super awesome at the start and neither is SC2, but if you think blizzard will suddenly give up on SC2 (like they've never done on any of their games, there is no reason at all to think that) you're just wrong. The main thing that sucks from the transition from SC1 to SC2 is the people; everyone has turned into whiny, demanding and over-entitled people. You are what's wrong with SC2.
Sorry? Blizzard didn't make ANY balance patch on SC1 for 10 years. 1.08 being the very last balance patch. They indeed neglected BW completely afterwards, letting hackers run rampant so the community had to find a solution by creating its own ladders and maps.
BW was balanced and carried on through the community, NOT blizzard.
So true, and I think the same needs to happen for SC2. I think the community needs to take over at some point, and implement changes for the good of the sport. We have pros and great modders in the community, and everything to make something like this happen. However the obvious downside is splitting the community, and lack of decent ladder. Not to mention that a good time would have to pass before people even accept it. There would be no money in it for a while and it would have to compete with the mainstream SC2........... so yeah.... no go :/ lol
I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already... but those are just horrible polls. Nevermind the bias inherent with the fact that internet polls are only answered by a certain cross section of people that play the game, but the way it's set up is just horrible. Have three different polls that between all the polls contain every unit in the game, and just ask for us to pick for the most uninteresting/boring unit in the mix. Then at a later date create a new poll made up of only those units, and nevermind this "first most / second most / third most" stuff. (btw, what's the medivac doing on this list???)
Anyway... cool thread.
I've always personally felt that SC2 could use more opportunities for micro in its units, and probably less hard countering (as was mentioned), so I'm hoping Heart of Swarm will bring that.
Of course, if Heart of Swarm returns lurkers (which I suspect it will, just because there's such a large fan demand), the game will change a TON to make room for them (unless they're implemented to be largely useless, e.g. tier 3)... so it will be interesting to see where HoS leads us. If Blizzard still can't bring the game up to BW levels, then I think that will be enough proof to show that Blizzard /should/ listen to the community more, and do so for Legacy of the Void (as is, I'd say it's still hard to tell... but it's hard to deny that Blizzard does seem to know very little about their own game at times).
I banned myself after reading that load of hooey. You seem only interested in self promotion and making a long post and a long thread. Not very interesting....next. See you in a week TL and I hope they delete this thread by then or its gone.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
First off - No one cares. Secondly - Posting flammatory crap like this adds nothing but tension and hate between fans of either game.
Edit: Oh after reading your blog i see you're still in high school. Guess kids will be kids...
What crawled up your ass?
Stupid people posting worthless content that only incites drama.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
First off - No one cares. Secondly - Posting flammatory crap like this adds nothing but tension and hate between fans of either game.
Edit: Oh after reading your blog i see you're still in high school. Guess kids will be kids...
You know, the fact that you actually went to the trouble of searching his blog for personal attack ammo is kind of pathetic. :/
I usually check blogs or previous posts from people who post trash. Saw that this guy is in high school and it fit perfectly with his lack of insight and worthless addition to this thread.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
First off - No one cares. Secondly - Posting flammatory crap like this adds nothing but tension and hate between fans of either game.
Edit: Oh after reading your blog i see you're still in high school. Guess kids will be kids...
What crawled up your ass?
Stupid people posting worthless content that only incites drama.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
First off - No one cares. Secondly - Posting flammatory crap like this adds nothing but tension and hate between fans of either game.
Edit: Oh after reading your blog i see you're still in high school. Guess kids will be kids...
You know, the fact that you actually went to the trouble of searching his blog for personal attack ammo is kind of pathetic. :/
I usually check blogs or previous posts from people who post trash. Saw that this guy is in high school and it fit perfectly with his lack of insight and worthless addition to this thread.
lol I'm sure my posts are all trash to you and maybe I should've just kept my mouth shut. I don't really understand though why what I said disturbs you so much. I wasn't trying to be mean, just express that SC2 is in a situation right now in which there is a lot of concerns over balance and enjoyability and such and I feel relieved that when I play and watch BW I don't have to worry about those said concerns. Also, wtf is wrong with me being in highschool? I didn't know that TL had an age cut off. ALSO! I did a bit of research of my own into your posting history, and its not too clean either. If you search just the term "BW" through your posts, you will see that almost everyone of your posts regarding "BW" are in a negative or demeaning reference.
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
First off - No one cares. Secondly - Posting flammatory crap like this adds nothing but tension and hate between fans of either game.
Edit: Oh after reading your blog i see you're still in high school. Guess kids will be kids...
What crawled up your ass?
Stupid people posting worthless content that only incites drama.
On June 13 2011 06:25 Toadvine wrote:
On June 13 2011 05:58 karpo wrote:
On June 13 2011 05:55 IamBach wrote: I am just happy I gave up on SC2 long, long ago. Now I only have to look on and congratulate myself for playing BW.
First off - No one cares. Secondly - Posting flammatory crap like this adds nothing but tension and hate between fans of either game.
Edit: Oh after reading your blog i see you're still in high school. Guess kids will be kids...
You know, the fact that you actually went to the trouble of searching his blog for personal attack ammo is kind of pathetic. :/
I usually check blogs or previous posts from people who post trash. Saw that this guy is in high school and it fit perfectly with his lack of insight and worthless addition to this thread.
lol I'm sure my posts are all trash to you and maybe I should've just kept my mouth shut. I don't really understand though why what I said disturbs you so much. I wasn't trying to be mean, just express that SC2 is in a situation right now in which there is a lot of concerns over balance and enjoyability and such and I feel relieved that when I play and watch BW I don't have to worry about those said concerns. Also, wtf is wrong with me being in highschool? I didn't know that TL had an age cut off. ALSO! I did a bit of research of my own into your posting history, and its not too clean either. If you search just the term "BW" through your posts, you will see that almost everyone of your posts regarding "BW" are in a negative or demeaning reference.
Posting a 2 sentence text that has no content or worth is trash to me. Replace SC2 and BW in your post and it could be about anything. If you feel like it's more worthwhile to watch BW due to it being less affected by balance changes and "lack" of playability then write it down. Don't just post a meningless two sentence reply.
I might have crossed the line with the whole "kid" thing and i apologize. As for my posts, i feel like i provide a thought out argument if i criticise stuff in BW.
On June 13 2011 03:25 theburricane wrote: Design is hard
Designing stuff is hard. Designing games is hard, designing thermostats is hard, designing web sites is hard. I think all of us will generally agree that this stuff is hard. But many people don’t know why it’s hard.
One of the reasons designing stuff is so hard is because there are no solutions to any problems, at least not in a larger, systemic view.
“But theburricane! What about chat channels at release? That seems like a pretty simple freakin’ thing to include that everybody and their dog wanted!”
Fair enough, if Blizz had included chat channels at release that would have solved the “have chat channels at release problem”. But if they had spent time on chat channels, something else would have had to fall off the radar. Maybe we would have had no Achievements.
“Pffft. Those are unimportant to competitive play.”
Perhaps we would have had no FFA matchmaking.
“Again, how does that affect the serious gamers?”
Maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps we wouldn’t have had the RealID friend system when the game launched.
“You mean facebook integration? Guffaw. Puh-lease.”
But you see the point? Design is not about solving problems, because those solutions will invariably cause problems elsewhere. Design is about making conscious tradeoffs to address the problems that are most impactful, and address them at the appropriate time.
Takeaway 1
I’m not saying “hey man, lay off Blizzard they’re tryin’ real hard here!” They are, but that’s no reason to lay off them. We simply have to sit down and ask, “Why is Blizzard making/not making this change at this time?” I guarantee you the answer is not because they have “bad communication”, are “blinded by their own pride”, or are “[fascinated] with ’meat shield units’.”.
Blizzard’s “bad communication”
It is easy to interpret good user research as bad communication. Research participants will make suggestions, “I think you should do X here”, but when they see the finished/updated product, their suggestions won’t be included. The designers will have implemented something that addresses that problem in a different way, and all the participant can see is “Well this solution doesn’t fix everything mine did! Why didn’t they go with what I had suggested?”
An example: Everybody and their dog says to Blizzard, “You really need to change your maps. Seriously, Steppes of War? Seriously?!” So Blizzard begins to add new maps into their map pool, and look to community feedback as to what maps they would like to see. “GSL maps, of course!” But when we finally get Tal’Darim Altar, it’s got a bunch of destructible rocks and giant chokes and crap.
“That’s not what we suggested! This doesn’t solve the problem. Look at LSPrime, he even gave them reasons why they shouldn’t do what they did. And they still did it. That’s aggravating.” (Of course, what LSPrime was arguing for, the imbalance achieved by a 3rd base with 8 minerals 2 gas, is something that will go unfelt by everyone up to very tippy-top of Masters League. How many of us have honestly thought to ourselves, “The third has 8 minerals?! Great, that means I can run Plexa’s Shock and Awe build more effectively once I take it!”, or something similar?)
However, from Blizzard’s perspective they are making balancing their solution so that it applies positively to every group. To simplify it, “We are giving the ‘competitive’ players larger maps, and we are giving the ‘casual’ players maps that limit their options enough to suggest clear goals.”
Takeaway 2
Think systemically when you encounter a solution different from the one you’ve proposed. Chances are either ‘solves’ the problem in an entirely different way, or it solves problems you didn’t even know existed.
Know your audience
It is very easy for us at teamliquid to labor under the misapprehension that we make up the majority of the SC2 community. Or that we + the reddit community are the majority. Or that we + all the online SC2 communities are the majority of SC2 players. But the truth is if you walked up to every SC2 player individually and said, “My opening build order is 10 depot, 12 rax, 13 gas” more than half would respond, “Why do you build 10 depots? Don’t you just have one SCV building depots the whole game?”
Most SC2 players lack even the basic vocabulary that we as a competitive community have developed as a tool to help us think critically and reflectively about the way we play. Most SC2 players don’t know why Steppes of War was removed, unless they’ve read the Blizzard Situation Report explaining why. They probably had no idea it was blacklisted by thousands of people.
Blizzard has the daunting, grizzling task of designing a product that meets the expectations and needs of an infinitely large and diverse user group. All designs suffer from this requirement to varying extent, but Blizzard in particular has a very polar user base. Bronze league 4v4ers versus Grandmasters 1v1 Rank 1.
Takeaway 3
When Blizzard designs for their broader user base, it feels like they are not listening to their competitive, online communities. Because we live in our dream world where everyone has a finely-crafted opening BO, aggressive yet thoughtful 3rd base timing, and over-arching gameplan, we can completely ignore the huge number of people who enter a game thinking nothing but “I’m going to make a forge right away so I can get a cannon up in case he zergling rushes me.”
When we encounter a decision by Blizzard that impacts us ‘negatively,’ we also need to think about the people who are being affected ‘positively’ and how their experience playing this game is going to change.
Overall takeaway
I have a lot of respect for sluggaslamoo, who took the time to voice the opinions of many community members. Specifically opnions regarding how Blizzard is out of touch with its player base via poor communication and decision making, even though they think they are right next to us, hwaiting all the way. Although I disagree with him whole-heartedly, I agree that the overall experience TL’ers have expressed, the feelings and emotions they have felt, over the past few months is that whatever Blizzard hands them is 50% treasure, 50% trash.
I think this is a mindset problem, however. We need to realize that what we as reflective, competitive gamers define as trash is really treasure for a gigantic number of ‘casual’, one-game-a-day players. They have extremely different needs than we do, and it is something Blizzard owes to everyone who pays them to play their game to provide the best experience possible. They have a duty to systemically support all of their user bases as they continue to design and implement two more expansions.
Thanks for this answer, it is well written and thought-out. Putting it in OP, I think that it would be unfair not to, even if I kind of disagree.
EDIT: And here is my answer
Although this answers the unexpected changes, the willingness to side-track and "share their knowledge of the game" rather than respond to the answer is not something that can be explained through logic, but more or less psychology and attitude.
Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored. So what was the purpose of the interview in the first place?
I believe this is part of the problem. If you look at the poll released by BattleNet, the majority found destructible rocks as "They're annoying. I'd rather focus on the battle than watch rocks, and I don't like losing games because of a map that changes". So then if Blizzard needs to cater to the casuals as well, why were destructible rocks put on Tal Darim?
Catering to the casuals is also unnecessary. I have many friends that are extremely casual SC2 players. Will not play 1v1, will only do team mono-battles or starjeweled and left 2 die, to the one game a day semi-competitive players. Although your point addresses the thinking behind blizzard rather than what you actually desire.
I know, these guys would not care if there were a change in maps, units, etc. If units got harder, they would just use different ones that were easy to use (e.g lots of zerglings/hydras like beginners in BW).
The higher you go, the more changes have an effect. And when part of SC2's longevity is banking on televised games like BW, then I think this is quite important.
Wow, thanks for adding my post to the OP. It means a lot to me. ☺
I agree with part of your. I like the idea of “going back to BW” for someone who doesn’t like SC2, just as I like the idea of someone going back to soccer if they find out they can’t get into basketball. But I agree it’s a really crappy way to defend a burgeoning design, especially when the issue you’re dealing with is the experience of a large group of people who have invested a lot of time, money, and effort into something new.
You’re right about the poll, 39% said destructible rocks suck, while only 11% said they’re great. However, 28% said they think “a changing map makes the game more interesting.” While I think “changing map” is a loaded term, the sentiment behind the answer is positive. The other 21% left gave a neutral answer. So 39% of people don’t like it and 61% are either neutral or like it. Not great, but not wretched either. If the poll appeared on TL I’m sure it would be much more heavily skewed towards the “rocks get out” side of the fence. (I’ve got a lot more problems with how that poll was designed, from a user research perspective, but I think that’s for another discussion.)
Even the idea that BattleNet is the forum of the unwashed masses is a fallacy. The bridge between the ‘casual’ players and those who visit BattleNet regularly is very wide. To be frank, I don’t have the numbers to back this up. I can’t tell you how many players are ‘casual’, how many are ‘semi-casual’, or anything like that. But I can tell you that it is a very regular phenomenon for the majority of users’/players’ experience with a product/game to end with their actual interaction with it.
People who love to play (American) football don’t necessarily contribute to the NFL fan forums. People who love playing games on their PS3s don’t necessarily contribute to the PlayStation community forums. People who love Call of Duty: Black Ops as a series don’t necessarily contribute to the official CoD forums. Hell, most people who play World of WarCraft don’t regularly visit and contribute to the WoW forums.
Therefore it stands to reason that a very large amount of SC2 players will have little to no interaction with even BattleNet, the “dregs” of the SC2 community. And part of supporting those people, from Blizzard’s standpoint at least, is transitioning them from very casual players to people who are invested in the game and the community.
If I were given the task of reverse-engineering Blizzard’s design choices on the matter I would say that the point of adding destructible rocks to these maps isn’t to make maps easier to digest for the lower-end players, it’s to make them question the choices they make in any game. Back when BW started, the idea of expanding was nuts. Like, why would you make a new base before your current base was mined out, wouldn’t that just keep you from building more units now? It was actually a stroke of inspiration that allowed someone to come up with the idea of a “fast expansion.” Things like Xel’Naga watchtowers and destructible rocks are there to facilitate that kind of inspiration in players whose SC2 experience only extends to what they and their bronze level opponents do.
Which brings us to what I believe is your most valid point. “SC2’s longevity is directly tied to the ‘high-level’, the televised games.” But I also believe that it’s tied to another thing: supporting the development of the casual base over the X years it takes for the expansions to come out, not only in terms of unit sales, but also in terms of getting the casual base to transition to consumers of the ‘high-level’, of the televised games. So what we should do is ask, “Do we think Blizzard’s current strategy is supporting both of these goals in the long-term?”
The easy answer is “No, we are seeing detrimental affects to the highest levels of play. Unless competitive play is completely balanced and supported by Blizzard, we shall not rest.” The hard answer is identifying where we’re willing to surrender to the ‘casuals’, and where we have to dig in our heels and demand that the pendulum swings in our direction.
I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight.
We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible.
I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience.
The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts).
Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do.
In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation):
"BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well.
The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation.
Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored.
Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective.
Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true.
Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed.
Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
With respect, designing the game in such a way that it becomes deliberately obtuse for new players is not the way to build up a worthwhile sport.
So that's the reason why SC2 is good? Oh boy... What else should be given on a silver platter to gamers such as yourself?
To a player like myself who isn't that good right now but ultimately can deal with the learning curve, the addition of decent unit AI (so units do what I want them to do) and group selection macro mechanics is not unreasonable. Yes, there was a skill in being able to individually select things, but was it a skill that should have been there in the first place? No. It was poor game design. What SC2 has should have been in from the start.
It's not asking for a silver platter. You might argue it takes away from the skill cap, but can you honestly argue that when the simplified macro mechanics allow players like MMA to do drops in literally four locations? Their skill level won't have decreased. It'll just be re-prioritised to the interesting stuff - unit control, in game decision making.
It also allows players like me to have fun and learn the game in the few hours a week we have to spare. If the vastly larger community exposure allows the game to flourish on three separate continents rather than one country, the changes from SC are worth it.
Sorry? Blizzard didn't make ANY balance patch on SC1 for 10 years. 1.08 being the very last balance patch. They indeed neglected BW completely afterwards, letting hackers run rampant so the community had to find a solution by creating its own ladders and maps.
BW was balanced and carried on through the community, NOT blizzard.
Oh wow, didn't even realise that was the last one. You're right. But this fact only makes my point better as people seriously need to whine less, if blizzard didn't release a single balance patch in SC1 since 2011 and that turned out to be very balanced after 10 years, then all the balance whining is kind of completely stupid and baseless.
I think blizzards done an excellent job balancing the game considering how long it has been out. Have you seen the statistics? Anything within 55-45 is pretty awesome
Balancing is sure non-linear and uneasy to predict. But Blizzard has it's own image in mind and heading towards it.
(like when they said they don't want reapers used that way, they don't want thors armies or many vikings on the ground..)
Most of people consider already made balance changes as good, but the point is they may not share the same image as Blizz (like death balls, meatshiled units etc ). So the non-linearity isn't an issue and i hope blizz isn't heading the wrong way.
On June 13 2011 19:15 adeezy wrote: I think blizzards done an excellent job balancing the game considering how long it has been out. Have you seen the statistics? Anything within 55-45 is pretty awesome
yeah actual balance wise they do well, but their kind of wants in terms of certain units has me concerned
On June 13 2011 13:42 Doriboi wrote: I was watching ProLeague last night and the game was Bisu vs. Action. Protoss felt more inspired to play than it is today. Bisu would make shuttle with speed, corsairs, reavers, dark templars. Protoss in SC2 feels stagnant and linear. I love White-ra trying to integrate Void Prisms, but overall I don't feel inspired when I see Protoss. Perhaps I am biased.
In sc2 in PvT for example Protoss uses blink stalker, chargelots, sentry, colossus, immortal, High Templar, archons, sometimes void rays or phoenixes, it's not just sc bw where a lot of units get used.
To be fair a lot of what makes brood war awesome imo is the players themself. Brood war is an awesome game but would you care as much if there wasn't a Bisu or a Flash to tear everyone apart. It's just that these players can take the maximum out of the game which makes the game so great.
And before you say : 'but sc2 doesn't have the same amount of stuff you can do as brood war' This I agree with to a certain extent but watch any games of sc2 and you can see tons of things where pro's can micro and improve.
On June 13 2011 19:11 Evangelist wrote: With respect, designing the game in such a way that it becomes deliberately obtuse for new players is not the way to build up a worthwhile sport.
but thats the way how the world works dude you can not make a game only for pro gamer
without the casuals"fans" no esport without the casuals"fans" no money without the casuals"fans" no sponsors without the casuals"fans" no events without the casuals"fans" no streams you get my point and blizz point?
On June 13 2011 19:15 adeezy wrote: I think blizzards done an excellent job balancing the game considering how long it has been out. Have you seen the statistics? Anything within 55-45 is pretty awesome
yeah actual balance wise they do well, but their kind of wants in terms of certain units has me concerned
It's hard to know where they really stand on the oft-mentioned unit issues (collo boring, 1a roaches, whatever) because frankly, that isn't the kind of issue you can address in a patch. Changing such staple units would throw the entire game completely out of whack. That's a job for an expansion when they have to rebalance the game anyway, so I prefer to hold off on opinions there until HOTS.
Patchs are mostly just number tweaking for balance purposes, and they've done a very good job there IMO. Especially since the game is actually pretty balanced at all skill levels, something BW never remotely had.
They have made changes we requested, it's a fact that the game is moving in the right direction. Maybe when talking in interviews they simply don't want to say basically 'we screwed up really hard, tell us what to do', anything that at least implies that would be the beginning of a snowball-like effect. Balance is quite difficult too because of the fact that people are learning, and fast. The win-rate graphs that we see now, where everything gets closer to balanced, I think would be similar even if the game hadn't been touched much, so unless they can see the future.. they can't make huge changes. With all that said though, some of the things they say seem ignorant.
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote: I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight.
We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible.
I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience.
The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts).
Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do.
In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation):
"BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well.
The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation.
Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored.
Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective.
Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true.
Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed.
Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
It's a shame good post like this just get's vanished in the spam and endless discussion of people who doesn't like you mentinon doesn't have the insight perhaps to state some things that they do.
On June 12 2011 14:31 jalstar wrote: Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
But you barely have to micro immortals because of hardened shield, while if you don't position and micro colossi well they'll get killed by vikings or corruptors in a few seconds.
Have you ever used Immortals? If you don't micro them, they will die before firing a shot. Colossus on the other hand will do fine with just an A-click. What you're saying is the complete opposite of the truth.
On June 13 2011 19:11 Evangelist wrote: With respect, designing the game in such a way that it becomes deliberately obtuse for new players is not the way to build up a worthwhile sport.
but thats the way how the world works dude you can not make a game only for pro gamer
without the casuals"fans" no esport without the casuals"fans" no money without the casuals"fans" no sponsors without the casuals"fans" no events without the casuals"fans" no streams you get my point and blizz point?
Casual fans does not care about eSports. People who plays Starcraft 2 Casually do not care about laddering or being competitive. I have my friends as solid proof of that. Though that depends on what you mean by "Casual".
Without competitive gamers there will be no eSports. So in my honest opinion Starcraft 2 should be balanced only to the top notch progamer and if this "Casual fans" are really interested in being competitive then they should face the challenges.
Specially that Starcraft 2 is suppose to be made as an eSports. Not a like most game in the world.
On June 13 2011 19:11 Evangelist wrote: With respect, designing the game in such a way that it becomes deliberately obtuse for new players is not the way to build up a worthwhile sport.
but thats the way how the world works dude you can not make a game only for pro gamer
without the casuals"fans" no esport without the casuals"fans" no money without the casuals"fans" no sponsors without the casuals"fans" no events without the casuals"fans" no streams you get my point and blizz point?
Casual fans does not care about eSports. People who plays Starcraft 2 Casually do not care about laddering or being competitive. I have my friends as solid proof of that. Though that depends on what you mean by "Casual".
Without competitive gamers there will be no eSports. So in my honest opinion Starcraft 2 should be balanced only to the top notch progamer and if this "Casual fans" are really interested in being competitive then they should face the challenges.
Specially that Starcraft 2 is suppose to be made as an eSports. Not a like most game in the world.
Every big sport has casual fans, casual fans are what make sports grow creating a good sport is all about being able to attract casual fans easily while still maintaining the hard to master part.
I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight.
We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible.
I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience.
The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts).
Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do.
In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation):
"BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well.
The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation.
Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored.
Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective.
Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true.
Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed.
Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
On June 13 2011 19:11 Evangelist wrote: With respect, designing the game in such a way that it becomes deliberately obtuse for new players is not the way to build up a worthwhile sport.
but thats the way how the world works dude you can not make a game only for pro gamer
without the casuals"fans" no esport without the casuals"fans" no money without the casuals"fans" no sponsors without the casuals"fans" no events without the casuals"fans" no streams you get my point and blizz point?
Without competitive gamers there will be no eSports. So in my honest opinion Starcraft 2 should be balanced only to the top notch progamer and if this "Casual fans" are really interested in being competitive then they should face the challenges.
Probably would be one of the worst ways to design a game, KILL the fan community, and ruin e-sports right here. There needs to be attraction to the game in any point, if i lack the skills (or hell, in some cases ive seen people enjoy starcraft with lack of limbs), and i obligated to just only sit infront of the streams screens with duct tape over my mouth? I would go as far as to say a 90% viewerbase in most tournaments are by diamond or lower players, people who lack the ability or time to play, and play competatively. I sure as hell dont take starcraft 2 seriously, and ive led accounts in iccup to C-, a personal accomplishment to me.
I know other developers get alot of crap for this (see riot games posts on design theory) and you see why alot of champs that are on pro level tier not get nerfed due to the stats on lower level play. Its not bad when its a massive game that a player could simply step his game up and still win.
I am happy to see that topic and agree on every point in the original post.
The issue with maps is huge and I think it might be the biggest fail. One year after game was released and year and a half since beta started there are still maps with 15 seconds base-to-base travel time and 2 bases available( One of the most recent releases - Slag Pits close position would be a good example for that ). I agree that might not be an issue for most casual gamers but it is hell for the top 2-5%.
Rather than designing maps that work well for bronze as well as GM I would like to see different map pools for different leagues. Yes, sure - start the bronze/silver players with smaller maps like steppes of war, slag pits, delta quadrant and some destructible rocks to guide them when and where to expand. Give the gold/platinum (maybe diamond) players the maps that have stood the test of time and proved to be good - Metalopolis, Xel'naga Caverns, Shakuras.
However, when it comes to maps for master & GM(maybe also high diamond) please get some tournament maps - GSL maps like Dual Sight, Bel'shir Beach and Terminus; Increase the map pool OR rotate maps frequently - there are players with 1 000 - 2 000 games this season and maybe tripple that to get the total amount of games played on the same old maps. Xel'naga Caverns may be a good map but sure it doesnt feel so when you play it 1 000 times for a year. Just think how cool would it be to have a map pool of 15-20 maps and throw a new one every week or two.
I would like to comment on the destructible rocks - Tal'darim altar is a lesser map with these rocks. It makes me sad to see rocks preventing a player to get a 3rd base on the proper location - Tal'darim altar and Delta Quadrant are horrible for that reason in my opinion. It is OK to have rocks blocking a gold - provided that there are 3 blue mineral bases available - as is the case in Xel'naga Caverns and the new awesome GSL map - Bel'shir Beach ( link to map view http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=213188 ). Given the current rocks I think that they strongly favor Terran(gives them the least trouble expanding) over Protoss and Zerg because of the lift-land mechanics of CCs.
I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight.
We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible.
I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience.
The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts).
Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do.
In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation):
"BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well.
The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation.
Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored.
Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective.
Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true.
Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed.
Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
Your posts are, as always, very brilliant and insightful. I completely agree with you. I really wish they would balance the game less often and not adjust small things all the time. True flaws only become visible over a long period of time. What seems to be flaw in the game right now might turn out to work itself out.
Drastic changes like the massive buff to Infestors recently completely throws the game off and it's difficult to learn how the game works when such drastic changes within a few months. Templars nerfed massively and Infestors buffed a lot? I would love for the current state of the game to remain for a long period of time and see how things end up working out.
Walls upon walls of text and still many people doesn't get it.
Browder was/is/still is clueless about what made BW great. This is not about BW vs SC2, this is about SC2 failing to be loved by the people who it matters most to, The progamers who switched and/or the ones who took SC2 to a professional and serious level. Western "E-sport" isn't going to survive if its a bunch of casuals that plays in it, 'Lackluster' is what it's called.
Fuck what you casuals think. Fuck what artosis or tasteless think, they aren't playing the game for competitiveness. They are bagging money from the hype. Prove me wrong if this isn't the truth.
On June 13 2011 19:15 adeezy wrote: I think blizzards done an excellent job balancing the game considering how long it has been out. Have you seen the statistics? Anything within 55-45 is pretty awesome
so let's say
one race all-ins or does coinflips (that the race doesn't know how to deal with yet) to get their 50%
then the other race just plays standard to get their 50%
On June 13 2011 22:50 aimaimaim wrote: Walls upon walls of text and still many people doesn't get it.
Browder was/is/still is clueless about what made BW great. This is not about BW vs SC2, this is about SC2 failing to be loved by the people who it matters most to, The progamers who switched and/or the ones who took SC2 to a professional and serious level. Western "E-sport" isn't going to survive if its a bunch of casuals that plays in it, 'Lackluster' is what it's called.
Fuck what you casuals think. Fuck what artosis or tasteless think, they aren't playing the game for competitiveness. They are bagging money from the hype. Prove me wrong if this isn't the truth.
+1. Blizz seem to get defensive of themselves whenever people mention scbw to them. the thing is most people dont give a damn to compare sc2 to scbw if sc2 was really a good successor. and being a developer they surely look at the game from the pov of a casual player ( a bad casual player, they dont seem to play much zerg or protoss) and thus not too surprise that they made changes 'for' the casual players. and not being able to listen and digest the useful information from the community doest help at all.
and you can see alot of people seem to be ignoring the current state of the game - they are either happy that they are winning with their race(look at the winning ratio of each race in western scene) or they are making good money atm or they simply dont care enough for the game.
Can I just say something to everyone who has allot of passion and strong feelings about what would make the game better? Get involved. Maverck has done an incredible job making a SC2 mod of BW. Follow his lead either by playing his SC2BW map, promoting Esports on that mod, making your own version of how you think SC2 should work or any other constructive innitiative.
Saying that SC2 would be better with X and showing it are two worlds apart. The former infinitly inferior to the latter.
Also the Stalker is much more the Dragoon role than the Immortal.
I don't understand why people don't do tests of changes. Experiment with the stats, we have a map editor.
Find out what would happen if we removed a unit, buffed a unit, made it faster, etc. etc.
We have an amazingly powerful map editor, find out what the changes would be like, get feedback, have daily releases where you can test the changes with the community.
Evidence for how a game would improve if we changed a couple of things.
This is not only one of the best threads I've ever read on these forums, it is also one of the most important. I hope Blizzard can put aside any biases or pride or whatever else and realize that there are problems with the game that could be fixed without comprimising any of their stated goals for what they want the game to be.
On June 13 2011 22:50 aimaimaim wrote: Fuck what you casuals think. Fuck what artosis or tasteless think, they aren't playing the game for competitiveness. They are bagging money from the hype. Prove me wrong if this isn't the truth.
QFT. Western Esport won't survive in it's current state. SC2 pro esport is slowly becoming "I play because of the money".
But artosis or tasteless have done soooo much for Esport. Too bad imho the problem lies at the "new noob friendly features", and as Lucifer (famous WC3 player?) said in a recent interview: "SC2 is too automated, I've easily made it into Grandmaster". It's not something that they can fix. But they are doing their part. Respect to u guys!
I don't entirely agree with Cecil here, just because his experience and his work is one way doesn't mean that Blizzard's process or decision making is the same, however this should be requoted on the new page. Smart post.
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote: I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight.
We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible.
I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience.
The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts).
Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do.
In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation):
"BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well.
The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation.
Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored.
Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective.
Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true.
Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed.
Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
I agree with this to a point. I think that balance whining by nearly everyone is fruitless and based in a mistaken perception of the complainer's skill. This goes even for IdrA, who takes it as an article of faith that he should beat always beat players like Minigun, because of his practice in Brood War. But Sc2 is a different game, and however you want to put it; it's easier, it's luckier, it is still not fair for IdrA to chalk up his losses to imbalance, just as it's hilarious for a diamond player to assume that imbalance lost him a game.
However, I still think Blizzard has their head in the sand with regards to competitive play. Drawing lessons from the history of BW balance; the game was not balanced by Blizzard, but rather by map makers. We can clearly see this effect in Sc2, maps like Testbug are difficult for protoss against zerg in several respects, and necessitate a specific style of play from protoss in order to gain an advantage. Blizzard's approach to map making seems to be completely haphazard and bizarre. Their insistence in keeping Delta Quadrant in the map pool is hilarious. Introducing maps like Slag Pits is lunacy.
And things like unit pathing that resists clumping are not incredibly difficult to do and merit investigation. That they dismiss them out of hand suggests to me that they don't understand very well what that means for the game, beyond simply making AOE powerful.
For the period in which BW was truly balanced; Blizzard was entirely absent. And for that reason, I buy the idea that a lot of the subtleties of that experience are not understood by their team. This is unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. There are very few people in the world, (myself most definitely not being one of them) that grasps enough of BW to really speak to how that game worked itself out.
All of this said; Sc2 is quite balanced at the moment. But I think the OP subtly hinted at a larger issue, which is that Sc2's balance isn't as exciting as BW's was. In BW, how come the corsair and the science vessel were used as counters for the mutalisk? That process took much more innovation that Blizzard seems intent to allow.
posts like this disgust me. Complaining to Dustin Browder about the game, talking about least favorite units in star2 that need redesign?
I love this game, and still excited that a sequel to starcraft was made! Blizzard did an OUTSTANDING job with the whole entire game! I hate when people talk about imbalance, and shit they hate. This game went above and beyond my expectations.
Let's stop wasting time nit picking everything, and just talk about the stuff that matters, like strategy and build orders.
On June 13 2011 23:58 canSore wrote: posts like this disgust me. Complaining to Dustin Browder about the game, talking about least favorite units in star2 that need redesign?
I love this game, and still excited that a sequel to starcraft was made! Blizzard did an OUTSTANDING job with the whole entire game! I hate when people talk about imbalance, and shit they hate. This game went above and beyond my expectations.
Let's stop wasting time nit picking everything, and just talk about the stuff that matters, like strategy and build orders.
I respect you as a zerg who doesn't cry. But we have to still recognize that there are indeed many shortcomings of sc2 that can be fixed easily right now but just aren't for different reasons.
On June 13 2011 23:48 tree.hugger wrote: I don't entirely agree with Cecil here, just because his experience and his work is one way doesn't mean that Blizzard's process or decision making is the same, however this should be requoted on the new page. Smart post.
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote: I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight.
We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible.
I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience.
The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts).
Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do.
In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation):
"BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well.
The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation.
Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored.
Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective.
Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true.
Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed.
Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
I agree with this to a point. I think that balance whining by nearly everyone is fruitless and based in a mistaken perception of the complainer's skill. This goes even for IdrA, who takes it as an article of faith that he should beat always beat players like Minigun, because of his practice in Brood War. But Sc2 is a different game, and however you want to put it; it's easier, it's luckier, it is still not fair for IdrA to chalk up his losses to imbalance, just as it's hilarious for a diamond player to assume that imbalance lost him a game.
However, I still think Blizzard has their head in the sand with regards to competitive play. Drawing lessons from the history of BW balance; the game was not balanced by Blizzard, but rather by map makers. We can clearly see this effect in Sc2, maps like Testbug are difficult for protoss against zerg in several respects, and necessitate a specific style of play from protoss in order to gain an advantage. Blizzard's approach to map making seems to be completely haphazard and bizarre. Their insistence in keeping Delta Quadrant in the map pool is hilarious. Introducing maps like Slag Pits is lunacy.
And things like unit pathing that resists clumping are not incredibly difficult to do and merit investigation. That they dismiss them out of hand suggests to me that they don't understand very well what that means for the game, beyond simply making AOE powerful.
For the period in which BW was truly balanced; Blizzard was entirely absent. And for that reason, I buy the idea that a lot of the subtleties of that experience are not understood by their team. This is unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. There are very few people in the world, (myself most definitely not being one of them) that grasps enough of BW to really speak to how that game worked itself out.
All of this said; Sc2 is quite balanced at the moment. But I think the OP subtly hinted at a larger issue, which is that Sc2's balance isn't as exciting as BW's was. In BW, how come the corsair and the science vessel were used as counters for the mutalisk? That process took much more innovation that Blizzard seems intent to allow.
great post very good read. thanks to cecil and yourself tree.hugger.
I think blizzard should not make any patches for the next few months (6ish would be a nice experimental start) to see what we players do with it. With exception to bug fixes and terrible obvious imbalances like the 1 food roach with 2 armour from beta. but then again nothing like this actually exists at the moment.
On June 13 2011 23:48 tree.hugger wrote: However, I still think Blizzard has their head in the sand with regards to competitive play. Drawing lessons from the history of BW balance; the game was not balanced by Blizzard, but rather by map makers. We can clearly see this effect in Sc2, maps like Testbug are difficult for protoss against zerg in several respects, and necessitate a specific style of play from protoss in order to gain an advantage. Blizzard's approach to map making seems to be completely haphazard and bizarre. Their insistence in keeping Delta Quadrant in the map pool is hilarious. Introducing maps like Slag Pits is lunacy.
Are you suggesting they replace crap like DQ with crap like Testbug?
All of this said; Sc2 is quite balanced at the moment. But I think the OP subtly hinted at a larger issue, which is that Sc2's balance isn't as exciting as BW's was. In BW, how come the corsair and the science vessel were used as counters for the mutalisk? That process took much more innovation that Blizzard seems intent to allow.
Corsair is an obvious counter to mutas...
On the one hand they need to leave things alone to allow innovation, on the other they need to change the maps the community doesn't like...tough position :0
On June 13 2011 19:15 adeezy wrote: I think blizzards done an excellent job balancing the game considering how long it has been out. Have you seen the statistics? Anything within 55-45 is pretty awesome
so let's say
one race all-ins or does coinflips (that the race doesn't know how to deal with yet) to get their 50%
then the other race just plays standard to get their 50%
That isn't balance
so true,there is no balance if there are so many random factors and coinflips <.< no matter what the win % is
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote: David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation.
On June 13 2011 23:48 tree.hugger wrote: In BW, how come the corsair and the science vessel were used as counters for the mutalisk? That process took much more innovation that Blizzard seems intent to allow.
The "observation" about immortal's role shows they don't understanding their own unit design. The players did not invent the very high damage to armored, the unit was designed that way, comparing them to stalkers you will easily notice that the difference in damage to armored is huge, while the difference in durability is not that big, except vs tanks(splash reduces the effect in higher numbers) and thors(without cannons) and MMM is understandably the dominant strat. I didn't list ultras, since they dealt a lot less damage back then.
Corsair and Irradiate being used as a counter to mutas was a process that took innovation? WTF? Corsairs were specifically designed to counter muta/wraith/scout, how is using the unit for it's intended purpose a process that took innovation? From BroodUnits.doc in my BW folder: The Corsair fires short quick bursts of Photon energy that are very effective against groups of small flying units. Who could've thought about that innovative use? Blizzard in 1998.
What actually changed was pro maps, they had easy to defend naturals for PvZ, allowing safe fast expo(prior to that PvZ win % in pro game games was noticably in zerg's favor), which resulted in the Bisu build and (probably) the biggest upset in SC history.
Irradiate is the same thing, it's obviously good vs relatively expensive bio units and units that clump. Who could've imagined it would be good vs mutas?
People claim about way too much stuff that it's because of players figuring things out or innovating, for example something I've seen several times is marine use in TvT, when in fact it's because tanks went from 60 to 35 damage to light, which is a huge change and the actual reason(having maps in which tanks can't siege almost from natural to natural also helped).
What BW had was good and solid design, it wasn't simply about having "cool" units... "a siege tank that doesn't need to siege and can scale cliffs would be so cool", "easily blocking the opponent's retreat would be so cool", etc.
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote: The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community.
The way I see it is not as a miscommunication, but rather as a misconception of the game. Starcraft 2 doesnt seem to be intended as an RTS but rather as an RTAS (real time action-focused strategy game), where the emphasis is on ACTION and less about strategy. Thus the death balls and the unlimited unit selection and the tiny Blizzard maps were born. They WANT RUSHES, because they follow the stupid motto that more explosions are better for the game. All this focus on action and speed makes the game more volatile and this is not a good thing, but the Blizzard designers think it is necessary to cater to todays generation of gamers who cant focus on a 25 minute macro game. Well you play how you are taught to play the game and if you are taught to play "casual" you will become a casual gamer ... thats how they are "balancing" the game for WoW. Sadly they are forgetting that SC2 isnt Wow and that the "eSport SC2" wont be kept interesting by tons of casuals, but rather by the progamers. These need reliability of their success chances though and a volatile game doesnt offer reliability.
IdrA has complained a lot of times about imbalance and has gotten a lot of slack for saying "Player X shouldnt be beaten by a worse player" and this is the sign of this volatility. An example: Terrans are supposed to be able to turtle and defend well, but how much chance of survival does any of their buildings have against a decently sized Protoss death ball? Well a Planetary Fortress survives for about 5 seconds unless it is repaired by 25 SCVs full time and those can be blocked from their job easily by Forcefields or die to Colossi. Does the PF kill a significant amount of the attacking army? Not really, so it almost doesnt seem worth it. Another example: How long does it take eight Marauders with Stim to take down a Nexus? Far less time than it takes for any defense force to arrive. Yet another example: How can a Terran keep his Planetary Fortress alive against 50 Banelings being rightclicked on it? Only with a decent amount of Sige Tanks. Usually these are elsewhere, because 1-2 sieged Tanks dont really make a difference anymore. The stupidest example of them all: How much chance of winning does the Zerg have with a Terran on close ground spawn on Metalopolis? The change from "automatic loss" to "winnable game" depending upon the spawn position really makes the volatility evident. Sadly the opposite is also true ... if the maps get HUGE there is almost nothing Protoss and Terran can do to Zerg to stop them from getting their economy rolling and thereafter crushing the opponents with waves of units. This is a problem which is created by the volatility of the macro mechanics. A lot of nerfs had to be introduced to make close spawns work, while a longer rush distance would have worked just as well ...
There are lots of examples how the "improvements" made from SC1 to SC2 have made the game more volatile and thus harder to balance AND harder to play consistently on. Volatile games are just unforgiving and if you make a tiny mistake you could lose it all in the blink of an eye. That isnt a good design philosophy IMO.
Since there are more units in a typical engagement in SC2 there is a much greater need for good balance. Blizzard would make a wise decision if they removed some of these new mechanics which increase the volatility of games. A few thoughts I had on this topic:
Add the dynamic unit movement to the game AND increase the distance between Colossi. Reason: It looks more natural, it will give opportunities to the players for more micro and it reduces the "attacking dps per square" for such problematic units as Colossi.
To offset the "defensive bonus" of the dynamic unit movement all area effect attacks (Siege Tank, Psi Storm, EMP, Seeker Missile, Fungal Growth, Colossus, Thor AA, ?(not Forcefield)) have to be increased in efficiency. These effects "had to be nerfed" too much to take the tight unit formations into account or they would have been dominating the game, but with the addition of dynamic unit movement the choice is left to the player AND HIS MICRO SKILLS again ... try to bunch your units for maximum dps per attack square OR go for an open formation to minimize the losses from area attacks. This would give skilled players another advantage to "micro their units" just like Terrans already have to do against Banelings ... but there isnt any need for Zerg to do the same.
I would suggest to have a maximum limit of "24 supply" in each control group. Reason: This forces casual players to learn to multitask and that is a good thing. It also prevents the huge death balls from being too easy to manage and thus too effective.
Make defensive structures tougher / more viable. Reason: Defensive structures are the only way to defend against unexpected types of attacks and they should be able to "pull their weight". I am not asking for turrets to be built in 5 seconds and having 1000 hit points, but they need to not die in a few seconds like they do to the tight attacking formations now. Most good players will get mobile units to attack and not want to waste their resources on defensive structures, so it should be ok to toughen them a bit if you want to play differently.
Remove / seriously nerf Reactors, MULE, Larva inject and chronoboost. Reason: These mechanics speed up the unit production to the point of being able to "flick a switch" and surprise the opponent with a totally different unit combination which he hasnt prepared a "counter" for.
Remove Stim from Marauders but give back the ability to slow even massive units. Reason: It is too easy to snipe buildings with 1-2 Medivacs full of Marauders AND there is no point in slowing small units. If Marauders cant run away from faster units they are endangered a lot more and this should offset the snare on the Ultralisks ... that way the decision would be in the hands of the players and their skill to use the units again (drop microing Marauders to slow Ultralisks ?). Nerfing Marauder slow for units XYZ takes the choice out of the hands of the players.
Either add some cheap ability to units with expensive spells (Thor, BC) so they can "defend themselves" from Feedback OR remove their energy (at least until the ability is researched!). Reason: Having to EMP your own forces just to not have that vulnerability is just stupid design and it lets the High Templar "counter" too many terran units with an instant ability. Zerg dont have that problem, but imagine what would happen if Broodlords had to purchase their Broodlings or Ultralisks a charge attack with Energy ...
Get rid of the idea of "counter units". Reason: A unit which is designed to counter a specific other unit often misses a purpose if these other units are dead on the other side and is otherwise dull (Corruptor anyone?). Stick to creating units because you had a funky idea.
I dont presume to have found the philosophers stone, but there are things which make it harder to balance the game than it could be and these are in the general design / design concept of the game.
On June 13 2011 23:48 tree.hugger wrote: I don't entirely agree with Cecil here, just because his experience and his work is one way doesn't mean that Blizzard's process or decision making is the same, however this should be requoted on the new page. Smart post.
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote: I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight.
We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible.
I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience.
The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts).
Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do.
In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation):
"BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well.
The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation.
Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored.
Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective.
Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true.
Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed.
Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
However, I still think Blizzard has their head in the sand with regards to competitive play. Drawing lessons from the history of BW balance; the game was not balanced by Blizzard, but rather by map makers. We can clearly see this effect in Sc2, maps like Testbug are difficult for protoss against zerg in several respects, and necessitate a specific style of play from protoss in order to gain an advantage. Blizzard's approach to map making seems to be completely haphazard and bizarre. Their insistence in keeping Delta Quadrant in the map pool is hilarious. Introducing maps like Slag Pits is lunacy.
And things like unit pathing that resists clumping are not incredibly difficult to do and merit investigation. That they dismiss them out of hand suggests to me that they don't understand very well what that means for the game, beyond simply making AOE powerful.
For the period in which BW was truly balanced; Blizzard was entirely absent. And for that reason, I buy the idea that a lot of the subtleties of that experience are not understood by their team. This is unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. There are very few people in the world, (myself most definitely not being one of them) that grasps enough of BW to really speak to how that game worked itself out.
Like I said, I'm pretty happy with what has happened so far from Blizzard's end, but I didn't say they couldn't improve. I really think most decisions they made to their 1v1 map pool were made with the idea in mind that newer players cannot be alienated, and lower level players cannot be lost and confused. They just don't cater to the high level community heavily in that regard. I think they should, as it's a damn ladder map pool, but I'm sure their decision has currently fulfilled whatever goals they had for it.
Also, I've never thought that map makers at Blizzard knew what they were doing. My experience tells me that the majority of maps are made from level designers that don't understand competitive play, and the ones put into map pool go through the test team and David Kim, neither of which should be nearly as competent as the teams of people creating BW maps. So it's expected (at least to me) that they'll be lacking, and Blizzard knows this as well. They seem to just be hoping that the competitive community will just make their own maps for tournaments, while they can keep their current ladder map pool design in affect in order to achieve whatever goals they are striving for in doing so.
On June 14 2011 01:21 lololol wrote: What BW had was good and solid design, it wasn't simply about having "cool" units... "a siege tank that doesn't need to siege and can scale cliffs would be so cool"!
I think the overall way BW was constructed simply made it less prone to a lot of headaches people have nowadays in SC2. Better pathing, more efficient AI, easier spell casting, multi-building select, infinite selection cap, all of these things make the game more prone to annoying shit than back in Brood War.
For example compare the Templar Psi Storm from the two games. SC2's obviously has less DPS (yes I know this is apple's to orange's), and the same goes for most AoE attacks from BW to SC2. Take a look at Plague --> Fungal Growth. You have to make spells, abilities, and some units in general a lot less effective due to fundamental differences between the games.
So I don't really think it's fair to say BW's design was better, when I think that BW was just less prone to the headaches caused by today due to the vast differences between the two situations of BW and SC2. You also have to realize that BW was released for how long before it got to its current state? SC2 is an infant compared to that timespan. Give it some good hard time (assuming Blizzard lets the dust settle so we can figure shit out, and lets skilled and external groups handle map making moreso than now).
On June 12 2011 14:33 btxmonty wrote: When I learned that Dustin B also made Red Alert 2 everything just made sense... RA2 was a great game but its not SC... And I feel Dustin B made SC2 feel more like C&C than SC. I might be wrong, but hey that's how sometimes I feel the battles go.
it does make sense. when sc2 came out I compared it to c&c. everything had a strong counter. I don't like it very much, but whatcha ganna do.
On June 14 2011 02:13 Yaotzin wrote: No C&C game is especially balanced, it's never really the goal. Point is he made a good game, holding that against him is stupid.
My worry is his lack of experience with proper balance will negatively effect sc2, remember when blizzard said that they were putting new units in the game because it was "cool" rather then balanced, that's exactly what i don't want them to do, so far that's what they have done so the probability of me getting a new sc game is 0 until they can show they care about making real strategical units based on balance rather then the "cool" effect like c&c does
On June 14 2011 02:07 Yaotzin wrote: C&C Generals was a very good game, better than 3 or 4. Ragging on Browder for that makes no sense at all.
fun yes balanced ... no
Yet, Browder does not responsible for balancing SC2. That's David Kim's job. If he can design a good game (especially in Campaign), why don't let him do his job? If anything needs to be done, it is advocating him to solely campaign mechanic designer job and expanding or improving the balancing team.
I have no idea what you guys are talking about either.
Red Aleart2 and Generals have been the best games so far in their respective series, they were really GOOD games. Red Alert 2 especially. Not to mention Battle for Middle-earth was also a good game.
People who complain the most about the game tend to be the people who have the least investment in it, it is like this in EVERY game. The developers aren't out of touch with this game, the community at large is.
Rarely do you see people who actually talk to Blizzard complain about how this game is being made, it is just the uninformed who watch this game more than they play it.
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote: The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community.
The way I see it is not as a miscommunication, but rather as a misconception of the game. Starcraft 2 doesnt seem to be intended as an RTS but rather as an RTAS (real time action-focused strategy game), where the emphasis is on ACTION and less about strategy. Thus the death balls and the unlimited unit selection and the tiny Blizzard maps were born. They WANT RUSHES, because they follow the stupid motto that more explosions are better for the game. All this focus on action and speed makes the game more volatile and this is not a good thing, but the Blizzard designers think it is necessary to cater to todays generation of gamers who cant focus on a 25 minute macro game. Well you play how you are taught to play the game and if you are taught to play "casual" you will become a casual gamer ... thats how they are "balancing" the game for WoW. Sadly they are forgetting that SC2 isnt Wow and that the "eSport SC2" wont be kept interesting by tons of casuals, but rather by the progamers. These need reliability of their success chances though and a volatile game doesnt offer reliability.
IdrA has complained a lot of times about imbalance and has gotten a lot of slack for saying "Player X shouldnt be beaten by a worse player" and this is the sign of this volatility. An example: Terrans are supposed to be able to turtle and defend well, but how much chance of survival does any of their buildings have against a decently sized Protoss death ball? Well a Planetary Fortress survives for about 5 seconds unless it is repaired by 25 SCVs full time and those can be blocked from their job easily by Forcefields or die to Colossi. Does the PF kill a significant amount of the attacking army? Not really, so it almost doesnt seem worth it. Another example: How long does it take eight Marauders with Stim to take down a Nexus? Far less time than it takes for any defense force to arrive. Yet another example: How can a Terran keep his Planetary Fortress alive against 50 Banelings being rightclicked on it? Only with a decent amount of Sige Tanks. Usually these are elsewhere, because 1-2 sieged Tanks dont really make a difference anymore. The stupidest example of them all: How much chance of winning does the Zerg have with a Terran on close ground spawn on Metalopolis? The change from "automatic loss" to "winnable game" depending upon the spawn position really makes the volatility evident. Sadly the opposite is also true ... if the maps get HUGE there is almost nothing Protoss and Terran can do to Zerg to stop them from getting their economy rolling and thereafter crushing the opponents with waves of units. This is a problem which is created by the volatility of the macro mechanics. A lot of nerfs had to be introduced to make close spawns work, while a longer rush distance would have worked just as well ...
There are lots of examples how the "improvements" made from SC1 to SC2 have made the game more volatile and thus harder to balance AND harder to play consistently on. Volatile games are just unforgiving and if you make a tiny mistake you could lose it all in the blink of an eye. That isnt a good design philosophy IMO.
Since there are more units in a typical engagement in SC2 there is a much greater need for good balance. Blizzard would make a wise decision if they removed some of these new mechanics which increase the volatility of games. A few thoughts I had on this topic:
Add the dynamic unit movement to the game AND increase the distance between Colossi. Reason: It looks more natural, it will give opportunities to the players for more micro and it reduces the "attacking dps per square" for such problematic units as Colossi.
To offset the "defensive bonus" of the dynamic unit movement all area effect attacks (Siege Tank, Psi Storm, EMP, Seeker Missile, Fungal Growth, Colossus, Thor AA, ?(not Forcefield)) have to be increased in efficiency. These effects "had to be nerfed" too much to take the tight unit formations into account or they would have been dominating the game, but with the addition of dynamic unit movement the choice is left to the player AND HIS MICRO SKILLS again ... try to bunch your units for maximum dps per attack square OR go for an open formation to minimize the losses from area attacks. This would give skilled players another advantage to "micro their units" just like Terrans already have to do against Banelings ... but there isnt any need for Zerg to do the same.
I would suggest to have a maximum limit of "24 supply" in each control group. Reason: This forces casual players to learn to multitask and that is a good thing. It also prevents the huge death balls from being too easy to manage and thus too effective.
Make defensive structures tougher / more viable. Reason: Defensive structures are the only way to defend against unexpected types of attacks and they should be able to "pull their weight". I am not asking for turrets to be built in 5 seconds and having 1000 hit points, but they need to not die in a few seconds like they do to the tight attacking formations now. Most good players will get mobile units to attack and not want to waste their resources on defensive structures, so it should be ok to toughen them a bit if you want to play differently.
Remove / seriously nerf Reactors, MULE, Larva inject and chronoboost. Reason: These mechanics speed up the unit production to the point of being able to "flick a switch" and surprise the opponent with a totally different unit combination which he hasnt prepared a "counter" for.
Remove Stim from Marauders but give back the ability to slow even massive units. Reason: It is too easy to snipe buildings with 1-2 Medivacs full of Marauders AND there is no point in slowing small units. If Marauders cant run away from faster units they are endangered a lot more and this should offset the snare on the Ultralisks ... that way the decision would be in the hands of the players and their skill to use the units again (drop microing Marauders to slow Ultralisks ?). Nerfing Marauder slow for units XYZ takes the choice out of the hands of the players.
Either add some cheap ability to units with expensive spells (Thor, BC) so they can "defend themselves" from Feedback OR remove their energy (at least until the ability is researched!). Reason: Having to EMP your own forces just to not have that vulnerability is just stupid design and it lets the High Templar "counter" too many terran units with an instant ability. Zerg dont have that problem, but imagine what would happen if Broodlords had to purchase their Broodlings or Ultralisks a charge attack with Energy ...
Get rid of the idea of "counter units". Reason: A unit which is designed to counter a specific other unit often misses a purpose if these other units are dead on the other side and is otherwise dull (Corruptor anyone?). Stick to creating units because you had a funky idea.
I dont presume to have found the philosophers stone, but there are things which make it harder to balance the game than it could be and these are in the general design / design concept of the game.
Amazing, amazing post. To your first point, it saddens me to no end the level of "dumbing down" companies so often introduce to appeal to a wider audience, when in fact such choices in design are what end up leading to an audience that needs to be dumbed down to in the first place.
On June 14 2011 02:21 Dommk wrote: I have no idea what you guys are talking about either.
Red Aleart2 and Generals have been the best games so far in their respective series, they were really GOOD games. Red Alert 2 especially. Not to mention Battle for Middle-earth was also a good game.
People who complain the most about the game tend to be the people who have the least investment in it, it is like this in EVERY game. The developers aren't out of touch with this game, the community at large is.
Rarely do you see people who actually talk to Blizzard complain about how this game is being made, it is just the uninformed who watch this game more than they play it.
On June 14 2011 02:13 Yaotzin wrote: No C&C game is especially balanced, it's never really the goal. Point is he made a good game, holding that against him is stupid.
My worry is his lack of experience with proper balance will negatively effect sc2, remember when blizzard said that they were putting new units in the game because it was "cool" rather then balanced, that's exactly what i don't want them to do, so far that's what they have done so the probability of me getting a new sc game is 0 until they can show they care about making real strategical units based on balance rather then the "cool" effect like c&c does
Balance isn't his main job. Making the game cool/good is his job. For which he is qualified, as he has previously made, by my count, three good games (RA2, Generals, BFME). Blame David Kim if you don't like the balance situation.
Browder has said before that they make some units because they have a cool concept and want to turn it into a unit, and they make some units because there's a concept they think the game needs and they want a unit for it. Which is pretty much how every developer does things. You can disagree with their choices, of course, but their process is as you want it to be.
On June 14 2011 02:21 Dommk wrote: I have no idea what you guys are talking about either.
Red Aleart2 and Generals have been the best games so far in their respective series, they were really GOOD games. Red Alert 2 especially. Not to mention Battle for Middle-earth was also a good game.
People who complain the most about the game tend to be the people who have the least investment in it, it is like this in EVERY game. The developers aren't out of touch with this game, the community at large is.
Rarely do you see people who actually talk to Blizzard complain about how this game is being made, it is just the uninformed who watch this game more than they play it.
Didn't the OP quote at least 3 such instances?
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see anyone in this thread or in the original post that talks to Blizzard actually criticizing them.
I, for one, think that we will see some changes in HOTS that will eliminate a lot of the problems with SC2. I expect them to cut down on clumping a little bit, as well as go back and evaluate their decision to cut units like the lurker because internal testing couldnt find a spot for them.
WOL was like a test run, vanilla sc all over again. New mechanics, new engine, and some things worked and some things didnt. I have faith that Blizzard will be able to go back and evaluate and change things around for HOTS. Vanilla sc wasnt balanced, BW was, and only after time. HOTS gives blizz a second crack at the challenges that comes with a 3d starcraft game.
On June 14 2011 02:21 Dommk wrote: I have no idea what you guys are talking about either.
Red Aleart2 and Generals have been the best games so far in their respective series, they were really GOOD games. Red Alert 2 especially. Not to mention Battle for Middle-earth was also a good game.
People who complain the most about the game tend to be the people who have the least investment in it, it is like this in EVERY game. The developers aren't out of touch with this game, the community at large is.
Rarely do you see people who actually talk to Blizzard complain about how this game is being made, it is just the uninformed who watch this game more than they play it.
Didn't the OP quote at least 3 such instances?
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see anyone in this thread or in the original post that talks to Blizzard actually criticizing them.
Your probably not blind, but upon re-reading them both the LSPrime and Sen quotes do indirectly criticize them. LSPrime criticizes their decision to add rocks/the abusable low ground cliff to Tal Darim Altar. Sen criticized close positions and how strong he feels cheese is in the game.
In my experience lots of pros also complain about the volatility in the game.. even on these very forums. I don't presume to speak for them because I'm as awful at this game as I was at BW, but saying "nobody who talks to blizzard criticizes them" doesn't seem particularly true.
On June 14 2011 02:13 Yaotzin wrote: No C&C game is especially balanced, it's never really the goal. Point is he made a good game, holding that against him is stupid.
My worry is his lack of experience with proper balance will negatively effect sc2, remember when blizzard said that they were putting new units in the game because it was "cool" rather then balanced, that's exactly what i don't want them to do, so far that's what they have done so the probability of me getting a new sc game is 0 until they can show they care about making real strategical units based on balance rather then the "cool" effect like c&c does
Balance isn't his main job. Making the game cool/good is his job. For which he is qualified, as he has previously made, by my count, three good games (RA2, Generals, BFME). Blame David Kim if you don't like the balance situation.
Browder has said before that they make some units because they have a cool concept and want to turn it into a unit, and they make some units because there's a concept they think the game needs and they want a unit for it. Which is pretty much how every developer does things. You can disagree with their choices, of course, but their process is as you want it to be.
Again i never said they were bad games, but they were far from balanced, in fact i have every c&c made with the westwood crew, but they were not balanced by a long shot. But yea david kim needs to listen to the community a bit more when it comes to balance especially the ones who make a living off starcraft
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote: The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community.
The way I see it is not as a miscommunication, but rather as a misconception of the game. Starcraft 2 doesnt seem to be intended as an RTS but rather as an RTAS (real time action-focused strategy game), where the emphasis is on ACTION and less about strategy. Thus the death balls and the unlimited unit selection and the tiny Blizzard maps were born. They WANT RUSHES, because they follow the stupid motto that more explosions are better for the game. All this focus on action and speed makes the game more volatile and this is not a good thing, but the Blizzard designers think it is necessary to cater to todays generation of gamers who cant focus on a 25 minute macro game. Well you play how you are taught to play the game and if you are taught to play "casual" you will become a casual gamer ... thats how they are "balancing" the game for WoW. Sadly they are forgetting that SC2 isnt Wow and that the "eSport SC2" wont be kept interesting by tons of casuals, but rather by the progamers. These need reliability of their success chances though and a volatile game doesnt offer reliability.
IdrA has complained a lot of times about imbalance and has gotten a lot of slack for saying "Player X shouldnt be beaten by a worse player" and this is the sign of this volatility. An example: Terrans are supposed to be able to turtle and defend well, but how much chance of survival does any of their buildings have against a decently sized Protoss death ball? Well a Planetary Fortress survives for about 5 seconds unless it is repaired by 25 SCVs full time and those can be blocked from their job easily by Forcefields or die to Colossi. Does the PF kill a significant amount of the attacking army? Not really, so it almost doesnt seem worth it. Another example: How long does it take eight Marauders with Stim to take down a Nexus? Far less time than it takes for any defense force to arrive. Yet another example: How can a Terran keep his Planetary Fortress alive against 50 Banelings being rightclicked on it? Only with a decent amount of Sige Tanks. Usually these are elsewhere, because 1-2 sieged Tanks dont really make a difference anymore. The stupidest example of them all: How much chance of winning does the Zerg have with a Terran on close ground spawn on Metalopolis? The change from "automatic loss" to "winnable game" depending upon the spawn position really makes the volatility evident. Sadly the opposite is also true ... if the maps get HUGE there is almost nothing Protoss and Terran can do to Zerg to stop them from getting their economy rolling and thereafter crushing the opponents with waves of units. This is a problem which is created by the volatility of the macro mechanics. A lot of nerfs had to be introduced to make close spawns work, while a longer rush distance would have worked just as well ...
There are lots of examples how the "improvements" made from SC1 to SC2 have made the game more volatile and thus harder to balance AND harder to play consistently on. Volatile games are just unforgiving and if you make a tiny mistake you could lose it all in the blink of an eye. That isnt a good design philosophy IMO.
Since there are more units in a typical engagement in SC2 there is a much greater need for good balance. Blizzard would make a wise decision if they removed some of these new mechanics which increase the volatility of games. A few thoughts I had on this topic:
Add the dynamic unit movement to the game AND increase the distance between Colossi. Reason: It looks more natural, it will give opportunities to the players for more micro and it reduces the "attacking dps per square" for such problematic units as Colossi.
To offset the "defensive bonus" of the dynamic unit movement all area effect attacks (Siege Tank, Psi Storm, EMP, Seeker Missile, Fungal Growth, Colossus, Thor AA, ?(not Forcefield)) have to be increased in efficiency. These effects "had to be nerfed" too much to take the tight unit formations into account or they would have been dominating the game, but with the addition of dynamic unit movement the choice is left to the player AND HIS MICRO SKILLS again ... try to bunch your units for maximum dps per attack square OR go for an open formation to minimize the losses from area attacks. This would give skilled players another advantage to "micro their units" just like Terrans already have to do against Banelings ... but there isnt any need for Zerg to do the same.
I would suggest to have a maximum limit of "24 supply" in each control group. Reason: This forces casual players to learn to multitask and that is a good thing. It also prevents the huge death balls from being too easy to manage and thus too effective.
Make defensive structures tougher / more viable. Reason: Defensive structures are the only way to defend against unexpected types of attacks and they should be able to "pull their weight". I am not asking for turrets to be built in 5 seconds and having 1000 hit points, but they need to not die in a few seconds like they do to the tight attacking formations now. Most good players will get mobile units to attack and not want to waste their resources on defensive structures, so it should be ok to toughen them a bit if you want to play differently.
Remove / seriously nerf Reactors, MULE, Larva inject and chronoboost. Reason: These mechanics speed up the unit production to the point of being able to "flick a switch" and surprise the opponent with a totally different unit combination which he hasnt prepared a "counter" for.
Remove Stim from Marauders but give back the ability to slow even massive units. Reason: It is too easy to snipe buildings with 1-2 Medivacs full of Marauders AND there is no point in slowing small units. If Marauders cant run away from faster units they are endangered a lot more and this should offset the snare on the Ultralisks ... that way the decision would be in the hands of the players and their skill to use the units again (drop microing Marauders to slow Ultralisks ?). Nerfing Marauder slow for units XYZ takes the choice out of the hands of the players.
Either add some cheap ability to units with expensive spells (Thor, BC) so they can "defend themselves" from Feedback OR remove their energy (at least until the ability is researched!). Reason: Having to EMP your own forces just to not have that vulnerability is just stupid design and it lets the High Templar "counter" too many terran units with an instant ability. Zerg dont have that problem, but imagine what would happen if Broodlords had to purchase their Broodlings or Ultralisks a charge attack with Energy ...
Get rid of the idea of "counter units". Reason: A unit which is designed to counter a specific other unit often misses a purpose if these other units are dead on the other side and is otherwise dull (Corruptor anyone?). Stick to creating units because you had a funky idea.
I dont presume to have found the philosophers stone, but there are things which make it harder to balance the game than it could be and these are in the general design / design concept of the game.
Amazing, amazing post. To your first point, it saddens me to no end the level of "dumbing down" companies so often introduce to appeal to a wider audience, when in fact such choices in design are what end up leading to an audience that needs to be dumbed down to in the first place.
I think Rabiator does a damn good job of explaining the main issue: volatility. It just seems like too much shit can go wrong for *all* races at several points of the game with little possibility of knowing what exactly happened. Stuff is way too fast in SC2, and I suspect that slowing the game down and demanding more strategy--rather than focused on action--would drastically improve the game.
They do listen to pros (when they aren't just QQing which they so often do). They nerfed void rays because MakaPrime presented an "unholdable" push to them and Blizzard were convinced. They've acknowledged the complaints about early game Zerg scouting, and said they think it's too early to arrive at that conclusion so they won't change it before HOTS.
What things do you want them to listen to that they haven't?
On June 14 2011 02:39 Yaotzin wrote: They do listen to pros (when they aren't just QQing which they so often do). They nerfed void rays because MakaPrime presented an "unholdable" push to them and Blizzard were convinced. They've acknowledged the complaints about early game Zerg scouting, and said they think it's too early to arrive at that conclusion so they won't change it before HOTS.
What things do you want them to listen to that they haven't?
When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle.
On June 14 2011 02:21 Dommk wrote: I have no idea what you guys are talking about either.
Red Aleart2 and Generals have been the best games so far in their respective series, they were really GOOD games. Red Alert 2 especially. Not to mention Battle for Middle-earth was also a good game.
People who complain the most about the game tend to be the people who have the least investment in it, it is like this in EVERY game. The developers aren't out of touch with this game, the community at large is.
Rarely do you see people who actually talk to Blizzard complain about how this game is being made, it is just the uninformed who watch this game more than they play it.
Didn't the OP quote at least 3 such instances?
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see anyone in this thread or in the original post that talks to Blizzard actually criticizing them.
Your probably not blind, but upon re-reading them both the LSPrime and Sen quotes do indirectly criticize them. LSPrime criticizes their decision to add rocks/the abusable low ground cliff to Tal Darim Altar. Sen criticized close positions and how strong he feels cheese is in the game.
In my experience lots of pros also complain about the volatility in the game.. even on these very forums. I don't presume to speak for them because I'm as awful at this game as I was at BW, but saying "nobody who talks to blizzard criticizes them" doesn't seem particularly true.
Sen was complaining more about the state of the game, now how they are developing it.
In a recent interview, he said that close positions too hard against Terran, but didn't mention Protoss, if you had asked him 6months ago he most likely would have said both. That is a meta game thing. But that doesn't mean there aren't Zergs who like close position play, the ladder is meant for everyone, Tournaments use their own maps which people are fine with.
The 1gas half base third was done because of the current Meta-game, a change especially made for tournament play. They are criticizing Blizzard for not wanting to make changes that suit the current meta game, which isn't something they should be doing really...
But in terms of how they are actually developing the game--how they are taking feedback and the reasoning behind the changes they make--how many people who are in active contact with Blizzard actually dislike they way they are handling things? I've yet to see anyone come out and complain.
When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle.
You often find it is because of the very same reason that players are actually able to swing the battle. Catching Colossus, avoiding Storms/EMPs, landing great EMPs/Storms, getting great position with Colossus vs drawing them off guard.
When you have units like the Marauder and the Marine, which have (per supply) double/triple the DPS of a Stalker, the only way you can actually swing a battle in your favor is with AOE
On June 14 2011 02:21 Dommk wrote: I have no idea what you guys are talking about either.
Red Aleart2 and Generals have been the best games so far in their respective series, they were really GOOD games. Red Alert 2 especially. Not to mention Battle for Middle-earth was also a good game.
People who complain the most about the game tend to be the people who have the least investment in it, it is like this in EVERY game. The developers aren't out of touch with this game, the community at large is.
Rarely do you see people who actually talk to Blizzard complain about how this game is being made, it is just the uninformed who watch this game more than they play it.
Didn't the OP quote at least 3 such instances?
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see anyone in this thread or in the original post that talks to Blizzard actually criticizing them.
I criticize them in displaying balance rosters that end up at arround 50 % when their system is made for not being able to a individual player going below 50 % unless he just leaves every game . wich do just a low percent of players , if you check Terran winratios for some players at top with 80-90 % it becomes more clear however i know how they can abuse their race even more to end up just losing if every move of the toss is a blind counter that allows you instant to get into the production line of a terran.
I also criticize them in not being able to realize math errors that allowed terran not to lose even when protoss had voidray speed same applies for zerg they were ever able to deal with it. as for the kal darim amulet it wasnt a auto win neither against terran just because they spam units with low health doesnt mean u cant deal with it not to mention that bunkers and spreading protects you from damage and allows you time to breath ( bunker aswell as PF ).as for using this against zerg it was ever a eco matter sure it was easier to use ur excess gas in time but not "imba" aswell.
Banshee for example is something u can build by making a 200 /100 building and skip its useage and use ur banshees extreemly strong you cant do effitiently a 1/1/1 zerg or protoss now you may be able to compare it to a DT rush wish also uses a mid tier building and u often survive however if you are prepared initial dt tech puts toss way to much behind as for the terran matter u can go every game banshee even if they know its comming it often causes damage and they never die + u have all time the option to kill this low health observer to have a short time of a unvulerable unit.
if you check scan for that matter its the only thing in the game wich u cant protect urself from it no matter how hard u try u cant even base tactics arround OC sniping since they are very easy to safe and even to think about sniping theese to get rid of scans is dumb if you check the math facts how you may able to do so.
speed factors also play a gigantic role in this game wich affects balance. if you see a toss moving out with units u know with their movement speed you are able to react to it with other races having faster stuff. this applies also to retreat situations and chase situations all time protoss has the worse cards.
blizzards maths arent tested to the micro limit wich is why some stuff gets to ridicilous cost effective aswell a terran with a ramp and a bunker is more cost effective then a sentry if you might wanna compare ultimate 1 base defense whereas a t3 unit aka thor walks over it and a sentry costing 100 gas ur bunker just costs u what u have anyway more on 1 base due the mule income.
so all in all and even more i can critizise about how they manage their intel gathering intel useage and apllying changes and for the fun factor if you ever played a toss on a high level u see that the versatilness of this race aka if you ever use other tech it has to much risks wich cost you instant the game a terran can freely chose his tech in most cases fun of toss with their units need to have succesrate aswell if you cant succed with your low choices and some of them like halucination are a detection gamble wich add 0 dps its just nothing u can rely on in most situations.
also a great funfact is if you never checked in the unit counter tab from blizzard and play it yourself out you see in much cases laughable errors.
There is just to much to criticize to get more near balanace while adding more fun rather then making patches wich just remove functions and removing functions is no different then removing fun.Just say me how much fun or creativity it created for the players to remove Void Ray speed ?
On June 14 2011 02:21 Dommk wrote: I have no idea what you guys are talking about either.
Red Aleart2 and Generals have been the best games so far in their respective series, they were really GOOD games. Red Alert 2 especially. Not to mention Battle for Middle-earth was also a good game.
People who complain the most about the game tend to be the people who have the least investment in it, it is like this in EVERY game. The developers aren't out of touch with this game, the community at large is.
Rarely do you see people who actually talk to Blizzard complain about how this game is being made, it is just the uninformed who watch this game more than they play it.
Didn't the OP quote at least 3 such instances?
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see anyone in this thread or in the original post that talks to Blizzard actually criticizing them.
Your probably not blind, but upon re-reading them both the LSPrime and Sen quotes do indirectly criticize them. LSPrime criticizes their decision to add rocks/the abusable low ground cliff to Tal Darim Altar. Sen criticized close positions and how strong he feels cheese is in the game.
In my experience lots of pros also complain about the volatility in the game.. even on these very forums. I don't presume to speak for them because I'm as awful at this game as I was at BW, but saying "nobody who talks to blizzard criticizes them" doesn't seem particularly true.
Sen was complaining more about the state of the game, now how they are developing it.
I'm not actually talking about "criticizing game development" when I mention Sen complaining about Close Positions.. I specifically mentioned someone who criticized the way blizzard is handling a certain aspect of their game.. which you essentially said never happened.
He also complained about how strong cheese is and how easy it is to transition out of. That is an example someone in contact with blizzard complaining about an issue with the game design. I can state with some confidence that he's certainly not the only one.
The 1gas half base third was done because of the current Meta-game, a change especially made for tournament play. They are criticizing Blizzard for not wanting to make changes that suit the current meta game, which isn't something they should be doing really...
Why not? Part of balancing a game is changing maps to suit the current metagame. Regular map updates to suit the metagame are one of the primary reasons BW looks as balanced as it does. If blizzard is going to be doing the job of making a balanced game than they should be using map balancing for the metagame as one of the tools at their disposal.
Obviously blizzard doesn't feel they need to change maps to suit the current metagame because "its confusing", but theirs a sizable difference between what they won't do and what they actually shouldn't.
But in terms of how they are actually developing the game--how they are taking feedback and the reasoning behind the changes they make--how many people who are in active contact with Blizzard actually dislike they way they are handling things? I've yet to see anyone come out and complain.
How many people in the community does Blizzard actively consult about game design? I'd imagine any people they actually do contact about this would have a rather significant amount of constructive criticism and feedback for them... seeing as it comes with the particular job description.
For that matter why should "being in active contact" with blizzard matter when it comes to being able to criticize the way they handle game design anyway? Shouldn't anyone with some expertise or personal experience in the area ought to be able to speak their mind and have the opinion count as much as someone with a similar background who happens to have a personal line with David Kim?
So many many tears in this topic about ... nothing... just another thread that is plain wrong. OP has no insight in running a company, is blind for the stuff that does go right and i suspect suffers from pms.
Did you guys actually see the last mlg? what more of prove do you need that SCII is alot more popular then BW has ever been out side of korea? do you actually think they could pull that off with a shitty game?
SC2 is a better game than most people give it credit for. That being said, the comment made by Browder about going back to BW if you don't like SC2 really irritates me. It's the best argument that can be made for the design team's ego issues. The correct response is not to tell people to go back to BW if they like particular features, but rather to understand how to integrate the best parts of BW into SC2, making it the best RTS possible to date. Unit pathing adjustments are an excellent example, people don't want BW pathing but they do miss the way units respected each others' space. Perhaps in SC2 units could still respect the space of other units without getting stuck everywhere and walking all over the map when they encounter an obstacle without constant micro. This zero sum take-it-or-leave-it approach is debilitating for the positive growth of the game. It is indicative of an overly sensitive design team which is increasingly running out of explanations for the small number of fixable but unrefined aspects of SC2 gameplay.
On June 13 2011 23:48 tree.hugger wrote: However, I still think Blizzard has their head in the sand with regards to competitive play. Drawing lessons from the history of BW balance; the game was not balanced by Blizzard, but rather by map makers. We can clearly see this effect in Sc2, maps like Testbug are difficult for protoss against zerg in several respects, and necessitate a specific style of play from protoss in order to gain an advantage. Blizzard's approach to map making seems to be completely haphazard and bizarre. Their insistence in keeping Delta Quadrant in the map pool is hilarious. Introducing maps like Slag Pits is lunacy.
Are you suggesting they replace crap like DQ with crap like Testbug?
All of this said; Sc2 is quite balanced at the moment. But I think the OP subtly hinted at a larger issue, which is that Sc2's balance isn't as exciting as BW's was. In BW, how come the corsair and the science vessel were used as counters for the mutalisk? That process took much more innovation that Blizzard seems intent to allow.
On the one hand they need to leave things alone to allow innovation, on the other they need to change the maps the community doesn't like...tough position :0
You misread my point. I have two arguments. The first, which I spent that post laying out, is that if what we're only interested in is balance, than map design is a better source of that. So yes, I'd like to see more aggressive map making, and I think that Blizzard clearly does not understand the importance of map design, based on their past actions.
In regards to gameplay, I think it's much better to largely leave things alone. This is largely the formula for how BW developed and I think Sc2 could easily succeed along the same path. The community is much better at balancing a game than is Blizzard. If Blizzard had actually paid attention to BW, they would know better how to facilitate and how to get out of the way, I think. It's a two way street, and it's not easy either; but I'm still fairly confident that Blizzard is in the weeds.
Corsair is an obvious counter to mutas...
This brings me to my second point, which I barely hinted at in that bigger post. But I think this is the meat of the OP's complaint. I think he's afraid (as am I, and likely any fan coming from BW) that balance in Sc2 won't be dynamic enough, because Blizzard isn't designing units correctly, and is taking a lot of the built-in limitations out of the game. This may or may not be the case, and furthermore, I don't know enough to speak to this, and I don't have any evidence either way, so I'm going to avoid really talking about it.
But my nugget of an example was about how the corsair and science vessel (and archon) became counters to the mutalisk. They only truly became the serious counters that they did because the way mutalisks were used in 2006 with the discovery of modern muta micro. After stacking your mutas, they become much much more vulnerable to corsairs and archons, and science vessel irradiate. It got to the point where one science vessel effectively shuts down muta harass, simply because the threat of an irradiate destroying the whole flock becomes too strong. Nothing like that in Sc2.
That's all I'm going to say about the second issue.
On June 14 2011 03:12 betaV1.25 wrote: So many many tears in this topic about ... nothing... just another thread that is plain wrong. OP has no insight in running a company, is blind for the stuff that does go right and i suspect suffers from pms.
Did you guys actually see the last mlg? what more of prove do you need that SCII is alot more popular then BW has ever been out side of korea? do you actually think they could pull that off with a shitty game?
The OP is speaking from the position of a fan, which is a curious one that you appear to not understand. He is not easily satisfied, because he knows things could be even better. As a community, we need more people like the OP, and less people who accept what is given to them without comment, thought, or constructive criticism.
On June 14 2011 03:38 SolidusR wrote: SC2 is a better game than most people give it credit for. That being said, the comment made by Browder about going back to BW if you don't like SC2 really irritates me. It's the best argument that can be made for the design team's ego issues. The correct response is not to tell people to go back to BW if they like particular features, but rather to understand how to integrate the best parts of BW into SC2, making it the best RTS possible to date. Unit pathing adjustments are an excellent example, people don't want BW pathing but they do miss the way units respected each others' space. Perhaps in SC2 units could still respect the space of other units without getting stuck everywhere and walking all over the map when they encounter an obstacle without constant micro. This zero sum take-it-or-leave-it approach is debilitating for the positive growth of the game. It is indicative of an overly sensitive design team which is increasingly running out of explanations for the small number of fixable but unrefined aspects of SC2 gameplay.
I agree completely. Only an idiot would say that SC2 is shitty or bad, but I do have a problem with people being overly defensive about it.
SC2 isn't perfect, and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out and proposing ways to change it. But I do hate how people practically jump you every time you criticize the game at all. Yes, I can understand that some complaints are just cheap balance whines, and that some people should stop bashing Dustin Browder mindlessly, but none of those things mean that we should just ignore all the valid complaints that are buried beneath the rough.
I also see nothing wrong with taking the best parts of BW and integrating them into SC2, because I SEVERELY doubt that a casual's decision to buy SC2 is going to be based on it having clumped unit pathing or not (most RTSs these days actually spread units out, like CoH). Hell, the public at large already sees the game as SC1 in 3D, so I really don't know why people are so obsessed with trying to shake that notion when it's pretty much impossible to do without overhauling the game (which these same people are often against doing, lol).
Immortals are maybe the most interesting unit in the game. It would be awesome if it were to be used as a massing unit, and to take over the role of the Stalker somewhat.
Colossus is rather boring.
But most of all, it is the current strategies employed that are boring.
Blizzard gets feedback from multiple outlets, including the pro-gamers, their own forums, and all the statistics they collect. And they take it very seriously. And, quite frankly, they know a heck of a lot more about their game than Sen does.
Furthermore, if you've been paying any attention to the evolution of SC2 so far, you'd notice that the game has been approaching a more balanced ratio overall for 1v1.
I really couldn't disagree more with the OP. Just because Blizzard doesn't want to patch, buff, or nerf, every single idea that people come up with doesn't mean they're *out of touch* with everyone. It would destroy the game to change everything for no legitimate reason, and at least Blizzard is honest with us.
Your premises and arguments are clearly flawed, and even your random facts are just plain ridiculous. Roaches, marauders, and immortals are the SC2 versions of dragoons? Umm... not even close. None of them can attack air, none of them have famously terrible pathing, and they each have unique abilities (burrow move, concussive shells, hardened shields). So if your argument was that those three units were ranged units that happened to cost a little gas... then okay. So I guess stalkers, hydralisks, and tanks are dragoons too!
You're grasping at straws, and I don't see it going anywhere useful. If you think certain units are boring, then go make your own game with cooler versions of them -.-' Or just wait until the expansions come out.
I haven't had a chance to read over the entire thread because I just found it today. However on the topic of Blizzard requesting alterations to Tal'darim Altar before adding it to their map pool, I'm actually just fine with this.
The Blizzard ladder is their own official ladder. They can operate it in whatever fashion that they want to. They never laid claim that it was the end-all-be-all ladder in the world. They have their own guidelines for adding maps to the ladder, why not allow them to have Tal'darim Altar molded to fit those guidelines? In fact they didn't have to necessarily reach out to the creator for their opinions and discussion regarding balancing of the map. We've seen from legal cases and fine print that they indeed own all intellectual property of the game, including map creations (until the Map Store is official anyways). The fact they went out and discussed this with the creator was good respect on their part.
Just the same as why GOM introduced its own custom GSL maps and why MLG instituted their own customized versions of existing maps. Each organization wanted to do things differently, so why not allow maps to be customized for each tournament or ladder?
On June 14 2011 03:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Blizzard gets feedback from multiple outlets, including the pro-gamers, their own forums, and all the statistics they collect. And they take it very seriously. And, quite frankly, they know a heck of a lot more about their game than Sen does.
Furthermore, if you've been paying any attention to the evolution of SC2 so far, you'd notice that the game has been approaching a more balanced ratio overall for 1v1.
I really couldn't disagree more with the OP. Just because Blizzard doesn't want to patch, buff, or nerf, every single idea that people come up with doesn't mean they're *out of touch* with everyone. It would destroy the game to change everything for no legitimate reason, and at least Blizzard is honest with us.
Your premises and arguments are clearly flawed, and even your random facts are just plain ridiculous. Roaches, marauders, and immortals are the SC2 versions of dragoons? Umm... not even close. None of them can attack air, none of them have famously terrible pathing, and they each have unique abilities (burrow move, concussive shells, hardened shields). So if your argument was that those three units were ranged units that happened to cost a little gas... then okay.
You're grasping at straws, and I don't see it going anywhere useful. How about we wait until the expansions come out? And if you think certain units are boring, then go make your own game with cooler versions of them -.-'
I agree with you. But i think the concept of just an overall solid unit should be exclusive to one race. The marauder and the stalker and roach are just great "meat" units. The problem is that they closely overlap due to there health. a Roach feels like a marauder, and a marauder feels like a stalker. But if you compare say, hydras to dragoons, or vultures to roaches, they are way different.
What i think we are essentially saying is that the units overlap in overall feel too much. In broodwar, the only good ranged high health, pretty good against everything unit was the dragoon. Now zerg and terran have that kind of unit too(not exactly the same of course).
On June 14 2011 02:48 Seide wrote: When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle.
Uncertainty was how well you could psi storm, dodge emps, put clumps of tanks in stasis, and all across 2 or 3 screens of units. Now its just "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." The only uncertainty is because you cant actually tell how many units there are in a given space because all balls look the same. Uncertainty is good when it derives from micro. Its shit when it comes from visual misrepresentation.
On June 14 2011 02:48 Seide wrote: When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle.
Uncertainty was how well you could psi storm, dodge emps, put clumps of tanks in stasis, and all across 2 or 3 screens of units. Now its just "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." The only uncertainty is because you cant actually tell how many units there are in a given space because all balls look the same. Uncertainty is good when it derives from micro. Its shit when it comes from visual misrepresentation.
Let me slam my ball into your and see who wins might be true in regular low rank ladder matches. It's not really true in actual high end tournaments. Why to people so often resort to hyperbole and exaggerations when they want to argue a point on these forums?
On June 14 2011 03:43 tree.hugger wrote: You misread my point. I have two arguments. The first, which I spent that post laying out, is that if what we're only interested in is balance, than map design is a better source of that. So yes, I'd like to see more aggressive map making, and I think that Blizzard clearly does not understand the importance of map design, based on their past actions.
Well, I agree on the importance of maps, but I'm not sure Blizzard can reasonably be much more aggressive with map changes. Most of ladder probably isn't very interested in having to learn new maps every other month. I feel like letting GSL and such introduce new maps then have a slower filter into the ladder is a reasonable compromise. Not that it's perfect, garbage like DQ/Slag/close positions should disappear immediately, but overall it's OK.
The other reason I'm slightly against aggressive map changes is because I feel like people have very limited understanding - for now - of what makes a map favor a race. Look at something like Crossfire. Intuition - mine included - says it's a Terran paradise (and a Protoss one in ZvP). Actual evidence says otherwise. Or Tal'Darim these days actually favoring Terran a bit in TvP! That makes it rather difficult to decide what to include, to achieve an overall balance.
In regards to gameplay, I think it's much better to largely leave things alone. This is largely the formula for how BW developed and I think Sc2 could easily succeed along the same path. The community is much better at balancing a game than is Blizzard. If Blizzard had actually paid attention to BW, they would know better how to facilitate and how to get out of the way, I think. It's a two way street, and it's not easy either; but I'm still fairly confident that Blizzard is in the weeds.
I agree, and it seems Blizzard are roughly at that point. From what they say it seems they feel everything is about OK and aren't really going to do much more until HOTS.
On June 14 2011 03:12 betaV1.25 wrote: So many many tears in this topic about ... nothing... just another thread that is plain wrong. OP has no insight in running a company, is blind for the stuff that does go right and i suspect suffers from pms.
Did you guys actually see the last mlg? what more of prove do you need that SCII is alot more popular then BW has ever been out side of korea? do you actually think they could pull that off with a shitty game?
Wait? the thread is wrong why? explain please. sc2 being popular has nothing to do with the game being balanced and the fans that showed up at mlg and watch the streams I'm sure would agree that the game needs to be balanced badly in various aspects of the game.
On June 14 2011 03:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Blizzard gets feedback from multiple outlets, including the pro-gamers, their own forums, and all the statistics they collect. And they take it very seriously. And, quite frankly, they know a heck of a lot more about their game than Sen does.
Furthermore, if you've been paying any attention to the evolution of SC2 so far, you'd notice that the game has been approaching a more balanced ratio overall for 1v1.
I really couldn't disagree more with the OP. Just because Blizzard doesn't want to patch, buff, or nerf, every single idea that people come up with doesn't mean they're *out of touch* with everyone. It would destroy the game to change everything for no legitimate reason, and at least Blizzard is honest with us.
Your premises and arguments are clearly flawed, and even your random facts are just plain ridiculous. Roaches, marauders, and immortals are the SC2 versions of dragoons? Umm... not even close. None of them can attack air, none of them have famously terrible pathing, and they each have unique abilities (burrow move, concussive shells, hardened shields). So if your argument was that those three units were ranged units that happened to cost a little gas... then okay.
You're grasping at straws, and I don't see it going anywhere useful. How about we wait until the expansions come out? And if you think certain units are boring, then go make your own game with cooler versions of them -.-'
I agree with you. But i think the concept of just an overall solid unit should be exclusive to one race. The marauder and the stalker and roach are just great "meat" units. The problem is that they closely overlap due to there health. a Roach feels like a marauder, and a marauder feels like a stalker. But if you compare say, hydras to dragoons, or vultures to roaches, they are way different.
What i think we are essentially saying is that the units overlap in overall feel too much. In broodwar, the only good ranged high health, pretty good against everything unit was the dragoon. Now zerg and terran have that kind of unit too(not exactly the same of course).
What you've posited is that there exists a single trio of units that has a similar feel to them. In other words, that there is one Zerg unit that kind of feels like one Terran unit, and that both kind of feel like a Protoss unit. Roach ~ Marauder ~ Stalker.
1. First off, I would be worried if this were the norm for the races. In other words, if pretty much every Terran unit matched each Zerg and Protoss unit. I think it's quite obvious that this isn't the case. In fact, Blizzard has said over and over again that they make sure that there isn't an equivalent of each unit for each niche or mirror unit to match. And yet the match-up statistics show that the game is relatively balanced in 1v1. I think that's rather amazing.
2. Secondly, I actually reject your claim that Roach ~ Marauder ~ Stalker. I see a match only in cost. The differences? -Marauders counter the other two straight up. -The multiple abilities of each: burrow-move vs. stim and concussive vs. blink and air attack. Very different indeed.
3. We see a lot of variation in 1v1 games. If we only saw pure marauders out of Terran players, or all Protosses going pure stalkers, then we'd have a problem. What we see instead is a variety of builds (which does undoubtedly change as the metagame shifts), so I really don't see problems here. Some units are used more than others, true. But that doesn't imply that we need this thread to bash Blizzard in the way the OP is. It certainly doesn't mean Blizzard is *out of touch*.
On June 13 2011 23:48 tree.hugger wrote: I don't entirely agree with Cecil here, just because his experience and his work is one way doesn't mean that Blizzard's process or decision making is the same, however this should be requoted on the new page. Smart post.
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote: I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight.
We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible.
I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience.
The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts).
Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do.
In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation):
"BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well.
The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation.
Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored.
Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective.
Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true.
Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed.
Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
However, I still think Blizzard has their head in the sand with regards to competitive play. Drawing lessons from the history of BW balance; the game was not balanced by Blizzard, but rather by map makers. We can clearly see this effect in Sc2, maps like Testbug are difficult for protoss against zerg in several respects, and necessitate a specific style of play from protoss in order to gain an advantage. Blizzard's approach to map making seems to be completely haphazard and bizarre. Their insistence in keeping Delta Quadrant in the map pool is hilarious. Introducing maps like Slag Pits is lunacy.
And things like unit pathing that resists clumping are not incredibly difficult to do and merit investigation. That they dismiss them out of hand suggests to me that they don't understand very well what that means for the game, beyond simply making AOE powerful.
For the period in which BW was truly balanced; Blizzard was entirely absent. And for that reason, I buy the idea that a lot of the subtleties of that experience are not understood by their team. This is unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. There are very few people in the world, (myself most definitely not being one of them) that grasps enough of BW to really speak to how that game worked itself out.
Like I said, I'm pretty happy with what has happened so far from Blizzard's end, but I didn't say they couldn't improve. I really think most decisions they made to their 1v1 map pool were made with the idea in mind that newer players cannot be alienated, and lower level players cannot be lost and confused. They just don't cater to the high level community heavily in that regard. I think they should, as it's a damn ladder map pool, but I'm sure their decision has currently fulfilled whatever goals they had for it.
Also, I've never thought that map makers at Blizzard knew what they were doing. My experience tells me that the majority of maps are made from level designers that don't understand competitive play, and the ones put into map pool go through the test team and David Kim, neither of which should be nearly as competent as the teams of people creating BW maps. So it's expected (at least to me) that they'll be lacking, and Blizzard knows this as well. They seem to just be hoping that the competitive community will just make their own maps for tournaments, while they can keep their current ladder map pool design in affect in order to achieve whatever goals they are striving for in doing so.
On June 14 2011 01:21 lololol wrote: What BW had was good and solid design, it wasn't simply about having "cool" units... "a siege tank that doesn't need to siege and can scale cliffs would be so cool"!
I think the overall way BW was constructed simply made it less prone to a lot of headaches people have nowadays in SC2. Better pathing, more efficient AI, easier spell casting, multi-building select, infinite selection cap, all of these things make the game more prone to annoying shit than back in Brood War.
For example compare the Templar Psi Storm from the two games. SC2's obviously has less DPS (yes I know this is apple's to orange's), and the same goes for most AoE attacks from BW to SC2. Take a look at Plague --> Fungal Growth. You have to make spells, abilities, and some units in general a lot less effective due to fundamental differences between the games.
So I don't really think it's fair to say BW's design was better, when I think that BW was just less prone to the headaches caused by today due to the vast differences between the two situations of BW and SC2. You also have to realize that BW was released for how long before it got to its current state? SC2 is an infant compared to that timespan. Give it some good hard time (assuming Blizzard lets the dust settle so we can figure shit out, and lets skilled and external groups handle map making moreso than now).
This isn't directly related to your post, but I wanted to point out that your post have been very good.
They should implement some basic formations. Perhaps 4 different formations that will place your selected hotkey in a predefined arrangement based on strategical impact. A game called Myth back in the day had this, and it was awesome. It was a preset army RTS where each army was equal and SC2 could really help the OPness of AoE if they had much easier formation control.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
so your subjective experience with 6 games in RT vs AT 2vs2 shows "Blizzard's absolute ineptitude", give me a break...
On June 14 2011 02:48 Seide wrote: When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle.
Uncertainty was how well you could psi storm, dodge emps, put clumps of tanks in stasis, and all across 2 or 3 screens of units. Now its just "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." The only uncertainty is because you cant actually tell how many units there are in a given space because all balls look the same. Uncertainty is good when it derives from micro. Its shit when it comes from visual misrepresentation.
Let me slam my ball into your and see who wins might be true in regular low rank ladder matches. It's not really true in actual high end tournaments. Why to people so often resort to hyperbole and exaggerations when they want to argue a point on these forums?
The TSL4 finals wasn't high-level? Many of those games in that final PvT match could be summed up with the phrase "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins."
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
It's your ally's fault for leaving the game, not David Kim's fault for having a partner. If you don't like the fact that Random Teams puts you with a Random Teammate who might leave at any moment, then don't play Random Teams -.-' Duh. Get a friend.
I can't believe you'd blame Blizzard for the fact that your partner left the game because he was intimidated by the opponents. How ridiculous. That's what happens when you play on a Random Team. You run the risk of playing with a dumb ally. Or you run the risk of playing with a totally kick-ass ally. That's why it's called Random Teams.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
so your subjective experience with 6 games in RT vs AT 2vs2 shows "Blizzard's absolute ineptitude", give me a break...
On June 14 2011 02:48 Seide wrote: When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle.
Uncertainty was how well you could psi storm, dodge emps, put clumps of tanks in stasis, and all across 2 or 3 screens of units. Now its just "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." The only uncertainty is because you cant actually tell how many units there are in a given space because all balls look the same. Uncertainty is good when it derives from micro. Its shit when it comes from visual misrepresentation.
Let me slam my ball into your and see who wins might be true in regular low rank ladder matches. It's not really true in actual high end tournaments. Why to people so often resort to hyperbole and exaggerations when they want to argue a point on these forums?
The TSL4 finals wasn't high-level? Many of those games in that final PvT match could be summed up with the phrase "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins."
What game did that. I remember seing two contains, one blink stalker rush and a epic hold by Thorzain. Last game was alot of positioning and had great EMP's etc.
On June 14 2011 03:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Blizzard gets feedback from multiple outlets, including the pro-gamers, their own forums, and all the statistics they collect. And they take it very seriously. And, quite frankly, they know a heck of a lot more about their game than Sen does.
Furthermore, if you've been paying any attention to the evolution of SC2 so far, you'd notice that the game has been approaching a more balanced ratio overall for 1v1.
I really couldn't disagree more with the OP. Just because Blizzard doesn't want to patch, buff, or nerf, every single idea that people come up with doesn't mean they're *out of touch* with everyone. It would destroy the game to change everything for no legitimate reason, and at least Blizzard is honest with us.
Your premises and arguments are clearly flawed, and even your random facts are just plain ridiculous. Roaches, marauders, and immortals are the SC2 versions of dragoons? Umm... not even close. None of them can attack air, none of them have famously terrible pathing, and they each have unique abilities (burrow move, concussive shells, hardened shields). So if your argument was that those three units were ranged units that happened to cost a little gas... then okay.
You're grasping at straws, and I don't see it going anywhere useful. How about we wait until the expansions come out? And if you think certain units are boring, then go make your own game with cooler versions of them -.-'
I agree with you. But i think the concept of just an overall solid unit should be exclusive to one race. The marauder and the stalker and roach are just great "meat" units. The problem is that they closely overlap due to there health. a Roach feels like a marauder, and a marauder feels like a stalker. But if you compare say, hydras to dragoons, or vultures to roaches, they are way different.
What i think we are essentially saying is that the units overlap in overall feel too much. In broodwar, the only good ranged high health, pretty good against everything unit was the dragoon. Now zerg and terran have that kind of unit too(not exactly the same of course).
What you've posited is that there exists a single trio of units that has a similar feel to them. In other words, that there is one Zerg unit that kind of feels like one Terran unit, and that both kind of feel like a Protoss unit. Roach ~ Marauder ~ Stalker.
1. First off, I would be worried if this were the norm for the races. In other words, if pretty much every Terran unit matched each Zerg and Protoss unit. I think it's quite obvious that this isn't the case. In fact, Blizzard has said over and over again that they make sure that there isn't an equivalent of each unit for each niche or mirror unit to match. And yet the match-up statistics show that the game is relatively balanced in 1v1. I think that's rather amazing.
2. Secondly, I actually reject your claim that Roach ~ Marauder ~ Stalker. I see a match only in cost. The differences? -Marauders counter the other two straight up. -The multiple abilities of each: burrow-move vs. stim and concussive vs. blink and air attack. Very different indeed.
3. We see a lot of variation in 1v1 games. If we only saw pure marauders out of Terran players, or all Protosses going pure stalkers, then we'd have a problem. What we see instead is a variety of builds (which does undoubtedly change as the metagame shifts), so I really don't see problems here. Some units are used more than others, true. But that doesn't imply that we need this thread to bash Blizzard in the way the OP is. It certainly doesn't mean Blizzard is *out of touch*.
variation does not necessarily lead to good strategy or exciting battles, the "marauders counter the other two straight up doesn't get my point. They all serve the same basic role, despite have different ways of doing it. The stalker and the marine accomplish doing damage and avoiding damge in different ways. The tank and roach accomplish damage in different ways. The hydra in broodwar, and the dragoon in broodwar, accomplished goals in different ways because the health differential was so high. The stalker, the marauder and the roach, are all relatively mobile ranged units with lots of health and a good consistent attack with decent dps.
They are dragoons with an ability, nothing more, and all they all fill the same role.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
so your subjective experience with 6 games in RT vs AT 2vs2 shows "Blizzard's absolute ineptitude", give me a break...
Didn't they fix RT vs AT btw?
Point is RT vs AT is not a balanced matchup, one of the main reasons being that 2 arranged players are not going to backstab eachother, vs in RT, one player may choose to BM the other, making matching the two against one another only break both ladders.
Instead, the "expert" answer to this flaw is not that their system is broken, which it is, but instead that "I'm too good" aka "your MMR is too high", implying that I'm matching againt a highly skilled arranged team because of my own high skill, and the only way matches are therefore "fair" is to partner with a lower quality teamate.
So yes, not addressing the issue and instead deflecting it in the way they did shows only a vast ineptitude towards the way matchmaking should work.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
It's your ally's fault for leaving the game, not David Kim's fault for having a partner. If you don't like the fact that Random Teams puts you with a Random Teammate who might leave at any moment, then don't play Random Teams -.-' Duh. Get a friend.
I can't believe you'd blame Blizzard for the fact that your partner left the game because he was intimidated by the opponents. How ridiculous. That's what happens when you play on a Random Team. You run the risk of playing with a dumb ally. Or you run the risk of playing with a totally kick-ass ally. That's why it's called Random Teams.
It is not a logical solution to say that RT is imbalanced therefore you have to not play it. The logical solution is not to "not play RT," but to not match RT vs AT. The risk of playing with a crappy ally is EXACTLY why AT should never match with RT, you simply don't have that risk, and there's no amount of handicapped points you can implement that will balance RT vs AT out.
You guys shows Blizzard's flawed logic perfectly. Instead of addressing the actual issues, they let their pride get in the way and assume everything is correct, when in practice, you can see, (most recently represented by the RT vs AT issue I brought up, but also many, many balance/map issues) that there are significant issues that are being ignored.
The reply "your mmr is to high" probably means that when you have become so good at random teams your mmr places you vs top set teams. Its a chance to test your communication skills , micro, maco, unit integration vs top teams. Its a very good sign that you can be paired up vs set teams because it means your very skilled. The fact that your paired up vs set teams doenst' mean the game is imbalanced. It means your a good player with solid team skills and you've hit a ceiling and further improvement is only vs set arranged teams. Right?
As for the quitting you know this old saying is true:" Quitters can't win. Winners don't quit." You saw that over and over in the MLG games. There is no such thing as a free win. You saw MMA killing his own CC and you saw Idra leave when the game was his. Unless your faced with an A+ hacker leaving at the start of the game is just fulfilling your own negativity.
Theres also something called pretense of knowledge syndrome. We are suffer from it. We think we know something but in actually its quite different from what we think we see. I will say that the match making system is a huge black box to me. I would rage hard when I used to get a Gold partner vs top teams. It was utter disaster so I have empathy with what your feeling. The flip side of the coin is you have the chance to rise to the occasion and come up with ways to improve to even exceed set teams.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
On June 14 2011 02:48 Seide wrote: When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle.
Uncertainty was how well you could psi storm, dodge emps, put clumps of tanks in stasis, and all across 2 or 3 screens of units. Now its just "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." The only uncertainty is because you cant actually tell how many units there are in a given space because all balls look the same. Uncertainty is good when it derives from micro. Its shit when it comes from visual misrepresentation.
Let me slam my ball into your and see who wins might be true in regular low rank ladder matches. It's not really true in actual high end tournaments. Why to people so often resort to hyperbole and exaggerations when they want to argue a point on these forums?
The TSL4 finals wasn't high-level? Many of those games in that final PvT match could be summed up with the phrase "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins."
What game did that. I remember seing two contains, one blink stalker rush and a epic hold by Thorzain. Last game was alot of positioning and had great EMP's etc.
The final game for 15k was basically decided by two balls colliding into each other.
On June 14 2011 03:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Blizzard gets feedback from multiple outlets, including the pro-gamers, their own forums, and all the statistics they collect. And they take it very seriously. And, quite frankly, they know a heck of a lot more about their game than Sen does.
Furthermore, if you've been paying any attention to the evolution of SC2 so far, you'd notice that the game has been approaching a more balanced ratio overall for 1v1.
I really couldn't disagree more with the OP. Just because Blizzard doesn't want to patch, buff, or nerf, every single idea that people come up with doesn't mean they're *out of touch* with everyone. It would destroy the game to change everything for no legitimate reason, and at least Blizzard is honest with us.
Your premises and arguments are clearly flawed, and even your random facts are just plain ridiculous. Roaches, marauders, and immortals are the SC2 versions of dragoons? Umm... not even close. None of them can attack air, none of them have famously terrible pathing, and they each have unique abilities (burrow move, concussive shells, hardened shields). So if your argument was that those three units were ranged units that happened to cost a little gas... then okay.
You're grasping at straws, and I don't see it going anywhere useful. How about we wait until the expansions come out? And if you think certain units are boring, then go make your own game with cooler versions of them -.-'
I agree with you. But i think the concept of just an overall solid unit should be exclusive to one race. The marauder and the stalker and roach are just great "meat" units. The problem is that they closely overlap due to there health. a Roach feels like a marauder, and a marauder feels like a stalker. But if you compare say, hydras to dragoons, or vultures to roaches, they are way different.
What i think we are essentially saying is that the units overlap in overall feel too much. In broodwar, the only good ranged high health, pretty good against everything unit was the dragoon. Now zerg and terran have that kind of unit too(not exactly the same of course).
What you've posited is that there exists a single trio of units that has a similar feel to them. In other words, that there is one Zerg unit that kind of feels like one Terran unit, and that both kind of feel like a Protoss unit. Roach ~ Marauder ~ Stalker.
1. First off, I would be worried if this were the norm for the races. In other words, if pretty much every Terran unit matched each Zerg and Protoss unit. I think it's quite obvious that this isn't the case. In fact, Blizzard has said over and over again that they make sure that there isn't an equivalent of each unit for each niche or mirror unit to match. And yet the match-up statistics show that the game is relatively balanced in 1v1. I think that's rather amazing.
2. Secondly, I actually reject your claim that Roach ~ Marauder ~ Stalker. I see a match only in cost. The differences? -Marauders counter the other two straight up. -The multiple abilities of each: burrow-move vs. stim and concussive vs. blink and air attack. Very different indeed.
3. We see a lot of variation in 1v1 games. If we only saw pure marauders out of Terran players, or all Protosses going pure stalkers, then we'd have a problem. What we see instead is a variety of builds (which does undoubtedly change as the metagame shifts), so I really don't see problems here. Some units are used more than others, true. But that doesn't imply that we need this thread to bash Blizzard in the way the OP is. It certainly doesn't mean Blizzard is *out of touch*.
variation does not necessarily lead to good strategy or exciting battles, the "marauders counter the other two straight up doesn't get my point. They all serve the same basic role, despite have different ways of doing it. The stalker and the marine accomplish doing damage and avoiding damge in different ways. The tank and roach accomplish damage in different ways. The hydra in broodwar, and the dragoon in broodwar, accomplished goals in different ways because the health differential was so high. The stalker, the marauder and the roach, are all relatively mobile ranged units with lots of health and a good consistent attack with decent dps.
They are dragoons with an ability, nothing more, and all they all fill the same role.
I know that variation doesn't lead to good strategy or exciting battles.
The players are in charge of that.
And if your criteia for being a dragoon look-alike are "relatively mobile ranged units with lots of health and a good consistent attack with decent dps", then most units in the game are dragoons. I already explained why they weren't beforehand. Sure, you can pick out small similarities, but roaches actually aren't tanks or dragoons just because you can find a small likeness between them.
All this comparison to BW is getting really old. SC2 isn't BW. Not every SC2 unit was created to directly copy a BW one in every aspect, and not every race has the same type of unit.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
It's your ally's fault for leaving the game, not David Kim's fault for having a partner. If you don't like the fact that Random Teams puts you with a Random Teammate who might leave at any moment, then don't play Random Teams -.-' Duh. Get a friend.
I can't believe you'd blame Blizzard for the fact that your partner left the game because he was intimidated by the opponents. How ridiculous. That's what happens when you play on a Random Team. You run the risk of playing with a dumb ally. Or you run the risk of playing with a totally kick-ass ally. That's why it's called Random Teams.
It is not a logical solution to say that RT is imbalanced therefore you have to not play it. The logical solution is not to "not play RT," but to not match RT vs AT. The risk of playing with a crappy ally is EXACTLY why AT should never match with RT, you simply don't have that risk, and there's no amount of handicapped points you can implement that will balance RT vs AT out.
You guys shows Blizzard's flawed logic perfectly. Instead of addressing the actual issues, they let their pride get in the way and assume everything is correct, when in practice, you can see, (most recently represented by the RT vs AT issue I brought up, but also many, many balance/map issues) that there are significant issues that are being ignored.
Right. Because Arranged Teams are never between two people of different leagues -.-' Two friends who happen to be master and silver level will never play together, and there's never a chance that one person in an AT may have to leave.
Arranged Teams can have crappy allies too. Get over it.
On June 14 2011 02:48 Seide wrote: When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle.
Uncertainty was how well you could psi storm, dodge emps, put clumps of tanks in stasis, and all across 2 or 3 screens of units. Now its just "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." The only uncertainty is because you cant actually tell how many units there are in a given space because all balls look the same. Uncertainty is good when it derives from micro. Its shit when it comes from visual misrepresentation.
Let me slam my ball into your and see who wins might be true in regular low rank ladder matches. It's not really true in actual high end tournaments. Why to people so often resort to hyperbole and exaggerations when they want to argue a point on these forums?
The TSL4 finals wasn't high-level? Many of those games in that final PvT match could be summed up with the phrase "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins."
What game did that. I remember seing two contains, one blink stalker rush and a epic hold by Thorzain. Last game was alot of positioning and had great EMP's etc.
The final game for 15k was basically decided by two balls colliding into each other.
It was decided by Naniwa losing focus and getting his sentries EMP'ed time and again.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
It's your ally's fault for leaving the game, not David Kim's fault for having a partner. If you don't like the fact that Random Teams puts you with a Random Teammate who might leave at any moment, then don't play Random Teams -.-' Duh. Get a friend.
I can't believe you'd blame Blizzard for the fact that your partner left the game because he was intimidated by the opponents. How ridiculous. That's what happens when you play on a Random Team. You run the risk of playing with a dumb ally. Or you run the risk of playing with a totally kick-ass ally. That's why it's called Random Teams.
It is not a logical solution to say that RT is imbalanced therefore you have to not play it. The logical solution is not to "not play RT," but to not match RT vs AT. The risk of playing with a crappy ally is EXACTLY why AT should never match with RT, you simply don't have that risk, and there's no amount of handicapped points you can implement that will balance RT vs AT out.
You guys shows Blizzard's flawed logic perfectly. Instead of addressing the actual issues, they let their pride get in the way and assume everything is correct, when in practice, you can see, (most recently represented by the RT vs AT issue I brought up, but also many, many balance/map issues) that there are significant issues that are being ignored.
And you assume you are correct and that they don't know what they're doing. Maybe they match AT vs RT because queues would be horrible and they'd have to match alot less evenly matched people against eachother that way?
On June 14 2011 05:23 Persev wrote: The reply "your mmr is to high" probably means that when you have become so good at random teams your mmr places you vs top set teams. Its a chance to test your communication skills , micro, maco, unit integration vs top teams. Its a very good sign that you can be paired up vs set teams because it means your very skilled. The fact that your paired up vs set teams doenst' mean the game is imbalanced. It means your a good player with solid team skills and you've hit a ceiling and further improvement is only vs set arranged teams. Right?
As for the quitting you know this old saying is true:" Quitters can't win. Winners don't quit." You saw that over and over in the MLG games. There is no such thing as a free win. You saw MMA killing his own CC and you saw Idra leave when the game was his. Unless your faced with an A+ hacker leaving at the start of the game is just fulfilling your own negativity.
Theres also something called pretense of knowledge syndrome. We are suffer from it. We think we know something but in actually its quite different from what we think we see. I will say that the match making system is a huge black box to me. I would rage hard when I used to get a Gold partner vs top teams. It was utter disaster so I have empathy with what your feeling. The flip side of the coin is you have the chance to rise to the occasion and come up with ways to improve to even exceed set teams.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
I understand you're trying to be diplomatic, and I respect that. However, I play vs the #1 teams in the world frequently. I've beaten Protech and Power two out of the last 3 times, and I believe they're at about a 85% win rate.
My point, which you bring up, is that there is no "challenge" in the way RT pairs vs AT. It comes down to one simple thing, is your random teamate a master level 1v1 player or not. If he is not, auto lose vs coordinated team. If he/she is, likely easy victory.
Sadly the meta game for RT vs AT does boil down that simply. You say it's a challenge, I say it's a ridiculously unfair system that is broken based on the fact that the system tries to make your win rate 50% even in team games where we have RT vs AT ALL THE TIME. The issue is that the AT gets a shared MMR for each player, while that's being compared to the AVERAGE of the random team.
So if my MMR is 1500, my opponent AT is 1250, the game is going to pair me with a 1000 MMR noob to balance the match out. Turns out though that the AT was recently formed of masters players and thus has not achieved their final MMR, so they're vastly superior in combined skill to my team.
I really don't know how to present it anymore simply. The fact that even the lead game balancer cannot acknowledge this broken system is once again evidence that Blizzard is out of touch with the game, IE the point of the thread.
As previously mentioned - win % cannot be considered a benchmark since the battle.net matchmaking system is designed to keep you at ~50%
A comment about the "uninteresting units": 1.As a Zerg player I feel that the roach has the characteristics of a non-zerg unit that has been added in an attempt to give a proper t1 defence unit. Speed & Burrow movement makes it a bit interesting but still... I feel like with a bit more defence capability to queens and some move speed/hp boost to hydras, maybe giving them the speed and burrow upgrades - roaches could be dumped. Another point I have is that you cannot have hydras without roaches in most of the cases - feels like hydras got their stats cut because you are supposed to have roaches in front (Voted 1st place)
2. Corruptor is 2nd place. That unit, that is supposed to dominate the sky for Zerg fails to serve its purpose - limited as it is.
3.Collosus 3rd place Collo + force fields kills all ground(but terran mech maybe) extremely efficiently for little micro required.
On June 14 2011 05:23 Persev wrote: The reply "your mmr is to high" probably means that when you have become so good at random teams your mmr places you vs top set teams. Its a chance to test your communication skills , micro, maco, unit integration vs top teams. Its a very good sign that you can be paired up vs set teams because it means your very skilled. The fact that your paired up vs set teams doenst' mean the game is imbalanced. It means your a good player with solid team skills and you've hit a ceiling and further improvement is only vs set arranged teams. Right?
As for the quitting you know this old saying is true:" Quitters can't win. Winners don't quit." You saw that over and over in the MLG games. There is no such thing as a free win. You saw MMA killing his own CC and you saw Idra leave when the game was his. Unless your faced with an A+ hacker leaving at the start of the game is just fulfilling your own negativity.
Theres also something called pretense of knowledge syndrome. We are suffer from it. We think we know something but in actually its quite different from what we think we see. I will say that the match making system is a huge black box to me. I would rage hard when I used to get a Gold partner vs top teams. It was utter disaster so I have empathy with what your feeling. The flip side of the coin is you have the chance to rise to the occasion and come up with ways to improve to even exceed set teams.
On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:
On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
I understand you're trying to be diplomatic, and I respect that. However, I play vs the #1 teams in the world frequently. I've beaten Protech and Power two out of the last 3 times, and I believe they're at about a 85% win rate.
My point, which you bring up, is that there is no "challenge" in the way RT pairs vs AT. It comes down to one simple thing, is your random teamate a master level 1v1 player or not. If he is not, auto lose vs coordinated team. If he/she is, likely easy victory.
Sadly the meta game for RT vs AT does boil down that simply. You say it's a challenge, I say it's a ridiculously unfair system that is broken based on the fact that the system tries to make your win rate 50% even in team games where we have RT vs AT ALL THE TIME. The issue is that the AT gets a shared MMR for each player, while that's being compared to the AVERAGE of the random team.
So if my MMR is 1500, my opponent AT is 1250, the game is going to pair me with a 1000 MMR noob to balance the match out. Turns out though that the AT was recently formed of masters players and thus has not achieved their final MMR, so they're vastly superior in combined skill to my team.
I really don't know how to present it anymore simply. The fact that even the lead game balancer cannot acknowledge this broken system is once again evidence that Blizzard is out of touch with the game, IE the point of the thread.
What should they do then? There's obviously a reason they keep RT vs AT in. Maybe it's cause the pool of players and their spread would be thin and finding good matchups would be even harder with the change? Do you know if that's the case?
Sure.. the ladder results in win rates of about 50% for every race
That does not mean the game is balanced, that means that the ladder is working as intended
Judging balance based on the results of ladder wins or losses is not a viable method for measuring balance because it does not take skill into consideration.
On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic.
I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing.
They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced.
Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta.
They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
It's your ally's fault for leaving the game, not David Kim's fault for having a partner. If you don't like the fact that Random Teams puts you with a Random Teammate who might leave at any moment, then don't play Random Teams -.-' Duh. Get a friend.
I can't believe you'd blame Blizzard for the fact that your partner left the game because he was intimidated by the opponents. How ridiculous. That's what happens when you play on a Random Team. You run the risk of playing with a dumb ally. Or you run the risk of playing with a totally kick-ass ally. That's why it's called Random Teams.
It is not a logical solution to say that RT is imbalanced therefore you have to not play it. The logical solution is not to "not play RT," but to not match RT vs AT. The risk of playing with a crappy ally is EXACTLY why AT should never match with RT, you simply don't have that risk, and there's no amount of handicapped points you can implement that will balance RT vs AT out.
You guys shows Blizzard's flawed logic perfectly. Instead of addressing the actual issues, they let their pride get in the way and assume everything is correct, when in practice, you can see, (most recently represented by the RT vs AT issue I brought up, but also many, many balance/map issues) that there are significant issues that are being ignored.
And you assume you are correct and that they don't know what they're doing. Maybe they match AT vs RT because queues would be horrible and they'd have to match alot less evenly matched people against eachother that way?
I don't assume anything. My information is based on fact. Read excaliber's post about MMR and matchmaking. That is exactly how it works and is supported by David Kim's message about my MMR being too high, forcing me vs Arranged Teams with subpar teamates.
If the queues were really a problem, then they would/should post that information to the community to support their reasoning. In fact, the only support they've ever given was a completely illogical post stating that because AT and RT have different ladders, the fact that they play against eachother is irrelevant, which is demonstrably false, given that if an Arranged Team played nothing but Random Teams, and another Arranged Team played nothing but Arranged Teams, you would expect the one vs the RT to do better, and appear to be more skilled based on the inherent flaws with RT vs AT I listed and others.
Again, it all comes back to community communication and addressing the issues the community presents. While many may in fact be unfounded, they do not go away until addressed. Additionally, I will add that the community does in fact call many of the nerfs that go into play. Most recently the stim nerfs, infestor minor nerfs, warp gate nerfs, etc all called for by the community. Void ray nerfs, reaper nerfs, roach nerfs, also all requested by the community in the past, and have been balanced for 1v1 and teams.
So since this is my last post - Blizzard, show ALL the data. Statistics can show anything Blizzard wants them to. Without the raw data, the community cannot be expected to assume anything Blizzard says is supported by evidence. Another example is High Templar pre warp in storm vs Infestors. Blizzard told us Storms were far too powerful, dealing too much damage. Well, infestors are more devistating now in AOE and support than storms ever were, and yet, there has been zero data about the amount of damage infestors are dealing per cost. My guess as to why is that if we saw the data, we would see that infestors have nearly identically taken the role that the OP templar previously held, and yet we've gone weeks without a significant nerf.
Show us all the data. Let the community be informed and you won't have this perception about blizzard.
I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss. - Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg - Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss - Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally.
On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote: I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss. - Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg - Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss - Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally.
Unit composition and timing attacks help decide who wins the game -.-' Who woulda thought.
I bet micro, macro, and scouting all play an integral part too. Please consider everything.
This thread has become nothing more than a whining area.
I also disagree with Browder's argument that he is trying to make an entertaining game that is appealing to many first and foremost and then worrying about making the game work on an ESPORT level afterwards. (I believe it was in the interview with Sen in which he made this remark.)
But history clearly has shown in the world of sports that if you make a game that is appealing to watch for spectators, then people will naturally pick it up as a hobby and play it, either by trying to emulate their favorite professional players or by innovating completely new styles of play.
Similarly, if Blizzard, instead of trying to make SC2 into some sort of cookie-cutter RTS that is "casual friendly", focused on making the absolute best ESPORT they possibly could, then people would naturally see the beauty in the game from spectating it and want to give it a try themselves.
I can already in this infant stage of SC2 cite real world examples of people who became fans of SC2 as an ESPORT first and players of it second. In fact I personally know of one person who even bought the game with zero intention in playing it (not having a PC that would support such a decision) and yet did so anyway solely to support Blizzard in their initiative to further ESPORTS.
This sentiment among people would only grow were Blizzard to shift their focus in game design to cater more toward professional gamers and less toward these "casual gamers" they are so worried about.
On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote: I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss. - Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg - Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss - Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally.
Unit composition and timing attacks help decide who wins the game -.-' Who woulda thought.
I bet micro, macro, and scouting all play an integral part too. Please consider everything.
This thread has become nothing more than a whining area.
His argument is not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be. Don't bother posting if you demean another's post without adding anything insightful.
If you are still unable to see the point, he is saying that so much emphasis is on things like what your units are rather than what you do with them. Example - Toss is getting out a bunch of colossi. I, a zerg, MUST get out corruptors quick or I am completely dead. I'm not thinking hmm maybe if I burrow micro my roaches well, drop some spines, split my hydralisks I'll be able to handle this - I'm thinking corruptors.
Now sure, you might be able to do the crazy micro and whatnot, but the unit counters are such a huge focus in doing well in the game, and that maybe you should be able to be more successful (to a point) than you are now, with say, things like hydras against colossi, hellions against roaches, bio against HTs. That's his point. But yeah, it's easier to say "lol everyone knows unit comp matters already lolol what a whiner"
The races themselves are OK, with some slight problems. Zerg early game still sucks and scouting is still problematic, but it's not enough to really call a matchup broken.
Main issue is Blizzard's map design team is a complete farce. The community has been peristantly complaining about the exact same things for months and still literally nothing has been done. Why is Delta still in the map pool? Why do they keep releasing shitty maps like Slag pits which keep incorporating all of the map elements people hate (small size, rocks, huge naturals). Why are GSL maps still not in the ladder pool? Why did they feel the need to modify a perfectly good GSL map with rocks everyone would rather see gone? Why are there no neutral supply depots on ramps to preventing being walled in with 2 bunkers? Why aren't the rest of the perfectly good and well balanced GSL maps not in the ladder pool?
The game itself really isn't that imbalanced right now, but Blizzard's ladder map pool is a fucking joke for Zerg its so frustrating.
On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote: I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss. - Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg - Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss - Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally.
Unit composition and timing attacks help decide who wins the game -.-' Who woulda thought.
I bet micro, macro, and scouting all play an integral part too. Please consider everything.
This thread has become nothing more than a whining area.
His argument is not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be. Don't bother posting if you demean another's post without adding anything insightful.
If you are still unable to see the point, he is saying that so much emphasis is on things like what your units are rather than what you do with them. Example - Toss is getting out a bunch of colossi. I, a zerg, MUST get out corruptors quick or I am completely dead. I'm not thinking hmm maybe if I burrow micro my roaches well, drop some spines, split my hydralisks I'll be able to handle this - I'm thinking corruptors.
Now sure, you might be able to do the crazy micro and whatnot, but the unit counters are such a huge focus in doing well in the game, and that maybe you should be able to be more successful (to a point) than you are now, with say, things like hydras against colossi, hellions against roaches, bio against HTs. That's his point. But yeah, it's easier to say "lol everyone knows unit comp matters already lolol what a whiner"
Didn't I exactly say that unit composition, macro, and timing attacks are important? Yes, I did. And they are absolutely integral parts of gaining advantages and winning games throughout all levels of play.
There is no reason to imply that these mean that *balances of power* shift drastically to the extent that Nerski is claiming. That's simply not what happens. Getting "counters" to your units is how the game naturally should play out if both players are playing well and scouting frequently. Nerski is whining about this, claiming that such a thing makes the game too volatile to play and is problematic. That's simply not the case, and that's not what happens during the games. Race power doesn't swing back and forth so violently, as he claims. It only swings back and forth when the players make it so. If a Protoss and a Zerg have a back-and-forth game, it's because the players are equally matched, not because the game is flawed to make Protoss overpowered during the odd-numbered minutes and Zerg overpowered during the even-numbered minutes (or every other tech switch), as Nerski is explicitly claiming.
As for his problem with the maps... we have access to the updated map models, so that's another non-existent problem. They keep in the old models as well as have the new ones too.
On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote: I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss. - Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg - Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss - Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally.
Unit composition and timing attacks help decide who wins the game -.-' Who woulda thought.
I bet micro, macro, and scouting all play an integral part too. Please consider everything.
This thread has become nothing more than a whining area.
His argument is not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be. Don't bother posting if you demean another's post without adding anything insightful.
If you are still unable to see the point, he is saying that so much emphasis is on things like what your units are rather than what you do with them. Example - Toss is getting out a bunch of colossi. I, a zerg, MUST get out corruptors quick or I am completely dead. I'm not thinking hmm maybe if I burrow micro my roaches well, drop some spines, split my hydralisks I'll be able to handle this - I'm thinking corruptors.
Now sure, you might be able to do the crazy micro and whatnot, but the unit counters are such a huge focus in doing well in the game, and that maybe you should be able to be more successful (to a point) than you are now, with say, things like hydras against colossi, hellions against roaches, bio against HTs. That's his point. But yeah, it's easier to say "lol everyone knows unit comp matters already lolol what a whiner"
Didn't I exactly say that unit composition, macro, and timing attacks are important? Yes, I did. And they are absolutely integral parts of gaining advantages and winning games throughout all levels of play.
There is no reason to imply that these mean that *balances of power* shift drastically to the extent that Nerski is claiming. That's simply not what happens. Getting "counters" to your units is how the game naturally should play out if both players are playing well and scouting frequently. Nerski is whining about this, claiming that such a thing makes the game too volatile to play and is problematic. That's simply not the case, and that's not what happens during the games. Race power doesn't swing back and forth so violently, as he claims. It only swings back and forth when the players make it so. If a Protoss and a Zerg have a back-and-forth game, it's because the players are equally matched, not because the game is flawed to make Protoss overpowered during the odd-numbered minutes and Zerg overpowered during the even-numbered minutes (or every other tech switch), as Nerski is explicitly claiming.
As for his problem with the maps... we have access to the updated map models, so that's another non-existent problem. They keep in the old models as well as have the new ones too.
Oh really? The balance of power doesnt wildly swing around? Why then is the start of a game so critical for a Zerg? Because he is very vulnerable to the opponent AND because any serious damage will carry on over to the next few minutes?
As a Terran / Protoss you practically HAVE TO attack a Zerg early on and hinder the economic development, because if you dont do that the larvae multiplication on 2-3 (or more) hatcheries will "explode" the Zerg production and enable him to swamp you with units. This is just too much for a well balanced game and giving Terran / Protoss an early advantage through Chronoboost / Warp Gate and the first few MULEs doesnt "balance" the game on the time axis. Every race should have an equal opportunity throughout the game, but as it stands now they dont. And the culprit is quite clearly the new and funky macro mechanics.
The balance of power shifting in favor of Zerg heavily is only cloaked by the fact that skilled opponents are able to constantly pressure them and keep them back, but if you play a game of "TvZ 20 minutes not attacking" the result wouldnt be funny at all. A wall of 100+ Banelings rolling into a Terran base requires about zero skill, but it can annihilate a lot of things which can not be replaced easily and if the Terran has Siege Tanks the Banelings just get dropped. The real problem starts afterwards, because Zerg can replenish everything in one production cycle with enough stockpiled larvae compared to Terrans and Protoss. So please dont deny the existence of drastic swings of power; they are the reasons for countless nerfs.
Protoss cant "stockpile" Warp-in-slots and Terrans cant "stockpile" production slots in their buildings, but Zerg can do that and it is a terrible mechanic.
To make a great "sport" you need a balanced game, where everyone has equal chances and the game itself has too much impact on the outcome through these critical necessities and requirements. ("hard counters", required attack timings against Zerg, impracticality of tiny maps which Blizzard favours for more action, ...) Therefore Blizzard has lost its touch and even though SC2 is playable and competitive it is far behind its potential as a long lasting esport.
The main take away from these interviews, at least in my opinion, is that Blizzard's #1 priority is not competitive play, but appeasing as many people as they can at the cost of alienating a few.
On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote: I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss. - Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg - Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss - Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally.
Go watch bw again, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Typical ZvT
Zerg gets spawning pool, has map control, expands Terran gets enough marines, can push out Zerg gets mutas. Keeps Terran in base Terran gets enough MM, some tanks, pushes. Zerg gets lurkers, slows terran Terran gets Science vessels, kills lurkers Zerg gets defilers, saves lurkers from mm Terran gets tanks
BW is one big game based on ebb and flow between 2 races based on the units one is able to get out. SC2 needs MORE ebb and flow, not less.
On June 14 2011 12:55 Hexxed wrote: The main take away from these interviews, at least in my opinion, is that Blizzard's #1 priority is not competitive play, but appeasing as many people as they can at the cost of alienating a few.
Yes ... exactly like they do it in WoW, but the difference is that SC2 isnt a game with a monthly fee and should get its longevity from competitiveness as an eSport. Thus the focus on "massive numbers of casual gamers" is exactly the wrong focus.
Giving us only 20 campaign missions in the Zerg expansion isnt a good sign for the casual players either. Sure they go for the "do you want to pay only for an expansion or a full game?" excuse, but since the main game mechanics exist and have been paid for already in WoL that is a "trick question" of economists trying to scare people into the right direction (from their point of view). The price of both expansions should be for an expansion, since that is what they are ... but they should still have the 30 missions for each race.
So Blizzard seems to be "out of touch" with creating a long lasting eSport and "trying to be lazy" for the single players.
On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote: I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss. - Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg - Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss - Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally.
Go watch bw again, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Typical ZvT
Zerg gets spawning pool, has map control, expands Terran gets enough marines, can push out Zerg gets mutas. Keeps Terran in base Terran gets enough MM, some tanks, pushes. Zerg gets lurkers, slows terran Terran gets Science vessels, kills lurkers Zerg gets defilers, saves lurkers from mm Terran gets tanks
BW is one big game based on ebb and flow between 2 races based on the units one is able to get out. SC2 needs MORE ebb and flow, not less.
In BW both races can play a harass style or turtle up, it just depends on preference.
If you are going to do SKTerran you need to harass lots with dropships and pick out key units science vessels. A lot of flow.
If you do mech you can just keep expanding without really attacking till you get an unstoppable mech ball. Not as much flow.
Jaedong is a Zerg that plays a very aggressive mechanical style.
Effort is a Zerg that plays a more passive tactical style.
However there isn't as much flow in SC2. Its often either 1 timing attack with possible another to finish off the other player, or turtle to 200/200. With the exception of TvZ and TvT because Tanks provide Terran with defenders advantage (explained below). Tanks do not provide defenders advantage in TvP which is why its often just ball vs ball.
However this has less to do with macro mechanics than defenders advantage. Having macro mechanics that speed up the game is fine, but it means in order to balance it out, other players will need better scouting tools and more defensive units that can defend very cost-effectively against a lot of different units. Vultures were 75 minerals and could cost-effectively defend against almost any ground unit, even cloaked units without detection. You didn't need scan (even though they were free) to stop a dark templar rush, you just laid well placed mines. This is the catalyst that allowed Terran to open mech against any race. This has a lot to do with why opening mech in SC2 is so difficult. Not saying this is a problem, but it also makes any creative macro opening difficult unless you deny scouting or do a fake (which results in a coinflip).
You need options like 1 vulture, 1 tank & 1 bunker that can block a huge number of dragoons, 2 lurkers at a ramp to stop an infinite number of bio, reaver & shuttle to stop hydra allin, etc, so players can expand and harass properly without dying immediately to a timing attack.
These units must not be mobile or must be difficult to use effectively too (ie They must NOT synergise too well with your main army and must be controlled separately) , eg, static defense, siege tanks, lurker, reaver, defiler. Otherwise instead of situating them at key locations, you will just move them around in your ball of death.
Without defenders advantage, players will be too scared to attack each other with anything less than their deathball.
(Theres a nice big article on Teamliquid if you wanna know more about it)
On June 14 2011 12:55 Hexxed wrote: The main take away from these interviews, at least in my opinion, is that Blizzard's #1 priority is not competitive play, but appeasing as many people as they can at the cost of alienating a few.
Yes ... exactly like they do it in WoW, but the difference is that SC2 isnt a game with a monthly fee and should get its longevity from competitiveness as an eSport. Thus the focus on "massive numbers of casual gamers" is exactly the wrong focus.
Giving us only 20 campaign missions in the Zerg expansion isnt a good sign for the casual players either. Sure they go for the "do you want to pay only for an expansion or a full game?" excuse, but since the main game mechanics exist and have been paid for already in WoL that is a "trick question" of economists trying to scare people into the right direction (from their point of view). The price of both expansions should be for an expansion, since that is what they are ... but they should still have the 30 missions for each race.
So Blizzard seems to be "out of touch" with creating a long lasting eSport and "trying to be lazy" for the single players.
I am a bit disappointed with 20 campaign missions. (Honestly I'd paid 50% more {40 to 60] for 50% more missions [20 to 30] simply because more missions likely means more assets for map editor >.> + the missions and story is fun too). In terms of it being an expansion "and" having 30 missions - They could do that but they know the same amount of people will still buy the expansion regardless of 20 or 30.
However it really depends how they go about the 20 missions. As long as cutscene and story-wise, it's the same length as WotL (possible) then I'd be okay with it. I feel there is a lot more to explore (UED needs to return >.>).
One thing that troubles me is that this may mean only 20 missions for LotV.
Anyway as for the topic - I am disappointed about Dustin Browder's SC2 is not Broodwar response.
Yes it's true SC2 and BW are different games "but" that doesn't mean SC2 can't borrow or use things from Broodwar. They can still be totally different games but similar at the same time.
While the comparisons are made often it's only because Broodwar managed to do a lot of things right (whether accidentally or intentionally).
Also in terms of casual vs competitive - I agree with those who say that even if SC2 was harder to play, lots of people will still like to play and mimic progamers. I'm not good as Broodwar but that doesn't mean I did not have fun (I still play BW occasionally).
We'll just have to see with HotS how they'll go with things.
Take away roaches from zerg or nerf them yet again and zerg has nothing to play with in ZvP yet again, i just feel pittiful for the scrub tosses that lose to roaches then come and QQ on the forums.
Also hydras weren't even in the voting list, altho appearently they are the unit in the zerg race that requires the most changes atm since its practically useless.
Judging from the 'issues' you listed, sounds like you're more out of touch with the community than Blizzard. Most of your complaints I have never seen mentioned ever before. Sounds like these are just your personal gripes with the game that you're trying to project through the community.
Overall, sounds like a typical case of "This isn't BW, pls fix" instead of realizing that not only is this intended to be a different game, but the strategies and metagame are still evolving week to week.
EDIT: For example, you make a complaint about 'meat shield units,' yet the aspect of those units (except maybe the Roach) was always their DAMAGE, not their tankiness.
On June 14 2011 20:23 Pwnographics wrote: Why are Blizzard claiming to listen to us but really not?
Because "us" is not the entirety of people who play Starcraft 2. They talk to everyone. Family members. Shareholders. Idiots on the battle.net forums. Random people at tradeshows. This forum may think Colossus is the most boring unit. Blizzard might have heard otherwise from 1000 different people.
This is the same Blizzard that has been shaped and molded by World of Warcraft for the past 6 years. Everything they do must appeal to an extremely wide demographic. It's the Warcraft model.
i agree with everything you mentioned in this topic.... but i dont know whay they are macking game to be worse than it is.... simple fact is BALL stupidity of pathing unites.... MMM ball deth ball it sucks HARD....its not look on strategy game when you see mass balls fighting in game...I dont know whay we need to play SC1 BW to be able to play proper strategy game... I hope they will FIX this game....
i yust whont to add one more thing ... and that is one qestione.... i bayed Starcraft game... 2 ...
Dustin Browder arguments are alweys go play SC1 BW if you like it more... and this is another game...
i have qestione for dustin is this Starcraft game ? becous i bay Starcraft and expect to play starcraft not WC3 or COC...or tetris ?
add one more thing if i know that unites will walk and group in BALLs and now is skill to use stimed maraders hit and run (that is micro LOL) i wouldnt by this game Simply newer !!!!!
This point is made a lot around here but I think we need to give the game time. SC1 when it first came out was extremely different to modern broodwar. There weren't even medics ffs! Most of what made BW so good is that the strategies evolved over time due to highly intelligent and motivated players. You can't expect a one year old game with 2 expansions yet to be released to be as good as BW.
If you want SC2 to be BW I say go play BW until SC2 matures enough to be as good as BW.
This point is made a lot around here but I think we need to give the game time. SC1 when it first came out was extremely different to modern broodwar. There weren't even medics ffs! Most of what made BW so good is that the strategies evolved over time due to highly intelligent and motivated players. You can't expect a one year old game with 2 expansions yet to be released to be as good as BW.
If you want SC2 to be BW I say go play BW until SC2 matures enough to be as good as BW.
I whont to mentioned one thing.... its not problem this is sc2 this is sc1 and staf....
main problem is THIS IS NOT WC3 or C&C or some other game this is STARCRAFT !!!! and they changed insted of strategy game to be BALL VS BALL = boring to whatch (and no MICRO)
so if comunity whonts to not see BALLS play and whont proper STARCRAFT game then blizzard should do that....(its not mether if its starcraft BW or sc 2)
Game mechanics are wrong (and some unites that kill micro) = game cant be good as STARCRAFT GAME untill become starcraft= micro,marco,dinamic pathing= EPIC GAME... END
On June 25 2011 12:47 SnipedSoul wrote: This point is made a lot around here but I think we need to give the game time. SC1 when it first came out was extremely different to modern broodwar. There weren't even medics ffs! Most of what made BW so good is that the strategies evolved over time due to highly intelligent and motivated players. You can't expect a one year old game with 2 expansions yet to be released to be as good as BW.
If you want SC2 to be BW I say go play BW until SC2 matures enough to be as good as BW.
People are too impatient for that these days. They've seen that if you cry hard enough you'll get patches.
Collosus the most boring unit in the game? I think people are mixing "most boring" and "most frustrating". Collosus is a cool unit, it just also happened to be the most annoying unit, for protosses as well. Thats really the only grief I have with an otherwise excellent thread.
On June 25 2011 22:20 Excludos wrote: Collosus the most boring unit in the game? I think people are mixing "most boring" and "most frustrating". Collosus is a cool unit, it just also happened to be the most annoying unit, for protosses as well. Thats really the only grief I have with an otherwise excellent thread.
Colossus is fun? How so? There's hardly any micro or even thought process involved. You just add them to your death ball and watch them shoot lasers. Maybe it's C class action movie type of fun, but definitely not RTS type of fun. T_____T
Marines in SC2 are fun, Mutas in BW are fun, Vultures, Banelings. But Collosi? O_o
I also agree with the poll's that Colossus, roach and corruptor are the least interesting units to use. I mean comparing the lurker to roach its like night and day with the lurker being so much more interesting and tactical unit.
Compare scourge with corruptor, scourge you needed to really make sure to lure the opposition air units and then kill them, with corruptors you just A-move and kill whatever you need to kill and when all corruptors are dead, well just mass corruptor again with the 100 larva and 5000 minerals and gas you have in the bank. I mean when did that happen in SC1?
And Colossus and reaver is a no brainer with the reaver requiring skills, patience and game sense to use, while the colossus being one of those A-move units.