|
On June 13 2011 12:40 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 03:25 theburricane wrote: Design is hard
Designing stuff is hard. Designing games is hard, designing thermostats is hard, designing web sites is hard. I think all of us will generally agree that this stuff is hard. But many people don’t know why it’s hard.
One of the reasons designing stuff is so hard is because there are no solutions to any problems, at least not in a larger, systemic view.
“But theburricane! What about chat channels at release? That seems like a pretty simple freakin’ thing to include that everybody and their dog wanted!”
Fair enough, if Blizz had included chat channels at release that would have solved the “have chat channels at release problem”. But if they had spent time on chat channels, something else would have had to fall off the radar. Maybe we would have had no Achievements.
“Pffft. Those are unimportant to competitive play.”
Perhaps we would have had no FFA matchmaking.
“Again, how does that affect the serious gamers?”
Maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps we wouldn’t have had the RealID friend system when the game launched.
“You mean facebook integration? Guffaw. Puh-lease.”
But you see the point? Design is not about solving problems, because those solutions will invariably cause problems elsewhere. Design is about making conscious tradeoffs to address the problems that are most impactful, and address them at the appropriate time.
Takeaway 1
I’m not saying “hey man, lay off Blizzard they’re tryin’ real hard here!” They are, but that’s no reason to lay off them. We simply have to sit down and ask, “Why is Blizzard making/not making this change at this time?” I guarantee you the answer is not because they have “bad communication”, are “blinded by their own pride”, or are “[fascinated] with ’meat shield units’.”.
Blizzard’s “bad communication”
It is easy to interpret good user research as bad communication. Research participants will make suggestions, “I think you should do X here”, but when they see the finished/updated product, their suggestions won’t be included. The designers will have implemented something that addresses that problem in a different way, and all the participant can see is “Well this solution doesn’t fix everything mine did! Why didn’t they go with what I had suggested?”
An example: Everybody and their dog says to Blizzard, “You really need to change your maps. Seriously, Steppes of War? Seriously?!” So Blizzard begins to add new maps into their map pool, and look to community feedback as to what maps they would like to see. “GSL maps, of course!” But when we finally get Tal’Darim Altar, it’s got a bunch of destructible rocks and giant chokes and crap.
“That’s not what we suggested! This doesn’t solve the problem. Look at LSPrime, he even gave them reasons why they shouldn’t do what they did. And they still did it. That’s aggravating.” (Of course, what LSPrime was arguing for, the imbalance achieved by a 3rd base with 8 minerals 2 gas, is something that will go unfelt by everyone up to very tippy-top of Masters League. How many of us have honestly thought to ourselves, “The third has 8 minerals?! Great, that means I can run Plexa’s Shock and Awe build more effectively once I take it!”, or something similar?)
However, from Blizzard’s perspective they are making balancing their solution so that it applies positively to every group. To simplify it, “We are giving the ‘competitive’ players larger maps, and we are giving the ‘casual’ players maps that limit their options enough to suggest clear goals.”
Takeaway 2
Think systemically when you encounter a solution different from the one you’ve proposed. Chances are either ‘solves’ the problem in an entirely different way, or it solves problems you didn’t even know existed.
Know your audience
It is very easy for us at teamliquid to labor under the misapprehension that we make up the majority of the SC2 community. Or that we + the reddit community are the majority. Or that we + all the online SC2 communities are the majority of SC2 players. But the truth is if you walked up to every SC2 player individually and said, “My opening build order is 10 depot, 12 rax, 13 gas” more than half would respond, “Why do you build 10 depots? Don’t you just have one SCV building depots the whole game?”
Most SC2 players lack even the basic vocabulary that we as a competitive community have developed as a tool to help us think critically and reflectively about the way we play. Most SC2 players don’t know why Steppes of War was removed, unless they’ve read the Blizzard Situation Report explaining why. They probably had no idea it was blacklisted by thousands of people.
Blizzard has the daunting, grizzling task of designing a product that meets the expectations and needs of an infinitely large and diverse user group. All designs suffer from this requirement to varying extent, but Blizzard in particular has a very polar user base. Bronze league 4v4ers versus Grandmasters 1v1 Rank 1.
Takeaway 3
When Blizzard designs for their broader user base, it feels like they are not listening to their competitive, online communities. Because we live in our dream world where everyone has a finely-crafted opening BO, aggressive yet thoughtful 3rd base timing, and over-arching gameplan, we can completely ignore the huge number of people who enter a game thinking nothing but “I’m going to make a forge right away so I can get a cannon up in case he zergling rushes me.”
When we encounter a decision by Blizzard that impacts us ‘negatively,’ we also need to think about the people who are being affected ‘positively’ and how their experience playing this game is going to change.
Overall takeaway
I have a lot of respect for sluggaslamoo, who took the time to voice the opinions of many community members. Specifically opnions regarding how Blizzard is out of touch with its player base via poor communication and decision making, even though they think they are right next to us, hwaiting all the way. Although I disagree with him whole-heartedly, I agree that the overall experience TL’ers have expressed, the feelings and emotions they have felt, over the past few months is that whatever Blizzard hands them is 50% treasure, 50% trash.
I think this is a mindset problem, however. We need to realize that what we as reflective, competitive gamers define as trash is really treasure for a gigantic number of ‘casual’, one-game-a-day players. They have extremely different needs than we do, and it is something Blizzard owes to everyone who pays them to play their game to provide the best experience possible. They have a duty to systemically support all of their user bases as they continue to design and implement two more expansions.
Thanks for this answer, it is well written and thought-out. Putting it in OP, I think that it would be unfair not to, even if I kind of disagree. EDIT: And here is my answer Although this answers the unexpected changes, the willingness to side-track and "share their knowledge of the game" rather than respond to the answer is not something that can be explained through logic, but more or less psychology and attitude. Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored. So what was the purpose of the interview in the first place? I believe this is part of the problem. If you look at the poll released by BattleNet, the majority found destructible rocks as "They're annoying. I'd rather focus on the battle than watch rocks, and I don't like losing games because of a map that changes". So then if Blizzard needs to cater to the casuals as well, why were destructible rocks put on Tal Darim? Catering to the casuals is also unnecessary. I have many friends that are extremely casual SC2 players. Will not play 1v1, will only do team mono-battles or starjeweled and left 2 die, to the one game a day semi-competitive players. Although your point addresses the thinking behind blizzard rather than what you actually desire. I know, these guys would not care if there were a change in maps, units, etc. If units got harder, they would just use different ones that were easy to use (e.g lots of zerglings/hydras like beginners in BW). The higher you go, the more changes have an effect. And when part of SC2's longevity is banking on televised games like BW, then I think this is quite important.
Wow, thanks for adding my post to the OP. It means a lot to me. ☺
I agree with part of your. I like the idea of “going back to BW” for someone who doesn’t like SC2, just as I like the idea of someone going back to soccer if they find out they can’t get into basketball. But I agree it’s a really crappy way to defend a burgeoning design, especially when the issue you’re dealing with is the experience of a large group of people who have invested a lot of time, money, and effort into something new.
You’re right about the poll, 39% said destructible rocks suck, while only 11% said they’re great. However, 28% said they think “a changing map makes the game more interesting.” While I think “changing map” is a loaded term, the sentiment behind the answer is positive. The other 21% left gave a neutral answer. So 39% of people don’t like it and 61% are either neutral or like it. Not great, but not wretched either. If the poll appeared on TL I’m sure it would be much more heavily skewed towards the “rocks get out” side of the fence. (I’ve got a lot more problems with how that poll was designed, from a user research perspective, but I think that’s for another discussion.)
Even the idea that BattleNet is the forum of the unwashed masses is a fallacy. The bridge between the ‘casual’ players and those who visit BattleNet regularly is very wide. To be frank, I don’t have the numbers to back this up. I can’t tell you how many players are ‘casual’, how many are ‘semi-casual’, or anything like that. But I can tell you that it is a very regular phenomenon for the majority of users’/players’ experience with a product/game to end with their actual interaction with it.
People who love to play (American) football don’t necessarily contribute to the NFL fan forums. People who love playing games on their PS3s don’t necessarily contribute to the PlayStation community forums. People who love Call of Duty: Black Ops as a series don’t necessarily contribute to the official CoD forums. Hell, most people who play World of WarCraft don’t regularly visit and contribute to the WoW forums.
Therefore it stands to reason that a very large amount of SC2 players will have little to no interaction with even BattleNet, the “dregs” of the SC2 community. And part of supporting those people, from Blizzard’s standpoint at least, is transitioning them from very casual players to people who are invested in the game and the community.
If I were given the task of reverse-engineering Blizzard’s design choices on the matter I would say that the point of adding destructible rocks to these maps isn’t to make maps easier to digest for the lower-end players, it’s to make them question the choices they make in any game. Back when BW started, the idea of expanding was nuts. Like, why would you make a new base before your current base was mined out, wouldn’t that just keep you from building more units now? It was actually a stroke of inspiration that allowed someone to come up with the idea of a “fast expansion.” Things like Xel’Naga watchtowers and destructible rocks are there to facilitate that kind of inspiration in players whose SC2 experience only extends to what they and their bronze level opponents do.
Which brings us to what I believe is your most valid point. “SC2’s longevity is directly tied to the ‘high-level’, the televised games.” But I also believe that it’s tied to another thing: supporting the development of the casual base over the X years it takes for the expansions to come out, not only in terms of unit sales, but also in terms of getting the casual base to transition to consumers of the ‘high-level’, of the televised games. So what we should do is ask, “Do we think Blizzard’s current strategy is supporting both of these goals in the long-term?”
The easy answer is “No, we are seeing detrimental affects to the highest levels of play. Unless competitive play is completely balanced and supported by Blizzard, we shall not rest.” The hard answer is identifying where we’re willing to surrender to the ‘casuals’, and where we have to dig in our heels and demand that the pendulum swings in our direction.
|
I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight.
We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible.
I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience.
The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts).
Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do.
In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation):
"BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well.
The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation.
Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored. Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective.
Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true.
Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed.
Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
|
Wow, nice post Cecil, that is a lot closer towards my feeling of blizzard than the OP was. It's cool you have some relate-able experience to draw on.
|
With respect, designing the game in such a way that it becomes deliberately obtuse for new players is not the way to build up a worthwhile sport.
So that's the reason why SC2 is good? Oh boy... What else should be given on a silver platter to gamers such as yourself?
To a player like myself who isn't that good right now but ultimately can deal with the learning curve, the addition of decent unit AI (so units do what I want them to do) and group selection macro mechanics is not unreasonable. Yes, there was a skill in being able to individually select things, but was it a skill that should have been there in the first place? No. It was poor game design. What SC2 has should have been in from the start.
It's not asking for a silver platter. You might argue it takes away from the skill cap, but can you honestly argue that when the simplified macro mechanics allow players like MMA to do drops in literally four locations? Their skill level won't have decreased. It'll just be re-prioritised to the interesting stuff - unit control, in game decision making.
It also allows players like me to have fun and learn the game in the few hours a week we have to spare. If the vastly larger community exposure allows the game to flourish on three separate continents rather than one country, the changes from SC are worth it.
Hate destructible rocks, though.
|
Sorry? Blizzard didn't make ANY balance patch on SC1 for 10 years. 1.08 being the very last balance patch. They indeed neglected BW completely afterwards, letting hackers run rampant so the community had to find a solution by creating its own ladders and maps.
BW was balanced and carried on through the community, NOT blizzard. Oh wow, didn't even realise that was the last one. You're right. But this fact only makes my point better as people seriously need to whine less, if blizzard didn't release a single balance patch in SC1 since 2011 and that turned out to be very balanced after 10 years, then all the balance whining is kind of completely stupid and baseless.
|
I think blizzards done an excellent job balancing the game considering how long it has been out. Have you seen the statistics? Anything within 55-45 is pretty awesome
|
Balancing is sure non-linear and uneasy to predict. But Blizzard has it's own image in mind and heading towards it.
(like when they said they don't want reapers used that way, they don't want thors armies or many vikings on the ground..)
Most of people consider already made balance changes as good, but the point is they may not share the same image as Blizz (like death balls, meatshiled units etc ). So the non-linearity isn't an issue and i hope blizz isn't heading the wrong way.
|
On June 13 2011 19:15 adeezy wrote: I think blizzards done an excellent job balancing the game considering how long it has been out. Have you seen the statistics? Anything within 55-45 is pretty awesome yeah actual balance wise they do well, but their kind of wants in terms of certain units has me concerned
|
On June 13 2011 13:42 Doriboi wrote: I was watching ProLeague last night and the game was Bisu vs. Action. Protoss felt more inspired to play than it is today. Bisu would make shuttle with speed, corsairs, reavers, dark templars. Protoss in SC2 feels stagnant and linear. I love White-ra trying to integrate Void Prisms, but overall I don't feel inspired when I see Protoss. Perhaps I am biased.
In sc2 in PvT for example Protoss uses blink stalker, chargelots, sentry, colossus, immortal, High Templar, archons, sometimes void rays or phoenixes, it's not just sc bw where a lot of units get used.
To be fair a lot of what makes brood war awesome imo is the players themself. Brood war is an awesome game but would you care as much if there wasn't a Bisu or a Flash to tear everyone apart. It's just that these players can take the maximum out of the game which makes the game so great.
And before you say : 'but sc2 doesn't have the same amount of stuff you can do as brood war' This I agree with to a certain extent but watch any games of sc2 and you can see tons of things where pro's can micro and improve.
|
On June 13 2011 19:11 Evangelist wrote: With respect, designing the game in such a way that it becomes deliberately obtuse for new players is not the way to build up a worthwhile sport.
but thats the way how the world works dude you can not make a game only for pro gamer
without the casuals"fans" no esport without the casuals"fans" no money without the casuals"fans" no sponsors without the casuals"fans" no events without the casuals"fans" no streams you get my point and blizz point?
|
On June 13 2011 19:23 L3g3nd_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 19:15 adeezy wrote: I think blizzards done an excellent job balancing the game considering how long it has been out. Have you seen the statistics? Anything within 55-45 is pretty awesome yeah actual balance wise they do well, but their kind of wants in terms of certain units has me concerned It's hard to know where they really stand on the oft-mentioned unit issues (collo boring, 1a roaches, whatever) because frankly, that isn't the kind of issue you can address in a patch. Changing such staple units would throw the entire game completely out of whack. That's a job for an expansion when they have to rebalance the game anyway, so I prefer to hold off on opinions there until HOTS.
Patchs are mostly just number tweaking for balance purposes, and they've done a very good job there IMO. Especially since the game is actually pretty balanced at all skill levels, something BW never remotely had.
|
They have made changes we requested, it's a fact that the game is moving in the right direction. Maybe when talking in interviews they simply don't want to say basically 'we screwed up really hard, tell us what to do', anything that at least implies that would be the beginning of a snowball-like effect. Balance is quite difficult too because of the fact that people are learning, and fast. The win-rate graphs that we see now, where everything gets closer to balanced, I think would be similar even if the game hadn't been touched much, so unless they can see the future.. they can't make huge changes. With all that said though, some of the things they say seem ignorant.
|
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote:I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight. We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible. I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience. The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts). Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do. In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation): "BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well. The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation. Show nested quote +Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored. Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective. Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true. Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed. Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
It's a shame good post like this just get's vanished in the spam and endless discussion of people who doesn't like you mentinon doesn't have the insight perhaps to state some things that they do.
I agree fully with you!
(Hope more people reads this)
|
On June 12 2011 14:31 jalstar wrote: Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
But you barely have to micro immortals because of hardened shield, while if you don't position and micro colossi well they'll get killed by vikings or corruptors in a few seconds.
Have you ever used Immortals? If you don't micro them, they will die before firing a shot. Colossus on the other hand will do fine with just an A-click. What you're saying is the complete opposite of the truth.
|
On June 13 2011 19:41 Cuiu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 19:11 Evangelist wrote: With respect, designing the game in such a way that it becomes deliberately obtuse for new players is not the way to build up a worthwhile sport. but thats the way how the world works dude you can not make a game only for pro gamer without the casuals"fans" no esport without the casuals"fans" no money without the casuals"fans" no sponsors without the casuals"fans" no events without the casuals"fans" no streams you get my point and blizz point?
Casual fans does not care about eSports. People who plays Starcraft 2 Casually do not care about laddering or being competitive. I have my friends as solid proof of that. Though that depends on what you mean by "Casual".
Without competitive gamers there will be no eSports. So in my honest opinion Starcraft 2 should be balanced only to the top notch progamer and if this "Casual fans" are really interested in being competitive then they should face the challenges.
Specially that Starcraft 2 is suppose to be made as an eSports. Not a like most game in the world.
|
On June 13 2011 21:54 mansa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 19:41 Cuiu wrote:On June 13 2011 19:11 Evangelist wrote: With respect, designing the game in such a way that it becomes deliberately obtuse for new players is not the way to build up a worthwhile sport. but thats the way how the world works dude you can not make a game only for pro gamer without the casuals"fans" no esport without the casuals"fans" no money without the casuals"fans" no sponsors without the casuals"fans" no events without the casuals"fans" no streams you get my point and blizz point? Casual fans does not care about eSports. People who plays Starcraft 2 Casually do not care about laddering or being competitive. I have my friends as solid proof of that. Though that depends on what you mean by "Casual". Without competitive gamers there will be no eSports. So in my honest opinion Starcraft 2 should be balanced only to the top notch progamer and if this "Casual fans" are really interested in being competitive then they should face the challenges. Specially that Starcraft 2 is suppose to be made as an eSports. Not a like most game in the world.
Every big sport has casual fans, casual fans are what make sports grow creating a good sport is all about being able to attract casual fans easily while still maintaining the hard to master part.
|
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight. We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible. I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience. The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts). Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do. In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation): "BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well. The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation. Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored. Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective. Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true. Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed. Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
Great post.
|
On June 13 2011 21:54 mansa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 19:41 Cuiu wrote:On June 13 2011 19:11 Evangelist wrote: With respect, designing the game in such a way that it becomes deliberately obtuse for new players is not the way to build up a worthwhile sport. but thats the way how the world works dude you can not make a game only for pro gamer without the casuals"fans" no esport without the casuals"fans" no money without the casuals"fans" no sponsors without the casuals"fans" no events without the casuals"fans" no streams you get my point and blizz point? Without competitive gamers there will be no eSports. So in my honest opinion Starcraft 2 should be balanced only to the top notch progamer and if this "Casual fans" are really interested in being competitive then they should face the challenges. Probably would be one of the worst ways to design a game, KILL the fan community, and ruin e-sports right here. There needs to be attraction to the game in any point, if i lack the skills (or hell, in some cases ive seen people enjoy starcraft with lack of limbs), and i obligated to just only sit infront of the streams screens with duct tape over my mouth? I would go as far as to say a 90% viewerbase in most tournaments are by diamond or lower players, people who lack the ability or time to play, and play competatively. I sure as hell dont take starcraft 2 seriously, and ive led accounts in iccup to C-, a personal accomplishment to me.
I know other developers get alot of crap for this (see riot games posts on design theory) and you see why alot of champs that are on pro level tier not get nerfed due to the stats on lower level play. Its not bad when its a massive game that a player could simply step his game up and still win.
|
I am happy to see that topic and agree on every point in the original post.
The issue with maps is huge and I think it might be the biggest fail. One year after game was released and year and a half since beta started there are still maps with 15 seconds base-to-base travel time and 2 bases available( One of the most recent releases - Slag Pits close position would be a good example for that ). I agree that might not be an issue for most casual gamers but it is hell for the top 2-5%.
Rather than designing maps that work well for bronze as well as GM I would like to see different map pools for different leagues. Yes, sure - start the bronze/silver players with smaller maps like steppes of war, slag pits, delta quadrant and some destructible rocks to guide them when and where to expand. Give the gold/platinum (maybe diamond) players the maps that have stood the test of time and proved to be good - Metalopolis, Xel'naga Caverns, Shakuras.
However, when it comes to maps for master & GM(maybe also high diamond) please get some tournament maps - GSL maps like Dual Sight, Bel'shir Beach and Terminus; Increase the map pool OR rotate maps frequently - there are players with 1 000 - 2 000 games this season and maybe tripple that to get the total amount of games played on the same old maps. Xel'naga Caverns may be a good map but sure it doesnt feel so when you play it 1 000 times for a year. Just think how cool would it be to have a map pool of 15-20 maps and throw a new one every week or two.
I would like to comment on the destructible rocks - Tal'darim altar is a lesser map with these rocks. It makes me sad to see rocks preventing a player to get a 3rd base on the proper location - Tal'darim altar and Delta Quadrant are horrible for that reason in my opinion. It is OK to have rocks blocking a gold - provided that there are 3 blue mineral bases available - as is the case in Xel'naga Caverns and the new awesome GSL map - Bel'shir Beach ( link to map view http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=213188 ). Given the current rocks I think that they strongly favor Terran(gives them the least trouble expanding) over Protoss and Zerg because of the lift-land mechanics of CCs.
|
On June 13 2011 18:49 CecilSunkure wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm contracted out to MGS (Microsoft Game Studios) working on the balance team as a tester (player) for the new Age of Empires game called Age of Empires Online, so I can probably provide some interesting insight. We have a ridiculous amount of limitations over at MGS. Where I work I know is similar to how Blizzard's test team functions, but Blizzard seems to have near endless resources when compared to AoEO's development cycle. In seeing what changes Blizzard has been able to do since the beginning of SC2's release, I'm pretty content with what has come around myself, and hope that you all can lighten up a bit and realize that people at Blizzard are experts, extremely intelligent, and will do everything they can to ensure this game is as successful as possible. I feel like a lot of people complaining about balance/design issues know nothing about balance, design, the game in general, and about developing a video game. I recently wrote a long article about improving your 1v1 in SC2, and one of my first sections was about how much you suck. I wrote that part because I knew most people reading my article will simply not realize how lacking they are. When people start talking about balance and design from a player's perspective, they almost always don't realize that they are talking about design and balance from a... player's perspective. Usually they know no design vocabulary, and have no experience with or any grasp on the process or methods of balancing out an RTS. Just realize that balancing an RTS is a very organic and non-linear process, and that just because you play on the NA ladder and are angry doesn't mean you know a damn thing about how to fix whatever it is that's upsetting your player experience. The state of balance in an RTS game is like an object formed out of many pieces. Whenever a piece is modified, added, or removed, the state of every other piece in the object is thusly modified as well -albeit to varying degrees. Everything is relative to everything else. This makes the process of balance a very volatile and non-linear one. You have to have a very proficient understanding of how the entire object (game) works in its current state in order to predict how a future modification will affect the entirety of all the other pieces. Understanding the current state of balance in a game is no easy task either; you have to discern the difference between the cause of problems and the symptoms thereof, all the while knowing which problems are actually problems. A lot of times something will look like a problem, and actually dissipate once something external to the balance or design of a game changes (e.g. test team work conditions, strategic evolution, paradigm shifts). Working at MGS I've seen a lot of decisions made by executives, higher ups, and design leads that impact balance in a significant way. None of these people that I have had experience with have even played a single competitive game of AoEO in their life. Naturally, these decisions almost always affect balance in a negative manner. However this doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made the decision is a moron for not listening to the balance team; every decision is made based on what benefits the decision will return in relation to the amount of resources needed to implement the decision. You want to maximize profits with the smallest amount of resources spent, otherwise you'll go out of business. There are often times priorities over balance, like making sure the game is in a playable state, or perhaps ensuring design aspects in areas other than 1v1 are up to par. Even though Blizzard has more resources to throw around, including the most valuable resource: time, they still follow the same rules we do. In understanding all this, take another look at the Dustin Browder interview. He was basically right about everything (if I understood the questions correctly). I believe the question was "From a viewer's perspective, SC2 isn't as fun to watch as BW because battles have such high variance, units cluster together in a ball, AoE is too strong. What do you think about this?" Dustin responded with (this is just my interpretation): "BW pathing was terrible, and it's just not acceptable to have the same thing in SC2. This is why units now cluster. We will however allow tweaks and modifications to mitigate the ballishness. We aren't willing to revert to old pathing just for the sake of Esports in order to achieve balance. We have to keep this game inviting and fun for newer players, and we don't want people getting frustrated because they can't easily move their units. Making units smarter and easier to use allows the game to appeal to a broader audience. In terms of AoE and variance in battles, that's a good thing for viewers. We don't want the general audience to know the outcome of every single battle before it happens." -This actually ties into information theory. The idea is that uncertainty in a game is required for meaningful play to arise. If all outcomes are known to the players, then the players will not be able to interact with the game state in a meaningful way, and similarly this applies to viewers as well. The entire part of the OP about meatshields is just a straw-man fallacy. Blizzard isn't fascinated with them. The part of the OP talking about which units are boring just goes to show that people voted for the units that annoy them the most. David Kim said that the Immortal's role in-game is now focused on burst damage as opposed to it's intended role. This has nothing to do with a meat-shield fascination, it's just making an observation. Quote from OP: Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored. Actually Dustin said "If users liked to watch BW more than SC2, it's still watchable and our company still benefits from it. Go watch whichever one you like more." It did not mean that the issue will be ignored or side-stepped. He felt the "issue" with battle variance was non-existent (from a viewer's perspective), and I agree with him. I don't agree with his unit pathing decision from a competitive player's perspective, but I do agree with it from a business perspective. Truly, I think there's little to no miscommunication from the community to Dustin or Blizzard. The miscommunication seems to be from Blizzard to the community. And by this I mean most of you all don't seem to get what's going on or being said to you. I hate saying this because it sounds like something an arrogant asshole would say, but it's true. Summary: Balancing an RTS is extremely tedious. Outside suggestions must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot let loose balance changes into public unless you are positive they are the best ones to release. The development team must cater to a very wide array of needs from a vary diverse population, and there is a priority list schema enforced in decision making (for example in the HoTS interview Browder stated they will not make a drastic change to pathing just for the sake of Esports, and I believe this is because it alienates a large majority of their target audience). As a player, you likely don't know a damned thing about balance or design, or developing a major title video game, so you should be reserved with your opinion. Although I did write this to try to provide some insight into those things, so opinions around here expressed can be a bit further developed. Personally, I've been very happy with all the balance changes made to this game to date, except for the recent intended 4 gate nerf. Overall it's my opinion that Blizzard is patching thing too fast. Progamers don't even seem to have that great of an understanding of the game, and I don't think the dust has ever settled in order for Blizzard (or anyone for that matter) to see clearly. If I could have it my way, I'd patch even slower than what we are currently experiencing with SC2.
Your posts are, as always, very brilliant and insightful. I completely agree with you. I really wish they would balance the game less often and not adjust small things all the time. True flaws only become visible over a long period of time. What seems to be flaw in the game right now might turn out to work itself out.
Drastic changes like the massive buff to Infestors recently completely throws the game off and it's difficult to learn how the game works when such drastic changes within a few months. Templars nerfed massively and Infestors buffed a lot? I would love for the current state of the game to remain for a long period of time and see how things end up working out.
|
|
|
|