Community Feedback Update - June 19

General Discussion
1 2 3 8 Next
As we mentioned before, we’d like to provide our thoughts on areas that we’ve looked into this week based on community suggestions. Before we get into the details, we’d like to point out while we try our best to hit majority of the big topics, it’ll be impossible to cover every single topic every time. The goal here is to discuss big issues with you guys, and continue doing so over time. With this first post, we’re covering a few more topics than we might typically cover in a normal update. However, we think this is a good way to kick off these updates.

We’d like to also make it as clear as possible that game design is not about implementing every idea that the majority thinks is correct, it’s about finding the key ideas that will be best for the game. So we’ll do our best to keep an open mind on topics and even if we’re currently thinking that we won’t try something out, we’ll keep it as part of our regular discussions if those issues keep being brought up by the community. Please also try your best to do this as well, and remember it’s not about how many people say something, and it’s not about bandwagoning onto the loudest idea. It’s about trying to look at issues from every angle possible to make sure it is in fact what’s best for our game. Just as an example, internally in design meetings we try our best to detach ourselves from every idea. Even if I’ve suggested something, I try my best to analyze how it might be bad. This way, I can focus on the specific idea and if it’s the correct move for the game, rather than pushing for the idea just because I thought of something I think is awesome.

Here are our thoughts on many of the bigger community discussions this past week:

    Flying unit separation radius
  • We agree that when you are controlling larger numbers of air units, it’s difficult to do the moving shot micro.
  • This requires a code fix, and we’re currently exploring and testing something that we can add to the beta soon.

    Making all damage points to zero for air units
  • One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go.
  • We generally don’t make extreme changes that alter so many things at once, due to the side effects these changes can cause. Changing every single air unit’s damage point is not something we’d like to explore, but we’d be open to specific air unit damage point changes if the change makes sense.
  • With a damage point of zero, a unit that is facing its target can immediately move away after being issued the attack order. With the default damage point, the player must instead time their movement to happen after the attack is performed. An example of where this is pushed even further is the Hellion, which has a higher than normal damage point. The unique timing required for this unit requires additional mastery, which makes it more impressive when pros are able to be so effective with them. Since the suggested goal of the change is to have more interesting micro, in this specific case, we wonder if what we currently have is more interesting micro than the proposed changes.

    Siege Tank /Immortal turret tracking
  • This sounds like a very minor change that probably won’t have a huge impact. However, because many players believe this will be of great help, so we’ll test it fairly quickly internally, then put the change in also in the beta. So you can expect this change to go into the beta soon.

    Community resourcing model suggestion
  • We also watched show matches, tried games ourselves, and we agree with the majority of you guys that it’s too similar to Heart of the Swarm. But we wanted to comment again on this because it’s still a topic discussed by some.
  • Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm.
  • Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.

    Ranked play in the beta
  • We hear your feedback and agree that it’ll be good to enable ranked play.
  • We may not be able to do this right away as we’ll need to introduce this with a client patch and can’t use the same method we use for the balance update which is done through publishing.
  • Due to the feedback we’ve seen on this topic, we’ve currently scheduled to enable ranked play in the beta with the next client patch.

    Disruptor being too all-or-nothing
  • We agree with you guys here. The optimal case looks too strong, and when you miss with a hit it seems like the Disruptor is killed too easily at such a high cost investment.
    • We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
    • Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
    • Lower cost
    • Faster speed when activated
    • Less delay before firing

  • Overall, it looks like we have a decent solve for the case of a single hit ending games often.
  • We believe the next step in this area is to test out changes that would allow players to more easily save and reuse the Disruptors. This way, we can solve the issue where a miss creates a high chance of the game being over.

We’d also like to comment on some topics that we found interesting this week. Again, please keep in mind just because we don’t mention something here, it doesn’t mean we haven’t read it. While it’s impossible to read every single post that comes up every day, we do try our best and can tell you that we read a big majority of the things you guys bring up.

    Adept micro tips video was very cool.
  • It was a very good example of relaying more info on something new, so that players in the beta can better test new units.
  • It would definitely be more cool to see more tips on new units videos, because we believe faster we have the majority of beta testers ramped up with new units, the more high quality beta testing we will have going forward.

There was a post asking if players want battles to last much longer. Our thoughts are that the current pace feels really good, and we were happy to see that most players didn’t want battles to last longer in StarCraft II.
Thank You Mr.Kim but i must ask:

What about that Infestor spell that was promised months ago... making the Ravager usefull since its pretty much overnerfed to the point that no one makes them !?

Any data on that !?

Brood Loord speed since its to slow for LotV !?

Overloord drops needing some speed cuz they are to slow !?
How about doing something about turtle mech? Or making Swarm host not totally useless.
I wonder if Ultralisks will really stay at 8 armor.
Wow I'm actually impressed by this post. It's nice to see you guys have taken note of how everyone feels about the disruptor. I'm curious to see what you will do to it to make it more easily preservable for players. I hope it's good and not too gimmicky. I still think the best route for the economy is the double harvester model. You guys are still going to change the economy model right? Even if it's not the same way everyone wants it to be, it's gonna change in some way between now and release right? I wonder if you saw my toxic ravager thread.............

06/19/2015 11:01 AMPosted by Velitey
I wonder if Ultralisks will really stay at 8 armor.


Yes please. I like good zerg units. Design wise, I think the most important thing is to make the game far from too punishing for players. One of the key problems with HOTS is how punishing a single mistake can be. Changing the disruptor is a start, but what about things like banelings? If you play terran bio in TvZ for example, banelings alone in HOTS force you to try to learn to split as effectively as possible or else risk failure. Widow mines help a bit with that, but at the same time their random nature and reliance on surprise makes them hard to work well enough to weaken that element of gameplay.

I'd recommend a way for bio terrans to win without such perfection required. Tanks are better for that, so I'd work on making tanks better for AoE damage, maybe nerf mutas since their strength isn't as needed with all the new zerg features. Nerfing mutas (taking away regen or making it VERY weak) would also be a good step to weakening mass muta switches as a viable way to abusively win, and it would make PvZ more fair to protoss players. Mutas were fine in WoL, they didn't need to be overbuffed like in HOTS, but now in LOTV that shouldn't even be necessary for zerg players to win macro games.
Awesome changes! I really like what's being proposed here. I'm glad you're willing to test the turret tracking. Even if it's a minor change in theory, this is something I think would add a lot of value to the game for players.
Like you said it's super difficult to address everything, but even this just feels great. Thanks for answering to feedback from community. We appreciate it a lot !
This! That's what we need, keep doing more feedbacks like this, we really appreciate!
06/19/2015 10:58 AMPosted by Effortless
How about doing something about turtle mech? Or making Swarm host not totally useless.


Why does this post have downvotes? I'm pretty sure it's referring to HOTS, and it's not like this isn't still a MAJOR problem for zerg.
Thanks Dayvie. You're the man.
This post is very detailed, clear, and makes me feel a lot better about several big issues that have been coming up.

Sincerely, thank you very much for writing this. I feel like the direction things are heading is going to be a big improvement in the upcoming patches.
06/19/2015 10:38 AMPosted by Dayvie
Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm.Currently, the resourcing model that we’re testing in the beta is doing a very good job of this.

The games I've seen in beta generally add up into two big categories. One's where there's hardly any action outside of harrass and lots of econ pumping that leads to an engagement that basically decides the game or a low econ situation where one or both players constantly have difficulty establishing a consistent economy. While there's lots of scrappy action in low econ games, they're very frustrating to watch and play so consistently.

For example A delays his third to prevent/kill B's third. B's third is killed and then both players are stuck on low econ for the rest of the game because of mined out mineral patches at that point. Neither player ever really has a robust economy nor the ability to secure one for the rest of the game.

Do you have intentions to address this?
I love you David
06/19/2015 10:38 AMPosted by Dayvie
Flying unit separation radius
We agree that when you are controlling larger numbers of air units, it’s difficult to do the moving shot micro.
This requires a code fix, and we’re currently exploring and testing something that we can add to the beta soon.

YES.

06/19/2015 10:38 AMPosted by Dayvie
One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go.

Am I seriously reading this????????????????? Micro would be MUCH MORE FREKAING FUN. THAT'S THE POINT OF THE GAME. Two players with better than average micro going against each other means that microing isn't "easy" as you say. This is EXACTLY what sc2 needs! Low skill floor and high skill ceiling, not having micro be a forced requirement with all these silly unit abilities. Two players with high skill ceiling going up against each other = EXCITING MOMENTS AND GAMES. Do you not understand blizz?????

Other than that, what I read was absolutely great. You guys are listening and actually RESPONDING to good feedback.

I highly suggest we remove the resourcing model that was planned in LotV and instead reverse the mineral count number. What is really needed is the mining efficiency to be less and less the more workers you have on a mineral patch.

This means that having more bases would be actually helpful because having 12 workers on 4 bases = more income than 16 workers on 3 bases. This would solve so many problems with zerg's incapability of outproducing the opponent despite having more than 3 bases and terran mech would not survive long turtling because of the sheer income from the opponent.

What you're doing with resources is just FORCING out expanding play instead of it having to be a strategical choice, similar to the way micro is being forced out via spells. Having 2 workers on a mineral patch would be not as efficient as having 2 workers on 2 mineral patches. This will encourage expanding while making cheese still viable, because what is a game without having an all-in every once in a while?

I seriously hope you guys implement this mining efficiency change, because that would revolutionize the game in my opinion. It would help all races greatly and we could see how different player showcase their skill when choosing to expand,
06/19/2015 11:19 AMPosted by Eddie
Micro would be MUCH MORE FREKAING FUN. THAT'S THE POINT OF THE GAME.

not in all cases, though - hellion vs speedling example is a great one, damage point actually makes the interaction good in this particular instance. you can't really just flat-out lower every unit's damage point to 0
Thank you David.

Posts like this prevent the community from imploding on itself. Even a post with "we didn't do anything the past 2 weeks" is better then total silence.

Much love and good luck trying to manage it all.
I just wanna say--and I can't emphasise this enough--this kind of feedback if made regularly will do wonders for the mentality of the community. Even if a lot of people still disagree with your direction, the fact that you show what you are working on and discuss the popular ideas, will put a lot of people at ease, as well as provide focal points for constructive discussions within the community.

Please, please keep this up and make it regular. A big step in the right direction, well done!
Why but why can't you talk about microtransaction ingame at all? Atleast some kind of gold you buy at battle.net for skins, portraits etc, just something little for start. Hearthstone has it, so does HoTS, but SC2 can't have it.

And also better communication over ingame client, watching friend's ladder games live with 2mins delay, tournaments ingame etc...

This game lacks social stuff so much and it needs them so badly in order to survive longterm. Game is already good enough, but make it more open for everyone, we need new player base so game has good future and social things will bring new players.
About Disruptor being too all-or-nothing

Is the cost or damage balance really going to solve the problem here?

Because it looks like all what wrong with it is BIGBOOM or no boom. So explosions work great with banelings, but imagine if there was a zerg unit wich would do the same what 10banelings would do. It would be horrible.

So I would suggest to slice up the disruptors damage over time.

Make it No friendly fire, than make the ablity to deal the damage over time when he is invournable.
This way the other player can micro out the disruptor. But in most of the cases the disruptor can deal damage, while molding the battlefield.

But the greatest thing would be that you would have the chance to save the disruptor. You could call it back if you see that its not working, or stay if you are confidient.

TL;DR: Make Disruptor to deal medium damage over the time of its ability.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum