PDA

View Full Version : How much have fans helped against SC2 ?



Zigurd
05-23-2009, 06:14 PM
This is something important that we should think about. The fans power to regulate certain aspects of the game is huge. In your opinion, how much has that power worked against SC2 possible development.

An example would be the Carrier. The Tempest got scratched down because the fans wanted the Carrier back. This could very well mean a decrease in the gameplay possibilities of the game, but Blizz gave in to it.

Another example would be the Hydralisks role. Blizz should have the freedom to do whatever they want with the Hydra in terms of gameplay, to change things up and to create a more flexible game. But through fan nostalgia they are giving it a more generalist role again.

In your opinion, how much does fan pleasing deter from originality and creativity ?

DemolitionSquid
05-23-2009, 06:19 PM
This is something important that we should think about. The fans power to regulate certain aspects of the game is huge. In your opinion, how much has that power worked against SC2 possible development.

An example would be the Carrier. The Tempest got scratched down because the fans wanted the Carrier back. This could very well mean a decrease in the gameplay possibilities of the game, but Blizz gave in to it.

Another example would be the Hydralisks role. Blizz should have the freedom to do whatever they want with the Hydra in terms of gameplay, to change things up and to create a more flexible game. But through fan nostalgia they are giving it a more generalist role again.

In your opinion, how much does fan pleasing deter from originality and creativity ?

The Hydra is not becoming more generalist due to fan opinion, it is doing so to combat the power of the Roach. A better example is the model change of the Infestor.

Anyway, fan opinion needs to be taken as its given - random "omgwtf thas a fugly n stoopid attack chng it naow plz or else you suxxorz!" should be ignored. Posts that give logical, coherent reasons why something should be changed should be considered.

areese87
05-23-2009, 06:27 PM
It's really hard to know how much fan opinion has helped. I mean, generally, Blizzard discovers things for themselves. It may take later than people might wish, but hey, it happens. Now, any really specific fan advice, like a specific unit, is not gonna be taken by Blizz because of copyright problems and the like. Blizz will only respond to the the most general

Example:

1) Here's my drawing of the new Infestor! <Blizz looks at drawing> "We like it!!" Drawing is incorporated. Result: Lawsuit and problems.

2) Infestor is ugly. Blizz makes changes.

It always makes me giggle when people think Blizzard will use their specific ideas. I don't laugh because I may think their idea is shit-like (most are, of course), but because of legality issues people don't know about.

Anywho, it's hard to know if the Tempest would have disappeared sans fans. I mean, we don't really know how long it lasted before we knew about it.

Pandonetho
05-23-2009, 06:29 PM
The biggest impact on the game from the fans IMO is the art.

ArcherofAiur
05-23-2009, 06:32 PM
It always makes me giggle when people think Blizzard will use their specific ideas. I don't laugh because I may think their idea is shit-like (most are, of course), but because of legality issues people don't know about.



http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=15211803043&sid=3000


Don't underestimate the power of Theorycraftering. The SCLegacy community has been incredibly influential in the development of SC2.

Santrega
05-23-2009, 06:36 PM
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=15211803043&sid=3000


Don't underestimate the power of Theorycraftering. The SCLegacy community has been incredibly influential in the development of SC2.

A quote of exactly what you are trying to show in that thread would be nice.

ArcherofAiur
05-23-2009, 06:38 PM
The macro mechanics we developed at Blizzforums.

sandwich_bird
05-23-2009, 06:47 PM
I want a 4th race but no progamers would want that.

RamiZ
05-23-2009, 07:04 PM
I want a 4th race but no progamers would want that.

When SC2 editor comes out, you can make 10 more races if you want them ^^

MattII
05-23-2009, 07:19 PM
An example would be the Carrier. The Tempest got scratched down because the fans wanted the Carrier back. This could very well mean a decrease in the gameplay possibilities of the game, but Blizz gave in to it.

I think at this we have to remember that there's a difference between 'fans' as in those of us who are sitting out here on the sidelines, and 'hardcore fans' who have been the ones in playtesting (and were responsible for the "emotional connection with the original unit." that got the Tempest dropped), since I seriously doubt 'all' the playtesting would be done by Blizzard employees.

sandwich_bird
05-23-2009, 10:10 PM
When SC2 editor comes out, you can make 10 more races if you want them ^^True! Plus, we'll have hybrids/xel-Naga models to work with:D

Nicol Bolas
05-23-2009, 10:52 PM
The macro mechanics we developed at Blizzforums.

But none of them were used. Indeed, the 3 mechanics we have were already in the game before the contest concluded. The Mule had been mentioned previously, as had the Dark Pylon. And the larva spawning had been in in some form since BWWI.

Batch 40 was simply where they explained it all in detail.


I want a 4th race but no progamers would want that.

There are good reasons not to have a fourth race besides what progamers want. 3 is the minimum number of distinct races where you can have significant differences between them. Anything beyond 3 is having more for the sake of having more. It's simply more work for no appreciable gain.

ArcherofAiur
05-23-2009, 11:03 PM
But none of them were used. Indeed, the 3 mechanics we have were already in the game before the contest concluded. The Mule had been mentioned previously, as had the Dark Pylon. And the larva spawning had been in in some form since BWWI.




Actually your wrong. The AoE Nexus spell was proposed long before the Macro contest.

The Thesis to Increase Macro Part 2 outlined a mechanic for increasing larvae by sacrificing larvae. For the record, you were right in arguing that sacrificing an overlord was too much of a cost for extra larvae. You were wrong in argueing that an extra larvae ability would not be as useful as just making more hatcheries.

And MULEs can be traced to a TL.net thread I had on calling down SCVs with drop pods.

Santrega
05-23-2009, 11:06 PM
There are good reasons not to have a fourth race besides what progamers want. 3 is the minimum number of distinct races where you can have significant differences between them. Anything beyond 3 is having more for the sake of having more. It's simply more work for no appreciable gain.

I think I have to disagree with you here, simply because I think there is room for more differences, 2 in particular.

I still believe that you could do a more insect-like race, with even greater numbers than the zerg, incredibly weak in small numbers, but powerful in big numbers. The other race would be possibly the Xel'naga as a very powerful race, which is stronger than the protoss, and each unit takes a greater amount of supply.

The difference can come from Xel'Naga being primarily units with strong abilities, with weak - average attacks, while the the Insect-like race would have practically no abilities at all, and be primarily a macro-specific race.

Nicol Bolas
05-23-2009, 11:51 PM
The AoE Nexus spell was proposed long before the Macro contest.

But there is no such AoE Nexus spell. It comes from the Dark Pylon.

On the rest of the stuff, if you throw out random ideas every few days over the course of a year or so, what Blizzard decides to do will likely look like some of them. But that is far from actual evidence that these ideas were picked up by Blizzard, rather than them coming up with them on their own.


I still believe that you could do a more insect-like race, with even greater numbers than the zerg, incredibly weak in small numbers, but powerful in big numbers. The other race would be possibly the Xel'naga as a very powerful race, which is stronger than the protoss, and each unit takes a greater amount of supply.

You just described the Zerg and Protoss as they currently stand. All you're doing is saying that these "new races" should be more of that.

The Protoss are not "more" of anything relative to any race, just as the Zerg are not "more" of anything relative to any race. They are different directions, not merely turning knobs up or down.

mr. peasant
05-24-2009, 03:54 AM
Well, I know a few of my concepts/predictions were used. Prior to SC2's announcement, I had cooked up:

A non-energy-using unit with teleportation as the Protoss' primary ranged unit. Of course, I had guessed it as a Khalai Vindicator where as Blizzard went with a Dark Templar's Stalker just to spite me. ;)


A Dragoon version 2.0 that could only attack ground units but was much hardier, on par with the Archon in durability and that it would be higher in the tech tree than the old Dragoon. We got the Immortal.


A Terran unit equipped with jump-jets and machine pistols designed as a harrasser. The main difference is that I suggested it as a caster with a lower unit:effectiveness ratio. Also, I had described it as only using one machine pistol to explain how it steered. However, Blizzard decided to forgo that little reality check when they designed the Reaper.


Prior to the Zerg announcement, I predicted the Zerg's Infest ability would work by targeting any Terran building whereby it would constantly pump out Infested Terrans. Of course, I had guessed it would be for the Queen where as it showed up on the Infestor and its effect was temporary as opposed to permanent.


After the Zerg was announced, I predicted that the Infestor would undergo a model revamp and wind up looking like a Zergified Reaver. Guess I got that one right on the head.

Granted, these were merely a small fraction of the things I've suggested over the past few years on Blizzforums. So, I was bound to get some of them right. :D

ArcherofAiur
05-24-2009, 07:28 AM
But there is no such AoE Nexus spell. It comes from the Dark Pylon.
lol right, they are completly different spells. Nicol are you serious?



On the rest of the stuff, if you throw out random ideas every few days over the course of a year or so, what Blizzard decides to do will likely look like some of them. But that is far from actual evidence that these ideas were picked up by Blizzard, rather than them coming up with them on their own.


But we didnt just throw out random ideas. We had a framework for a solution to the Macro problem. Starcraft 2 would have a two tiered macro system. The first would be Automated with MBS for unit production and Automining for workers. This would allow new players to macro easily. The second tier would be racially unique mechanics that required decision making and multi-tasking. Weve been talking about these things for month, back when blizzard was using the gas mechanic and others were screaming for MBS to be removed. We offered a solution that pleased both noobs and pros and Blizzard adopted that idea.


And don't mistake iteration for guessing. The mechanics that were choosen were refined many times. This same process of iteration is how Blizzard produces the most polished games. The Probe AoE spell was really well developed. Thats why it won the macro contest. It wasnt random in any sense. You can try and dismiss it all you want but what we did was still incredible. We changed Starcraft.

Kimera757
05-24-2009, 08:52 AM
Fitting new races into StarCraft would also cause lore problems.

The xel'naga and hybrids already exist in lore. Unlike Azeroth, however, there aren't undiscovered continents in a setting where numerous races can be found side-by-side.

ArcherofAiur
05-24-2009, 09:42 AM
Fitting new races into StarCraft would also cause lore problems.

The xel'naga and hybrids already exist in lore. Unlike Azeroth, however, there aren't undiscovered continents in a setting where numerous races can be found side-by-side.

Arn't we talking about a whole galaxy in an infinite universe.

Kimera757
05-24-2009, 09:49 AM
Yes, but how do you make such aliens plot-relevant?

The night elves, humans (and high elves), orcs and undead weren't sitting on different planets with only occasional sword point interaction. They were all found on the same planet, same continents even (some of the time), interacting constantly.

(Also, in Warcraft III you could have more interesting racial interactions, such as the unofficial alliance between harpies and centaurs, that you probably wouldn't see in a game like StarCraft.)

ArcherofAiur
05-24-2009, 09:58 AM
Im not saying there essential for the plot. But its still feasible to have ansilary races. Like say we have a mission where Jim stumbles upon a planet with Ewoks and must enlist their help to defeat the Dark Templar.

Santrega
05-24-2009, 10:13 AM
You just described the Zerg and Protoss as they currently stand. All you're doing is saying that these "new races" should be more of that.

The Protoss are not "more" of anything relative to any race, just as the Zerg are not "more" of anything relative to any race. They are different directions, not merely turning knobs up or down.

With the insect-like race, they'd have no abilities. That is different than any race.

The Xel'naga race would use mostly abilities, and very little regular attacks, even on its early units, and thats unlike any race.

Sorry, but simply saying they are the same, doesn't make them the same. When one of the races use only abilities, or has no abilities, Please then tell me one race is the same as the ones I suggested. Thanks.

Kimera757
05-24-2009, 10:15 AM
Im not saying there essential for the plot. But its still feasible to have ansilary races. Like say we have a mission where Jim stumbles upon a planet with Ewoks and must enlist their help to defeat the Dark Templar.

That is something I'd expect in StarCraft II. However, that's not enough to be its own race in multiplayer, or support a campaign by itself.

(Please don't use Ewoks as an example.)

ArcherofAiur
05-24-2009, 10:40 AM
But Ewoks are awesome :P

Nicol Bolas
05-24-2009, 01:15 PM
lol right, they are completly different spells. Nicol are you serious?

They are different. Blizzard's spell decreases how long the Probe spends sitting next to the mineral patch. Your version increases Probe movement speed, which speeds up both minerals and gas. That's a pretty substantial difference.

The kind of difference one might expect if two people independently came up with similar ideas.

I would also point out that, of the 3 macro mechanics, it's the one Blizzard is least happy with. So even if you were the originator of the idea, and you had real evidence showing that Blizzard took your idea, it's still the one most likely to change.


We changed Starcraft.

If you click your heels together and say it three times, it might come true. ;)


But its still feasible to have ansilary races. Like say we have a mission where Jim stumbles upon a planet with Ewoks and must enlist their help to defeat the Dark Templar.

That's a far cry from saying that the game should have more than 3 races. It's well established that the single player can and will have unique units in it. Both for your side and against it.


With the insect-like race, they'd have no abilities. That is different than any race.

So they'll have, what, 3 units?

Look at the Zerg now and see how much trouble they're having coming up with interesting units that don't involve active abilities. Now you want to have 2 such races. Only I guess the other will be more boring, since they'll just be move and shoot?

It's a difference created only by removing an element, not by adding anything. It's merely a specialization of the Zerg, not a new race: the Zerg without spellcasters and burrow.

The Protoss are not "Terrans without X, Y, and Z mechanics." The Zerg are not "Protoss without A, B, and C mechanics." Each race is unique, not derivative of any other.


Sorry, but simply saying they are the same, doesn't make them the same.

They're still just the Protoss and the Zerg with a few missing mechanics.

That's the problem with coming up with a new race; you have to come up with something that is unique, not merely an old race only moreso or with a few mechanics removed. I'm not saying it's impossible; it simply isn't worth the effort.

ArcherofAiur
05-24-2009, 02:13 PM
Nicol give it up. I dont know what your on but if you think that two AoE energy spells cast from protoss buildings to increase probe mining at the expense of other micro applications are substantially different I see no other way to convince you.


Sometimes I think you just like to argue with people for the sake of arguing. In this thread alone youve switched your story from "the Blizz mechanics were made before the community mechanics" to " its different cause its on a different building" to " you just guessed at the mechanics" to " the mechanics are different because yours affects speed."

ManjiSanji
05-24-2009, 02:26 PM
I think fan comments have a sort of double-edged sword. I think our comments have clearly helped with some units, but hindered others, too.

We were all mostly pissed at the Tempest in the beginning, but now most people want it back. The Infestor change is fantastic, and I think a lot of art changes made have been specifically due to fan comments. However, we've also got the goofy 2 Dark Templar change, when it would have been better to just stick with one.

Ultimately, I think they listen to fans as another point of reference, because I think they know they aren't perfect, but at the same time, they have to step back and say, "Ok, these comments are just fans being whiny, and we should do what we want here."

I think using feedback from fans is the way to make a better game, but they also have to know when to just tune us out on some things.

I wish the Tempest was one of them.

DemolitionSquid
05-24-2009, 02:55 PM
Nicol give it up. I dont know what your on but if you think that two AoE energy spells cast from protoss buildings to increase probe mining at the expense of other micro applications are substantially different I see no other way to convince you. Luckily I dont really need to convince you cause the facts stand for themselves.

Nicol is right. A Nexus-casted spell to increase Probe movement speed is substantially different than a Dark Pylon-casted spell that increases their mineral mining rate. The Nexus-casted spell would:
a) allow the Probes to gather both minerals and gas faster
b) allow faster early scouting
c) allow faster escape from a base raid
d) not be as spam-able due to its restriction to a 400 mineral building with only one purpose (create Probes and serve as resource return point) instead of the 150 mineral Dark Pylon with multiple other uses (Psi, power, other spells)

The two spells would be used in entirely different ways and at different times.

ArcherofAiur
05-24-2009, 03:17 PM
Nicol is right. A Nexus-casted spell to increase Probe movement speed is substantially different than a Dark Pylon-casted spell that increases their mineral mining rate. The Nexus-casted spell would:
a) allow the Probes to gather both minerals and gas faster


Actually this was a flaw with the speed boosting mechainic. The limiting factor for gas harvesting is refinery processing time not probe speed. So a speed bonus would not boost gas.







d) not be as spam-able due to its restriction to a 400 mineral building with only one purpose (create Probes and serve as resource return point) instead of the 150 mineral Dark Pylon with multiple other uses (Psi, power, other spells)



Actually it could be spamable if you made the cost small. I thought we didnt want it to be totally spamable. Look if you want me to argue that they are 100% the same Im not going to do that. What I am arguing is that the concepts behind them (AoE energy spells cast from protoss buildings to increase probe mining at the expense of other micro applications) were novel and unique ideas. These ideas were all presented to Blizzard (even sent to Dustins desk) and manifest in macro mechanics they developed.

Norfindel
05-24-2009, 03:18 PM
I think that fan opinions are one of the many things that weights in Blizzard decisions. Take for example the Soul Hunter. It had negative opinions from the community since day 0, but it wasn't just scrapped right away. They continued to test the unit, and was finally scrapped months later. Had the unit been good enough, they would probably end renaming the unit as Purifier or Vindicator and give it a much better model.

The Tempest is another one. Nobody liked it, but the unit was there some time. When they finally got to test it fully, they probably feeled it wasn't good enough, and they also realized the Carrier was one of the most iconic Protoss units, and so they decided to restore the original unit and start testing different mechanics, until they finally decided to emphasize it's SC1 role, and give it more range, and probably would give it more Interceptors, but that would make the screen unreadable, so they just gave each Interceptor a double attack.

That's what i think that happened. I don't really think that it's possible for the community to negatively impact the game. It's Blizzard who's developing it, and the responsability to make the right decisions rests fully over their shoulders. We can only hope to give good feedback, and for it to be heared in the middle of all the crap.

Nicol Bolas
05-24-2009, 03:43 PM
In this thread alone youve switched your story from "the Blizz mechanics were made before the community mechanics" to " its different cause its on a different building" to " you just guessed at the mechanics" to " the mechanics are different because yours affects speed."

But those are all still true.

Oh, and I never said that you just guessed at the mechanics; I said you were suggesting a lot of things. How much effort and discussion went into the ideas is irrelevant; you threw a lot of stuff out there. Odds are something not entirely unlike one of your suggestions would show up in the game due to dumb luck.


What I am arguing is that the concepts behind them (AoE energy spells cast from protoss buildings to increase probe mining at the expense of other micro applications) were novel and unique ideas.

If you restate the ideas in the most general form possible, then yes, they're similar, though your idea misses one of Blizzard's key points. Namely that the ability should contend with other useful abilities. Granted, the DP doesn't exactly do this very well, but it was part of their design goals while it wasn't for yours. Even so:


These ideas were all presented to Blizzard (even sent to Dustins desk) and manifest in macro mechanics they developed.

Posts on a forum do not constitute "presented to Blizzard" in any meaningful way. It is arrogance of the highest order to think that Blizzard employees spend their time sifting through forums looking for ideas, and they just happened to find and like yours.

Being sent to Browder's desk does, but as has been previously stated, the Dark Pylon was already there with that ability before the contest was concluded. So there is no evident link between your idea and what Blizzard made besides exactly the kind of similarities that would result from two independent paths of development.

The last common ancestor between Ducks and the Duck-billed Platypus was a reptile that had no bill, feathers, or fur. Yet both of them have bills that upon cursor inspection seem similar. However, upon detailed analysis, one finds a great number of differences that suggest that there is no recent relation between the platypus and the duck. Much like your idea and Blizzard's.

Use Occam's Razor: which is the simplest possibility? That Blizzard sifts through forums for good ideas and they picked up on that one idea out of the thousands upon thousands out there? Or that they independently came up with an idea that shares general similarity with one of the dozens of ideas you have posted about?


We were all mostly pissed at the Tempest in the beginning

I don't remember any particular outcry against the Tempest. I mean, there were people who wanted to see the Carrier return, but that was less about the Tempest and more about wanting Carriers back.

I personally don't think the Tempest was removed due to fan demand for the Carrier. I think that the design of the Tempest wasn't working out, and the fixes to the Tempest's problems all involved creating a "Carrier with a different name." So they just decided to make it a Carrier and get it over with.

Overall, I think Blizzard has managed fan response quite well. They seem to know what they want to create, and they seem to incorporate fan preferences reasonably when it is relevant. I think fans have the most say-so over art matters. It's clear from some of the interviews that the Blizzard guys themselves really liked the old Infestor model (it was originally for a Zerg siege unit, which is why it had an opening on the top), but they decided to change it due to fan outcry.

ArcherofAiur
05-24-2009, 04:03 PM
If you restate the ideas in the most general form possible, then yes, they're similar, though your idea misses one of Blizzard's key points.
Thought the proposal did not use shared energy between different abilities it did encourage decision making by having both macro and micro applications. All in all I like Blizzards variation better though.





Posts on a forum do not constitute "presented to Blizzard" in any meaningful way. It is arrogance of the highest order to think that Blizzard employees spend their time sifting through forums looking for ideas,


http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=16903638331


Lets try occam's razor again. Blizzard reads the forums several times a day and never sees a single thread about racially unique macro mechanics that foster decision making and multi-tasking OR they see the communities ideas and design SC2s macro system around it.

mr. peasant
05-24-2009, 04:48 PM
Lets try occam's razor again. Blizzard reads the forums several times a day and never sees a single thread about racially unique macro mechanics that foster decision making and multi-tasking OR they see the communities ideas and design SC2s macro system around it.

You're treating it as if Blizzard is a single entity or have the Zerg's hive mind and everything one person reads is shared with everyone else. Odds are, the people directly involved in SC2's design and those moderating the forums are entirely different people.

Besides, just because they read the board doesn't mean they actually stop to ponder over the many suggestions being thrown their way and even if they did, it doesn't mean they chose yours.

ManjiSanji
05-24-2009, 07:24 PM
Actually, I think for the most part, when it comes to creative suggestions, Blizzard ignores them, because using them could turn in to the whole, "well, they used my idea, so I should get credit for it," that they want to avoid. The greatest extent Blizzard has likely used our feedback for is artistic and flavor concerns, and balance of ideas they've already come up with and presented publicly.

I've also wondered if they see an idea on a forum and go, "Oops, can't use that one idea we came up with yesterday because JoeBob on WhateverForums posted about it a week ago."

The number of ideas that one can come up with in a game like this are, of course, finite, and as such, it's likely both fans and developers have come up with the same ideas at some point.

mr. peasant
05-24-2009, 07:41 PM
Actually, I think for the most part, when it comes to creative suggestions, Blizzard ignores them, because using them could turn in to the whole, "well, they used my idea, so I should get credit for it," that they want to avoid. The greatest extent Blizzard has likely used our feedback for is artistic and flavor concerns, and balance of ideas they've already come up with and presented publicly.

I've also wondered if they see an idea on a forum and go, "Oops, can't use that one idea we came up with yesterday because JoeBob on WhateverForums posted about it a week ago."

The number of ideas that one can come up with in a game like this are, of course, finite, and as such, it's likely both fans and developers have come up with the same ideas at some point.

I don't think Blizzard has any real concern about similar ideas, or even taking someone else's idea if they wanted to, since it's impossible to prove who came up with it first. There's no paper trail to track these things and would simply be A's word against B's.

That said, I agree that Blizzard's main use of fan feedback has been primarily to reinforce their own opinions and in deciding which models to use (e.g. the Dark Templar debate) and which models need to be changed/polished (e.g. Infestors). Of course, certain issues where the community feels strongly about (e.g. Soul Hunters, ?macro debate?) do occasionally force Blizzard's hand.

ManjiSanji
05-24-2009, 07:48 PM
I don't think Blizzard has any real concern about similar ideas, or even taking someone else's idea if they wanted to, since it's impossible to prove who came up with it first. There's no paper trail to track these things and would simply be A's word against B's.


Hmm, that's a fair point. I wonder if there's been any precedent for that?

Or I wonder if any game-producing company has approached a fan who has produced something worthwhile (I've seen a number of ideas, and in particular, artistic concepts that would be fantastic material for some games) and offered to purchase the idea or hire the person.

Seems a good business decision to me, most notably if said artist consistently produces unique and high-quality concepts.

MattII
05-24-2009, 08:01 PM
The 'official' reasons for the Soul Hunter being dropped were that it wasn't easily readable, and that it was too focussed against the Zerg (it powred up by kiling a few infantry units, or which the Zerg have many more than the others, and such units are so much weaker), not because of fan feedback.

ArcherofAiur
05-24-2009, 08:02 PM
Look all I know is that I started the Thesis almost a year ago with the following 4 goals


1) Increased emphasis on buildings (treat them like stationary units with their own personalities and functions) make the user want to come back to base to do something cool like launch a nuke or cast a global effect.

2) Make resource gathering engaging and interactive by approaching the task of collecting minerals as a "mini-game." In the original starcraft making a unit was a mini-game because you clicked to create the worker and in a little while out popped your prize (the unit!) and you had to go back and look at it in all its workery glory. And then you ordered it to go do something and you got a second prize (some resources!). The big thing was that you witnessed the fruit of your labor and that you willingly devoted some attention to your home base to improve your situation. Whats needed is a game mechanics that plays within the confines of automining and mbs (and maybe secretly mimic traditional resource collection) and is still fun.

3) Use these two things as a way to add innovation to starcraft (which many critics claim is severely lacking).
And now the one that's probably going to upset the most people

4) Use unique resource gathering systems for each race to further diversify and create three different playstyles. I would suggest keep the resources the same so that the core gameplay is the same.

Source: http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=19753

To date every single objective has been accomplished. Even if you want to believe that the Blizzard was not influenced by any specific mechanics. Even if you want believe that Blizzard never listened to the communities input on macro. The fact still remains that Project Purification was a success :)

ManjiSanji
05-24-2009, 08:03 PM
The 'official' reasons for the Soul Hunter being dropped were that it wasn't easily readable, and that it was too focussed against the Zerg (it powred up by kiling a few infantry units, or which the Zerg have many more than the others, and such units are so much weaker), not because of fan feedback.

I suppose they're going to say something similar for the old Infestor art too, eh?

And the removal of the Tempest and replacement with the Carrier?

I'm trying to say we should take statements like that with a grain of salt.

MattII
05-24-2009, 08:14 PM
Actually they don't mention the change. Besides, why are you adament that Blizzard only dropped it due to fan pressure, their reasons seem perfectly good to me, nothing like the 'too much of an emotional connection with the original unit' that we got with the Tempest.

ManjiSanji
05-24-2009, 08:22 PM
Actually they don't mention the change. Besides, why are you adament that Blizzard only dropped it due to fan pressure, their reasons seem perfectly good to me, nothing like the 'too much of an emotional connection with the original unit' that we got with the Tempest.

I never said that they dropped it only due to fan pressure, and, considering the points they put forward, they clearly didn't. They probably do things based on a multitude of points. What I'm pointing out is that fan opinion is a major one, whether people accept it or not.

You have to think of it from a business perspective; fans are customers. The number of vocal fans represent literally millions of buyers. Another point to consider is that vocal fans likely represent the more extreme buyer, and the average buyer will not be so swayed, but the point of view is still critical to observe.

As a business, you want to make your customers happy, but obviously you can't do everything they want. You can't give your product away for free, or you can't produce it at a loss, just because you're trying to make them happy.
What I'm saying is frequently, Blizzard will listen to the vocal fans and say, "Ok, that's a good point, we'll do this, drop that, change this, but on our terms," so they may change some things, or keep others, or slightly alter another, because, just like balancing WoW, you can't make everybody perfectly happy, and making the game perfect really isn't possible.

Just as well, though, they need to recognize when fans are just being overly critical and/or whiny, and they need to ignore us.

Norfindel
05-24-2009, 08:32 PM
I don't remember any particular outcry against the Tempest.
Then you have worse memory than i do, and that's serious :p. I remember most people being very pessimistic about the ship mechanics, and few supporters. When it got scrapped, a sizeable amount of people started complaining about the unit being scrapped for nostalgia motives.

Even then, they don't exactly said that:

The Carrier - yes, you read that right -the Carrier has returned along with its interceptors. The "dark carrier", the Tempest, is out. Dustin said that the Tempest didn't feel right and that there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit. He mentioned that if you asked someone what his/her favorite Protoss units were, the Carrier is one that is always near the top of the list. And he's right.
The first thing that he says is "the Tempest didn't feel right" followed by "and there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit".
That means, that the primary motive was that "the Tempest didn't feel right", just like the Soul Hunter.


Actually, I think for the most part, when it comes to creative suggestions, Blizzard ignores them, because using them could turn in to the whole, "well, they used my idea, so I should get credit for it," that they want to avoid.
I doubt it, they stealed taken inspiration from every place they could :D.

(no strike-thru, lame).

MattII
05-24-2009, 08:44 PM
The first thing that he says is "the Tempest didn't feel right" followed by "and there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit".
That means, that the primary motive was that "the Tempest didn't feel right", just like the Soul Hunter.

The SH was dropped because it had serious readability and balance issues, while the Tempest was dropped because of 'too much of an emotional connection with the original unit', but that would have come from the alpha-testers, not us, the sideline fans.

mr. peasant
05-24-2009, 09:10 PM
Hmm, that's a fair point. I wonder if there's been any precedent for that?

Or I wonder if any game-producing company has approached a fan who has produced something worthwhile (I've seen a number of ideas, and in particular, artistic concepts that would be fantastic material for some games) and offered to purchase the idea or hire the person.

Seems a good business decision to me, most notably if said artist consistently produces unique and high-quality concepts.

As I mentioned earlier (http://sclegacy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3720&postcount=16) in this thread, there've been a number of units that share a conceptual similarity with things I've suggested in the past. Whether Blizzard read them before or not is questionable (which is entirely my point) and I've thus far not been offered a job there yet. :D

So yes, I think there's precedence where either two people think alike or one's copied the other and everyone just thinks they think alike.



The SH was dropped because it had serious readability and balance issues, while the Tempest was dropped because of 'too much of an emotional connection with the original unit', but that would have come from the alpha-testers, not us, the sideline fans.

Well, the same was true about the Mothership, Queen, Thor and Ghost, amongst numerous others. Yet, they continue to this day. Regarding readability, that's an easily resolved issue. So clearly, something else must have contributed to its rejection. Fan response seems most likely/obvious.

n00bonicPlague
05-24-2009, 10:07 PM
EDIT: Screw it. This was a silly thing to argue over anyway.

MattII
05-24-2009, 10:19 PM
Well, the same was true about the Mothership, Queen, Thor and Ghost, amongst numerous others. Yet, they continue to this day.

Firstly, what makes the Thor hard to read? Secondly, all those other units are spellcasters, they don't receive mega-upgrades to their attacks, whereas the SH did, that was what made it hard to read, you couldn't tell till it was too late whether it was at full power or not.


Regarding readability, that's an easily resolved issue. So clearly, something else must have contributed to its rejection. Fan response seems most likely/obvious.

Actually, as stated, the SH was also too heavily targetted vs. Zerg, because it levelled up its attack by killing weak units, of which the Zerg have a lot more than the Terran or Protoss.

Nicol Bolas
05-24-2009, 11:49 PM
Well, the same was true about the Mothership, Queen, Thor and Ghost, amongst numerous others. Yet, they continue to this day.

I don't recall them saying that there were "balance issues" specifically. Their statement was simply that they put it through testing and it didn't work out. Much like the Predator, Firebat-from-Factory, and many other units we never saw or even heard about (the Omegalisk, whatever the old Infestor model was for, etc).

The only difference was that the Soul Hunter was showcased in a video once. And that a lot of people said they didn't like it.

ManjiSanji
05-24-2009, 11:59 PM
Firstly, what makes the Thor hard to read? Secondly, all those other units are spellcasters, they don't receive mega-upgrades to their attacks, whereas the SH did, that was what made it hard to read, you couldn't tell till it was too late whether it was at full power or not.



Actually, as stated, the SH was also too heavily targetted vs. Zerg, because it levelled up its attack by killing weak units, of which the Zerg have a lot more than the Terran or Protoss.

I think he's more arguing that those units have been controversial and have gone through many changes trying to make them useful or to make them fit in.
If the developers want to keep a unit, then they will do their best to do so, as they have most notably proven with the Thor, Queen and Mothership in particular.

They could have altered the Soul Hunter's role if they really liked the unit, the model, or the idea, but they just flat scrapped it instead, which implies they didn't like it as much as they like those other units.

Norfindel
05-25-2009, 10:53 AM
The SH was dropped because it had serious readability and balance issues, while the Tempest was dropped because of 'too much of an emotional connection with the original unit', but that would have come from the alpha-testers, not us, the sideline fans.
I don't know what's the logic of reading "the Tempest didn't feel right *AND* there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit" and taking that as "nostalgia was the only factor".
The unit didn't feel right, and i agree. How can a Protoss air unit capable of attacking other air units, but with no Shields against them and reinforced against ground attacks can feel right? The unit was basically a modified Carrier. It looked like a Carrier, and launched "drones" like a Carrier, but the modifications were far from practical, and were opened to very hard countering.
I think that bringing back the Carrier was the natural step, emotional aspects aside.

Nicol Bolas
05-25-2009, 03:55 PM
reinforced against ground attacks

I don't recall it's shields being especially reinforced vs. ground attacks. It's more like it had disproportionately more shield strength overall, so that you can let ground units hammer away at it.

Speaking of shield strength, here's a possible reason why it went away. With shield regen being as fast as it is, even when only out of combat, the ability to attack for a while, take maybe 300+ points of damage, then fall back for maybe 45-50 seconds while you recover all of that may have been too strong. Plus, if you get too many of them together, you start getting Carrier critical mass problems, only it's much worse since they can take out the only units that are strong against them quickly (air units).

Norfindel
05-25-2009, 07:06 PM
I don't recall it's shields being especially reinforced vs. ground attacks. It's more like it had disproportionately more shield strength overall, so that you can let ground units hammer away at it.

Speaking of shield strength, here's a possible reason why it went away. With shield regen being as fast as it is, even when only out of combat, the ability to attack for a while, take maybe 300+ points of damage, then fall back for maybe 45-50 seconds while you recover all of that may have been too strong. Plus, if you get too many of them together, you start getting Carrier critical mass problems, only it's much worse since they can take out the only units that are strong against them quickly (air units).
I remember reading "strong shield" in the PCGamers magazine article. I assumed it was a similar mechanic than the Immortal, as the unit seems to be used directly over fire. That or them had a hell of a lot of Shields.
(I'll attach a little bit of the article).

Anyways, it doesn't matters too much. If they had lots of Shields, or the Shields where reinforced, it would be nearly the same. You could get a little bit away, restore some Shields, and get back in. Not to mention that the Shurikens themselves should act as "shields" most of the time, but the video shows Missile Turrets shooting the Tempest directly, so i assume the game was hardwired to ignore the Shurikens, and go against the Tempest themselves, even if they theorically have no attack of their own. Which also removes another interesting mechanic: the need to target the Tempest itself.