Community Survey: Macro Mechanics **Results** - Page 2
Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
AlphaPancake
19 Posts
| ||
Digitalz519
6 Posts
| ||
Synastren
United States31 Posts
On August 26 2015 05:12 Digitalz519 wrote: looking forward to seeing the results I apologize for the super late delivery! My semester has recently started, and I underestimated how swamped I would be, and was unable to find time to relay the results to you guys. To partially make up for that, I'll be streaming as I make the analysis post, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you guys might have while doing so. You can catch it on www.twitch.tv/synastren I'm intending to start at the turn of the next hour, which is 7 PM CDT (that's 8 PM Eastern US time, 5 PM Pacific time), so feel free to tune in if you are interested! | ||
Synastren
United States31 Posts
As a reminder, this survey was released into the wild shortly after the change to remove macro mechanics had gone live. A lot of these data are thus immediate reactions to Blizzard's decision, and should be considered as such. This is not necessarily a well considered, deliberate set of decisions and feelings, but rather, this is the kneejerk reaction and initial impression of a drastic design decision. The survey was live during the 20-25 August. For all of these graphs, I have removed the players who have said that they have not tested the changes at all in Void. Some composite analysis: Summary: + Show Spoiler + The sample was quite top heavy, with a lot of diamond+ players responding. Protoss was slightly underrepresented. More people are specializing in Void compared to last survey, and the vast majority of the respondents are at least interested in improvement. The only real things the community agreed on are that balance will be skewed. There were a lot of extreme opinions regarding how this removal would affect desire to play the game, but they were so many that they virtually cancelled each other out. While not many respondents said that they didn't care about the direction the game was taking due to these changes, the overall results suggest the community is neutral about the future based on these changes. The change to reintroduce weaker macro mechanics is probably the best possible scenario that Blizzard could have gone with, at least looking at initial impressions. I would have suggested that Blizzard do that, but that's apparently what they're doing, so that's cool. There was a BIG majority who said that original Void was too fast, and that Swarm is too slow. If there is a way for Blizzard to have a game whose speed is somewhere in the middle, that would make a lot of people happy, I think. Maybe a slightly reduced starting worker count (9 or 10?) in combination with the diminished macro mechanics? Details! + Show Spoiler + League status: + Show Spoiler + We have a skewed distribution, with higher level players overrepresented. This is to be expected, given that we are soliciting players who are posting on third-party message boards! Race stats: + Show Spoiler + Terran and zerg are roughly equal, with protoss underrepresented. A surprising portion of the sample plays Random, though! Activity: + Show Spoiler + As compared to last time, more players are devoting more time to Void. Seriousity: Instead of posting the graph, I'm just going to say that about 37 players voted below 4 on a 7 point scale asking about how seriously they took the game. There were 431 responses to this question. Time testing: + Show Spoiler + Note that this illustrates that I cut out players who answered "none" to this question. At the point that this survey went live, the macro mechanics patch was quite recent. That there were so many players who had done such extensive play is quite impressive. The meaty parts: First spoiler is the graph, second spoiler is the chart. + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + The questions: + Show Spoiler + CasualAppeal - The removal of macro mechanics will help the game appeal to more casual players Insulted - The removal of macro mechanics makes me feel insulted NewMeta - The removal of macro mechanics will allow players to focus more on other aspects of the game, letting the meta develop in exciting new ways SkewBalance - The removal of macro mechanics will drastically skew the game balance somehow BetterView - The removal of macro mechanics will make the game more interesting to watch Abrupt - The removal of macro mechanics is sudden, and I am surprised to see Blizzard do it so abruptly OtherChanges - The testing of the removal of macro mechanics bothers me as no other drastic design changes were tested PlayLess - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less PlayMore - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less Means - 4 is the midpoint, and expresses neutrality towards the statement given. A quick way to check and see how the community leans is to measure the absolute difference above or below 4.0 in the mean. For example, the community somewhat disagrees that the removal of macro mechanics is insulting (.8 below 4.0), and agrees about as much that the removal makes things better for casual players (.79 above 4.0). Means are of course skewed more by extreme values, so keep that in mind. Distribution - Looking at the shape of the distribution tells us more about how intensely the community feels about a particular issue. For example, in the "I want to play Void less because of the removal..." item, something like 68% of the sample said either "1" or "7," so there are a lot of very strong opinions about that. Does the removal suggest good things or bad things about Void? + Show Spoiler + Holy hell, that is a weird distribution. It's similar to a uniform distribution (each choice has an equal likelihood of being selected) except that virtually no one was neutral. So uh, the mean is basically Neutral. No one thinks "Eh, doesn't matter," but that's the consensus of the community. I kept the descriptives here just so you could see that. Would you like to see macro mechanics reinstated? + Show Spoiler + Generally, yes. Probably weaker, to make more people happy (read: less people unhappy). Game speed: Swarm vs OG Void vs something in the middle + Show Spoiler + OG Void is too fast, Swarm is too slow. This is an absolutely resounding consensus. Racial comparisons! + Show Spoiler + The meat! Graphs! + Show Spoiler + Numbers! + Show Spoiler + Interpretation! + Show Spoiler + Terran is generally pissed off about the patch, in pretty much every measurable way. Zerg and protoss both feel like this helps casual appeal, terran definitely doesn't. Oddly terrans feel more insulted by the removal of MM, which is odd considering the community generally thinks that MULEs are the most forgiving. Maybe this has something to do with the viability of bio after the patch? The community in general felt like balance would be skewed, but terran thought it would be fucked. In general, zerg and protoss both felt more optimistic about these changes, and that they would positively affect the game. Design ramifications + Show Spoiler + Interpretation: + Show Spoiler + Terran: FUCK THIS GAME Zerg: I guess this is pretty good maybe? Protoss: ?????? MM Reinstatement: + Show Spoiler + Interpretation: + Show Spoiler + WE REALLY WANT MULES BACK, DAVID!!!! Zerg and protoss have similar proportions for wanting MM back, but holy shit that terran MULE passion. It feels like the diminished macro mechanics is a good choice for a future direction, based on this feedback. Game Speed: + Show Spoiler + Thanks to everyone for stopping by! If you have questions, feel free to ask! edit: Added text of questions in "the meat." Thought that was there; whoops! | ||
KadaverBB
Germany25643 Posts
On September 03 2015 10:26 Synastren wrote: Alrighty, guys, let's get cracking on some analysis! As a reminder, this survey was released into the wild shortly after the change to remove macro mechanics had gone live. A lot of these data are thus immediate reactions to Blizzard's decision, and should be considered as such. This is not necessarily a well considered, deliberate set of decisions and feelings, but rather, this is the kneejerk reaction and initial impression of a drastic design decision. The survey was live during the 20-25 August. For all of these graphs, I have removed the players who have said that they have not tested the changes at all in Void. Some composite analysis: Summary: + Show Spoiler + The sample was quite top heavy, with a lot of diamond+ players responding. Protoss was slightly underrepresented. More people are specializing in Void compared to last survey, and the vast majority of the respondents are at least interested in improvement. The only real things the community agreed on are that balance will be skewed. There were a lot of extreme opinions regarding how this removal would affect desire to play the game, but they were so many that they virtually cancelled each other out. While not many respondents said that they didn't care about the direction the game was taking due to these changes, the overall results suggest the community is neutral about the future based on these changes. The change to reintroduce weaker macro mechanics is probably the best possible scenario that Blizzard could have gone with, at least looking at initial impressions. I would have suggested that Blizzard do that, but that's apparently what they're doing, so that's cool. There was a BIG majority who said that original Void was too fast, and that Swarm is too slow. If there is a way for Blizzard to have a game whose speed is somewhere in the middle, that would make a lot of people happy, I think. Maybe a slightly reduced starting worker count (9 or 10?) in combination with the diminished macro mechanics? Details! + Show Spoiler + League status: + Show Spoiler + We have a skewed distribution, with higher level players overrepresented. This is to be expected, given that we are soliciting players who are posting on third-party message boards! Race stats: + Show Spoiler + Terran and zerg are roughly equal, with protoss underrepresented. A surprising portion of the sample plays Random, though! Activity: + Show Spoiler + As compared to last time, more players are devoting more time to Void. Seriousity: Instead of posting the graph, I'm just going to say that about 37 players voted below 4 on a 7 point scale asking about how seriously they took the game. There were 431 responses to this question. Time testing: + Show Spoiler + Note that this illustrates that I cut out players who answered "none" to this question. At the point that this survey went live, the macro mechanics patch was quite recent. That there were so many players who had done such extensive play is quite impressive. The meaty parts: First spoiler is the graph, second spoiler is the chart. + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + The questions: + Show Spoiler + CasualAppeal - The removal of macro mechanics will help the game appeal to more casual players Insulted - The removal of macro mechanics makes me feel insulted NewMeta - The removal of macro mechanics will allow players to focus more on other aspects of the game, letting the meta develop in exciting new ways SkewBalance - The removal of macro mechanics will drastically skew the game balance somehow BetterView - The removal of macro mechanics will make the game more interesting to watch Abrupt - The removal of macro mechanics is sudden, and I am surprised to see Blizzard do it so abruptly OtherChanges - The testing of the removal of macro mechanics bothers me as no other drastic design changes were tested PlayLess - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less PlayMore - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less Means - 4 is the midpoint, and expresses neutrality towards the statement given. A quick way to check and see how the community leans is to measure the absolute difference above or below 4.0 in the mean. For example, the community somewhat disagrees that the removal of macro mechanics is insulting (.8 below 4.0), and agrees about as much that the removal makes things better for casual players (.79 above 4.0). Means are of course skewed more by extreme values, so keep that in mind. Distribution - Looking at the shape of the distribution tells us more about how intensely the community feels about a particular issue. For example, in the "I want to play Void less because of the removal..." item, something like 68% of the sample said either "1" or "7," so there are a lot of very strong opinions about that. Does the removal suggest good things or bad things about Void? + Show Spoiler + Holy hell, that is a weird distribution. It's similar to a uniform distribution (each choice has an equal likelihood of being selected) except that virtually no one was neutral. So uh, the mean is basically Neutral. No one thinks "Eh, doesn't matter," but that's the consensus of the community. I kept the descriptives here just so you could see that. Would you like to see macro mechanics reinstated? + Show Spoiler + Generally, yes. Probably weaker, to make more people happy (read: less people unhappy). Game speed: Swarm vs OG Void vs something in the middle + Show Spoiler + OG Void is too fast, Swarm is too slow. This is an absolutely resounding consensus. Racial comparisons! + Show Spoiler + The meat! Graphs! + Show Spoiler + Numbers! + Show Spoiler + Interpretation! + Show Spoiler + Terran is generally pissed off about the patch, in pretty much every measurable way. Zerg and protoss both feel like this helps casual appeal, terran definitely doesn't. Oddly terrans feel more insulted by the removal of MM, which is odd considering the community generally thinks that MULEs are the most forgiving. Maybe this has something to do with the viability of bio after the patch? The community in general felt like balance would be skewed, but terran thought it would be fucked. In general, zerg and protoss both felt more optimistic about these changes, and that they would positively affect the game. Design ramifications + Show Spoiler + Interpretation: + Show Spoiler + Terran: FUCK THIS GAME Zerg: I guess this is pretty good maybe? Protoss: ?????? MM Reinstatement: + Show Spoiler + Interpretation: + Show Spoiler + WE REALLY WANT MULES BACK, DAVID!!!! Zerg and protoss have similar proportions for wanting MM back, but holy shit that terran MULE passion. It feels like the diminished macro mechanics is a good choice for a future direction, based on this feedback. Game Speed: + Show Spoiler + Thanks to everyone for stopping by! If you have questions, feel free to ask! edit: Added text of questions in "the meat." Thought that was there; whoops! Please add this to the op! :D | ||
Little-Chimp
Canada948 Posts
| ||
Topher_Doll
United States76 Posts
| ||
Wrath
3174 Posts
On September 03 2015 12:28 Little-Chimp wrote: Surprise surprise, Terrans want their ultra forgiving mechanic back Not every Terarn want that, I Terran and want the mules to be casted into the fire on mount doom along with chrono and inject. | ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22271 Posts
| ||
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Denmark697 Posts
No matter WHAT Blizzard does next - the community will hate them. People have split into two camps, with very few taking the middle ground. Perhaps this is why the dev team waited 5 years for something like this? No matter what the final decision is a lot of people are going to be angry and feel betrayed - something the already shaky ground of SC2 really can't afford. Is it possible to mend this divide and find a solution that pleases (most) everyone? Yes Are the developers capable of finding such a solution? I doubt it. And that is not to bash Blizzard for their ability - the task of finding something that won't keep the divide is simply too great at this point. | ||
Yiome
China1687 Posts
Interesting. | ||
DeadByDawn
United Kingdom476 Posts
On September 03 2015 12:28 Little-Chimp wrote: Surprise surprise, Terrans want their ultra forgiving mechanic back Suprise, Surprise, Zergs/Protoss want their free wins. This does not go anywhere ZergingSheperdLight. Many Terrans would be glad to see the Mule and other macro boosters gone but want the race to be adjusted accordingly. Just as much of Protoss was balanced around chrono, Terran was heavily balanced around Mules. | ||
Little-Chimp
Canada948 Posts
On September 03 2015 22:09 DeadByDawn wrote: Suprise, Surprise, Zergs/Protoss want their free wins. This does not go anywhere ZergingSheperdLight. Many Terrans would be glad to see the Mule and other macro boosters gone but want the race to be adjusted accordingly. Just as much of Protoss was balanced around chrono, Terran was heavily balanced around Mules. Actually I agree with you completely, balancing around no mules would be amazing. Bringing auto mules in is trash. Also I don't know about other zergs but I'm totally down for some nerfs so i can get some zvp and zvt up in this ladder. The only free wins are from other races who switched to zerg thinking it's easy and rekking them in zvz. | ||
whoopsome
Norway41 Posts
| ||
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
The Macro Mechanics (MM) discussion is extremely political. The regressives seem personally insulted that the game will be different, are hyper resistant to this change, and want to go backward; and the progressives are interested in breaking new ground and giving it a try. Similar to the Right and Left split in politics. I definitely see both sides, but will present my argument as succinctly as possible. Periodically--and manually--casting Spawn Larva, calling down MULEs, and assigning Chronoboost is rote. Their benefits are very obviously and fundamentally engrained in the asymmetric balancing act of the game. An interesting dynamic of the three is the two-way nature of each. Queens can fight, and be sniped. Both players have skin in the game. MULEs provide a necessary equalizer to Terran's income, and can be sniped. Again, both players have skin in the game. Chronoboost allows Protoss to change the timings in the game, integral to a variety of playstyles, but there is a tell, giving away--or deceiving--your intent. Both players have skin in the game. The options: (1) Keep MMs and Keep them Manual: doesn't address the rote APM sinks. But maintains the two-way dynamics. This option would keep the larva reduction, cool down and range, and assignment, respectively. (2) Keep MMs and implement autocast: fixes the rote APM sinks and maintains the two-way dynamics. (3) Remove MMs entirely, and adjust economy / military balance for each race: fixes APM sinks. Removes two-way dynamics. The asymmetry: I think the asymmetry of the three complicates the argument to the point where they almost can't and should't be called macro mechanics. (a) Spawn Larva directly affects supply. (b) Calldown MULE directly affects mineral income. (c) Chronoboost directly affects time. This is just my opinion, obviously, but it certainly seems like item (a) complicates any changes to a very large degree. The automated iteration of supply capability just feels like any non-Zerg opponent is up against mechanical perfection in order to keep up in supply. Let me be very clear about this: once the economies equalize with the return of MM's, I think Terran and Protoss should be able to keep up with Zerg better, and it will still be very difficult to play Zerg well against equally skilled opponents, but with that said: (a) has a direct effect on supply, while both (b) and (c) have an indirect and implicit effect on supply, which could shift the burden of keeping up in supply on to Terran and Protoss in a way that could be problematic. These are my thoughts. I'm just some guy. | ||
ElMeanYo
United States1032 Posts
| ||
Jowj
United States248 Posts
Interesting data to me to be honest. I'm surprised so many people think that the game speed of HOTS was slow. I'm wondering what they would like instead. Most games ended between 10/15 minutes for me. | ||
Synastren
United States31 Posts
On September 04 2015 03:00 ElMeanYo wrote: I'd be really interested to see this poll with a more accurate representation of the SC2 player base, instead of just plats and up. I'd be willing to bet if that was possible we would see much more of a swing towards the removal/nerf of MM. It would be exceedingly difficult to find a large number of metal league players by soliciting participants on an online message board about the game. Generally speaking, people who play the game purely for enjoyment are less likely to be scouring the message boards to see what the latest news is. That being said, I imagine it would be similar to these data, perhaps with a slightly more favorable skew towards removed mechanics. On September 06 2015 00:20 Jowj wrote: Interesting data to me to be honest. I'm surprised so many people think that the game speed of HOTS was slow. I'm wondering what they would like instead. Most games ended between 10/15 minutes for me. My average game in swarm was between 15-25 minutes, whereas a surprising number of my games in Void are done in the 10-ish minute range. If one of us is cheesing, it may be over in less time than it took to find the game via matchmaking. | ||
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
| ||
Synastren
United States31 Posts
On September 06 2015 18:33 Veldril wrote: Would it be possible to export the results into an SPSS file? I can do a quick run on ANOVA and Cross-Tabulation to see if there is a statistically significant differences between races/ranks or other variables in the survey. If you are interested, shoot me a PM. I'm not sure if you would have anything approaching the sample size necessary to look for statistical significance with race/league, and doing a bunch of different ANOVAs would drive up some serious Type 1 error. I mean, some sort of regression across league might have something interesting, but I'm not really sure that there would be any additional information discovered. Aside from my own professional irritation at ANOVA, I don't think that inferentials would tell us much more than the descriptives I've shown here. The other big reason (probably the biggest, for me) to avoid inferential statistics is that presenting descriptives like this allows for readers to draw their own conclusion without requiring statistical training AND without me needing to go through lengthy statistical interpretation. Crosstabs could be interesting, I guess, but, again, I'm not sure what additional information that would present. If you want to poke around the data, send me a PM; I don't want to make it publicly available without request until I can chat with Blizzard about it (I have no idea if they want proprietary control over this data or not). | ||
| ||