EPTrebinding hotkeys in broodwar - Page 5
| Blogs > Endymion |
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4160 Posts
On June 04 2017 04:22 CecilSunkure wrote: Okay well, do you have any examples? So far I did bring up D1 and D2. Unfortunately I didn't have internet access when I was younger, so I missed out on a lot of cool online games. So maybe you can pitch on some online examples? I said competitive  . Overall, I think there are very few sequels that are like that. That's my point. What you're describing is actually very difficult to do in a competitive title. Especially if the sequel isn't remaking 1:1 and playing with everyone's toolkits. Fighting games would probably be the closest thing though. They kinda have to deal with the same issues of streamlining to help new blood come in versus maintaining the very high skill gap. Ultimately I'm sympathetic towards the idea of streamlining in SC2's case because of the state of the popularity of the genre. I kinda feel if there absolutely no concessions ever made, the scene would look like where Quake is today. | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On June 04 2017 04:44 lestye wrote: Overall, I think there are very few sequels that are like that. That's my point. I see, good point On June 04 2017 04:44 lestye wrote: Ultimately I'm sympathetic towards the idea of streamlining in SC2's case because of the state of the popularity of the genre. I kinda feel if there absolutely no concessions ever made, the scene would look like where Quake is today. What kind of streamlining, if I may ask? I'm curious. If I take a look at BW and think about what I would do for a sequel, I definitely wouldn't have the word streamlining on my mind. So that's interesting to me. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On June 04 2017 03:39 CecilSunkure wrote: Implying that mbs/automine are preferences of accessibility is pigeonholing some important design decisions. Don't do that. It's clear you don't respect these ideas as intelligent and valuable decisions, at least with your posts here. You clearly misunderstood my point. The point I am trying to make is that BW elitists like Endymion argue that sc2 is a failure mainly if not exclusively because of mbs and automine which could not be further from the truth. SC2 has a ton of different problems and SC2 wont be magically better if it didnt have those things. Endymion implied that sc2 and BW people only differ themselves in preference of accessibility which is completely wrong for anyone who actually played both games. I played like 7 years of BW and 5 years of SC2 and both games couldn't be more different, even if you ignore the UI choices. BW would still be the better game if it had all those things. On June 04 2017 03:39 CecilSunkure wrote: In all the fundamental problem with SC2 across the board is that the development team did not play BW. They did not really like BW. They didn't respect BW. Hardly any of the developers worked on BW. None of the top leaders from BW development were left at Blizzard. These developers came from a background of World of Warcraft/WC3, and Browder himself came from Command Conquer (which is widely renowned for it's shitty competitive balance). Hopefully you find this post a little enlightening, and can at least understanding the PoV of many BW players. They had expectations that SC2 would expand on BW, rather than do it's own weird thing. This is not true at all. Alot of the original BW designers worked on sc2. Among them was Rob Pardo (at least initially) and the decision was already made to have MBS and automine from the beginning. Also I do understand BW players. I also had high hopes for sc2, but realistically speaking everyone should have known the moment they changed those mechanics that it wouldn't be the same game. I dont hang myself up on the argument "MBS/automine = bad" . It is bad for BW, because that is just how the game is built. But you cannot argue that MBS and automine will always be bad no matter what in an RTS, because that is backwards thinking. (even if alot of BW players think like this) On June 04 2017 03:39 CecilSunkure wrote: My argument boils down to this: 1. Good sequels come from good developers 2. BW fans in general, more or less unanimously dislike SC2 3. But, many other games have sequels that fans really enjoyed (see above list) 4. Therefor, SC2 design failed to make a good sequel 5. To support 4, we can look at a bunch of old Browder posts to find that he's really just incompetent for the job Actually let me add on a point 6. talking about why they did all these. They did it to make money. 1. yes 2. yes, as a former BW player, I dislike sc2 too (but as mentioned before on multiple occasions it isnt because of mbs/automine) 3. yes 4. debatable, but I mostly agree 5. Tbh I do not really want to blame one PR guy for it. These days companies have entire teams working for a game and just show the "responsible" guy without us even knowing how much say he was gonna have in the product in the first place. For example; i have heard that the art team came up with the thor and browder did not want it in the game, but didnt have a choice in the matter. 6. yes like any other company, they do things for profit So I dont even understand why you wrote all this if we agree on the part that sc2 is different than BW and didnt meet expectations of BW players? On June 04 2017 03:39 CecilSunkure wrote: In a word: yeah. To expand... SC2 lacked mechanisms for a "better" player to win vs a "lesser player". Defining better and lesser is highly subjective from person to person. However, for BW players better and lesser are clearly defined by winning and losing in BW. Since SC2 is a sequel, and these BW players had exceptions of a good sequel, not a fucking shitty one, obviously they will want to beat players that would be bad at BW. It's a natural and valid expectation. So in the realm of BW, they are actually lesser players. It's not really elitism kicking in, it's unmet expectations. Here we go again with the superiority complex. While I agree that sc2 lacks certain mechanisms to allow for players to differentiate themselves more, (more meaningful unit interactions allowing for more micro/ comeback mechanics/ positional play/ map securing) and it is among the reasons I don't enjoy it that much. I wouldn't be so arrogant and dismiss a whole player-base as "lesser players". And I am sorry if you think you are better than another entire community, not only are you toxic but arrogant and delusional too. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
| ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On June 04 2017 08:24 404AlphaSquad wrote: 5. Tbh I do not really want to blame one PR guy for it. These days companies have entire teams working for a game and just show the "responsible" guy without us even knowing how much say he was gonna have in the product in the first place. For example; i have heard that the art team came up with the thor and browder did not want it in the game, but didnt have a choice in the matter. I don't think you really have a strong concept of game development. Projects are actually led by a small number of individuals, and the big shots are called by them. That goes back to my point about how the company was completely different during SC2 dev compared to BW dev. You can sit there and say "no, sc2 had some bw devs", but man that's just really ignorant. Some of the major players in BW dev were people Pat Wyatt, Jeff Strain, Mike O'Brien. None of them were there for SC2. If the leaders are gone, the dev team will take on drastically different style. On June 04 2017 08:24 404AlphaSquad wrote: Here we go again with the superiority complex. Personally I don't think that if someone is bad at BW, goes to SC2, and gets frustrated they lose to someone that never put in the hard work to develop BW-like mechanics, that it's necessarily elitism. But whatever. If you want to continue labeling people I'm done discussing it. | ||
|
lestye
United States4160 Posts
On June 04 2017 04:48 CecilSunkure wrote: I see, good point What kind of streamlining, if I may ask? I'm curious. If I take a look at BW and think about what I would do for a sequel, I definitely wouldn't have the word streamlining on my mind. So that's interesting to me. Ultimately, the type of streamlining that I think is completely inevitable are stuff like automine, keybinds, MBS, and having pathing AI that you don't have to babysit units constantly. I don't think stuff like the clump-up pathing or unlimited grouping would need to be one of those concessions. The lack of the other 3 would probably frustrate new audiences that make it feel like they're fighting with archaic systems, even if those archaic systems made Brood War something incredible. I don't think a game being released in 2017 can having really weird keybinds that cant be rebound because of the previous game in the series would fly. On June 04 2017 11:18 CecilSunkure wrote: I don't think you really have a strong concept of game development. Projects are actually led by a small number of individuals, and the big shots are called by them. That goes back to my point about how the company was completely different during SC2 dev compared to BW dev. You can sit there and say "no, sc2 had some bw devs", but man that's just really ignorant. Some of the major players in BW dev were people Pat Wyatt, Jeff Strain, Mike O'Brien. None of them were there for SC2. If the leaders are gone, the dev team will take on drastically different style. Personally I don't think that if someone is bad at BW, goes to SC2, and gets frustrated they lose to someone that never put in the hard work to develop BW-like mechanics, that it's necessarily elitism. But whatever. If you want to continue labeling people I'm done discussing it. I think you're completely ignoring the major players that were still there. Also most of these decisions aren't just made by a few people but collectively. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On June 04 2017 11:18 CecilSunkure wrote: Personally I don't think that if someone is bad at BW, goes to SC2, and gets frustrated they lose to someone that never put in the hard work to develop BW-like mechanics, that it's necessarily elitism. But whatever. If you want to continue labeling people I'm done discussing it. Definition of elitism: the attitude or behavior of a person or group who regard themselves as belonging to an elite. How can anyone fault me for calling parts of bw community elitist if they call sc2 players "lesser players" and "inferior" and consider themselves superior to them (which is what you did in your original post). You may not want to see it as elitism, but it fits the definition perfectly. | ||
|
hitthat
Poland2267 Posts
On June 03 2017 08:33 Meta wrote: This is such an important conversation. Thanks for having the courage to state your ideas and stand up for them. I remember those discussions prior to SC2's launch about how unlimited unit and building selection would fundamentally change the game, but those discussions went largely ignored, probably to the detriment of the longevity of SC2 as a whole. They were ignored by the Blizzard, not the community. Consensus was it will change the game and that SC2 will end as fundamentaly different from BW. There were 2 camps of those who saw this as a bad thing, and those who though it was a good thing (they left BW for SC2) In here, however, there is no consensus that the game will be changed so far that meta will be significantly different. On June 03 2017 08:33 Meta wrote: I don't think we should compromise the functionality that makes BW so great for any reason. I would be completely fine without this feature, but still I believe that it wont affect the game drasticaly. I may be wrong thou. On June 03 2017 08:33 Meta wrote: If more people start playing as result, that could be considered a concession, however if the cost is minuscule or irrelevant then it would clearly be worth the change. But, crucially, I think Blizzard should monitor the effects of this change carefully and they should not hesitate to revert the change if the balance at the top levels of play is clearly and permanently changed. Exacly my sentiment. | ||
|
Whiplash
United States2928 Posts
| ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On June 04 2017 20:22 404AlphaSquad wrote: Definition of elitism: the attitude or behavior of a person or group who regard themselves as belonging to an elite. How can anyone fault me for calling parts of bw community elitist if they call sc2 players "lesser players" and "inferior" and consider themselves superior to them (which is what you did in your original post). You may not want to see it as elitism, but it fits the definition perfectly. That's not elitism. I know you're not dumb. So stop trying to be. Elitism definition: the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society. So no, your definition is completely wrong. An elitist is someone that advocates elite dominance. An elitist can be anyone, even a non-elite. An elite can also not be an elitist. Elite definition: a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities. So in our case, it would be those with strong BW mechanics. So to be an elitist one must advocate that the elite dominate a system or society. In our case the elite are those who spent time developing BW mechanics. But they aren't going around enslaving others, or banning them for certain forum posts. The only thing they are an elitist within is the system of playing BW. However I know that's not what you mean by elitism. When posters like you come along they conflate elitism of winning in BW/SC2 to elitism everywhere in the community. That type of conflation is just a dick move. Elitism within the system of StarCraft is exactly what an online ladder is about. People with BW mechanics spent an aweful lot of work developing those mechanics, so their elitism (advocacy that the elite should dominate within StarCraft 1v1) actually carries merit. So just blabbing around on the forums "oh boo hoo you're just an elitist waah that's my argument", is heavily implying A) people shouldn't be elitists at all; B) the elitism has no merit; C) the elitism extends beyond the system of StarCraft into the general forum society/BW community. The bottom line is it's totally rude to disrespect someone else's merit. Labeling someone an elitist like you and many other posters have been doing, is an asshole move. If someone really likes BW due to the mechanical nature, and expected that system to exist in SC2 and gets disappointed, that isn't elitism. They are talking about unmet expectations and frustration! Sure the frustration comes from their position as an elite in BW, but that's not even the point. By saying "oh you're an elitist and think SC2 players are inferior" that's A) a straw-man. Nobody said SC2 players are inferior, you did. The BW player is commenting about losing to a mechanically unskilled player at StarCraft - that is not labeling the SC2 player collective. B) You're showing you are also an elitist. You feel the elite at SC2 are not less than the elite in Brood War because the systems are different, and both elites have merit. So not only is calling this BW an elitist hypocritical, it is also asinine. All that's left are the implications the labeling brings, and I've already pointed out how rude those are. tl;dr Posters running around spouting "ELITISM": you look stupid, and you're not contributing positively to the forums | ||
|
Biolunar
Germany224 Posts
| ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On June 05 2017 01:27 CecilSunkure wrote: By saying "oh you're an elitist and think SC2 players are inferior" that's A) a straw-man. Nobody said SC2 players are inferior, you did. If you can point out where I said sc2 players are inferior, that would be great! I can point out where you said it though. | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
I was referring to: This statement just really rubs me the wrong way. Do you think of sc2 players as "lesser players"? Do you think everyone who tries out SC:R due to customisable hotkeys are "lesser players" and "degenerate", especially if they are glad not having to put up with this archaic system? Where you made some assumptions and leapt from lesser in the context of BW mechanics, to lesser in some more broad and derogatory fashion. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On June 06 2017 07:33 CecilSunkure wrote: FailFish. Focus on something irrelevant instead of making real points. I've already taken the due diligence to carefully respond to your points. The least you can do is the same for me, instead of ignoring them. I was referring to: Where you made some assumptions and leapt from lesser in the context of BW mechanics, to lesser in some more broad and derogatory fashion. So people who dont play BW are worse in BW than people who do play BW. Thank you very much. This was a useful discussion. I would argue too that people who play SC2 have an advantage against players who dont play sc2! Unfortunately this logic wont make sense for BW players because of the reason below: On June 04 2017 11:18 CecilSunkure wrote: Personally I don't think that if someone is bad at BW, goes to SC2, and gets frustrated they lose to someone that never put in the hard work to develop BW-like mechanics, that it's necessarily elitism. But whatever. If you want to continue labeling people I'm done discussing it. Granted I was a little off with the term "elitist". How do you like "entitled". They feel like they are entitled to win in a game they never played before because they played BW. | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On June 06 2017 11:42 404AlphaSquad wrote: So people who dont play BW are worse in BW than people who do play BW. Thank you very much. Yeah! It's really nothing to get butthurt over... It sounds redundant because I had to spell it out for you. I had to in-depth explain it, since you had such a hard time with it "rubbing you the wrong way", as you put it earlier. Going over your posts in this thread, you've been shit-posting the entire time. On June 06 2017 11:42 404AlphaSquad wrote: Players have won sc2 tournaments with BW hotkeys. Hotkeys dont change balance. period. Here's an example of every one of your arguments. You say some emotionally charged shit, and then make a wild conclusion that doesn't even follow. | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
Should make you think. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
It matters for people that are otherwise equally skilled; so the situation where Flash plays Jaedong, while having a much superior hotkey set-up, will clearly affect the outcome of the game. Having siege mode and irradiate on much more accessible hotkeys will allow him to be even faster and even more precise. You're clueless if you think they don't make mistakes, or if you think that there's no difference between pressing I or O versus something like D or E. After all, your position IS that there's a huge difference between pressing those keys or you wouldn't care about needing custom hotkeys at all. | ||
|
endy
Switzerland8970 Posts
| ||
| ||
