Before we go into it, we would like to point out that the main reason for having this two way communication, and why we’ve had so much success for the better of the game in the past year compared to previous years is due to all of us working together as 1 team with the focus on making the game better. We have to remember to stay focused on our main goal, and let’s continue to work together. This is critical to the success of the game.
Maps We probably don't need to get into too much detail in regards with the importance of map diversity, so let’s just talk a bit about specifically how we should get there. Ideally, every map in the map pool should have a unique, cool factor about it that makes it so that players can explore new strategies/timings/build orders/units/etc. What we mean by this in detail on a per map bases currently is this:
Dusk Towers Defend 1 choke point to gain access to 4 bases is something unique to this map, and it’s already looking like it creates very different games compared to other map types.
Orbital Shipyard Aside from TvZ playing slightly differently, this map is a very standard map. Standard maps aren’t necessarily a bad thing to the game, and we can definitely have a couple of these in the map pool. Prion Terraces Due to the layout of the gold bases, games can play out very differently. Armies are more mineral heavy, and there are many counters and counters to counters to players taking gold expansions in different ways and different timings. Ulrena Stand out rush distance plus the option to not always have to play the rush game depending on how the key choke points are utilized.
Central Protocol Really difficult 3rd, and layout of natural/main favoring mobility based compositions. Obviously, we are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map where we definitely want to focus on making some balance tuning passes. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map. Lerilak Crest Each starting location plays out so differently, and the general feel of the map playing a bit more rush heavy. The fact that each start location plays out differently means players who are more reactive depending on what they scout can perform better on a map like this, which we think is a cool factor.
Ruins of Seras Similar idea as Lerilak, but macro instead of rush.
So as you can see, each map is unique and contributes to the map pool as a whole being an extremely diverse play experience. Map balance, however, is a different thing. Obviously if a map balance has clear problems we should work towards fixing that like we’ve already mentioned in the weekly update. We would like to thank and do a major shoutout to the people out there that are sharing specific solutions that we might be able to implement to make specific maps better. It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon of “Map X just sucks and there’s nothing anyone can ever do about it to make it any better.” There are two major problems with this mindset: It’s just unproductive, and the statement is just not true. We should know better than this especially since we’ve been iterating on and polishing various design problems together as a whole.
Map Balance Granted it’s still a bit too early to have heard everyone’s thoughts on the specific balance tweaks we should be doing in the near future but let’s still talk a bit about some of the suggestions we saw today.
Lerilak Crest – changing out Rock Towers at the 3rd to Rocks We believe this suggestion is solid, because it’s a good balance change to the map without taking away from the cool factor of the map. The map’s core difference compared to other maps in the pool will remain intact, but being able to only focus defenses on 1 choke point will be a big help in various situations.
Orbital Shipyard – Blocking some of the jumpable area around the main/3rd location, to reduce the effectiveness of mass reaper openings a little bit. Again, something like this is solid, especially if Reapers are too strong vs. Zerg on this map, since Reapers will still be stronger in this map than other maps, but we’re just reducing their effectiveness slightly.
Prion Terraces – changing golds to normal expansions While this is an interesting idea on paper, it proves to be bad in practice. Changing this will take away the main reason that makes this map unique, and different from standard maps that don’t have any stand out feature about them. Keep in mind, we’re not saying the map is perfect, we’re just saying let’s try to look for another area that can be tweaked that still keeps this unique factor.
Obviously, it’s only been 1 day since we’ve been discussing the specific changes so it’s difficult to say right at this moment what the best specific changes are, but let’s try to revolve discussions around this sort of thing, so that we can move quickly to put out some balance changes to the current map pool.
Online Systems It’s encouraging to see that the community is eager for new content and features. However, we recognize that there is a temptation once we’ve talked about something new to want to see it in the game quickly. The reality is that feature and content development often takes more time than even we expect internally – and as a result, we ask for your patience and temperance in your responses each week.
When the net outcome of sharing plans early is to produce incorrect expectations, it incentivizes less transparency – instead, we want to continue to foster open communication, and we hope that you will support this approach. We are committed to quality, and we are determined to take whatever time is necessary to deliver polished work.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
I can appreciate every map being unique in some way, and their willingness to change them if necessary, but sometimes uniqueness just doesn't work out.
Chalking Central Protocol and Prion Terraces (or any other map with severe issues) down as failed experiments and replacing them with a new map should always be on the table.
I do empathize with his point about unconstructive comments. So much of the criticism levelled at the SCII team is meaningless toxic bashing.
This map pool is just stale and it's straight up not fun playing on the same maps for this long regardless of how good or bad they are. David Kim needs to swallow his pride and include the gsl maps for the next season but we all know that isn't going to happen.
he still doesn't realize that he's the only guy in the world who enjoys the current mappool. Talking about how awesome his shit is doesn't make me think otherwise. david kims ego is really damaging to this game.
The problem with Prion Terraces and the gold bases is that having tons of minerals favors zerg a lot more than it does terran or especially protoss. You can't really have a protoss army that is mineral heavy, I really like that map if it is a PvP or PvT, but when I face a zerg on prion I feel like I am behind from the start.
The cool factor of central protocol tbh is that nobody plays that map.
I'd really love to see them implement the GSL maps to the ladder pool they seem like really solid and interesting maps that are not necessarily standard but don't go too creative.
We don't need new maps because old ones are bad we need new maps to keep things fresh, at least that is mostly why I am excited about new maps.
I don't know why but I find it funny that DK kindly asked the community to stop shitposting.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just isn't good. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
On January 30 2016 10:42 The_Templar wrote: I don't like this line of thinking. The stand-out features of Dusk Towers and Ulrena are almost always bad things for a map to have.
Also, I don't see why blizzard couldn't have made a few new maps for next season...
But they add for different gameplay!!! That's the only thing that matters to David Kim.
dk: "so there isn't going to be any new content for quite a while, no maps, skins, ladder revamp, or coop stuff" community: "wtf you guys said there would be content what's going on" dk: "you're hurting my feelings, also the current maps are fine despite everyone saying otherwise"
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
No, you just explain why you're against certain decisions and optionally present your own ideas without being a dick
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
Reading your "feedback", there isn't anything that is constructive and could help make the game successful. You don't sound like you care about the game. You sound like you enjoy criticizing people.
On January 30 2016 11:02 jalstar wrote: dk: "so there isn't going to be any new content for quite a while, no maps, skins, ladder revamp, or coop stuff" community: "wtf you guys said there would be content what's going on" dk: "you're hurting my feelings, also the current maps are fine despite everyone saying otherwise"
I feel like DK is getting drawn into the WoW Expansion Issue...
Blizzard should let the GSL map pool be the standard at this point. Prion is awful for PvZ and I don't think anyone even plays Central Protocol.
They seem to think just because there is a unique feature about a map, it makes it its own little special snowflake and they find some bizarre reason to include it, even though there is a considerable amount of criticism of why the map simply is bad and should be removed.
It's like WCG with their island maps. They just had to have a reason to keep them in the pool, but no justifiable one in the slightest.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
Reading your "feedback", there isn't anything that is constructive and could help make the game successful. You don't sound like you care about the game. You sound like you enjoy criticizing people.
I and others have explained often enough why the current mappool is stale and imbalanced and why map variety is good but clearly broken abusable map features are bad. If it gets ignored again and again, yeah then the feedback gets a little more unconstructive.
"Prion Terraces Due to the layout of the gold bases, games can play out very differently. Armies are more mineral heavy, and there are many counters and counters to counters to players taking gold expansions in different ways and different timings." Whoever wrote this, want us to be helpful? I don't know, It's enough :\
I really dislike the fact that maps need to create unique strategies. This doesn't help balance and doesn't help the metagame, and some strategies can seem OP just because the map helps this specific strategies. Everything worked fine in WoL/HotS were "unique maps" were just mass vetoed so why Blizzard is trying to force to play maps that people want to veto?
They want interesting maps, yet they won't experiment with maps like back in early brood war, where there was mineral only expansions, or islands, or mostly mined mineral patches in the middle blocking rush distances... What about bases with only 6 patches or maybe 10, why not experiment with these sort of things as well?
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
Reading your "feedback", there isn't anything that is constructive and could help make the game successful. You don't sound like you care about the game. You sound like you enjoy criticizing people.
I and others have explained often enough why the current mappool is stale and imbalanced and why map variety is good but clearly broken abusable map features are bad. If it gets ignored again and again, yeah then the feedback gets a little more unconstructive.
But even this already sounds a lot better. just don't be a dick
While the tone of some criticism was indeed completely uncalled for, Kim comes off as whiny and unprofessional. In this very same week, two balancing patches in HotS were almost universally lauded. So it seems to be reasonable to assume Blizzard customers are not out to rip developers, but instead something is wrong with SC2. Or maybe several somethings.
For me, especially the timeframe on Online Systems is a bad joke. Some of the elements were around more than a decade ago for Warcraft III. Apart from some co-op matches now and then, I'm done with SC2. Won't ladder, won't watch, won't buy mission packs - as somebody who purchased all three parts as physical CEs.
I have no idea about maps. But I wanna comment on this:
They guy just took some time to ask you to please stop shitting on them because it is not useful at all and it is counterproductive (it demoralizes the team), and what do you people do? Come here and make personal attacks on them.
How many more times do you think a team can keep taking shit from the community for no good reason? Can't you see that personal attacks and discrediting the team for their work IS NOT HELPING the game and can possibly have a negative effect?
You can't keep your hateful thoughts to yourselves, yet you ask for DK to swallow his ego. The irony...
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
Reading your "feedback", there isn't anything that is constructive and could help make the game successful. You don't sound like you care about the game. You sound like you enjoy criticizing people.
I and others have explained often enough why the current mappool is stale and imbalanced and why map variety is good but clearly broken abusable map features are bad. If it gets ignored again and again, yeah then the feedback gets a little more unconstructive.
So what? If someone asks your feedback but don't agree with it then that gives you the right to shit on them?
Again my question don't you see you are having a negative effect on the game/scene you supposedly love and care so much for?
Prion Terraces Due to the layout of the gold bases, games can play out very differently. Armies are more mineral heavy, and there are many counters and counters to counters to players taking gold expansions in different ways and different timings.
:D
Maybe if Adepts only cost minerals that map would be fair in PvZ, but as things stand it is insanely Zerg favoured. I don't care about "cool features", all I care about is that a map is balanced.
Sorry David, but all the effort you give, all the tries, all the stuff you do, you are not right with this map philosophie. I am all the guy for unorthodox maps, for example the beautiful Habitation Station was out of normal but a great map. But on this case, David is just plain stubborn with the maps. Nothing is wrong with uniquenes, I bet, the community would love unique maps. But maps that are just unique by having one (broken) feature, are not unique, they are just bad. Bad designed and bad balanced. Prion for example is just this one "unique" feature, too many goldbases of which 2 are directly in reach for one race only. He doesnt even understand, that Goldbases dont give that gigantic income boost, but only 5% more income, when they are mined by 12 drones and the blue one is mined by 16 drones. Following that is a Zerg gameplay, that can cut 8 drones and gets around 10% better income, but mines out way to fast. The conclusion is a massive all in based Zerg gameplay with faster timing, that is out of balance. That is no unique gameplay, we seen all ins on every map, this just unique in the way the timing hits faster and become even stronger. It is like David does not understand what 2 goldbases on Prion even do and what follows them up in a ZvX game. Now he wants to look at "other features" of the maps to make the balance better. What shall that be? A supersmall natural ramp, so protoss and terran can hold a x2 gold base all in and then just outmine and die on that way? MOAR ROCKS?
Fuck this shit, even Crazy Clash was a way better map then the shit we have to fight with at the moment. The whole Shoutcast Clanwars Pool looked better then this (okay, maybe not the draken cannons), they were unique: Unique tiles, unique features, unique bases. What David sees as unique, is just bullshit we have seen alot in the past and now have to watch again. 4 Bases with one choke? We had that so often on the "macromaps", like Deadwing. That gave us a insane amount of SwarmhostvP and SwarmhostvCancermech. We had this "fast small rush ways" on scrap station and other maps, there was even this one map, where only small units could use the "fast small rush way". We have wired shit 4 player maps like inferno pools with trash thrids and small rush ways (So small, close spawning was soon to be patched out). We had wired shit short rush maps since WoL Beta.
Every of this unique feature David presents us, have been used already. Something truely unique, like the birdges, the mega base, the heal shrine and so on from crazy clash, a map I think is more balanced then most of the maps today, besides Overlord scout in ZvZ hitting very late. But thats also true on recent LotV maps where Overlord scouts too late, in ZvZ more then in other match ups, where drone scout isnt that punishing. This other crazy map with mineral and gold patches in each base + warcraft tileset + walls out of 35 minerals containing patches + egg was really cool and worth exploring. Other "cool" and unique features are neutral units, in BW there were neutral DTs to cut off a ramp. Neutral creep? Even a neutral Human Fortress out of planetary, bunker, tanks and turrets in the middle of map (which "protect" a double gold base") could be thing, that isnt too outbalanced, but just looks cool. But no, lets push for stupid "unique" shit we brought in since 5 years and didnt work out. David please rethink what you are doing!
Prion Terraces is such a stupid map that I had to veto it. Zergs just take both gold bases and you're forced to all-in. If zerg has brain, they will be prepared and you'll be at disadvantage anyway.
Online Systems It’s encouraging to see that the community is eager for new content and features. However, we recognize that there is a temptation once we’ve talked about something new to want to see it in the game quickly. The reality is that feature and content development often takes more time than even we expect internally – and as a result, we ask for your patience and temperance in your responses each week.
LOL. Yeah, I guess if your multi-billion dollar company doesn't want to higher more than 30 people or so initially for a project and then cuts the team down to ~7 then I guess shit is going to take longer huh?
I absolutely loathe people who try to displace blame when it clearly lies within their company.
Sad they take this approach. We can't do shit about it though, and that's one reason why the game continue to become less and less popular.
I really dislike this. I would much rather have the maps subtly different but the game allowing for a lot of varied strategies. Some maps that do have map specific builds are interesting but when every map has to be played around its main gimmicky feature, it's just silly in my opinion.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
Reading your "feedback", there isn't anything that is constructive and could help make the game successful. You don't sound like you care about the game. You sound like you enjoy criticizing people.
I and others have explained often enough why the current mappool is stale and imbalanced and why map variety is good but clearly broken abusable map features are bad. If it gets ignored again and again, yeah then the feedback gets a little more unconstructive.
So what? If someone asks your feedback but don't agree with it then that gives you the right to shit on them?
Again my question don't you see you are having a negative effect on the game/scene you supposedly love and care so much for?
It's not just me. By reading the comments to every thread regarding the current mappool it's clear that the vast majority hates the current mappool. and DK knows it if he reads them too (which he says he does). so he is intentionally making a decision that the community does not like. If that doesn't sound to you slightly egoistic I don't know what does. It's not my intention to bash him just to hurt his feelings I'm just very disappointed by his decisions.
On January 30 2016 10:31 Dayvie wrote: There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
Hmm, I don't this is the right approach to handling the online community.
To put it simply, haters gonna hate.
The people that post the most are people that are angry for one or other reason, not the people that enjoy the game (they'll be in the game , playing). And the people that post are often people that say things without thinking, rather than people that carefully think through all sides of a problem before posting (those will probably not post at all, seeing that their complaints often don't really make sense). And it is important to not let that fact get to the developers, justified hate or not.
So if the dev team is getting taken down by the tone, maybe better to put a layer in between. Have community managers that scoop up and forward the constructive ideas to the developers, together with any widespread systematic complains of a specific aspect of the game. Discourage (sensitive) developers to read the forums. Celebrate that one time when only 70% of the comments sling feces at you, that means that you've done great job! Take the team out for a drink!
If you've watched tasteosis banter (you know, when they should be casting the game), they often make fun of how forum posters or twitch chat will pull out the harshest and rudest comments for the slightest misstep, or even possible misinterpretation. I think maybe the dev team could do with some of that approach. Seeing the forums as a kind of 4-chan brewing pit of poisonous crap, with the occasional unpolished gem floating to the top.
After all, the hating forum posters don't only find blizzard to be mentally challenged, they hold most of the other forum posters in the same regard. In general, these posters find all the other posters (that don't agree with their every single idea) to be Royal Morons. So from Blizzards point of view it may look like a unified front against the dev team, but it is in fact more like a horde of hedgehogs of hate, everyone pointing spikes in all directions, including the other hedgehogs of hate. Everyone agrees that what blizzard is doing is horrible and bad and retarded, but they say the same thing of most of the other posters suggestions. The forums just hate on anything in sight, because it's easy, and because vocal minority.
A better approach would be to not try to suppress the haters (gl with that... can you hold back the tide as well when you are done with that?), but rather encourage the good posts. In these feedbacks, if you occasionally refer to a specific poster, or specific posts that affected your discussion at any point (even if it didn't actually change anything at the end of the day), throw out a shout-out, or maybe even link to the post. It'll make everyone want to be the person cited, and will at least increase motivation for good feedback, if not suppress recreational hating.
I don't understand at all why they would not make any changes to the map pool. Nobody seems to enjoy the current map pool, why not at least add the new GSL maps and cut out Prion Terraces and Central Protocol, or something along those lines? I just don't see myself playing this map pool (constantly using all three vetos) for much longer.
I've been loving LotV so far, but I'm kind of deperate to play and watch games on some new maps at this point.
Since the WoL days, Blizzard seems to be living in their own little world. I don't see how this is going to change any time soon. I mean, if they dont' want to listen to the community, fine, but at least listen to the Korean pros and the pros often say Blizzard don't really take their feedback.
On January 30 2016 11:41 Foxxan wrote: Atleast they didnt say that negative people will always be negative this time around. Like some kind of politicians.
Yeah, they should only think that, not say it out loud.
On January 30 2016 11:17 Silvana wrote:They guy just took some time to ask you to please stop shitting on them because it is not useful at all and it is counterproductive (it demoralizes the team), and what do you people do? Come here and make personal attacks on them.
Yeah. That's not how it works. There has been some exceedingly unconstructive feedback in the past for VW, Facebook, Mattel, whoever. You don't see a mid or upper-mid level manager come out and bash customers and tell them not to hurt their feelings.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
Reading your "feedback", there isn't anything that is constructive and could help make the game successful. You don't sound like you care about the game. You sound like you enjoy criticizing people.
I and others have explained often enough why the current mappool is stale and imbalanced and why map variety is good but clearly broken abusable map features are bad. If it gets ignored again and again, yeah then the feedback gets a little more unconstructive.
So what? If someone asks your feedback but don't agree with it then that gives you the right to shit on them?
Again my question don't you see you are having a negative effect on the game/scene you supposedly love and care so much for?
It's not just me. By reading the comments to every thread regarding the current mappool it's clear that the vast majority hates the current mappool. and DK knows it if he reads them too (which he says he does). so he is intentionally making a decision that the community does not like. If that doesn't sound to you slightly egoistic I don't know what does. It's not my intention to bash him just to hurt his feelings I'm just very disappointed by his decisions.
While I too dislike the current map pool and think it should change, the line of reasoning that the "majority of the community" wants something and therefore should get it is a terribly flawed approach. While the community almost always knows when something is wrong, its suggestions to fix said problem are generally awful. So not doing what the community wants is not inherently incorrect.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
Reading your "feedback", there isn't anything that is constructive and could help make the game successful. You don't sound like you care about the game. You sound like you enjoy criticizing people.
I and others have explained often enough why the current mappool is stale and imbalanced and why map variety is good but clearly broken abusable map features are bad. If it gets ignored again and again, yeah then the feedback gets a little more unconstructive.
So what? If someone asks your feedback but don't agree with it then that gives you the right to shit on them?
Again my question don't you see you are having a negative effect on the game/scene you supposedly love and care so much for?
It's not just me. By reading the comments to every thread regarding the current mappool it's clear that the vast majority hates the current mappool. and DK knows it if he reads them too (which he says he does). so he is intentionally making a decision that the community does not like. If that doesn't sound to you slightly egoistic I don't know what does. It's not my intention to bash him just to hurt his feelings I'm just very disappointed by his decisions.
I'm not saying DK is not egoistic, or that he does his job right. I am saying that focusing your feedback or comments on that kind of things (whether you are right or not on your judgement about him) is counterproductive and you guys should stop. Why? Because it helps no one, and it can possibly hurt.
If you don't care about hurting DK and team's feelings that's fine. But think about doing something that actually helps the game. And refrain from doing something that can hurt.
On January 30 2016 11:38 ilikeredheads wrote: Since the WoL days, Blizzard seems to be living in their own little world. I don't see how this is going to change any time soon. I mean, if they dont' want to listen to the community, fine, but at least listen to the Korean pros and the pros often say Blizzard don't really take their feedback.
If you read their posts, they do listen to the pros, but different pros say very different things, so not easy to act on. I get the impression those kids are extremely biased towards their race, consciously and subconsciously.
People in the community, being equally biased, pick out the korean pros that say the same thing they think (notice how everyone quotes pros of their own race for this kind of things....), and then go and complain to Blizz as if they have final indisputable proof that the Developers are Morons. Let's call it "DaM", as it is said so often.
zerg korean pro: Terran too stronk, nerf liberator. zerg poster1: I TOLD EVERYONE SO FOR AGES< WHY DIDNT YOU LISTEN!!! DaM!! zerg poster2: DaM!! zerg poster3: DaM! zerg poster4: DaM, lolz! zerg poster5: DaM!!!
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
Reading your "feedback", there isn't anything that is constructive and could help make the game successful. You don't sound like you care about the game. You sound like you enjoy criticizing people.
I and others have explained often enough why the current mappool is stale and imbalanced and why map variety is good but clearly broken abusable map features are bad. If it gets ignored again and again, yeah then the feedback gets a little more unconstructive.
So what? If someone asks your feedback but don't agree with it then that gives you the right to shit on them?
Again my question don't you see you are having a negative effect on the game/scene you supposedly love and care so much for?
It's not just me. By reading the comments to every thread regarding the current mappool it's clear that the vast majority hates the current mappool. and DK knows it if he reads them too (which he says he does). so he is intentionally making a decision that the community does not like. If that doesn't sound to you slightly egoistic I don't know what does. It's not my intention to bash him just to hurt his feelings I'm just very disappointed by his decisions.
I'm not saying DK is not egoistic, or that he does his job right. I am saying that focusing your feedback or comments on that kind of things (whether you are right or not on your judgement about him) is counterproductive and you guys should stop. Why? Because it helps no one, and it can possibly hurt.
If you don't care about hurting DK and team's feelings that's fine. But think about doing something that actually helps the game. And refrain from doing something that can hurt.
On January 30 2016 10:47 Charoisaur wrote: david kims ego is really damaging to this game.
This. Very much this.
This is not constructive criticism in the slightest
There's not much constructive criticism to give. The maps are not fun to play on. If it does not FEEL fun to play on you don't have to articulate a reason. You play on it and its simply not fun. If you play on psion terraces you feel Zerg just roll over you . If you play on central protocol you feel like you have to cheese or do some dumb strategy- in blizzards euphemism "creative strategies".
Speaking of ego and euphemisms. I don't think they actually ever admitted they made a mistake before.
Did they ever say Brood Lord Infestor was their fault?
When there was swarmhosts vs zerg and protoss they used their little euphemism "stalemate games".
They can't admit that when they make a mistake and create gameplay that is not fun.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
(1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else
On January 30 2016 10:31 Dayvie wrote: There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
Hmm, I don't this is the right approach to handling the online community.
To put it simply, haters gonna hate.
The people that post the most are people that are angry for one or other reason, not the people that enjoy the game (they'll be in the game , playing). And the people that post are often people that say things without thinking, rather than people that carefully think through all sides of a problem before posting (those will probably not post at all, seeing that their complaints often don't really make sense). And it is important to not let that fact get to the developers, justified hate or not.
So if the dev team is getting taken down by the tone, maybe better to put a layer in between. Have community managers that scoop up and forward the constructive ideas to the developers, together with any widespread systematic complains of a specific aspect of the game. Discourage (sensitive) developers to read the forums. Celebrate that one time when only 70% of the comments sling feces at you, that means that you've done great job! Take the team out for a drink!
If you've watched tasteosis banter (you know, when they should be casting the game), they often make fun of how forum posters or twitch chat will pull out the harshest and rudest comments for the slightest misstep, or even possible misinterpretation. I think maybe the dev team could do with some of that approach. Seeing the forums as a kind of 4-chan brewing pit of poisonous crap, with the occasional unpolished gem floating to the top.
After all, the hating forum posters don't only find blizzard to be mentally challenged, they hold most of the other forum posters in the same regard. In general, these posters find all the other posters (that don't agree with their every single idea) to be Royal Morons. So from Blizzards point of view it may look like a unified front against the dev team, but it is in fact more like a horde of hedgehogs of hate, everyone pointing spikes in all directions, including the other hedgehogs of hate. Everyone agrees that what blizzard is doing is horrible and bad and retarded, but they say the same thing of most of the other posters suggestions. The forums just hate on anything in sight, because it's easy, and because vocal minority.
A better approach would be to not try to suppress the haters (gl with that... can you hold back the tide as well when you are done with that?), but rather encourage the good posts. In these feedbacks, if you occasionally refer to a specific poster, or specific posts that affected your discussion at any point (even if it didn't actually change anything at the end of the day), throw out a shout-out, or maybe even link to the post. It'll make everyone want to be the person cited, and will at least increase motivation for good feedback, if not suppress recreational hating.
I don't think it's incorrect to say it. It won't stop the vast majority people from making toxic comments, but if it makes some people think about it it's worth saying.
Having community managers filter out most of the crap and aggregate the feedback is definitely what they do already. Of course then you end up with depressed community managers, which is why community managers have such an insanely high turnover rate.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
Reading your "feedback", there isn't anything that is constructive and could help make the game successful. You don't sound like you care about the game. You sound like you enjoy criticizing people.
I and others have explained often enough why the current mappool is stale and imbalanced and why map variety is good but clearly broken abusable map features are bad. If it gets ignored again and again, yeah then the feedback gets a little more unconstructive.
So what? If someone asks your feedback but don't agree with it then that gives you the right to shit on them?
Again my question don't you see you are having a negative effect on the game/scene you supposedly love and care so much for?
It's not just me. By reading the comments to every thread regarding the current mappool it's clear that the vast majority hates the current mappool. and DK knows it if he reads them too (which he says he does). so he is intentionally making a decision that the community does not like. If that doesn't sound to you slightly egoistic I don't know what does. It's not my intention to bash him just to hurt his feelings I'm just very disappointed by his decisions.
While I too dislike the current map pool and think it should change, the line of reasoning that the "majority of the community" wants something and therefore should get it is a terribly flawed approach. While the community almost always knows when something is wrong, its suggestions to fix said problem are generally awful. So not doing what the community wants is not inherently incorrect.
It should also be pointed out that for every aspect of the game the community correctly called had to be changed, there are 100 things that were pointed out as vigorously, that later turned out was completely fine. We can't really think of "the community" as a single entity with a single opinion, and then highlight only the few posts that happen to get something right by chance as evidence of the wisdom of it.
On January 30 2016 10:31 Dayvie wrote: There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
Hmm, I don't this is the right approach to handling the online community.
To put it simply, haters gonna hate.
The people that post the most are people that are angry for one or other reason, not the people that enjoy the game (they'll be in the game , playing). And the people that post are often people that say things without thinking, rather than people that carefully think through all sides of a problem before posting (those will probably not post at all, seeing that their complaints often don't really make sense). And it is important to not let that fact get to the developers, justified hate or not.
So if the dev team is getting taken down by the tone, maybe better to put a layer in between. Have community managers that scoop up and forward the constructive ideas to the developers, together with any widespread systematic complains of a specific aspect of the game. Discourage (sensitive) developers to read the forums. Celebrate that one time when only 70% of the comments sling feces at you, that means that you've done great job! Take the team out for a drink!
If you've watched tasteosis banter (you know, when they should be casting the game), they often make fun of how forum posters or twitch chat will pull out the harshest and rudest comments for the slightest misstep, or even possible misinterpretation. I think maybe the dev team could do with some of that approach. Seeing the forums as a kind of 4-chan brewing pit of poisonous crap, with the occasional unpolished gem floating to the top.
After all, the hating forum posters don't only find blizzard to be mentally challenged, they hold most of the other forum posters in the same regard. In general, these posters find all the other posters (that don't agree with their every single idea) to be Royal Morons. So from Blizzards point of view it may look like a unified front against the dev team, but it is in fact more like a horde of hedgehogs of hate, everyone pointing spikes in all directions, including the other hedgehogs of hate. Everyone agrees that what blizzard is doing is horrible and bad and retarded, but they say the same thing of most of the other posters suggestions. The forums just hate on anything in sight, because it's easy, and because vocal minority.
A better approach would be to not try to suppress the haters (gl with that... can you hold back the tide as well when you are done with that?), but rather encourage the good posts. In these feedbacks, if you occasionally refer to a specific poster, or specific posts that affected your discussion at any point (even if it didn't actually change anything at the end of the day), throw out a shout-out, or maybe even link to the post. It'll make everyone want to be the person cited, and will at least increase motivation for good feedback, if not suppress recreational hating.
I don't think it's incorrect to say it. It won't stop the vast majority people from making toxic comments, but if it makes some people think about it it's worth saying.
Having community managers filter out most of the crap and aggregate the feedback is definitely what they do already. Of course then you end up with depressed community managers, which is why community managers have such an insanely high turnover rate.
Community managers: the trash recycling workers of the internet.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Well if your team isn't small the only other possibility is that your team just sucks ass. I think it's better to hear that your team is just small.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
if you do shit decisions in regard to starcraft what do you expect? Should we say "oh you're doing an awesome job, this mappool should even stay for season 3. Just switch orbital shipyard and dusk towers with more unique maps and it will be perfect" The reason for our feedback is that we actually care for the game and want it to be succesful.
Reading your "feedback", there isn't anything that is constructive and could help make the game successful. You don't sound like you care about the game. You sound like you enjoy criticizing people.
I and others have explained often enough why the current mappool is stale and imbalanced and why map variety is good but clearly broken abusable map features are bad. If it gets ignored again and again, yeah then the feedback gets a little more unconstructive.
So what? If someone asks your feedback but don't agree with it then that gives you the right to shit on them?
Again my question don't you see you are having a negative effect on the game/scene you supposedly love and care so much for?
It's not just me. By reading the comments to every thread regarding the current mappool it's clear that the vast majority hates the current mappool. and DK knows it if he reads them too (which he says he does). so he is intentionally making a decision that the community does not like. If that doesn't sound to you slightly egoistic I don't know what does. It's not my intention to bash him just to hurt his feelings I'm just very disappointed by his decisions.
While I too dislike the current map pool and think it should change, the line of reasoning that the "majority of the community" wants something and therefore should get it is a terribly flawed approach. While the community almost always knows when something is wrong, its suggestions to fix said problem are generally awful. So not doing what the community wants is not inherently incorrect.
This is only correct when the community doesn't know yet how the changes made by the company are going to be. Like when this would be DKs first attempt at bringing "creative" maps and everyone would be shitting on him, then it would be totally ok if he ignored the haters and tries something different. But in this case we have played on those maps for months and don't enjoy them. A companys goal should be to make the consumers happy and if this is clearly not the case then sticking with their plans is just dumb.
On January 30 2016 11:17 Silvana wrote: I have no idea about maps. But I wanna comment on this:
They guy just took some time to ask you to please stop shitting on them because it is not useful at all and it is counterproductive (it demoralizes the team), and what do you people do? Come here and make personal attacks on them.
How many more times do you think a team can keep taking shit from the community for no good reason? Can't you see that personal attacks and discrediting the team for their work IS NOT HELPING the game and can possibly have a negative effect?
You can't keep your hateful thoughts to yourselves, yet you ask for DK to swallow his ego. The irony...
The difference is that they are getting paid while the community is not. It is not up to the community to increase their morale; that's the manager's job.
god this is sad. david kim is a friendly and intelligent dude, but he's falling into the oldest trap on the internet - trying to engage useless trolls who attack him personally. the community feedback posts are good, the fact that he tries to personally address gutter posts is bad and will only make him feel worse.
if you justify trashing and insulting a human being with "he didn't make the changes to his video game i wanted him to make" you may need to seriously examine your thought processes
I find the situation perplexing. There has been a lot more engagement with the community lately, which is a good thing, but I don't think it's correct for DK to state that they have created false expectations with their 'transparency'. I didn't know of any prior promises, but when I read that there are features arriving in more than six months, I also feel perplexed and disappointed. So it's not that their transparency has led to this situation, the way they communicated this time led to this situation.
Regarding maps, it doesn't actually matter whether the current maps are good or bad. They have three major problems regardless: a) they have been around since the beta, b) they aren't GSL maps, c) they aren't community made maps.
I for one thought that the ladder and GSL coordinate their maps, but this is clearly not the case. So I find it understandable that the community is up in arms about the stagnating map pool. Pretty much everyone can find fault with it because of the three independent reasons above.
Furthermore, getting new maps is not that difficult thanks to the GSL. You can just grab some maps from there.
ok to start im a results man and u can say to me whatever you want, but i care about results and i have stayed quiet letting david kim over the past years do his thing and see where the game goes. however past behaviour usually will represent future behaviour, and thats why the community is getting worse and worse... i read reddit and tl im a lurker dont say much ,, but DK you have to understand that when the game stays unchanged for so long or things arent changed or promises of this arent kept. what do u expect the community to do?
To keep on backing u.. no eventualy the community will get over it and thats whats happening.. people have told you and your team what they want over and over with no changes or quick patches.. like for example the seige tank... people wanted it changed... you didnt even respond.. just said we are looking at it.. no transparecy just we are looking at it..you could have given some reasons to keep the community thinking .. what do u expect the community after what, 5 years to keep backing you.. i mean come on... im 30yrs old.. i work in corporate.. you can fool the kids but the adults are getting over it and thats what your seeing.....
i love sc2.. but i looked at my games played and its getting less and less because i now know changes or promises arent coming along... i was super hyped about ladder changes and point... where is that.. i may hate avilo but he make a good point about air being to strong.. and who cares if a tournament is on and you dont wanna patch are you looking long term do u have an end goal? doesnt seem like it... like geee do u have a year plan when you say guys this is what we wanna achieve this year for sc2... ... not just week to week.. this is why people are getting worse as i said im a lurker ill read see what happens DK but.. from what i read weekly its just to keep us at bay i can read between the lines.... remember people in this world help people who go the extra mile or really go hard at something not sit back and see how it goes.. anyway im not the dev. its up to GL DK. im on your side but you are making it harder for anyone to believe in you.
Dusk Towers Defend 1 choke point to gain access to 4 bases is something unique to this map, and it’s already looking like it creates very different games compared to other map types.
aka "turtle map"
Lerilak Crest Each starting location plays out so differently, and the general feel of the map playing a bit more rush heavy. The fact that each start location plays out differently means players who are more reactive depending on what they scout can perform better on a map like this, which we think is a cool factor.
aka "rotational imba"
i agree that need to stop complaining about all the new announced features not being instantly available, it takes time to code all that stuff...
On January 30 2016 11:17 Silvana wrote: I have no idea about maps. But I wanna comment on this:
They guy just took some time to ask you to please stop shitting on them because it is not useful at all and it is counterproductive (it demoralizes the team), and what do you people do? Come here and make personal attacks on them.
How many more times do you think a team can keep taking shit from the community for no good reason? Can't you see that personal attacks and discrediting the team for their work IS NOT HELPING the game and can possibly have a negative effect?
You can't keep your hateful thoughts to yourselves, yet you ask for DK to swallow his ego. The irony...
The difference is that they are getting paid while the community is not. It is not up to the community to increase their morale; that's the manager's job.
I can imagine they have a hard time recruiting top talent due to the toxic feedback you have to put with as game developer. If you are a rockstar developer, why would you go into a field where your customers are insulting you 24/7?
You are right that the forum posters are the customers: the payers, not the payees, so it is not like people don't have to right to broadcast their useless hate wherever they find the means to. And I don't see how you would stop it. And I agree that it is up to the manger to keep the morale up, not the community.
But it is also true that the hate creates worse games at the end of the day.
On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote: Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick".
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
(1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else
wtf are you talking about? "destructive criticism is valid"? what does that even mean? it's valid to try to make people feel like shit because you don't like that they aren't using your ideas?
you realize that they can actually design the game any way they want, just like a band selling albums can make whatever music they want? where do you get this insane entitlement from?
am i the only one who can see as clear as day that there is no community consensus, everyone wants different shit, and it's impossible to design the game "everyone wants"? how can so many individuals be so ceaselessly convinced that they are being personally wronged because not every single one of their suggestions is implemented?
i dont even play other blizz games or care about them as a company, this is just overall common sense and common decency. like... some of you people need to admit you're just too invested in how you think starcraft should be and how much you think your opinion should matter
On January 30 2016 11:17 Silvana wrote: I have no idea about maps. But I wanna comment on this:
They guy just took some time to ask you to please stop shitting on them because it is not useful at all and it is counterproductive (it demoralizes the team), and what do you people do? Come here and make personal attacks on them.
How many more times do you think a team can keep taking shit from the community for no good reason? Can't you see that personal attacks and discrediting the team for their work IS NOT HELPING the game and can possibly have a negative effect?
You can't keep your hateful thoughts to yourselves, yet you ask for DK to swallow his ego. The irony...
The difference is that they are getting paid while the community is not. It is not up to the community to increase their morale; that's the manager's job.
But this is not a competition to see who is right or wrong, it is not a struggle of power, it is not 2 friends arguing because they think the other is morally wrong.
Whether we are right with out criticisim or not, we gain literally nothing by pissing off the dev team and drive them away from us by quitting channels of communication and cooperation. You can technically say you won the battle, because you showed that they are <insert whatever criticism you have>, but what is that useful for? Do we get a better game as result? No.
But we do have something to gain if we make an effort and refrain from throwing shit at them. You cannot deny they have done a better job since they started this Weekly Community Feedback thing. Let's try to keep it and make the most of it.
I'm sorry if I sound like a big momma giving moral lessons or a know-it-all person. I just think some people here are losing the vision of what the community feedback thing is for. It is not to prove the dev team are a bunch of inepts incapable of doing their work. It is a means for us to help them make the game better.
On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote: Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick".
On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote:
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
(1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else
wtf are you talking about? "destructive criticism is valid"? what does that even mean? it's valid to try to make people feel like shit because you don't like that they aren't using your ideas?
you realize that they can actually design the game any way they want, just like a band selling albums can make whatever music they want? where do you get this insane entitlement from?
am i the only one who can see as clear as day that there is no community consensus, everyone wants different shit, and it's impossible to design the game "everyone wants"? how can so many individuals be so ceaselessly convinced that they are being personally wronged because not every single one of their suggestions is implemented?
i dont even play other blizz games or care about them as a company, this is just overall common sense and common decency. like... some of you people need to admit you're just too invested in how you think starcraft should be and how much you think your opinion should matter
I'm with you. I wrote exactly that on the previous page as a matter of fact.
On January 30 2016 11:57 brickrd wrote: god this is sad. david kim is a friendly and intelligent dude, but he's falling into the oldest trap on the internet - trying to engage useless trolls who attack him personally. the community feedback posts are good, the fact that he tries to personally address gutter posts is bad and will only make him feel worse.
if you justify trashing and insulting a human being with "he didn't make the changes to his video game i wanted him to make" you may need to seriously examine your thought processes
And this.
In this last post, I am starting to think that maybe he isn't really personally affected, but maybe he is angry because he sees what it does to his team? So this is just some kind of attempt to look after his team, and maybe it is directed at the dev team as much as to the community. Publicly announcing that the dev team is doing a better job than the (toxic part of the) community is giving them credit for should be an increase to the dev teams morale, right?
I feel like telling people not to be negative and hate at this point is like telling an angry crowd if they would be so kind as to put away their pitchforks and torches.
I really enjoy playing the game even now, but if 99% of the comments are negative about the new map pool there might be a problem with it and it's not just haters gonna hate.
On January 30 2016 12:16 ShambhalaWar wrote: I would be "demotivated" as well reading all this crap and abuse the community dishes out. I've taken part in it, sadly, and I have taken a step back.
One of these days, blizzard will pull all support from the game then what will peoples' faces look like as they stare at themselves?
Then maybe the community can reflect on why they've been so horrible to the developers over the years (and each other for that matter).
Maybe they should pull all support from the game and give refunds.
We want normal maps. No gold bases, no back rocks. Preferably 2 player. Look at the greatest maps of all time. Polar Night, Overgrowth, Daybreak, King Sejong Station, Coda. What do they have in common? They are all relatively standard maps. These are the most fun maps for anybody, competitive or casual. You can do whatever you like on these maps.
YEAH MAN WE NEED GOLD BASES EVERYWHERE MAN
Such a joke line of thinking. Unique is not good. At all.
On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote: Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick".
On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote:
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
(1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else
wtf are you talking about? "destructive criticism is valid"? what does that even mean? it's valid to try to make people feel like shit because you don't like that they aren't using your ideas?
there is no community consensus, everyone wants different shit, and it's impossible to design the game "everyone wants"? how can so many individuals be so ceaselessly convinced that they are being personally wronged because not every single one of their suggestions is implemented?
I feel like more than 2/3 of the community agrees on changes that won't be made, like removing the gold bases on prion and the map pack not being great. It is ironic to me that lotv is heavily influenced by the community and is the best expansion yet. It is too bad so many things take a while to change like nerfing adepts, PB, and PO. Those changes seemed easy and straightforward.
I am not familar with the structure of how things are done now, but I wish there were more community representatives that would change how things are done in the game, and there was more of a shoot first ask questions later approach to speed things up. Maybe something like having a poll of the top players, but keeping their suggestions secret? I am thinking of something more like the wikipedia model.
One counterargument to this is that you can't make sweeping changes that could negatively affect the game for so many people, but I mean come on, everyone knew tvp was the most broken matchup because of the adept. I might be having a selective memory and I did miss all of hots because I got that sick of the game by hots beta, but how many times has the community been wrong about stuff when there is such strong opinion about something like adepts and the map pool? Then I think back to how many times the blizzard team has been wrong about stuff. The biggest things that come to mind are just comparing hots to lotv.
The blizz team has made lots of cool changes too, but the negative one are always going to stick out, just like blown referee calls in a game. I know they're smart people, but I have a feeling it has more to do with the model of how things are setup and run now that creates a hindrance between the community feedback and how fast changes are implemented.
On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote: Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick".
On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote:
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
(1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else
wtf are you talking about? "destructive criticism is valid"? what does that even mean? it's valid to try to make people feel like shit because you don't like that they aren't using your ideas?
you realize that they can actually design the game any way they want, just like a band selling albums can make whatever music they want? where do you get this insane entitlement from?
am i the only one who can see as clear as day that there is no community consensus, everyone wants different shit, and it's impossible to design the game "everyone wants"? how can so many individuals be so ceaselessly convinced that they are being personally wronged because not every single one of their suggestions is implemented?
i dont even play other blizz games or care about them as a company, this is just overall common sense and common decency. like... some of you people need to admit you're just too invested in how you think starcraft should be and how much you think your opinion should matter
Destructive, in the sense of "not constructive" criticism, is valid. When a nurse's doing you a injection, and she fucks up in her technique and you feel pain, you'll probably say "ouch" or express your pain. That's non-constructive, thus destructive, criticism, because you didn't tell her "oh look, I think you should do X and Y so that I feel less pain". Does that make your "ouch" useless? Nope, she got the indication that she fucked up. Now ofc if you go on her being like "hey you're so bad at your job, I don't even know why you're doing that you shit" etc, it's not destructive criticism, it's insults.
They can design the game they want. They should, if they knew what they're doing. Yet they're here, asking for feedback, asking us what we want. Do you know many bands who're like "hey fans, what do you want our next single to be? Should it be a power ballad? Or maybe a energetic rock?"? Nope. A creator creates, and people like it or not, I agree with you entirely on that. And they should create a game and not listen to the community. But they do, they ask the community for help, because they have no idea what they"re doing. Of course people will then be angry when they basically go "oh hey, we thought about your ideas, but mine are better, 'cuz they're mine".
And yes, I do entirely agree with the fact that there's no community consensus and that it's impossible to satisfy everyone. But then why do they search community feedback as if there was one big community feedback? Who's not seeing clear as day that there is no community consensus? You & me? Or them?
On January 30 2016 12:22 RPR_Tempest wrote: We don't want unique maps, David!
We want normal maps. No gold bases, no back rocks. Preferably 2 player. Look at the greatest maps of all time. Polar Night, Overgrowth, Daybreak, King Sejong Station, Coda. What do they have in common? They are all relatively standard maps. These are the most fun maps for anybody, competitive or casual. You can do whatever you like on these maps.
YEAH MAN WE NEED GOLD BASES EVERYWHERE MAN
Such a joke line of thinking. Unique is not good. At all.
People complain when every map is standard macro maps too. Blizzard can't win basically.
In saying that, I agree the map pool is average and was really hoping it'd change.
On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote: Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick".
On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote:
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
(1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else
wtf are you talking about? "destructive criticism is valid"? what does that even mean? it's valid to try to make people feel like shit because you don't like that they aren't using your ideas?
you realize that they can actually design the game any way they want, just like a band selling albums can make whatever music they want? where do you get this insane entitlement from?
am i the only one who can see as clear as day that there is no community consensus, everyone wants different shit, and it's impossible to design the game "everyone wants"? how can so many individuals be so ceaselessly convinced that they are being personally wronged because not every single one of their suggestions is implemented?
i dont even play other blizz games or care about them as a company, this is just overall common sense and common decency. like... some of you people need to admit you're just too invested in how you think starcraft should be and how much you think your opinion should matter
Destructive, in the sense of "not constructive" criticism, is valid. When a nurse's doing you a injection, and she fucks up in her technique and you feel pain, you'll probably say "ouch" or express your pain. That's non-constructive, thus destructive, criticism, because you didn't tell her "oh look, I think you should do X and Y so that I feel less pain". Does that make your "ouch" useless? Nope, she got the indication that she fucked up. Now ofc if you go on her being like "hey you're so bad at your job, I don't even know why you're doing that you shit" etc, it's not destructive criticism, it's insults.
They can design the game they want. They should, if they knew what they're doing. Yet they're here, asking for feedback, asking us what we want. Do you know many bands who're like "hey fans, what do you want our next single to be? Should it be a power ballad? Or maybe a energetic rock?"? Nope. A creator creates, and people like it or not, I agree with you entirely on that. And they should create a game and not listen to the community. But they do, they ask the community for help, because they have no idea what they"re doing. Of course people will then be angry when they basically go "oh hey, we thought about your ideas, but mine are better, 'cuz they're mine".
And yes, I do entirely agree with the fact that there's no community consensus and that it's impossible to satisfy everyone. But then why do they search community feedback as if there was one big community feedback? Who's not seeing clear as day that there is no community consensus? You & me? Or them?
I'm not sure why you're equating non-constructive criticism with destructive criticism. Because that's utterly false. That's not what destructive criticism is. Destructive criticism is criticism performed with harmful intentions.
And I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your post. Blizzard should definitely listen to what the community has to say, as it's data that can serve guide their actions, but just because they listened doesn't mean they should blindly follow what the community thinks is the best path.
If they do read this, I just want them to know that I greatly appreciate their efforts and I'm happy that StarCraft has as much support as it does!
I think it's easy to get weighed down by the vocal minority, but you need to remember that there are literally thousands of others playing StarCraft and enjoying it immensely.
And honestly, I think it would be a herculean task to balance something like StarCraft. Like some other said, people have very different opinions on how the game should be balanced. How do you know which people to listen to? How do you know which changes you should implement?
You would also have to keep in mind how many different variables one would have to consider while making a balance change. By changing one statistic of one unit, you would have review if that would change the interactions between several different units and several different scenarios.
I'm happy that David Kim and his crew have worked on balance as long as they have, because it seems very difficult and, some days, thankless.
Personally I think StarCraft 2 has come a long ways since Wings of Liberty and I'm convinced that it'll only get better.
I hope I'm not the minority on this view point, but I do want to thank the game developers of StarCraft 2. You've given my my favorite game of all time and have given me many, MANY hours of happiness.
I would love to thank the StarCraft 2 team as I think they're doing the best that they can and I think they're awesome.
What happened to Fun as a factor? It may just be my perspective, but in lots of areas that seems to be a missing factor or not very important. Like the maps for instance, from my perspective many people seem bored of the maps and/or want some maps replaced with GSL/new maps. It seems like "If we tweak this and this we may get it balanced", yes it may end up being balanced eventually, but will it be fun? I dont know, maybe i'm just talkin outta my ass...
I understand this must be extremely difficult for the developers, especially as the game gets more complex, and it will be virtually impossible to appease everyone. Also with Esports, that just adds more difficulties..
It’s encouraging to see that the community is eager for new content and features. However, we recognize that there is a temptation once we’ve talked about something new to want to see it in the game quickly. The reality is that feature and content development often takes more time than even we expect internally – and as a result, we ask for your patience and temperance in your responses each week.
I think it's one thing to express your disappointment, but you have to do so in an appropriate manner without attacking/shitting on the devs like many people did/do.
However, I really wish they had asked for our patience during beta with extensive testing and just released it this summer with all those features included, as I feel it's kind of natural for people to expect the "quick" implementation of long announced features with the "final" version of the game released earlier than expected.
And, if we're all perfectly honest, while giving feedback and trying to work together with the dev team to improve the game we all love(d) is the ideal hypothetical solution, in reality, as many already pointed out, they are a company trying to sell a product and we are the customers they're trying to please. So, here's what many of us don't really understand:
The majority of the players clearly would be pleased with a few maps swapped out with fresh ones for the upcoming season, which is understandable, given they are around since beta.
So, to try some constructive criticism here, why not have separate map pools for ranked and unranked play (I know you'd have to separate those two player pools, as well, possibly making it difficult to have proper matchmaking), giving unranked mode a selection of possible new maps for upcoming seasons for people to try out, while keeping the "solid/approved maps" for the ranked ladder?
Is it too much to ask new maps? Its been so long that we have the same map pool, and making maps is not a big deal at all, you can just leave community to do maps as well, it would be a win-win situation.
I mean, if they dont' want to listen to the community, fine, but at least listen to the Korean pros and the pros often say Blizzard don't really take their feedback.
Maybe the korean pros might wanna keep their mouths shut from now on, or they'll wake up to a single season of GSL in 2017
Re:maps I think in this early stage of the meta maybe standard maps would be better to help develop that said meta and show any race balance flaws, maybe later we could go to "unique" maps.
Also "horde of hedgehogs of hate" is golden, almost wanna pick up my guitar and start writing a song about that
On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote: Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick".
On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote:
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
(1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else
wtf are you talking about? "destructive criticism is valid"? what does that even mean? it's valid to try to make people feel like shit because you don't like that they aren't using your ideas?
you realize that they can actually design the game any way they want, just like a band selling albums can make whatever music they want? where do you get this insane entitlement from?
am i the only one who can see as clear as day that there is no community consensus, everyone wants different shit, and it's impossible to design the game "everyone wants"? how can so many individuals be so ceaselessly convinced that they are being personally wronged because not every single one of their suggestions is implemented?
i dont even play other blizz games or care about them as a company, this is just overall common sense and common decency. like... some of you people need to admit you're just too invested in how you think starcraft should be and how much you think your opinion should matter
Destructive, in the sense of "not constructive" criticism, is valid. When a nurse's doing you a injection, and she fucks up in her technique and you feel pain, you'll probably say "ouch" or express your pain. That's non-constructive, thus destructive, criticism, because you didn't tell her "oh look, I think you should do X and Y so that I feel less pain". Does that make your "ouch" useless? Nope, she got the indication that she fucked up. Now ofc if you go on her being like "hey you're so bad at your job, I don't even know why you're doing that you shit" etc, it's not destructive criticism, it's insults.
They can design the game they want. They should, if they knew what they're doing. Yet they're here, asking for feedback, asking us what we want. Do you know many bands who're like "hey fans, what do you want our next single to be? Should it be a power ballad? Or maybe a energetic rock?"? Nope. A creator creates, and people like it or not, I agree with you entirely on that. And they should create a game and not listen to the community. But they do, they ask the community for help, because they have no idea what they"re doing. Of course people will then be angry when they basically go "oh hey, we thought about your ideas, but mine are better, 'cuz they're mine".
And yes, I do entirely agree with the fact that there's no community consensus and that it's impossible to satisfy everyone. But then why do they search community feedback as if there was one big community feedback? Who's not seeing clear as day that there is no community consensus? You & me? Or them?
You're mistaking destructive criticism with negative criticism (there's no non-constructive criticism). Destructive criticism is the polar opposite of constructive criticism. The words destructive and constructive kind of are a giveaway.
On January 30 2016 10:47 Charoisaur wrote: david kims ego is really damaging to this game.
This. Very much this.
Blizzard has or had 0 reason to patch and develop both Brood War and SC2, not to mention every other game in the history of their lineup, beyond the street date sale. The community has a way bigger ego that trumps basic reasoning - and their reactive comments that make things personal just show this.
These guys care about the game. To think otherwise is honestly just short sighted.
On January 30 2016 10:31 Dayvie wrote: There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
Hmm, I don't this is the right approach to handling the online community.
To put it simply, haters gonna hate.
The people that post the most are people that are angry for one or other reason, not the people that enjoy the game (they'll be in the game , playing). And the people that post are often people that say things without thinking, rather than people that carefully think through all sides of a problem before posting (those will probably not post at all, seeing that their complaints often don't really make sense). And it is important to not let that fact get to the developers, justified hate or not.
So if the dev team is getting taken down by the tone, maybe better to put a layer in between. Have community managers that scoop up and forward the constructive ideas to the developers, together with any widespread systematic complains of a specific aspect of the game. Discourage (sensitive) developers to read the forums. Celebrate that one time when only 70% of the comments sling feces at you, that means that you've done great job! Take the team out for a drink!
If you've watched tasteosis banter (you know, when they should be casting the game), they often make fun of how forum posters or twitch chat will pull out the harshest and rudest comments for the slightest misstep, or even possible misinterpretation. I think maybe the dev team could do with some of that approach. Seeing the forums as a kind of 4-chan brewing pit of poisonous crap, with the occasional unpolished gem floating to the top.
After all, the hating forum posters don't only find blizzard to be mentally challenged, they hold most of the other forum posters in the same regard. In general, these posters find all the other posters (that don't agree with their every single idea) to be Royal Morons. So from Blizzards point of view it may look like a unified front against the dev team, but it is in fact more like a horde of hedgehogs of hate, everyone pointing spikes in all directions, including the other hedgehogs of hate. Everyone agrees that what blizzard is doing is horrible and bad and retarded, but they say the same thing of most of the other posters suggestions. The forums just hate on anything in sight, because it's easy, and because vocal minority.
A better approach would be to not try to suppress the haters (gl with that... can you hold back the tide as well when you are done with that?), but rather encourage the good posts. In these feedbacks, if you occasionally refer to a specific poster, or specific posts that affected your discussion at any point (even if it didn't actually change anything at the end of the day), throw out a shout-out, or maybe even link to the post. It'll make everyone want to be the person cited, and will at least increase motivation for good feedback, if not suppress recreational hating.
Consumers will vote with their feet, feedback on community forums are a good indication of the general vibe of the community. If you do not have a good response to community concerns not only will you lose conumers, by word of mouth you will also lose potential consumers. Yes some will just be playing, but more will just stop playing without having said a thing.
There seems to be a general view in video games that people complaining are whiners and do not represent the majority of people thus ignoring the criticism will have no real impact. This is just plain wrong.
Here are some cool business facts.
1. Price is not the main reason for customer churn, it is actually due to the overall poor quality of customer service – Accenture global customer satisfaction report 2008.
2. A customer is 4 times more likely to defect to a competitor if the problem is service-related than price- or product-related – Bain & Company.
3. The probability of selling to an existing customer is 60 – 70%. The probability of selling to a new prospect is 5-20% – Marketing Metrics.
4. For every customer complaint there are 26 other unhappy customers who have remained silent –Lee Resource.
5. A 2% increase in customer retention has the same effect as decreasing costs by 10% – Leading on the Edge of Chaos, Emmet Murphy & Mark Murphy.
6. 96% of unhappy customers don’t complain, however 91% of those will simply leave and never come back – 1Financial Training services.
7. A dissatisfied customer will tell between 9-15 people about their experience. Around 13% of dissatisfied customers tell more than 20 people. – White House Office of Consumer Affairs.
8. Happy customers who get their issue resolved tell about 4-6 people about their experience. – White House Office of Consumer Affair.
9. 70% of buying experiences are based on how the customer feels they are being treated – McKinsey.
10. 55% of customers would pay extra to guarantee a better service – Defaqto research.
11. Customers who rate you 5 on a scale from 1 to 5 are six times more likely to buy from you again, compared to ‘only’ giving you a score of 4.8. – TeleFaction data research.
12. It takes 12 positive experiences to make up for one unresolved negative experience – “Understanding Customers” by Ruby Newell-Legner.
13. A 5% reduction in the customer defection rate can increase profits by 5 – 95% – Bain & Company.
14. It costs 6–7 times more to acquire a new customer than retain an existing one – Bain & Company.
15. eCommerce spending for new customers is on average $24.50, compared to $52.50 for repeat customers – McKinsey.
On January 30 2016 10:31 Dayvie wrote: There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
Hmm, I don't this is the right approach to handling the online community.
To put it simply, haters gonna hate.
The people that post the most are people that are angry for one or other reason, not the people that enjoy the game (they'll be in the game , playing). And the people that post are often people that say things without thinking, rather than people that carefully think through all sides of a problem before posting (those will probably not post at all, seeing that their complaints often don't really make sense). And it is important to not let that fact get to the developers, justified hate or not.
So if the dev team is getting taken down by the tone, maybe better to put a layer in between. Have community managers that scoop up and forward the constructive ideas to the developers, together with any widespread systematic complains of a specific aspect of the game. Discourage (sensitive) developers to read the forums. Celebrate that one time when only 70% of the comments sling feces at you, that means that you've done great job! Take the team out for a drink!
If you've watched tasteosis banter (you know, when they should be casting the game), they often make fun of how forum posters or twitch chat will pull out the harshest and rudest comments for the slightest misstep, or even possible misinterpretation. I think maybe the dev team could do with some of that approach. Seeing the forums as a kind of 4-chan brewing pit of poisonous crap, with the occasional unpolished gem floating to the top.
After all, the hating forum posters don't only find blizzard to be mentally challenged, they hold most of the other forum posters in the same regard. In general, these posters find all the other posters (that don't agree with their every single idea) to be Royal Morons. So from Blizzards point of view it may look like a unified front against the dev team, but it is in fact more like a horde of hedgehogs of hate, everyone pointing spikes in all directions, including the other hedgehogs of hate. Everyone agrees that what blizzard is doing is horrible and bad and retarded, but they say the same thing of most of the other posters suggestions. The forums just hate on anything in sight, because it's easy, and because vocal minority.
A better approach would be to not try to suppress the haters (gl with that... can you hold back the tide as well when you are done with that?), but rather encourage the good posts. In these feedbacks, if you occasionally refer to a specific poster, or specific posts that affected your discussion at any point (even if it didn't actually change anything at the end of the day), throw out a shout-out, or maybe even link to the post. It'll make everyone want to be the person cited, and will at least increase motivation for good feedback, if not suppress recreational hating.
Consumers will vote with their feet, feedback on community forums are a good indication of the general vibe of the community. If you do not have a good response to community concerns not only will you lose conumers, by word of mouth you will also lose potential consumers. Yes some will just be playing, but more will just stop playing without having said a thing.
There seems to be a general view in video games that people complaining are whiners and do not represent the majority of people thus ignoring the criticism will have no real impact. This is just plain wrong.
1. Price is not the main reason for customer churn, it is actually due to the overall poor quality of customer service – Accenture global customer satisfaction report 2008.
2. A customer is 4 times more likely to defect to a competitor if the problem is service-related than price- or product-related – Bain & Company.
3. The probability of selling to an existing customer is 60 – 70%. The probability of selling to a new prospect is 5-20% – Marketing Metrics.
4. For every customer complaint there are 26 other unhappy customers who have remained silent –Lee Resource.
5. A 2% increase in customer retention has the same effect as decreasing costs by 10% – Leading on the Edge of Chaos, Emmet Murphy & Mark Murphy.
6. 96% of unhappy customers don’t complain, however 91% of those will simply leave and never come back – 1Financial Training services.
7. A dissatisfied customer will tell between 9-15 people about their experience. Around 13% of dissatisfied customers tell more than 20 people. – White House Office of Consumer Affairs.
8. Happy customers who get their issue resolved tell about 4-6 people about their experience. – White House Office of Consumer Affair.
9. 70% of buying experiences are based on how the customer feels they are being treated – McKinsey.
10. 55% of customers would pay extra to guarantee a better service – Defaqto research.
11. Customers who rate you 5 on a scale from 1 to 5 are six times more likely to buy from you again, compared to ‘only’ giving you a score of 4.8. – TeleFaction data research.
12. It takes 12 positive experiences to make up for one unresolved negative experience – “Understanding Customers” by Ruby Newell-Legner.
13. A 5% reduction in the customer defection rate can increase profits by 5 – 95% – Bain & Company.
14. It costs 6–7 times more to acquire a new customer than retain an existing one – Bain & Company.
15. eCommerce spending for new customers is on average $24.50, compared to $52.50 for repeat customers – McKinsey.
And how are these business facts that you've copy-pasted off another website at all relevant to the issue at hand?
Unique maps are fine, but I wish they weren't so extreme. It's fine to have a map with a hard to take 3rd, but Central Protocol goes further and makes the natural hard to hold, puts in a backdoor to your main, and is 4 player which adds fuel to the fire in some matchups. If they wanted to make a map with a really hard to take 3rd then the natural should be a backdoor to compensate.
Having an easy gold base is a unique feature and will lead to unique games on its own, but for some reason that's not enough and Prion has to have 2 golds? Even the good maps seem to be designed extremely in one-direction, Orbital/Dusk have super easy naturals AND super easy 3rds and fairly easy 4ths which just seems so weird when you compare them to Central Protocol which is the complete opposite.
I don't think there is anything totally wrong with having a totally broken map like Prion or Central Protocol, but ONLY if a progamer has the option to never play on that map. Right now tournaments don't have enough maps so when someone plays a BO5/BO7 they will always have to play a broken map, if there were more tournament maps and more vetoes available then we could accept some maps being broken in some matchups. Tournaments with fixed maps like Proleague and NationWars should avoid using the broken maps (I wonder if a Protoss will ever be sent out on Prion in Proleague, and if Prion is ever an ace map that would just be unfortunate).
- An extreme lack of 3 player maps. - No experimentation done with unbuildable terrain but walkable terrain aside from plates and rocks to block pylon walls like Medusa. - No experimentation done with certain paths only allowing small units through like Blue Storm. - No using minerals to block paths..... like Monty Hall.
Online Systems It’s encouraging to see that the community is eager for new content and features. However, we recognize that there is a temptation once we’ve talked about something new to want to see it in the game quickly. The reality is that feature and content development often takes more time than even we expect internally – and as a result, we ask for your patience and temperance in your responses each week. !
I'm sure this is in regards to the proposed ladder changes the community has been waiting for awhile to see. This part bothers me because they have specifically talked about implementing the changes and then suddenly it gets pushed back.
I believe late November/early December Blizzard talked about pushing the ladder changes before the dev team left for Christmas break. Then they came out with a post saying it's not ready and they will try to push it out towards to end of January. Now all of the sudden, the changes are being pushed back again until the second half of the year without any explanation. It is frustrating for me and I'm sure plenty of others in the community when they are expecting an important feature to get implemented and given a timeframe for when it will be implemented, then it gets pushed back continously at the last moment.
I would suggest to Blizzard to not give any time frames at all unless they are 100% sure that they will release a feature (ladder changes) on time.
Online Systems It’s encouraging to see that the community is eager for new content and features. However, we recognize that there is a temptation once we’ve talked about something new to want to see it in the game quickly. The reality is that feature and content development often takes more time than even we expect internally – and as a result, we ask for your patience and temperance in your responses each week. !
I'm sure this is in regards to the proposed ladder changes the community has been waiting for awhile to see. This part bothers me because they have specifically talked about implementing the changes and then suddenly it gets pushed back.
I believe late November/early December Blizzard talked about pushing the ladder changes before the dev team left for Christmas break. Then they came out with a post saying it's not ready and they will try to push it out towards to end of January. Now all of the sudden, the changes are being pushed back again until the second half of the year without any explanation. It is frustrating for me and I'm sure plenty of others in the community when they are expecting an important feature to get implemented and given a timeframe for when it will be implemented, then it gets pushed back continously at the last moment.
I would suggest to Blizzard to not give any time frames at all unless they are 100% sure that they will release a feature (ladder changes) on time.
They don't usually. Where do you think Soon™ comes from?
On January 30 2016 12:16 ShambhalaWar wrote: I would be "demotivated" as well reading all this crap and abuse the community dishes out. I've taken part in it, sadly, and I have taken a step back.
One of these days, blizzard will pull all support from the game then what will peoples' faces look like as they stare at themselves?
Then maybe the community can reflect on why they've been so horrible to the developers over the years (and each other for that matter).
Maybe they should pull all support from the game and give refunds.
Tantrum time D':
Am I right?
Did widdle baby not wiky his game? Did widdle baby get taken four a spin and want dem monies back? Is him not happy wif de game because it isn't exactwy how we wikes it? Is baby's milk too warm?
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
David Kim needs to thicken his skin up. I get flamed, everyday, on multiple forums. And I don't care at all. I go into work and plenty of people disagree with my decisions. That doesn't matter to me either. So if a bunch of people like me on an internet forum can demotivate him, then he has reached his peak with his current mindset. It is time to grow up, David Kim. Make the game great, don't care what other people think.
The fact he even said that is just shocking and clear evidence he shouldn't (like most people who manage) manage anything. The SC2 design team should have goals in mind and a direction that can't be changed by negative, or positive feedback. Because they should own this, and know what is best for SC2 and make a game worth playing. People who need their ego stroked are easily manipulated and shouldn't manage.
People like me who criticize him relentlessly love SC2 more than most, because the other people have left and moved on to other games. He wants us to be nice, then he treats the community with utter disdain, not with words, but actions that speak much louder.
And definitely don't ask people to be nice Mr. Kim, make them nice by creating the game we all want. I'm not always "mean," I have only nice things to say about the League of Legends design team.
Aggressive Zerg play can still be really strong and they can even take the middle golds, they gain power tremendously in the mid game, but if they play defensively early they will suffer a great deal. The gold bases in the middle have almost no meaning as of now and the options for the Zerg player and even in just standard play, is simply too much.
Lerilak Crests gets somewhat crazy in the lategame, which it gets to very early so in that sense it is fun. Other than that I think these open maps cannot work with the current iteration of the Ravager. If Corrosive Bile didn't damage buildings we can have more crazy maps that would normally be really imbalanced in Zergs favour, but as of now there's just no reason to not veto it. This just further increases the Zergs chances if they were to meet, since the Zerg have experience on the map already and the other player doesn't.
On January 30 2016 10:31 Dayvie wrote: There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
Hmm, I don't this is the right approach to handling the online community.
To put it simply, haters gonna hate.
The people that post the most are people that are angry for one or other reason, not the people that enjoy the game (they'll be in the game , playing). And the people that post are often people that say things without thinking, rather than people that carefully think through all sides of a problem before posting (those will probably not post at all, seeing that their complaints often don't really make sense). And it is important to not let that fact get to the developers, justified hate or not.
So if the dev team is getting taken down by the tone, maybe better to put a layer in between. Have community managers that scoop up and forward the constructive ideas to the developers, together with any widespread systematic complains of a specific aspect of the game. Discourage (sensitive) developers to read the forums. Celebrate that one time when only 70% of the comments sling feces at you, that means that you've done great job! Take the team out for a drink!
If you've watched tasteosis banter (you know, when they should be casting the game), they often make fun of how forum posters or twitch chat will pull out the harshest and rudest comments for the slightest misstep, or even possible misinterpretation. I think maybe the dev team could do with some of that approach. Seeing the forums as a kind of 4-chan brewing pit of poisonous crap, with the occasional unpolished gem floating to the top.
After all, the hating forum posters don't only find blizzard to be mentally challenged, they hold most of the other forum posters in the same regard. In general, these posters find all the other posters (that don't agree with their every single idea) to be Royal Morons. So from Blizzards point of view it may look like a unified front against the dev team, but it is in fact more like a horde of hedgehogs of hate, everyone pointing spikes in all directions, including the other hedgehogs of hate. Everyone agrees that what blizzard is doing is horrible and bad and retarded, but they say the same thing of most of the other posters suggestions. The forums just hate on anything in sight, because it's easy, and because vocal minority.
A better approach would be to not try to suppress the haters (gl with that... can you hold back the tide as well when you are done with that?), but rather encourage the good posts. In these feedbacks, if you occasionally refer to a specific poster, or specific posts that affected your discussion at any point (even if it didn't actually change anything at the end of the day), throw out a shout-out, or maybe even link to the post. It'll make everyone want to be the person cited, and will at least increase motivation for good feedback, if not suppress recreational hating.
Consumers will vote with their feet, feedback on community forums are a good indication of the general vibe of the community. If you do not have a good response to community concerns not only will you lose conumers, by word of mouth you will also lose potential consumers. Yes some will just be playing, but more will just stop playing without having said a thing.
There seems to be a general view in video games that people complaining are whiners and do not represent the majority of people thus ignoring the criticism will have no real impact. This is just plain wrong.
1. Price is not the main reason for customer churn, it is actually due to the overall poor quality of customer service – Accenture global customer satisfaction report 2008.
2. A customer is 4 times more likely to defect to a competitor if the problem is service-related than price- or product-related – Bain & Company.
3. The probability of selling to an existing customer is 60 – 70%. The probability of selling to a new prospect is 5-20% – Marketing Metrics.
4. For every customer complaint there are 26 other unhappy customers who have remained silent –Lee Resource.
5. A 2% increase in customer retention has the same effect as decreasing costs by 10% – Leading on the Edge of Chaos, Emmet Murphy & Mark Murphy.
6. 96% of unhappy customers don’t complain, however 91% of those will simply leave and never come back – 1Financial Training services.
7. A dissatisfied customer will tell between 9-15 people about their experience. Around 13% of dissatisfied customers tell more than 20 people. – White House Office of Consumer Affairs.
8. Happy customers who get their issue resolved tell about 4-6 people about their experience. – White House Office of Consumer Affair.
9. 70% of buying experiences are based on how the customer feels they are being treated – McKinsey.
10. 55% of customers would pay extra to guarantee a better service – Defaqto research.
11. Customers who rate you 5 on a scale from 1 to 5 are six times more likely to buy from you again, compared to ‘only’ giving you a score of 4.8. – TeleFaction data research.
12. It takes 12 positive experiences to make up for one unresolved negative experience – “Understanding Customers” by Ruby Newell-Legner.
13. A 5% reduction in the customer defection rate can increase profits by 5 – 95% – Bain & Company.
14. It costs 6–7 times more to acquire a new customer than retain an existing one – Bain & Company.
15. eCommerce spending for new customers is on average $24.50, compared to $52.50 for repeat customers – McKinsey.
And how are these business facts that you've copy-pasted off another website at all relevant to the issue at hand?
Considering the topic is on community complaints and a number of people have stated that they are unhappy with how long it takes Blizzard to address said complaints if at all, then these facts also might be a good indicator as to why the player-base keeps shrinking. For every customer complaint there are 26 other unhappy customers who have remained silent –Lee Resource. That is a pretty valid concern if you do the math on how many complaints on sc2 have been posted over the last 5 years.
On January 30 2016 12:16 ShambhalaWar wrote: I would be "demotivated" as well reading all this crap and abuse the community dishes out. I've taken part in it, sadly, and I have taken a step back.
One of these days, blizzard will pull all support from the game then what will peoples' faces look like as they stare at themselves?
Then maybe the community can reflect on why they've been so horrible to the developers over the years (and each other for that matter).
Maybe they should pull all support from the game and give refunds.
Tantrum time D':
Am I right?
Did widdle baby not wiky his game? Did widdle baby get taken four a spin and want dem monies back? Is him not happy wif de game because it isn't exactwy how we wikes it? Is baby's milk too warm?
On January 30 2016 12:16 ShambhalaWar wrote: I would be "demotivated" as well reading all this crap and abuse the community dishes out. I've taken part in it, sadly, and I have taken a step back.
One of these days, blizzard will pull all support from the game then what will peoples' faces look like as they stare at themselves?
Then maybe the community can reflect on why they've been so horrible to the developers over the years (and each other for that matter).
Maybe they should pull all support from the game and give refunds.
Tantrum time D':
Am I right?
Did widdle baby not wiky his game? Did widdle baby get taken four a spin and want dem monies back? Is him not happy wif de game because it isn't exactwy how we wikes it? Is baby's milk too warm?
What's the matter with you?
Yeah, don't you know that today we don't hold people accountable for their actions and that whining is encouraged? If you feel insulted by people on the internet, it should demotivate you to do your job because criticism is hard to take.
Now, give David Kim his participation trophy and let's all give him a round of applause because everyone is special!
To be fair, it is awesome that they are adding features or trying to improve the ladder. The game is indeed complete and everything they add is a bonus, however long it takes. My personal gripe is the multiplayer which I don't enjoy very much as everything I didn't like about SC2 has been enforced. Which I guess could be said to be my personal problem. But then the conclusion is to leave starcraft and this community which has been a big part of my life in the past 5 years.
On January 30 2016 10:31 Dayvie wrote: There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
Hmm, I don't this is the right approach to handling the online community.
To put it simply, haters gonna hate.
The people that post the most are people that are angry for one or other reason, not the people that enjoy the game (they'll be in the game , playing). And the people that post are often people that say things without thinking, rather than people that carefully think through all sides of a problem before posting (those will probably not post at all, seeing that their complaints often don't really make sense). And it is important to not let that fact get to the developers, justified hate or not.
So if the dev team is getting taken down by the tone, maybe better to put a layer in between. Have community managers that scoop up and forward the constructive ideas to the developers, together with any widespread systematic complains of a specific aspect of the game. Discourage (sensitive) developers to read the forums. Celebrate that one time when only 70% of the comments sling feces at you, that means that you've done great job! Take the team out for a drink!
If you've watched tasteosis banter (you know, when they should be casting the game), they often make fun of how forum posters or twitch chat will pull out the harshest and rudest comments for the slightest misstep, or even possible misinterpretation. I think maybe the dev team could do with some of that approach. Seeing the forums as a kind of 4-chan brewing pit of poisonous crap, with the occasional unpolished gem floating to the top.
After all, the hating forum posters don't only find blizzard to be mentally challenged, they hold most of the other forum posters in the same regard. In general, these posters find all the other posters (that don't agree with their every single idea) to be Royal Morons. So from Blizzards point of view it may look like a unified front against the dev team, but it is in fact more like a horde of hedgehogs of hate, everyone pointing spikes in all directions, including the other hedgehogs of hate. Everyone agrees that what blizzard is doing is horrible and bad and retarded, but they say the same thing of most of the other posters suggestions. The forums just hate on anything in sight, because it's easy, and because vocal minority.
A better approach would be to not try to suppress the haters (gl with that... can you hold back the tide as well when you are done with that?), but rather encourage the good posts. In these feedbacks, if you occasionally refer to a specific poster, or specific posts that affected your discussion at any point (even if it didn't actually change anything at the end of the day), throw out a shout-out, or maybe even link to the post. It'll make everyone want to be the person cited, and will at least increase motivation for good feedback, if not suppress recreational hating.
Consumers will vote with their feet, feedback on community forums are a good indication of the general vibe of the community. If you do not have a good response to community concerns not only will you lose conumers, by word of mouth you will also lose potential consumers. Yes some will just be playing, but more will just stop playing without having said a thing.
There seems to be a general view in video games that people complaining are whiners and do not represent the majority of people thus ignoring the criticism will have no real impact. This is just plain wrong.
1. Price is not the main reason for customer churn, it is actually due to the overall poor quality of customer service – Accenture global customer satisfaction report 2008.
2. A customer is 4 times more likely to defect to a competitor if the problem is service-related than price- or product-related – Bain & Company.
3. The probability of selling to an existing customer is 60 – 70%. The probability of selling to a new prospect is 5-20% – Marketing Metrics.
4. For every customer complaint there are 26 other unhappy customers who have remained silent –Lee Resource.
5. A 2% increase in customer retention has the same effect as decreasing costs by 10% – Leading on the Edge of Chaos, Emmet Murphy & Mark Murphy.
6. 96% of unhappy customers don’t complain, however 91% of those will simply leave and never come back – 1Financial Training services.
7. A dissatisfied customer will tell between 9-15 people about their experience. Around 13% of dissatisfied customers tell more than 20 people. – White House Office of Consumer Affairs.
8. Happy customers who get their issue resolved tell about 4-6 people about their experience. – White House Office of Consumer Affair.
9. 70% of buying experiences are based on how the customer feels they are being treated – McKinsey.
10. 55% of customers would pay extra to guarantee a better service – Defaqto research.
11. Customers who rate you 5 on a scale from 1 to 5 are six times more likely to buy from you again, compared to ‘only’ giving you a score of 4.8. – TeleFaction data research.
12. It takes 12 positive experiences to make up for one unresolved negative experience – “Understanding Customers” by Ruby Newell-Legner.
13. A 5% reduction in the customer defection rate can increase profits by 5 – 95% – Bain & Company.
14. It costs 6–7 times more to acquire a new customer than retain an existing one – Bain & Company.
15. eCommerce spending for new customers is on average $24.50, compared to $52.50 for repeat customers – McKinsey.
And how are these business facts that you've copy-pasted off another website at all relevant to the issue at hand?
Considering the topic is on community complaints and a number of people have stated that they are unhappy with how long it takes Blizzard to address said complaints if at all, then these facts also might be a good indicator as to why the player-base keeps shrinking. For every customer complaint there are 26 other unhappy customers who have remained silent –Lee Resource. That is a pretty valid concern if you do the math on how many complaints on sc2 have been posted over the last 5 years.
All these "facts" you pull out. Are you sure they are "facts" in a gaming forum? Or are these "facts" from a more IRL business model? I am not convinced your business "facts" are applicable to this situation. If there have been studies on how complaints on internet forums relate to how the average customer feel about the product, please link sources. I'd be honestly interested. But the things you link sound more like snappy one-liners some random business-guy published on a linked-in article, or in mens healths "unlock your business potential with these 47 facts companies don't want you to know".
Also, you, like many other, seem to go into this as if the community is a single entity, everyone having shared concerns, and that everyone agrees on an easy-to-implement fix. Which isn't anywhere close to what is going on. the only agreements you find with a significant part of the community are on very vague and abstarct large-scale ideas. "Make mech viable", "fix protoss", "make warpgate play viable", "make air less OP", "fix swarmhosts". These are not things that blizzard can press a button and it happens. They'd require a significant allocation of resources, and they may or may not result in an improvement of the game.
Sometimes, they do go on these ventures inspired by complaint from the community, and sometimes they result in changes. And most often the changes are met with the usual amount of complaints, or at least very divided response, because everyone had different ideas of how the problem should be solved, if any at all. The economy and macro mechanics in lotv are good examples of this I'd say.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
Don't get me wrong but I just can't feel sorry for them at all. I completely respect them as people, but as game developers. StarCraft is just not your thing, it is time to find something else. People have not been making nonconstructive criticisms out of nowhere. How many times have we been asking for specific stuff, like no MSC, no worker massacre, our issues with the current economy model, issues with active abilities vs 0 damage point micro, massive design issues that are kept discussed over and over after we were promissed that much will change in the beta and we ended up with not much of what we were promised... etc?
If it were just morons spamming "This OP, my race too weak blah blah" I would have invaded their threads and spammed it with BS until they quit". But frankly people are getting fed up with the way this game is going, here is an example:
It sounds okay, but you can't reasonably ask us to tone down our criticism, or the tone with which we deliver it. It's not like we're slandering them, or giving them an undue amount of disdain. The functional word there is undue, they've been taking SC2 in completely the wrong direction since 2010. They brought in the player-base by making it just similar enough to BW, and have been changing it dramatically ever since. I wouldn't mind this if they were good changes, but I've been brought to outrage enough times over what they've been doing. They're taking the computer game that defined computer gaming for me as a child, and twisting it to meet their corrupt vision of an e-sport. I just don't have the energy for it anymore. You don't get to write this off by calling us entitled or petulant, because StarCraft is a beloved game, you can't just take the legacy that leaves and tear it to pieces, you'd be a fool to think I'd be anything less than furious.
I've seen so many beautifully detailed walls of text giving Blizzard the constructive criticism they keep asking for, and they pretend it doesn't exist. Feedback on everything from macro mechanics and the economy model, to unit and map design, to basic things like high-ground advantage, and they proceed to ignore every last bit of analysis and advice. They don't even have the dedication to bring their own twisted vision of mech to fruition, not that they ever understood what mech play really was. They haven't had proper direction since day 1, any game designer worth their salt knows how to make a focused change that brings you the results you're looking for.
They've all but killed the love I have for StarCraft, and I consider that an unforgivable transgression. They knew what they were doing. Or maybe they didn't. Either way, it's a travesty, and I'm not going to sugarcoat it. If you wonder why I take my tone, just look back.
I think there would be a stronger correlation of these "facts" to a digital business then you would think. Here's a simple exercise; think about your IRL mates who have played sc2, now narrow that down to who no longer play the game and then ask them did any of them write a complaint to blizz while they were still playing sc2? Did they tell anyone not to bother buying the game (or any other negative comment to steer them away from this product)?
With regards to balance you are absolutely right there is no easy solution, mostly I attribute this to the imbalance and perceived imbalance scenario. Now obviously you can't just nerf banelings because bronze players can't marine split (perceived imbalance). But there are a multitude of other ways to address the issue; slow the game speed down in lower leagues, adjust unit spacing in lower leagues, things like that where you don't have to actually change dmg number or anything but greatly improve the lower leveled players game experience. What I'm trying to say is that you can make steps in dealing with both perceived imbalance and imbalance itself, so that no matter the skill level of the player in question, all complaints are genuine.
On January 30 2016 15:24 NewSunshine wrote: It sounds okay, but you can't reasonably ask us to tone down our criticism, or the tone with which we deliver it. It's not like we're slandering them, or giving them an undue amount of disdain. The functional word there is undue, they've been taking SC2 in completely the wrong direction since 2010. They brought in the player-base by making it just similar enough to BW, and have been changing it dramatically ever since. I wouldn't mind this if they were good changes, but I've been brought to outrage enough times over what they've been doing. They're taking the computer game that defined computer gaming for me as a child, and twisting it to meet their corrupt vision of an e-sport. I just don't have the energy for it anymore. You don't get to write this off by calling us entitled or petulant, because StarCraft is a beloved game, you can't just take the legacy that leaves and tear it to pieces, you'd be a fool to think I'd be anything less than furious.
I've seen so many beautifully detailed walls of text giving Blizzard the constructive criticism they keep asking for, and they pretend it doesn't exist. Feedback on everything from macro mechanics and the economy model, to unit and map design, to basic things like high-ground advantage, and they proceed to ignore every last bit of analysis and advice. They don't even have the dedication to bring their own twisted vision of mech to fruition, not that they ever understood what mech play really was. They haven't had proper direction since day 1, any game designer worth their salt knows how to make a focused change that brings you the results you're looking for.
They've all but killed the love I have for StarCraft, and I consider that an unforgivable transgression. They knew what they were doing. Or maybe they didn't. Either way, it's a travesty, and I'm not going to sugarcoat it. If you wonder why I take my tone, just look back.
What a dream job lol When such a massive amounts of clients are bashing you for how you did your job to be able to just come out and say stop being negative.
Of course nonconstructive comments is the only thing that someone asking you to stop being negative would get. It's because there are constructive comments on every issue that dk responded to that clearly and politely express their opinions but let's just ignore all of them and focus on the whiny ones. Stop being negative is the kind of shit you tell your workforce(and it's shit then too, people are negative for REASONS) not your goddamm clients.
On January 30 2016 15:33 Kurbz wrote: I think there would be a stronger correlation of these "facts" to a digital business then you would think. Here's a simple exercise; think about your IRL mates who have played sc2, now narrow that down to who no longer play the game and then ask them did any of them write a complaint to blizz while they were still playing sc2? Did they tell anyone not to bother buying the game (or any other negative comment to steer them away from this product)?
With regards to balance you are absolutely right there is no easy solution, mostly I attribute this to the imbalance and perceived imbalance scenario. Now obviously you can't just nerf banelings because bronze players can't marine split (perceived imbalance). But there are a multitude of other ways to address the issue; slow the game speed down in lower leagues, adjust unit spacing in lower leagues, things like that where you don't have to actually change dmg number or anything but greatly improve the lower leveled players game experience. What I'm trying to say is that you can make steps in dealing with both perceived imbalance and imbalance itself, so that no matter the skill level of the player in question, all complaints are genuine.
I don't think I understand what you are suggesting.
Yes, fewer people are playing the game now that at start of WoL. And no, they usually don't complain about it online when they stop playing, luckily. That doesn't mean that the few that do complain (loudly) on the forums all have great ideas about how to improve the game...
Surely you are not trying to say that there are easy solution that would make the game better that everyone in the community agrees on, except the developers? The example you bring up with game speed in lower leagues has been suggested, and wasn't well received at all on TL. Together with most other concrete suggestions. Again, everyone seem to have different ideas of how to change the game, but a lot are still angry at the developers for not implementing their idea.
Anyway, I really don't understand where you are going, so not even sure what I am arguing against.
On January 30 2016 12:16 ShambhalaWar wrote: I would be "demotivated" as well reading all this crap and abuse the community dishes out. I've taken part in it, sadly, and I have taken a step back.
One of these days, blizzard will pull all support from the game then what will peoples' faces look like as they stare at themselves?
Then maybe the community can reflect on why they've been so horrible to the developers over the years (and each other for that matter).
Maybe they should pull all support from the game and give refunds.
Tantrum time D':
Am I right?
Did widdle baby not wiky his game? Did widdle baby get taken four a spin and want dem monies back? Is him not happy wif de game because it isn't exactwy how we wikes it? Is baby's milk too warm?
What's the matter with you?
You could ask the same question of anyone in this forum.
And they could give you their rational for being able to call people idiots and flame them, "I did it for LOVE! I did it for the DEEP LOVE of the game! Haven't you ever LOVED something man?! (sniff sniff...) I mean really LOVE something enough to call someone an idiot because it didn't turn out like you hoped? ... cause if you haven't you just ain't livin man..."
There's always brood war, it's basically the perfect game, everything sc2 was supposed to be but it was already made and you can just go back to it, like the thousands of other people. It already has an esports scene and everything.
please, this hate for negative community feedback is getting silly.
Of course players are going to voice their opinion if they feel something is wrong. You have some people getting insulting and rude, but thats not the majority. Its not a new "thing" on the internet, and has happened in all other blizzard games.
I appreciate the devs insights on things, but david kim needs to grow some thicker skin if hes getting salty at the internet. Its also no secret that these developer feedbacks arent overwhelmingly expensive, a lot of times its "overcharge feels really strong against X so we might nerf it by Y.
Its also not like blizzard isnt making a ton of money from these games, and charging €15 (the price for some full game titles) for a nova skin and 3 missions.
I barely read the whole thing but as a player/fan, as I assume all of them are, each of them should be able to see the problems and fix them asap instead of letting it go for months and months. When 2+2 doesn't equal 4, if it's 5 or 6 they it's understandable to wait and see. But when it's 2+2 = 10 or 15, why wait forever? You're in charge of this competitive online game, and most of us play/watch sc2 for the competitiveness not solo missions. So don't feel bad if they're being criticized, they make good money.
I can't believe David Kim still gets to keep his job after over 5 years of fucking up SC2. From brood lord infestor to MSC to swarm host to pylon overcharge, sprinkled in some random shit like oracle speed buff. How can Blizzard keep their trust in someone so utterly incompetent? I am so fucking tired of David Kim's bullshit. It's not like there weren't any constructive criticism, but he is just too egoistic to implement community ideas, often coming up with some contrived ways as balance fixes just so he can lay claim to the idea's ownership. David Kim is to SC2 what Jay Wilson was to D3.
I think I've been sitting here for an hour trying to come up with a list of game design decisions in which blizzard either pushed for something completely different than what we wanted, or gave us what we wanted in such a twisted form that it wasn't even what was asked for. But that list is far too long at this point. That's where the frustration comes from.
On January 30 2016 16:53 Big J wrote: I think I've been sitting here for an hour trying to come up with a list of game design decisions in which blizzard either pushed for something completely different than what we wanted, or gave us what we wanted in such a twisted form that it wasn't even what was asked for. But that list is far too long at this point. That's where the frustration comes from.
Confirmation bias. Kim is the man. Don't be fooled, he already knows what's up. I don't know why you guys are making it hard on him to find someone who shares his facts on how the game should be, so he can say "I guess you're not all clueless, after all." Stop bringing Kim shame. Either get on his level or stop providing feedback. Looking for reinforcement, not trashy opinions from plebs. If everyone mattered/weren't ignorant, they'd just do polls. If only we all had the insight of the king of balance/SC knowledge, imagine how good we would be at this game. Guy is too good.
The majority of this thread is so dumb. Talking of big ego. You all surpass DK big time in that regard.
Sure I'd like to see some new maps for the coming season. Not because the current ones are unplayable but for the variety. But I won't stop playing and crying like a spoiled child because daddy didn't give me exactly what I wanted. Changes for the better takes time and I really like that DK and his team doesn't rush this game into the trash can. 'Cause that's what's gonna happen if the team gives in to everything that makes the community a little bit upset.
I think LotV is so much better in every way than WoL and HotS. The amount of epic games I've seen so far blows my mind! It's fucking awesome!! I love to play it, even if I suck wich I did in the previous expansions as well. Give them some credit guys!!
Too many cooks spoil the broth and a camel is a horse designed by committee.
Why would we give a constructive criticism? For 5 years pro gamers and the community has been giving ideas, commentating on the changes, proposing solutions. And the outcome is always exactly the same. Waiting months and months for any real changes. Not only in balance, but concerning bugs and fixes, and new features. I don't care how big and dedicated the team working on SC2 is. Apparently it's too small.
So with another "wait and see", "everything is awesome", "changes in 6 months", "we are observing", people lost their shit. Yes, we are angry.
There was always a lot of angry comments and complaining in threads about balance and proposed changes. But frankly, I have never seen so much frustration as after the last Community Feedback.
And no, I do not want to blame David Kim. Honestly, it looks like Blizzard, in general, is having a big problem with SC2 atm. How to keep the loyal people/customers without really investing anymore in the game.
The 3 (or 2) most voted maps should automatically replaced, like every 2-3 months. Fuck interesting aspects when you have to fight the feeling you will lose from the start vs certain races.
It's as if they don't have confidence in their own game. LotV is awesome! It does not need crazy maps to create great games!
Check out the best 40 games of 2015 and you'll see the best games are played on standard maps. LotV games will be even better than the HotS games on normal maps. Maps can be standard and unique without being crazy and imbalanced btw. Look at Habitation Station.
Also the premise that those crazy maps are more exciting to watch and play on and produce a better experience is just wrong. When I see Prion terrraces loading up, I know exactly what's going to happen, because the map forces the players to play in a specific way. On a standard map I wouldn't know, because the map does not restrict the player in his strategic choices. He could do all kinds of things, the map grants him freedom. Maps like Central Protocol/Lerilak Crest or Prion don't add anything, they just make the games more predictable and take away options, while being imbalanced.
Regardless of all of this, they promised new maps every season and I don't understand how the offseason can not count. If you include the beta, some maps have been in the map pool for a very long time already.
Thank you Dayvie and Blizzard for the open communication, it's really appreciated. I just don't know which feedback made you so stubbornly believe in your current mindset. I think there are bigger problems and no matter how much sc2 is hurting, it will survive another season on these maps. But I can't help but feel disappointed.
You can call me negative or whatever, but I think pointing out issues that can not be ignored, instead of playing along as if everything was fine, is being constructive.
I will leave you with the ever so wise words of TLO from an interview with mystarcraft.de
What do you thing about more unconventional map designs like Ulrena?
Innovative maps are not bad in the first place but you have to be careful. Ulrena, for example, is too extreme because it has such a little rush distance which can make games too one-dimensional. LotV does actually not need these crazy maps to produce interesting games because there are so many possibilities to do cool stuff. If maps get too special it rather limits the player's possibilites than making new styles possible.
To DK and the team: Expecting people to be soft on you is just naive and unrealistic. Taking a position in the design team makes getting shit from people a part of your daily routine. Yes, you should have your mindset prepared for all kinds of harshness and maintain a confident and strong figure to handle that! As a famous sentence in the Chinese scene says: "E-sports does not believe in tears." Whining never does things right. As someone managing a game with such high expectancy, DK surely lacks the confidence to properly handle negative feedback. As the one leading the team, he should learn to deal with feedback with efficiency and professionalism - knowing whose ideas worth evaluating and doing his work without bringing in personal feelings. That being said, complaining about shitposting in a public response is just unwise. I have been playing SC2 and following any updates (community/Blizzard) since WoL Beta. To me, DK and his team have missed too many windows to build a strongly connected, dynamic and healthy relationship with the community. Thanks to their endeavors, the current game direction is directionless, and unit design becomes redundant and confusing. The balance grows from something clear yet elegant to an entangling mess. I hope the frequent balance updating comes to an end before it exhausts players and the game itself. Honestly, David Kim, don't escalate the heated situation at this point of time. Be a good leader and fucking fix the game so that it is wholesome and properly balanced again, before everything is too late. And this is intended not to be a "constructive posting"!
wow, try going to any other customer and saying "it's not that our team is small, we're actually pretty big! please try to be more constructive!" after 6 years of wayward decisions resulting in a product that is personally more underwhelming than what they started with.. i don't buy into the dev team's omnipotence, and i certainly don't buy into them being smarter than TL on a number of decisions.. DH was thrown out the window without even a beta test.. skins introduced only after the game is at its lowest point..
if the dev team wants respect from the community then do something deserving of respect.. do you really want chat channels? do you really want clans? do you really want automated tournaments? do you really want name changes? do you really want skins? do you really want a functional UMS scene? how about client bug fixes that have been in the game since WOL beta? WC3's client, from 2004, is superior to starcraft2's client in 2016???? really?? and you think i should be more reserved in my criticism? i can go play bw on fish, where my autonomy as a player is respected and there is a proper AH/latency, as well as a ums scene/tourny scene... or i can play the buggy as hell sc2 client where i'm told "this is just the way things are, stop demotivating the dev team." get a grip, look at dota 2/csgo's clients and online features, and tell me with a straight face that SC2's isn't a giant pile of steaming shit that fails to live up to its legacy games from over a decade ago..
i dont even need to go after the balance of sc2, the client itself is enough to dissuade me from ever coming back..
On January 30 2016 16:53 Big J wrote: I think I've been sitting here for an hour trying to come up with a list of game design decisions in which blizzard either pushed for something completely different than what we wanted, or gave us what we wanted in such a twisted form that it wasn't even what was asked for. But that list is far too long at this point. That's where the frustration comes from.
Confirmation bias. Kim is the man. Don't be fooled, he already knows what's up. I don't know why you guys are making it hard on him to find someone who shares his facts on how the game should be, so he can say "I guess you're not all clueless, after all." Stop bringing Kim shame. Either get on his level or stop providing feedback. Looking for reinforcement, not trashy opinions from plebs. If everyone mattered/weren't ignorant, they'd just do polls. If only we all had the insight of the king of balance/SC knowledge, imagine how good we would be at this game. Guy is too good.
Can't decide if this is real or being sarcastic....
well im just going to say it, people who complain about maps in sc2 are just not very good players. i can hear the trigger switches now. Professional runners and other sportsmen DONT complain about where they are competing. THEIR strategy will play to the strengths of all factors including the competition. Im just not sure why everyone complains so much. Of course if there is a clearly broken aspect to the map it should be fixed, and like all other sports broken sections of their play are fixed. ive watched as many live competitve professional games and streams and none of these maps seem broken, in fact as someone who actually watches the game and likes watching the game (thorin) i can see totally different playstyles across all of the maps. Blizzards idea is working, the commumity just wants boring coda, daybreak, cloud kingdom maps all day so what they should do is produce 1 map like those and then change the colours. This is what it sounds like you all want.
On January 30 2016 16:53 Big J wrote: I think I've been sitting here for an hour trying to come up with a list of game design decisions in which blizzard either pushed for something completely different than what we wanted, or gave us what we wanted in such a twisted form that it wasn't even what was asked for. But that list is far too long at this point. That's where the frustration comes from.
Confirmation bias. Kim is the man. Don't be fooled, he already knows what's up. I don't know why you guys are making it hard on him to find someone who shares his facts on how the game should be, so he can say "I guess you're not all clueless, after all." Stop bringing Kim shame. Either get on his level or stop providing feedback. Looking for reinforcement, not trashy opinions from plebs. If everyone mattered/weren't ignorant, they'd just do polls. If only we all had the insight of the king of balance/SC knowledge, imagine how good we would be at this game. Guy is too good.
Can't decide if this is real or being sarcastic....
:o How about an example? There was a problem identified: youtu.be
Boom. Solved. No complaints. Sometimes you don't even really need to insert solutions to problems when you're god like. The guy can do no wrong. Whatever he says, I'm buying into 100%.
Although I dont like any of the current maps I generally really like how the developement team is handling SC2. They are constantly looking to improve, are very transparent when it comes to reasoning for changes and there is an update almost every week. They are oviously as passionate as we are so I dont get why some of you treat them like shit. Why not work together to make this game better instead of insulting the dev team on a weekly basis?
On January 30 2016 18:09 beheamoth wrote: well im just going to say it, people who complain about maps in sc2 are just not very good players. i can hear the trigger switches now. Professional runners and other sportsmen DONT complain about where they are competing. THEIR strategy will play to the strengths of all factors including the competition. Im just not sure why everyone complains so much. Of course if there is a clearly broken aspect to the map it should be fixed, and like all other sports broken sections of their play are fixed. ive watched as many live competitve professional games and streams and none of these maps seem broken, in fact as someone who actually watches the game and likes watching the game (thorin) i can see totally different playstyles across all of the maps. Blizzards idea is working, the commumity just wants boring coda, daybreak, cloud kingdom maps all day so what they should do is produce 1 map like those and then change the colours. This is what it sounds like you all want.
You call people whining about maps bad players, and then admit you don't even play the game?
On January 30 2016 18:09 beheamoth wrote: well im just going to say it, people who complain about maps in sc2 are just not very good players. i can hear the trigger switches now. Professional runners and other sportsmen DONT complain about where they are competing. THEIR strategy will play to the strengths of all factors including the competition. Im just not sure why everyone complains so much. Of course if there is a clearly broken aspect to the map it should be fixed, and like all other sports broken sections of their play are fixed. ive watched as many live competitve professional games and streams and none of these maps seem broken, in fact as someone who actually watches the game and likes watching the game (thorin) i can see totally different playstyles across all of the maps. Blizzards idea is working, the commumity just wants boring coda, daybreak, cloud kingdom maps all day so what they should do is produce 1 map like those and then change the colours. This is what it sounds like you all want.
You call people whining about maps bad players, and then admit you don't even play the game?
I want to point out that Ruins of Seras, Lerilak Crest and Orbital Shipyard are approaching their 1-year anniversary on LotV ladder. That's way too long, I'm tired of seeing them. Lerilak isn't even aesthetically nice so that's double bad.
On January 30 2016 10:47 Charoisaur wrote: he still doesn't realize that he's the only guy in the world who enjoys the current mappool. Talking about how awesome his shit is doesn't make me think otherwise. david kims ego is really damaging to this game.
There is also Tasteless, however Tasteless enjoys himself some nice Protoss cheese as well.
And still no word about, how buggy it can sometimes be to create a Lobby and invite your friends in it in the Arcade... . But I mean, thats known for like a year?
Anyways, the time for constructive criticism has passed, since Blizzard has shown to ignore it anyways. Massive shitposting at least provoked this reaction so it shows to be more effective. Keep it up Reddit and TL.
Confirmation bias. Kim is the man. Don't be fooled, he already knows what's up. I don't know why you guys are making it hard on him to find someone who shares his facts on how the game should be, so he can say "I guess you're not all clueless, after all." Stop bringing Kim shame. Either get on his level or stop providing feedback. Looking for reinforcement, not trashy opinions from plebs. If everyone mattered/weren't ignorant, they'd just do polls. If only we all had the insight of the king of balance/SC knowledge, imagine how good we would be at this game. Guy is too good.
LotV is full of broken promises and they wonder why people are angry? Macro mechanics. Ladder udpates being promised early. Ladder then goes mad and is unplayable if you're a pro. Map rotation, DK told multiple times to multiple persons that a map should not be there for more than 6months. Aggressive stance on balance. Compare the WCS announcement at Blizzcon and the reality of it.
On January 30 2016 19:14 404AlphaSquad wrote: And still no word about, how buggy it can sometimes be to create a Lobby and invite your friends in it in the Arcade... . But I mean, thats known for like a year?
Anyways, the time for constructive criticism has passed, since Blizzard has shown to ignore it anyways. Massive shitposting at least provoked this reaction so it shows to be more effective. Keep it up Reddit and TL.
I agree, there was a ton of constructive criticism for many months and it got these few posts about the ladder and next seasons which were even worse than the state it was in before (when people were giving the constructive criticism). If people are not heard they will (and really should) escalate.
That should be taken as "holy shit we were actually wrong and didn't understand the community reaction properly before, what can we do to improve the situation"
Map diversity is needed, without it the game will become boring. You cannot counter that arguement, the game will be figured out a protoss will know exactly how to defend the 30 all-ins that terran can execute they will play Rain/Classic style with heavy defence and macro focus. Since no one can defeat protoss(any race really) early unless they do a critical mistake while defending all games will go for the same "ultimate" build or possibly be diversified by 2-3 slightly different BO (for example with focus towards skytoss or groundtoss, very basic). Then after that the gamers will figure out ultimate playstyle in the late game and everyone will play the same (For example broodlord infestor, protoss deathball, raven mech).
A strategy game will eventually end being like that unless: 1) The game keeps getting changed (patched) not balance patch, change patch. With no other reason than to shake things up. This naturally occured during SC2 due to expansions. Those wil no longer come. 2) The maps diversify the strategy so much that there are very few maps that can actually play out the same.
So unless you want Starcraft 2 to be boiled down to everyone playing the exact same style, macro endgame like broodlord´-infestor, SH-turtle, raven-mech or protoss-deathball eras get it through your head. This is a MUST for the future of SC2, the only reason SC2 design team backed up on this before was because they had an expansion left to shake things up. That they refuse to backdown on this now shows that they are actually far more competent than most of you when it comes to design SC2 for a far away future.
Edit: Not saying that the maps are good, just saying very different maps are needed.
This naturally occured during SC2 due to expansions. Those wil no longer come.
With LOTV being the last expansion, the sc2 team has promised to continue evaluating and changing the game in the future - even to the point of mechanic changes, unit reworks etc which would previously not have been considered without an expansion. It remains to be seen if that will actually happen though
Different maps are good, but you can't have maps that don't work properly in certain matchups on ladder and tournament play for multiple seasons.
You should not hold community map competions which specifically exclude any kind of standard/safe/balanced map; we are in need of a better core map pool for LOTV more than in any other expansion - one that works solidly in all matchups before the priority goes to wonky stuff to make the game more interesting!
This naturally occured during SC2 due to expansions. Those wil no longer come.
With LOTV being the last expansion, the sc2 team has promised to continue evaluating and changing the game in the future - even to the point of mechanic changes, unit reworks etc which would previously not have been considered without an expansion. It remains to be seen if that will actually happen though
Different maps are good, but you can't have maps that don't work properly in certain matchups on ladder and tournament play for multiple seasons.
You are right of course, show me which map there is a 55+% winrate across the board for one race vs another.
I will also argue that there have been way too few pro games played to know if this balance is also true at the highest level. We haven't even seen a whole season of GSL or proleague.
Daedelous point caused an uproar because players were used to getting to play the same style on every map, many were uncreative and others refused to adapt. These kinds of changes to a meta through a map should come with maps and they should be expected, the players should be given enough time to properly explore the possiblities of the map and how to play to get around the perceived advantage the other race(s) have.
No proleague and gsl season? We have way too little for us to even be able to state that the map is actually unbalanced on the highest level.
This naturally occured during SC2 due to expansions. Those wil no longer come.
With LOTV being the last expansion, the sc2 team has promised to continue evaluating and changing the game in the future - even to the point of mechanic changes, unit reworks etc which would previously not have been considered without an expansion. It remains to be seen if that will actually happen though
Different maps are good, but you can't have maps that don't work properly in certain matchups on ladder and tournament play for multiple seasons.
You are right of course, show me which map there is a 55+% winrate across the board for one race vs another.
I will also argue that there have been way too few pro games played to know if this balance is also true at the highest level. We haven't even seen a whole season of GSL or proleague.
Daedelous point caused an uproar because players were used to getting to play the same style on every map, many were uncreative and others refused to adapt. These kinds of changes to a meta through a map should come with maps and they should be expected, the players should be given enough time to properly explore the possiblities of the map and how to play to get around the perceived advantage the other race(s) have.
No proleague and gsl season? We have way too little for us to even be able to state that the map is actually unbalanced on the highest level.
Prion PvZ is already hard and is unwinnable after the patch. Central Protocol PvZ if the Z isn't braindead he won't die to the 2b all in from the P.
If we see a P on Prion this season in Proleague it's incredible.
On January 30 2016 10:47 Charoisaur wrote: david kims ego is really damaging to this game.
This. Very much this.
This is not constructive criticism in the slightest
The maps are not fun to play on. If it does not FEEL fun to play on you don't have to articulate a reason. You play on it and its simply not fun. If you play on psion terraces you feel Zerg just roll over you . If you play on central protocol you feel like you have to cheese or do some dumb strategy- in blizzards euphemism "creative strategies".
Speaking of ego and euphemisms. I don't think they actually ever admitted they made a mistake before.
Did they ever say Brood Lord Infestor was their fault?
When there was swarmhosts vs zerg and protoss they used their little euphemism "stalemate games".
They can't admit that when they make a mistake and create gameplay that is not fun.
The italics part is constructive criticism. "david kims ego is really damaging to this game" followed by "This Very much this" is not
I mean I'll state again that I truly appreciate the feedback updates. The information makes a huge difference compared to just waiting for some patch notes to appear. Since it began with LotV it's been a really good thing, I play some other games where no such interaction is there and it's a bad experience.
I also understand pro-feedback on balance can be shoddy at best, most players are biased towards their own race/playstyle so it must be very hard to get a correct picture overall.
But how could they not expect negative reactions to not bringing any new maps for the new season? Or putting the ladder changes more than half a year away? There is no constructive feedback to give other than disappointment. And it's the internet where some people have no filter in spouting their disappointment. I don't understand why they are surprised about this.
If it takes a long time to change any single thing, the game loses momentum and players move on, and it's really hard to get them back. It's been the case in WoL and HotS. I had the impression with LotV changes would happen quicker and more frequently. Getting no new maps, and have all the improvements at least half a year away means that not much has changed unfortunately and this is why people are upset.
This naturally occured during SC2 due to expansions. Those wil no longer come.
With LOTV being the last expansion, the sc2 team has promised to continue evaluating and changing the game in the future - even to the point of mechanic changes, unit reworks etc which would previously not have been considered without an expansion. It remains to be seen if that will actually happen though
Different maps are good, but you can't have maps that don't work properly in certain matchups on ladder and tournament play for multiple seasons.
You are right of course, show me which map there is a 55+% winrate across the board for one race vs another.
I will also argue that there have been way too few pro games played to know if this balance is also true at the highest level. We haven't even seen a whole season of GSL or proleague.
Daedelous point caused an uproar because players were used to getting to play the same style on every map, many were uncreative and others refused to adapt. These kinds of changes to a meta through a map should come with maps and they should be expected, the players should be given enough time to properly explore the possiblities of the map and how to play to get around the perceived advantage the other race(s) have.
No proleague and gsl season? We have way too little for us to even be able to state that the map is actually unbalanced on the highest level.
Prion PvZ is already hard and is unwinnable after the patch. Central Protocol PvZ if the Z isn't braindead he won't die to the 2b all in from the P.
If we see a P on Prion this season in Proleague it's incredible.
Or they'll just find a wacky build that will shut every one up?
On January 30 2016 20:11 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I mean I'll state again that I truly appreciate the feedback updates. The information makes a huge difference compared to just waiting for some patch notes to appear. Since it began with LotV it's been a really good thing, I play some other games where no such interaction is there and it's a bad experience.
I also understand pro-feedback on balance can be shoddy at best, most players are biased towards their own race/playstyle so it must be very hard to get a correct picture overall.
But how could they not expect negative reactions to not bringing any new maps for the new season? Or putting the ladder changes more than half a year away? There is no constructive feedback to give other than disappointment. And it's the internet where some people have no filter in spouting their disappointment. I don't understand why they are surprised about this.
If it takes a long time to change any single thing, the game loses momentum and players move on, and it's really hard to get them back. It's been the case in WoL and HotS. I had the impression with LotV changes would happen quicker and more frequently. Getting no new maps, and have all the improvements at least half a year away means that not much has changed unfortunately and this is why people are upset.
I'd say this post is constructive feedback for sure. DK and his team should read this.
On January 30 2016 10:42 The_Templar wrote: I don't like this line of thinking. The stand-out features of Dusk Towers and Ulrena are almost always bad things for a map to have.
Also, I don't see why blizzard couldn't have made a few new maps for next season...
They probably could have, but perhaps want to get more experience in judging the current maps. Another reason could be to provide pro players a more stable entry into season 1.
Prion Terraces – changing golds to normal expansions While this is an interesting idea on paper, it proves to be bad in practice. Changing this will take away the main reason that makes this map unique, and different from standard maps that don’t have any stand out feature about them. Keep in mind, we’re not saying the map is perfect, we’re just saying let’s try to look for another area that can be tweaked that still keeps this unique factor.
if a map is justified solely by the use of gold bases, and sucks without them, it's a bad map.
Prion Terraces – changing golds to normal expansions While this is an interesting idea on paper, it proves to be bad in practice. Changing this will take away the main reason that makes this map unique, and different from standard maps that don’t have any stand out feature about them. Keep in mind, we’re not saying the map is perfect, we’re just saying let’s try to look for another area that can be tweaked that still keeps this unique factor.
if a map is justified solely by the use of gold bases, and sucks without them, it's a bad map.
The thing is, it's actually a good map without gold bases at the 3rd/4th. They want to look at other areas to fix the map, when it's literally the gold bases that are the only bad thing about the maps.
The position of the 5th base on the cliff is very interesting and there are different expansion patterns. Terrans like to take that base as their 4th since it can be protected by tanks, which can then even cover the attack path in the middle. Maybe the gold bases in the middle would suddenly come into play, if the other gold bases were gone.
Honestly the map provides enough interesting features, but it's all overshadowed by how bad the gold bases at the 3rd and 4th are.
Not sure why some people here still expect constructive criticism about the map pool.
A lot have been said already by the community. DK disagrees and still thinks it's fun, diverse and a cool factor to die to a Zerg mineral-heavy army on Prion because you can hardly prevent Zerg from taking gold without all-ining and you can hardly take 3rd in a timely fashion because of zerglings/ravagers running amok, there is not much to say. I don't even want to talk about Central Protocol anymore.
What is the point of so-called 2 ways communication if most of the answers are going to be: "nobody knows really who is right, but since this is not the design philosophy we're looking for, nope."?
P.S.: I just had a look into the map submission guidelines and find it very depressing how they dare to defend their "map diversity" mantra when they put so much "recommendations" to follow. So much for diversity. Not to mention lol deadline.
On January 30 2016 10:47 Charoisaur wrote: he still doesn't realize that he's the only guy in the world who enjoys the current mappool.
What most people here don't seem to realize that most SC2 players don't either play at the pro level or visit TL and SC reddit. It's also a reasonable guess to say that most of them go blissfully unaware of any map imbalances.
In fact, I doubt most of the people on this forum play at a high enough level to notice on their own. Myself included, before you try to call me out.
Oki my 2 cents, as a sad panda that can't play LoTV because of a ghetto connection from south america :
- I have no clue about how good the design and balance team's work actually is.
- BUT I know that exchaning with the player base is a nightmare. People keep talking about a sc2 community, but it just doesn't exist. It's just a bunch of people expressing their own vision and calling it "what the community wants".
- reading most topic about patches and balance on these boards is wether desperating or hilarious depending on your mood. There is minimum discussion, just people shouting at blizzard, or at each other, making sure they don't listen other opinion, denying any kind of reasonning, a repeating the same stuff over and over and over.
Really sometimes, a debate between screaming deaf people in a dark room would make more sense that this.
Good luck finding what the so called community wants. A will is the product of a sentient entity, and I wouldn't call ourselves this.
- I've been browsing TL since late 2011, and the first thing that strocke me then was the smartness of the forums, I've been playing plenty of online games for 15+ years (yes I'm this old) and this forums were really different, people were coold minded, they would try to make points and they were always backing up their opinion with clear examples. Each time someone was talking shit or was not backing up his points with facts, people would tell him stfu.
On the other hand, reddit was the place for the stupid rants and hysterical people. (I won't talk about Bnet forums)
5 years later, I realise reddit is more interesting that TL.net most of the time, and I'm pretty sure Reddit didn't improve that much.
TL boards have just gone to trash, and it's a sad thing.
- following my own recommandations, I will back my point up with an example.
Check out all threads about maps since the infamous "dream pool" was announced (the poll itself and its results is quite hilarious too) and please tell me, if you were in blizzard's staff, how the hell would you define what is a good map according to the "community"
Everybody just claims opposite views is an extremely passionate way, calling themselves "the community" and ignoring totally other's oppinion. ANd each time it goes wrong, it's all David Kim's fault (what a retard!)
see :
-2014 S3 : most maps are "community made" and "standard" KSS, overgrowth, deadwing, merry go round but also catallena... people rant. Funilly enough 75% of these rants say Blizzard should hire community mapmakers, cause they just have now clue and don't even know it's already the case. OG and KSS are also blamed for being "too standard", catallena is blamed for being not standard enough (rotational symetry is such a bad thing, you know) MGR is blamed for the difficulty of the third. Also people are ranting because KSS and OG are too old ("yes they re good but get rid of them") -2014 S4 : dream pool, players vote, everybody hates the results. Blizzard is insulted for letting the basic players vote ("blizzard should listen to players but only the superior ones, like me") -2015 S1-S2 : Mix between the dream pool and TLMC 5, appeared cactus valley, echo, coda, expedition lost (coda and echo are praised, but in the end EL and cactus valley will have the best games) but also some blizzard maps : inferno pools (for once everybody agrees on this one : it's bad) and vaani research station (people hating it at first then realising it's one of the most enjoyable map of the season) -2015 S3 : TLMC6, time to go full non standard cause standard is lame and guess what? people hate the result. "But it can't be because of the map makers, you know, and TL staff was not listened enough, blizzard is such and incompetent bunch of retards"
In the end we have almost one year and half were the so-called community made 80% of the map pool, and was the "community" happy?
But of course, it's all David Kim's fault.
Ok time to /rant off.
I don't know how the game will evolve, I just whish people stopped posting in the same thread their own opinion over and over instead of trying to actually discuss with other, stopped trying being a smart ass instead of trying to find solutions and stopped thinking they're smarter and have more data than the whole blizzard staff insteadof realising they know nothing but their own point of view and all what they can do is trying to express it in the most humble and objective way, and of course started to back up their saying with data and facts instead of thinking their superior intelligence is enough to convince everybody they're right.
... or these boards will just become another Bnet subforum.
I feel bad for DK and the team, because, at least to me, it seems that they are really trying hard and still getting a lot of hate. It's just they are not really listening to the community, even with the feedback updates. Lots of issues brought up by the community either go unanswered, or, worse, answered, but in a manner that either derails the conversation and does not cover the main point, or is simply unpopular and deemed bad.
It's never nice to be a target of so much hate, I know, but at this point it is kind of understandable, sadly .
I mean I don't think it's a secret that I have not much love for this community, so I understand David Kim's reaction. If I were him I'd have told the haters to shut it a long time ago, not that it would change anything.
The reality is that feature and content development often takes more time than even we expect internally – and as a result, we ask for your patience and temperance in your responses each week.
How hard it is to give us 2-3 more maps for Co-Op, or a couple of additional commanders? They don't even need to be balanced, as already some are really easy to play vs others.
How hard is it to give us more voice packs? All it takes is getting a person to studio, recording audio for one day (no more then 20-40 sentences even in case of advisors), remastering it for another day, then programming it into the game (I guess a day or a week for a single programmer who has experience).
Portraits/skins? Probably a week for an experienced artist + one experienced programmer.
Maps? They could even buy them from many many people who do them for free. It's just laziness.
What did they do since release? Come out with one patch containing like 3-4 changes, one commander and one map for the co-op? Sold a DLC on which they are still working on and has minimal impact on multiplayer? Does it take 3 months to do that?
I love the idea of different maps encouraging different playstyles. My favorite example is how pro-protoss players adapted strategy called "I'm dead before this game even loads, but I had to veto other shitty map" in response to specific features of Prion Terrace. I think it reflects design philosophy every RTS developer should strive for. Someone may argue that having well balanced and designed units and making different composition viable would be a way to go. Without crazy flying shit, explosions, lasors, adepts and liberators dealing terrible terrible damage players could be free to choose different playstyles based on their own preference and not be forced to play the one true way on the given map. Hell, many strategies mentioned in the DK post would be totally viable on a single standard map and we wouldn't need 7 of them. However, this is just crazy talk and no one ever made any sensible proposals in this area cause this is toxic and non-constructive community. Don't listen to these salty assholes David. Keep doing great work.
On January 30 2016 21:34 Gwavajuice wrote: Oki my 2 cents, as a sad panda that can't play LoTV because of a ghetto connection from south america :
- I have no clue about how good the design and balance team's work actually is.
- BUT I know that exchaning with the player base is a nightmare. People keep talking about a sc2 community, but it just doesn't exist. It's just a bunch of people expressing their own vision and calling it "what the community wants".
- reading most topic about patches and balance on these boards is wether desperating or hilarious depending on your mood. There is minimum discussion, just people shouting at blizzard, or at each other, making sure they don't listen other opinion, denying any kind of reasonning, a repeating the same stuff over and over and over.
Really sometimes, a debate between screaming deaf people in a dark room would make more sense that this.
Good luck finding what the so called community wants. A will is the product of a sentient entity, and I wouldn't call ourselves this.
- I've been browsing TL since late 2011, and the first thing that strocke me then was the smartness of the forums, I've been playing plenty of online games for 15+ years (yes I'm this old) and this forums were really different, people were coold minded, they would try to make points and they were always backing up their opinion with clear examples. Each time someone was talking shit or was not backing up his points with facts, people would tell him stfu.
On the other hand, reddit was the place for the stupid rants and hysterical people. (I won't talk about Bnet forums)
5 years later, I realise reddit is more interesting that TL.net most of the time, and I'm pretty sure Reddit didn't improve that much.
TL boards have just gone to trash, and it's a sad thing.
- following my own recommandations, I will back my point up with an example.
Check out all threads about maps since the infamous "dream pool" was announced (the poll itself and its results is quite hilarious too) and please tell me, if you were in blizzard's staff, how the hell would you define what is a good map according to the "community"
Everybody just claims opposite views is an extremely passionate way, calling themselves "the community" and ignoring totally other's oppinion. ANd each time it goes wrong, it's all David Kim's fault (what a retard!)
see :
-2014 S3 : most maps are "community made" and "standard" KSS, overgrowth, deadwing, merry go round but also catallena... people rant. Funilly enough 75% of these rants say Blizzard should hire community mapmakers, cause they just have now clue and don't even know it's already the case. OG and KSS are also blamed for being "too standard", catallena is blamed for being not standard enough (rotational symetry is such a bad thing, you know) MGR is blamed for the difficulty of the third. Also people are ranting because KSS and OG are too old ("yes they re good but get rid of them") -2014 S4 : dream pool, players vote, everybody hates the results. Blizzard is insulted for letting the basic players vote ("blizzard should listen to players but only the superior ones, like me") -2015 S1-S2 : Mix between the dream pool and TLMC 5, appeared cactus valley, echo, coda, expedition lost (coda and echo are praised, but in the end EL and cactus valley will have the best games) but also some blizzard maps : inferno pools (for once everybody agrees on this one : it's bad) and vaani research station (people hating it at first then realising it's one of the most enjoyable map of the season) -2015 S3 : TLMC6, time to go full non standard cause standard is lame and guess what? people hate the result. "But it can't be because of the map makers, you know, and TL staff was not listened enough, blizzard is such and incompetent bunch of retards"
In the end we have almost one year and half were the so-called community made 80% of the map pool, and was the "community" happy?
But of course, it's all David Kim's fault.
Ok time to /rant off.
I don't know how the game will evolve, I just whish people stopped posting in the same thread their own opinion over and over instead of trying to actually discuss with other, stopped trying being a smart ass instead of trying to find solutions and stopped thinking they're smarter and have more data than the whole blizzard staff insteadof realising they know nothing but their own point of view and all what they can do is trying to express it in the most humble and objective way, and of course started to back up their saying with data and facts instead of thinking their superior intelligence is enough to convince everybody they're right.
... or these boards will just become another Bnet subforum.
Actually posting here from time to time produces an image of everyone surrounding a forest and shouting into it, eagerly awaiting an echo responding to them in my mind.
So you kind of got a point in what you've said in that it doesn't resemble a "proper" discussion rather than people throwing their 2 cents at each other without much interaction, myself included. A problem for me personally is that I really tend have problems articulating long posts in English as it's not my native language, so often I'd stick with rather short anwsers instead of more elaborated posts, which often get the points I want to make across way better than what I would've come up with.
But thanks for reminding me of that as a lot of people around here could really step up their game in terms of having a proper and intelligent discussion, which reddit often seems to be lacking partly due to their upvote system.
On January 30 2016 21:52 Nazara wrote: How hard is it to give us more voice packs? All it takes is getting a person to studio, recording audio for one day (no more then 20-40 sentences even in case of advisors), remastering it for another day, then programming it into the game (I guess a day or a week for a single programmer who has experience).
Professional audiowork of any kind is much more complicated than you assume it is.
Translation from corporate talk : "If you feel like the game was released and still is in a terrible state, you're not allowed to say it. We don't take any of your feedback into account and we're only doing PR while changing almost nothing in the game. We don't feel pressured to deliver a satisfying game, we'd rather whine about how the community is legitimatly being pissed."
Yes there's still a lot of people passionate about the game you're murdering, and that are outraged that the design you're proposing is SO BAD. Shooting pylons. SHOOTING PYLONS. The design team learned nothing about how HOTS design brought down WOL. They continued in that terrible design direction, and not taking any feedback into account. Adepts have been obviously OP since the beta, they did nothing to change it when the game was out.
Taking the community for a bunch of idiots by doing nothing but PR talk isn't bringing anything good for the game.
On January 30 2016 17:46 Musicus wrote: It's as if they don't have confidence in their own game. LotV is awesome! It does not need crazy maps to create great games!
Check out the best 40 games of 2015 and you'll see the best games are played on standard maps. LotV games will be even better than the HotS games on normal maps. Maps can be standard and unique without being crazy and imbalanced btw. Look at Habitation Station.
Also the premise that those crazy maps are more exciting to watch and play on and produce a better experience is just wrong. When I see Prion terrraces loading up, I know exactly what's going to happen, because the map forces the players to play in a specific way. On a standard map I wouldn't know, because the map does not restrict the player in his strategic choices. He could do all kinds of things, the map grants him freedom. Maps like Central Protocol/Lerilak Crest or Prion don't add anything, they just make the games more predictable and take away options, while being imbalanced.
Regardless of all of this, they promised new maps every season and I don't understand how the offseason can not count. If you include the beta, some maps have been in the map pool for a very long time already.
Thank you Dayvie and Blizzard for the open communication, it's really appreciated. I just don't know which feedback made you so stubbornly believe in your current mindset. I think there are bigger problems and no matter how much sc2 is hurting, it will survive another season on these maps. But I can't help but feel disappointed.
You can call me negative or whatever, but I think pointing out issues that can not be ignored, instead of playing along as if everything was fine, is being constructive.
I will leave you with the ever so wise words of TLO from an interview with mystarcraft.de
What do you thing about more unconventional map designs like Ulrena?
Innovative maps are not bad in the first place but you have to be careful. Ulrena, for example, is too extreme because it has such a little rush distance which can make games too one-dimensional. LotV does actually not need these crazy maps to produce interesting games because there are so many possibilities to do cool stuff. If maps get too special it rather limits the player's possibilites than making new styles possible.
This is so true. Maps that pidgeonhole players into certain strategies are bad in my opinion, or at least there shouldn't be too many of them. Innovative features should not force your hand or give unfair advantages to certain races/strategies. Have the players and (especially) the quality of the game create the variety and the entertainment : I know this takes time and hard work to design, but I think this is the least we can expect from Blizzard.
This naturally occured during SC2 due to expansions. Those wil no longer come.
With LOTV being the last expansion, the sc2 team has promised to continue evaluating and changing the game in the future - even to the point of mechanic changes, unit reworks etc which would previously not have been considered without an expansion. It remains to be seen if that will actually happen though
Different maps are good, but you can't have maps that don't work properly in certain matchups on ladder and tournament play for multiple seasons.
You are right of course, show me which map there is a 55+% winrate across the board for one race vs another.
I will also argue that there have been way too few pro games played to know if this balance is also true at the highest level. We haven't even seen a whole season of GSL or proleague.
Daedelous point caused an uproar because players were used to getting to play the same style on every map, many were uncreative and others refused to adapt. These kinds of changes to a meta through a map should come with maps and they should be expected, the players should be given enough time to properly explore the possiblities of the map and how to play to get around the perceived advantage the other race(s) have.
No proleague and gsl season? We have way too little for us to even be able to state that the map is actually unbalanced on the highest level.
Are you really defending Daedalous Point? For real? DP is terrible, not because people refused to adapt but because math. When your race is designed around surviving early game by making a wall as fast as possible and that numbers do not work so that you can do it, this is the players' fault for refusing to adapt? Adapt to what? Not making a wall and painfully die to any runby?
Your "show me a map where stats show it is imba" is a tricky request. Aligulac does not track maps very well and you won't get much stats even if it did because pros will veto accordingly. Of course you won't question why they are vetoed in the first place because hey it's ok you are right, all the issue are in our mind refusing to adapt, right?
On January 30 2016 22:04 JackONeill wrote: Translation from corporate talk : "If you feel like the game was released and still is in a terrible state, you're not allowed to say it. We don't take any of your feedback into account and we're only doing PR while changing almost nothing in the game. We don't feel pressured to deliver a satisfying game, we'd rather whine about how the community is legitimatly being pissed."
Yes there's still a lot of people passionate about the game you're murdering, and that are outraged that the design you're proposing is SO BAD. Shooting pylons. SHOOTING PYLONS. The design team learned nothing about how HOTS design brought down WOL. They continued in that terrible design direction, and not taking any feedback into account. Adepts have been obviously OP since the beta, they did nothing to change it when the game was out.
Taking the community for a bunch of idiots by doing nothing but PR talk isn't bringing anything good for the game.
That last sentence. Love it. The "community" is obviously just that. Reading your post proves it. Ranting and ranting and ranting with nothing, more than your hurt feelings and your (I'll have to guess) mastermind to how the game design should be, to back it up.
On January 30 2016 21:34 Gwavajuice wrote: Oki my 2 cents, as a sad panda that can't play LoTV because of a ghetto connection from south america :
- I have no clue about how good the design and balance team's work actually is.
- BUT I know that exchaning with the player base is a nightmare. People keep talking about a sc2 community, but it just doesn't exist. It's just a bunch of people expressing their own vision and calling it "what the community wants".
- reading most topic about patches and balance on these boards is wether desperating or hilarious depending on your mood. There is minimum discussion, just people shouting at blizzard, or at each other, making sure they don't listen other opinion, denying any kind of reasonning, a repeating the same stuff over and over and over.
Really sometimes, a debate between screaming deaf people in a dark room would make more sense that this.
Good luck finding what the so called community wants. A will is the product of a sentient entity, and I wouldn't call ourselves this.
- I've been browsing TL since late 2011, and the first thing that strocke me then was the smartness of the forums, I've been playing plenty of online games for 15+ years (yes I'm this old) and this forums were really different, people were coold minded, they would try to make points and they were always backing up their opinion with clear examples. Each time someone was talking shit or was not backing up his points with facts, people would tell him stfu.
On the other hand, reddit was the place for the stupid rants and hysterical people. (I won't talk about Bnet forums)
5 years later, I realise reddit is more interesting that TL.net most of the time, and I'm pretty sure Reddit didn't improve that much.
TL boards have just gone to trash, and it's a sad thing.
- following my own recommandations, I will back my point up with an example.
Check out all threads about maps since the infamous "dream pool" was announced (the poll itself and its results is quite hilarious too) and please tell me, if you were in blizzard's staff, how the hell would you define what is a good map according to the "community"
Everybody just claims opposite views is an extremely passionate way, calling themselves "the community" and ignoring totally other's oppinion. ANd each time it goes wrong, it's all David Kim's fault (what a retard!)
see :
-2014 S3 : most maps are "community made" and "standard" KSS, overgrowth, deadwing, merry go round but also catallena... people rant. Funilly enough 75% of these rants say Blizzard should hire community mapmakers, cause they just have now clue and don't even know it's already the case. OG and KSS are also blamed for being "too standard", catallena is blamed for being not standard enough (rotational symetry is such a bad thing, you know) MGR is blamed for the difficulty of the third. Also people are ranting because KSS and OG are too old ("yes they re good but get rid of them") -2014 S4 : dream pool, players vote, everybody hates the results. Blizzard is insulted for letting the basic players vote ("blizzard should listen to players but only the superior ones, like me") -2015 S1-S2 : Mix between the dream pool and TLMC 5, appeared cactus valley, echo, coda, expedition lost (coda and echo are praised, but in the end EL and cactus valley will have the best games) but also some blizzard maps : inferno pools (for once everybody agrees on this one : it's bad) and vaani research station (people hating it at first then realising it's one of the most enjoyable map of the season) -2015 S3 : TLMC6, time to go full non standard cause standard is lame and guess what? people hate the result. "But it can't be because of the map makers, you know, and TL staff was not listened enough, blizzard is such and incompetent bunch of retards"
In the end we have almost one year and half were the so-called community made 80% of the map pool, and was the "community" happy?
But of course, it's all David Kim's fault.
Ok time to /rant off.
I don't know how the game will evolve, I just whish people stopped posting in the same thread their own opinion over and over instead of trying to actually discuss with other, stopped trying being a smart ass instead of trying to find solutions and stopped thinking they're smarter and have more data than the whole blizzard staff insteadof realising they know nothing but their own point of view and all what they can do is trying to express it in the most humble and objective way, and of course started to back up their saying with data and facts instead of thinking their superior intelligence is enough to convince everybody they're right.
... or these boards will just become another Bnet subforum.
Word.
Again. A camel is a horse designed by committee (or this "community")
On January 30 2016 21:34 Gwavajuice wrote: Oki my 2 cents, as a sad panda that can't play LoTV because of a ghetto connection from south america :
- I have no clue about how good the design and balance team's work actually is.
- BUT I know that exchaning with the player base is a nightmare. People keep talking about a sc2 community, but it just doesn't exist. It's just a bunch of people expressing their own vision and calling it "what the community wants".
- reading most topic about patches and balance on these boards is wether desperating or hilarious depending on your mood. There is minimum discussion, just people shouting at blizzard, or at each other, making sure they don't listen other opinion, denying any kind of reasonning, a repeating the same stuff over and over and over.
Really sometimes, a debate between screaming deaf people in a dark room would make more sense that this.
Good luck finding what the so called community wants. A will is the product of a sentient entity, and I wouldn't call ourselves this.
- I've been browsing TL since late 2011, and the first thing that strocke me then was the smartness of the forums, I've been playing plenty of online games for 15+ years (yes I'm this old) and this forums were really different, people were coold minded, they would try to make points and they were always backing up their opinion with clear examples. Each time someone was talking shit or was not backing up his points with facts, people would tell him stfu.
On the other hand, reddit was the place for the stupid rants and hysterical people. (I won't talk about Bnet forums)
5 years later, I realise reddit is more interesting that TL.net most of the time, and I'm pretty sure Reddit didn't improve that much.
TL boards have just gone to trash, and it's a sad thing.
- following my own recommandations, I will back my point up with an example.
Check out all threads about maps since the infamous "dream pool" was announced (the poll itself and its results is quite hilarious too) and please tell me, if you were in blizzard's staff, how the hell would you define what is a good map according to the "community"
Everybody just claims opposite views is an extremely passionate way, calling themselves "the community" and ignoring totally other's oppinion. ANd each time it goes wrong, it's all David Kim's fault (what a retard!)
see :
-2014 S3 : most maps are "community made" and "standard" KSS, overgrowth, deadwing, merry go round but also catallena... people rant. Funilly enough 75% of these rants say Blizzard should hire community mapmakers, cause they just have now clue and don't even know it's already the case. OG and KSS are also blamed for being "too standard", catallena is blamed for being not standard enough (rotational symetry is such a bad thing, you know) MGR is blamed for the difficulty of the third. Also people are ranting because KSS and OG are too old ("yes they re good but get rid of them") -2014 S4 : dream pool, players vote, everybody hates the results. Blizzard is insulted for letting the basic players vote ("blizzard should listen to players but only the superior ones, like me") -2015 S1-S2 : Mix between the dream pool and TLMC 5, appeared cactus valley, echo, coda, expedition lost (coda and echo are praised, but in the end EL and cactus valley will have the best games) but also some blizzard maps : inferno pools (for once everybody agrees on this one : it's bad) and vaani research station (people hating it at first then realising it's one of the most enjoyable map of the season) -2015 S3 : TLMC6, time to go full non standard cause standard is lame and guess what? people hate the result. "But it can't be because of the map makers, you know, and TL staff was not listened enough, blizzard is such and incompetent bunch of retards"
In the end we have almost one year and half were the so-called community made 80% of the map pool, and was the "community" happy?
But of course, it's all David Kim's fault.
Ok time to /rant off.
I don't know how the game will evolve, I just whish people stopped posting in the same thread their own opinion over and over instead of trying to actually discuss with other, stopped trying being a smart ass instead of trying to find solutions and stopped thinking they're smarter and have more data than the whole blizzard staff insteadof realising they know nothing but their own point of view and all what they can do is trying to express it in the most humble and objective way, and of course started to back up their saying with data and facts instead of thinking their superior intelligence is enough to convince everybody they're right.
... or these boards will just become another Bnet subforum.
Word.
Again. A camel is a horse designed by committee (or this "community")
On January 30 2016 21:34 Gwavajuice wrote: Oki my 2 cents, as a sad panda that can't play LoTV because of a ghetto connection from south america :
- I have no clue about how good the design and balance team's work actually is.
- BUT I know that exchaning with the player base is a nightmare. People keep talking about a sc2 community, but it just doesn't exist. It's just a bunch of people expressing their own vision and calling it "what the community wants".
- reading most topic about patches and balance on these boards is wether desperating or hilarious depending on your mood. There is minimum discussion, just people shouting at blizzard, or at each other, making sure they don't listen other opinion, denying any kind of reasonning, a repeating the same stuff over and over and over.
Really sometimes, a debate between screaming deaf people in a dark room would make more sense that this.
Good luck finding what the so called community wants. A will is the product of a sentient entity, and I wouldn't call ourselves this.
- I've been browsing TL since late 2011, and the first thing that strocke me then was the smartness of the forums, I've been playing plenty of online games for 15+ years (yes I'm this old) and this forums were really different, people were coold minded, they would try to make points and they were always backing up their opinion with clear examples. Each time someone was talking shit or was not backing up his points with facts, people would tell him stfu.
On the other hand, reddit was the place for the stupid rants and hysterical people. (I won't talk about Bnet forums)
5 years later, I realise reddit is more interesting that TL.net most of the time, and I'm pretty sure Reddit didn't improve that much.
TL boards have just gone to trash, and it's a sad thing.
- following my own recommandations, I will back my point up with an example.
Check out all threads about maps since the infamous "dream pool" was announced (the poll itself and its results is quite hilarious too) and please tell me, if you were in blizzard's staff, how the hell would you define what is a good map according to the "community"
Everybody just claims opposite views is an extremely passionate way, calling themselves "the community" and ignoring totally other's oppinion. ANd each time it goes wrong, it's all David Kim's fault (what a retard!)
see :
-2014 S3 : most maps are "community made" and "standard" KSS, overgrowth, deadwing, merry go round but also catallena... people rant. Funilly enough 75% of these rants say Blizzard should hire community mapmakers, cause they just have now clue and don't even know it's already the case. OG and KSS are also blamed for being "too standard", catallena is blamed for being not standard enough (rotational symetry is such a bad thing, you know) MGR is blamed for the difficulty of the third. Also people are ranting because KSS and OG are too old ("yes they re good but get rid of them") -2014 S4 : dream pool, players vote, everybody hates the results. Blizzard is insulted for letting the basic players vote ("blizzard should listen to players but only the superior ones, like me") -2015 S1-S2 : Mix between the dream pool and TLMC 5, appeared cactus valley, echo, coda, expedition lost (coda and echo are praised, but in the end EL and cactus valley will have the best games) but also some blizzard maps : inferno pools (for once everybody agrees on this one : it's bad) and vaani research station (people hating it at first then realising it's one of the most enjoyable map of the season) -2015 S3 : TLMC6, time to go full non standard cause standard is lame and guess what? people hate the result. "But it can't be because of the map makers, you know, and TL staff was not listened enough, blizzard is such and incompetent bunch of retards"
In the end we have almost one year and half were the so-called community made 80% of the map pool, and was the "community" happy?
But of course, it's all David Kim's fault.
Ok time to /rant off.
I don't know how the game will evolve, I just whish people stopped posting in the same thread their own opinion over and over instead of trying to actually discuss with other, stopped trying being a smart ass instead of trying to find solutions and stopped thinking they're smarter and have more data than the whole blizzard staff insteadof realising they know nothing but their own point of view and all what they can do is trying to express it in the most humble and objective way, and of course started to back up their saying with data and facts instead of thinking their superior intelligence is enough to convince everybody they're right.
... or these boards will just become another Bnet subforum.
You sir, are my new favorite hero. Couldn't have said it better myself.
On January 30 2016 22:04 JackONeill wrote: Translation from corporate talk : "If you feel like the game was released and still is in a terrible state, you're not allowed to say it. We don't take any of your feedback into account and we're only doing PR while changing almost nothing in the game. We don't feel pressured to deliver a satisfying game, we'd rather whine about how the community is legitimatly being pissed."
Yes there's still a lot of people passionate about the game you're murdering, and that are outraged that the design you're proposing is SO BAD. Shooting pylons. SHOOTING PYLONS. The design team learned nothing about how HOTS design brought down WOL. They continued in that terrible design direction, and not taking any feedback into account. Adepts have been obviously OP since the beta, they did nothing to change it when the game was out.
Taking the community for a bunch of idiots by doing nothing but PR talk isn't bringing anything good for the game.
That last sentence. Love it. The "community" is obviously just that. Reading your post proves it. Ranting and ranting and ranting with nothing, more than your hurt feelings and your (I'll have to guess) mastermind to how the game design should be, to back it up.
Are you for real? TL and Bnet forums are full of posts "how should the tank be?", "Why is PO bad for the game", "how to change parasitic bomb", "what makes the adept hard to balance"... The "community" as you say, is producing so much and proposing so much ideas.
While blizzard is proposing nothing but "we'll look into it", "we'll gather more feedback", etc.
If you're a blizzard fanboy it's fine, but arguing that the community does nothing but rant and doesn't propose any ideas is proof of your ignorance. You're embarassing yourself.
Pure incompetence coming out from David Kim. He and some part of the community still thinks he is going in the right direction... Sad to hear but SC2 compared to other esports is a carcass. Blame it on MOBAS. Blame it on the game´s price. The fact is that less people every month are playing this game and Mr.Kim and his team have done nothing to revitalize it (and dont start with the LOTV changes that a lot of people have complained about, thats not innovation nor revitalizing). At this time my hopes for SC2 making a comeback are nonexistant. If RTS are ever to be popular again the amazing achievement wont come out of this design/marketing team. Im just hopeless, I just dont like this game anymore, I´ve come all the way from bronze to top 300 EU server in HOTS just to become depressed by the state of the game. It saddens me deeply what Blizzard is doing. I am simply freaked out by this. I seriously cannot stand this anymore, this stupidity, this incompetence, this stubbornness, this "playing the fool" stuff. Its sad...
On January 30 2016 22:47 Espartaquen wrote: Sad to hear but SC2 compared to other esports is a carcass. Blame it on MOBAS. Blame it on the game´s price. The fact is that less people every month are stopping to play this game and Mr.Kim and his team have done nothing to revitalize it (and dont start with the LOTV changes that a lot of people have complained about, thats not innovation nor revitalizing).
But isn't this a positiv trend? I think u mean less people are playing/ more and more people stop playing : D
My only beef is that they should spend their focus on making ladder match the best (focus more on testing and provide better maps). I feel like the development team is too busy putting content for Archon, Tourney and Commanders mode that there is no time to focus on 1v1.
The key should be to make 1v1 the best or most competitive system rather than focus on the other aspect. From a business point of view, 1v1 is where Blizzard can get the most monetary in return (more competitive scene = more tourneys = more venues = more exposure = more people watch = more people buy = more people play).
I ain't a pro and I feel sorry for those that want to qualify and have to stuck to play these horrible maps simply bc they don't have the time to focus on providing better ladder maps.
On January 30 2016 22:47 Espartaquen wrote: Sad to hear but SC2 compared to other esports is a carcass. Blame it on MOBAS. Blame it on the game´s price. The fact is that less people every month are stopping to play this game and Mr.Kim and his team have done nothing to revitalize it (and dont start with the LOTV changes that a lot of people have complained about, thats not innovation nor revitalizing).
But isn't this a positiv trend? I think u mean less people are playing/ more and more people stop playing : D
Yeah sorry. My english is not the best when im sad and pissed.
Blizzard's Moba, MMO, and aRPG must really have poor future revenue projections for Blizzard to continue to allocate a complete team to an RTS game.
On January 30 2016 23:16 BigRedDog wrote: My only beef is that they should spend their focus on making ladder match the best (focus more on testing and provide better maps). I feel like the development team is too busy putting content for Archon, Tourney and Commanders mode that there is no time to focus on 1v1.
The key should be to make 1v1 the best or most competitive system rather than focus on the other aspect. From a business point of view, 1v1 is where Blizzard can get the most monetary in return (more competitive scene = more tourneys = more venues = more exposure = more people watch = more people buy = more people play).
1v1 is a giant money drain with no continuous revenue stream. Brood War is a perfect example. me and my friends bought Brood War heavily discounted with 2 strategy books in it. Blizzard made almost no money off of us.
even at SC's dirt cheap price people are still calling it to be free and screaming Blizzard doesn't know how to generate revenue and create profit. ATVI is better at creating profit than just about every publisher in the world.
If ATVI can't do it with the SC franchise then the RTS genre is done like dinner. Hey but wait.. Halo War2 is on the way ! ! ! !
Blizzard employs liaisons to the community so that developers don't have to read raw feedback themselves. Why is the team reading any unconstructive criticism at all? I agree that reading worthless and negative feedback is demotivating to the team and unwanted. But I know that Blizzard is savvy to the way internet forums work and the kind of feedback they can expect to get from certain channels. Their weakness here is at the "Community Manager" position and if it's empty for SC2 then it needs to be filled and if it's filled then that person should be getting thrown under the bus, not the community. I think it's cool that David Kim is making these posts but he should be working with the assistance of a liaison. If he and his colleagues are being instructed to read the raw feedback themselves, then I can't imagine what their boss is thinking. Someone with a lot less knowledge on game design and technical skill can get paid a lot less than David Kim and can spend 60 hours a week reading everything the community is writing and making organized and productive reports on all of the constructive feedback for the team.
i kinda like that some Blizzard employees read feedback directly without a middle man. if some feelings get hurt on both sides.. too bad. Without direct communication something always gets lost in translation no matter how good the translator is. if some feelings are hurt in the process of product creation .. me and my money don't care.
ded game is ded.(when i mean dead i mean player wise, not spectator wise ) Blizzard is just to slow, with todays games, one cannot afford to be so slow. Valve/Riot are just taking everything blizzard once ruled at. Competitive pc games? Valve /riot is where its at. Now all the custom maps for which blizzard was known for which birthed the td's the dotas etc is being taken over by valve arcade scene which now utterly destroys blizzard arcade scene in terms of how many people play.
Blizzard quite frankly has missed the train , their old philosophy of moving like dinosaurs has come back to bite them in the ass. I dont really expect sc2 to make a comeback . Its just gonna get worse and worse and ofcourse this was the last chance to get players, as their are no more expansions. Faill
Perhaps with war4 in the next 50 years we might see some improvement and realizations of what made war3 great. First off you can remove the partial arrange team abuse in random teams.....That alone has destroyed the random team scene in sc2. Its just a joke.. Then you have a game fully centered around 1v1 . The arcade improvements came to late and are still lacking basic features from what made war3 and sc arcades great.
On January 30 2016 23:16 BigRedDog wrote: My only beef is that they should spend their focus on making ladder match the best (focus more on testing and provide better maps). I feel like the development team is too busy putting content for Archon, Tourney and Commanders mode that there is no time to focus on 1v1.
The key should be to make 1v1 the best or most competitive system rather than focus on the other aspect. From a business point of view, 1v1 is where Blizzard can get the most monetary in return (more competitive scene = more tourneys = more venues = more exposure = more people watch = more people buy = more people play).
I ain't a pro and I feel sorry for those that want to qualify and have to stuck to play these horrible maps simply bc they don't have the time to focus on providing better ladder maps.
Don't know where you've learned math but all the other modes require more game clients. And when more Archon tournements arrise it will mean more friends supporting and watching them.
I'm going to start starcraft now and play some games on the excellent map pool and actually enjoy the game. I'll leave you depressed individuals here to moan and whine. Maybe I'll see some of you on the ladder where I'll utilize the maps features for my own good to win games, which you crying little kids can't seem to do.
Call me a fanboy but you should see yourself crying and moaning on these forums totally forgetting it's just a fuckin game! Grow up guys or buy some diapers to shit in.
On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote: Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick".
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
(1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else
Blizzard responds much more quickly to various forms of outrage and will ignore 'constructive criticism' as long as it's expedient for them to do so. I'm not going to blame them, they have their own agenda and it's their game, but it's noticeable that they very much follow their own vision for the game and this means that constructive criticism is often far more effort than it's worth if one's goal is to influence Blizzard.
Think about TheDwf's article about how the speed and volatility of the game increased too much, there was a lot of discussion about that and a lot of sound analysis associated with it. Certainly a lot of work went into it, whether you agree with the main trust of the article or not. But as far as I know Blizzard did not comment on it, they did not venture another direction for the game, it was mostly as if that article was never published. Similarly, the double harvesting article was more or less dismissed by Blizzard with dishonest and incorrect argumentation. So while I can perfectly respect their choice to choose their own path, it does mean we have to realize that 'constructive criticism' means something different to Blizzard compared to what you and I might define it as.
That is to say, for David Kim constructive criticism is mainly criticism that he can use, i.e. something that affirms his stance on the game, which tacitly assumes the direction he's taken the game in is correct, but which offers concrete and technical suggestions he can apply to the game. So if you tell him that adepts can have a different damage-to-light-calculation which subtly fixes the TvP imbalance or whatever, then he will consider it. If you tell him that adepts have too much mobility and the shade creates problems then he will ignore you because it is somehow too critically motivated and too independently minded.
I also think it's a bit unfair of Blizzard to whine about aspersions that their team is small. If they would be transparent about this issue there would not be a need to constantly affirm the size of their team in public, and if they would perform up to standards the allegations would not gain traction (sorry for the phallic metaphors).
There was a period of time in early LotV development where it seemed like there was literally only a single intern working on the game outside of periodic appearances of David Kim to declare that the game was balanced. The models and ideas for new LotV concepts would all be more or less recycled, they had obviously allocated most of the RTS team to Heroes, -- Browder left the game without so much as a public mention, and they were publicly hiring new developers too.
I don't know about the current size of the team, but what exactly is there to demonstrate this? Logic would dictate that after the release of the expansion Blizzard no longer has any obligations to provide new content, furthermore you don't need a big team for the maintenance jobs of balance and bug fixing. If they are going to come with new content in the future that is nice, but I'm not sure exactly how much those promises are worth and to what degree it's even new content or just stuff they couldn't finish by the time of release and which they are now finalizing.
That said, sometimes people are really unfair to David Kim. In this thread (*cough* Charoisaur) there are also people whose every post consists of some form of direct, harsh and personal criticism and I think it hurts the cause of constructive analysis of Blizzard and SC2 which I do still believe in (since it's fun to do). And it's not nice to read criticism I guess.
On January 30 2016 23:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i kinda like that some Blizzard employees read feedback directly without a middle man. if some feelings get hurt on both sides.. too bad. Without direct communication something always gets lost in translation no matter how good the translator is. if some feelings are hurt in the process of product creation .. me and my money don't care.
It's not about feelings and it's not about what you want. It's about making the game the best it can be. People who actually care about the game itself and not about the community have a right to be upset that community people have drawn so much attention to themselves that game developers now have their duties split between assuaging the irrational concerns of a bunch of narcissists and developing the game.
The whole point of having a middle man is so that something DOES get lost in translation. The job is to be a filter so that what gets through is more helpful than the raw feedback. Maybe it doesn't end up being perfect feedback, and maybe something good gets dropped once in a while, but you cannot seriously think that reading the raw feedback is more productive than feedback filtered by an intelligent and knowledgeable person.
The negativity is nothing to scoff. The whole "he's a wimp and needs to toughen up if words hurt him" attitude is decades old and just outdated. You won't find professional sports teams that tolerate a constant source of negativity. You won't find businesses that tolerate it either. And as far as outside criticism such groups receive, their answer is to ignore it completely and just do their jobs. Asking the SC2 team to read all that stuff and take it seriously is just not done by professionals in other fields. It's avoided in every industry for good reason. Companies have whole departments dedicated to handling those relations. Blizzard has one too but for some reason wants the SC2 team to suffer and become objectively less productive and worse at their jobs rather than utilize the skills of a community manager. It's indefensible.
On January 30 2016 23:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i kinda like that some Blizzard employees read feedback directly without a middle man. if some feelings get hurt on both sides.. too bad. Without direct communication something always gets lost in translation no matter how good the translator is. if some feelings are hurt in the process of product creation .. me and my money don't care.
It's not about feelings and it's not about what you want. It's about making the game the best it can be. People who actually care about the game itself and not about the community have a right to be upset that community people have drawn so much attention to themselves that game developers now have their duties split between assuaging the irrational concerns of a bunch of narcissists and developing the game.
The whole point of having a middle man is so that something DOES get lost in translation. The job is to be a filter so that what gets through is more helpful than the raw feedback. Maybe it doesn't end up being perfect feedback, and maybe something good gets dropped once in a while, but you cannot seriously think that reading the raw feedback is more productive than feedback filtered by an intelligent and knowledgeable person.
The negativity is nothing to scoff. The whole "he's a wimp and needs to toughen up if words hurt him" attitude is decades old and just outdated. You won't find professional sports teams that tolerate a constant source of negativity. You won't find businesses that tolerate it either. And as far as outside criticism such groups receive, their answer is to ignore it completely and just do their jobs. Asking the SC2 team to read all that stuff and take it seriously is just not done by professionals in other fields. It's avoided in every industry for good reason. Companies have whole departments dedicated to handling those relations. Blizzard has one too but for some reason wants the SC2 team to suffer and become objectively less productive and worse at their jobs rather than utilize the skills of a community manager. It's indefensible.
Good points NonY, you'd think DK + team has better things to do than reading demoralizing rants.
They implement good things from own ideas but when ideas are from community so they dont implement it. Noticed since early WoL and never changed since then.
On January 30 2016 22:04 JackONeill wrote: Translation from corporate talk : "If you feel like the game was released and still is in a terrible state, you're not allowed to say it. We don't take any of your feedback into account and we're only doing PR while changing almost nothing in the game. We don't feel pressured to deliver a satisfying game, we'd rather whine about how the community is legitimatly being pissed."
Yes there's still a lot of people passionate about the game you're murdering, and that are outraged that the design you're proposing is SO BAD. Shooting pylons. SHOOTING PYLONS. The design team learned nothing about how HOTS design brought down WOL. They continued in that terrible design direction, and not taking any feedback into account. Adepts have been obviously OP since the beta, they did nothing to change it when the game was out.
Taking the community for a bunch of idiots by doing nothing but PR talk isn't bringing anything good for the game.
That last sentence. Love it. The "community" is obviously just that. Reading your post proves it. Ranting and ranting and ranting with nothing, more than your hurt feelings and your (I'll have to guess) mastermind to how the game design should be, to back it up.
Are you for real? TL and Bnet forums are full of posts "how should the tank be?", "Why is PO bad for the game", "how to change parasitic bomb", "what makes the adept hard to balance"... The "community" as you say, is producing so much and proposing so much ideas.
While blizzard is proposing nothing but "we'll look into it", "we'll gather more feedback", etc.
If you're a blizzard fanboy it's fine, but arguing that the community does nothing but rant and doesn't propose any ideas is proof of your ignorance. You're embarassing yourself.
Sure there is constructive feedback sometimes but the one I was commenting on was trash just like 90% of the TL forum is.
Most of your examples have now been patched. How is that "not listening to the community"? And what's wrong with "We'll look into it" and "we'll gather more feedback"? Good things take time. There would be hell of a lot more hate if Blizzard changed everything the "community" throws at them without really giving it time. It's Blizzards game to design and develop. Things might take time and that of course can be frustrating if you're a person who has no patience but time is a good thing if you want nice results. "They released LotV too early" is heard a lot and at the same time you hear how they want all the changes to balance and ladder right away. No logic there.
It must be so fucking hard to please everyone. It's impossible of course. Like DK wrote, even the pros have completely different views of what needs to be done.
Sure, I like most of Blizzards games and I love SC2. I think LotV is by far the best one. I have never seen so many epic games in tournaments in such a short period of time. Have you seen them? Freaking amazing! Watched VODs of some the most hyped games of WoL recently. They're sleeping pills in comparison. I really don't get why people want that kind of play back?
-Remove Prion Terraces -Patch the game every 2-3 weeks not every 6-9 months -Mech viability -Patch invincible nydus worms -all air units ridiculously OP should be toned down (tempest -> 6 supply, BC/Carrier -> 8 supply, liberator -> 4 supply, broodlord -> more supply) -tone up ground anti-air aka cyclones, thors, hydralisks
Alive game let's be positive and hope the above will happen within the next 2 years yay puppies! rainbows ! Surely those things will be addressed much positivity!
I'm sure mech will be remotely playable by 2017 <3 <3 <3
On January 31 2016 00:32 avilo wrote: We all love this game :D Let's be constructive!
-Remove Prion Terraces -Patch the game every 2-3 weeks not every 6-9 months -Mech viability -Patch invincible nydus worms -all air units ridiculously OP should be toned down (tempest -> 6 supply, BC/Carrier -> 8 supply, liberator -> 4 supply, broodlord -> more supply) -tone up ground anti-air aka cyclones, thors, hydralisks
Alive game let's be positive and hope the above will happen within the next 2 years yay puppies! rainbows ! Surely those things will be addressed much positivity!
I'm sure mech will be remotely playable by 2017 <3 <3 <3
Too bad that if someone filters/ would filter feedback all the puppies and rainbows don't get to the development team as well
On January 31 2016 00:32 avilo wrote: We all love this game :D Let's be constructive!
-Remove Prion Terraces -Patch the game every 2-3 weeks not every 6-9 months -Mech viability -Patch invincible nydus worms -all air units ridiculously OP should be toned down (tempest -> 6 supply, BC/Carrier -> 8 supply, liberator -> 4 supply, broodlord -> more supply) -tone up ground anti-air aka cyclones, thors, hydralisks
Alive game let's be positive and hope the above will happen within the next 2 years yay puppies! rainbows ! Surely those things will be addressed much positivity!
I'm sure mech will be remotely playable by 2017 <3 <3 <3
but i think mech is already op and needs to be nerfed, also i like the current map pool and i think invincible nydus worms add a lot to the game
On January 31 2016 00:32 avilo wrote: -Patch the game every 2-3 weeks not every 6-9 months
Well, to be completely fair, in the past there were multiple occasions where the community outlashed at Blizzard for jumping to actions too quickly (well, certainly not BL/Infestor lol) and many demanded they'd take a slower approach to give players time to maybe find a solution on their own. It has been quite a bumpy road and I feel the pace of balancing just something Blizzard can't EVER do right, no matter how they try to handle things - people from the other faction will always complain afterwards.
I haven't followed community feedback for a while, and didn't really understand David Kim's point until I read the replies in this thread. It's filled with unhelpful comments and personal attack. This is really sad to see.
On January 31 2016 00:32 avilo wrote: -Patch the game every 2-3 weeks not every 6-9 months
Well, to be completely fair, in the past there were multiple occasions where the community outlashed at Blizzard for jumping to actions too quickly (well, certainly not BL/Infestor lol) and many demanded they'd take a slower approach to give players time to maybe find a solution on their own. It has been quite a bumpy road and I feel the pace of balancing just something Blizzard can't EVER do right, no matter how they try to handle things - people from the other faction will always complain afterwards.
No. I'm 99% sure no one has ever been fine with blizzard taking 6-9 months to "wait and see."
And even if they were that age of development is LONG GONE.
SC2 should be receiving patches for balance/design/new cool changes every 3-4 weeks. Whether that is minor touch-ups to abilities, slight balance changes, etc.
Most people i think are negative when they see we get minor patches way too infrequently imo...in other games that are easily mentionable...they get patches every month sometimes every 2-3 weeks balance changes to champions/abilities and things.
On January 31 2016 00:32 avilo wrote: -Patch the game every 2-3 weeks not every 6-9 months
Well, to be completely fair, in the past there were multiple occasions where the community outlashed at Blizzard for jumping to actions too quickly (well, certainly not BL/Infestor lol) and many demanded they'd take a slower approach to give players time to maybe find a solution on their own. It has been quite a bumpy road and I feel the pace of balancing just something Blizzard can't EVER do right, no matter how they try to handle things - people from the other faction will always complain afterwards.
No. I'm 99% sure no one has ever been fine with blizzard taking 6-9 months to "wait and see."
And even if they were that age of development is LONG GONE.
SC2 should be receiving patches for balance/design/new cool changes every 3-4 weeks. Whether that is minor touch-ups to abilities, slight balance changes, etc.
Most people i think are negative when they see we get minor patches way too infrequently imo...in other games that are easily mentionable...they get patches every month sometimes every 2-3 weeks balance changes to champions/abilities and things.
SC2 NEEDS that now.
But don't you think that having such a high frequency of balance/design changes would hurt pro-play at the very least, as it artificially prevents players from having a settled meta game? Having to adapt to new stuff every month is not what StarCraft is about, I think, it's about constantly refining your skill in an environment where perfect play is non-existent.
Okay dunno how to say it, maybe someone @ Blizzard will read this. I really like DK as a human beeing, he seems to be a cool dude and i am happy for him and his position he is in from all my heart. I also really like that they stepped up their communication level. Every week there is an update about current work in the background, awesome, keep that please. Also i noticed a huge improvement social media wise, mainly twitter, it seems like someone was hired to promote more on twitter, great as well guys!
That beeing said, independently if i agree on balance changes and other things such as map pool changes and stuff, i can not totally understand the way Blizz is gathering feedback. It happens quite alot of times, that the majority is vocal about a problem, but still the response isn´t always comprehensible and explained. Often the answer in short is sadly, "we don´t agree", but not really why. If it´s a major issue, such an answer can be frustrating, remember a lot of us are extremly passionate and therefore often emotional. As an example, some maps are ingame since the first day of beta, please consider to change your minds, there is absolutly nothing wrong with taking as few step back of a statement and do some changes, there is nothing embarassing about it. Be proud about acting for the good of starcraft. Also the community has some dedictated map makers, if non blizzard maps are a great addition, so be it!
On January 31 2016 00:32 avilo wrote: -Patch the game every 2-3 weeks not every 6-9 months
Well, to be completely fair, in the past there were multiple occasions where the community outlashed at Blizzard for jumping to actions too quickly (well, certainly not BL/Infestor lol) and many demanded they'd take a slower approach to give players time to maybe find a solution on their own. It has been quite a bumpy road and I feel the pace of balancing just something Blizzard can't EVER do right, no matter how they try to handle things - people from the other faction will always complain afterwards.
No. I'm 99% sure no one has ever been fine with blizzard taking 6-9 months to "wait and see."
And even if they were that age of development is LONG GONE.
SC2 should be receiving patches for balance/design/new cool changes every 3-4 weeks. Whether that is minor touch-ups to abilities, slight balance changes, etc.
Most people i think are negative when they see we get minor patches way too infrequently imo...in other games that are easily mentionable...they get patches every month sometimes every 2-3 weeks balance changes to champions/abilities and things.
SC2 NEEDS that now.
But don't you think that having such a high frequency of balance/design changes would hurt pro-play at the very least, as it artificially prevents players from having a settled meta game? Having to adapt to new stuff every month is not what StarCraft is about, I think, it's about constantly refining your skill in an environment where perfect play is non-existent.
I'd agree. 4 weeks is not enough for new metas to sink in/get figured out.
On January 31 2016 00:32 avilo wrote: -Patch the game every 2-3 weeks not every 6-9 months
Well, to be completely fair, in the past there were multiple occasions where the community outlashed at Blizzard for jumping to actions too quickly (well, certainly not BL/Infestor lol) and many demanded they'd take a slower approach to give players time to maybe find a solution on their own. It has been quite a bumpy road and I feel the pace of balancing just something Blizzard can't EVER do right, no matter how they try to handle things - people from the other faction will always complain afterwards.
No. I'm 99% sure no one has ever been fine with blizzard taking 6-9 months to "wait and see."
And even if they were that age of development is LONG GONE.
SC2 should be receiving patches for balance/design/new cool changes every 3-4 weeks. Whether that is minor touch-ups to abilities, slight balance changes, etc.
Most people i think are negative when they see we get minor patches way too infrequently imo...in other games that are easily mentionable...they get patches every month sometimes every 2-3 weeks balance changes to champions/abilities and things.
SC2 NEEDS that now.
But don't you think that having such a high frequency of balance/design changes would hurt pro-play at the very least, as it artificially prevents players from having a settled meta game? Having to adapt to new stuff every month is not what StarCraft is about, I think, it's about constantly refining your skill in an environment where perfect play is non-existent.
No that's a terrible argument by definition if you are "Pro" you will adapt to patch changes almost immediately or within a few practice games.
A lot of elitist SC2 players think LoL is a noobie game right? Yet their pros literally adapt every patch to changes to new champions/balance etc. If they can do it, SC2 players can do it even more easily because SC2 is the highest skill cap game ever created.
Adapting to new stuff has literally nothing to do with perfect play or refining skill, you can still achieve such things regardless of changes. Well, perfect play is unobtainable in the first place.
I guarantee you, if SC2 received awesome patch changes every 2-3 weeks people would literally FUCKING FLOCK back to SC2 in droves. You put skins in the game, etc. on top of frequent balance patching...this game will slowly get back to #1 easily. EASILY.
It's very hard to do David Kim's job. And I applaud him for taking the high road responding to the negativity. Everybody wants what's best for the game so I agree let's work together.
On January 31 2016 00:32 avilo wrote: -Patch the game every 2-3 weeks not every 6-9 months
Well, to be completely fair, in the past there were multiple occasions where the community outlashed at Blizzard for jumping to actions too quickly (well, certainly not BL/Infestor lol) and many demanded they'd take a slower approach to give players time to maybe find a solution on their own. It has been quite a bumpy road and I feel the pace of balancing just something Blizzard can't EVER do right, no matter how they try to handle things - people from the other faction will always complain afterwards.
No. I'm 99% sure no one has ever been fine with blizzard taking 6-9 months to "wait and see."
And even if they were that age of development is LONG GONE.
SC2 should be receiving patches for balance/design/new cool changes every 3-4 weeks. Whether that is minor touch-ups to abilities, slight balance changes, etc.
Most people i think are negative when they see we get minor patches way too infrequently imo...in other games that are easily mentionable...they get patches every month sometimes every 2-3 weeks balance changes to champions/abilities and things.
SC2 NEEDS that now.
But don't you think that having such a high frequency of balance/design changes would hurt pro-play at the very least, as it artificially prevents players from having a settled meta game? Having to adapt to new stuff every month is not what StarCraft is about, I think, it's about constantly refining your skill in an environment where perfect play is non-existent.
I'd agree. 4 weeks is not enough for new metas to sink in/get figured out.
3-4 weeks per patch is necessary. You cannot take months to fix balance issues if you want your game to dominate all other competition, or to thrive on it's own.
Not to mention, you're acting as if every 3-4 weeks there is some insane meta changing patch that fucks the game over 180 degrees. The entire point of frequent patches/iteration on balance is you have a very quick refresh rate to the live game state.
If you change something and it's off in a bad way, you can change it so quickly in the next patch, and adjust it. Same goes for good things like re-designs on units or mech viability. You can literally get feedback more quickly and the game can stay fresh much more easily.
If you literally have a patch for -1 adept damage 80 days after the game releases...it's terrible. It's inexcusable. This type of patch change should have happened 3 weeks after release. Mech is still sucky, it needs changes now, not 9 months from now.
WCS changes, koreans competing, foreigner personalities...NONE of that bullshit the community talks about or all that drama matters at all for what brings people to SC2 is the GAMEPLAY itself.
If the game receives constant attention from the developers and patches, people will naturally come back to SC2 and be really re-invigorated to play the game and when you hear other gamers talk about SC2 they'll be like "oh yeah it just got this patch that made thors really strong vs air it's pretty sweet!"
Then SC2 is discussed in a positive light everywhere because it's obvious the game balance and design are being addressed, that the developers are about the game, and it gives the community a reason to stick with SC2 and care too.
SC2 with 1 patch every 90 days (3 months) to 9 months? People get fed up with this shit fast. It has happened over the years. People are TIRED of that shit. I'm not being negative i'm telling you the truth.
People are willing to be positive when they know they're being listend to and that the game they play is getting attention from the developers.
Now, i do think Blizzard has SLOWLY been learning this...and are doing a much better job at it as seen with dkim/blizz posting more often to the community, responding, and such but i feel like they are still on the training wheels of this generation's game development cycles.
Gone are the days of "we can patch this once and wait months to do shit." To compete and make SC2 thrive they need to really focus on the gameplay and keeping it fresh and hammering out any ridiculous imbalances quite quickly.
On January 30 2016 23:46 NonY wrote: Blizzard employs liaisons to the community so that developers don't have to read raw feedback themselves. Why is the team reading any unconstructive criticism at all? I agree that reading worthless and negative feedback is demotivating to the team and unwanted. But I know that Blizzard is savvy to the way internet forums work and the kind of feedback they can expect to get from certain channels. Their weakness here is at the "Community Manager" position and if it's empty for SC2 then it needs to be filled and if it's filled then that person should be getting thrown under the bus, not the community. I think it's cool that David Kim is making these posts but he should be working with the assistance of a liaison. If he and his colleagues are being instructed to read the raw feedback themselves, then I can't imagine what their boss is thinking. Someone with a lot less knowledge on game design and technical skill can get paid a lot less than David Kim and can spend 60 hours a week reading everything the community is writing and making organized and productive reports on all of the constructive feedback for the team.
I highly agree with this and believe it's critically important. Feedback from the internet is very deceptive from reality, so naturally this is something not everyone understands especially if they haven't had extensive exposure to it. If a development team member reads over a thread like this one and perceives it as a general community opinion, they are getting an extremely skewed picture of opinion in a negative and misleading direction.
To summarize the way of the internet, a very small percentage of players are involved in forum discussions. Most players stick to playing or watching the game, some will read forums, and very few are actually active posters on forums. Since the internet is a place of animosity where anyone can say anything, naturally forums become the perfect platform for the type of person who lives in negativity and ignorance, and absolutely thrives off of their statements being read by others to allow them a feeling of relevance and importance where it is otherwise unwelcomed in their realities. As such, they end up representing a significant portion of active posts.
This is really exacerbated by the nature of including a forum in the development process; it allows "that" type of person to legitimately feel involved and important when a high level development company is asking for the communities feedback.
Right this moment at 11:00 AM on Starcraft 2, there are 2800 games in progress in the NA region and 14,000 games in progress worldwide, representing a small portion of active SC2 players who are playing at this very moment. Add to this the players who aren't online playing right now, then add the huge number of people who only watch or talk about Starcraft and don't actually play. This thread so far has 177 replies including posts by people with more than 1 reply, in an environment that attracts naysayers and has no filter on ignorant anonymous statements. That is such a small representation of the community, and in general the worse part of it too.
Of course there is still a good representation of the regular player on forums as well, and also very intelligent, informed, and useful posters (highhorse disclaimer, I consider myself a regular type). This is where the community involvement is a great thing, and real discussions resulting in great progress can be had.
And so, involvement of an experienced community manager to filter the input and produce a list of constructive positive and negative feedback is critical for the approach of public community involvement.
If developers are browsing forums on their own time and getting demotivated as a result, it would be worth it to have a small discussion with all of them to establish a collective understanding of how the internet and forums really operate so they aren't needlessly and undeservedly hindered.
On January 31 2016 00:32 avilo wrote: -Patch the game every 2-3 weeks not every 6-9 months
Well, to be completely fair, in the past there were multiple occasions where the community outlashed at Blizzard for jumping to actions too quickly (well, certainly not BL/Infestor lol) and many demanded they'd take a slower approach to give players time to maybe find a solution on their own. It has been quite a bumpy road and I feel the pace of balancing just something Blizzard can't EVER do right, no matter how they try to handle things - people from the other faction will always complain afterwards.
No. I'm 99% sure no one has ever been fine with blizzard taking 6-9 months to "wait and see."
And even if they were that age of development is LONG GONE.
SC2 should be receiving patches for balance/design/new cool changes every 3-4 weeks. Whether that is minor touch-ups to abilities, slight balance changes, etc.
Most people i think are negative when they see we get minor patches way too infrequently imo...in other games that are easily mentionable...they get patches every month sometimes every 2-3 weeks balance changes to champions/abilities and things.
SC2 NEEDS that now.
But don't you think that having such a high frequency of balance/design changes would hurt pro-play at the very least, as it artificially prevents players from having a settled meta game? Having to adapt to new stuff every month is not what StarCraft is about, I think, it's about constantly refining your skill in an environment where perfect play is non-existent.
No that's a terrible argument by definition if you are "Pro" you will adapt to patch changes almost immediately or within a few practice games.
A lot of elitist SC2 players think LoL is a noobie game right? Yet their pros literally adapt every patch to changes to new champions/balance etc. If they can do it, SC2 players can do it even more easily because SC2 is the highest skill cap game ever created.
Adapting to new stuff has literally nothing to do with perfect play or refining skill, you can still achieve such things regardless of changes. Well, perfect play is unobtainable in the first place.
I guarantee you, if SC2 received awesome patch changes every 2-3 weeks people would literally FUCKING FLOCK back to SC2 in droves. You put skins in the game, etc. on top of frequent balance patching...this game will slowly get back to #1 easily. EASILY.
There's some positivity for you.
Ok, given pro players may adapt way faster than the rest of the player base due to the sheer mass of games they play on a daily basis, I'd still say it takes more than a few practice games, as you have to develop different habits, form new muscle memory and that simply takes time. Learning stuff takes time, sure, experience may help you a lot, but you can't skip that completely - and due to the very difficult nature of StarCraft that's a very long, if not never-ending process.
I don't say it's not possible, but diversity in SC2 comes from different things than in MOBAs, they have literally one map they play on all the time, so it seems kind of natural to me they need to balance stuff/keep the game fresh by adding new heroes/altering older ones, hence I really don't think the comparison you try to make here applies very well.
We can have different maps to keep things fresh and potentially balance out the game a bit, but constant balance changes applied just to shake up the meta could potentially lead to FOTM (flavor of the month - it's a term describing cookie cutter-comps in WoW arena) compositions, certainly attractive and catering towards a certain player base, but not really healthy for making a stable 1v1 esport.
But of course I could also be wrong about that, it's just how I see SC2 as a game in contrast to other, more popular esports titles.
"Dusk Towers Defend 1 choke point to gain access to 4 bases is something unique to this map, and it’s already looking like it creates very different games compared to other map types." all my kek
also major lol@avilo comparing balance changes in MOBAs where you can just draft different comps to SC2 where you're stuck playing the same race
On January 31 2016 02:58 Ej_ wrote: "Dusk Towers Defend 1 choke point to gain access to 4 bases is something unique to this map, and it’s already looking like it creates very different games compared to other map types." all my kek
You don't understand, the entire map is 1 big choke.
I think its ok to make experiments, unique maps are nice for ladder play. But lets have more than "one or two" "standard" maps? The fact that a map don't have 6 gold bases, 10 rocks, a reasonable rush distance and a normal main base layout doesn't mean it cannot make good games! Or create some nice meta. Nobody had to play 100 games on prion terraces or Ulrena to figure its no good. I even admit Ulrena was not bad as i expected so props for that.
On January 30 2016 23:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i kinda like that some Blizzard employees read feedback directly without a middle man. if some feelings get hurt on both sides.. too bad. Without direct communication something always gets lost in translation no matter how good the translator is. if some feelings are hurt in the process of product creation .. me and my money don't care.
It's not about feelings and it's not about what you want. It's about making the game the best it can be. People who actually care about the game itself and not about the community have a right to be upset that community people have drawn so much attention to themselves that game developers now have their duties split between assuaging the irrational concerns of a bunch of narcissists and developing the game.
The whole point of having a middle man is so that something DOES get lost in translation. The job is to be a filter so that what gets through is more helpful than the raw feedback. Maybe it doesn't end up being perfect feedback, and maybe something good gets dropped once in a while, but you cannot seriously think that reading the raw feedback is more productive than feedback filtered by an intelligent and knowledgeable person.
The negativity is nothing to scoff. The whole "he's a wimp and needs to toughen up if words hurt him" attitude is decades old and just outdated. You won't find professional sports teams that tolerate a constant source of negativity. You won't find businesses that tolerate it either. And as far as outside criticism such groups receive, their answer is to ignore it completely and just do their jobs. Asking the SC2 team to read all that stuff and take it seriously is just not done by professionals in other fields. It's avoided in every industry for good reason. Companies have whole departments dedicated to handling those relations. Blizzard has one too but for some reason wants the SC2 team to suffer and become objectively less productive and worse at their jobs rather than utilize the skills of a community manager. It's indefensible.
your post is more thorough and has truth in it. my comments are an oversimplification. however, direct contact is necessary. Should they sift through every post written by Avilo fan-boys who have been claiming for 5 years Terran is underpowered? no.
However, direct community feedback is critical and its a big reason why ATVI funds Blizzcon despite it being a money loser.
The great thing about BlizzCon is you're getting direct face-to-face feedback from people who actually.. you know... like ... ummm... SPEND MONEY. You'll notice that Morhaime is often wandering around Blizzcon without the aid of an entourage to stop anyone from talking to him. Morhaime wants direct contact and requests it continually ; he backs his words up with his actions. Furthermore, Morhaime leads by example not with ra-ra-ra speeches.
Pardo 2013: " the most exciting thing about Blizzcon is it brings the players together with each other and the developers together with the players". And remember, Pardo is Mr. Anti-Transparency.
As far as splitting their attention between "the mob" and game development. BlizzCon has been diverting the company's limited resources for more than a decade. Blizzard's top guys make a decision every year whether or not to hold Blizzcon and its a balancing act. There is no perfect formula for making those kinds of decisions. In a meta way.. software development is an RTS unto itself.
In conclusion, maybe DK should be doing these community feedback posts once per month rather than once per week. Maybe Dk is spending too much of his time dealing with "the mob". However, this is coming from an outsider with a 10,000 foot view of the action though. My "solution" is only slightly more than a guess.
Overall, DK is doing a great job and i'm having great fun playing LotV.
I'm pretty sure Blizzcon is setup the way it is for advertisement (both on-site, but probably mainly online) purposes rather than community contact on site, and that's why there is such a huge spending on it with deficit. You don't really need huge amounts money to set up a community gathering, but you need it if you want big production value for advertising purposes. It really tends to be a platform for announcements, speeches celebrating the awesome financially successful company, and generally generating hype for the upcoming releases of that year. They take the opportunity of having a large crowd they can get to cheer yelling things like "ALLIANCE! HORDE!" to send videos online suggesting general community super-satisfaction and interest in all their products. It is a bit fake of course, since the crowd at Blizzcon doesn't represent the community as a whole, aren't necessarily interested or satisfied with all blizzard games, and cheer the way they do for different reasons such as simply being at a live event and wanting a good atmosphere... Blizzcon generally feels like it is set up primarily for the profit of the company by broadcasting images of its success and products, rather than a true gathering for the community. I think it is naïve to imagine that the company spends all this money for reasons that aren't very selfish. Not that all companies are so selfish and industrially profit-centered like that, but Blizzard certainly has become that way. You can see it by looking at the pictures, the kind of speeches that are given, the general atmosphere and such details, small and large scale, it just screams advertising campaign all over, it is the primary aim that everything converges to.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
It's hard to have constructive criticism when they are going to be releasing MORE content that we will have to PAY for, before giving us the features that they told us would be in the game before the game was released.
They never even delivered on the last product, and they want us to pay for more before they deliver? That is a disgusting misuse of resources... Give us what we paid for before making us pay more! We paid for the game 3 times already! There is no way I could defend this.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
It's hard to have constructive criticism when they are going to be releasing MORE content that we will have to PAY for, before giving us the features that they told us would be in the game before the game was released.
They never even delivered on the last product, and they want us to pay for more before they deliver? That is a disgusting misuse of resources... Give us what we paid for before making us pay more! We paid for the game 3 times already! There is no way I could defend this.
What content have you payed for that has not been delivered? For real.
You know, at start of release of new game when balance is all over the place, there should be frequent patches whereas there should be less as the game goes on and things are fixed
Patch 3 months into new game is bit....slow. especially when problems sHowes up during beta
As part of the unvocal minority (majority?), I do think blizzard takes way too much shit. Yes waiting is disappointing, but its part of the game no pun intended. I am looking forward to the coming ladder changes and I do hope they come sooner rather later, thanks for the feedback David Kim.
On January 31 2016 06:15 ProMeTheus112 wrote: I'm pretty sure Blizzcon is setup the way it is for advertisement (both on-site, but probably mainly online) purposes rather than community contact on site, and that's why there is such a huge spending on it with deficit. You don't really need huge amounts money to set up a community gathering, but you need it if you want big production value for advertising purposes. It really tends to be a platform for announcements, speeches celebrating the awesome financially successful company, and generally generating hype for the upcoming releases of that year. They take the opportunity of having a large crowd they can get to cheer yelling things like "ALLIANCE! HORDE!" to send videos online suggesting general community super-satisfaction and interest in all their products. It is a bit fake of course, since the crowd at Blizzcon doesn't represent the community as a whole, aren't necessarily interested or satisfied with all blizzard games, and cheer the way they do for different reasons such as simply being at a live event and wanting a good atmosphere... Blizzcon generally feels like it is set up primarily for the profit of the company by broadcasting images of its success and products, rather than a true gathering for the community. I think it is naïve to imagine that the company spends all this money for reasons that aren't very selfish. Not that all companies are so selfish and industrially profit-centered like that, but Blizzard certainly has become that way. You can see it by looking at the pictures, the kind of speeches that are given, the general atmosphere and such details, small and large scale, it just screams advertising campaign all over, it is the primary aim that everything converges to.
i don't think Pardo was bullshitting. i think he means exactly what he said. if Pardo had a history of political double-talk then i'd carefully parse anything he says. however, due to his past history of public comments i take him at face value.
On January 31 2016 06:15 ProMeTheus112 wrote: I'm pretty sure Blizzcon is setup the way it is for advertisement (both on-site, but probably mainly online) purposes rather than community contact on site, and that's why there is such a huge spending on it with deficit. You don't really need huge amounts money to set up a community gathering, but you need it if you want big production value for advertising purposes. It really tends to be a platform for announcements, speeches celebrating the awesome financially successful company, and generally generating hype for the upcoming releases of that year. They take the opportunity of having a large crowd they can get to cheer yelling things like "ALLIANCE! HORDE!" to send videos online suggesting general community super-satisfaction and interest in all their products. It is a bit fake of course, since the crowd at Blizzcon doesn't represent the community as a whole, aren't necessarily interested or satisfied with all blizzard games, and cheer the way they do for different reasons such as simply being at a live event and wanting a good atmosphere... Blizzcon generally feels like it is set up primarily for the profit of the company by broadcasting images of its success and products, rather than a true gathering for the community. I think it is naïve to imagine that the company spends all this money for reasons that aren't very selfish. Not that all companies are so selfish and industrially profit-centered like that, but Blizzard certainly has become that way. You can see it by looking at the pictures, the kind of speeches that are given, the general atmosphere and such details, small and large scale, it just screams advertising campaign all over, it is the primary aim that everything converges to.
i don't think Pardo was bullshitting. i think he means exactly what he said. if Pardo had a history of political double-take then i'd carefully parse anything he says. however, due to his past history of public comments i take him at face value.
I don't rly know him, in any case what he said is probably true : the most exciting thing, what excites people who go to Blizzcon, is that they get to meet up and developpers get to meet players. But it may still not be the reason why Blizzcon is set up or the main goal it serves.
I think every 2-3 weeks is too much for balance patches, but I think Blizzard should do massive patches every 3-6 months that buff almost every underused unit and nerf almost every overused one, kind of similar to their early WoL patching philosophy or what Dota does with their numbered patches.
In addition they should release "emergency patches" every month to nerf/buff heavily over/underpowered units and races, and skip that month if balance is regarded by pros and the community as being somewhat decent.
"Perhaps you would get more positive feedback if you did what the community wants you to do, and not just what YOU want to do. You jump up and down talking about how much work you are doing and yet we rarely (if ever) see any changes and aren't even getting a new map pool for the season after thousands of posts talking about how much we don't like the current one.
There is no proof that you have done substantial work since release and people are pissed about it, as they rightfully should be. You can tell us that you have a wait and see approach, but all we see is blatantly obvious and easily fixed issues being ignored for months at a time.
I can say a lot more, but I won't since it probably isn't going to be read anyway and is mostly negative (which you don't want to hear, apparently). But please start releasing changes instead of sitting on your haunches waiting for players to work around the games awful current meta and map pool.
Positive CHANGES will result in positive FEEDBACK, corporate damage control posts aren't doing anything to help the game. We need changes, not whining from you and your team. "
I fully agree. 3 Months and all david and his team brought were 3 tiny balance changes. Thats it. No new maps or whatsoever. This is ridiculous imo.
On January 30 2016 23:46 NonY wrote: Blizzard employs liaisons to the community so that developers don't have to read raw feedback themselves. Why is the team reading any unconstructive criticism at all? I agree that reading worthless and negative feedback is demotivating to the team and unwanted. But I know that Blizzard is savvy to the way internet forums work and the kind of feedback they can expect to get from certain channels. Their weakness here is at the "Community Manager" position and if it's empty for SC2 then it needs to be filled and if it's filled then that person should be getting thrown under the bus, not the community. I think it's cool that David Kim is making these posts but he should be working with the assistance of a liaison. If he and his colleagues are being instructed to read the raw feedback themselves, then I can't imagine what their boss is thinking. Someone with a lot less knowledge on game design and technical skill can get paid a lot less than David Kim and can spend 60 hours a week reading everything the community is writing and making organized and productive reports on all of the constructive feedback for the team.
How exactly do you want Blizzard to prevent their employees from reading posts on the internet?
On January 30 2016 23:46 NonY wrote: Blizzard employs liaisons to the community so that developers don't have to read raw feedback themselves. Why is the team reading any unconstructive criticism at all? I agree that reading worthless and negative feedback is demotivating to the team and unwanted. But I know that Blizzard is savvy to the way internet forums work and the kind of feedback they can expect to get from certain channels. Their weakness here is at the "Community Manager" position and if it's empty for SC2 then it needs to be filled and if it's filled then that person should be getting thrown under the bus, not the community. I think it's cool that David Kim is making these posts but he should be working with the assistance of a liaison. If he and his colleagues are being instructed to read the raw feedback themselves, then I can't imagine what their boss is thinking. Someone with a lot less knowledge on game design and technical skill can get paid a lot less than David Kim and can spend 60 hours a week reading everything the community is writing and making organized and productive reports on all of the constructive feedback for the team.
How exactly do you want Blizzard to prevent their employees from reading posts on the internet?
On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote: I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
I agree with you but I don't see why that makes you torn. Just criticize the community for being what it is, and when Blizzard makes bad decisions, argue against them in a constructive manner.
On January 31 2016 06:15 ProMeTheus112 wrote: I'm pretty sure Blizzcon is setup the way it is for advertisement (both on-site, but probably mainly online) purposes rather than community contact on site, and that's why there is such a huge spending on it with deficit. You don't really need huge amounts money to set up a community gathering, but you need it if you want big production value for advertising purposes. It really tends to be a platform for announcements, speeches celebrating the awesome financially successful company, and generally generating hype for the upcoming releases of that year. They take the opportunity of having a large crowd they can get to cheer yelling things like "ALLIANCE! HORDE!" to send videos online suggesting general community super-satisfaction and interest in all their products. It is a bit fake of course, since the crowd at Blizzcon doesn't represent the community as a whole, aren't necessarily interested or satisfied with all blizzard games, and cheer the way they do for different reasons such as simply being at a live event and wanting a good atmosphere... Blizzcon generally feels like it is set up primarily for the profit of the company by broadcasting images of its success and products, rather than a true gathering for the community. I think it is naïve to imagine that the company spends all this money for reasons that aren't very selfish. Not that all companies are so selfish and industrially profit-centered like that, but Blizzard certainly has become that way. You can see it by looking at the pictures, the kind of speeches that are given, the general atmosphere and such details, small and large scale, it just screams advertising campaign all over, it is the primary aim that everything converges to.
i don't think Pardo was bullshitting. i think he means exactly what he said. if Pardo had a history of political double-take then i'd carefully parse anything he says. however, due to his past history of public comments i take him at face value.
I don't rly know him, in any case what he said is probably true : the most exciting thing, what excites people who go to Blizzcon, is that they get to meet up and developpers get to meet players. But it may still not be the reason why Blizzcon is set up or the main goal it serves.
the word play you did is precisely what Pardo does not do.
the original reason Blizz left E3 and did their own "Con" was to do less promoting bullshit and to connect with their fans more.
face-to-face in person feedback beats internet forum feedback by a mile.
i've been to 2 Blizzcons and the vibe i got from every employee i came across is that they were listening carefully to me and every attendee. if anyone would like to chime in with their story about how a Blizzard employee ignored their comments during the event they should feel free to jump in and provide feedback.
furthermore, i think Blizzard employees spend more than 2 days per year listening directly to their customers
I was just playing against 1 plat player then 1 gold as a top master on the ranked ladder, and now I read this... really David, can you at least do something for the bugs or will the fixes be in some new DLC that we ll have to pay.
for sure JimmyJRaynor, company head setting up events for business reasons and the employees, developpers, eager to listen and talk with players are two different things that can go together
What a disappointing response from Blizzard, they seem to be in desperation mode to save the hype for LotV. Let's be honest about LotV, it is a standalone expansion of a 6 year old game. Few new units, couple different unit mechanics, Archon mode, and a new campaign is barely enough to increase the player base from HotS but not NEARLY ENOUGH to bring about a big swing in popularity that Blizzard was clearly expecting. It is clear that Blizzard really tried to make LotV something special that would reverse the fading RTS trend. A standalone expansion was clearly the middle ground between micro-transaction and their traditional expansion approach. While these attempts are commendable, the result has so far been clearly disappointing for Blizzard.
So lets face the reality. Out of the Blizzard projects, Warcraft genre has been the most loyal to Blizzard while being incredibly more financially successful compared to Starcraft genre projects. There is a Warcraft Movie coming out with a $100 million budget in 2016. Blizzard's attention is on new potential Warcraft projects, they left behind their dead weight to attempt to salvage as much as possible from LotV.
On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote: I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
I agree with you but I don't see why that makes you torn. Just criticize the community for being what it is, and when Blizzard makes bad decisions, argue against them in a constructive manner.
On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote: Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick".
On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote:
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
(1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else
wtf are you talking about? "destructive criticism is valid"? what does that even mean? it's valid to try to make people feel like shit because you don't like that they aren't using your ideas?
you realize that they can actually design the game any way they want, just like a band selling albums can make whatever music they want? where do you get this insane entitlement from?
am i the only one who can see as clear as day that there is no community consensus, everyone wants different shit, and it's impossible to design the game "everyone wants"? how can so many individuals be so ceaselessly convinced that they are being personally wronged because not every single one of their suggestions is implemented?
i dont even play other blizz games or care about them as a company, this is just overall common sense and common decency. like... some of you people need to admit you're just too invested in how you think starcraft should be and how much you think your opinion should matter
Destructive, in the sense of "not constructive" criticism, is valid. When a nurse's doing you a injection, and she fucks up in her technique and you feel pain, you'll probably say "ouch" or express your pain. That's non-constructive, thus destructive, criticism, because you didn't tell her "oh look, I think you should do X and Y so that I feel less pain". Does that make your "ouch" useless? Nope, she got the indication that she fucked up. Now ofc if you go on her being like "hey you're so bad at your job, I don't even know why you're doing that you shit" etc, it's not destructive criticism, it's insults.
They can design the game they want. They should, if they knew what they're doing. Yet they're here, asking for feedback, asking us what we want. Do you know many bands who're like "hey fans, what do you want our next single to be? Should it be a power ballad? Or maybe a energetic rock?"? Nope. A creator creates, and people like it or not, I agree with you entirely on that. And they should create a game and not listen to the community. But they do, they ask the community for help, because they have no idea what they"re doing. Of course people will then be angry when they basically go "oh hey, we thought about your ideas, but mine are better, 'cuz they're mine".
And yes, I do entirely agree with the fact that there's no community consensus and that it's impossible to satisfy everyone. But then why do they search community feedback as if there was one big community feedback? Who's not seeing clear as day that there is no community consensus? You & me? Or them?
You're mistaking destructive criticism with negative criticism (there's no non-constructive criticism). Destructive criticism is the polar opposite of constructive criticism. The words destructive and constructive kind of are a giveaway.
On January 30 2016 11:52 OtherWorld wrote: Apparently, 6 years into the SC2 experiment, DK's team still don't know how to differentiate "cool factor" and "gimmick".
On January 30 2016 10:41 Penev wrote:
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
(1)constructive criticism has been given to them since 2010. (2)when you do shit, you'll take shit. Every criticism doesn't have to be constructive, as the goal of criticism is primarily to express a feeling ; only secondarily criticism might be constructive when it is useful/the guy in command doesn't know what the guy criticizing wants. But destructive criticism, as long as it's not trolling, is a valid way to express your feelings, thus is valid criticism. Constructive criticism is often confused with nice criticism, but it's not the same. Thus yeah, if Dayvie's team thinks that getting told that they're bad and delivered a terrible product is demotivating shit and not legit, useful criticism, I think they're lucky to work at Blizzard and not somewhere else
wtf are you talking about? "destructive criticism is valid"? what does that even mean? it's valid to try to make people feel like shit because you don't like that they aren't using your ideas?
you realize that they can actually design the game any way they want, just like a band selling albums can make whatever music they want? where do you get this insane entitlement from?
am i the only one who can see as clear as day that there is no community consensus, everyone wants different shit, and it's impossible to design the game "everyone wants"? how can so many individuals be so ceaselessly convinced that they are being personally wronged because not every single one of their suggestions is implemented?
i dont even play other blizz games or care about them as a company, this is just overall common sense and common decency. like... some of you people need to admit you're just too invested in how you think starcraft should be and how much you think your opinion should matter
Destructive, in the sense of "not constructive" criticism, is valid. When a nurse's doing you a injection, and she fucks up in her technique and you feel pain, you'll probably say "ouch" or express your pain. That's non-constructive, thus destructive, criticism, because you didn't tell her "oh look, I think you should do X and Y so that I feel less pain". Does that make your "ouch" useless? Nope, she got the indication that she fucked up. Now ofc if you go on her being like "hey you're so bad at your job, I don't even know why you're doing that you shit" etc, it's not destructive criticism, it's insults.
They can design the game they want. They should, if they knew what they're doing. Yet they're here, asking for feedback, asking us what we want. Do you know many bands who're like "hey fans, what do you want our next single to be? Should it be a power ballad? Or maybe a energetic rock?"? Nope. A creator creates, and people like it or not, I agree with you entirely on that. And they should create a game and not listen to the community. But they do, they ask the community for help, because they have no idea what they"re doing. Of course people will then be angry when they basically go "oh hey, we thought about your ideas, but mine are better, 'cuz they're mine".
And yes, I do entirely agree with the fact that there's no community consensus and that it's impossible to satisfy everyone. But then why do they search community feedback as if there was one big community feedback? Who's not seeing clear as day that there is no community consensus? You & me? Or them?
I'm not sure why you're equating non-constructive criticism with destructive criticism. Because that's utterly false. That's not what destructive criticism is. Destructive criticism is criticism performed with harmful intentions.
And I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your post. Blizzard should definitely listen to what the community has to say, as it's data that can serve guide their actions, but just because they listened doesn't mean they should blindly follow what the community thinks is the best path.
Yes, it was indeed a mistake to use "destructive" as an equivalent of "negative". Anyway, my point was that the paradigm of always giving constructive criticism is terrible when in a creation context. I mean, would it feel normal to you, if you see a painter's exhibition and don't like his paintings, to say to him what he should do differently to please you? Nope, that's flat out absurd. Constructive criticism is useful when someone is learning, when the person giving criticism knows better than the person receiving criticism. Here, DK is basically asking the community to only give constructive criticism, thus DK is basically sending the message that every single player knows better than his team what should be good for the game. Do you realize how absurd is that?
As for the rest of my post, I'll leave it to the wise words of BronzeKnee :
The SC2 design team should have goals in mind and a direction that can't be changed by negative, or positive feedback. Because they should own this, and know what is best for SC2 and make a game worth playing.
Well, not many people think I am wise, but thanks for the kind words.
I came to add that when SC2 was doing great (~2011), the forums were filled with posts about new builds, different strategies, ect... everyone was playing and talking about playing because the game was amazing. It really was.
Today, people come to the forum to talk about the broken game design, and people say the community went to hell. The community follows the game. SC2 really went to hell, and now we don't see strategy guides nearly as often, don't see the help threads, don't see massive viewership of tournaments. We see people talking about how we can return SC2 to it's glory.
Those are signs of failure.
And the way to return SC2 to glory is to get a new design team. The current SC2 design team absolutely has to go. Someone saying unkind words should only demotivate a child, mature adults are immune to such things, especially when it comes to their job. Do your job, David Kim. Design a great game. And since you haven't been able to do your job for the last few years, you should get fired, like everyone else who can't do their job.
On January 31 2016 13:14 OtherWorld wrote: The SC2 design team should have goals in mind and a direction that can't be changed by negative, or positive feedback. Because they should own this, and know what is best for SC2 and make a game worth playing.
people are bored of RTS games and have been for years. There is nothing the Sc2 design team can do about the shift in consumer tastes. RTS is going the way of the dot-eating-maze-game, text adventure, and MUD.
There have been some good RTS games made in the past 10 years. They just do not make enough money from the bored consumer base to justify continued investment. It is interesting to note that once consumer tastes shift away from a genre it does not matter how good the games are as the genre slides downhill. the genre is toast.
i think LotV is great fun and the team is doing a great job ; nothing will stop the decline of consumer spending on the RTS genre. Lots of publishers and studios have long since abandoned the genre and i've think they've made a wise decision. Its not their job to supply me with entertainment from which they have no prayer of profiting.
Blizzard is the last company to make a AAA level RTS game because they are the best at making RTS games. I hope they keep up the good work.
How can you say that knowing just a few years ago SC2 was the biggest E-Sport in the world? And DOTA and CS existed then too. Just look at these forums, and the change in what people are talking about as I mentioned in my last post above yours.
Blizzard blew it when the game got boring because of bad game design (Forcefield, Fungal Growth, Vortex, ect). DOTA and CS haven't changed, they are pretty much the same game as before, just with more content. SC2 never weeded out the bad designs and took the evolutionary approach those games did.
Honestly, spectating a MOBA or FPS just isn't as exciting as watching a good RTS. That is why Brood War became so popular in Korea, it is really is a good game to watch. SC2 can return to it's former glory, but it needs work.
know your history. Consumer tastes shifted. Once they shift nothing matters. Pacman is released in May of 1980. It grossed more than any other arcade game ever. Ms. Pacman is 100X better and is released a year and a half later. It makes 25% of what Pacman makes. People got bored of eating dots. It didn't matter that so recently Pacman ruled the world. It was over.
Because of Pacman lots of amazing dot-eating games like LadyBug and Lock'n'Chase came out. Great innovative titles that were miles better than the arcade record setter. It didn't matter. People were bored. Consumers were bored of eating dots.
The average consumer, who never visits TL.net, is bored of the foundations that make up the RTS genre. These people spend the money required for AAA level development to happen. People are bored of collecting resources and deciding which of a finite # of tech options to choose. People are bored of the process of trying to master the control of a small # of different units and unit types.
To watch someone's painstakingly built big army go up against some other guys carefully built big army consumers are choosing the Tablet to scratch that itch. Mobile Strike, Clash of Clans ..etc ...etc.
This exact pattern i've described has happened to many video game genres. It is ironic that Blizzard is the best and takes the most abuse. No one is complaining about EALA, Victory Games, Brett Sperry or Ensemble.
the natural counter argument to my point is... every RTS game made in the past 10 years sucks... and every RTS game developer is incompetent... well they're almost all gone now
I don't agree. The users that made SC what it is had computers and continue to have computers. I don't think tablets games are eating in SC. And I don't think people will ever get "bored" of RTS, because people get old, and new people are born, the same way FPS will never get boring.
Pacman is a boring game because it is limited, the gameplay options it provided could be mimicked by more complex games that offered many different gameplay options (you micro units in SC2 up and down to similar to Pacman, but the game is much more). Once the technology was able to offer more gameplay options, better games were made. Technology isn't limiting us now. But technology isn't required; Chess is a great game and has survived because it isn't limited, there are countless moves and gameplay options.
RTS games are suffering from poor design right now, and that isn't a new trend for any genre. Companies are obsessed with "streamlining" lately so anyone can play any game, and that is destroying PC Gaming. But every once in awhile a game like Warcraft, Civilization or Half-Life comes out and changes everything. And more good games will come, made by small groups of new developers who buck the trend of "streamlining."
We've already seen that with Counterstrike and DOTA. I played the earliest versions of both of those game and watched them grow. There was never a move toward streamlining in those titles, they are just good games that stayed true to what they are. If anything CS and DOTA today are more complex than they used to be, because people crave deep complex games. We don't want to play Pacman.
That is why Diablo 2 was so amazing and Diablo 3 so horrible. One was a complex masterpiece, the other a streamlined piece of garbage. The same can be said about Rome Total War, and Rome 2 Total War.
So we have to wait for another amazing game to come and change everything. Starcraft 2 was supposed to be it. But the developers don't know what they want or where to take SC2, and thus they "streamline" thinking it will attract people if it is easier to play.
Don't wait for Blizzard : Sigaty already said nothing coming from Blizzard will compete with SC2 for 10 years. Halo Wars 2 is coming out this year. How about you buy it and let me know how it goes
On January 31 2016 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote: RTS games are suffering from poor design right now,
no, RTS games are suffering from a lack of funding. This is a response to poor consumer spending on good RTS games over the past 10 years. Lots of good games are financial failures including RTS games. This happened long before the RTS genre began and will continue long after SC2 stops being featured at Blizzcon.
the counter of course is that this group of "latent RTS game buyers" that spends no money and hasn't for years will all of a sudden start spending. i doubt it and i wouldn't put 10s of millions of dollars counting on it either.
On January 31 2016 15:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Don't wait for Blizzard : Sigaty already said nothing coming from Blizzard will compete with SC2 for 10 years. Halo Wars 2 is coming out this year. How about you buy it and let me know how it goes
On January 31 2016 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote: RTS games are suffering from poor design right now,
no, RTS games are suffering from a lack of funding. This is a response to poor consumer spending on good RTS games over the past 10 years. Lots of good games are financial failures including RTS games. This happened long before the RTS genre began and will continue long after SC2 stops being featured at Blizzcon.
the counter of course is that this group of "latent RTS game buyers" that spends no money and hasn't for years will all of a sudden start spending. i doubt it and i wouldn't put 10s of millions of dollars counting on it either.
Imo, games tend to gain traction and popularity if the core gameplay is good. Fundamentally sound gameplay and design. Thats the root of all success not because its a MOBA or the hottest thing in the block. Take a look at Dota. A custom mod for warcraft 3 where the key gameplay and good design was there. However it wasn't as big because it wasn't a standalone game. There were no ladder for it, the interface was based on warcraft3 etc.
When Valve bought the idea and came out with Dota 2 with a much better interface, matchmaking etc turning it even bigger and more successful. However if the gameplay was flawed to begin with, no one would be playing this regardless of what kind of interface it had.
SC2 had BW to work with. Yet look at where we are today. The core is rotten with atrocious game design. No matter much sugar coating one does to this product, the fundamental basis of the game is flawed. Not because the RTS genre is dying. If this game had the depth that BW had, no one would be saying the RTS genre is dying. They missed a huge opportunity with their own blindness and failed to understand what made BW great at its core which is where it ALL begins. All the other stuff like tourneys, pro scenes, fans, etc are just the after effects of a really good game.
Its been disappointing because quite frankly they were arrogant in thinking that they knew what was best for us (even if its their IP, you design products to satisfy your customers). On top of not really understanding what made the game great to begin with.. its been quite sad.
Well it's almost 3 months after release and all they did was change some numbers and add a new co-op commander. Ladder has also been broken for over a month. Hopefully they release some of these things they've been working on soon so we can be a bit more positive about the development team.
On January 31 2016 16:10 YyapSsap wrote: SC2 had BW to work with. Yet look at where we are today. The core is rotten with atrocious game design. No matter much sugar coating one does to this product, the fundamental basis of the game is flawed. Not because the RTS genre is dying. If this game had the depth that BW had, no one would be saying the RTS genre is dying. They missed a huge opportunity with their own blindness and failed to understand what made BW great at its core which is where it ALL begins. All the other stuff like tourneys, pro scenes, fans, etc are just the after effects of a really good game.
Why exactly is the core rotten? What makes the design bad? Sorry atrocious. That's just a personal opinion.
I bet the only way for the haters to like SC2 is if it was BW with enhanced graphics. Well, no. I take it back. Then the "feel" of the game would be wrong.
I think LotV has more depth than BW. The other week when Bisu and Effort played the final the chat was like: "This is what starcraft should be like, action going on everywhere at the same time. Multitasking for real". At the same time they complaint when LotV is exactly that. "From WoL it's just gotten worse". Look at the games of WoL. Basically, build the ultimate army, A-move and hope it's bigger than the opponents. Fun.
LotV is in an amazing place! Fun and exciting booth to play and watch and it's everything a RTS game should be.
People must think there is a bottomless pit of money to throw at this game.Its currently the most popular RTS game in the world, be happy and play the game.
I am sure half of the people who post on here don't even log into it to even play it, they are just never happy no matter what Blizzard does and just want to bitch to satisfy their own egos
On January 31 2016 17:31 Topdoller wrote: People must think there is a bottomless pit of money to throw at this game.Its currently the most popular RTS game in the world, be happy and play the game.
I am sure half of the people who post on here don't even log into it to even play it, they are just never happy no matter what Blizzard does and just want to bitch to satisfy their own egos
Yup, I think you're right. See you on ladder mate! GL HF!
On January 31 2016 15:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Don't wait for Blizzard : Sigaty already said nothing coming from Blizzard will compete with SC2 for 10 years. Halo Wars 2 is coming out this year. How about you buy it and let me know how it goes
On January 31 2016 14:51 BronzeKnee wrote: RTS games are suffering from poor design right now,
no, RTS games are suffering from a lack of funding. This is a response to poor consumer spending on good RTS games over the past 10 years. Lots of good games are financial failures including RTS games. This happened long before the RTS genre began and will continue long after SC2 stops being featured at Blizzcon.
the counter of course is that this group of "latent RTS game buyers" that spends no money and hasn't for years will all of a sudden start spending. i doubt it and i wouldn't put 10s of millions of dollars counting on it either.
Don't listen to what JimmyJRaynor says, all he does is run around and declare RTS games dead forever... All genre's have run through dry phases and all it takes is some innovation usually. People love our genre, SC2 is not a financial failure for them at all and blizzard would be very stupid if they wouldn't meet consumer demands for more Warcraft or maybe even Starcraft games. Blizzard already announced during the LotV development that their RTS team is big and it's going to stay with LotV and then go on to another project, which may be WC4 but also maybe something new. Bottomline is that blizzard will make a new RTS game someday, though I guess, we won't hear from it in the next few years because they have a market position with SC2 at the moment that they can only weaken by giving it a competitor too soon.
On January 31 2016 17:31 Topdoller wrote: People must think there is a bottomless pit of money to throw at this game.Its currently the most popular RTS game in the world, be happy and play the game.
I am sure half of the people who post on here don't even log into it to even play it, they are just never happy no matter what Blizzard does and just want to bitch to satisfy their own egos
The other way around for me sadly. I used to play this game daily. I played like a thousand games in the LotV beta. But at the moment I don't feel like playing at all. ZvZ is still such a waste of time that I don't want to queue as zerg at all, Terran still has no reactive playstyle in LotV and I have never enjoyed playing Protoss though I tried them the first time since 2013 during the beta. Gameplay is just nowhere near what I would enjoy, even ZvT and TvT feel much worse than before.
I don't know what I should do at this point constructively. I think everybody has told them about tankivacs a hundred times and there have been like a 100 threads how to fix Mech/the siege tank in a different way. You get David Kim coming in and saying, "he doesn't quite know where Mech suffers". Then you go out and give feedback. Then he doesn't respond anymore to it. Maybe Adepts were a bigger issue right now for him, but honestly, as a player I don't care about the Korean prolevel that much, if I just can't play in the ways I like to play. I want to have a fun game now, if I should play now.
And ZvZ early game cheeses have not been adressed in 5 years, I don't know why they would adress them now regardless how often I say they should. It doesn't help that David Kim said in an interview he likes about ZvZ that it's so explosive and that anything can happen at any point in the game. That's exactly what I would describe as bad and unstable gameplay, but he even embraces it...
On January 31 2016 16:08 WrathSCII wrote: So... no hope for Warcraft 4?
Don't listen to what JimmyJRaynor says, all he does is run around and declare RTS games dead forever
numbers don't lie. Sigaty ain't lying either. he was asked and said it'll be 10 years and maybe more. no one is committing a AAA level investment to the RTS genre.. including ATVI.
all i'm doing is watching RTS dev studios either fold up or put out low budget garbage. Except for Blizzard. LotV is the genre's swan song.
On January 31 2016 16:08 WrathSCII wrote: So... no hope for Warcraft 4?
Don't listen to what JimmyJRaynor says, all he does is run around and declare RTS games dead forever
numbers don't lie. Sigaty ain't lying either. he was asked and said it'll be 10 years and maybe more. no one is committing a AAA level investment to the RTS genre.. including ATVI.
all i'm doing is watching RTS dev studios either fold up or put out low budget garbage. Except for Blizzard. LotV is the genre's swang song.
Can you refer me to the source of the 10 year comment? All I found is that he thinks that SC2 will be alive for another 10 years.
On January 31 2016 16:08 WrathSCII wrote: So... no hope for Warcraft 4?
Don't listen to what JimmyJRaynor says, all he does is run around and declare RTS games dead forever
numbers don't lie. Sigaty ain't lying either. he was asked and said it'll be 10 years and maybe more. no one is committing a AAA level investment to the RTS genre.. including ATVI.
all i'm doing is watching RTS dev studios either fold up or put out low budget garbage. Except for Blizzard. LotV is the genre's swang song.
Can you refer me to the source of the 10 year comment?
it was the WCS major event before Blizzcon.. i think in Poland.
the event before ( GamesCom i think ) that Morten ( producer) was oblique and vague about WC4 so some fanboys went crazy hoping WC4 was on the way. I said, u need a guy who makes money decisions to comment, not the producer. Sigaty is the executive producer and he commented directly. Executive producers make decision with money and budgets. Producers do not. Sigaty > Morten.
On January 31 2016 16:08 WrathSCII wrote: So... no hope for Warcraft 4?
Don't listen to what JimmyJRaynor says, all he does is run around and declare RTS games dead forever
numbers don't lie. Sigaty ain't lying either. he was asked and said it'll be 10 years and maybe more. no one is committing a AAA level investment to the RTS genre.. including ATVI.
all i'm doing is watching RTS dev studios either fold up or put out low budget garbage. Except for Blizzard. LotV is the genre's swang song.
Can you refer me to the source of the 10 year comment?
it was the WCS major event before Blizzcon.. i think in Poland.
the event before ( GamesCom i think ) that Morten ( producer) was oblique and vague about WC4 so some fanboys went crazy hoping WC4 was on the way. I said, u need a guy who makes money decisions to comment not the producer. Sigaty is the executive producer and he commented directly. Executive producers make decision with money and budgets. Producers do not. Sigaty > Morten.
If you mean that one
While Blizzard has a number of competitive games, Chris describes StarCraft as the "super-elite" that he wants people to still be playing in a decade. Did that mean they don't expect to develop the follow-up, whatever form it may take, before ten years is up?
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
I think it's a very vague comment with the main statement being: "we are going to support SC2 for quite some time and we believe in this game". Maybe it means no RTS game in the near future, but I doubt that. Much rather it could mean no RTS like Starcraft in the near future. Which for example Warcraft isn't. Any interpretation of that comment is highly speculative. Meanwhile we have this very specific comment:
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
On January 31 2016 17:31 Topdoller wrote: People must think there is a bottomless pit of money to throw at this game.Its currently the most popular RTS game in the world, be happy and play the game.
I am sure half of the people who post on here don't even log into it to even play it, they are just never happy no matter what Blizzard does and just want to bitch to satisfy their own egos
The other way around for me sadly. I used to play this game daily. I played like a thousand games in the LotV beta. But at the moment I don't feel like playing at all. ZvZ is still such a waste of time that I don't want to queue as zerg at all, Terran still has no reactive playstyle in LotV and I have never playing Protoss though I tried them the first time since 2013 during the beta. Gameplay is just nowhere near what I would enjoy, even ZvT and TvT feel much worse than before.
I don't know what I should do at this point constructively. I think everybody has told them about tankivacs a hundred times and there have been like a 100 threads how to fix Mech/the siege tank in a different way. You get David Kim coming in and saying, "he doesn't quite know where Mech suffers". Then you go out and give feedback. Then he doesn't respond anymore to it. Maybe Adepts were a bigger issue right now for him, but honestly, as a player I don't care about the Korean prolevel that much, if I just can't play in the ways I like to play. I want to have a fun game now, if I should play now.
And ZvZ early game cheeses have not been adressed in 5 years, I don't know why they would adress them now regardless how often I say they should. It doesn't help that David Kim said in an interview he likes about ZvZ that it's so explosive and that anything can happen at any point in the game. That's exactly what I would describe as bad and unstable gameplay, but he even embraces it...
You sound like you are burnt out on the game. Take a break from it maybe?
I played Forged Alliance Forever as well, it is a fantastic game too if a different type of way, have you tried it?
As for ZvZ it will alway be a mess, as there is no wall ins or sim city to create a stable game.Brood war was no different
On January 31 2016 16:08 WrathSCII wrote: So... no hope for Warcraft 4?
Don't listen to what JimmyJRaynor says, all he does is run around and declare RTS games dead forever
numbers don't lie. Sigaty ain't lying either. he was asked and said it'll be 10 years and maybe more. no one is committing a AAA level investment to the RTS genre.. including ATVI.
all i'm doing is watching RTS dev studios either fold up or put out low budget garbage. Except for Blizzard. LotV is the genre's swang song.
Can you refer me to the source of the 10 year comment?
it was the WCS major event before Blizzcon.. i think in Poland.
the event before ( GamesCom i think ) that Morten ( producer) was oblique and vague about WC4 so some fanboys went crazy hoping WC4 was on the way. I said, u need a guy who makes money decisions to comment not the producer. Sigaty is the executive producer and he commented directly. Executive producers make decision with money and budgets. Producers do not. Sigaty > Morten.
While Blizzard has a number of competitive games, Chris describes StarCraft as the "super-elite" that he wants people to still be playing in a decade. Did that mean they don't expect to develop the follow-up, whatever form it may take, before ten years is up?
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
I think it's a very vague comment with the main statement being: "we are going to support SC2 for quite some time and we believe in this game". Maybe it means no RTS game in the near future, but I doubt that. Much rather it could mean no RTS like Starcraft in the near future. Which for example Warcraft isn't. Any interpretation of that comment is highly speculative. Meanwhile we have this very specific comment:
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
no that is not it. he did a bunch of interviews in Poland. he was asked spefically about WC4. His reply was "nothing will compete in SC2's space for 10 years."
if you have some interview where Blizzard says they're working on WC4 post it.
As it stands... Blizzard used to be constantly pumping out new RTS content. Then we went from 1999 to 2002 to make a full game.... then it was 7 years for the next full game.and now,.. it takes 2.5 years to pump out a $40 expansion using the same 5 year old engine.
so the trend is clear... less and less content spaced over more and more years.
On January 31 2016 18:32 Big J wrote: I think it's a very vague comment with the main statement being: "we are going to support SC2 for quite some time and we believe in this game". Maybe it means no RTS game in the near future, but I doubt that. Much rather it could mean no RTS like Starcraft in the near future. Which for example Warcraft isn't. Any interpretation of that comment is highly speculative. Meanwhile we have this very specific comment:
"It’s very rewarding for us to hear that there’s demand out there for more RTS content in the Warcraft universe so once we’re done with Void I think we’ll get together as a team and talk about what would inspire us to work on next. There’s no question, though, that we’ll consider Warcraft, StarCraft, or even new ideas. Anything is possible."
this is pure unadulterated bullshit. Morten is just a producer.. .as i've already said. i covered that in my previous post. He makes no money decisions. He is a producer. Sigaty is the executive producer for BOTH HotS and Starcraft2.
Chris describes StarCraft as the "super-elite" that he wants people to still be playing in a decade. Did that mean they don't expect to develop the follow-up, whatever form it may take, before ten years is up?
"I can’t answer that because honestly we don’t know. Is it possible we work on something that steps on the toes of StarCraft? Yes, but there’s no intention to do that today, which is why I think it’s so critical and important how we treat it and how we continue to improve it and make things better - that matters. I think [StarCraft] absolutely stands as an amazing experience to both celebrate the people that get to that level of skill and quality and also to be able to watch and see that. While it’s possible we would [replace that], I don’t see it happening."
he got more specific with another interviewer who specifically mentioned WC4 during a stand-up interview.
once again, for the umpteenth time.
Sigaty > Morten. Sigaty is a Blizzard lifer. Morten joined when Victory Games was mothballed... another disappearing RTS studio.
Reading between the lines Sigaty makes it crystal clear there is no way ATVI is investing any cash in a new engine to support a new RTS game.
I agree with Jimmy, Morten is kinda low on the totem pole. He'd been only been with Blizzard for like a year? Not sure if I buy into the idea Blizzard is going to have 50-100 people or whoever the core of the SC2 is, working on SC2 full-time for the next 10 years (then again I'd imagine they'd switch between HOTS and SC2). I don't know if ATVI suit politics really come into play.
What's more believable? They have the entire SC2 team work on Hats/missions for the next 10 years in SC2, or they do something productive like start working on a SC3 or WC4. Hell, if they really gave a shit, they could just build off SC2's engine.
That being said, I think it would be the most amazing shit in the world if we had a SC2/WC4 be relevant in the competitive scene, like the mid-to-late 2000s where tournaments ran BW and WC3.
it takes 2.5 years to pump out a $40 expansion using the same 5 year old engine.
they'll slowly pull people off of the game and move them to projects producing more revenue that have more profit potential. same as they do for every other game. Will a skeleton staff still keep the ladder and BNet going? yes, of course.
there is no way LotV made even $0.1 Billion; ATVI counts revenue in billions not millions.
I have an idea lets change all the maps to completely horrible maps. This way everybody of the same race will veto the map that is awful for there race. this will create a more blanced game of play because if u don't wat t cr8 zerg then you can just veto zerg maps andu never have to facthem sry my English mbad it early dk is the best keep pumping shitty maps into the sence since they play better for some pthat like to actually cereate unique games
He talks about "new content and features" but doesn't say what kind of new content or features... In fact all he's talked about for a while now is balance and korean pro feedback.
Are these magical new features the new co-op stuff? Like why would this even concern David Kim...
Then goes on a rant about how negative feedback doesn't help their team when there's very little to give positive feedback on... Maybe if he talked about those new features he's got lined up it would help...
How can apparently grown up people employed at a respectable company be such whiny bitches? The last couple of paragraphs are really unbelievably childish. The whole notion of "constructive criticism" is just bullshit speak for "no, no, no, you aren't gonna say mean things about me or my mom will show you". If you can't handle people not treating you like a princess, get a job cutting trees in remote forests, not making stuff to be directly sold to real human customers.
On January 31 2016 23:30 opisska wrote: How can apparently grown up people employed at a respectable company be such whiny bitches? The last couple of paragraphs are really unbelievably childish. The whole notion of "constructive criticism" is just bullshit speak for "no, no, no, you aren't gonna say mean things about me or my mom will show you". If you can't handle people not treating you like a princess, get a job cutting trees in remote forests, not making stuff to be directly sold to real human customers.
And do you think you're behaving well? If they were your colleagues, are these the words you would write in your e-mail to them? You have more freedom to behave how you want when posting on this forum than they have at their jobs and yet you display even worse behavior than them.
On January 31 2016 23:30 opisska wrote: How can apparently grown up people employed at a respectable company be such whiny bitches? The last couple of paragraphs are really unbelievably childish. The whole notion of "constructive criticism" is just bullshit speak for "no, no, no, you aren't gonna say mean things about me or my mom will show you". If you can't handle people not treating you like a princess, get a job cutting trees in remote forests, not making stuff to be directly sold to real human customers.
And do you think you're behaving well? If they were your colleagues, are these the words you would write in your e-mail to them? You have more freedom to behave how you want when posting on this forum than they have at their jobs and yet you display even worse behavior than them.
First of all, the big difference is that I am not paid for it. Second, yes, if my colleagues acted like that, I would have told them that they are being stupid. If someone tells me they only wanted to hear "constructive criticism" or something along those lines, I don't give such people any feedback at all, because it's a waste of time working with this mentality. If I am working on something and I ask you for on opinion, I want to hear the absolutely hardest and most honest possible opinion that you have. I am not saying that I am going to ditch everything because one person tells me it's stupid, but I sure as hell want to know what negative things people think and why, because that's the most efficient way to improve. Patting each other on the back is not gonna make anything better.
I don't get how people get confused about this "constructive criticism" thing. It's not that DK asks for people just to agree with all of their decisions. Wtf
On February 01 2016 00:00 Penev wrote: I don't get how people get confused about this "constructive criticism" thing. It's not that DK asks for people just to agree with all of their decisions. Wtf
Because it's commonly used as a free pass to choose which kind of feedback you like and which you don't. Also, you might be surprised, but there are still people (and I know at least some besides me) who care about contents more than about form when it comes to communication.
On February 01 2016 00:00 Penev wrote: I don't get how people get confused about this "constructive criticism" thing. It's not that DK asks for people just to agree with all of their decisions. Wtf
Honestly, the community response have been REALLY reasonable.
There are only maybe 4% of the posts shitting on the devs/DK with one liner which they should learn to avoid reading anyways.
There have been PLENTY of posts with well thought out arguments like Depth of Micro out there.
But DK and team instead choose to avoid those posts and focus on the minority ones.
At this point, they are just making excuses to keep the community happy because they know that they got the money already.
On February 01 2016 00:00 Penev wrote: I don't get how people get confused about this "constructive criticism" thing. It's not that DK asks for people just to agree with all of their decisions. Wtf
Because it's commonly used as a free pass to choose which kind of feedback you like and which you don't. Also, you might be surprised, but there are still people (and I know at least some besides me) who care about contents more than about form when it comes to communication.
On January 31 2016 23:30 opisska wrote: How can apparently grown up people employed at a respectable company be such whiny bitches? The last couple of paragraphs are really unbelievably childish. The whole notion of "constructive criticism" is just bullshit speak for "no, no, no, you aren't gonna say mean things about me or my mom will show you". If you can't handle people not treating you like a princess, get a job cutting trees in remote forests, not making stuff to be directly sold to real human customers.
And do you think you're behaving well? If they were your colleagues, are these the words you would write in your e-mail to them? You have more freedom to behave how you want when posting on this forum than they have at their jobs and yet you display even worse behavior than them.
First of all, the big difference is that I am not paid for it. Second, yes, if my colleagues acted like that, I would have told them that they are being stupid. If someone tells me they only wanted to hear "constructive criticism" or something along those lines, I don't give such people any feedback at all, because it's a waste of time working with this mentality. If I am working on something and I ask you for on opinion, I want to hear the absolutely hardest and most honest possible opinion that you have. I am not saying that I am going to ditch everything because one person tells me it's stupid, but I sure as hell want to know what negative things people think and why, because that's the most efficient way to improve. Patting each other on the back is not gonna make anything better.
You are unable to behave well unless someone is paying you? And I'm supposed to continue to take you seriously when I know you're not being paid to talk to me?
I don't understand how you think that, having read David Kim's post, that the most productive thing you can do is call them whiny bitches. Maybe you don't understand what constructive criticism is. There's nothing dishonest about constructive criticism and it can contain feedback that is hard to hear. It doesn't make any sense to contrast constructive criticism with a "hard and honest opinion". They aren't exclusive. The whole idea behind wanting only constructive criticism is to filter out the negative comments that can't help you improve. I don't know how you can claim that reading ALL of the negative feedback is the most "efficient way to improve". Really blows my mind. Do you have any idea how useless a ton of the feedback is? People write feedback without even knowing the facts. They lose a ladder game and then go rage at the developers. Reading all that irrational abuse is the most efficient way to improve? Insane. Whatever topic you're most educated on, go find a forum of a bunch of amateur practitioners and see how much you learn from them and how much you want to pull your hair out.
I don't think discussing the finer points of the phrase "constructive criticism" is contributing to the situation. We should be formulating what the community mostly agrees is the source of the current backlash and communicating it to the devs as clearly as possible so that people can enjoy the game.
We have to take in to account that since WOL there have been a huge number of posts and threads and blogs and what have you that went very deep in to feedback and constructive criticism for the better of the game. The vast majority of time they have been ignored and the devs always showed an attitude of we know better.
It seams that with LOTV things are different, but you can't really blame the community for being salty and often times still feeling ignored. How many times have people asked for bloody mech to be given a chance? How many people have now given clear feedback that tankvacs make TvT worse then before?
I feel jaded with SC2 in all honesty, even though i feel that things did improve and hope that they will continue to do so.
On January 31 2016 23:30 opisska wrote: How can apparently grown up people employed at a respectable company be such whiny bitches? The last couple of paragraphs are really unbelievably childish. The whole notion of "constructive criticism" is just bullshit speak for "no, no, no, you aren't gonna say mean things about me or my mom will show you". If you can't handle people not treating you like a princess, get a job cutting trees in remote forests, not making stuff to be directly sold to real human customers.
And do you think you're behaving well? If they were your colleagues, are these the words you would write in your e-mail to them? You have more freedom to behave how you want when posting on this forum than they have at their jobs and yet you display even worse behavior than them.
First of all, the big difference is that I am not paid for it. Second, yes, if my colleagues acted like that, I would have told them that they are being stupid. If someone tells me they only wanted to hear "constructive criticism" or something along those lines, I don't give such people any feedback at all, because it's a waste of time working with this mentality. If I am working on something and I ask you for on opinion, I want to hear the absolutely hardest and most honest possible opinion that you have. I am not saying that I am going to ditch everything because one person tells me it's stupid, but I sure as hell want to know what negative things people think and why, because that's the most efficient way to improve. Patting each other on the back is not gonna make anything better.
I don't understand how you think that, having read David Kim's post, that the most productive thing you can do is call them whiny bitches. Maybe you don't understand what constructive criticism is. There's nothing dishonest about constructive criticism and it can contain feedback that is hard to hear. It doesn't make any sense to contrast constructive criticism with a "hard and honest opinion". They aren't exclusive. The whole idea behind wanting only constructive criticism is to filter out the negative comments that can't help you improve. I don't know how you can claim that reading ALL of the negative feedback is the most "efficient way to improve". Really blows my mind. Do you have any idea how useless a ton of the feedback is? People write feedback without even knowing the facts. They lose a ladder game and then go rage at the developers. Reading all that irrational abuse is the most efficient way to improve? Insane. Whatever topic you're most educated on, go find a forum of a bunch of amateur practitioners and see how much you learn from them and how much you want to pull your hair out.
If you're worth your salt as a designer, all sorts of feedback helps you improve. Not just the carefully worded constructive criticism, but literally all of it. Feedback isn't only about facts and opinions. You need to care about how people feel about your product, and when they vent their frustrations, you had better listen. If you can't handle the negative emotions, and if you can't transform those reactions into improvements, then you're not doing your job.
When people write angry rants on Team Liquid about how you're failing to do your job, you don't dismiss it. You take it to heart. Why aren't they being civil and polite? Perhaps it has to do with a history of you failing to fulfill their expectations, of making promises that you aren't keeping. Perhaps they feel that previous, super constructive criticism has been neglected and it's all ultimately fruitless. I don't know. But David Kim really needs to figure it out, and fast.
Why do they write walls of text instead of just forgetting about the game altogether? Clearly, they care a lot - too much to just shrug their shoulders and walk away. And that's sort of an opportunity. But it also means you're right where you're about to lose some people for good. Angry people don't want to get told to wait half a year and maybe things get better. Angry people sure don't like to be told to shut up, that their voices aren't contributing to the discussion.
Yes, negative response hurts. And the reason it hurts is because of how it reflects on your own performance. People didn't just decide to be angry and dissatisfied because they like it that way. And as a human being, when you fail to live up to your own expectations, you might need to talk it out with your wife or mother or friend or what not. But you absolutely don't blame your customers for not being as excited about your product as you want them to be.
You don't ask your customers to take responsibility for your own emotions. That's your responsibility. You don't try to make your customers responsible for your team's morale. That's your responsibility. And if they aren't satisfied with your product, you don't tell them to try harder to enjoy it. That's your responsibility, and failing to live up to that responsibility is to sole reason for all of these other problems.
On January 31 2016 23:30 opisska wrote: How can apparently grown up people employed at a respectable company be such whiny bitches? The last couple of paragraphs are really unbelievably childish. The whole notion of "constructive criticism" is just bullshit speak for "no, no, no, you aren't gonna say mean things about me or my mom will show you". If you can't handle people not treating you like a princess, get a job cutting trees in remote forests, not making stuff to be directly sold to real human customers.
And do you think you're behaving well? If they were your colleagues, are these the words you would write in your e-mail to them? You have more freedom to behave how you want when posting on this forum than they have at their jobs and yet you display even worse behavior than them.
First of all, the big difference is that I am not paid for it. Second, yes, if my colleagues acted like that, I would have told them that they are being stupid. If someone tells me they only wanted to hear "constructive criticism" or something along those lines, I don't give such people any feedback at all, because it's a waste of time working with this mentality. If I am working on something and I ask you for on opinion, I want to hear the absolutely hardest and most honest possible opinion that you have. I am not saying that I am going to ditch everything because one person tells me it's stupid, but I sure as hell want to know what negative things people think and why, because that's the most efficient way to improve. Patting each other on the back is not gonna make anything better.
I don't understand how you think that, having read David Kim's post, that the most productive thing you can do is call them whiny bitches. Maybe you don't understand what constructive criticism is. There's nothing dishonest about constructive criticism and it can contain feedback that is hard to hear. It doesn't make any sense to contrast constructive criticism with a "hard and honest opinion". They aren't exclusive. The whole idea behind wanting only constructive criticism is to filter out the negative comments that can't help you improve. I don't know how you can claim that reading ALL of the negative feedback is the most "efficient way to improve". Really blows my mind. Do you have any idea how useless a ton of the feedback is? People write feedback without even knowing the facts. They lose a ladder game and then go rage at the developers. Reading all that irrational abuse is the most efficient way to improve? Insane. Whatever topic you're most educated on, go find a forum of a bunch of amateur practitioners and see how much you learn from them and how much you want to pull your hair out.
If you're worth your salt as a designer, all sorts of feedback helps you improve. Not just the carefully worded constructive criticism, but literally all of it. Feedback isn't only about facts and opinions. You need to care about how people feel about your product, and when they vent their frustrations, you had better listen. If you can't handle the negative emotions, and if you can't transform those reactions into improvements, then you're not doing your job.
When people write angry rants on Team Liquid about how you're failing to do your job, you don't dismiss it. You take it to heart. Why aren't they being civil and polite? Perhaps it has to do with a history of you failing to fulfill their expectations, of making promises that you aren't keeping. Perhaps they feel that previous, super constructive criticism has been neglected and it's all ultimately fruitless. I don't know. But David Kim really needs to figure it out, and fast.
Why do they write walls of text instead of just forgetting about the game altogether? Clearly, they care a lot - too much to just shrug their shoulders and walk away. And that's sort of an opportunity. But it also means you're right where you're about to lose some people for good. Angry people don't want to get told to wait half a year and maybe things get better. Angry people sure don't like to be told to shut up, that their voices aren't contributing to the discussion.
Yes, negative response hurts. And the reason it hurts is because of how it reflects on your own performance. People didn't just decide to be angry and dissatisfied because they like it that way. And as a human being, when you fail to live up to your own expectations, you might need to talk it out with your wife or mother or friend or what not. But you absolutely don't blame your customers for not being as excited about your product as you want them to be.
You don't ask your customers to take responsibility for your own emotions. That's your responsibility. You don't try to make your customers responsible for your team's morale. That's your responsibility. And if they aren't satisfied with your product, you don't tell them to try harder to enjoy it. That's your responsibility, and failing to live up to that responsibility is to sole reason for all of these other problems.
if you still have doubts blizzard is wholefully ignoring the community, and you want a good laugh read this article and imagine the protagonist is david kim
On January 31 2016 23:30 opisska wrote: How can apparently grown up people employed at a respectable company be such whiny bitches? The last couple of paragraphs are really unbelievably childish. The whole notion of "constructive criticism" is just bullshit speak for "no, no, no, you aren't gonna say mean things about me or my mom will show you". If you can't handle people not treating you like a princess, get a job cutting trees in remote forests, not making stuff to be directly sold to real human customers.
And do you think you're behaving well? If they were your colleagues, are these the words you would write in your e-mail to them? You have more freedom to behave how you want when posting on this forum than they have at their jobs and yet you display even worse behavior than them.
First of all, the big difference is that I am not paid for it. Second, yes, if my colleagues acted like that, I would have told them that they are being stupid. If someone tells me they only wanted to hear "constructive criticism" or something along those lines, I don't give such people any feedback at all, because it's a waste of time working with this mentality. If I am working on something and I ask you for on opinion, I want to hear the absolutely hardest and most honest possible opinion that you have. I am not saying that I am going to ditch everything because one person tells me it's stupid, but I sure as hell want to know what negative things people think and why, because that's the most efficient way to improve. Patting each other on the back is not gonna make anything better.
I don't understand how you think that, having read David Kim's post, that the most productive thing you can do is call them whiny bitches. Maybe you don't understand what constructive criticism is. There's nothing dishonest about constructive criticism and it can contain feedback that is hard to hear. It doesn't make any sense to contrast constructive criticism with a "hard and honest opinion". They aren't exclusive. The whole idea behind wanting only constructive criticism is to filter out the negative comments that can't help you improve. I don't know how you can claim that reading ALL of the negative feedback is the most "efficient way to improve". Really blows my mind. Do you have any idea how useless a ton of the feedback is? People write feedback without even knowing the facts. They lose a ladder game and then go rage at the developers. Reading all that irrational abuse is the most efficient way to improve? Insane. Whatever topic you're most educated on, go find a forum of a bunch of amateur practitioners and see how much you learn from them and how much you want to pull your hair out.
If you're worth your salt as a designer, all sorts of feedback helps you improve. Not just the carefully worded constructive criticism, but literally all of it. Feedback isn't only about facts and opinions. You need to care about how people feel about your product, and when they vent their frustrations, you had better listen. If you can't handle the negative emotions, and if you can't transform those reactions into improvements, then you're not doing your job.
When people write angry rants on Team Liquid about how you're failing to do your job, you don't dismiss it. You take it to heart. Why aren't they being civil and polite? Perhaps it has to do with a history of you failing to fulfill their expectations, of making promises that you aren't keeping. Perhaps they feel that previous, super constructive criticism has been neglected and it's all ultimately fruitless. I don't know. But David Kim really needs to figure it out, and fast.
Why do they write walls of text instead of just forgetting about the game altogether? Clearly, they care a lot - too much to just shrug their shoulders and walk away. And that's sort of an opportunity. But it also means you're right where you're about to lose some people for good. Angry people don't want to get told to wait half a year and maybe things get better. Angry people sure don't like to be told to shut up, that their voices aren't contributing to the discussion.
Yes, negative response hurts. And the reason it hurts is because of how it reflects on your own performance. People didn't just decide to be angry and dissatisfied because they like it that way. And as a human being, when you fail to live up to your own expectations, you might need to talk it out with your wife or mother or friend or what not. But you absolutely don't blame your customers for not being as excited about your product as you want them to be.
You don't ask your customers to take responsibility for your own emotions. That's your responsibility. You don't try to make your customers responsible for your team's morale. That's your responsibility. And if they aren't satisfied with your product, you don't tell them to try harder to enjoy it. That's your responsibility, and failing to live up to that responsibility is to sole reason for all of these other problems.
Can blizzard go back to using the good community made maps for ladder? Because some of these map decisions are really questionable. Unique features are good, except for when they're game breaking.
On February 01 2016 02:58 Jaaaaasper wrote: Can blizzard go back to using the good community made maps for ladder? Because some of these map decisions are really questionable. Unique features are good, except for when they're game breaking.
They also ask for creative maps but impose so many limits, it has to be creative in their specific ways
On January 31 2016 23:30 opisska wrote: How can apparently grown up people employed at a respectable company be such whiny bitches? The last couple of paragraphs are really unbelievably childish. The whole notion of "constructive criticism" is just bullshit speak for "no, no, no, you aren't gonna say mean things about me or my mom will show you". If you can't handle people not treating you like a princess, get a job cutting trees in remote forests, not making stuff to be directly sold to real human customers.
And do you think you're behaving well? If they were your colleagues, are these the words you would write in your e-mail to them? You have more freedom to behave how you want when posting on this forum than they have at their jobs and yet you display even worse behavior than them.
First of all, the big difference is that I am not paid for it. Second, yes, if my colleagues acted like that, I would have told them that they are being stupid. If someone tells me they only wanted to hear "constructive criticism" or something along those lines, I don't give such people any feedback at all, because it's a waste of time working with this mentality. If I am working on something and I ask you for on opinion, I want to hear the absolutely hardest and most honest possible opinion that you have. I am not saying that I am going to ditch everything because one person tells me it's stupid, but I sure as hell want to know what negative things people think and why, because that's the most efficient way to improve. Patting each other on the back is not gonna make anything better.
You are unable to behave well unless someone is paying you? And I'm supposed to continue to take you seriously when I know you're not being paid to talk to me?
I don't understand how you think that, having read David Kim's post, that the most productive thing you can do is call them whiny bitches. Maybe you don't understand what constructive criticism is. There's nothing dishonest about constructive criticism and it can contain feedback that is hard to hear. It doesn't make any sense to contrast constructive criticism with a "hard and honest opinion". They aren't exclusive. The whole idea behind wanting only constructive criticism is to filter out the negative comments that can't help you improve. I don't know how you can claim that reading ALL of the negative feedback is the most "efficient way to improve". Really blows my mind. Do you have any idea how useless a ton of the feedback is? People write feedback without even knowing the facts. They lose a ladder game and then go rage at the developers. Reading all that irrational abuse is the most efficient way to improve? Insane. Whatever topic you're most educated on, go find a forum of a bunch of amateur practitioners and see how much you learn from them and how much you want to pull your hair out.
The problem isn't that they're disregarding feedback born of frustration, but because they're ignoring the reasons that have produced all the frustration.
On January 31 2016 23:30 opisska wrote: How can apparently grown up people employed at a respectable company be such whiny bitches? The last couple of paragraphs are really unbelievably childish. The whole notion of "constructive criticism" is just bullshit speak for "no, no, no, you aren't gonna say mean things about me or my mom will show you". If you can't handle people not treating you like a princess, get a job cutting trees in remote forests, not making stuff to be directly sold to real human customers.
And do you think you're behaving well? If they were your colleagues, are these the words you would write in your e-mail to them? You have more freedom to behave how you want when posting on this forum than they have at their jobs and yet you display even worse behavior than them.
First of all, the big difference is that I am not paid for it. Second, yes, if my colleagues acted like that, I would have told them that they are being stupid. If someone tells me they only wanted to hear "constructive criticism" or something along those lines, I don't give such people any feedback at all, because it's a waste of time working with this mentality. If I am working on something and I ask you for on opinion, I want to hear the absolutely hardest and most honest possible opinion that you have. I am not saying that I am going to ditch everything because one person tells me it's stupid, but I sure as hell want to know what negative things people think and why, because that's the most efficient way to improve. Patting each other on the back is not gonna make anything better.
I don't understand how you think that, having read David Kim's post, that the most productive thing you can do is call them whiny bitches. Maybe you don't understand what constructive criticism is. There's nothing dishonest about constructive criticism and it can contain feedback that is hard to hear. It doesn't make any sense to contrast constructive criticism with a "hard and honest opinion". They aren't exclusive. The whole idea behind wanting only constructive criticism is to filter out the negative comments that can't help you improve. I don't know how you can claim that reading ALL of the negative feedback is the most "efficient way to improve". Really blows my mind. Do you have any idea how useless a ton of the feedback is? People write feedback without even knowing the facts. They lose a ladder game and then go rage at the developers. Reading all that irrational abuse is the most efficient way to improve? Insane. Whatever topic you're most educated on, go find a forum of a bunch of amateur practitioners and see how much you learn from them and how much you want to pull your hair out.
If you're worth your salt as a designer, all sorts of feedback helps you improve. Not just the carefully worded constructive criticism, but literally all of it. Feedback isn't only about facts and opinions. You need to care about how people feel about your product, and when they vent their frustrations, you had better listen. If you can't handle the negative emotions, and if you can't transform those reactions into improvements, then you're not doing your job.
When people write angry rants on Team Liquid about how you're failing to do your job, you don't dismiss it. You take it to heart. Why aren't they being civil and polite? Perhaps it has to do with a history of you failing to fulfill their expectations, of making promises that you aren't keeping. Perhaps they feel that previous, super constructive criticism has been neglected and it's all ultimately fruitless. I don't know. But David Kim really needs to figure it out, and fast.
Why do they write walls of text instead of just forgetting about the game altogether? Clearly, they care a lot - too much to just shrug their shoulders and walk away. And that's sort of an opportunity. But it also means you're right where you're about to lose some people for good. Angry people don't want to get told to wait half a year and maybe things get better. Angry people sure don't like to be told to shut up, that their voices aren't contributing to the discussion.
Yes, negative response hurts. And the reason it hurts is because of how it reflects on your own performance. People didn't just decide to be angry and dissatisfied because they like it that way. And as a human being, when you fail to live up to your own expectations, you might need to talk it out with your wife or mother or friend or what not. But you absolutely don't blame your customers for not being as excited about your product as you want them to be.
You don't ask your customers to take responsibility for your own emotions. That's your responsibility. You don't try to make your customers responsible for your team's morale. That's your responsibility. And if they aren't satisfied with your product, you don't tell them to try harder to enjoy it. That's your responsibility, and failing to live up to that responsibility is to sole reason for all of these other problems.
Very well written. Couldn't agree more.
While Nony is always appreciated, rhetoric to squelch the dissenting views reads more like a Blizzard employee. I have to wonder how much Nony has actually played LotV to believe that Blizzard is doing its fair share of improvements.
Feedback from frustration is never good because it is either subjective and/or does not build on careful observations. I would never take feedback directly from an angered person because they cannot think straight. I can take away an interpretation of that feedback, but the validity is questionable.
It is actually really disappointing to visit TL these days since I literally cannot open a thread to a topic I'm interested in without getting negative emotions all over the place which ironically are making me feel bad about the game. Call it "ignoring the facts" or something else, I am, as a lowly diamond terran, really happy with the changes of LotV (even while its not perfect) and I am really better off with enjoying watching streams and playing the game without a huge chunk of this community currently.
On February 01 2016 03:24 Liox wrote: Feedback from frustration is never good because it is either subjective and/or does not build on careful observations. I would never take feedback directly from an angered person because they cannot think straight. I can take away an interpretation of that feedback, but the validity is questionable.
Feedback from 1 frustrated player? No that should be ignored. But when a huge part of the community is venting their frustration there has to be a reason for it and you should better listen
LOL I've never seen anyone or any company complain about negative feedback. I cant believe that anyone would even try to defend david kim or the SC2 design team.
I dont understand how anyone can say that they have done a good job with LotV. They straight up havent. I've played RTS games for over 15years now and I've never seen a game in such bad shape balance wise. David Kim always talks about "new interesting strategies" like hes trying to fool someone. Majority of these "new and interesting strategies" are just all ins or over the top cheese builds which isnt fun at all. You're 3minutes into a game dealing with an unstoppable zerg death ball at ur front door, or you got liberators flying around base to base most of the time doing nothing. And if its not this you're dealing with a protoss who will hide behind photon overcharge until theyre maxed out. Why is PO even a thing?? Protoss used to win a lot of games back in WoL when there wasnt even a nexus cannon.
The truth is 90% of games look the same with different players all doing the same builds over and over.
Oh ya how did they do a balance patch and not do a single thing about the ravager?? Am I the only one that realizes how broken this unit is? Everyone wants to see Terran Mech but its impossible to mech because of the ravager.
So ya. Terrible job so far David Kim and SC2 design team, hopefully you guys wake up and actually put some real work into this game without killing it completely and stop crying about people telling you the truth about how you ruined the game.
On February 01 2016 03:38 Mattitude905 wrote: LOL I've never seen anyone or any company complain about negative feedback. I cant believe that anyone would even try to defend david kim or the SC2 design team.
I dont understand how anyone can say that they have done a good job with LotV. They straight up havent. I've played RTS games for over 15years now and I've never seen a game in such bad shape balance wise. David Kim always talks about "new interesting strategies" like hes trying to fool someone. Majority of these "new and interesting strategies" are just all ins or over the top cheese builds which isnt fun at all. You're 3minutes into a game dealing with an unstoppable zerg death ball at ur front door, or you got liberators flying around base to base most of the time doing nothing. And if its not this you're dealing with a protoss who will hide behind photon overcharge until theyre maxed out. Why is PO even a thing?? Protoss used to win a lot of games back in WoL when there wasnt even a nexus cannon.
The truth is 90% of games look the same with different players all doing the same builds over and over.
Oh ya how did they do a balance patch and not do a single thing about the ravager?? Am I the only one that realizes how broken this unit is? Everyone wants to see Terran Mech but its impossible to mech because of the ravager.
So ya. Terrible job so far David Kim and SC2 design team, hopefully you guys wake up and actually put some real work into this game without killing it completely and stop crying about people telling you the truth about how you ruined the game.
whatever flaws sc2 may have, the bolded statement is just not true. Sc2 is far more balanced than any other RTS out there (with the possible exception of broodwar)
I believe this game drives people insane. I have whined before but here it's like every other post I see is some complaining or whining. Usually the biggest whining is misguided and worthless as feedback also. One of the most toxic gaming communities. I would say learn the game and your feedback will probably improve, usually intelligent people prefer to make a point rather than spaz out... and many of you are just noobs that don't understand the game. Also when you are struggling it is pretty worthless to whine about balance, you should be thinking what can you do to find a solution... again that goes back to being a good player with talent. Maybe TL should be banning players who whine and are below a certain level
It would be nice if people actually read a thread an not just a single post. If they did they would, for instance, notice Nony actually criticized Blizz for the "unconstructive" feedback part.
On February 01 2016 03:38 Mattitude905 wrote: LOL I've never seen anyone or any company complain about negative feedback. I cant believe that anyone would even try to defend david kim or the SC2 design team.
I dont understand how anyone can say that they have done a good job with LotV. They straight up havent. I've played RTS games for over 15years now and I've never seen a game in such bad shape balance wise. David Kim always talks about "new interesting strategies" like hes trying to fool someone. Majority of these "new and interesting strategies" are just all ins or over the top cheese builds which isnt fun at all. You're 3minutes into a game dealing with an unstoppable zerg death ball at ur front door, or you got liberators flying around base to base most of the time doing nothing. And if its not this you're dealing with a protoss who will hide behind photon overcharge until theyre maxed out. Why is PO even a thing?? Protoss used to win a lot of games back in WoL when there wasnt even a nexus cannon.
The truth is 90% of games look the same with different players all doing the same builds over and over.
Oh ya how did they do a balance patch and not do a single thing about the ravager?? Am I the only one that realizes how broken this unit is? Everyone wants to see Terran Mech but its impossible to mech because of the ravager.
So ya. Terrible job so far David Kim and SC2 design team, hopefully you guys wake up and actually put some real work into this game without killing it completely and stop crying about people telling you the truth about how you ruined the game.
whatever flaws sc2 may have, the bolded statement is just not true. Sc2 is far more balanced than any other RTS out there (with the possible exception of broodwar)
Again, more support for a company / design team that literally ignores the community. Theyve ignored the community since WoL beta.
I just dont understand it.
I love when people say "come up with solutions". What for? So a couple people will read it on TL and say "hey thats not a bad idea" We all know blizzard wont read it.
On February 01 2016 03:38 Mattitude905 wrote: LOL I've never seen anyone or any company complain about negative feedback. I cant believe that anyone would even try to defend david kim or the SC2 design team.
I dont understand how anyone can say that they have done a good job with LotV. They straight up havent. I've played RTS games for over 15years now and I've never seen a game in such bad shape balance wise. David Kim always talks about "new interesting strategies" like hes trying to fool someone. Majority of these "new and interesting strategies" are just all ins or over the top cheese builds which isnt fun at all. You're 3minutes into a game dealing with an unstoppable zerg death ball at ur front door, or you got liberators flying around base to base most of the time doing nothing. And if its not this you're dealing with a protoss who will hide behind photon overcharge until theyre maxed out. Why is PO even a thing?? Protoss used to win a lot of games back in WoL when there wasnt even a nexus cannon.
The truth is 90% of games look the same with different players all doing the same builds over and over.
Oh ya how did they do a balance patch and not do a single thing about the ravager?? Am I the only one that realizes how broken this unit is? Everyone wants to see Terran Mech but its impossible to mech because of the ravager.
So ya. Terrible job so far David Kim and SC2 design team, hopefully you guys wake up and actually put some real work into this game without killing it completely and stop crying about people telling you the truth about how you ruined the game.
whatever flaws sc2 may have, the bolded statement is just not true. Sc2 is far more balanced than any other RTS out there (with the possible exception of broodwar)
Are you sure? Bw (partially by fluke of course) has been balanced for a decade with out a patch. That is in part due to community map makes making maps that contribute to balance, while bliz is basically ignoring this huge asset in balacng sc2.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
It's hard to have constructive criticism when they are going to be releasing MORE content that we will have to PAY for, before giving us the features that they told us would be in the game before the game was released.
They never even delivered on the last product, and they want us to pay for more before they deliver? That is a disgusting misuse of resources... Give us what we paid for before making us pay more! We paid for the game 3 times already! There is no way I could defend this.
What content have you payed for that has not been delivered? For real.
Look at the community update this week. It's basically a list of features they claimed were coming BEFORE the game was released. They are giving you a list of what hasnt been delivered themselves.
And now, the update is telling us to not expect them until late summer.
Late summer = AFTER the Nova mission packs start to be released.
So rather than spending their development time on the features they told us were coming before release, they have even more resources dedicated to the Nova packs. And they want us to pay for those packs BEFORE giving us the features.
Why would I support that? Even as a fan of the SC series, I don't know how any of us can claim that isn't messed up.
The game of LotV is not in a very good state now AT ALL. They pulled major changes in the last 4 weeks of beta that have never fully settled. Why, at this point, should more of the team be dedicated to map packs, rather than improving the game of LotV in to a solid final product?
No way in hell they are getting a cent from me until they actually give what was promised. Blizzard of these days is not the Blizzard of old. It's very hard to believe they are going to repair the games issues when they are pulling money-grab tactics. It's a repeat of what happened on D3 release...
Are you really saying it's okay to promise new features before release, then put the development team on to map packs you will charge players for, before completing those earlier features? What makes you believe the future product is going to be what was promised, or it is ever going to be actual completed?
I would not be upset at all if they actual completed features before trying to charge us again. But if you told us those things were going in before LotV was even released, they should not still be under construction after their NEXT post-LotV release is out... It's dishonest marketing tactics, and it is using the money we paid them last time to do a money-grab rather than using the money to complete the features they announced before LotV came out (as part of the LotV package).
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
It's hard to have constructive criticism when they are going to be releasing MORE content that we will have to PAY for, before giving us the features that they told us would be in the game before the game was released.
They never even delivered on the last product, and they want us to pay for more before they deliver? That is a disgusting misuse of resources... Give us what we paid for before making us pay more! We paid for the game 3 times already! There is no way I could defend this.
What content have you payed for that has not been delivered? For real.
Look at the community update this week. It's basically a list of features they claimed were coming BEFORE the game was released. They are giving you a list of what hasnt been delivered themselves.
And now, the update is telling us to not expect them until late summer.
Late summer = AFTER the Nova mission packs start to be released.
So rather than spending their development time on the features they told us were coming before release, they have even more resources dedicated to the Nova packs. And they want us to pay for those packs BEFORE giving us the features.
Why would I support that? Even as a fan of the SC series, I don't know how any of us can claim that isn't messed up.
The game of LotV is not in a very good state now AT ALL. They pulled major changes in the last 4 weeks of beta that have never fully settled. Why, at this point, should more of the team be dedicated to map packs, rather than improving the game of LotV in to a solid final product?
No way in hell they are getting a cent from me until they actually give what was promised. Blizzard of these days is not the Blizzard of old. It's very hard to believe they are going to repair the games issues when they are pulling money-grab tactics. It's a repeat of what happened on D3 release...
Are you really saying it's okay to promise new features before release, then put the development team on to map packs you will charge players for, before completing those earlier features? What makes you believe the future product is going to be what was promised, or it is ever going to be actual completed?
I would not be upset at all if they actual completed features before trying to charge us again. But if you told us those things were going in before LotV was even released, they should not still be under construction after their NEXT post-LotV release is out...
They never promised they would add those features with release they just said they will add them in LotV and they are holding this promise.
How in god's name can the dev team be watching all these forum posts go up about how awful the map pool is, along with professional player feedback that the maps are bad, and not change a single thing?
Not even taking out Central Protocol, which no one plays? Not taking out at least one of the gold bases on Prion? I just really don't get it. At a certain point, whether or not you think it's right, you have to listen to the community when there is an OVERWHELMING majority asking for the maps to be changed if you want people to play your game.
I played 3 games today. Got all in'd 3 times in a row by each race.This is clearly what blizzard wants starcraft to be so why would they go and do an unimaginable thing like put effort into the maps they put out.
On February 01 2016 08:02 Nuclease wrote: How in god's name can the dev team be watching all these forum posts go up about how awful the map pool is, along with professional player feedback that the maps are bad, and not change a single thing?
Not even taking out Central Protocol, which no one plays? Not taking out at least one of the gold bases on Prion? I just really don't get it. At a certain point, whether or not you think it's right, you have to listen to the community when there is an OVERWHELMING majority asking for the maps to be changed if you want people to play your game.
At least make the effort to read :
Central Protocol Really difficult 3rd, and layout of natural/main favoring mobility based compositions. Obviously, we are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map where we definitely want to focus on making some balance tuning passes. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map
They don't want to remove this map, they want to fix it and are open to suggestions. What's wrong with that?
Just point out the map's flaw and explain how to fix them. I mean, do you realise your post is exactly the kind of post that brings nothing to the discussion and make the "community"'s voice impossible to hear?
On February 01 2016 08:02 Nuclease wrote: How in god's name can the dev team be watching all these forum posts go up about how awful the map pool is, along with professional player feedback that the maps are bad, and not change a single thing?
Not even taking out Central Protocol, which no one plays? Not taking out at least one of the gold bases on Prion? I just really don't get it. At a certain point, whether or not you think it's right, you have to listen to the community when there is an OVERWHELMING majority asking for the maps to be changed if you want people to play your game.
Central Protocol Really difficult 3rd, and layout of natural/main favoring mobility based compositions. Obviously, we are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map where we definitely want to focus on making some balance tuning passes. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map
They don't want to remove this map, they want to fix it and are open to suggestions. What's wrong with that?
Just point out the map's flaw and explain how to fix them. I mean, do you realise your post is exactly the kind of post that brings nothing to the discussion and make the "community"'s voice impossible to hear?
it would be easier to just make a new map instead of trying to make central protocol playable.
On February 01 2016 08:02 Nuclease wrote: How in god's name can the dev team be watching all these forum posts go up about how awful the map pool is, along with professional player feedback that the maps are bad, and not change a single thing?
Not even taking out Central Protocol, which no one plays? Not taking out at least one of the gold bases on Prion? I just really don't get it. At a certain point, whether or not you think it's right, you have to listen to the community when there is an OVERWHELMING majority asking for the maps to be changed if you want people to play your game.
Central Protocol Really difficult 3rd, and layout of natural/main favoring mobility based compositions. Obviously, we are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map where we definitely want to focus on making some balance tuning passes. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map
They don't want to remove this map, they want to fix it and are open to suggestions. What's wrong with that?
Just point out the map's flaw and explain how to fix them. I mean, do you realise your post is exactly the kind of post that brings nothing to the discussion and make the "community"'s voice impossible to hear?
How can u possibly support blizzard made maps? When have they EVER made a good map?
Every single map in the pool favors 1 base play, you can throw in all the in base natural expansions you want, people are gonna still 1 base all in when you have so much surface area to keep your eye on.
And here you are telling people "explain to blizzard how to fix them".... when has Blizzard EVER listened to the community regarding maps? Does anyone not have central protocol veto'd ??
On February 01 2016 08:02 Nuclease wrote: How in god's name can the dev team be watching all these forum posts go up about how awful the map pool is, along with professional player feedback that the maps are bad, and not change a single thing?
Not even taking out Central Protocol, which no one plays? Not taking out at least one of the gold bases on Prion? I just really don't get it. At a certain point, whether or not you think it's right, you have to listen to the community when there is an OVERWHELMING majority asking for the maps to be changed if you want people to play your game.
At least make the effort to read :
Central Protocol Really difficult 3rd, and layout of natural/main favoring mobility based compositions. Obviously, we are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map where we definitely want to focus on making some balance tuning passes. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map
They don't want to remove this map, they want to fix it and are open to suggestions. What's wrong with that?
Just point out the map's flaw and explain how to fix them. I mean, do you realise your post is exactly the kind of post that brings nothing to the discussion and make the "community"'s voice impossible to hear?
How can u possibly support blizzard made maps? When have they EVER made a good map?
Every single map in the pool favors 1 base play, you can throw in all the in base natural expansions you want, people are gonna still 1 base all in when you have so much surface area to keep your eye on.
And here you are telling people "explain to blizzard how to fix them".... when has Blizzard EVER listened to the community regarding maps? Does anyone not have central protocol veto'd ??
If you're worth your salt as a designer, all sorts of feedback helps you improve. Not just the carefully worded constructive criticism, but literally all of it. Feedback isn't only about facts and opinions. You need to care about how people feel about your product, and when they vent their frustrations, you had better listen. If you can't handle the negative emotions, and if you can't transform those reactions into improvements, then you're not doing your job.
When people write angry rants on Team Liquid about how you're failing to do your job, you don't dismiss it. You take it to heart. Why aren't they being civil and polite? Perhaps it has to do with a history of you failing to fulfill their expectations, of making promises that you aren't keeping. Perhaps they feel that previous, super constructive criticism has been neglected and it's all ultimately fruitless. I don't know. But David Kim really needs to figure it out, and fast.
Why do they write walls of text instead of just forgetting about the game altogether? Clearly, they care a lot - too much to just shrug their shoulders and walk away. And that's sort of an opportunity. But it also means you're right where you're about to lose some people for good. Angry people don't want to get told to wait half a year and maybe things get better. Angry people sure don't like to be told to shut up, that their voices aren't contributing to the discussion.
Yes, negative response hurts. And the reason it hurts is because of how it reflects on your own performance. People didn't just decide to be angry and dissatisfied because they like it that way. And as a human being, when you fail to live up to your own expectations, you might need to talk it out with your wife or mother or friend or what not. But you absolutely don't blame your customers for not being as excited about your product as you want them to be.
You don't ask your customers to take responsibility for your own emotions. That's your responsibility. You don't try to make your customers responsible for your team's morale. That's your responsibility. And if they aren't satisfied with your product, you don't tell them to try harder to enjoy it. That's your responsibility, and failing to live up to that responsibility is to sole reason for all of these other problems.
If you're worth your salt as a designer, all sorts of feedback helps you improve. Not just the carefully worded constructive criticism, but literally all of it. Feedback isn't only about facts and opinions. You need to care about how people feel about your product, and when they vent their frustrations, you had better listen. If you can't handle the negative emotions, and if you can't transform those reactions into improvements, then you're not doing your job.
When people write angry rants on Team Liquid about how you're failing to do your job, you don't dismiss it. You take it to heart. Why aren't they being civil and polite? Perhaps it has to do with a history of you failing to fulfill their expectations, of making promises that you aren't keeping. Perhaps they feel that previous, super constructive criticism has been neglected and it's all ultimately fruitless. I don't know. But David Kim really needs to figure it out, and fast.
Why do they write walls of text instead of just forgetting about the game altogether? Clearly, they care a lot - too much to just shrug their shoulders and walk away. And that's sort of an opportunity. But it also means you're right where you're about to lose some people for good. Angry people don't want to get told to wait half a year and maybe things get better. Angry people sure don't like to be told to shut up, that their voices aren't contributing to the discussion.
Yes, negative response hurts. And the reason it hurts is because of how it reflects on your own performance. People didn't just decide to be angry and dissatisfied because they like it that way. And as a human being, when you fail to live up to your own expectations, you might need to talk it out with your wife or mother or friend or what not. But you absolutely don't blame your customers for not being as excited about your product as you want them to be.
You don't ask your customers to take responsibility for your own emotions. That's your responsibility. You don't try to make your customers responsible for your team's morale. That's your responsibility. And if they aren't satisfied with your product, you don't tell them to try harder to enjoy it. That's your responsibility, and failing to live up to that responsibility is to sole reason for all of these other problems.
WOW exactly !... hit the nail on the head here
I don't know why you're the one saying this, I was going to say it.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team. The entire development team from Legacy of the Void is continuing to work hard on StarCraft II – we believe we delivered a compelling scope in Legacy of the Void, and we are excited to have the opportunity to add even more content and features in the months ahead.
Although we were disappointed to see so many unconstructive comments this week, we did appreciate that some constructive feedback is still occurring. Given the passion we see exhibited on both sides of the fence, we believe that the future holds great potential. Whether you are a supporter or a critic of our approach, we are grateful to you all for playing and watching StarCraft II!
I'm torn on this. I feel bad for DK and his team for getting so much crap but I also don't agree with quite a few of their decisions..
Let's at least be constructive in our criticism people
It's hard to have constructive criticism when they are going to be releasing MORE content that we will have to PAY for, before giving us the features that they told us would be in the game before the game was released.
They never even delivered on the last product, and they want us to pay for more before they deliver? That is a disgusting misuse of resources... Give us what we paid for before making us pay more! We paid for the game 3 times already! There is no way I could defend this.
What content have you payed for that has not been delivered? For real.
Look at the community update this week. It's basically a list of features they claimed were coming BEFORE the game was released. They are giving you a list of what hasnt been delivered themselves.
And now, the update is telling us to not expect them until late summer.
Late summer = AFTER the Nova mission packs start to be released.
So rather than spending their development time on the features they told us were coming before release, they have even more resources dedicated to the Nova packs. And they want us to pay for those packs BEFORE giving us the features.
Why would I support that? Even as a fan of the SC series, I don't know how any of us can claim that isn't messed up.
The game of LotV is not in a very good state now AT ALL. They pulled major changes in the last 4 weeks of beta that have never fully settled. Why, at this point, should more of the team be dedicated to map packs, rather than improving the game of LotV in to a solid final product?
No way in hell they are getting a cent from me until they actually give what was promised. Blizzard of these days is not the Blizzard of old. It's very hard to believe they are going to repair the games issues when they are pulling money-grab tactics. It's a repeat of what happened on D3 release...
Are you really saying it's okay to promise new features before release, then put the development team on to map packs you will charge players for, before completing those earlier features? What makes you believe the future product is going to be what was promised, or it is ever going to be actual completed?
I would not be upset at all if they actual completed features before trying to charge us again. But if you told us those things were going in before LotV was even released, they should not still be under construction after their NEXT post-LotV release is out...
They never promised they would add those features with release they just said they will add them in LotV and they are holding this promise.
I never said they promised it for release. I said it's messed up that they want more money from us (paying for ANOTHER product) before they fulfill the promises of this product.
Selling us another product for the same game before fulfilling the promise they made before release... you are okay with that? Do you actually feel that your money was well spent, and that they did an admirable way of planning this content release? Will you be giving them more money and supporting their business practices?
They are not getting more money out of me until LotV is in a respectable state. Hell, only reason I have LotV is because I was happy with the direction in beta so I preordered through blizzard store, then the direction of the game was drastically different upon release. I wouldn't have paid for this... especially not full price.
You're assuming that its the same people who are making the mission packs are the same people who are engineering the features.
When a company promises or advertise a new feature for their game, they don't hold off everything until that feature is delivered. They promised those features post-release. That has nothing to do the mission packs,
Guess what? Features are a lot harder to implement than maps. They're not going to sit on the map packs forever until some other team pushes the feature.
On February 01 2016 11:10 lestye wrote: You're assuming that its the same people who are making the mission packs are the same people who are engineering the features.
When a company promises or advertise a new feature for their game, they don't hold off everything until that feature is delivered. They promised those features post-release. That has nothing to do the mission packs,
Guess what? Features are a lot harder to implement than maps. They're not going to sit on the map packs forever until some other team pushes the feature.
I know how development teams work. Been a developer my whole life.
If you think they seriously have a completely different team working on the map packs & all the LotV updates, your dreaming...
Sure, some aspects of the team can be used mainly for mission packs. Mainly the ones who develop the media - Artists primarily.
What about the shared assets? What about the coders that are spending time coding features for the map packs? The testers? the QA team? The balancing team? The actual design team?
How about we mention some of the ones very specific to what they talked about in this update: How about the map design team?? They mention new maps for ladder as well as new coop mode maps. But where are the map designers working right now...? You guessed it, the Nova packs.
Now that I think about it, media (skins and voice packs) were part of the community update as well. They even said the skins and voice packs will be waiting until after the mission packs!! Where do you think the voice actors and artists are deployed right now? The mission pack... Even though the skin and voice packs could easily be released for LotV.
From all this, you can figure out that the only team that POTENTIALLY isn't busy working on the map pack, is the team that works on the back end. And even some of those may be devoted to the map pack, for who knows what features.
Fact of the matter is, we have only had one tiny patch in months, which would take minutes to create in the editor. Their developers are NOT actively working on LotV. The only changes they have a potential reason to take this long for is the back end. The rest of it used teams that are allocated to specific areas, and right now those designers - like the map designers, programmers, QA team, balancing team, and sound design/voice actors.... Are all allocated to be working on the map pack. Not the features they announced in this community update that are going to be held off until after the map packs.
And this is kind of irrelevant to what I was saying anyway. Just pointing out that it's obvious where the resources are allocated right now. Rather than defending them, how about answering all those questions in the 2nd paragraph of my last post? Do you agree with their practices and are you going to give them more money before they deliver things they said would be coming to LotV?
I rather wait to see if they actually deliver. They showed us a different product in beta and did not deliver that product. And in their other game releases, they have been known to make promises before release and never follow through.
I'm shocked anyone is defending them at all, tbh. They have done very little to ensure their customers happiness over the years.The population of the game proves that more than anything.
On February 01 2016 11:10 lestye wrote: You're assuming that its the same people who are making the mission packs are the same people who are engineering the features.
When a company promises or advertise a new feature for their game, they don't hold off everything until that feature is delivered. They promised those features post-release. That has nothing to do the mission packs,
Guess what? Features are a lot harder to implement than maps. They're not going to sit on the map packs forever until some other team pushes the feature.
I know how development teams work. Been a developer my whole life.
If you think they seriously have a completely different team working on the map packs & all the LotV updates, your dreaming...
Sure, some aspects of the team can be used mainly for mission packs. Mainly the ones who develop the media - Artists primarily.
What about the shared assets? What about the coders that are spending time coding features for the map packs? The testers? the QA team? The balancing team? The actual design team?
How about we mention some of the ones very specific to what they talked about in this update: How about the map design team?? They mention new maps for ladder as well as new coop mode maps. But where are the map designers working right now...? You guessed it, the Nova packs.
Now that I think about it, media (skins and voice packs) were part of the community update as well. They even said the skins and voice packs will be waiting until after the mission packs!! Where do you think the voice actors and artists are deployed right now? The mission pack... Even though the skin and voice packs could easily be released for LotV.
From all this, you can figure out that the only team that POTENTIALLY isn't busy working on the map pack, is the team that works on the back end. And even some of those may be devoted to the map pack, for who knows what features.
Fact of the matter is, we have only had one tiny patch in months, which would take minutes to create in the editor. Their developers are NOT actively working on LotV. The only changes they have a potential reason to take this long for is the back end. The rest of it used teams that are allocated to specific areas, and right now those designers - like the map designers, programmers, QA team, balancing team, and sound design/voice actors.... Are all allocated to be working on the map pack. Not the features they announced in this community update that are going to be held off until after the map packs.
And this is kind of irrelevant to what I was saying anyway. Just pointing out that it's obvious where the resources are allocated right now. Rather than defending them, how about answering all those questions in the 2nd paragraph of my last post? Do you agree with their practices and are you going to give them more money before they deliver things they said would be coming to LotV?
I rather wait to see if they actually deliver. They showed us a different product in beta and did not deliver that product. And in their other game releases, they have been known to make promises before release and never follow through.
I'm shocked anyone is defending them at all, tbh. They have done very little to ensure their customers happiness over the years.The population of the game proves that more than anything.
Spyridon im a huge lurker but i have seen alot of your posts over the years and i always agree with what you have to say ... +1 from me... :-)
On February 01 2016 08:02 Nuclease wrote: How in god's name can the dev team be watching all these forum posts go up about how awful the map pool is, along with professional player feedback that the maps are bad, and not change a single thing?
Not even taking out Central Protocol, which no one plays? Not taking out at least one of the gold bases on Prion? I just really don't get it. At a certain point, whether or not you think it's right, you have to listen to the community when there is an OVERWHELMING majority asking for the maps to be changed if you want people to play your game.
At least make the effort to read :
Central Protocol Really difficult 3rd, and layout of natural/main favoring mobility based compositions. Obviously, we are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map where we definitely want to focus on making some balance tuning passes. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map
They don't want to remove this map, they want to fix it and are open to suggestions. What's wrong with that?
Just point out the map's flaw and explain how to fix them. I mean, do you realise your post is exactly the kind of post that brings nothing to the discussion and make the "community"'s voice impossible to hear?
How can u possibly support blizzard made maps? When have they EVER made a good map?
Every single map in the pool favors 1 base play, you can throw in all the in base natural expansions you want, people are gonna still 1 base all in when you have so much surface area to keep your eye on.
And here you are telling people "explain to blizzard how to fix them".... when has Blizzard EVER listened to the community regarding maps? Does anyone not have central protocol veto'd ??
You obviously never played the game or you are in bronze or something. 1-base play is sooooo rare. Fast expand is by far the most common build no matter the race.
This whole discussion is so dumb and depressing. Luckily it's a really small minority of the people who play the game who spend their time here whining, hating and puking out their ego with pointless ranting.
Bye. See you on ladder and bring a better attitude. gl hf.
On January 31 2016 23:30 opisska wrote: How can apparently grown up people employed at a respectable company be such whiny bitches? The last couple of paragraphs are really unbelievably childish. The whole notion of "constructive criticism" is just bullshit speak for "no, no, no, you aren't gonna say mean things about me or my mom will show you". If you can't handle people not treating you like a princess, get a job cutting trees in remote forests, not making stuff to be directly sold to real human customers.
And do you think you're behaving well? If they were your colleagues, are these the words you would write in your e-mail to them? You have more freedom to behave how you want when posting on this forum than they have at their jobs and yet you display even worse behavior than them.
First of all, the big difference is that I am not paid for it. Second, yes, if my colleagues acted like that, I would have told them that they are being stupid. If someone tells me they only wanted to hear "constructive criticism" or something along those lines, I don't give such people any feedback at all, because it's a waste of time working with this mentality. If I am working on something and I ask you for on opinion, I want to hear the absolutely hardest and most honest possible opinion that you have. I am not saying that I am going to ditch everything because one person tells me it's stupid, but I sure as hell want to know what negative things people think and why, because that's the most efficient way to improve. Patting each other on the back is not gonna make anything better.
I don't understand how you think that, having read David Kim's post, that the most productive thing you can do is call them whiny bitches. Maybe you don't understand what constructive criticism is. There's nothing dishonest about constructive criticism and it can contain feedback that is hard to hear. It doesn't make any sense to contrast constructive criticism with a "hard and honest opinion". They aren't exclusive. The whole idea behind wanting only constructive criticism is to filter out the negative comments that can't help you improve. I don't know how you can claim that reading ALL of the negative feedback is the most "efficient way to improve". Really blows my mind. Do you have any idea how useless a ton of the feedback is? People write feedback without even knowing the facts. They lose a ladder game and then go rage at the developers. Reading all that irrational abuse is the most efficient way to improve? Insane. Whatever topic you're most educated on, go find a forum of a bunch of amateur practitioners and see how much you learn from them and how much you want to pull your hair out.
If you're worth your salt as a designer, all sorts of feedback helps you improve. Not just the carefully worded constructive criticism, but literally all of it. Feedback isn't only about facts and opinions. You need to care about how people feel about your product, and when they vent their frustrations, you had better listen. If you can't handle the negative emotions, and if you can't transform those reactions into improvements, then you're not doing your job.
When people write angry rants on Team Liquid about how you're failing to do your job, you don't dismiss it. You take it to heart. Why aren't they being civil and polite? Perhaps it has to do with a history of you failing to fulfill their expectations, of making promises that you aren't keeping. Perhaps they feel that previous, super constructive criticism has been neglected and it's all ultimately fruitless. I don't know. But David Kim really needs to figure it out, and fast.
Why do they write walls of text instead of just forgetting about the game altogether? Clearly, they care a lot - too much to just shrug their shoulders and walk away. And that's sort of an opportunity. But it also means you're right where you're about to lose some people for good. Angry people don't want to get told to wait half a year and maybe things get better. Angry people sure don't like to be told to shut up, that their voices aren't contributing to the discussion.
Yes, negative response hurts. And the reason it hurts is because of how it reflects on your own performance. People didn't just decide to be angry and dissatisfied because they like it that way. And as a human being, when you fail to live up to your own expectations, you might need to talk it out with your wife or mother or friend or what not. But you absolutely don't blame your customers for not being as excited about your product as you want them to be.
You don't ask your customers to take responsibility for your own emotions. That's your responsibility. You don't try to make your customers responsible for your team's morale. That's your responsibility. And if they aren't satisfied with your product, you don't tell them to try harder to enjoy it. That's your responsibility, and failing to live up to that responsibility is to sole reason for all of these other problems.
To our David whom we all hold very dear,
Please read this post before every single post you decide to write for your customers.
On second thought, if a leading manager would be telling his angry customers to shut the fuck up and give him constructive critisism because his team is feeling sad, after repeatedly missinforming them and not delivering the product that could reasonably be expected, and ignoring the constructive critisism he receives, his job would/should be in jeopardy.
Not saying I want DK fired, but this kind of behavior is completely inacceptable in my opinion.
On February 01 2016 18:18 SC2Toastie wrote: On second thought, if a leading manager would be telling his angry customers to shut the fuck up and give him constructive critisism because his team is feeling sad, after repeatedly missinforming them and not delivering the product that could reasonably be expected, and ignoring the constructive critisism he receives, his job would/should be in jeopardy.
Not saying I want DK fired, but this kind of behavior is completely inacceptable in my opinion.
You're exaggerating Toasty (and many others). That said, the way they handle the maps is below par for sure and it isn't exactly reassuring that they're unaware of/ ignoring lots of feedback on this issue, including the constructive variant.
On February 01 2016 18:18 SC2Toastie wrote: On second thought, if a leading manager would be telling his angry customers to shut the fuck up and give him constructive critisism because his team is feeling sad, after repeatedly missinforming them and not delivering the product that could reasonably be expected, and ignoring the constructive critisism he receives, his job would/should be in jeopardy.
Not saying I want DK fired, but this kind of behavior is completely inacceptable in my opinion.
You're exaggerating Toasty (and many others). That said, the way they handle the maps is below par for sure and it isn't exactly reassuring that they're unaware of/ ignoring lots of feedback on this issue, including the constructive variant.
Which would make one think there is a serious issue at their department, right?
On February 01 2016 18:18 SC2Toastie wrote: On second thought, if a leading manager would be telling his angry customers to shut the fuck up and give him constructive critisism because his team is feeling sad, after repeatedly missinforming them and not delivering the product that could reasonably be expected, and ignoring the constructive critisism he receives, his job would/should be in jeopardy.
Not saying I want DK fired, but this kind of behavior is completely inacceptable in my opinion.
You're exaggerating Toasty (and many others). That said, the way they handle the maps is below par for sure and it isn't exactly reassuring that they're unaware of/ ignoring lots of feedback on this issue, including the constructive variant.
Which would make one think there is a serious issue at their department, right?
I guess that depends what you'd call serious. Blizzard could learn from some developers but I still think they're doing a better job than most. Don't get me wrong, the last update was seriously bad in my opinion. Very disappointing.
On February 01 2016 18:18 SC2Toastie wrote: On second thought, if a leading manager would be telling his angry customers to shut the fuck up and give him constructive critisism because his team is feeling sad, after repeatedly missinforming them and not delivering the product that could reasonably be expected, and ignoring the constructive critisism he receives, his job would/should be in jeopardy.
Not saying I want DK fired, but this kind of behavior is completely inacceptable in my opinion.
You're exaggerating Toasty (and many others). That said, the way they handle the maps is below par for sure and it isn't exactly reassuring that they're unaware of/ ignoring lots of feedback on this issue, including the constructive variant.
Which would make one think there is a serious issue at their department, right?
I guess that depends what you'd call serious. Blizzard could learn from some developers but I still think they're doing a better job than most. Don't get me wrong, the last update was seriously bad in my opinion. Very disappointing.
The community is rapidly running out of patience with how this game is handles. The latest 'update' was just the first instance a real spike in negativity popped up.
There have been hundreds if not thousands of posts regarding possible changes to Ravagers, Siege Tanks, issues with the maps, Pylon Overcharge, Air units. There have been tens of thousands of posts regarding certain mechanics like warpgate, forcefield, lift-off forcing draws, Battlenet 0.2, ladder issues, depth of micro.
The issue is, whenever 'constructive' feedback is posted for Blizzard to read, we receive NO followup on it. If we're lucky to see them address the topic the usual reply is "internal testing shows...", " we believe it does not work." without any explanation regarding the testing or outcomes. In other words, people will feel like the feedback is ignored.
THAT is the issue. For 5 years, the communication has been lacklustre. Recently, they started working on that more. However, the communication becomes more and more empty. " Working on this", "Maybe in half a years time" , "we feel like this is not an issue" , "these maps are unique in their own way". The team is NOT doing what we want them to. They are not responding to feedback, they are not producing what we would like to see. They are ignoring issues brought up again and again, and casting proposed solutions aside without explanation.
People are running out of patience and the latest "update" what embarassing to say the least. And that is when frustrated complains come up, and people should quickly start wondering whether they are doing their job well enough.
I believe this could be considered constructive criticism, so here you go DK.
About the maps, they are catering to the community that doesn't exist in SC2 anymore; the people who play it for fun only and expect a fun experience every time, not caring about wins. At the same time they are screwing over the people who actully still play this game and the reason why they play it is obviously completelly different from what David Kim and the crew think.
There have been some aspersions cast in various threads, alleging that our team is small, that our team is allocated to other projects, or that we delivered an incomplete product. None of these have merit, and frankly this kind of commentary is demotivating to the team.
SC2 dev team acts like a bunch of interns.
The current state of the game is too demotivating for the mass users (players), I'd worry for the people's motivation who use your product rather than your ONE TEAM demotivation, as it will grow in future with such steps.
TL;DR - corporate buzzwords on top of stating that you haven't done anything.
On February 01 2016 08:02 Nuclease wrote: How in god's name can the dev team be watching all these forum posts go up about how awful the map pool is, along with professional player feedback that the maps are bad, and not change a single thing?
Not even taking out Central Protocol, which no one plays? Not taking out at least one of the gold bases on Prion? I just really don't get it. At a certain point, whether or not you think it's right, you have to listen to the community when there is an OVERWHELMING majority asking for the maps to be changed if you want people to play your game.
At least make the effort to read :
Central Protocol Really difficult 3rd, and layout of natural/main favoring mobility based compositions. Obviously, we are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map where we definitely want to focus on making some balance tuning passes. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map
They don't want to remove this map, they want to fix it and are open to suggestions. What's wrong with that?
Just point out the map's flaw and explain how to fix them. I mean, do you realise your post is exactly the kind of post that brings nothing to the discussion and make the "community"'s voice impossible to hear?
How can u possibly support blizzard made maps? When have they EVER made a good map?
Every single map in the pool favors 1 base play, you can throw in all the in base natural expansions you want, people are gonna still 1 base all in when you have so much surface area to keep your eye on.
And here you are telling people "explain to blizzard how to fix them".... when has Blizzard EVER listened to the community regarding maps? Does anyone not have central protocol veto'd ??
Thx for illustrating the kind of shitpost nobody needs and that prevents a good feedback from the players to Blizzard, but, really, we already knew what a shitpost is, so could as well have passed on this one...
Blizzard, made bad maps but also made excellent maps, just check liquipedia. In this season map pool, you have bad maps but also good ones, they're all from blizzard They heard us many times (adding spl and gls maps, organizing TLMC to choose new maps, ...) They took feedback into account many times for fixing maps (starting locations, changing mineral types, ...)
On February 01 2016 18:18 SC2Toastie wrote: On second thought, if a leading manager would be telling his angry customers to shut the fuck up and give him constructive critisism because his team is feeling sad, after repeatedly missinforming them and not delivering the product that could reasonably be expected, and ignoring the constructive critisism he receives, his job would/should be in jeopardy.
Not saying I want DK fired, but this kind of behavior is completely inacceptable in my opinion.
blizzard obviously won't invest in PR as they have specially prepared new internship program, called starcraft 2 dev team
if DK is developer, let him be
He definitely isn't a community manager / PR either
On February 01 2016 18:18 SC2Toastie wrote: On second thought, if a leading manager would be telling his angry customers to shut the fuck up and give him constructive critisism because his team is feeling sad, after repeatedly missinforming them and not delivering the product that could reasonably be expected, and ignoring the constructive critisism he receives, his job would/should be in jeopardy.
Not saying I want DK fired, but this kind of behavior is completely inacceptable in my opinion.
blizzard obviously won't invest in PR as they have specially prepared new internship program, called starcraft 2 dev team
if DK is developer, let him be
He definitely isn't a community manager / PR either
Firstly he should leave the community managing to somebody else if he doesn't want to take flack for it. Secondly, his developing seems kinda slow to me.
I wonder what they're working on right now. If the team hasn't downsized since LotV, they should have a sizeable team.
We know the nova mission pack is coming, and I know missions take a lot of work in themselves, but surely they're working on other things. I'm kind of wondering if content releases are going to pick up in the later half of the year to match that of their other games.
On February 01 2016 18:18 SC2Toastie wrote: On second thought, if a leading manager would be telling his angry customers to shut the fuck up and give him constructive critisism because his team is feeling sad, after repeatedly missinforming them and not delivering the product that could reasonably be expected, and ignoring the constructive critisism he receives, his job would/should be in jeopardy.
Not saying I want DK fired, but this kind of behavior is completely inacceptable in my opinion.
for $40 they delivered a lot in the product. we got the longest beta in the history of the genre. look at what Grey Goo and AoA delivered for $10 more. There is plenty to do in LotV. However, the customer is always right. The customer is bored. The customer has this dead bang on correct. However, the customer is not a good self-diagnostician. The customer is bored of the whole genre and all facets that make RTS what it is. Because Blizzard is the best they get the most shit throw at them as the genre falls into obscurity. ATVI is the only ones left who can seem to make it sorta financially viable. ATVI will be right there as the genre goes down... standing right by the dead body .. so everyone will cry that ATVI murdered the genre. Little do these chicken little's realize EA, Ensemble, Victory Games, Brett Sperry and EALA fled the scene many years ago.
Blizzard knows how to hire and nurture talent. They been doing it for 20+ years. If DK and DB were lousy they'd be going the way of Jay Wilson. That is not happening. DK and DB have both been promoted. I think they've both done a great job and I've had a blast the last 5 years playing SC2. AN ABSOLUTE FUCKING BLAST.
I think Mike Morhaime, Chris Sigaty, and Frank Pierce are a far better judge of their employees than anyone in this thread. I'll back this statement with more than words. I'm buying Overwatch and Nova:Covert Ops the day they come out.
I think it's partly correct to let wallets do the talking, especially as Blizzard is probably more sensitive to this. But that's quite extreme and discussion with the community might guide Blizzard towards making decisions which benefit both the developer and consumer: consumers enjoy the product more and spend more money.
As it stands, I haven't recommended LotV to my friends yet. I don't think it's in a state where we'd have fun playing it like we did with WoL and HotS. This is partly to do with the particulars of me and my friends, but not only - the deciding question is longevity. And I fear that if such pockets of resistance multiply, SC2 as a whole will suffer.
On February 01 2016 23:00 tshi wrote: I was wondering which community was worse, this one or reddit
This one, as its full elitist and know it alls. its no small wonder Pros dont ever post in TL, the negativity is astounding to the point of being destructive.
At least most Reddit posters know they shitpost for fun and giggles. This lot are condescending and demeaning and worst of all intransigent. hell most of them havent even fucked yet in real life
On February 01 2016 18:18 SC2Toastie wrote: On second thought, if a leading manager would be telling his angry customers to shut the fuck up and give him constructive critisism because his team is feeling sad, after repeatedly missinforming them and not delivering the product that could reasonably be expected, and ignoring the constructive critisism he receives, his job would/should be in jeopardy.
Not saying I want DK fired, but this kind of behavior is completely inacceptable in my opinion.
Pretty sure that if someone when to a leading manager and told him somethings on the line of:
You piece of shit, your are the stupidest human who ever lived, your product is shit, you destroyed everything I loved about it, you should get fired and die.
He his just going to get escorted out of the building by security...
But on the Internet there is dozens of them and they come back everyday. What is the guy suppose to do? He just ask to change vocabulary, it seems fair...
I am not saying that everythings is perfect and that there is no fault on Blizz side, but when is the last time any patch or Blizzard post where more then half of the response was not insult against Blizzard employe and David Kim?Even if most people agree with the patch there is always complain about other aspect of the game, or WCS system, or the time it took. No amount of PR work is going yo transform "f*ck you" into "good job team, but you should pay attention to this and this"
On February 01 2016 11:10 lestye wrote: You're assuming that its the same people who are making the mission packs are the same people who are engineering the features.
When a company promises or advertise a new feature for their game, they don't hold off everything until that feature is delivered. They promised those features post-release. That has nothing to do the mission packs,
Guess what? Features are a lot harder to implement than maps. They're not going to sit on the map packs forever until some other team pushes the feature.
I know how development teams work. Been a developer my whole life.
If you think they seriously have a completely different team working on the map packs & all the LotV updates, your dreaming...
Sure, some aspects of the team can be used mainly for mission packs. Mainly the ones who develop the media - Artists primarily.
What about the shared assets? What about the coders that are spending time coding features for the map packs? The testers? the QA team? The balancing team? The actual design team?
How about we mention some of the ones very specific to what they talked about in this update: How about the map design team?? They mention new maps for ladder as well as new coop mode maps. But where are the map designers working right now...? You guessed it, the Nova packs.
Now that I think about it, media (skins and voice packs) were part of the community update as well. They even said the skins and voice packs will be waiting until after the mission packs!! Where do you think the voice actors and artists are deployed right now? The mission pack... Even though the skin and voice packs could easily be released for LotV.
From all this, you can figure out that the only team that POTENTIALLY isn't busy working on the map pack, is the team that works on the back end. And even some of those may be devoted to the map pack, for who knows what features.
Fact of the matter is, we have only had one tiny patch in months, which would take minutes to create in the editor. Their developers are NOT actively working on LotV. The only changes they have a potential reason to take this long for is the back end. The rest of it used teams that are allocated to specific areas, and right now those designers - like the map designers, programmers, QA team, balancing team, and sound design/voice actors.... Are all allocated to be working on the map pack. Not the features they announced in this community update that are going to be held off until after the map packs.
And this is kind of irrelevant to what I was saying anyway. Just pointing out that it's obvious where the resources are allocated right now. Rather than defending them, how about answering all those questions in the 2nd paragraph of my last post? Do you agree with their practices and are you going to give them more money before they deliver things they said would be coming to LotV?
I rather wait to see if they actually deliver. They showed us a different product in beta and did not deliver that product. And in their other game releases, they have been known to make promises before release and never follow through.
I'm shocked anyone is defending them at all, tbh. They have done very little to ensure their customers happiness over the years.The population of the game proves that more than anything.
The hell are you talking about ? Did you watch the Blizzcon panel at all? They didn't have any skins, they said they didn't have much time to do them, the skins they showed off were skins that shipped with the collectors edition of the game.
They didn't even have anything to show with the Nova maps, just that small teaser. I think you're overestimating how far they are along. The promises they gave weren't something they said would launch with the game , but as part of the long term support of the game. We just got a co op map a month ago I think you're wrong that they're putting the CO op map people on Nova. If you think the map artists and designers are responsible for the ladder rework, you're out of your mind.
I'm so incredibly confused why you're complaining about them taking pre-orders for map packs when half of the "features" they promised were monetized microtransactions to begin with.
I want to be clear. I'm not blindly defending them, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and am being patient. It's in their best interest to add those features.
I don't know what it is about this kind of thing that makes people so stubborn. Humans are not a blank slate psychologically and will power isn't all-powerful. Tailoring an environment to be productive for humans psychologically in a particular way is like tailoring an environment to be productive for humans with two legs and two arms and two hands and ten fingers. While you might feel like your consciousness is perfectly malleable and adaptable and that your will power can get you to do whatever it is you need to do, the fact remains that there are better and worse psychological environments for humans in general. If your answer to every psychological hurdle is to "tough it out" then you are at risk of being surpassed by people who know how to change their environment to something closer to the ideal psychological environment. It isn't a credit to you to ignore this inefficiency. It's a problem that ought to be worked like any other problem and having an ego and taking pride in an ability to withstand counterproductive or unproductive comments is a detriment to your work.
The way to solve this situation is like I already said: a liaison. The negative comments of the community are not directed at the liaison so the liaison can read them without that negative emotional impact. They mine all the feedback for everything that's constructive and present it to the team in a neutral voice, removing any unnecessary negativity/abuse that the feedback originally contained. They also pass on all the positive feedback, since that is constructive too and is nice for the team to hear anyway. In a normal work environment, the leadership would be more positive and teach their employees to be more positive to each other, so that they can give each other plenty of feedback while also maintaining a positive work environment. It seems like this is the tactic David Kim tried to take with the community, but it's completely unrealistic for the dev team's relationship with the community to change in this way. The community will always be hiding their constructive feedback in posts full of unconstructive, negative and abusive messages.
I don't know what it is about this kind of thing that makes people so stubborn. Humans are not a blank slate psychologically and will power isn't all-powerful. Tailoring an environment to be productive for humans psychologically in a particular way is like tailoring an environment to be productive for humans with two legs and two arms and two hands and ten fingers. While you might feel like your consciousness is perfectly malleable and adaptable and that your will power can get you to do whatever it is you need to do, the fact remains that there are better and worse psychological environments for humans in general. If your answer to every psychological hurdle is to "tough it out" then you are at risk of being surpassed by people who know how to change their environment to something closer to the ideal psychological environment. It isn't a credit to you to ignore this inefficiency. It's a problem that ought to be worked like any other problem and having an ego and taking pride in an ability to withstand counterproductive or unproductive comments is a detriment to your work.
The way to solve this situation is like I already said: a liaison. The negative comments of the community are not directed at the liaison so the liaison can read them without that negative emotional impact. They mine all the feedback for everything that's constructive and present it to the team in a neutral voice, removing any unnecessary negativity/abuse that the feedback originally contained. They also pass on all the positive feedback, since that is constructive too and is nice for the team to hear anyway. In a normal work environment, the leadership would be more positive and teach their employees to be more positive to each other, so that they can give each other plenty of feedback while also maintaining a positive work environment. It seems like this is the tactic David Kim tried to take with the community, but it's completely unrealistic for the dev team's relationship with the community to change in this way. The community will always be hiding their constructive feedback in posts full of unconstructive, negative and abusive messages.
There is no PR/Community manager in the universe who can imagine that he can say (write) that their team is sad, or something cannot be done. Community managers need to be part politicians, part marketing specialsts, and part leaders. They always need to balance between the outside expectations, the internally provided information and prepare a mixture of well targeted and properly written communications that will embrace the community and align the product vision and internal information in the eyes of the stakeholders (community members)
Me for myself am working as such, and at the moment when I imagine writing such thing as david kim has written, I'll fly through the window out of the corporate world.
- To accuse your customers in being childish or asking for a treat is equal to suicide in terms of career development.
Someone from Blizzard must proofread the things DK writes to the public.
And in my opinion if Blizzard tried to communicate the things in different way many people wouldn't say imba or OP all the time. As it used to be in Brood War, when we all knew that the problem is on our side of the monitor, no the game. Their malfunction to strategies their communication by validating such terms as imbalanced by emphasizing doing certain actions to avoid 'imba units/strats' did a great job for Blizzard.
I don't know what it is about this kind of thing that makes people so stubborn. Humans are not a blank slate psychologically and will power isn't all-powerful. Tailoring an environment to be productive for humans psychologically in a particular way is like tailoring an environment to be productive for humans with two legs and two arms and two hands and ten fingers. While you might feel like your consciousness is perfectly malleable and adaptable and that your will power can get you to do whatever it is you need to do, the fact remains that there are better and worse psychological environments for humans in general. If your answer to every psychological hurdle is to "tough it out" then you are at risk of being surpassed by people who know how to change their environment to something closer to the ideal psychological environment. It isn't a credit to you to ignore this inefficiency. It's a problem that ought to be worked like any other problem and having an ego and taking pride in an ability to withstand counterproductive or unproductive comments is a detriment to your work.
The way to solve this situation is like I already said: a liaison. The negative comments of the community are not directed at the liaison so the liaison can read them without that negative emotional impact. They mine all the feedback for everything that's constructive and present it to the team in a neutral voice, removing any unnecessary negativity/abuse that the feedback originally contained. They also pass on all the positive feedback, since that is constructive too and is nice for the team to hear anyway. In a normal work environment, the leadership would be more positive and teach their employees to be more positive to each other, so that they can give each other plenty of feedback while also maintaining a positive work environment. It seems like this is the tactic David Kim tried to take with the community, but it's completely unrealistic for the dev team's relationship with the community to change in this way. The community will always be hiding their constructive feedback in posts full of unconstructive, negative and abusive messages.
Me for myself am working as such, and at the moment when I imagine writing such thing as david kim has written, I'll fly through the window out of the corporate world.
- To accuse your customers in being childish or asking for a treat is equal to suicide in terms of career development.
Someone from Blizzard must proofread the things DK writes to the public.
Yeah, it's funny that the one thing almost everyone is agreeing on here is that DK wrote the wrong things. And yet DK directly communicating with the community is the result of the community's demands. The community wanted this transparency! They wanted DK to take on this extra responsibility! I think it demonstrates how the demands of the community that seem reasonable and helpful are often misguided and unhelpful. If Blizzard ever listens to the community and it doesn't turn out well, then the community will say (1) That's not what we wanted. That's what one stupid minority group wanted and you shouldn't have listened to them and (2) We gave you the right idea but you failed in execution. To me it just seems like a very tricky thing for a video game development team, especially one with an esport, to be involved with the community.
It's pretty sad the backlash DK is receiving for this. The SC team has been working on this for what, nine years?
Blizzard is being more open and receptive than they ever have been in the past, and we're shitting on them. Why in the world would these developers, who have committed almost a decade of their life into this game, want to develop features for a community that literally shits on them daily, when they're giving them everything they want.
We wanted community updates? We got them.
We wanted in game tournaments? Got them
Skins? Got'em
Casual game modes? Got'em
DLC? Getting'em
Ladder revamp? Getting'em
Blizzard has already stated they're expecting this season to run shorter than normal, so you can complain about the maps all you want, but you know they're going to put it right.
I don't know what it is about this kind of thing that makes people so stubborn. Humans are not a blank slate psychologically and will power isn't all-powerful. Tailoring an environment to be productive for humans psychologically in a particular way is like tailoring an environment to be productive for humans with two legs and two arms and two hands and ten fingers. While you might feel like your consciousness is perfectly malleable and adaptable and that your will power can get you to do whatever it is you need to do, the fact remains that there are better and worse psychological environments for humans in general. If your answer to every psychological hurdle is to "tough it out" then you are at risk of being surpassed by people who know how to change their environment to something closer to the ideal psychological environment. It isn't a credit to you to ignore this inefficiency. It's a problem that ought to be worked like any other problem and having an ego and taking pride in an ability to withstand counterproductive or unproductive comments is a detriment to your work.
The way to solve this situation is like I already said: a liaison. The negative comments of the community are not directed at the liaison so the liaison can read them without that negative emotional impact. They mine all the feedback for everything that's constructive and present it to the team in a neutral voice, removing any unnecessary negativity/abuse that the feedback originally contained. They also pass on all the positive feedback, since that is constructive too and is nice for the team to hear anyway. In a normal work environment, the leadership would be more positive and teach their employees to be more positive to each other, so that they can give each other plenty of feedback while also maintaining a positive work environment. It seems like this is the tactic David Kim tried to take with the community, but it's completely unrealistic for the dev team's relationship with the community to change in this way. The community will always be hiding their constructive feedback in posts full of unconstructive, negative and abusive messages.
Me for myself am working as such, and at the moment when I imagine writing such thing as david kim has written, I'll fly through the window out of the corporate world.
- To accuse your customers in being childish or asking for a treat is equal to suicide in terms of career development.
Someone from Blizzard must proofread the things DK writes to the public.
Yeah, it's funny that the one thing almost everyone is agreeing on here is that DK wrote the wrong things. And yet DK directly communicating with the community is the result of the community's demands. The community wanted this transparency! They wanted DK to take on this extra responsibility! I think it demonstrates how the demands of the community that seem reasonable and helpful are often misguided and unhelpful. If Blizzard ever listens to the community and it doesn't turn out well, then the community will say (1) That's not what we wanted. That's what one stupid minority group wanted and you shouldn't have listened to them and (2) We gave you the right idea but you failed in execution. To me it just seems like a very tricky thing for a video game development team, especially one with an esport, to be involved with the community.
It is tricky. 100% And tough, for sure.
But in the business world (where any gaming developer wants to be, and Blizzard is) you need to plan the desired state and pinpoint strategic points and things that are yet to come. Especially when you communicate. If you want to nurture a good collaborative and trustworthy environment you'd want to focus more on the right wording and aligning the things in your bucket.
If there is no plan (strategy) behind doing something and you just do stuff on demand - well, a bad outcome and resistance is the only thing that is guaranteed in the future.
On February 01 2016 11:10 lestye wrote: You're assuming that its the same people who are making the mission packs are the same people who are engineering the features.
When a company promises or advertise a new feature for their game, they don't hold off everything until that feature is delivered. They promised those features post-release. That has nothing to do the mission packs,
Guess what? Features are a lot harder to implement than maps. They're not going to sit on the map packs forever until some other team pushes the feature.
I know how development teams work. Been a developer my whole life.
If you think they seriously have a completely different team working on the map packs & all the LotV updates, your dreaming...
Sure, some aspects of the team can be used mainly for mission packs. Mainly the ones who develop the media - Artists primarily.
What about the shared assets? What about the coders that are spending time coding features for the map packs? The testers? the QA team? The balancing team? The actual design team?
How about we mention some of the ones very specific to what they talked about in this update: How about the map design team?? They mention new maps for ladder as well as new coop mode maps. But where are the map designers working right now...? You guessed it, the Nova packs.
Now that I think about it, media (skins and voice packs) were part of the community update as well. They even said the skins and voice packs will be waiting until after the mission packs!! Where do you think the voice actors and artists are deployed right now? The mission pack... Even though the skin and voice packs could easily be released for LotV.
From all this, you can figure out that the only team that POTENTIALLY isn't busy working on the map pack, is the team that works on the back end. And even some of those may be devoted to the map pack, for who knows what features.
Fact of the matter is, we have only had one tiny patch in months, which would take minutes to create in the editor. Their developers are NOT actively working on LotV. The only changes they have a potential reason to take this long for is the back end. The rest of it used teams that are allocated to specific areas, and right now those designers - like the map designers, programmers, QA team, balancing team, and sound design/voice actors.... Are all allocated to be working on the map pack. Not the features they announced in this community update that are going to be held off until after the map packs.
And this is kind of irrelevant to what I was saying anyway. Just pointing out that it's obvious where the resources are allocated right now. Rather than defending them, how about answering all those questions in the 2nd paragraph of my last post? Do you agree with their practices and are you going to give them more money before they deliver things they said would be coming to LotV?
I rather wait to see if they actually deliver. They showed us a different product in beta and did not deliver that product. And in their other game releases, they have been known to make promises before release and never follow through.
I'm shocked anyone is defending them at all, tbh. They have done very little to ensure their customers happiness over the years.The population of the game proves that more than anything.
The hell are you talking about ? Did you watch the Blizzcon panel at all? They didn't have any skins, they said they didn't have much time to do them, the skins they showed off were skins that shipped with the collectors edition of the game.
They didn't even have anything to show with the Nova maps, just that small teaser. I think you're overestimating how far they are along. The promises they gave weren't something they said would launch with the game , but as part of the long term support of the game. We just got a co op map a month ago I think you're wrong that they're putting the CO op map people on Nova. If you think the map artists and designers are responsible for the ladder rework, you're out of your mind.
I'm so incredibly confused why you're complaining about them taking pre-orders for map packs when half of the "features" they promised were monetized microtransactions to begin with.
I want to be clear. I'm not blindly defending them, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and am being patient. It's in their best interest to add those features.
You asked what I am talking about and mentioned skins? That was quoted from the community update posted last week. The section is literally titled "Skins and Voice Packs".
Regarding the rest, they straight up said in the same community update that the maps & everything else is going to be held off until after the nova pack and/or late summer (which is after the nova pack release, which is scheduled for june).
I'm not complaining about them taking pre orders, I'm complaining about them releasing another paid product before delivering on the features they said would be added to LotV before LotV came out. Sorry, I will not support their business tactics of selling a new product before the last product is in a solid state, and I will not give them more money based on promises. Blizzard broke promises they made to my wallet far too many times at this point.
On February 01 2016 23:51 Ghanburighan wrote: I think it's partly correct to let wallets do the talking, especially as Blizzard is probably more sensitive to this. But that's quite extreme and discussion with the community might guide Blizzard towards making decisions which benefit both the developer and consumer: consumers enjoy the product more and spend more money.
As it stands, I haven't recommended LotV to my friends yet. I don't think it's in a state where we'd have fun playing it like we did with WoL and HotS. This is partly to do with the particulars of me and my friends, but not only - the deciding question is longevity. And I fear that if such pockets of resistance multiply, SC2 as a whole will suffer.
I haven't recommended LotV to my freinds either. WoL every gaming friend I knew (about 12 RL friends) played it. HotS only 3 people I knew played it. LotV I am the only one.
Pockets of resistance have been multiplying since WoL, and SC2 has already been suffering... Sadly.
Rather than this actually waking up the development team to what is happening, and inspiring them to do the changes SC2 needs to be put in a healthy path... They are apparently using this situation to grab as much money as possible, regardless of the happiness of the community.
They never said that was going to be in the expansion at launch. It's amazing you're complaining about then releasing paid products before another paid product is finished.
On February 02 2016 01:44 InfCereal wrote: It's pretty sad the backlash DK is receiving for this. The SC team has been working on this for what, nine years?
Blizzard is being more open and receptive than they ever have been in the past, and we're shitting on them. Why in the world would these developers, who have committed almost a decade of their life into this game, want to develop features for a community that literally shits on them daily, when they're giving them everything they want.
We wanted community updates? We got them.
We wanted in game tournaments? Got them
Skins? Got'em
Casual game modes? Got'em
DLC? Getting'em
Ladder revamp? Getting'em
Blizzard has already stated they're expecting this season to run shorter than normal, so you can complain about the maps all you want, but you know they're going to put it right.
Everything that we got is meaningless when the maps are this bad.
Honestly I played more games of Sc2 in the last 2 weeks than i have since WoL launched. Now this week I was contemplating uninstalling the game. Playing this game feels like youre involved in a destructive relationship and sometimes you just cant put up with it anymore.
On February 02 2016 01:44 InfCereal wrote: It's pretty sad the backlash DK is receiving for this. The SC team has been working on this for what, nine years?
Blizzard is being more open and receptive than they ever have been in the past, and we're shitting on them. Why in the world would these developers, who have committed almost a decade of their life into this game, want to develop features for a community that literally shits on them daily, when they're giving them everything they want.
We wanted community updates? We got them.
We wanted in game tournaments? Got them
Skins? Got'em
Casual game modes? Got'em
DLC? Getting'em
Ladder revamp? Getting'em
Blizzard has already stated they're expecting this season to run shorter than normal, so you can complain about the maps all you want, but you know they're going to put it right.
Everything that we got is meaningless when the maps are this bad.
Honestly I played more games of Sc2 in the last 2 weeks than i have since WoL launched. Now this week I was contemplating uninstalling the game. Playing this game feels like youre involved in a destructive relationship and sometimes you just cant put up with it anymore.
On February 02 2016 01:44 InfCereal wrote: It's pretty sad the backlash DK is receiving for this. The SC team has been working on this for what, nine years?
Blizzard is being more open and receptive than they ever have been in the past, and we're shitting on them. Why in the world would these developers, who have committed almost a decade of their life into this game, want to develop features for a community that literally shits on them daily, when they're giving them everything they want.
We wanted community updates? We got them.
We wanted in game tournaments? Got them
Skins? Got'em
Casual game modes? Got'em
DLC? Getting'em
Ladder revamp? Getting'em
Blizzard has already stated they're expecting this season to run shorter than normal, so you can complain about the maps all you want, but you know they're going to put it right.
Everything that we got is meaningless when the maps are this bad.
Honestly I played more games of Sc2 in the last 2 weeks than i have since WoL launched. Now this week I was contemplating uninstalling the game. Playing this game feels like youre involved in a destructive relationship and sometimes you just cant put up with it anymore.
So SC II literally your borderline girlfriend?
No.
If you had any reading comprehension skills, you'd realize when people are drawing comparisons. If you can't speak english then don't try to pick apart someone's post for the sake of insulting them. Pick up your ladahosen and stuff your face with brawtwurst before you come in here with your limited understanding of the English language.
On February 02 2016 01:44 InfCereal wrote: It's pretty sad the backlash DK is receiving for this. The SC team has been working on this for what, nine years?
Blizzard is being more open and receptive than they ever have been in the past, and we're shitting on them. Why in the world would these developers, who have committed almost a decade of their life into this game, want to develop features for a community that literally shits on them daily, when they're giving them everything they want.
We wanted community updates? We got them.
We wanted in game tournaments? Got them
Skins? Got'em
Casual game modes? Got'em
DLC? Getting'em
Ladder revamp? Getting'em
Blizzard has already stated they're expecting this season to run shorter than normal, so you can complain about the maps all you want, but you know they're going to put it right.
Sorry but... Those are mostly "prestigious" things
What happened to revamping economy to fix it? (I understand we are beyond BETA but the way they ignored it still pisses me off)
What happened to the 0 damage point micro?
What happened to the no worker massacre?
What happened to fixing the damned Arcade already?
My personal opinion: I think the reason why this game is not the way it should be is because the heavy focus on the god damned esports aspect that it is forgetting the aspect of making it fun for those who play it. Ever update felt it was from perspective of the average twitch viewer. "Worker harassment cool!"...
I'm not finding it fun to be jumping into the action with the 12 worker start, the way bases dry so we have no turtle... the way we have so many units specialized in eradicating mineral lines. The game feels like herp derp worker harassment into all in for me.
On February 02 2016 01:44 InfCereal wrote: It's pretty sad the backlash DK is receiving for this. The SC team has been working on this for what, nine years?
Blizzard is being more open and receptive than they ever have been in the past, and we're shitting on them. Why in the world would these developers, who have committed almost a decade of their life into this game, want to develop features for a community that literally shits on them daily, when they're giving them everything they want.
We wanted community updates? We got them.
We wanted in game tournaments? Got them
Skins? Got'em
Casual game modes? Got'em
DLC? Getting'em
Ladder revamp? Getting'em
Blizzard has already stated they're expecting this season to run shorter than normal, so you can complain about the maps all you want, but you know they're going to put it right.
Everything that we got is meaningless when the maps are this bad.
Honestly I played more games of Sc2 in the last 2 weeks than i have since WoL launched. Now this week I was contemplating uninstalling the game. Playing this game feels like youre involved in a destructive relationship and sometimes you just cant put up with it anymore.
So SC II literally your borderline girlfriend?
No.
If you had any reading comprehension skills, you'd realize when people are drawing comparisons. If you can't speak english then don't try to pick apart someone's post for the sake of insulting them. Pick up your ladahosen and stuff your face with brawtwurst before you come in here with your limited understanding of the English language.
I don't know what it is about this kind of thing that makes people so stubborn. Humans are not a blank slate psychologically and will power isn't all-powerful. Tailoring an environment to be productive for humans psychologically in a particular way is like tailoring an environment to be productive for humans with two legs and two arms and two hands and ten fingers. While you might feel like your consciousness is perfectly malleable and adaptable and that your will power can get you to do whatever it is you need to do, the fact remains that there are better and worse psychological environments for humans in general. If your answer to every psychological hurdle is to "tough it out" then you are at risk of being surpassed by people who know how to change their environment to something closer to the ideal psychological environment. It isn't a credit to you to ignore this inefficiency. It's a problem that ought to be worked like any other problem and having an ego and taking pride in an ability to withstand counterproductive or unproductive comments is a detriment to your work.
The community can't just wave a magic wand at David Kim and get their perfect game. But this argument cuts both ways. David Kim can't just whine to his customers and transform them into his ideal fans either, who understand and love his game and praise him as their hero. David Kim is getting a paycheck to be able to cater to the needs of his customers. A lot of whom are probably still in school. How malleable do you expect them to be?
And when you think about it, the argument cuts a lot more strongly in the direction of David Kim. Statistically, it's a lot more likely than he and his team is performing below average along some or other axis, than that his customers are a particularly demanding, unreasonable and abusive subset of paying customers in general. And when you think about it, David Kim can at least conceivably be replaced. There is simply no way for Blizzard to abandon their current fanbase and just pick up some ten thousands of new, better behaved customers.
The way to solve this situation is like I already said: a liaison. The negative comments of the community are not directed at the liaison so the liaison can read them without that negative emotional impact. They mine all the feedback for everything that's constructive and present it to the team in a neutral voice, removing any unnecessary negativity/abuse that the feedback originally contained. They also pass on all the positive feedback, since that is constructive too and is nice for the team to hear anyway. In a normal work environment, the leadership would be more positive and teach their employees to be more positive to each other, so that they can give each other plenty of feedback while also maintaining a positive work environment. It seems like this is the tactic David Kim tried to take with the community, but it's completely unrealistic for the dev team's relationship with the community to change in this way. The community will always be hiding their constructive feedback in posts full of unconstructive, negative and abusive messages.
No. The solution is for David Kim to take a good, long and hard look in the mirror every morning and repeat to himself ten times: You get the response you deserve. When these people who kept SC:BW alive and kicking for ten years with next to zero support from Blizzard are acting up like this, I have to be doing something wrong. And because I'm a professional with a lot of talented people around me, I'll take responsibility and sort this out.
Installing a middle man between yourself and your customers is practically the worst way of going about things. Filtering the negative emotions out of the feedback doesn't refine it, it degrades it, and leaves you with a sugar-coated understanding of the realities. If you don't have enough confidence in what you are dong to handle negative feedback, then that's the real problem, no the feedback. Adding an extra layer of interpretation produces a Chinese whispers effect and leaves everybody frustrated with how their criticism seems to consistently get lost in translation. And your middle man will inevitably jump through hoops to present you with the things you want to hear, because you're his boss, and good news is always more popular than bad news. And that's how you wind up, where David Kim thinks the map pool is better than expected, and the community collectively shakes their heads in disbelief.
The fundamental disagreement here is that you are treating negativity as the root cause - as if there's some sort of runaway process that's come out of nowhere, and once you get that in check the rest will fall into place eventually. The other possibility is that the negativity is merely a symptom of something urgently in need of fixing. In that case, you need to confront the negativity head on, rather than locking the doors and hoping it's just some weird phase your customers are going through. Positivity and optimism tails behind a good product, not the other way around.
I don't know what it is about this kind of thing that makes people so stubborn. Humans are not a blank slate psychologically and will power isn't all-powerful. Tailoring an environment to be productive for humans psychologically in a particular way is like tailoring an environment to be productive for humans with two legs and two arms and two hands and ten fingers. While you might feel like your consciousness is perfectly malleable and adaptable and that your will power can get you to do whatever it is you need to do, the fact remains that there are better and worse psychological environments for humans in general. If your answer to every psychological hurdle is to "tough it out" then you are at risk of being surpassed by people who know how to change their environment to something closer to the ideal psychological environment. It isn't a credit to you to ignore this inefficiency. It's a problem that ought to be worked like any other problem and having an ego and taking pride in an ability to withstand counterproductive or unproductive comments is a detriment to your work.
The community can't just wave a magic wand at David Kim and get their perfect game. But this argument cuts both ways. David Kim can't just whine to his customers and transform them into his ideal fans either, who understand and love his game and praise him as their hero. David Kim is getting a paycheck to be able to cater to the needs of his customers. A lot of whom are probably still in school. How malleable do you expect them to be?
And when you think about it, the argument cuts a lot more strongly in the direction of David Kim. Statistically, it's a lot more likely than he and his team is performing below average along some or other axis, than that his customers are a particularly demanding, unreasonable and abusive subset of paying customers in general. And when you think about it, David Kim can at least conceivably be replaced. There is simply no way for Blizzard to abandon their current fanbase and just pick up some ten thousands of new, better behaved customers.
The way to solve this situation is like I already said: a liaison. The negative comments of the community are not directed at the liaison so the liaison can read them without that negative emotional impact. They mine all the feedback for everything that's constructive and present it to the team in a neutral voice, removing any unnecessary negativity/abuse that the feedback originally contained. They also pass on all the positive feedback, since that is constructive too and is nice for the team to hear anyway. In a normal work environment, the leadership would be more positive and teach their employees to be more positive to each other, so that they can give each other plenty of feedback while also maintaining a positive work environment. It seems like this is the tactic David Kim tried to take with the community, but it's completely unrealistic for the dev team's relationship with the community to change in this way. The community will always be hiding their constructive feedback in posts full of unconstructive, negative and abusive messages.
No. The solution is for David Kim to take a good, long and hard look in the mirror every morning and repeat to himself ten times: You get the response you deserve. When these people who kept SC:BW alive and kicking for ten years with next to zero support from Blizzard are acting up like this, I have to be doing something wrong. And because I'm a professional with a lot of talented people around me, I'll take responsibility and sort this out.
Installing a middle man between yourself and your customers is practically the worst way of going about things. Filtering the negative emotions out of the feedback doesn't refine it, it degrades it, and leaves you with a sugar-coated understanding of the realities. If you don't have enough confidence in what you are dong to handle negative feedback, then that's the real problem, no the feedback. Adding an extra layer of interpretation produces a Chinese whispers effect and leaves everybody frustrated with how their criticism seems to consistently get lost in translation. And your middle man will inevitably jump through hoops to present you with the things you want to hear, because you're his boss, and good news is always more popular than bad news. And that's how you wind up, where David Kim thinks the map pool is better than expected, and the community collectively shakes their heads in disbelief.
The fundamental disagreement here is that you are treating negativity as the root cause - as if there's some sort of runaway process that's come out of nowhere, and once you get that in check the rest will fall into place eventually. The other possibility is that the negativity is merely a symptom of something urgently in need of fixing. In that case, you need to confront the negativity head on, rather than locking the doors and hoping it's just some weird phase your customers are going through. Positivity and optimism tails behind a good product, not the other way around.
I'd want to give you a cookie. Well explained, sir.
Most of what you people say is abstract babble... The maps aren't even that bad. I have zero issue with maps and for the other races I can tell you builds for each of the maps that work fine. As a Zerg I'd say Protoss is the only race that has a real problem with the maps, and only on PvZ Prion and PvZ Central, even on prion if protoss survives to take the golds they actually surge strong in the midgame... Central is hard but good for cheese, especially pushes at the 3rd or warp prism harass.. other than those two maps for Protoss PvZ it's not as bad as I keep hearing, and Prion actually is not that bad either, just play defensively and equalize.
On February 02 2016 03:25 crazedrat wrote: Most of what you people say is abstract babble... The maps aren't even that bad. I have zero issue with maps and for the other races I can tell you builds for each of the maps that work fine. As a Zerg I'd say Protoss is the only race that has a real problem with the maps, and only on PvZ Prion and PvZ Central, even on prion if protoss survives to take the golds they actually surge strong in the midgame... Central is hard but good for cheese, especially pushes at the 3rd or warp prism harass.. other than those two maps for Protoss PvZ it's not as bad as I keep hearing, and Prion actually is not that bad either, just play defensively and equalize.
I think you're confusing your perceptions with reality. I've read this thread and there's not very much "abstract babble".
On February 02 2016 03:25 crazedrat wrote: Most of what you people say is abstract babble... The maps aren't even that bad. I have zero issue with maps and for the other races I can tell you builds for each of the maps that work fine. As a Zerg I'd say Protoss is the only race that has a real problem with the maps, and only on PvZ Prion and PvZ Central, even on prion if protoss survives to take the golds they actually surge strong in the midgame... Central is hard but good for cheese, especially pushes at the 3rd or warp prism harass.. other than those two maps for Protoss PvZ it's not as bad as I keep hearing, and Prion actually is not that bad either, just play defensively and equalize.
I think you're confusing your perceptions with reality. I've read this thread and there's not very much "abstract babble".
Well your own statement is abstract babble: "I think you're confusing your perceptions with reality". That really means so much
On February 02 2016 03:25 crazedrat wrote: Most of what you people say is abstract babble... The maps aren't even that bad. I have zero issue with maps and for the other races I can tell you builds for each of the maps that work fine. As a Zerg I'd say Protoss is the only race that has a real problem with the maps, and only on PvZ Prion and PvZ Central, even on prion if protoss survives to take the golds they actually surge strong in the midgame... Central is hard but good for cheese, especially pushes at the 3rd or warp prism harass.. other than those two maps for Protoss PvZ it's not as bad as I keep hearing, and Prion actually is not that bad either, just play defensively and equalize.
I think you're confusing your perceptions with reality. I've read this thread and there's not very much "abstract babble".
Well your own statement is abstract babble: "I think you're confusing your perceptions with reality". That really means so much
If you think that's "abstract babble", you probably have an extremely small vocabulary or some sort of cognitive issue.
No I just don't masturbate over my vocabulary while saying essentially nothing. You could summarize your entire point in: "I disagree" and nothing would be removed from what you've said.
Take your post here for another example. So I am going to babble now with you over whether I have a small vocabulary.. No. This is what I'm talking about. It's like this forum gets derailed in abstract bullshit. Actually if you want to go there I think this forum on the whole has some cognitive problems.
On February 02 2016 03:25 crazedrat wrote: Most of what you people say is abstract babble... The maps aren't even that bad. I have zero issue with maps and for the other races I can tell you builds for each of the maps that work fine. As a Zerg I'd say Protoss is the only race that has a real problem with the maps, and only on PvZ Prion and PvZ Central, even on prion if protoss survives to take the golds they actually surge strong in the midgame... Central is hard but good for cheese, especially pushes at the 3rd or warp prism harass.. other than those two maps for Protoss PvZ it's not as bad as I keep hearing, and Prion actually is not that bad either, just play defensively and equalize.
I think you're confusing your perceptions with reality. I've read this thread and there's not very much "abstract babble".
No I just don't masturbate over my vocabulary while saying essentially nothing. You could summarize your entire point in: "I disagree" and nothing would be removed from what you've said.
On February 02 2016 03:25 crazedrat wrote: Most of what you people say is abstract babble... The maps aren't even that bad. I have zero issue with maps and for the other races I can tell you builds for each of the maps that work fine. As a Zerg I'd say Protoss is the only race that has a real problem with the maps, and only on PvZ Prion and PvZ Central, even on prion if protoss survives to take the golds they actually surge strong in the midgame... Central is hard but good for cheese, especially pushes at the 3rd or warp prism harass.. other than those two maps for Protoss PvZ it's not as bad as I keep hearing, and Prion actually is not that bad either, just play defensively and equalize.
I think you're confusing your perceptions with reality. I've read this thread and there's not very much "abstract babble".
No I just don't masturbate over my vocabulary while saying essentially nothing. You could summarize your entire point in: "I disagree" and nothing would be removed from what you've said.
Again that's actually what I'm talking about is this cheap response focusing on the verbal excluding substance. It's like you people live in this dream bubble of verbal reality. Which you actually do, that's pretty much what the internet is
I don't know what it is about this kind of thing that makes people so stubborn. Humans are not a blank slate psychologically and will power isn't all-powerful. Tailoring an environment to be productive for humans psychologically in a particular way is like tailoring an environment to be productive for humans with two legs and two arms and two hands and ten fingers. While you might feel like your consciousness is perfectly malleable and adaptable and that your will power can get you to do whatever it is you need to do, the fact remains that there are better and worse psychological environments for humans in general. If your answer to every psychological hurdle is to "tough it out" then you are at risk of being surpassed by people who know how to change their environment to something closer to the ideal psychological environment. It isn't a credit to you to ignore this inefficiency. It's a problem that ought to be worked like any other problem and having an ego and taking pride in an ability to withstand counterproductive or unproductive comments is a detriment to your work.
The way to solve this situation is like I already said: a liaison. The negative comments of the community are not directed at the liaison so the liaison can read them without that negative emotional impact. They mine all the feedback for everything that's constructive and present it to the team in a neutral voice, removing any unnecessary negativity/abuse that the feedback originally contained. They also pass on all the positive feedback, since that is constructive too and is nice for the team to hear anyway. In a normal work environment, the leadership would be more positive and teach their employees to be more positive to each other, so that they can give each other plenty of feedback while also maintaining a positive work environment. It seems like this is the tactic David Kim tried to take with the community, but it's completely unrealistic for the dev team's relationship with the community to change in this way. The community will always be hiding their constructive feedback in posts full of unconstructive, negative and abusive messages.
Me for myself am working as such, and at the moment when I imagine writing such thing as david kim has written, I'll fly through the window out of the corporate world.
- To accuse your customers in being childish or asking for a treat is equal to suicide in terms of career development.
Someone from Blizzard must proofread the things DK writes to the public.
Yeah, it's funny that the one thing almost everyone is agreeing on here is that DK wrote the wrong things. And yet DK directly communicating with the community is the result of the community's demands. The community wanted this transparency! They wanted DK to take on this extra responsibility! I think it demonstrates how the demands of the community that seem reasonable and helpful are often misguided and unhelpful. If Blizzard ever listens to the community and it doesn't turn out well, then the community will say (1) That's not what we wanted. That's what one stupid minority group wanted and you shouldn't have listened to them and (2) We gave you the right idea but you failed in execution. To me it just seems like a very tricky thing for a video game development team, especially one with an esport, to be involved with the community.
Sure, but if you search hard enough you can find pretty much any opinion you want on anything on the internet.
The disturbing part to me is that the "mean" comments demotivate David Kim (which again, you'll find no matter how well or poorly SC2 is doing) and his team. That is an atrocious attitude that signals poor leadership and vanity.
Mean comments don't demotivate people who do something successful in life. If you study successful people, in most cases, they served to do the opposite. But David Kim's work with SC2 can hardly be considered successful by any objective measure (such as number of players over time, viewership, ect).
I would recommend to the dev team do not try to reach out or connect in any human way to this community as a whole, keep it strictly business, because they have some problems. Realize the people on this forum do not represent the majority of players playing sc2, actually I think the most petty and disturbed individuals are the ones most drawn to this forum while more sane people are put off by it.
I don't know what it is about this kind of thing that makes people so stubborn. Humans are not a blank slate psychologically and will power isn't all-powerful. Tailoring an environment to be productive for humans psychologically in a particular way is like tailoring an environment to be productive for humans with two legs and two arms and two hands and ten fingers. While you might feel like your consciousness is perfectly malleable and adaptable and that your will power can get you to do whatever it is you need to do, the fact remains that there are better and worse psychological environments for humans in general. If your answer to every psychological hurdle is to "tough it out" then you are at risk of being surpassed by people who know how to change their environment to something closer to the ideal psychological environment. It isn't a credit to you to ignore this inefficiency. It's a problem that ought to be worked like any other problem and having an ego and taking pride in an ability to withstand counterproductive or unproductive comments is a detriment to your work.
The community can't just wave a magic wand at David Kim and get their perfect game. But this argument cuts both ways. David Kim can't just whine to his customers and transform them into his ideal fans either, who understand and love his game and praise him as their hero. David Kim is getting a paycheck to be able to cater to the needs of his customers. A lot of whom are probably still in school. How malleable do you expect them to be?
And when you think about it, the argument cuts a lot more strongly in the direction of David Kim. Statistically, it's a lot more likely than he and his team is performing below average along some or other axis, than that his customers are a particularly demanding, unreasonable and abusive subset of paying customers in general. And when you think about it, David Kim can at least conceivably be replaced. There is simply no way for Blizzard to abandon their current fanbase and just pick up some ten thousands of new, better behaved customers.
The way to solve this situation is like I already said: a liaison. The negative comments of the community are not directed at the liaison so the liaison can read them without that negative emotional impact. They mine all the feedback for everything that's constructive and present it to the team in a neutral voice, removing any unnecessary negativity/abuse that the feedback originally contained. They also pass on all the positive feedback, since that is constructive too and is nice for the team to hear anyway. In a normal work environment, the leadership would be more positive and teach their employees to be more positive to each other, so that they can give each other plenty of feedback while also maintaining a positive work environment. It seems like this is the tactic David Kim tried to take with the community, but it's completely unrealistic for the dev team's relationship with the community to change in this way. The community will always be hiding their constructive feedback in posts full of unconstructive, negative and abusive messages.
No. The solution is for David Kim to take a good, long and hard look in the mirror every morning and repeat to himself ten times: You get the response you deserve. When these people who kept SC:BW alive and kicking for ten years with next to zero support from Blizzard are acting up like this, I have to be doing something wrong. And because I'm a professional with a lot of talented people around me, I'll take responsibility and sort this out.
Installing a middle man between yourself and your customers is practically the worst way of going about things. Filtering the negative emotions out of the feedback doesn't refine it, it degrades it, and leaves you with a sugar-coated understanding of the realities. If you don't have enough confidence in what you are dong to handle negative feedback, then that's the real problem, no the feedback. Adding an extra layer of interpretation produces a Chinese whispers effect and leaves everybody frustrated with how their criticism seems to consistently get lost in translation. And your middle man will inevitably jump through hoops to present you with the things you want to hear, because you're his boss, and good news is always more popular than bad news. And that's how you wind up, where David Kim thinks the map pool is better than expected, and the community collectively shakes their heads in disbelief.
The fundamental disagreement here is that you are treating negativity as the root cause - as if there's some sort of runaway process that's come out of nowhere, and once you get that in check the rest will fall into place eventually. The other possibility is that the negativity is merely a symptom of something urgently in need of fixing. In that case, you need to confront the negativity head on, rather than locking the doors and hoping it's just some weird phase your customers are going through. Positivity and optimism tails behind a good product, not the other way around.
Darkwhite completely dominating this thread. GG sir!
I don't really mind their "weird" or "non-standard" approach the maps. HOWEVER I do have a bit issue when matchups are completely and utterly imbalanced because a map is "weird." Like Prion. Good luck doing anything other than a 2base all-in versus Zerg. Like I consider Habitation Station the gold standard for a "non-standard" map which worked out perfectly. Honestly I think Ulrena is pretty damn good for that as well. But the issue lies when certain matchups are wildly imbalanced and Blizzard just says "lol its not standard!" Yeah I get it you want to make it so certain openers are better on certain maps. No one here is confused by that Blizzard. The feedback revolves around non-standard != imbalanced.
I don't have any issues with maps per se. You can always veto maps you don't like. I'm Z but I veto'ed Prion, Lerirak and Central myself. Also I do not find those maps non-standard or unique for the most part. Every single one of those maps has easily secured and close 3rd base (apart from Central Protocol). Bases are really close together. Where are the maps that promote strategic thinking? A harder to secure gold 3rd, or one that is easier to secure, giving you a strategic choice? Or narrow ramps to naturals on 4 player maps, so that you can skip your "normal" 3rd, but grab another natural, secure it, and get a free 4th behind it in the main? But I do not dislike the maps. They are ok.
To me, however, it seems strange that a developer/designer of a game would spill his frustration like that. It's normal that the community is frustrated. There is always going to be negativity, even in successful product. I feel sad for them, the whole team, but they are themselves to blame for that.
Everyone thought that LotV is going to be the new beginning. They seemed bold in the Beta, at least having the balls to test removal of Macro Boosters (they probably had to leave Injects, as otherwise making more then 2 Queens is pretty useless otherwise). However, the rest of the Beta time was wasted, and other major, bold changes never happened. People knew from day 1 in WoL that Protoss is a badly designed race, that Warp Gate is the source of gimmicky units (weak units -> reliance on abilities and t3) that kill defenders advantage, that Nexus Overcharge and MSC was only another piece of tape to hold Protoss together, that lack of real high ground advantage puts shifts the scale to Real Time more then Strategy, all the great threads like Depth of Micro etc.
After all 5 years of applying band-aids to the game, people will be frustrated. It's the core aspects of design that are rotten, and still hurt.You won't heal internal infection with a bit of face cream and make-up.
Also, lack of flashy goodies to keep people entertained is just bad in today's market. There is a multitude of already working, animated, textured models in the games 3 campaigns. Yet no skins based on them, which is strange, as it only requires programmer to put them in. Maybe it would take him a day, maybe a week, or maybe a month. But majority of work is already done, and it would enhance user experience. Instead, we need to wait for Nova mission pack, which, going by latest record, is going to be fun to play, but is going to be a piece of garbage in terms of storytelling and logic.
Co-Op? Great addition, can be done a lot with it. Community could also contribute to it, if Blizzard hosted a contest for maps. New commanders, even locked by a a paywall of DLC would be great. I would buy Abathur Commander with a voice pack for £7-10. Straight away, just give me your bank details Blizz. However, Co-Op in it's current state is lacking. No end game. Nothing to do with your 15 level Commander. Leveling others? Just a boring grind, as the map and opponent variety is low.
Archon? Nothing more then a glorified Micro Macro map from BW with a bit of polish. Maps like this were created before in the Arcade, however (I might be wrong on this one) something was missing from the editor to make it work as it is now.
Tournaments? All cool and all, but there are obvious problems here as well. First, you can check your opponents games and his usual build order, allowing you to counter it. I won a tournament this way, just to test it. Not one player deviated from his build. How this passed QA, I have no idea. I would prefer a better reward for winning. And maybe BO3 for the final at the same time. Because as it is now, what is the difference between a tournament, and clicking Play in the menu to find another 1v1?
Yes, I whine about things. Plenty of people do. I want more features, more skins, voice packs, I'm willing to pay for them. I want to give Blizzard more money to improve my experience. I'm sure plenty of others think the same way. Instead, I hear "wait till we finish Nova pack". Maybe if Blizzard was still good at writing, I'd be excited. But I'm mortified instead.
So I wanted to read what wadded so many panties and whitie-tighties. And frankly, I was underwhelmed, but I will add my $0.02 from a leadership perspective, because there are some interesting dynamics happening here.
Kim is making what some would refer to as mistakes, as a member of leadership charged with directly communicating with the end user. He has specifically mentioned what he considers to be bad (or nuisance) behavior, and once that is done, it almost doesn't matter what he says about it. Spending any amount of time on it could potentially feed and encourage the negative behavior--having the opposite effect on his intent. And it almost certainly changes the tone of the messaging, robbing the positive messaging of its potential efficacy.
A tactic David Kim may want to consider: ignore nuisance behavior. That behavior might be bolstered by clingers-on in the community, but it will eventually just die off if no official / meaningful attention is given to it.
Revealing the inner disposition of the team was probably a mistake. If the nuisance behavior is getting to a point where it is affecting the team--as Kim alluded to--then a different set of leadership skills could be employed to fortify the team. Which you and I should never know about. Building a perception of the team to the community is a different set of skills, and is basically a political strategy. Here he is attempting to express vulnerability, humanity, and brotherhood -- a mistake with this community, in my humblest opinion. Remember, Kim, your team is at the helm of an incredibly awesome and important game. Own it!
It looks as if Kim might be getting nicked by his own double-edge sword, and maybe didn't put on the correct set of armor. He wants transparency. The community wants transparency--which is bullshit. They want control, which they can't reasonably have. Sorry!--so Kim gives it, perhaps without thinking through all the iterations of what comes next. Kim and his team have a goal. They will work towards achieving it. The community can help achieve that goal, but probably can't or won't change the fundamental nature of that goal.
Kim may want to consider focusing on the behavior he and his team find useful, and that's it. The members of the community that are behaving in such a way that is being called out, specifically mentioned, even lauded by Kim, will be encouraged to feedback even more, and with even more zeal. This cuts both ways. Cultivating a community such as this is extremely difficult work, but there is gold in here. Gold!
Kim's tone is conversational, which is nice, but could probably be edited up a bit : ) Phrasing like: obviously, like I said, like we mentioned, since we're only, you should, as you can see; can be problematic, and in most situations, just cut out completely. Look at this example:
David Kim wrote: Obviously, we are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map where we definitely want to focus on making some balance tuning passes. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map.
[...]
So as you can see, each map is unique and contributes to the map pool as a whole being an extremely diverse play experience. Map balance, however, is a different thing. Obviously if a map balance has clear problems we should work towards fixing that like we’ve already mentioned in the weekly update. We would like to thank and do a major shoutout to the people out there that are sharing specific solutions that we might be able to implement to make specific maps better. It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon of “Map X just sucks and there’s nothing anyone can ever do about it to make it any better.” There are two major problems with this mindset: It’s just unproductive, and the statement is just not true. We should know better than this especially since we’ve been iterating on and polishing various design problems together as a whole.
I will modify them slightly, with some of the principles above implemented:
TOP: We are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map we definitely want to tune. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map.
BOTTOM: Each map is unique and contributes to our intent for a diverse play experience. We would like to thank you and do a major shoutout to the people out there that are sharing specific solutions to potential balance issues. We value this feedback and we use it to enhance the maps. Keep it coming, guys.
CONCLUSION I really like what Kim is trying to do, but believe me, this sort of community outreach and cultivation is difficult work. I'm sure he has enlisted some help editing and strategizing these notes, but it's my opinion that they could still use some work--mainly style and voice--if he really wants to leverage the genius lurking in the pages of these great forums.
I don't know what it is about this kind of thing that makes people so stubborn. Humans are not a blank slate psychologically and will power isn't all-powerful. Tailoring an environment to be productive for humans psychologically in a particular way is like tailoring an environment to be productive for humans with two legs and two arms and two hands and ten fingers. While you might feel like your consciousness is perfectly malleable and adaptable and that your will power can get you to do whatever it is you need to do, the fact remains that there are better and worse psychological environments for humans in general. If your answer to every psychological hurdle is to "tough it out" then you are at risk of being surpassed by people who know how to change their environment to something closer to the ideal psychological environment. It isn't a credit to you to ignore this inefficiency. It's a problem that ought to be worked like any other problem and having an ego and taking pride in an ability to withstand counterproductive or unproductive comments is a detriment to your work.
The community can't just wave a magic wand at David Kim and get their perfect game. But this argument cuts both ways. David Kim can't just whine to his customers and transform them into his ideal fans either, who understand and love his game and praise him as their hero. David Kim is getting a paycheck to be able to cater to the needs of his customers. A lot of whom are probably still in school. How malleable do you expect them to be?
And when you think about it, the argument cuts a lot more strongly in the direction of David Kim. Statistically, it's a lot more likely than he and his team is performing below average along some or other axis, than that his customers are a particularly demanding, unreasonable and abusive subset of paying customers in general. And when you think about it, David Kim can at least conceivably be replaced. There is simply no way for Blizzard to abandon their current fanbase and just pick up some ten thousands of new, better behaved customers.
The way to solve this situation is like I already said: a liaison. The negative comments of the community are not directed at the liaison so the liaison can read them without that negative emotional impact. They mine all the feedback for everything that's constructive and present it to the team in a neutral voice, removing any unnecessary negativity/abuse that the feedback originally contained. They also pass on all the positive feedback, since that is constructive too and is nice for the team to hear anyway. In a normal work environment, the leadership would be more positive and teach their employees to be more positive to each other, so that they can give each other plenty of feedback while also maintaining a positive work environment. It seems like this is the tactic David Kim tried to take with the community, but it's completely unrealistic for the dev team's relationship with the community to change in this way. The community will always be hiding their constructive feedback in posts full of unconstructive, negative and abusive messages.
No. The solution is for David Kim to take a good, long and hard look in the mirror every morning and repeat to himself ten times: You get the response you deserve. When these people who kept SC:BW alive and kicking for ten years with next to zero support from Blizzard are acting up like this, I have to be doing something wrong. And because I'm a professional with a lot of talented people around me, I'll take responsibility and sort this out.
Installing a middle man between yourself and your customers is practically the worst way of going about things. Filtering the negative emotions out of the feedback doesn't refine it, it degrades it, and leaves you with a sugar-coated understanding of the realities. If you don't have enough confidence in what you are dong to handle negative feedback, then that's the real problem, no the feedback. Adding an extra layer of interpretation produces a Chinese whispers effect and leaves everybody frustrated with how their criticism seems to consistently get lost in translation. And your middle man will inevitably jump through hoops to present you with the things you want to hear, because you're his boss, and good news is always more popular than bad news. And that's how you wind up, where David Kim thinks the map pool is better than expected, and the community collectively shakes their heads in disbelief.
The fundamental disagreement here is that you are treating negativity as the root cause - as if there's some sort of runaway process that's come out of nowhere, and once you get that in check the rest will fall into place eventually. The other possibility is that the negativity is merely a symptom of something urgently in need of fixing. In that case, you need to confront the negativity head on, rather than locking the doors and hoping it's just some weird phase your customers are going through. Positivity and optimism tails behind a good product, not the other way around.
The feedback Blizzard receives is at the level of quality that can be expected from video game players providing feedback on in the internet. There's nothing especially bad about the current players when the context is considered, but this context is notorious for unproductive and unpalatable communication. To be perfectly clear, I'm not expecting either David Kim or the players to significantly change. I think that it was a mistake for David Kim to ask for more constructive feedback and to mention the demotivation, because even if it does result in better feedback, that's not worth the message it sends.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that one gets the response one deserves. I'm not sure if you just haven't exposed yourself to enough of the absolute chaos and abandonment of reason that occurs on the internet or if you really think there is some logic behind it all. From what I've seen, there are many people giving opinions who do not know enough of the facts to even be speaking about the topic. There are many people who do a very poor job of reporting, letting emotions get in the way of facts and letting their agenda take priority over the facts. People need to be knowledgeable and rational, at a minimum, to evaluate a thing and judge it well. The minimum is not even met. They may write words that are relevant to the issue, but no effort on their part is being made to employ reason to evaluate the thing, much less evaluate it well. There's a lot of unreasonable hate out there. I don't understand why you'd advise respecting it and taking it to heart.
If you narrow the feedback from all of it to just the feedback originating from the people responsible for SC:BW, then I think you can start to get somewhere. But first of all, there are people who worked on SC:BW still around at Blizzard during the development of SC2. So the advice from the developers who actually made the game is already there internally -- no external feedback needed. Second of all, the expectations for SC:BW were a lot different. It was cool for it to be a competitive game, but Blizzard went decidedly hands-off and moved on to WC3, and then were pleasantly surprised that it had such longevity. It certainly did suffer from long periods of stale gameplay and imbalance. In our current environment which LotV has to endure, SC:BW would have had many disgruntled fans as well. What merit do the people who kept playing SC:BW have in this case? I think that their general experience with the scene makes their feedback privileged above others but I see nothing in particular that they figured out that would be especially helpful at making LotV a better game. And just like they have advantages, they have disadvantages too. They might want to mimic SC:BW too much instead of letting SC2 be its own game. They might apply reasoning to 2016 that ceased to be relevant a decade ago. Such non-developers are worth being heard, but what did they do to earn the SC2 developers' acceptance of their judgments as truth?
We don't need to make arguments about whether filtering out negative emotions from feedback is helpful and we don't need to make assumptions about what negative to positive feedback ratios are ideal. Researchers have been interested in the topic for decades and the picture you paint is simply inaccurate. If you want to debate the research then debate the research but I'm not going to entertain your rhetoric on a scientific issue.
As for having no faith that a person could do the job of liaison without being corrupted, I think you're being extreme. I think people have done the job well and I'm sure some people have fallen to the temptations you describe. Inevitable seems extreme. But even if there is some corruption, the goal isn't perfection but rather improvement. It is incredible to think that the way each and every person decides to present their feedback is in the perfect way to maximize its helpfulness to the developers. Much of the feedback is not concise and yet also not specific enough. Putting aside the issue of whether the liaison should keep all the negative emotions in with the critiques, it seems likely that a professional could improve the writing of what these people jot down on forums. Even professional writers benefit from editors. Forum posts are ripe for immense improvements.
How can you use David Kim not having a feel for the community's regard of the map pool as an example of a liaison being a bad idea? As far as I can tell, you've taken an actual failure that just happened, which happened while the feedback is being communicated the way you want it, and attributed it to my hypothetical liaison scenario. I don't understand your point.
Here is what I think has happened for SC2: For WoL and HotS, Dustin Browder and team wanted too much to create their own game, avoiding making a copy of SC:BW. For LotV, someone at Blizzard decided to give in a bit and make the game more like SC:BW in some ways, or at least stop caring if what's good for SC2 happens to be similar to SC:BW, and also put a much higher value on community feedback. Throughout LotV development, they've listened to the community a ton and it has helped. They've made a better game because of it. But I don't think the process they're using right now is perfect, as this post by DK indicates something is wrong, and so I've suggested it can be improved with a liaison.
If negativity is just a symptom of some other cause, why do you pay attention to the negativity (take it head on)? I feel like you got lost in your metaphor because you are supposed to treat the root cause, not the symptoms. If you really believe that when something goes wrong which causes something else to go wrong, you succeed by devoting all of your attention to the second thing, then we have completely different understandings of causality.
On February 02 2016 05:38 TimeSpiral wrote: So I wanted to read what wadded so many panties and whitie-tighties. And frankly, I was underwhelmed, but I will add my $0.02 from a leadership perspective, because there are some interesting dynamics happening here.
Kim is making what some would refer to as mistakes, as a member of leadership charged with directly communicating with the end user. He has specifically mentioned what he considers to be bad (or nuisance) behavior, and once that is done, it almost doesn't matter what he says about it. Spending any amount of time on it could potentially feed and encourage the negative behavior--having the opposite effect on his intent. And it almost certainly changes the tone of the messaging, robbing the positive messaging of its potential efficacy.
A tactic David Kim may want to consider: ignore nuisance behavior. That behavior might be bolstered by clingers-on in the community, but it will eventually just die off if no official / meaningful attention is given to it.
Revealing the inner disposition of the team was probably a mistake. If the nuisance behavior is getting to a point where it is affecting the team--as Kim alluded to--then a different set of leadership skills could be employed to fortify the team. Which you and I should never know about. Building a perception of the team to the community is a different set of skills, and is basically a political strategy. Here he is attempting to express vulnerability, humanity, and brotherhood -- a mistake with this community, in my humblest opinion. Remember, Kim, your team is at the helm of an incredibly awesome and important game. Own it!
It looks as if Kim might be getting nicked by his own double-edge sword, and maybe didn't put on the correct set of armor. He wants transparency. The community wants transparency--which is bullshit. They want control, which they can't reasonably have. Sorry!--so Kim gives it, perhaps without thinking through all the iterations of what comes next. Kim and his team have a goal. They will work towards achieving it. The community can help achieve that goal, but probably can't or won't change the fundamental nature of that goal.
Kim may want to consider focusing on the behavior he and his team find useful, and that's it. The members of the community that are behaving in such a way that is being called out, specifically mentioned, even lauded by Kim, will be encouraged to feedback even more, and with even more zeal. This cuts both ways. Cultivating a community such as this is extremely difficult work, but there is gold in here. Gold!
Kim's tone is conversational, which is nice, but could probably be edited up a bit : ) Phrasing like: obviously, like I said, like we mentioned, since we're only, you should, as you can see; can be problematic, and in most situations, just cut out completely. Look at this example:
David Kim wrote: Obviously, we are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map where we definitely want to focus on making some balance tuning passes. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map.
[...]
So as you can see, each map is unique and contributes to the map pool as a whole being an extremely diverse play experience. Map balance, however, is a different thing. Obviously if a map balance has clear problems we should work towards fixing that like we’ve already mentioned in the weekly update. We would like to thank and do a major shoutout to the people out there that are sharing specific solutions that we might be able to implement to make specific maps better. It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon of “Map X just sucks and there’s nothing anyone can ever do about it to make it any better.” There are two major problems with this mindset: It’s just unproductive, and the statement is just not true. We should know better than this especially since we’ve been iterating on and polishing various design problems together as a whole.
I will modify them slightly, with some of the principles above implemented:
TOP: We are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map we definitely want to tune. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map.
BOTTOM: Each map is unique and contributes to our intent for a diverse play experience. We would like to thank you and do a major shoutout to the people out there that are sharing specific solutions to potential balance issues. We value this feedback and we use it to enhance the maps. Keep it coming, guys.
CONCLUSION I really like what Kim is trying to do, but believe me, this sort of community outreach and cultivation is difficult work. I'm sure he has enlisted some help editing and strategizing these notes, but it's my opinion that they could still use some work--mainly style and voice--if he really wants to leverage the genius lurking in the pages of these great forums.
Thanks for reading!
Can't get much more constructive than this, thanks.
On topic: blizzard has done more than activision ever would have done .. given the venture they are on. People need to learn to see things for what they are.. free model etc.. the competitive scene will die if games are bad, that we have to wait for it to be good only makes the victory sweeter. The rts of 2010ies is here and WE can make it great.. or lose it.
I don't know what it is about this kind of thing that makes people so stubborn. Humans are not a blank slate psychologically and will power isn't all-powerful. Tailoring an environment to be productive for humans psychologically in a particular way is like tailoring an environment to be productive for humans with two legs and two arms and two hands and ten fingers. While you might feel like your consciousness is perfectly malleable and adaptable and that your will power can get you to do whatever it is you need to do, the fact remains that there are better and worse psychological environments for humans in general. If your answer to every psychological hurdle is to "tough it out" then you are at risk of being surpassed by people who know how to change their environment to something closer to the ideal psychological environment. It isn't a credit to you to ignore this inefficiency. It's a problem that ought to be worked like any other problem and having an ego and taking pride in an ability to withstand counterproductive or unproductive comments is a detriment to your work.
The way to solve this situation is like I already said: a liaison. The negative comments of the community are not directed at the liaison so the liaison can read them without that negative emotional impact. They mine all the feedback for everything that's constructive and present it to the team in a neutral voice, removing any unnecessary negativity/abuse that the feedback originally contained. They also pass on all the positive feedback, since that is constructive too and is nice for the team to hear anyway. In a normal work environment, the leadership would be more positive and teach their employees to be more positive to each other, so that they can give each other plenty of feedback while also maintaining a positive work environment. It seems like this is the tactic David Kim tried to take with the community, but it's completely unrealistic for the dev team's relationship with the community to change in this way. The community will always be hiding their constructive feedback in posts full of unconstructive, negative and abusive messages.
Me for myself am working as such, and at the moment when I imagine writing such thing as david kim has written, I'll fly through the window out of the corporate world.
- To accuse your customers in being childish or asking for a treat is equal to suicide in terms of career development.
Someone from Blizzard must proofread the things DK writes to the public.
Yeah, it's funny that the one thing almost everyone is agreeing on here is that DK wrote the wrong things. And yet DK directly communicating with the community is the result of the community's demands. The community wanted this transparency! They wanted DK to take on this extra responsibility! I think it demonstrates how the demands of the community that seem reasonable and helpful are often misguided and unhelpful. If Blizzard ever listens to the community and it doesn't turn out well, then the community will say (1) That's not what we wanted. That's what one stupid minority group wanted and you shouldn't have listened to them and (2) We gave you the right idea but you failed in execution. To me it just seems like a very tricky thing for a video game development team, especially one with an esport, to be involved with the community.
It is tricky when you try to leave the development in the hands of the community. Which is why I've said in the past (most recently in the design vs balance topic) that one of their main problems is they are handling community interaction and feedback in completely the wrong way.
Allowing the community the power to control the direction of the game is destined to fail. The players are not on the same page, have different hopes for the game, etc.
Leadership of the direction of the game should still be determined by the lead game designers. They are meant to have clear goals and a clear vision for the future of their game and where they want it to be. Feedback is best used to support these goals and help achieve this vision. Make some changes to the game based around the goals, then give it to the community. Ask for feedback from the community as to if it achieves the intended goal properly, and to report any potential problems, exploits, or unintended use of the new mechanics. If it achieves the goal properly, move forward.
That is not how they are using the feedback though. They don't list the long term goals of these changes. Actually, they usually don't even address anything unless there is a problem. And they do short-term fixes (bandaids) to the problem, rather than trying to steer the direction of the game away from the problems.
They make changes to the game, and let the community decide if they want to keep them or not. Their reasoning has nothing to do with if the changes to the game achieved the intended purpose. It only goes as far as "if the community doesn't explode, we will keep it".
And that's the problem. Regardless of any change in the game, some people will like it, some are not. That alone should not determine the direction of the game! The direction should be set towards the designers vision. And they have no long-term vision, all of their changes are short sighted.
Even if the players did not agree with a change that was being made, they would be MUCH less pissed off, if the game had a clear direction. Imagine if players were actually able to say "Well, I don't like the new change they did... but I could see where they are going with it, and in the end things might work out"?? That would be a far different feeling than we have now. We would actually have HOPE for the future!
But what hope do we have right now, really? Does anyone really see SC2 doing anything amazing in the future? Do any of us have any idea of the vision the designers have for the game? Is there anything to really reassure us of the direction of the game?
It shouldn't be ONLY about what the "community wants". In the end, what the community wants is a GREAT GAME! They might have ideas of what fits their image of a great game, but they do not know how to make changes to every single system of the game to actually make it work how they are imagining! That's what we need designers for, people who specialize in creating a plan on how to get the game to reach the vision, and make all the various ideas for mechanics & all the moving parts work together.
Applying random balance updates that the community votes on will never get us there. Whether a change should be added to the game or not should only depend on 2 things: 1) Does the change match the intended vision of the game, and 2) Does the feedback respond that it achieves this purpose properly.
This is how software is supposed to be designed, and how feedback is supposed to be used.
------------------------------
Here is a real life example of the design process & feedback usage in a real life situation...
At my job I was initially hired to design their software that they wanted to run their ENTIRE online business.
When I was hired, they were running 100% out of Excel files, not a real database. I put a database in place, but then it came time to create a listing system that is integrated with all their marketplaces - their website, eBay, Amazon, etc. This led to a major issue - 3 different people were creating listings, and each listing had their own (slightly different) information. In other words, they had 3 products in the database that were all basically the same thing, each on a different marketplace, and 3 different employees were doing the same job on a different market.
To solve this problem, one of the largest updates we needed to do to the software was creating this listing system.
My design goal was to have it so 1 employee can create a listing through our software, and then the listings are automatically generated for all 3 marketplaces, and all 3 listings are tracked as 1 single product of data in our software. One fully integrated database.
Those changes take a very long time to complete, though, and had to be separated in to many steps. Step 1 of the process was for the software to start collecting data - prior to the software, when employees would create listings, they were putting NOTHING in to the database but the product code & stocks. For the software itself to create a listing, it needs all the information such as listing title, product type, product categories, vehicle fitment (the products are auto parts), shipping information, photos, etc etc.
Then came time to implement step 1... Which meant entering all the data in to our software. At this point, the software did not yet automatically create the listings, so they had to enter data in to the software IN ADDITION to entering it in to the marketplaces.
I knew this would not be well-received at all. Nobody wants to have to do their job twice. So in exchange, I needed to add some features to alleviate the pain. I had it generate the actual HTML to be used in the listing (saving them from having to edit it in a Dreamweaver-like program for each listing). This way, the information could still be entered and saved in our software, and the employee will get something in return.
After implementing this, the question of the employees is "Why?". Did it take less time to use this new method? No... Did it take more time? No, not really. It was approximately the same time. But staff had to be re-trained to use this new method. No one really understood the reason for this, and felt it was an extra burden.
At this point, I had to reassure them. This is only a first step. We are in a state of transition. They can not see it right now, but simply having all the data in our software is a huge upgrade. Since we have all the information, we can literally automate anything we want. That is not what the employees seen though. The employees seen new places to enter information, for the same amount of time spent, and a few more areas to possibly make a mistake.
I explained all this to the listing manager. He understood as well as he could, but did not fully see the big picture at the time. But reluctantly agreed with me to move forward.
The employees, again, did not understand this. It seemed like an extra burden to them. Especially considering the software couldn't do what they were used to doing, and I had to take a few days to make a special feature in order for them to do what they wanted.
This led to even more growing pains. Listings can be complex on various marketplaces, and they needed to add many things to the listing system that it did not support. About 2-3 months of upgrades was required until the listing system in the software was suitable to do EVERYTHING they needed. Vehicle databases needed to be integrated, search systems for the marketplaces, different template options, etc. Keep in mind, this is being created for employees that have little to no technical knowledge/HTML/CSS history.
But during this time, the listing manager and I had many discussions. He knew the future plans. It was his job to get the feedback from the listing employees. He approached me with required updates, as well as ideas that himself and the employees had. He helped me come up with priorities for each update. He let me know if something was working well, or if something didn't cut it. We scrapped some things that didn't work well, remade the interface a few times to make it more basic/elegant. We consulted with the employees for any ideas of features that would speed things up for them.
At one point, a month or so in, he came to me and said "After these last few updates, I think I see where you are going with this".
Fast forward to when the final version was deployed. The listing employees were amazed when I taught them how to use it. Simply enter the form in our software, click Create. Job Finished. "That's all they have to do? I don't need to log in the website and fill out all the listing information?? Or upload the pics? Or retrieve the listing ID's and add it to the spreadsheets? That saves so much time!"
What is the point of this story? It's an example of how design and feedback is intended to work in software! Your design has to have a clear goal & purpose. Your feedback should be directly related to fulfilling that purpose. Sometimes (as expected) the feedback will be VERY NEGATIVE initially. If you do a good job of communicating the vision & goals to the people using the software... They will still be nervous and reluctant. Your changes may straight up seem like a VERY bad idea, and like it doesn't help at all. But as time goes on, if they see the changes all working towards a bigger picture, and they see the software getting closer and closer to reaching the intended goal, you will have happy customers.
Now ask yourself, in my example, what would have happened if we did not have clear design goals before performing the updates to the software? If we just looked at what was needed IMMEDIATELY and patched fixes for that?
What would have happened if we decided to let the users initial bad feedback control the direction of our software, and just scrapped the new system during the transition before users seen the whole picture?
What would have happened if we did not clearly communicate the goals of our changes as they were performed?
What would have happened if we did not have the listing manager collecting feedback from the users (not ALL feedback, but feedback that SPECIFICALLY pertained to if it was achieving its goal, and how we could better achieve its goal)?
Long-term, would the users have been happier with the end product if we did what they wanted when they first expressed discontent with the new system? Or would they be happier in the end with a better designed final product?
This is why I say, Blizzard is handling design and feedback COMPLETELY the wrong way. If they have any clear goals or a vision for SC2 in the future at all, they do not inform the community of it, and their changes do not seem to indicate any specific direction they are moving in. They are accepting feedback in all the wrong places - they are allowing feedback to control the design, rather than allowing feedback to tell the user if the mechanics are supporting the intended design. They have the lead designer doing the community updates, rather than having someone filter the feedback based upon the intended design. They are not giving players any hope for the future, and THAT is the single most important thing when making changes to software.
Even though your user base may not be happy at all times, they can still have hope that everything will come together in the future. But in SC2, the hope is all but gone. LotV is where all the players expected everything to come together. They claimed beta was going to go "far longer than any of their other betas". But in the end, it was a lie and the beta was just as long as HotS. They scrapped the changes they worked on for nearly half the beta. They fooled me in to purchasing the game they had in beta because I was actually happy with the direction they were going, and then they completely changed direction, after I was locked in to a preorder since I ordered through Blizzard Store. They did NOT take the old "Blizzard path" where the game will be "ready when it's ready". They sold us short. And now they want us to pay them again before they even finish delivering all that was promised for the LotV package?
Not going to happen - Not with my money. The development team has failed on nearly all fronts. Their marketing team and business practices have shown they do not care about the players. Their lead designer has not shown any vision or hopeful future for the game. It has been clear for years that they need to do major changes to the game like they did with D3 in order for it to recover, and have shown no signs of actually caring enough to do them. The game has been slowly dying since WoL. They have even moved their top designers from SC2 on to other games... And their current lead designer straight up admit to giving us inferior design in order to avoid a "negative perception in the community"! The lead designer isn't doing his job of giving us the best design, and negative perception is expected in the community during states of transition!
No more of my money for them until they show they actually care about the SC2 product.
Well as far as Prion I like the 3rd gold, I actually do not think the map is that bad for protoss PvZ, .. they just need to play safe for the opening, Zerg ends up trapped once the golds mine out... it gets much harder to expand and move around the map, and protoss is booming at that point. On Central I think some low health destructible rocks at the natural 3rd so zerg cannot expand quicker than the other races.
On February 02 2016 12:47 crazedrat wrote: Well as far as Prion I like the 3rd gold, I actually do not think the map is that bad for protoss PvZ, .. they just need to play safe for the opening, Zerg ends up trapped once the golds mine out... it gets much harder to expand and move around the map, and protoss is booming at that point. On Central I think some low health destructible rocks at the natural 3rd so zerg cannot expand quicker than the other races.
Have you ever actually tried to play PvZ on Prion and Central P? Not just watched I mean. Not sure you're playing the same kind of PvZ than the rest of the world. That or you're on drugs. Not sure.
I left starcraft 2 for Dota 2 a few years back. I really liked the game for some time and played and watched it a lot back then. The problems came more and more evident later on and I'm going to give my full opinion of them now.
Brood war was an awesome game. It was a game where space control mattered. You could put a few tanks to cover a narrow route to a location to block access. This would be almost impenetrable. What the opponent would have had to do can be something like: 1. Find different route to flank the formation. 2. Attack the formation knowing the weakness (in this case, send air units to attack). 3. If also flanks are covered well you take control of the rest of the map, because the enemy invested a lot to defend that specific location and can't be that strong elsewhere -> take the initiative. 4. try to use some fancy spell to cover your attack moves. 5. force the enemy to move
This resembles chess. There were multiple units (lurker, arbiter, reaver, defiler..) that had really strong location control. But they had evident weaknesses. High manacost, slow, up in the tech tree... So you could rush, flank, drop, avoid, outmacro, outmicro the units but not rush on to them. And oh dear the games in BW... And the maps. They were fun and diverse.
Starcraft 2 on the other hand took a completely different path. Even with 200/200 all the tanks covering one narrow ledge, you can not block the protoss ground forces. As they just demolish you. But...YOU CAN LIFT THE TANK!! Who wants to lift a tank that is supposed to defend? It's the speed of the brain and not (only) the speed of the hands that should differ players. In SC2 Zerg had no way to really control any kind of terrain. It was some kind of weird hit and run game the TvZ. Protoss of course just a-moved always. Gateway was plain useless path to choose apart from rushing as they fell on tech rapidly and even big gate-army got demolished in seconds. Fuck I loved gateway on BW!!! It was the backbone of protoss!! Now it was some weird deathball-colossi-hit-and-run-cannon-defence-weird-mommaship-core-whaaaaatisthis?? I wanted to have the epic gateway-massing fights or sneaky carrier-stomps but not one OP-unit destroying everything.
Sometimes I go back here to see what's happening. Now there's 18 people streaming BW and three streaming SC2. David Kim still defending his vision of the game and not listening what the people are asking for even after 5 years. Respect the players man!! Please make it truly BW 2.0. That's what we really want. We got enough of 1-unit games already. I dont want one fast tier-1 unit that I miss and all my workers are gone. I don't want to micro tanks! l want them to be able to create by-land-impenetrable defence and to really discover the wannabe-chess-master in me that finds a way to find the way around it. And I'm too old to micro each factory or limit selections BW-style and too comfortable to watch 800x600 2016.
It might be that you want to pay ping-pong and I want to play chess. This is a matter of taste of course. The problem is that BW was in ways similar to chess. What if you would truly ask the community what they want?
On February 02 2016 12:47 crazedrat wrote: Well as far as Prion I like the 3rd gold, I actually do not think the map is that bad for protoss PvZ, .. they just need to play safe for the opening, Zerg ends up trapped once the golds mine out... it gets much harder to expand and move around the map, and protoss is booming at that point. On Central I think some low health destructible rocks at the natural 3rd so zerg cannot expand quicker than the other races.
Have you ever actually tried to play PvZ on Prion and Central P? Not just watched I mean. Not sure you're playing the same kind of PvZ than the rest of the world. That or you're on drugs. Not sure.
All of you whine too much. 2 base allins don't work ... taking the 3rd gold and defending it does work, that will get you into the midgame and you can start to pressure once you're maxed.
On February 02 2016 05:38 TimeSpiral wrote: So I wanted to read what wadded so many panties and whitie-tighties. And frankly, I was underwhelmed, but I will add my $0.02 from a leadership perspective, because there are some interesting dynamics happening here.
Kim is making what some would refer to as mistakes, as a member of leadership charged with directly communicating with the end user. He has specifically mentioned what he considers to be bad (or nuisance) behavior, and once that is done, it almost doesn't matter what he says about it. Spending any amount of time on it could potentially feed and encourage the negative behavior--having the opposite effect on his intent. And it almost certainly changes the tone of the messaging, robbing the positive messaging of its potential efficacy.
A tactic David Kim may want to consider: ignore nuisance behavior. That behavior might be bolstered by clingers-on in the community, but it will eventually just die off if no official / meaningful attention is given to it.
Revealing the inner disposition of the team was probably a mistake. If the nuisance behavior is getting to a point where it is affecting the team--as Kim alluded to--then a different set of leadership skills could be employed to fortify the team. Which you and I should never know about. Building a perception of the team to the community is a different set of skills, and is basically a political strategy. Here he is attempting to express vulnerability, humanity, and brotherhood -- a mistake with this community, in my humblest opinion. Remember, Kim, your team is at the helm of an incredibly awesome and important game. Own it!
It looks as if Kim might be getting nicked by his own double-edge sword, and maybe didn't put on the correct set of armor. He wants transparency. The community wants transparency--which is bullshit. They want control, which they can't reasonably have. Sorry!--so Kim gives it, perhaps without thinking through all the iterations of what comes next. Kim and his team have a goal. They will work towards achieving it. The community can help achieve that goal, but probably can't or won't change the fundamental nature of that goal.
Kim may want to consider focusing on the behavior he and his team find useful, and that's it. The members of the community that are behaving in such a way that is being called out, specifically mentioned, even lauded by Kim, will be encouraged to feedback even more, and with even more zeal. This cuts both ways. Cultivating a community such as this is extremely difficult work, but there is gold in here. Gold!
Kim's tone is conversational, which is nice, but could probably be edited up a bit : ) Phrasing like: obviously, like I said, like we mentioned, since we're only, you should, as you can see; can be problematic, and in most situations, just cut out completely. Look at this example:
David Kim wrote: Obviously, we are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map where we definitely want to focus on making some balance tuning passes. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map.
[...]
So as you can see, each map is unique and contributes to the map pool as a whole being an extremely diverse play experience. Map balance, however, is a different thing. Obviously if a map balance has clear problems we should work towards fixing that like we’ve already mentioned in the weekly update. We would like to thank and do a major shoutout to the people out there that are sharing specific solutions that we might be able to implement to make specific maps better. It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon of “Map X just sucks and there’s nothing anyone can ever do about it to make it any better.” There are two major problems with this mindset: It’s just unproductive, and the statement is just not true. We should know better than this especially since we’ve been iterating on and polishing various design problems together as a whole.
I will modify them slightly, with some of the principles above implemented:
TOP: We are seeing some balance issues on this map, so this is a map we definitely want to tune. Let’s discuss what specific changes we could make to this map.
BOTTOM: Each map is unique and contributes to our intent for a diverse play experience. We would like to thank you and do a major shoutout to the people out there that are sharing specific solutions to potential balance issues. We value this feedback and we use it to enhance the maps. Keep it coming, guys.
CONCLUSION I really like what Kim is trying to do, but believe me, this sort of community outreach and cultivation is difficult work. I'm sure he has enlisted some help editing and strategizing these notes, but it's my opinion that they could still use some work--mainly style and voice--if he really wants to leverage the genius lurking in the pages of these great forums.
Thanks for reading!
Can't get much more constructive than this, thanks.
You too Nony. This thread delivers, as they say
Thank you! Awesome to see it appreciated. I like to think David Kim read it over his morning coffee (or after the morning coffee--you know; the shit-read). Because come on, a guy like Kim? Definitely has Google alerts on : D
I like Starcraft 2. I think Legacy of the Void is a fun game. The unique maps actually keep the game interesting to watch, and fresh to play as well. I'm glad the dev team is paying close enough attention to tweak the maps when balance issues arise. In the meantime, its fun to watch different races scramble to find creative ways to overcome and nullify seemingly unfair advantages. That was one of my favorite things about broodwar actually, was that the players were often forced to balance the game, rather than devs. Like this, I discover many new things about Starcraft.
I play random and can only rank as high as a Top 3 Gold and that's if I practice alot. When I lose I know it is because I'm bad and I don't ever think to blame David Kim. I mostly watch Korean matches with my wife and maybe a beer in the evenings. Probably not many people like me read or flame-post on forums because we are pretty content and enjoy the game for what it is, and all the useless negativity in feedback threads usually makes us close the tab.
There's a lot of things in this world to be upset about and there are surely lots of ways that Starcraft could be improved, but I would hope that most reasonable people could keep these as separate categories.
On February 02 2016 12:47 crazedrat wrote: Well as far as Prion I like the 3rd gold, I actually do not think the map is that bad for protoss PvZ, .. they just need to play safe for the opening, Zerg ends up trapped once the golds mine out... it gets much harder to expand and move around the map, and protoss is booming at that point. On Central I think some low health destructible rocks at the natural 3rd so zerg cannot expand quicker than the other races.
Have you ever actually tried to play PvZ on Prion and Central P? Not just watched I mean. Not sure you're playing the same kind of PvZ than the rest of the world. That or you're on drugs. Not sure.
All of you whine too much. 2 base allins don't work ... taking the 3rd gold and defending it does work, that will get you into the midgame and you can start to pressure once you're maxed.
What level are you playing at? In which world is a Zerg going to not take gold as natural or 3 hatch on Prion and Protoss won't have a say in it unless going all-in? Why would Zerg not prevent Protoss from taking 3rd as gold in a timely fashion if ever thanks to the extra income? I am not whining I just don't want maps that scream "hey you'd better kill zerg now or things will get out of hands", in fact I'd really really like to be wrong, but you sure talk big. If you are diamond or master, give me replays of you doing what you claim to do.
On February 02 2016 12:47 crazedrat wrote: Well as far as Prion I like the 3rd gold, I actually do not think the map is that bad for protoss PvZ, .. they just need to play safe for the opening, Zerg ends up trapped once the golds mine out... it gets much harder to expand and move around the map, and protoss is booming at that point. On Central I think some low health destructible rocks at the natural 3rd so zerg cannot expand quicker than the other races.
Have you ever actually tried to play PvZ on Prion and Central P? Not just watched I mean. Not sure you're playing the same kind of PvZ than the rest of the world. That or you're on drugs. Not sure.
All of you whine too much. 2 base allins don't work ... taking the 3rd gold and defending it does work, that will get you into the midgame and you can start to pressure once you're maxed.
What level are you playing at? In which world is a Zerg going to not take gold as natural or 3 hatch on Prion and Protoss won't have a say in it unless going all-in? Why would Zerg not prevent Protoss from taking 3rd as gold in a timely fashion if ever thanks to the extra income? I am not whining I just don't want maps that scream "hey you'd better kill zerg now or things will get out of hands", in fact I'd really really like to be wrong, but you sure talk big. If you are diamond or master, give me replays of you doing what you claim to do.
You don't have to go kill the zerg. Actually thats the worst thing you can try to do. Just pressure and defend... They have a boost in the early midgame... you can hold on. The map gets better as the game goes long. Ok?
we’ve had so much success for the better of the game in the past year compared to previous years
That's an... interesting assessment of SC2's trajectory, DK. Maybe hoping people don't remember what the game used to be?
You can say what you want, but the general consensus I see around all community platforms is that LotV is definitely better then HotS. Not perfect of course as it is still early in release, but certainly better.
we’ve had so much success for the better of the game in the past year compared to previous years
That's an... interesting assessment of SC2's trajectory, DK. Maybe hoping people don't remember what the game used to be?
You can say what you want, but the general consensus I see around all community platforms is that LotV is definitely better then HotS. Not perfect of course as it is still early in release, but certainly better.
Wait for the novelties of the game to wear off, and then say that. I think it is too early to tell whether LotV is an improvement over HotS
Guys, I have a question. Aren't you having the search for a team game bug? It looks it's not searching, but it is, and vice-versa. So many patches, none relevant.
Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give
How about nerfing ultralisks? It's not like Zerg is weak in early or mid game. I'm currently diamond Terran and it's basically an auto-loss when the Zerg transits into ultras. With that many zerglings charging, ghost snipes are simple not an option. And when I manage to win such a game, it's because we both mined out the map and the Zerg charges into my tanks and mines. Terran has absolutely nothing to support its late game and a bio army gets massacred in seconds. How about reducing the ultras to 7 or 6 amour? How about making marauders great again?
On February 02 2016 12:47 crazedrat wrote: Well as far as Prion I like the 3rd gold, I actually do not think the map is that bad for protoss PvZ, .. they just need to play safe for the opening, Zerg ends up trapped once the golds mine out... it gets much harder to expand and move around the map, and protoss is booming at that point. On Central I think some low health destructible rocks at the natural 3rd so zerg cannot expand quicker than the other races.
Have you ever actually tried to play PvZ on Prion and Central P? Not just watched I mean. Not sure you're playing the same kind of PvZ than the rest of the world. That or you're on drugs. Not sure.
All of you whine too much. 2 base allins don't work ... taking the 3rd gold and defending it does work, that will get you into the midgame and you can start to pressure once you're maxed.
What level are you playing at? In which world is a Zerg going to not take gold as natural or 3 hatch on Prion and Protoss won't have a say in it unless going all-in? Why would Zerg not prevent Protoss from taking 3rd as gold in a timely fashion if ever thanks to the extra income? I am not whining I just don't want maps that scream "hey you'd better kill zerg now or things will get out of hands", in fact I'd really really like to be wrong, but you sure talk big. If you are diamond or master, give me replays of you doing what you claim to do.
You don't have to go kill the zerg. Actually thats the worst thing you can try to do. Just pressure and defend... They have a boost in the early midgame... you can hold on. The map gets better as the game goes long. Ok?
So what you are telling me is to stay on 2 bases until I run out of mineral and take 3rd when Zerg controls the whole map? Yeah as I thought you have nothing to back up your delirious claim.
On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote: Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give
Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx
On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote: Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give
Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx
In the interest of fairness, I take issue with your examples (though not your point).
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
Conversely, RTS is a twenty year old genre, in which there have been MAYBE fifty notable titles, and of those fifty MAYBE ten have valuable lessons that a SC2 designer could learn. There is no grad school that'll teach you how to make a perfect MU in SC2.
In point of fact, half of the fan base won't be happy with Protoss until practically all of their units, PO, and warp gate are reworked from the ground up, while the other half thinks that Protoss is the only race that actually takes S in this RTS. Unlike issues of human rights, or taking out a rotten tooth, where there is often a clear right and a clear wrong, the issue of Protoss (and anything else in this game) comes down to preference.
Again, I wouldn't dream of disagreeing that their design of this game has been haphazard and continues to have a gaping black hole where "vision for how the game should be" is supposed to go... but in a very real and very unavoidable sense, Blizzard devs have been learning their craft as they built this game. Some allowance must be made for that. Although they learn very, very slowly.
we’ve had so much success for the better of the game in the past year compared to previous years
That's an... interesting assessment of SC2's trajectory, DK. Maybe hoping people don't remember what the game used to be?
You can say what you want, but the general consensus I see around all community platforms is that LotV is definitely better then HotS. Not perfect of course as it is still early in release, but certainly better.
Wait for the novelties of the game to wear off, and then say that. I think it is too early to tell whether LotV is an improvement over HotS
I remember when HotS first came out. Initial reactions usually tend to conflate "different" with "better". Another thing to note is that the SC2 community platforms are also significantly less populated these days (let alone the ladder population...). I think that's a more telling trend than what the general consensus is on said platforms. People flock to things they enjoy.
On February 04 2016 04:55 pure.Wasted wrote: In point of fact, half of the fan base won't be happy with Protoss until practically all of their units, PO, and warp gate are reworked from the ground up, while the other half thinks that Protoss is the only race that actually takes S in this RTS.
What about those of us who think both of those positions are valid? IMO Terran and Zerg went the way of abandoning strategy in favour of mechanical macro over their evolution, while Protoss has had a poor design from the start (WoL) but at least continues to retain a connection to the strategic aspect of the game.
On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote: Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give
Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx
FIXED IT: Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone ? Is it too much to expect the the sanitary worker to collect your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and design a game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of a variety of things that I don't know about, but I have my opinions. I didn't notice this level of criticism when the game was at an arbitrary point in its life-cycle.
NOTE: took out most of the meaningless qualifiers which essentially render your entire point unproductive.
On February 02 2016 21:25 kasapanos wrote: I left starcraft 2 for Dota 2 a few years back. I really liked the game for some time and played and watched it a lot back then. The problems came more and more evident later on and I'm going to give my full opinion of them now.
Brood war was an awesome game. It was a game where space control mattered. You could put a few tanks to cover a narrow route to a location to block access. This would be almost impenetrable. What the opponent would have had to do can be something like: 1. Find different route to flank the formation. 2. Attack the formation knowing the weakness (in this case, send air units to attack). 3. If also flanks are covered well you take control of the rest of the map, because the enemy invested a lot to defend that specific location and can't be that strong elsewhere -> take the initiative. 4. try to use some fancy spell to cover your attack moves. 5. force the enemy to move
This resembles chess. There were multiple units (lurker, arbiter, reaver, defiler..) that had really strong location control. But they had evident weaknesses. High manacost, slow, up in the tech tree... So you could rush, flank, drop, avoid, outmacro, outmicro the units but not rush on to them. And oh dear the games in BW... And the maps. They were fun and diverse.
Starcraft 2 on the other hand took a completely different path. Even with 200/200 all the tanks covering one narrow ledge, you can not block the protoss ground forces. As they just demolish you. But...YOU CAN LIFT THE TANK!! Who wants to lift a tank that is supposed to defend? It's the speed of the brain and not (only) the speed of the hands that should differ players. In SC2 Zerg had no way to really control any kind of terrain. It was some kind of weird hit and run game the TvZ. Protoss of course just a-moved always. Gateway was plain useless path to choose apart from rushing as they fell on tech rapidly and even big gate-army got demolished in seconds. Fuck I loved gateway on BW!!! It was the backbone of protoss!! Now it was some weird deathball-colossi-hit-and-run-cannon-defence-weird-mommaship-core-whaaaaatisthis?? I wanted to have the epic gateway-massing fights or sneaky carrier-stomps but not one OP-unit destroying everything.
Hello, are you my sock puppet account? Because these are basically my exact feelings towards SC2. Good explanation and glad to see somebody taking a higher level view of the game and not just another balance gripe.
On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote: Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give
Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx
I think that this ongoing criticism and in general the harsh game design dicussions originate from a community entitlement similar to what we see from sports fanclubs. When it was WoL or even HotS, players either accepted what they were playing or left. But after years and years with the game a lot of us have become very connected to the game and its community. It's not as easy to leave SC2 behind if you don't like the expansion direction or feel like you were never heard after years of cognital investment into this game.
From blizzard's point of view, they created a game and two expansions for it that just built upon the original. I think it was a huge mistake to spread it over 5 years, given that with each year our expectations and our entitlement grew, just to find out that we were getting a rather standard RTS expansion with a few new units and a few design and balance changes.
Excellent point BigJ. They hyped this game up as a "trilogy" and said they were surprised by all the fan outrage when they announced the campaigns would be delivered in 3 separate installments, because in their view they were delivering 3x as much game. Guess it didn't turn out that way
On February 04 2016 05:50 iamcaustic wrote: What about those of us who think both of those positions are valid? IMO Terran and Zerg went the way of abandoning strategy in favour of mechanical macro over their evolution, while Protoss has had a poor design from the start (WoL) but at least continues to retain a connection to the strategic aspect of the game.
I picked up Dota 2 the other day after not playing any Dota for like 2 years (peer pressure). Despite never being any good and with 2 years of not playing being even worse I had lots of fun. This what you say there is right on. The game is becoming way too mechanics dependent.
Before I get crucified I would like to clarify I'm not against there being a high skill ceiling. What I'm against is that certain match ups are not playable without those. In those Dota games, I realised I found it fun because I was contributing. I wasn't there out farming my opponent, I wasn't making high level mechanical maneuvers. But I bought wards, pulled creeps, DIDN'T DIE.
The issue with LOTV is that certain match ups are just not playable without those mechanics (for one side and not the other). A terran cannot win against a parade of roach/ravager or late game ultras without decent tank and bio micro. A protoss cannot break out of a lurker contain or liberators without perfect positioning and engagements. This makes the game feel completely ridiculous who's not GM and I think why there's a lot of criticism on the design team because everyone (from every race and every perspective) has something to complain about.
On February 04 2016 08:32 Big J wrote: From blizzard's point of view, they created a game and two expansions for it that just built upon the original. I think it was a huge mistake to spread it over 5 years, given that with each year our expectations and our entitlement grew, just to find out that we were getting a rather standard RTS expansion with a few new units and a few design and balance changes.
the game's revenue did not justify the priority level within Blizz to pump out content faster. Is LotV even going to make $60 million USD? Throughout SC2's development history which spanned a decade or more Blizzard always had more than 1 higher priority than SC2.
On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote: Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give
Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx
FIXED IT: Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone ? Is it too much to expect the the sanitary worker to collect your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and design a game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of a variety of things that I don't know about, but I have my opinions. I didn't notice this level of criticism when the game was at an arbitrary point in its life-cycle.
NOTE: took out most of the meaningless qualifiers which essentially render your entire point unproductive.
Let politicians, doctors, trashmen and game designers do a bad job in some cases purposely in order to make a profit against everyone else's interests without even expecting them to do it right, because that would be... unproductive! (???)
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death.
But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born.
MOBA game design has a decidedly shorter history than RTS game design, yet has been vastly more successful (at least for Riot and League) because they've focused very hard on making the game fun and reducing frustrations. We play games to have fun. Riot's design blogs are amazing. It is a masterclass in game design.
That doesn't mean that Riot doesn't mistakes, but it validates what I am saying when I use other team's designs to compare against the designs of the SC2 team, because it shows that things can be done the correct way and I'm not just picking apart a team for making mistakes, because everyone make mistakes as you mentioned, from doctors to politicians. But some people make more mistakes than others, and should be held accountable.
So I don't believe it is the case that game design lacks history or anything like that. And I don't believe it is the case that Big J pointed out where I'm jaded because SC2 has changed from what happened in WOL.
The game can, and should evolve into a better game (better defined as more fun) over time. What makes games fun?
SC2 doesn't do those things, and in fact, does completely the opposite in many cases. Anti-fun literally exceeds fun in many SC2 interactions and that makes players upset and they complain about said features. It is really a poorly designed game when looked at from a game design perspective. And I say that as someone who designs games.
The very first thing Zileas lists is "Power without Gameplay", which is literally exactly what Photon Overcharge is. You press 1 key and click on a Pylon and suddenly you are safe, and there is basically no gameplay. It is such a bad design and I don't understand why it is still in the game.
As he says: "The problem with using a "power without gameplay" mechanic is that you tend to have to 'over-buff' the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it. " Anyone think Photon Overcharge was overbuffed or creates balance problems?
And that piece was written in 2010, ancient history for League. But the SC2 design team is still try to balancing power without gameplay mechanics like Photon Overcharge... I'll let you decide why.
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death. Yeah, fall back on that...
But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born.
tech based games.. and just plain "games" are totally different.
as technology evolves genres die. and new ones arise that were impossible to exist even 5 years earlier.
the pinball machine, text adventure, MUD, dot eating maze games, side scrolling space shooter.etc...
in 1995 it was not viable for 10 people to play a game together lag free. by 2007 ten people with low lag was was QED. On top of that i can assemble a massive army and play skirmish games on a tablet with thousands of bullets flying everywhere and soldiers dying by the dozens. good bye desktop PC RTS.
blaming Blizzard for RTS going down is like blaming Bally-Midway for "failing" with Ms.Pacman. Or claiming Infocom destroyed the Text Adventure with Zork3. Or saying Namco destroyed vertical shooters when they made Galaga.
Or blaming 1980 pinball machine designers for letting Space Invaders take over the arcade.
The shift in consumer tastes due to improving technology is way way bigger than DK's next LotV patch. It is far out of the scope of his job.
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death. Yeah, fall back on that...
But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born.
tech based games.. and just plain "games" are totally different.
as technology evolves genres die. and new ones arise that were impossible to exist even 5 years earlier.
the pinball machine, text adventure, MUD, dot eating maze games, side scrolling space shooter.etc...
in 1995 it was not viable for 10 people to play a game together lag free. by 2007 ten people with low lag was was QED. On top of that i can assemble a massive army and play skirmish games on a tablet with thousands of bullets flying everywhere and soldiers dying by the dozens. good bye desktop PC RTS.
blaming Blizzard for RTS going down is like blaming Bally-Midway for "failing" with Ms.Pacman. Or claiming Infocom destroyed the Text Adventure with Zork3. Or saying Namco destroyed vertical shooters when they made Galaga.
Or blaming 1980 pinball machine designers for letting Space Invaders take over the arcade.
The shift in consumer tastes due to improving technology is way way bigger than DK's next LotV patch. It is far out of the scope of his job.
I think you're missing the point here. While I disagree with your point (my brother-in-law just bought the brand new Star Trek pinball machine for $7,500, and I responded to this same argument in another thread stating that well designed games last forever, hence we have Chess) it is irrelevant.
The RTS genre dying is not an excuse for poor game design. Blizzard doesn't need to include power without gameplay mechanics like Photon Overcharge because the genre is dying.
On February 04 2016 05:50 iamcaustic wrote: What about those of us who think both of those positions are valid? IMO Terran and Zerg went the way of abandoning strategy in favour of mechanical macro over their evolution, while Protoss has had a poor design from the start (WoL) but at least continues to retain a connection to the strategic aspect of the game.
I picked up Dota 2 the other day after not playing any Dota for like 2 years (peer pressure). Despite never being any good and with 2 years of not playing being even worse I had lots of fun. This what you say there is right on. The game is becoming way too mechanics dependent.
Before I get crucified I would like to clarify I'm not against there being a high skill ceiling. What I'm against is that certain match ups are not playable without those. In those Dota games, I realised I found it fun because I was contributing. I wasn't there out farming my opponent, I wasn't making high level mechanical maneuvers. But I bought wards, pulled creeps, DIDN'T DIE.
The issue with LOTV is that certain match ups are just not playable without those mechanics (for one side and not the other). A terran cannot win against a parade of roach/ravager or late game ultras without decent tank and bio micro. A protoss cannot break out of a lurker contain or liberators without perfect positioning and engagements. This makes the game feel completely ridiculous who's not GM and I think why there's a lot of criticism on the design team because everyone (from every race and every perspective) has something to complain about.
That's a huge missunderstanding. The problem with high skill ceilling is that there's always be MU where it's simpler mechanically for one race, until top masters/GM. It's not about a high skill floor, it's about balance for the best players. It's been like that since WOL.
Playing TvP in WOL? Enjoy microing your ass out while protoss Amoves his 30 zealots 6 archons with +2 defense. Playing ZvT against mech in WOL? Enjoy empaling 40 roaches on 15 tanks with no micro whatsoever from the mech player.
Starcraft II is a mechanical, and very hard to master game. It's like a musical instrument. Other games (such as Dota of course) make you feel like you're contributing. Because it's not a mechanically demanding game, and because you're playing as a team. Starcraft II is a personal thing. You have to get better. You're the only one responsible for your victories and losses. You can't blame others, you can only blame yourself, or the game. Some people just can't handle it. Others don't wanna invest in getting better. Which is fine ! Play 3v3, play arcade, play 1v1 bronze league, it doesn't matter.
The problem isn't that there's a high skill floor, it's that you can easily see how bad you are compared to a professionnal player. There's no MU you "can't" play because of your mechanics, because bronze league TvZ doesn't have a meta.
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death. Yeah, fall back on that...
But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born.
tech based games.. and just plain "games" are totally different.
as technology evolves genres die. and new ones arise that were impossible to exist even 5 years earlier.
the pinball machine, text adventure, MUD, dot eating maze games, side scrolling space shooter.etc...
in 1995 it was not viable for 10 people to play a game together lag free. by 2007 ten people with low lag was was QED. On top of that i can assemble a massive army and play skirmish games on a tablet with thousands of bullets flying everywhere and soldiers dying by the dozens. good bye desktop PC RTS.
blaming Blizzard for RTS going down is like blaming Bally-Midway for "failing" with Ms.Pacman. Or claiming Infocom destroyed the Text Adventure with Zork3. Or saying Namco destroyed vertical shooters when they made Galaga.
Or blaming 1980 pinball machine designers for letting Space Invaders take over the arcade.
The shift in consumer tastes due to improving technology is way way bigger than DK's next LotV patch. It is far out of the scope of his job.
I think you're missing the point here. While I disagree with your point (my brother-in-law just bought the brand new Star Trek pinball machine for $7,500, and of course I responded to this same argument in another thread stating that well designed game last forever, hence we have Chess) it is irrelevant.
The RTS genre dying is not an excuse for poor game design. Blizzard doesn't need to include power without gameplay mechanics like Photon Overcharge because the genre is dying.
its does not matter how good the next dot eating maze game is. it won't make enough profit to sustain a AAA budget. Pacman alone made $7 Billion. That will never happen again.
it does not matter how great the next text adventure game is. it may attract some loyal followers but ATVI knows it can't sustain a AAA budget.
The RTS genre will continue to exist in the same way teh Pinball Machine, Dot Eating Maze Game and Side Scrolling Space Shooter still exist today.
It does not matter what DK does. the AAA budget RTS is extinct. SC2 is the genre's Swan Song. Consumers tastes had already shifted when WoL hit the shelves.
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death. Yeah, fall back on that...
But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born.
tech based games.. and just plain "games" are totally different.
as technology evolves genres die. and new ones arise that were impossible to exist even 5 years earlier.
the pinball machine, text adventure, MUD, dot eating maze games, side scrolling space shooter.etc...
in 1995 it was not viable for 10 people to play a game together lag free. by 2007 ten people with low lag was was QED. On top of that i can assemble a massive army and play skirmish games on a tablet with thousands of bullets flying everywhere and soldiers dying by the dozens. good bye desktop PC RTS.
blaming Blizzard for RTS going down is like blaming Bally-Midway for "failing" with Ms.Pacman. Or claiming Infocom destroyed the Text Adventure with Zork3. Or saying Namco destroyed vertical shooters when they made Galaga.
Or blaming 1980 pinball machine designers for letting Space Invaders take over the arcade.
The shift in consumer tastes due to improving technology is way way bigger than DK's next LotV patch. It is far out of the scope of his job.
I think you're missing the point here. While I disagree with your point (my brother-in-law just bought the brand new Star Trek pinball machine for $7,500, and of course I responded to this same argument in another thread stating that well designed game last forever, hence we have Chess) it is irrelevant.
The RTS genre dying is not an excuse for poor game design. Blizzard doesn't need to include power without gameplay mechanics like Photon Overcharge because the genre is dying.
its does not matter how good the next dot eating maze game is. it won't make enough profit to sustain a AAA budget. Pacman alone made $7 Billion. That will never happen again.
it does not matter how great the next text adventure game is. it may attract some loyal followers but ATVI knows it can't sustain a AAA budget.
The RTS genre will continue to exist in the same way teh Pinball Machine, Dot Eating Maze Game and Side Scrolling Space Shooter still exist today.
It does not matter what DK does. the AAA budget RTS is extinct. SC2 is the genre's Swan Song. Consumers tastes had already shifted when WoL hit the shelves.
You don't need a triple A budget or a thriving genre to follow basic game design principles, that was my point. So for me, it does matter what David Kim does, because I want to play SC2. I don't really care what other consumers want.
Even if he was working on SC2 for free, I'd still want him to design the game properly.
Morhaime . Pierce and Sigaty are on it. If they think DK and DB are doing their jobs that's good enough for me.
Personally, i'm having a blast playing SC2.. but my personal opinion is irrelevant in this discussion.
On February 04 2016 15:07 BronzeKnee wrote: You don't need a triple A budget or a thriving genre to follow basic game design principles, that was my point.
without a AAA level budget ATVI does not fund SC2's development. nor will it fund the development of any other RTS game.
u see.. entertainment software is developed by people who are paid with .. ummm .. MONEY.
Power without gameplay mechanics are attractive to some people. They just aren't attractive to most people.
SC2 can follow consumer tastes, it just chooses not to. Actually, I think it isn't choosing not to, I think the design team doesn't know it isn't following consumer tastes, yet tries to with skillshots and such. Again, sending us back to a lack of understand of basic game design principles that have powered the success of MOBAs and Counterstrike.
11 to 15 years olds are not playing RTS games. the guys in the 20s who are leaving the genre are not being replaced. that is what is going on at the macro level that makes the RTS genre game development impossible to fund.
i think Morhaime , Sigaty and Pierce know how to hire, develop, and nurture game design talent. and i don't think you do. if DK sucked he'd be long gone.
Right... so now I'm facing a fallacious authority argument.
Just become Mother Teresa says something, doesn't mean it is right. And just because the devil says something, doesn't mean it is wrong. It is about what is said, not who says it. You appealing to authority because you don't know what you're talking about. Educate yourself and read up on game design.
You can have fun with games that aren't well designed. Just recognize when you have bad game design features like power without gameplay.
On February 04 2016 05:50 iamcaustic wrote: What about those of us who think both of those positions are valid? IMO Terran and Zerg went the way of abandoning strategy in favour of mechanical macro over their evolution, while Protoss has had a poor design from the start (WoL) but at least continues to retain a connection to the strategic aspect of the game.
I picked up Dota 2 the other day after not playing any Dota for like 2 years (peer pressure). Despite never being any good and with 2 years of not playing being even worse I had lots of fun. This what you say there is right on. The game is becoming way too mechanics dependent.
Before I get crucified I would like to clarify I'm not against there being a high skill ceiling. What I'm against is that certain match ups are not playable without those. In those Dota games, I realised I found it fun because I was contributing. I wasn't there out farming my opponent, I wasn't making high level mechanical maneuvers. But I bought wards, pulled creeps, DIDN'T DIE.
The issue with LOTV is that certain match ups are just not playable without those mechanics (for one side and not the other). A terran cannot win against a parade of roach/ravager or late game ultras without decent tank and bio micro. A protoss cannot break out of a lurker contain or liberators without perfect positioning and engagements. This makes the game feel completely ridiculous who's not GM and I think why there's a lot of criticism on the design team because everyone (from every race and every perspective) has something to complain about.
You're saying sc2 isn't fun because you can't beat a better player because you aren't carried? Have you tried archon mode? Edit: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that... But you're comparing a team experience to single player. Your experince in dota would have fared quite differently in a different role. Your sc2 experience might also be quite different in another game mode.
On February 04 2016 15:18 BronzeKnee wrote: Right... so now I'm facing a fallacious authority argument.
Just become Mother Teresa says something, doesn't mean it is right. And just because the devil says something, doesn't mean it is wrong. It is about what is said, not who says it. You appealing to authority because you don't know what you're talking about. Educate yourself and read up on game design.
i play games for fun. if i'm feeling like i'm having fun.. that's all i need. i'm not turning the silly-stupid kick ass fun i have into a linear algebra course.
Morhaime, Sigaty and Pierce have a track record. You do not have a track record. Furthermore, i like SC2 and most of the stuff Blizzard makes. Overwatch is great.
Since RnR Racing i've thought Blizzard has made great games. Due to their extensive 20+ year track record and watching how they speak in interviews i'm willing to go with their judgement.
Uncle Mike didn't start with his dad giving him a billion dollars to start a game company.
On February 04 2016 15:18 BronzeKnee wrote: Right... so now I'm facing a fallacious authority argument.
Just become Mother Teresa says something, doesn't mean it is right. And just because the devil says something, doesn't mean it is wrong. It is about what is said, not who says it. You appealing to authority because you don't know what you're talking about. Educate yourself and read up on game design.
Morhaime, Sigaty and Pierce have a track record. You do not have a track record. Furthermore, i like SC2 and most of the stuff Blizzard makes. Overwatch is great.
Since RnR Racing i've thought Blizzard has made great games. Due to their extensive 20+ year track record and watching how they speak in interviews i'm willing to go with their judgement.
You have no idea who I am. But that doesn't matter good sir, because the basis of my argument is the design blogs from the LoL team.
And as I said: "it validates what I am saying when I use other team's designs to compare against the designs of the SC2 team, because it shows that things can be done the correct way and I'm not just picking apart a team for making mistakes, because everyone make mistakes as you mentioned, from doctors to politicians. But some people make more mistakes than others, and should be held accountable."
So there we have it. League has a track record too. You can read their design blogs, process them and make a determination for yourself on what good game design mechanics are. Or you can choose to do "whatever feels right."
And you can choose to believe whatever you want. But when you blindly believe something because of who said it, know that is not something science does, so I won't do it. And thus, it doesn't surprise me that games with science behind them outperform those without science backing them.
Have to admit, that after a while i am okay with current mappool, ofcourse a lot of maps are certain race favoured, but since i am not playing on professional lvl its ok (mid dia currently, top ml last season hots).
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death.
But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born.
MOBA game design has a decidedly shorter history than RTS game design, yet has been vastly more successful (at least for Riot and League) because they've focused very hard on making the game fun and reducing frustrations. We play games to have fun. Riot's design blogs are amazing. It is a masterclass in game design.
That doesn't mean that Riot doesn't mistakes, but it validates what I am saying when I use other team's designs to compare against the designs of the SC2 team, because it shows that things can be done the correct way and I'm not just picking apart a team for making mistakes, because everyone make mistakes as you mentioned, from doctors to politicians. But some people make more mistakes than others, and should be held accountable.
So I don't believe it is the case that game design lacks history or anything like that. And I don't believe it is the case that Big J pointed out where I'm jaded because SC2 has changed from what happened in WOL.
The game can, and should evolve into a better game (better defined as more fun) over time. What makes games fun?
SC2 doesn't do those things, and in fact, does completely the opposite in many cases. Anti-fun literally exceeds fun in many SC2 interactions and that makes players upset and they complain about said features. It is really a poorly designed game when looked at from a game design perspective. And I say that as someone who designs games.
The very first thing Zileas lists is "Power without Gameplay", which is literally exactly what Photon Overcharge is. You press 1 key and click on a Pylon and suddenly you are safe, and there is basically no gameplay. It is such a bad design and I don't understand why it is still in the game.
As he says: "The problem with using a "power without gameplay" mechanic is that you tend to have to 'over-buff' the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it. " Anyone think Photon Overcharge was overbuffed or creates balance problems?
And that piece was written in 2010, ancient history for League. But the SC2 design team is still try to balancing power without gameplay mechanics like Photon Overcharge... I'll let you decide why.
I don't disagree with any of this, and that blog by Zileas was a very nice read. However it only reaffirms my point about Blizzard's lack of experience.
Riot has released an infinite number of balance and design changes to LoL since the game's release. If you go back to launch, the game was worse designed than it is now. It's through constant iteration that they learned what produces good gameplay in MOBA and what doesn't.
Blizzard, OTOH, take as hands off an approach to SC2 as is humanly possible. LotV has been out for almost three months and in that time Blizzard can barely be said to have touched the game. Yet its undeniable that LOTV is much better designed than WOL, with the possible exception of TvT. Every other MU has improved significantly.
My point is this: imagine how much more refined Blizzard's ideas would be if instead of doing an average of one number tweak every month, they had spent the last five years iterating and reiterating everything in the game.
But there's no money to be made in microtransaction-less SC2, so no incentive to push tweaks, so no tweaks, so the speed of lessons being learned first hand by the dev team is permanently set to snail's pace. I'm not excusing the incompetence of which there is plenty, I'm saying that the stars were never aligned in our favor.
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death.
But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born.
MOBA game design has a decidedly shorter history than RTS game design, yet has been vastly more successful (at least for Riot and League) because they've focused very hard on making the game fun and reducing frustrations. We play games to have fun. Riot's design blogs are amazing. It is a masterclass in game design.
That doesn't mean that Riot doesn't mistakes, but it validates what I am saying when I use other team's designs to compare against the designs of the SC2 team, because it shows that things can be done the correct way and I'm not just picking apart a team for making mistakes, because everyone make mistakes as you mentioned, from doctors to politicians. But some people make more mistakes than others, and should be held accountable.
So I don't believe it is the case that game design lacks history or anything like that. And I don't believe it is the case that Big J pointed out where I'm jaded because SC2 has changed from what happened in WOL.
The game can, and should evolve into a better game (better defined as more fun) over time. What makes games fun?
SC2 doesn't do those things, and in fact, does completely the opposite in many cases. Anti-fun literally exceeds fun in many SC2 interactions and that makes players upset and they complain about said features. It is really a poorly designed game when looked at from a game design perspective. And I say that as someone who designs games.
The very first thing Zileas lists is "Power without Gameplay", which is literally exactly what Photon Overcharge is. You press 1 key and click on a Pylon and suddenly you are safe, and there is basically no gameplay. It is such a bad design and I don't understand why it is still in the game.
As he says: "The problem with using a "power without gameplay" mechanic is that you tend to have to 'over-buff' the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it. " Anyone think Photon Overcharge was overbuffed or creates balance problems?
And that piece was written in 2010, ancient history for League. But the SC2 design team is still try to balancing power without gameplay mechanics like Photon Overcharge... I'll let you decide why.
I don't disagree with any of this, and that blog by Zileas was a very nice read. However it only reaffirms my point about Blizzard's lack of experience.
Riot has released an infinite number of balance and design changes to LoL since the game's release. If you go back to launch, the game was worse designed than it is now. It's through constant iteration that they learned what produces good gameplay in MOBA and what doesn't.
Blizzard, OTOH, take as hands off an approach to SC2 as is humanly possible. LotV has been out for almost three months and in that time Blizzard can barely be said to have touched the game. Yet its undeniable that LOTV is much better designed than WOL, with the possible exception of TvT. Every other MU has improved significantly.
My point is this: imagine how much more refined Blizzard's ideas would be if instead of doing an average of one number tweak every month, they had spent the last five years iterating and reiterating everything in the game.
But there's no money to be made in microtransaction-less SC2, so no incentive to push tweaks, so no tweaks, so the speed of lessons being learned first hand by the dev team is permanently set to snail's pace. I'm not excusing the incompetence of which there is plenty, I'm saying that the stars were never aligned in our favor.
tweaking a moba (how many heros and spells and items?) is very different. Changing one number doesn't have the same impact so it's less damaging to over balance. It's like adding salt to one dish in a buffet. Doing that in SC2 is quite different. You're playing with one meal.
I'm not saying Blizz has done as good (or fast) a job as I would like or expect but I don't think a fair comparison is being made. Maps are where they've done the most tweaking and they're trying something new with them. We'll see how it turns out...
I'm not a fan of that Zileas blog, as a Dota player it seems completely laughable. Dota does the exact opposite as that list and is also incredibly enjoyable. And those example he gives is strategically limiting in favor of being extremely care-bear with your playerbase. Hell, most of Brood War would be written off by those philosophies, So I'm certainly not a fan.
But I digress, we can spend all day talking abut photon overchage, but that he's not what he's talking about. The putting up pylons and moving mothership core and pressing the button, that's gameplay. Power without gameplay, he's talking about shit you don't notice, like auras, where you don't put any thought into it, it's just there.
On February 02 2016 21:25 kasapanos wrote: I left starcraft 2 for Dota 2 a few years back. I really liked the game for some time and played and watched it a lot back then. The problems came more and more evident later on and I'm going to give my full opinion of them now.
Brood war was an awesome game. It was a game where space control mattered. You could put a few tanks to cover a narrow route to a location to block access. This would be almost impenetrable. What the opponent would have had to do can be something like: 1. Find different route to flank the formation. 2. Attack the formation knowing the weakness (in this case, send air units to attack). 3. If also flanks are covered well you take control of the rest of the map, because the enemy invested a lot to defend that specific location and can't be that strong elsewhere -> take the initiative. 4. try to use some fancy spell to cover your attack moves. 5. force the enemy to move
This resembles chess. There were multiple units (lurker, arbiter, reaver, defiler..) that had really strong location control. But they had evident weaknesses. High manacost, slow, up in the tech tree... So you could rush, flank, drop, avoid, outmacro, outmicro the units but not rush on to them. And oh dear the games in BW... And the maps. They were fun and diverse.
Starcraft 2 on the other hand took a completely different path. Even with 200/200 all the tanks covering one narrow ledge, you can not block the protoss ground forces. As they just demolish you. But...YOU CAN LIFT THE TANK!! Who wants to lift a tank that is supposed to defend? It's the speed of the brain and not (only) the speed of the hands that should differ players. In SC2 Zerg had no way to really control any kind of terrain. It was some kind of weird hit and run game the TvZ. Protoss of course just a-moved always. Gateway was plain useless path to choose apart from rushing as they fell on tech rapidly and even big gate-army got demolished in seconds. Fuck I loved gateway on BW!!! It was the backbone of protoss!! Now it was some weird deathball-colossi-hit-and-run-cannon-defence-weird-mommaship-core-whaaaaatisthis?? I wanted to have the epic gateway-massing fights or sneaky carrier-stomps but not one OP-unit destroying everything.
Hello, are you my sock puppet account? Because these are basically my exact feelings towards SC2. Good explanation and glad to see somebody taking a higher level view of the game and not just another balance gripe.
Thanks for your words mate. I have the feeling that some readers before me expressed that Blizzard does not have a clear vision of what the game should be. Before they can fix the game they need to find this vision. If they don't, the game will be ripped apart by people wanting different things. In my opinion the fundamentals of SC2 are broken and no balance patch fixes them.
The different paths that I see are:
1. Try to make SC2 as "attractive" to a big audience as possible. Make good graphics, cool gimmicky units that can be rushed by anyone playing the first time. Easy to start, but falls short pretty quickly. Many "real-time-strategy" games tried this fancy-cool-lots of explosions and I have hard time to even recall one name from that swamp of games.
2. Try to really make it a BW-successor. A computer-chess with a space theme for ADHD-generation in a way that players have a set of units that have clear upsides and downsides. Clear rules and strong locational control units and get rid of the strong fast tier-1 rush units or make them less powerful and upgradeable later to support the overall vision of the game. Make maps count again. Ledges, distances, cliffs, water etc. would have meaning again and not just be a location where the units collide and a-move to each other or who rushes who. This makes it possible to find innovative uses of units and terrain and makes the game to age much better as there are new things to invent and strategies to discover.
If they clearly choose path 1. that's completely fine, it's their game. I'm off this forum and I will not start SC2 again but maybe when I'm drunk or in a LAN and some friend insists me play some 3n3.
If they choose path 2. that's completely fine too. I would probably regain interest to the game. Someone who is not so interested in RTS but likes the strategical depth might give it a shot too.
If someone asks me how I would personally like the game be on a long term, I would instantly answer 2. This option does not rule out micropayments. I can pay micro transactions but it must be a fun game.
Chess had no balance-updates in decades and not even new maps and still people play it.
tweaking a moba (how many heros and spells and items?) is very different. Changing one number doesn't have the same impact so it's less damaging to over balance. It's like adding salt to one dish in a buffet. Doing that in SC2 is quite different. You're playing with one meal.
Hence why Blizzard - while releasing an expansion pack - should tweak all of the units. I believe that LOTV should have received 300-400 number changes in total to take into account the domino effect that only a couple of changes will make.
I think Blizzard can TOTALLY conform to both casuals and hardcore players.
Just look at BW.
Casuals play UMS, hardcore players do 1 vs 1.
The thing is that they fucked up both ends by having a shitty arcade system and they rendered 1 vs 1 experience to be less mechanically difficult to pull off amazing feats.
On February 04 2016 19:45 kasapanos wrote: Thanks for your words mate. I have the feeling that some readers before me expressed that Blizzard does not have a clear vision of what the game should be. Before they can fix the game they need to find this vision. If they don't, the game will be ripped apart by people wanting different things. In my opinion the fundamentals of SC2 are broken and no balance patch fixes them.
I think they did have a vision for LOTV, it was just horrible and wrong. They decided the game wasn't hard or intense enough, which is actually hilarious. So they added more multitasking and micro opportunities. They also increased the worker count to speed up the action even more. I have to say, SC2 was already the most intense game I play. If you look at ANY other game, from LoL to CSGO to Fallout, there are significant periods of downtime. In LoL it might be farming or returning/leaving base for example. This idea that SC2 doesn't have enough action or isn't hard enough is just absurd. Most of the other LOTV changes were a grab bag of half-baked community ideas.
You have no idea who I am. But that doesn't matter good sir, because the basis of my argument is the design blogs from the LoL team.
Whoa now, let's not start getting crazy and pointing to LoL as an example of good design. if you read their design notes and patch changes then you've probably noticed how every other patch there's a hilariously bad change, for example they buff an item, then a champ who synergizes with that item becomes super-strong, so instead of admitting their mistake they nerf the champ into uselessness. Honestly they're just as clueless as Blizzard. LoL's success is due more to crowd-pleasing gimmicks which manage to keep people's attention and provide a revenue stream (constant releases of new champs). Probably only 20% of those champs are actually competitively viable. How is that good design?
edit:
On February 04 2016 23:33 ErectedZenith wrote: I think Blizzard can TOTALLY conform to both casuals and hardcore players.
Just look at BW.
Casuals play UMS, hardcore players do 1 vs 1.
YES. One of the big mistakes of SC2 is they kinda just funneled everyone into "hard mode" (1v1 ladder). Most games guide people toward lower difficulty challenges first, and let them find or graduate to higher difficulty.
The reason HE likes all these maps is not lost on us. We understand the gimmicks. This map has a short rush distance and this one has a gold base. GOT IT. We're not idiots.
Standard maps add diversity. You can do anything you want on a standard map. Idiotic gimmicky maps remove diversity, precisely because they force you to play to whatever stupid gimmick they've put in place. Oh, there are gold bases on this map? Watch Zerg players take them EVERY GAME. Short rush distance? Rushes every game!
The most liked maps in the pool right now are the ones where we can play the way WE want.
On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote: Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give
Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx
FIXED IT: Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone ? Is it too much to expect the the sanitary worker to collect your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and design a game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of a variety of things that I don't know about, but I have my opinions. I didn't notice this level of criticism when the game was at an arbitrary point in its life-cycle.
NOTE: took out most of the meaningless qualifiers which essentially render your entire point unproductive.
Let politicians, doctors, trashmen and game designers do a bad job in some cases purposely in order to make a profit against everyone else's interests without even expecting them to do it right, because that would be... unproductive! (???)
In the context I was referencing, the qualifiers are unproductive specifically because they are too subjective. "Good and great, even effective (to some extent)" can't reasonably be part of an official expectation because your "good" may be diametrically opposed to someone else's "good".
On February 04 2016 23:44 DinoMight wrote: David Kim can be such a stubborn fuck at times.
The reason HE likes all these maps is not lost on us. We understand the gimmicks. This map has a short rush distance and this one has a gold base. GOT IT. We're not idiots.
Standard maps add diversity. You can do anything you want on a standard map. Idiotic gimmicky maps remove diversity, precisely because they force you to play to whatever stupid gimmick they've put in place. Oh, there are gold bases on this map? Watch Zerg players take them EVERY GAME. Short rush distance? Rushes every game!
The most liked maps in the pool right now are the ones where we can play the way WE want.
Standard maps strongly favor what we call "standard strategies" and you can do far from anything you want. It's rather like you say/imply towards the end, there are ways we want to play. Which are usually ways that remove options from the opponent. Most players are very willing to sacrifice offensive and action-based play for defenders advantages that grant stability, longer games and let you experience the full content you paid for, not just the first 3 units of the tech tree.
streamers advertise themselves as former such-and-such players--perhaps from a difference of genre than what they play currently.
just let david do what he wants. starcraft 2 is a very active game where you fall behind by the second if you do nothing. by the same token [of logic], you can deviate from normal play if you have incredible knowledge of the game and its players which then enables you to do creative shit that in reality may or may not pay off (from the spectator's PoV).
there are much more chill games out there to suit your mood and your needs. for example, i play high mmr dota 2 on NA to mostly PvE and hit creeps. i like the pacing, queuing up commands, and watching my character progress as expected, or to work as a team and problem-solve certain situations. you are up to your own devices with a game like starcraft except that every bit of inefficiency in your play is damaging both in present-day games and for games in the future through your own habits and stubbornness.
everybody wants to think they were screwed out of a win when in hindsight they could have done so many different things to affect the outcome. balance will change, no problem whatsoever, but should you lose interest in the game in the meanwhile, just play something else that makes you happier.
in my opinion, the largest limiting factor i see when i sit down and look at players (mostly here, on the forums) and what they say, is their own mentality (sometimes crab mentality when it comes to players of the same race).
On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote: Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give
Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx
FIXED IT: Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone ? Is it too much to expect the the sanitary worker to collect your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and design a game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of a variety of things that I don't know about, but I have my opinions. I didn't notice this level of criticism when the game was at an arbitrary point in its life-cycle.
NOTE: took out most of the meaningless qualifiers which essentially render your entire point unproductive.
Let politicians, doctors, trashmen and game designers do a bad job in some cases purposely in order to make a profit against everyone else's interests without even expecting them to do it right, because that would be... unproductive! (???)
In the context I was referencing, the qualifiers are unproductive specifically because they are too subjective. "Good and great, even effective (to some extent)" can't reasonably be part of an official expectation because your "good" may be diametrically opposed to someone else's "good".
it's hard to define good and bad, but there are still ways to do it. Ignoring community opinions (though they are very diverse), and make believe there is going to be major changes done to the game since beta with lines like "we'll aggressively patch the game" or "we'll change core mechanics" and talk about contents but not doing anything about maps that most people are clearly not happy about instead focusing on stuff that will be sold again..? there are bad things in there mixed up with maybe marketing lies and make believe, it's normal to expect better than that and no lies or make believe. It's bad enough that everything is so tightly controlled by blizzard, not only the map pool which should definitely have more maps or some rotation at least (maybe they keep the same few maps cause there are huge balance or gameplay problems in the game unless maps are set up a certain way?) but even which patch you have to play in tournaments cause there is no lan mode which justifies not patching the game very much and focusing on 50% winrates instead of fun and still the balance is not there and.... these are a lot of the discussions that go around, bronzeknee explains why DK gets so much uproar cause people have higher expectation for a game that sells itself as such a big thing and sells itself 3 times to people adding then more pay-content it's hardly satisfying for many customers and more importantly players many of which have just left? It's not unproductive to define your expectation of what's good and that's what the community has been doing for a long time and many feel they have not really been listened to. Doesn't the community feedback thing feel like PR words to direct discussions on a few small topics rather than discuss other things? Can't remember DK talking anything about the WCS changes has he? Or about the bad chat ? Or about the bad "arcade", custom games which is so important for community? Have custom games been killed in order to avoid the creation of a new "DoTa" phenomenon that would be out of control by blizzard, as well as trying to turn as many customers as possible towards their esport-spectator revenue model? Isn't that a bad self-interest business orientation that doesn't respect customers and players? Only now when the community made it super clear with poll-backed stats that maps are not good enough he has to go "well let's see about the maps then" but before that there has been so much explained and justified criticism about them almost since they were out there on the field and not a word? Remember how the words in community PR always make believe that some good things are coming as hoped and asked for by community but then everyone realizes it was misleading? Why is DK the only person who communicates with the community, is that because it is his job to create illusions against transparency of what's going on in the company so other developpers don't get to communicate?
On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote: Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give
Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx
FIXED IT: Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone ? Is it too much to expect the the sanitary worker to collect your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and design a game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of a variety of things that I don't know about, but I have my opinions. I didn't notice this level of criticism when the game was at an arbitrary point in its life-cycle.
NOTE: took out most of the meaningless qualifiers which essentially render your entire point unproductive.
Let politicians, doctors, trashmen and game designers do a bad job in some cases purposely in order to make a profit against everyone else's interests without even expecting them to do it right, because that would be... unproductive! (???)
In the context I was referencing, the qualifiers are unproductive specifically because they are too subjective. "Good and great, even effective (to some extent)" can't reasonably be part of an official expectation because your "good" may be diametrically opposed to someone else's "good".
it's hard to define good and bad, but there are still ways to do it. Ignoring community opinions (though they are very diverse), and make believe there is going to be major changes done to the game since beta with lines like "we'll aggressively patch the game" or "we'll change core mechanics" and talk about contents but not doing anything about maps that most people are clearly not happy about instead focusing on stuff that will be sold again..? there are bad things in there mixed up with maybe marketing lies and make believe, it's normal to expect better than that and no lies or make believe. It's bad enough that everything is so tightly controlled by blizzard, not only the map pool which should definitely have more maps or some rotation at least (maybe they keep the same few maps cause there are huge balance or gameplay problems in the game unless maps are set up a certain way?) but even which patch you have to play in tournaments cause there is no lan mode which justifies not patching the game very much and focusing on 50% winrates instead of fun and still the balance is not there and.... these are a lot of the discussions that go around, bronzeknee explains why DK gets so much uproar cause people have higher expectation for a game that sells itself as such a big thing and sells itself 3 times to people adding then more pay-content it's hardly satisfying for many customers and more importantly players many of which have just left? It's not unproductive to define your expectation of what's good and that's what the community has been doing for a long time and many feel they have not really been listened to. Doesn't the community feedback thing feel like PR words to direct discussions on a few small topics rather than discuss other things? Can't remember DK talking anything about the WCS changes has he? Or about the bad chat ? Or about the bad "arcade", custom games which is so important for community? Have custom games been killed in order to avoid the creation of a new "DoTa" phenomenon that would be out of control by blizzard, as well as trying to turn as many customers as possible towards their esport-spectator revenue model? Isn't that a bad self-interest business orientation that doesn't respect customers and players? Only now when the community made it super clear with poll-backed stats that maps are not good enough he has to go "well let's see about the maps then" but before that there has been so much explained and justified criticism about them almost since they were out there on the field and not a word? Remember how the words in community PR always make believe that some good things are coming as hoped and asked for by community but then everyone realizes it was misleading? Why is DK the only person who communicates with the community, is that because it is his job to create illusions against transparency of what's going on in the company so other developpers don't get to communicate?
Okay, sure. What you're talking about, that "definition", is more useful if it is a measurement (i.e., a metric). I can tell you, with 100% certainty, that Kim's team has a variety of metrics they are required to monitor and improve, via their bosses. It seems unlikely to me that "Community Disposition About Balance / Design [TOPIC]" is one of them. Do you see what I'm saying?
Let me try a different approach.
Someone said, "is it unreasonable to expect the design team to produce a great game?", or something nonsensical. Any one of us can disqualify that argument by saying, "the game is great." Who are any of us to say that claim is wrong? Hence, this approach is unproductive, because what he is really saying is, "I wish I was more satisfied by the game."
That is also unproductive. Instead, that same person could say something like, "I wish Prion Terraces played differently, because as a Protoss I feel it is unfair the burden put on me to take a natural at the gold compared to Zerg". That is a specific reason why the game is falling short for that player and can be aggregated by their community cultivation team, and could even make its way to the discussion table, and maybe into development. This is all I'm saying.
Even when a small segment of a community (like TL is a small segment of the active SC2 player pool) seems to hold a strong consensus (60+%) that doesn't mean they are actually the majority, nor does it mean that a majority decision is going to--or should--change the design team's goals. Sometimes majorities are wrong--often, even.
I believe Kim could enhance his level of community communication by more-clearly defining expectations. If the community legitimately believes they can have a direct 1:1 impact on core mechanics, that is probably bad, because they probably don't or won't (unless it is incidental). *shrugs*
I'm not going to address everything you said, because, well, you said a ton of stuff, a lot of it just seems like venting. Yes, PR is political, and it's not bad. It's necessary in the commercial world.
Fair enough TimeSpiral, I read what you say, I don't necessarily agree with all but ok. I would respond to your conclusion that there is good and bad PR, and good and bad ways to do business, but these may sound like unproductive qualifiers j/k
On February 04 2016 14:54 JackONeill wrote: That's a huge missunderstanding. The problem with high skill ceilling is that there's always be MU where it's simpler mechanically for one race, until top masters/GM. It's not about a high skill floor, it's about balance for the best players. It's been like that since WOL.
Playing TvP in WOL? Enjoy microing your ass out while protoss Amoves his 30 zealots 6 archons with +2 defense. Playing ZvT against mech in WOL? Enjoy empaling 40 roaches on 15 tanks with no micro whatsoever from the mech player.
Starcraft II is a mechanical, and very hard to master game. It's like a musical instrument. Other games (such as Dota of course) make you feel like you're contributing. Because it's not a mechanically demanding game, and because you're playing as a team. Starcraft II is a personal thing. You have to get better. You're the only one responsible for your victories and losses. You can't blame others, you can only blame yourself, or the game. Some people just can't handle it. Others don't wanna invest in getting better. Which is fine ! Play 3v3, play arcade, play 1v1 bronze league, it doesn't matter.
The problem isn't that there's a high skill floor, it's that you can easily see how bad you are compared to a professionnal player. There's no MU you "can't" play because of your mechanics, because bronze league TvZ doesn't have a meta.
On February 04 2016 15:18 y0su wrote:
You're saying sc2 isn't fun because you can't beat a better player because you aren't carried? Have you tried archon mode? Edit: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that... But you're comparing a team experience to single player. Your experince in dota would have fared quite differently in a different role. Your sc2 experience might also be quite different in another game mode.
No you are both missing the point. The point (and the difference) is that Dota and Lol and Smite to my limited experience in it, feels balanced at all levels. You don't walk into a matchup knowing you will lose because you can't do XYZ. I'm talking about 2 players of equal skill. The matchups in Lotv at the moment it's exactly like that. Can't perfectly handle adepts, you've lost. Cant perfectly micro around liberators. You've lost. The skill required to do an adept drop is far lower than the skill required to stop it. The skill required to plant liberators at your opponents base is far lower than actually stopping the push. Therefore at a lower skill level with 2 players. One will always come out on top.
Okay, sure. What you're talking about, that "definition", is more useful if it is a measurement (i.e., a metric).
I believe the terms you're looking for is quantative is more useful than qualitative.
Nope! I meant exactly what I said, but qualitative and quantitative works too, but would require a different explanation : ) But yes, a report full of useful metrics is most likely going to be predominantly quantitative data points. Are you trying to confuse these poor souls?!
On February 04 2016 15:23 BronzeKnee wrote: You have no idea who I am. But that doesn't matter good sir, because the basis of my argument is the design blogs from the LoL team.
i know Morhaime's track record.... urs is an unknown... i'll go with Uncle Mike.
On February 04 2016 15:23 BronzeKnee wrote: And as I said: "it validates what I am saying when I use other team's designs to compare against the designs of the SC2 team, because it shows that things can be done the correct way and I'm not just picking apart a team for making mistakes, because everyone make mistakes as you mentioned, from doctors to politicians. But some people make more mistakes than others, and should be held accountable."
this "even pros make mistakes" comment did not come from me. you are mistaking comments made by someone else. MOBA is not RTS. Riot is not rushing to make an RTS game.. nor are the makers of DOTA2.
On February 04 2016 15:23 BronzeKnee wrote: So there we have it. League has a track record too. You can read their design blogs, process them and make a determination for yourself on what good game design mechanics are. Or you can choose to do "whatever feels right."
And you can choose to believe whatever you want. But when you blindly believe something because of who said it, know that is not something science does, so I won't do it. And thus, it doesn't surprise me that games with science behind them outperform those without science backing them.
science? LOL.
craftsmanship is what i want. masterminding a class of interactive experiences with a digital product is an act of craftsmanship. i want a master craftstman.. not a scientist.... see Alan Cooper's masterpiece About Face 3 for more on that.
now this craftsman may know a few things about computer science and software engineering... but i want Alan Cooper... not the guy who graduated #1 in the best computer science school in the world. or even the guy who graduated from some Game Design school and is running around calling himself a "Game Designer" because he memorized a few "principles". that theoretical guy probably knows more about science than Cooper. I'll take Cooper every time over any science guy any where.
regarding design philosophy... Blizzard's name indicates their over all development process from a macroscopic level. They were briefly called Chaos Studios. as a consumer i'm satisified with the fun i've had playing their games for the last 18 years. I like Blizzard's experimental approach as they craft and tune their games.
calling my support of Blizzard blind is a straw man.
i base my judgement on R'n'R Racing, Warcraft2 and 3, Diablo2 and 3, WoW, Hearthstone, Lost Vikings, SC1 and SC2 and how they'll cancel projects 5 years in because the game is not quite good enough.
i'm buying Overwatch on Day 1. I'll be having a bunch of giggling, silly, idiotic fun while you're running around expounding about design principles. To each their own.
Tying this back to the topic. Saying DK is grossly incompetent means Morhaime, Sigaty, and Pierce are not doing their jobs. Given their track record since 1991 this is unreasonable to believe. Your argument is invalid via Reductio Ad Absurdum.
On February 04 2016 15:23 BronzeKnee wrote: You have no idea who I am. But that doesn't matter good sir, because the basis of my argument is the design blogs from the LoL team.
i know Morhaime's track record.... urs is an unknown... i'll go with Uncle Mike.
On February 04 2016 15:23 BronzeKnee wrote: And as I said: "it validates what I am saying when I use other team's designs to compare against the designs of the SC2 team, because it shows that things can be done the correct way and I'm not just picking apart a team for making mistakes, because everyone make mistakes as you mentioned, from doctors to politicians. But some people make more mistakes than others, and should be held accountable."
this "even pros make mistakes" comment did not come from me. you are mistaking comments made by someone else. MOBA is not RTS. Riot is not rushing to make an RTS game.. nor are the makers of DOTA2.
On February 04 2016 15:23 BronzeKnee wrote: So there we have it. League has a track record too. You can read their design blogs, process them and make a determination for yourself on what good game design mechanics are. Or you can choose to do "whatever feels right."
And you can choose to believe whatever you want. But when you blindly believe something because of who said it, know that is not something science does, so I won't do it. And thus, it doesn't surprise me that games with science behind them outperform those without science backing them.
science? LOL.
craftsmanship is what i want. masterminding a class of interactive experiences with a digital product is an act of craftsmanship. i want a master craftstman.. not a scientist.... see Alan Cooper's masterpiece About Face 3 for more on that.
now this craftsman may know a few things about computer science and software engineering... but i want Alan Cooper... not the guy who graduated #1 in the best computer science school in the world. or even the guy who graduated from some Game Design school and is running around calling himself a "Game Designer" because he memorized a few "principles". that theoretical guy probably knows more about science than Cooper. I'll take Cooper every time over any science guy any where.
regarding design philosophy... Blizzard's name indicates their over all development process from a macroscopic level. They were briefly called Chaos Studios. as a consumer i'm satisified with the fun i've had playing their games for the last 18 years. I like Blizzard's experimental approach as they craft and tune their games.
calling my support of Blizzard blind is a straw man.
i base my judgement on R'n'R Racing, Warcraft2 and 3, Diablo2 and 3, WoW, Hearthstone, Lost Vikings, SC1 and SC2 and how they'll cancel projects 5 years in because the game is not quite good enough.
i'm buying Overwatch on Day 1. I'll be having a bunch of giggling, silly, idiotic fun while you're running around expounding about design principles. To each their own.
Tying this back to the topic. Saying DK is grossly incompetent means Morhaime, Sigaty, and Pierce are not doing their jobs. Given their track record since 1991 this is unreasonable to believe. Your argument is invalid via Reductio Ad Absurdum.
You can't put LotV in the same boat as all those other games. Base your judgement on the entire Blizzard library all you want. Doesn't change the fact that they straight up threw their typical design process where they "did not release a game if it was not good enough" this time.
The Blizzard store stated the release date for the game March 2016. That was what it said the day I preordered it.Blizzard employees stated the LotV beta was going to be "far longer than any of the other Blizzard betas before". The beta was within 30 days of the length of HotS beta. The game released months before their scheduled release date, and within 2 weeks prior to the new release date announcement they reverted the beta changes in order to meet the new release date. They ONLY spent barely over a month for the entire "balancing" phase after the major changes at the end of beta, that's not even enough time for sufficient QA testing due to a changing metagame.
That's not the same Blizzard principles that were used historically. Ever. Even D3, as bad as it's release was.
I know players dont like to play on different maps. Its a fact that humans dont like change. Look at dota or lol or bws lost temple and hunters. They played these maps for years! The human mind resists changes because learning costs energy.
New maps, good maps, different maps are good for the viewer. They create interesting games. I dont think its imbalanced at all. One race might have the advantage but you can just add another map where another race has the advantage. Kespa did this for years in bw.
I remember in wol how people thought the games looked all the same and were really stale. Now people want stale games again. There is really no way to please you guys. I think 2 standard maps in the pool is the number to go.
But i dont expect that anyone can please this community. When i read reddit or twitch comments i see so much shit it really hurts my eyes. For example how can people call a race op when it wins, how is this possible? Does skill not matter anymore?
On February 04 2016 15:23 BronzeKnee wrote: You have no idea who I am. But that doesn't matter good sir, because the basis of my argument is the design blogs from the LoL team.
i know Morhaime's track record.... urs is an unknown... i'll go with Uncle Mike.
On February 04 2016 15:23 BronzeKnee wrote: And as I said: "it validates what I am saying when I use other team's designs to compare against the designs of the SC2 team, because it shows that things can be done the correct way and I'm not just picking apart a team for making mistakes, because everyone make mistakes as you mentioned, from doctors to politicians. But some people make more mistakes than others, and should be held accountable."
this "even pros make mistakes" comment did not come from me. you are mistaking comments made by someone else. MOBA is not RTS. Riot is not rushing to make an RTS game.. nor are the makers of DOTA2.
On February 04 2016 15:23 BronzeKnee wrote: So there we have it. League has a track record too. You can read their design blogs, process them and make a determination for yourself on what good game design mechanics are. Or you can choose to do "whatever feels right."
And you can choose to believe whatever you want. But when you blindly believe something because of who said it, know that is not something science does, so I won't do it. And thus, it doesn't surprise me that games with science behind them outperform those without science backing them.
science? LOL.
craftsmanship is what i want. masterminding a class of interactive experiences with a digital product is an act of craftsmanship. i want a master craftstman.. not a scientist.... see Alan Cooper's masterpiece About Face 3 for more on that.
now this craftsman may know a few things about computer science and software engineering... but i want Alan Cooper... not the guy who graduated #1 in the best computer science school in the world. or even the guy who graduated from some Game Design school and is running around calling himself a "Game Designer" because he memorized a few "principles". that theoretical guy probably knows more about science than Cooper. I'll take Cooper every time over any science guy any where.
regarding design philosophy... Blizzard's name indicates their over all development process from a macroscopic level. They were briefly called Chaos Studios. as a consumer i'm satisified with the fun i've had playing their games for the last 18 years. I like Blizzard's experimental approach as they craft and tune their games.
calling my support of Blizzard blind is a straw man.
i base my judgement on R'n'R Racing, Warcraft2 and 3, Diablo2 and 3, WoW, Hearthstone, Lost Vikings, SC1 and SC2 and how they'll cancel projects 5 years in because the game is not quite good enough.
i'm buying Overwatch on Day 1. I'll be having a bunch of giggling, silly, idiotic fun while you're running around expounding about design principles. To each their own.
Tying this back to the topic. Saying DK is grossly incompetent means Morhaime, Sigaty, and Pierce are not doing their jobs. Given their track record since 1991 this is unreasonable to believe. Your argument is invalid via Reductio Ad Absurdum.
You can't put LotV in the same boat as all those other games. Base your judgement on the entire Blizzard library all you want. Doesn't change the fact that they straight up threw their typical design process where they "did not release a game if it was not good enough" this time.
The Blizzard store stated the release date for the game March 2016. That was what it said the day I preordered it.Blizzard employees stated the LotV beta was going to be "far longer than any of the other Blizzard betas before". The beta was within 30 days of the length of HotS beta. The game released months before their scheduled release date, and within 2 weeks prior to the new release date announcement they reverted the beta changes in order to meet the new release date. They ONLY spent barely over a month for the entire "balancing" phase after the major changes at the end of beta, that's not even enough time for sufficient QA testing due to a changing metagame.
That's not the same Blizzard principles that were used historically. Ever. Even D3, as bad as it's release was.
+1
This is my opinion, but I've been playing Blizzard games since the 90s. Blackthorne felt 180% more baked than LOTV did on release. I think we're seeing a shift on how they treat their first releases, and IMO the balance is not in the favor of the early adopter.
On February 07 2016 14:26 Spyridon wrote: You can't put LotV in the same boat as all those other games. Base your judgement on the entire Blizzard library all you want. Doesn't change the fact that they straight up threw their typical design process where they "did not release a game if it was not good enough" this time.
you gotta be out of your tree if you think ATVI will allow a meaningless peanut-head release that makes no money to weaken the Blizzard brand. LotV ain't even gonna make $0.1 Billion. ATVI routinely cancels 5 year projects and insta-kills Guitar Hero and DJ Hero like they did a few years ago.. they can easily cancel LotV.
the new D3 content , WoW stuff, Overwatch, Hearthstone and LotV is all approximately same level of quality because its going through the same leadership group it always has.
if LotV were garbage it never would've seen the light of day.
if u want to see garbage though... check out Act of Aggression or Grey Goo. Both priced higher than LotV.... and not even 10% as much content.
diverse race RTS games are never good at balanced competitive 1v1 the first 6 months of release. never. ever. if u want that experience play one of Blizzard's other RTS games that is balanced. or play some C&C4 or maybe some Halo Wars
Well there are a ton of people who don't like the new wow stuff very much since ~Cataclysm, hearthstone attracts a completely different/new demographic, D3 is considered inferior to D2 by most people who played both games afaik (even though everyone knows D2 is far from perfect).. it's hard to deny there have been a serious decline in quality since the merge with activision. If you consider the art direction and storytelling, it's really obvious. Also, the leadership group is not the developper team. It may have remained in place but the teams haven't nor have the developing processes, the old craftmanship of Blizzard, and the quality arguably has gone down a lot with a lot more focus on wide-audience appeal, monetizations, quantity before quality.. Activision cares about money only, that kind of mentality always has a negative impact on quality.
LOTV.. the game itself, should be in a better state. It is not a new game, but an expansion. If you want to compare with TFT then, well I remember when TFT came out and even if nothing is ever immediately perfect people were enjoying it a ton and it was in a really good state. It's not like there were a whole list of things almost broken that took 6months to be fixed? And things like the music or the campaign / art direction were not criticized so harshly. There was a great chat interface, and custom games^^ Overall it was really solid and managed a big revamp of WC3 by improving and building on it..
I'm a blizzard fan, I love WC2, SC, Diablo 1 & 2, WC3... and I think WoW vanilla has pretty good things in it. But then as Wow made a ton of money and turned itself into as much of a cash cow as possible, Blizzard became too big and would only make games seaking to blow profit out of proportion to fill the portion of revenue that wow was losing (merging with Activision in the process). It's lost the making games with passion and creativity that it had. It's not like all it does is garbage, but in many ways it's pretty bad. The lesson is, there is no need for a company to become always bigger and always try to maximize profits ever further. That's not how you make better, or even good games. If the focus of the owners is to make good games, they shouldn't do that. If their priority is to put larger amounts of money in they pocket, then that's the way to go, but it's good for nobody else.
On February 07 2016 14:26 Spyridon wrote: You can't put LotV in the same boat as all those other games. Base your judgement on the entire Blizzard library all you want. Doesn't change the fact that they straight up threw their typical design process where they "did not release a game if it was not good enough" this time.
you gotta be out of your tree if you think ATVI will allow a meaningless peanut-head release that makes no money to weaken the Blizzard brand. LotV ain't even gonna make $0.1 Billion. ATVI routinely cancels 5 year projects and insta-kills Guitar Hero and DJ Hero like they did a few years ago.. they can easily cancel LotV.
the new D3 content , WoW stuff, Overwatch, Hearthstone and LotV is all approximately same level of quality because its going through the same leadership group it always has.
if LotV were garbage it never would've seen the light of day.
if u want to see garbage though... check out Act of Aggression or Grey Goo. Both priced higher than LotV.... and not even 10% as much content.
diverse race RTS games are never good at balanced competitive 1v1 the first 6 months of release. never. ever. if u want that experience play one of Blizzard's other RTS games that is balanced. or play some C&C4 or maybe some Halo Wars
You seriously think LotV did not weaken the Blizzard brand???
You speak like Blizzard is flawless and never released anything that was not gold. Do you think D3 didn't weaken the Blizzard brand either???
D3 did serious harm to the Blizzard brand, and after an expansion + years of updates, it's in a much better place now, but it still did so much harm to the brand that even with the feedback of how it's gotten better, many players are still writing off D3.
Blizzard used to be the gold standard. That's not the case anymore. You said it yourself, LotV isn't even going to make a fraction of what it's predecessors made.
You act like we never played RTS games the first 6 months of release. But every single Blizzard RTS after 1 expansion has been in a MUCH better place than LotV is after 2 expansions.
Just like the person above stated, when TFT came out for WC3, it completely redefined the game, and turned it in to a game that was much more competitive. Actual counters were in place, rather than just massing units like you did in vanilla WC3, and once TFT dropped there was consistent growth and players were very happy in comparison to vanilla release. The peak of WC3 was after TFT. LotV is the opposite situation.
I completely understand being a fan and supporting your brand. Blizzard was at one time my #1 fav company as well. But their quality has fell off severely in the last 5-10 years.
My points in my last post still stand anyway. You can argue that they won't weaken their brand, but you can't argue with the fact that they stated it was going to be a March 2016 release on their own store, and the game ended up being pushed up to Blizzcon, as well as they stated it was going to be a "far longer beta than any of their past betas" and that was cut short as well. This means by their own words, they are releasing it earlier than planned! They only left 1 month of time for a balancing phase after making major changes... Which any RTS player knows that's not nearly long enough for the metagame to settle and balance to be judged.
That is the complete opposite of what the Blizzard of old would have done. It was not delayed until it was ready. It was released early without sufficient time to even test balance changes, and broke their own promises of length of beta. They did not leave a couple months for balancing after major changes... How could you defend that? Even D3 vanilla got delayed after major changes. LotV did not.
Besides, the plummeting sales of the series and dropping activity of SC2 (with the INCREASING activity on BW) speak for itself.
Yeah, TFT or Brood War revitalised the games and made serious changes. LotV and HotS were more like unit patches and unfortunately even to a wrong direction. In my opinion WoL was the best game of the series, but still many tiers below BW. The whole warp-gate mechanic is just broken.
I mean, just think about real warfare. Someome would sneak near enemy base and plant a pylon and then just warp million soldiers there and wipe the base. How do you counter that? There is so few downsides in the core of this technology that it feels unfair. It neglects the defenders advantage if played correctly and therefore the units must be weak and when they are weak protoss needs OP-units which are not fun!
I kind of agree with kasapanos. I've been playing blizzard games since wc1 and I'll be completely honest here, LOTV is the first expansion ever that I didn't buy. What I loved the most about the original starcraft was how strong appropriate map positioning was. Unfortunately, the further we go into starcraft 2, the more craziness and mobility options all the races get.
Take tanks for example, one of the coolest, well thought out units in starcraft 1, in this game you can position them to try to contain an enemy, but an opposing terran has millions of dropships to fly around you, zerg has nydus worm, and a single pylon allows protoss to attack from anywhere.
Worse yet, since each race has inherent base defenses now, its damn near impossible to actually do any real damage with a rush unless you commit 110% to an all in. Mechanics like mass queens healing each other and photon overcharge actually detract from any real early game aggression, and allow the player using them to tech much more freely than was ever allowed in BW. I'm not saying they're imbalanced, I'm just saying its just not fun game design. No race (except maybe zerg, and even then) should be able to get a first expand, let alone a second expand, for free. Expanding was a risk in brood war, not making any units early was a risk in brood war, why isn't it now? Its almost as if blizzard actually wanted sc2 to be played "no rush 20 minutes," then realized that was boring, so with LOTV rather than fundamentally change bad design, they gave you a bunch of workers to speed it up.
I really miss playing starcraft, and I still watch it on twitch, but I really just don't see anything in LOTV that looks fun to me. Though if what Spyridon is saying is true and people are picking up BW again, I might have to give that a try. Glad I still have my disk
Odd, I feel that LotV is much closer to BW than WoL or HotS ever were. True, things like lack of any kind of early game rush option (resulting in free expands) and things like PO, dropping siege tanks and invincible nydus are bad design, but still SC2 was never this back and forth. And that is what I like the most about BW. I hated the deathball play from WoL and HotS and the lack of harassment (except Terran...). Both of these problems were fixed with LotV.
On February 10 2016 01:48 Paramisery wrote: Though if what Spyridon is saying is true and people are picking up BW again, I might have to give that a try. Glad I still have my disk
You can just look at the live streams along the right side of this site to see. I've followed them for awhile and they keep learning more and more to BW. For example, right now:
StarCraft: Brood War Britney 4332 Shuttle 1737 Calm 661 Mong 530 Movie 301 Larva 243 Mind 239 Jaehoon 167 Sharp 158 Free 105 Iris 46 [sc1f]eonzerg 44 M18M 20
On February 10 2016 01:58 CheddarToss wrote: Odd, I feel that LotV is much closer to BW than WoL or HotS ever were. True, things like lack of any kind of early game rush option (resulting in free expands) and things like PO, dropping siege tanks and invincible nydus are bad design, but still SC2 was never this back and forth. And that is what I like the most about BW. I hated the deathball play from WoL and HotS and the lack of harassment (except Terran...). Both of these problems were fixed with LotV.
I could see how in some ways it is more like BW, since it is more micro focused than before. But in other ways it is more distanced from BW than ever before. Aside from the things you mentioned, unit balance is more distanced from BW than ever, air units are more troublesome than ever, and expanding is more different than ever. BW-style timings are nearly non existent considering you pass through each tech tier so fast. And biggest issue, is theres less strategic decision making than ever.
You mention there is harassment, and that is true, but the risk vs reward factor of harassment is more different than ever when compared to BW as well.
Same as you I hated deathball play, but similar to how I mentioned in the earlier post that when they improved the games controls they added something to try to "make them harder"... Removing deathball play should have been an upgrade, but they added so much garbage along side it, it's hard for me to say the game we have now is "better" than what we had before. It's better in certain ways, worse in certain ways, and in the end is more mixed up than ever in the direction it's trying to go, and more volatile than ever. What type of player is their intended customer these days? Who are they actually targeting with the direction of the game? Seems they are only trying to minimize losses, resulting in a slower decline, rather than trying to give the game new life.
To me it seems that everything is still a deathball, just swept under the rug of how easy and early the harass is. After early or mid game everything is still deathball vs deathball. Positional play is still unimportant as everything is so mobile. Strategy has been replaced by unit compositions and hard counters.
Overall, you may be right that the game is closer to brood war then hots or wol. But that is like saying that skyrim is an improvement over oblivion. It is, but that doesn't mean the game has level of writing rising above super Mario bros or more depth then a puddle of water.
On February 10 2016 02:40 rockslave wrote: What I don't really understand is how anyone can think LotV is worse than HotS... It's SO much better, both to play and watch.
No deathballs, smaller skirmishers, more map control... It could be better, but it's way better than anything SC2 has ever been.
People dislike the work arounds, not the results.
Everything you say is true. Less death balls, smaller skirmishes, map control, etc... all are things that are now more present than before. What people don't like is the cause of these changes, not the changes themselves.
Its like anti-science folks who whine about GMO products while eating Tofu.
On February 07 2016 19:40 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Well there are a ton of people who don't like the new wow stuff very much since ~Cataclysm, hearthstone attracts a completely different/new demographic, D3 is considered inferior to D2 by most people who played both games afaik (even though everyone knows D2 is far from perfect).. it's hard to deny there have been a serious decline in quality since the merge with activision.
"Let’s admit it, Diablo 3 is killing it right now. Diablo 3 is a really fun game."
as a casual i liked RoS and Diablo3 a lot. but, i'm not a hardcore aRPG guy at all. it has satisfying combat mechanics and interesting character building.
Morhaime claims he is beyond proud of the team's work the past 5 years and that some of Blizzard's best work ever occurred in the past 5 years. He lists, WoW, SC2, Hearthstone, etc etc. I don't think its just marketing speak.
Morhaime lays down the gauntlet challenging the community to continue to have sky high expectations and continue to be critical of them. Like I've said before.. Mike has got balls. Mike is basically directing the community to keep the heat turned up high.
My Opinion on the "decline of Blizzard": its not an ATVI thing ; its a Rob Pardo thing While I think Blizzard is still very, very good and I love their games including Overwatch, D3, and Hearthstone... I believe Rob Pardo is the WayneGretzky//Kobe Bryant//Derek Jeter of game designers and simply can't be replaced. I don't think Blizzard is doing as good without Pardo, but i think they still make the best games in the industry. They've gone from being a 10/10 to a 9/10 without Pardo , imo.
There may be another Rob Pardo out there.. but you can't just stick out a Help Wanted Ad and expect him to show up next week. You also can't manufacture a genius like Pardo... a guy like that just happens man... and when it does.. you ride the wave.
On February 07 2016 19:40 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Well there are a ton of people who don't like the new wow stuff very much since ~Cataclysm, hearthstone attracts a completely different/new demographic, D3 is considered inferior to D2 by most people who played both games afaik (even though everyone knows D2 is far from perfect).. it's hard to deny there have been a serious decline in quality since the merge with activision.
"Let’s admit it, Diablo 3 is killing it right now. Diablo 3 is a really fun game."
My Opinion on the "decline of Blizzard": its not an ATVI thing ; its a Rob Pardo thing While I think Blizzard is still very, very good and I love their games including Overwatch, D3, and Hearthstone... I believe Rob Pardo is the WayneGretzky//Kobe Bryant//Derek Jeter of game designers and simply can't be replaced. I don't think Blizzard is doing as good without Pardo, but i think they still make the best games in the industry. They've gone from being a 10/10 to a 9/10 without Pardo , imo.
There may be another Rob Pardo out there.. but you can't just stick out a Help Wanted Ad and expect him to show up next week. You also can't manufacture a genius like Pardo... a guy like that just happens man... and when it does.. you ride the wave.
D3 is still a very fun game. Like, you can say D3 isn't your cup of tea, it's certainly different. You can say it's not as good as D2, that's fine. I don't think sequels are supposed to get exponentially better and better after every installment. Some games go in a different direction than what made you fall in love with one of the games, some games don't change at all and feel too rehashy, and some games just aren't better. Ultimately there was a lot of growing pains because real talk: no one from D2 worked on D3. (Besides Chris Metzen who worked on all the stories from the previous Diablo games, and that is still the worst part of Diablo is the story).
That being said, what did the Blizzard North team work on after leaving Blizzard? Hellgate: London and Marvel Heroes. So they're not perfect either. Hellgate: London was twice as bad as D3 ever was.
Yeah, but Rob Pardo left the company in 2014. People have been saying the "decline" is from 2005 on, Rob Pardo was with the company when SC2, D3 vanilla, and other games came out. I think people who believe that hold the opinion that Diablo III isn't as good as Diablo II, SC2 isnt as good as SC1, The newest WoW expansion isn't as good as the previous ones/vanilla, etc therefore Activision ruined the company.
On February 10 2016 02:36 Nazara wrote: To me it seems that everything is still a deathball, just swept under the rug of how easy and early the harass is. After early or mid game everything is still deathball vs deathball. Positional play is still unimportant as everything is so mobile. Strategy has been replaced by unit compositions and hard counters.
Overall, you may be right that the game is closer to brood war then hots or wol. But that is like saying that skyrim is an improvement over oblivion. It is, but that doesn't mean the game has level of writing rising above super Mario bros or more depth then a puddle of water.
Nothing was done to address deathballs, they just made it harder to turtle and max out by reducing mineral counts and adding harass options. Positional play is entirely negated by deathballs, there is no positional advantage too great that cannot be overcome by smashing into it with a deathball A-move.
In BW you had to built specific counters to turtle positions with spells like disruption web, dark swarm, yamato cannon etc. Now you just lift up with your 1000 medivacs and go around. Air units have so much speed they can all blow by turrets and any fighter aircraft except phoenix (why are transports faster than fighters?). In BW, the closest thing to this level of mobility was arbiter recalls, a very late-game and expensive unit. Now you just build a warp prism and it's like an arbiter.
the ATVI merger was announced in December 2007 and didn't get completed until the middle of 2008 due to regulators chekcing things out.
nit picking dates aside, i agree that the people who think the decline has been going on since 2008 think exactly the way you describe. they of course ignore Hearthstone in their narrative because the data does not fit their theory. a team of 12 made Hearthstone.
Blizzard needs another Pardo because Browder aint it. This does not mean I think Dustin Browder is a total idiot. He is really good but just less than a game design super-genius.
nah I think many people ignore hearthstone because a good portion of long time blizz fans have no interest in hearthstone (for being more into aRPG or RTS..), I know I don't, I know the game, I watch kripp or Day9 sometimes, but I just don't really care about it it's a gambling card game I can see there are good things about it and also bad things like stronger cards u must buy very heavily knowledge-focused constantly adding content to justify microtransactions and such things, I can see the trend is present on it as well but not interested in discussing it^^
also yeah Morhaime's little speech is of course marketing here (its a video with small hype snippets and movie-like music man), he completely eludes older games so no comparison is drawn and just lists the last few games that they currently are selling plus the next.. but it doesn't really matter what morhaime says Jimmy, what you think is what matters. It's not about just listening to the CEO and going well what he says must have great value cause he's the CEO, you gotta question what he says just like you'd question anybody else man. How do you even love overwatch, have you been playing it?
I continue my talk. I think now at around five years of time it is time to evaluate the results of the project called Starcraft 2 and make moves according to these results. Has it accomplished the goals that were set to the game? Is it a worty successor to the original Starcraft? Is it fun? Is it popular?
Then after this evaluation phase the big boss of the company must take action according to the results. Is it a raise in the payroll for the lead developer or something else? It's not an option for the main developer to shut down all critique and claim that the game rocks if majority thinks it doesn't.
I watched yesterday a showmatch of LotV and I gotta say that I did not like what I saw. It was the exact same deathball-mess that it was also in WoL and HotS fighting on weird choke-points and forcefields. I did not wait "gg" as there seemed to be no positional strategy to speak of involved other than spam forcefields on choke points. And why on earth protoss has those flying things that can kill 10 probes in 5 seconds if you fail to see them?
On February 10 2016 20:33 kasapanos wrote: I continue my talk. I think now at around five years of time it is time to evaluate the results of the project called Starcraft 2 and make moves according to these results. Has it accomplished the goals that were set to the game? Is it a worty successor to the original Starcraft? Is it fun? Is it popular?
Then after this evaluation phase the big boss of the company must take action according to the results. Is it a raise in the payroll for the lead developer or something else? It's not an option for the main developer to shut down all critique and claim that the game rocks if majority thinks it doesn't.
I watched yesterday a showmatch of LotV and I gotta say that I did not like what I saw. It was the exact same deathball-mess that it was also in WoL and HotS fighting on weird choke-points and forcefields. I did not wait "gg" as there seemed to be no positional strategy to speak of involved other than spam forcefields on choke points. And why on earth protoss has those flying things that can kill 10 probes in 5 seconds if you fail to see them?
In order to criticize something, you must first understand it even to a basic degree. This is part of the problem.
Also, the protoss "flying thing" you are referring to is an oracle.
On February 10 2016 20:33 kasapanos wrote: I continue my talk. I think now at around five years of time it is time to evaluate the results of the project called Starcraft 2 and make moves according to these results. Has it accomplished the goals that were set to the game? Is it a worty successor to the original Starcraft? Is it fun? Is it popular?
Then after this evaluation phase the big boss of the company must take action according to the results. Is it a raise in the payroll for the lead developer or something else? It's not an option for the main developer to shut down all critique and claim that the game rocks if majority thinks it doesn't.
I watched yesterday a showmatch of LotV and I gotta say that I did not like what I saw. It was the exact same deathball-mess that it was also in WoL and HotS fighting on weird choke-points and forcefields. I did not wait "gg" as there seemed to be no positional strategy to speak of involved other than spam forcefields on choke points. And why on earth protoss has those flying things that can kill 10 probes in 5 seconds if you fail to see them?
In order to criticize something, you must first understand it even to a basic degree. This is part of the problem.
Also, the protoss "flying thing" you are referring to is an oracle.
I played WoL and HotS many many hours on various game-modes online. I have seen oracle before but never quite got the idea of that unit. LotV I only watched some games.
Haven't really read through the thread but currently my issue with LOTV as a Terran is that it feels like you're on a timer no matter what you do and both Z and P don't have to respect your early game while the mirror match up feels like it has descended into spamming and suiciding units.
Also why in the holy hell are Nydus' still invincible.