ThunderBum Profile Joined November 2010 Australia 192 Posts #21 On August 16 2015 16:03 bosshdt wrote:

Imo its best for bigger audiance, it does make it easy'r tho. But its a strategy game aftheral not a Mechanic game.



Do you expect to suddenly be able to drop multiple locations and micro them while watching your army and not skipping a depot because you don't have to drop mules now? Why are people thinking that because some aspect of the game is going to be gone that the game is less mechanically demanding? There is simply more time to focus on other things which have impossibly high skill ceilings, like micro and minimap awareness. Do you expect to suddenly be able to drop multiple locations and micro them while watching your army and not skipping a depot because you don't have to drop mules now? Why are people thinking that because some aspect of the game is going to be gone that the game is less mechanically demanding? There is simply more time to focus on other things which have impossibly high skill ceilings, like micro and minimap awareness.

TheScriptan Profile Joined June 2014 Lithuania 151 Posts #22 This survey should've been done when the patch was live, now it's just a hit and miss survey... Full-time student! Part-time SC2 Streamer - www.twitch.tv/thescriptan

Jintoss Profile Joined November 2011 Hong Kong 117 Posts #23 Let them try it. Play and then comment. We are the blades of Aiur

BisuDagger Profile Blog Joined October 2009 Bisutopia 17617 Posts #24 This is a cleverly crafted poll thread. On topic, I think it really doesn't matter how people feel either way. It's going to be removed regardless so what is the point of discussing this anymore until you have played/seen someone play the new patch. That's just my 2 cents. Moderator Ofiicial Afreeca Starleague Caster: http://afreeca.tv/ASL2ENG2

Roblin Profile Joined April 2010 Sweden 948 Posts #25 while I think a survey will probably be pretty interesting and I did fill it out, I think this survey has a lot of biased/loaded questions that easily could skew the results. I'm better today than I was yesterday!

Synastren Profile Joined May 2014 United States 31 Posts #26 On August 16 2015 19:48 StatixEx wrote:

So to save you some time people dont generally want it.



Perhaps, but the point of this is to see what people thing before anything happens. I'm anticipating some polarizing questions, but I'm really uncertain about how this will ultimately play out.



Perhaps, but the point of this is to see what people thing before anything happens. I'm anticipating some polarizing questions, but I'm really uncertain about how this will ultimately play out. On August 16 2015 20:30 TheScriptan wrote:

This survey should've been done when the patch was live, now it's just a hit and miss survey...



I'm going to do another after the patch is live. I want a before & after measure.



I'm going to do another after the patch is live. I want a before & after measure. On August 16 2015 22:39 Roblin wrote:

while I think a survey will probably be pretty interesting and I did fill it out, I think this survey has a lot of biased/loaded questions that easily could skew the results.



I tried to be as unbiased as I could be for a number of the items, but to still mirror community sentiment about the change. Still, which items did you find to be biased or loaded? I tried to be as unbiased as I could be for a number of the items, but to still mirror community sentiment about the change. Still, which items did you find to be biased or loaded? RIP ZeeZ

Roblin Profile Joined April 2010 Sweden 948 Posts #27 On August 17 2015 00:51 Synastren wrote:



...



Show nested quote +

On August 16 2015 22:39 Roblin wrote:

while I think a survey will probably be pretty interesting and I did fill it out, I think this survey has a lot of biased/loaded questions that easily could skew the results.



I tried to be as unbiased as I could be for a number of the items, but to still mirror community sentiment about the change. Still, which items did you find to be biased or loaded? ...I tried to be as unbiased as I could be for a number of the items, but to still mirror community sentiment about the change. Still, which items did you find to be biased or loaded?



I couldnt get the survey up again on my computer but I could get it on my phone, no worries I didn't send in another response.



I shorten "the removal of macro mechanics" to "tRoMM"



a lot of it has to do with the scale of 1-7 where 1 is "do not agree", 4 is "neutral" and 7 is "completely agree"

a lot of the questions are phrased so they only adress one side of the argument, and people on the other side of the argument can only answer "do not agree" but cannot specifiy "I think the opposite is true"



note that if I ask you "would you agree that it is moral to murder?"

and you answer "I do not agree with that"

you did not say "I think that is immoral" nor did you say "I think murder is bad"

you said "I think murder isn't good" which is true regardless of whether your opinion is "I think murder is bad" or if your opinion is "I don't care"





"tRoMM will help the game appeal more to casual players"



this question only allows room for answers on the scale "I think it wont help to appeal casuals" to "I think it will", there is no option to say one might think it might attract the hardcore crowd more or that a different but equally hardcore crowd will develop.





"tRoMM makes me feel insulted"



this question assumes I cannot feel blizzard respects me.





"tRoMM will allow players to focus more on other aspects of the game, letting the meta develop in cool new ways"



the use of positive words like "cool" automatically make the reader more inclined to agree.





"tRoMM will drastically skew the game balance somehow"



I struggle to understand the question. which game balance do you mean? race-to-race game balance? pacing? map balance? macro-to-micro balance? this question is ambigous and invites the reader to interpret it the way the reader wants to, which means the readers will be answering different questions when answering to this.





"tRoMM will make the game more interesting to watch"



this lumps the options "no change" and "less interesting" into the same category of "disagree"





"tRoMM is sudden, and I am surprised to see blizzard do it so abruptly"



I have no objection with this question other than that it has not been sudden, its been in the talks in one form or another for a month now. this question basically asks if the reader has been keeping updated, in which case, why not just ask whether the reader frequents news pages in this area?





"the testing of TRoMM bothers me as no other drastic design changes were tested"



does "I disagree" mean "testing tRoMM doesn't bother me" or "I think other drastic design changes have been tested" or both?





"tRoMM is likely to make me want to play LotV less"



this lumps the options "no change" and "makes me want to play more" into the same category of "disagree" I couldnt get the survey up again on my computer but I could get it on my phone, no worries I didn't send in another response.I shorten "the removal of macro mechanics" to "tRoMM"a lot of it has to do with the scale of 1-7 where 1 is "do not agree", 4 is "neutral" and 7 is "completely agree"a lot of the questions are phrased so they only adress one side of the argument, and people on the other side of the argument can only answer "do not agree" but cannot specifiy "I think the opposite is true"note that if I ask you "would you agree that it is moral to murder?"and you answer "I do not agree with that"you did not say "I think that is immoral" nor did you say "I think murder is bad"you said "I think murder isn't good" which is true regardless of whether your opinion is "I think murder is bad" or if your opinion is "I don't care""tRoMM will help the game appeal more to casual players"this question only allows room for answers on the scale "I think it wont help to appeal casuals" to "I think it will", there is no option to say one might think it might attract the hardcore crowd more or that a different but equally hardcore crowd will develop."tRoMM makes me feel insulted"this question assumes I cannot feel blizzard respects me."tRoMM will allow players to focus more on other aspects of the game, letting the meta develop in cool new ways"the use of positive words like "cool" automatically make the reader more inclined to agree."tRoMM will drastically skew the game balance somehow"I struggle to understand the question. which game balance do you mean? race-to-race game balance? pacing? map balance? macro-to-micro balance? this question is ambigous and invites the reader to interpret it the way the reader wants to, which means the readers will be answering different questions when answering to this."tRoMM will make the game more interesting to watch"this lumps the options "no change" and "less interesting" into the same category of "disagree""tRoMM is sudden, and I am surprised to see blizzard do it so abruptly"I have no objection with this question other than that it has not been sudden, its been in the talks in one form or another for a month now. this question basically asks if the reader has been keeping updated, in which case, why not just ask whether the reader frequents news pages in this area?"the testing of TRoMM bothers me as no other drastic design changes were tested"does "I disagree" mean "testing tRoMM doesn't bother me" or "I think other drastic design changes have been tested" or both?"tRoMM is likely to make me want to play LotV less"this lumps the options "no change" and "makes me want to play more" into the same category of "disagree" I'm better today than I was yesterday!

Synastren Profile Joined May 2014 United States 31 Posts #28



A 7 point scale on a spectrum agreement is standard issue when developing surveys for a number of psychometric reasons. If nothing else, it allows the person conducting the survey to assume that responses would fall on the standard distribution. The items on the questionnaire follow standard convention in that respect, at least. Most of the items were written to mirror community sentiment in the time after Blizzard's announcement, or were goals for this change--assumed or explicit.



I have not heard a single person say that the removal of macro mechanics is to make the game more appealing to higher skilled players, thus community attitudes towards that were not an area of interest to me. However, "no macro mechanics will make this game better for casual players" is a statement that has been circulating since the initial rumblings from Blizzard.



I do appreciate the input, though! As a fun aside, there have been nearly 450 respondents thus far.



Below is a point-by-point explanation for you:



+ Show Spoiler + re: insulted feelings

I have heard a number of higher skilled players feel insulted by the removal of these mechanics, as they have spent so long mastering them. In fact, almost 13% of current respondents have answered that question with "Strongly Agree," so it is a good question to ask.



re: cool meta

Distribution of responses for this item is almost flat. Using "cool" here might be bad form, but I wanted to suggest a positive direction for the meta. "Mixed" is certainly an accurate description of community feeling on this.



re: imbalance

I did not give a direct example, because it doesn't matter. The question is whether the community feels that this change will skew balance. The specifics of how it will skew balance are unimportant at this point. The most common conjecture I've read claims that zerg will enjoy the biggest boost. I have heard next to nothing on any other topic.



re: interesting to watch

This was a common statement floating around the internet about this change, which is why it appears. The difficulty in noticing how well a player is utilizing macro mechanics during a casted game is difficult, and thus it was suggested that games would be easier to follow without them. I wanted to see if the community agreed with that statement.



re: abruptness

You may not thing it was abrupt, but the majority of the sample reported agreeing with that in some capacity. About 27% of respondents rated this as "Strongly Agree." It is a good question.



re: design changes

Other drastic design change have not been tested, though. We had new units, we had a few unit tweaks, and.... that's basically it. This macro mechanic change is on one of the most fundamental aspects of the game. Alternative economic models, for example, were never tested beyond whatever internal Blizzard testing.



re: play less

There are some people point blank saying they have no interest in playing LotV after this change. The ones who are really interested in playing are fairly outspoken, and Blizzard will easily have the numbers. What they won't have is how many people have less interest in playing as a consequence of this change.



On August 17 2015 07:13 Roblin wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 17 2015 00:51 Synastren wrote:



...



On August 16 2015 22:39 Roblin wrote:

while I think a survey will probably be pretty interesting and I did fill it out, I think this survey has a lot of biased/loaded questions that easily could skew the results.



I tried to be as unbiased as I could be for a number of the items, but to still mirror community sentiment about the change. Still, which items did you find to be biased or loaded? ...I tried to be as unbiased as I could be for a number of the items, but to still mirror community sentiment about the change. Still, which items did you find to be biased or loaded?





"tRoMM will help the game appeal more to casual players"



this question only allows room for answers on the scale "I think it wont help to appeal casuals" to "I think it will", there is no option to say one might think it might attract the hardcore crowd more or that a different but equally hardcore crowd will develop.





"tRoMM makes me feel insulted"



this question assumes I cannot feel blizzard respects me.





"tRoMM will allow players to focus more on other aspects of the game, letting the meta develop in cool new ways"



the use of positive words like "cool" automatically make the reader more inclined to agree.





"tRoMM will drastically skew the game balance somehow"



I struggle to understand the question. which game balance do you mean? race-to-race game balance? pacing? map balance? macro-to-micro balance? this question is ambigous and invites the reader to interpret it the way the reader wants to, which means the readers will be answering different questions when answering to this.





"tRoMM will make the game more interesting to watch"



this lumps the options "no change" and "less interesting" into the same category of "disagree"





"tRoMM is sudden, and I am surprised to see blizzard do it so abruptly"



I have no objection with this question other than that it has not been sudden, its been in the talks in one form or another for a month now. this question basically asks if the reader has been keeping updated, in which case, why not just ask whether the reader frequents news pages in this area?





"the testing of TRoMM bothers me as no other drastic design changes were tested"



does "I disagree" mean "testing tRoMM doesn't bother me" or "I think other drastic design changes have been tested" or both?





"tRoMM is likely to make me want to play LotV less"



this lumps the options "no change" and "makes me want to play more" into the same category of "disagree" "tRoMM will help the game appeal more to casual players"this question only allows room for answers on the scale "I think it wont help to appeal casuals" to "I think it will", there is no option to say one might think it might attract the hardcore crowd more or that a different but equally hardcore crowd will develop."tRoMM makes me feel insulted"this question assumes I cannot feel blizzard respects me."tRoMM will allow players to focus more on other aspects of the game, letting the meta develop in cool new ways"the use of positive words like "cool" automatically make the reader more inclined to agree."tRoMM will drastically skew the game balance somehow"I struggle to understand the question. which game balance do you mean? race-to-race game balance? pacing? map balance? macro-to-micro balance? this question is ambigous and invites the reader to interpret it the way the reader wants to, which means the readers will be answering different questions when answering to this."tRoMM will make the game more interesting to watch"this lumps the options "no change" and "less interesting" into the same category of "disagree""tRoMM is sudden, and I am surprised to see blizzard do it so abruptly"I have no objection with this question other than that it has not been sudden, its been in the talks in one form or another for a month now. this question basically asks if the reader has been keeping updated, in which case, why not just ask whether the reader frequents news pages in this area?"the testing of TRoMM bothers me as no other drastic design changes were tested"does "I disagree" mean "testing tRoMM doesn't bother me" or "I think other drastic design changes have been tested" or both?"tRoMM is likely to make me want to play LotV less"this lumps the options "no change" and "makes me want to play more" into the same category of "disagree"

re: Likert scaleA 7 point scale on a spectrum agreement is standard issue when developing surveys for a number of psychometric reasons. If nothing else, it allows the person conducting the survey to assume that responses would fall on the standard distribution. The items on the questionnaire follow standard convention in that respect, at least. Most of the items were written to mirror community sentiment in the time after Blizzard's announcement, or were goals for this change--assumed or explicit.I have not heard a single person say that the removal of macro mechanics is to make the game more appealing to higher skilled players, thus community attitudes towards that were not an area of interest to me. However, "no macro mechanics will make this game better for casual players" is a statement that has been circulating since the initial rumblings from Blizzard.I do appreciate the input, though! As a fun aside, there have been nearly 450 respondents thus far.Below is a point-by-point explanation for you: RIP ZeeZ

TheWinks Profile Joined July 2011 United States 572 Posts Last Edited: 2015-08-17 04:21:06 #30 On August 17 2015 12:10 Roblin wrote:

[

for the record, here are the goals for lotv overall:

"As many of you already know, these are the main goals that our team has for Legacy of the Void:

More action, less down time.

More micro on both sides in engagements.

New ways to show off skill.

Make the game more difficult for pros.

Make the game more approachable to regular players through new features such as Archon Mode and Allied Commanders."



there is no mention of viewers.

What do you think the major goals of less downtime, micro in engagements, and new ways to show off skill are?



Right here:



"Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either. Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it, we’ve been exploring potentially cutting them or making them less important."



http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18300016914?page=1#1



There have been other times when he has talked about how they're changing the game for the viewers, I believe during Blizzcon that was one of the stated reasons they introduced the 12 worker start in order to reduce down time, but I think 1 example will suffice to disprove you saying that they're not doing anything for viewership.

What do you think the major goals of less downtime, micro in engagements, and new ways toskill are?Right here:"Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either. Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it, we’ve been exploring potentially cutting them or making them less important."There have been other times when he has talked about how they're changing the game for the viewers, I believe during Blizzcon that was one of the stated reasons they introduced the 12 worker start in order to reduce down time, but I think 1 example will suffice to disprove you saying that they're not doing anything for viewership.

Synastren Profile Joined May 2014 United States 31 Posts #31 Regardless of whether or not Blizzard has outright stated their changes are for the benefit of the viewer, I'm measuring community attitudes and perceptions. I'm not comparing opinion with reality or anything of that sort, I'm measuring what people think. Given that a huge swath of people who have taken the survey seem to feel like this change is really recent and surprising, I don't know how much it matters the specifics of what Blizzard has said.



I am in a number of SC2 communities, and none of the statements in the survey are things that I have made up. I reworded sentiments, or synthesized some comments together to make things clearer or more coherent, but nothing in the survey is not something I've heard. RIP ZeeZ

acccky1 Profile Joined June 2015 37 Posts #32 On August 17 2015 13:14 TheWinks wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 17 2015 12:10 Roblin wrote:

[

for the record, here are the goals for lotv overall:

"As many of you already know, these are the main goals that our team has for Legacy of the Void:

More action, less down time.

More micro on both sides in engagements.

New ways to show off skill.

Make the game more difficult for pros.

Make the game more approachable to regular players through new features such as Archon Mode and Allied Commanders."



there is no mention of viewers.

What do you think the major goals of less downtime, micro in engagements, and new ways to show off skill are?



Right here:



"Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either. Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it, we’ve been exploring potentially cutting them or making them less important."



http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18300016914?page=1#1



There have been other times when he has talked about how they're changing the game for the viewers, I believe during Blizzcon that was one of the stated reasons they introduced the 12 worker start in order to reduce down time, but I think 1 example will suffice to disprove you saying that they're not doing anything for viewership.

What do you think the major goals of less downtime, micro in engagements, and new ways toskill are?Right here:"Further, my opponent really has no idea how well I’m doing it either. In esports matches, this is also something that viewers can’t tell either. Because macro mechanics are an area that’s difficult to do, and not many people can really tell how well someone is doing it, we’ve been exploring potentially cutting them or making them less important."There have been other times when he has talked about how they're changing the game for the viewers, I believe during Blizzcon that was one of the stated reasons they introduced the 12 worker start in order to reduce down time, but I think 1 example will suffice to disprove you saying that they're not doing anything for viewership.

these community reports are so poorly done. i knew the instant when i read that, that pple would instantly quote this statement. these community reports are so poorly done. i knew the instant when i read that, that pple would instantly quote this statement.

Cascade Profile Blog Joined March 2006 Australia 5405 Posts #33 On August 17 2015 14:25 Synastren wrote:

Regardless of whether or not Blizzard has outright stated their changes are for the benefit of the viewer, I'm measuring community attitudes and perceptions. I'm not comparing opinion with reality or anything of that sort, I'm measuring what people think. Given that a huge swath of people who have taken the survey seem to feel like this change is really recent and surprising, I don't know how much it matters the specifics of what Blizzard has said.



I am in a number of SC2 communities, and none of the statements in the survey are things that I have made up. I reworded sentiments, or synthesized some comments together to make things clearer or more coherent, but nothing in the survey is not something I've heard.

The problem is that the way some questions are formulated, confusing or biased or both, the answers you get will not have as clear interpretation as you would like. Was this click on 1 due to misunderstanding the question, responding to the biased formulation, or because they don't agree with the premise you set up before the question? I just feel that you didn't really sit down and think about what you wanted from the answers.



Anyway, hopefully you can still get interesting results out. Looking forward to the analysis. The problem is that the way some questions are formulated, confusing or biased or both, the answers you get will not have as clear interpretation as you would like. Was this click on 1 due to misunderstanding the question, responding to the biased formulation, or because they don't agree with the premise you set up before the question? I just feel that you didn't really sit down and think about what you wanted from the answers.Anyway, hopefully you can still get interesting results out. Looking forward to the analysis.

cywinr Profile Joined February 2011 Canada 172 Posts #34 the questions aren't that great but w/e

Synastren Profile Joined May 2014 United States 31 Posts #35 The rate of respondents has slowed dramatically--I had 4 new respondents in the last 24 hours. The survey will be closed tonight, so I can start analyzing and getting ready to post some results. RIP ZeeZ

Synastren Profile Joined May 2014 United States 31 Posts #36 The survey has just been closed.



We had a total of 531 respondents; thank you all very much for your participation!



I'll start analyzing the data; if there are any specific questions you guys wanted to know about the data, just let me know! RIP ZeeZ

IMoTbh Profile Blog Joined January 2011 Australia 5 Posts #37 Would've replied if the survey was still up. I think because the poll was up for such a short period you'll get a majority of responses being from the 'hardcore' fans rather than casual. +1 for the idea though and the results should still be interesting

Synastren Profile Joined May 2014 United States 31 Posts Last Edited: 2015-08-20 21:54:01 #38



Let's look at the composite data first.



We had a total of 531 respondents to this survey. League distributions--especially in Swarm--tended to be top heavy. League distribution in Legacy, on the other hand, is much closer to what Blizzard was aiming for in their population proportional representation, I think. It is worth mentioning that we have 6 self-identified Swarm professionals (one of which not an active pro), and 4 self-identified Legacy professionals (impending retirement?). There are also 28 Legacy GMs, but only 24 players who have finished GM in Swarm. Cool artifacts, if nothing else.



Three respondents did not answer this question at all, and some respondents left fields blank (either due to not having LotV access or because they didn't want to).



Leagues:

+ Show Spoiler +





Race distribution was somewhat even. Zerg was overrepresented in general, followed by Terran. Protoss had a few players, with Random, unsurprisingly, being the least represented.



Race distribution:

+ Show Spoiler +





I expected there to be more players focusing more heavily on Legacy than I actually had. By and large, Legacy was the favored game, but it was still less than half of all respondents who reported playing more than half-and-half.



Activity:

+ Show Spoiler +





In a twist that surprises no one, the sample tends towards the hardcore side. Turns out that players who follow internet forums about their favorite games tend to want to respond to polls about development decisions!

ps: If you are a casual funhaver, relish it. You are in a blissful minority, and I'm jealous as hell.



Casual/Improvement:

+ Show Spoiler +



Now for the meat of the survey!



There is no easy way to show these results with the built in tools of SurveyMonkey, and I apologize for that. I'm going to show two images: First, the clearest chart I can come up with using their viewer, which should allow to see general trends in the data. Second, I'll just show a picture of the actual table. Between the two, enclosed in more spoiler tags, I will have each item and its label, so that you can more easily read the graph and/or table.



First the chart:

+ Show Spoiler +



The key:

+ Show Spoiler + CasualAppeal - The removal of macro mechanics will help the game appeal to more casual players

Insulted - The removal of macro mechanics makes me feel insulted

CoolMeta - The removal of macro mechanics will allow players to focus more on other aspects of the game, letting the meta develop in cool new ways

SkewBalance - The removal of macro mechanics will drastically skew the game balance somehow

BetterViewer - The removal of macro mechanics will make the game more interesting to watch

Abrupt - The removal of macro mechanics is sudden, and I am surprised to see Blizzard do it so abruptly

OtherChange - The testing of the removal of macro mechanics bothers me as no other drastic design changes were tested

PlayLess - The removal of macro mechanics is likely to make me want to play Legacy of the Void less



Finally, the table:

+ Show Spoiler +



Now there are a few conclusions we can draw from these raw and composite data. First, when there are more participants with higher numbers, that means that the sample leans towards agreement. That means that generally, the community thinks that:

This change will help the game appeal to casual players

That they are not insulted by the change

That balance will be skewed

That they were surprised at the abruptness of the change

That they are not particularly bothered by there being no other sweeping design changes tested

That this will not put them off of playing Legacy



As for whether this will make for a better viewing experience? A resounding and indifferent shrug. Congratulations, with 531 voices, we managed to get a perfect average score on that item of 4.00, meaning that the community was (overall) completely neutral in response to that question!



As you can see from the data, however, there are only a few issues where there is something nearing a consensus. More than half of the sample responded that the MM change will not make them less interested in playing Legacy. Furthermore, nearly half said that they were definitely not insulted by the MM change. The third biggest result was with over a third saying they were not disappointed that there were no other sweeping changes tested.



Generally speaking, the community seems to be in favor of these changes--at least to test, though there seems to be a great deal more nuance in the open-ended discussion box.



Now, I glanced over the results my narrowing my respondents by league and eyeballing the difference between metal league players and those who finished Master or above in Swarm. There is generally not much difference across these final items. I have not yet looked across races, but I suspect it will be similar again. The largest difference is that the Master/GM/Pro players tended to have more extreme opinions than the metal league players, but the averages were roughly the same.



There was one exception though! High level players thought that the MM change would actually hurt viewer experience.



Questions? Comments? Got a more in-depth question you would like an answer to?



edit: Dead img tag With the impending release of the patch, I thought I would pop in and drop some composite data, using the tools provided within SurveyMonkey, rather than doing a lot of analysis myself.Let's look at the composite data first.We had a total of 531 respondents to this survey. League distributions--in Swarm--tended to be top heavy. League distribution in Legacy, on the other hand, is much closer to what Blizzard was aiming for in their population proportional representation, I think. It is worth mentioning that we have 6 self-identified Swarm professionals (one of which not an active pro), and 4 self-identified Legacy professionals (impending retirement?). There are also 28 Legacy GMs, but only 24 players who have finished GM in Swarm. Cool artifacts, if nothing else.Three respondents did not answer this question at all, and some respondents left fields blank (either due to not having LotV access or because they didn't want to).Leagues:Race distribution was somewhat even. Zerg was overrepresented in general, followed by Terran. Protoss had a few players, with Random, unsurprisingly, being the least represented.Race distribution:I expected there to be more players focusing more heavily on Legacy than I actually had. By and large, Legacy was the favored game, but it was still less than half of all respondents who reported playing more than half-and-half.Activity:In a twist that surprises no one, the sample tends towards the hardcore side. Turns out that players who follow internet forums about their favorite games tend to want to respond to polls about development decisions!ps: If you are a casual funhaver, relish it. You are in a blissful minority, and I'm jealous as hell.Casual/Improvement:Now for the meat of the survey!There is no easy way to show these results with the built in tools of SurveyMonkey, and I apologize for that. I'm going to show two images: First, the clearest chart I can come up with using their viewer, which should allow to see general trends in the data. Second, I'll just show a picture of the actual table. Between the two, enclosed in more spoiler tags, I will have each item and its label, so that you can more easily read the graph and/or table.First the chart:The key:Finally, the table:Now there are a few conclusions we can draw from these raw and composite data. First, when there are more participants with higher numbers, that means that the sample leans towards agreement. That means that, the community thinks that:This change will help the game appeal to casual playersThat they are not insulted by the changeThat balance will be skewedThat they were surprised at the abruptness of the changeThat they are not particularly bothered by there being no other sweeping design changes testedThat this will not put them off of playing LegacyAs for whether this will make for a better viewing experience? A resounding and indifferent shrug. Congratulations, with 531 voices, we managed to get a perfect average score on that item of 4.00, meaning that the community was (overall) completely neutral in response to that question!As you can see from the data, however, there are only a few issues where there is something nearing a consensus. More than half of the sample responded that the MM change will not make them less interested in playing Legacy. Furthermore, nearly half said that they were definitely not insulted by the MM change. The third biggest result was with over a third saying they were not disappointed that there were no other sweeping changes tested.speaking, the community seems to be in favor of these changes--at least to test, though there seems to be a great deal more nuance in the open-ended discussion box.Now, I glanced over the results my narrowing my respondents by league and eyeballing the difference between metal league players and those who finished Master or above in Swarm. There is generally not much difference across these final items. I have not yet looked across races, but I suspect it will be similar again. The largest difference is that the Master/GM/Pro players tended to have more extreme opinions than the metal league players, but the averages were roughly the same.There was one exception though! High level players thought that the MM change would actually hurt viewer experience.Questions? Comments? Got a more in-depth question you would like an answer to?edit: Dead img tag RIP ZeeZ

Prev 1 2 All