|
Its the same with other games.
Back when Street Fighter V got announced, some people thought, that finally, players will just need the best reads on their opponents because the mechanics were dumbed down enough for everyone to be the next world champion.
You simply can't dumb down the game so people only fight against each others mind sets. It would be rock, paper, scissors at that point.
The argument, that you'd fight the interface more than your opponent is smth, you could say at any point about SCII aswell.
Newcomer vs Seasoned Player, ofcourse the newcomer can't just transfer all his thoughts into his gameplay.
|
This discussion returns every year. Difficult SC mechanics is nothing different than dribbling in basketball. Artificial mechanics making the game more difficult, though when you master them they give you that feeling of satisfaction. I understand both types of players (casual vs hardcore) and I disagree with people saying that this makes a game inaccessible. See basketball example.. would eliminating dribbling make the game more accesible? yes.. but doesnt mean more people would really play nor enjoy it.
Also there is that feeling of respect for someone who makes difficult things look easy, that is how humans are.
|
On January 02 2019 23:45 kogeT wrote:
This discussion returns every year. Difficult SC mechanics is nothing different than dribbling in basketball. Artificial mechanics making the game more difficult, though when you master them they give you that feeling of satisfaction. I understand both types of players (casual vs hardcore) and I disagree with people saying that this makes a game inaccessible. See basketball example.. would eliminating dribbling make the game more accesible? yes.. but doesnt mean more people would really play nor enjoy it.
Also there is that feeling of respect for someone who makes difficult things look easy, that is how humans are.
The argument isn't to reduce mechanical aspects until there are none though, in absolutel every game which is popular atm there are tons of mechanical things to do and get better at.
If i wanna use your analogy, dribbling in basketbal would be something any of these games use, bw would be dribbling plus you have to clap in between and maybe do a pirouette after every 5 seconds. All of that would increase the "mechanical" difficulty of basketball, would make the game less accessible though and ultimately worse design wise.
Doesn't mean that noone would have fun with that ruleset though, there definitely would be people thinking it is the best thing ever.
Anyway, i think my first reply already points out the imo important factors to consider, why something like bw wouldn't be played 'at all' these days.
|
Well there's a balance, and "optimum" is quite subjective wrt accessibility.
I'm sure somewhere on the internet you can find a game that if you click a button, you win. Has to be the most accessible game in existence. Problem is on the one hand, you don't want to fight controls, but if you don't have to study/practice to control stuff, being good doesn't mean as much.
|
Although it should be possible to make the game more friendly without sacrificing strategical ideas, Blizzard has not done so with SC2 and it's hard to argue at this point that they are any good at it.
Having a tough UI does not directly lead to better tactical ideas in the game, but ironically SC2 reduced the tactical ideas by removing damage types, making AoE attacks easier to use and thus more powerful, making units not have pathing issues and clumping up more easily, and so on. Most of these things were done in the name of user friendliness, but they reduced the tactical ideas available in the game. It should be possible to improve the UI while keeping the tactics the same but, again, Blizzard don't know how to do this.
First of all, you'd have to separate game "problems" or UI concepts lead into tactical ideas vs those that do not. For example, the pathing issues might seem like a problem, but in real life the pathing issues also exist, a person can get lost or confused, so it's actually more realistic to keep them. It leads to more realistic gameplay. You could change the pathing issues, add more or remove the worthless ones, but I don't necessarily agree with making units move perfectly in general, like they mostly do in SC2. Maybe make this have less of a luck factor. At the moment it's hard to guess when a marine is going to get stuck and not respond to any commands, for example, but it sometimes happens.
|
Bisutopia19239 Posts
On January 03 2019 02:42 LG)Sabbath wrote:
Although it should be possible to make the game more friendly without sacrificing strategical ideas, Blizzard has not done so with SC2 and it's hard to argue at this point that they are any good at it.
Having a tough UI does not directly lead to better tactical ideas in the game, but ironically SC2 reduced the tactical ideas by removing damage types, making AoE attacks easier to use and thus more powerful, making units not have pathing issues and clumping up more easily, and so on. Most of these things were done in the name of user friendliness, but they reduced the tactical ideas available in the game. It should be possible to improve the UI while keeping the tactics the same but, again, Blizzard don't know how to do this.
First of all, you'd have to separate game "problems" or UI concepts lead into tactical ideas vs those that do not. For example, the pathing issues might seem like a problem, but in real life the pathing issues also exist, a person can get lost or confused, so it's actually more realistic to keep them. It leads to more realistic gameplay. You could change the pathing issues, add more or remove the worthless ones, but I don't necessarily agree with making units move perfectly in general, like they mostly do in SC2. Maybe make this have less of a luck factor. At the moment it's hard to guess when a marine is going to get stuck and not respond to any commands, for example, but it sometimes happens.
I'm actually enjoying the current state of SC2 more then I did at any previous point. I love everything about BW and wouldn't change it, but sometimes when I'm looking to play a relaxing game of StarCraft I boot up SC2 over SC1. Here's why:
1. Starting worker count: As a parent I'm very short on time. The starting worker count being higher allows me to get to the meatier parts of the game and experience more units and still end the game in a decent time.
2. Tab through abilities + casting one at a time + shift casting: Since my skills as a player aren't superb, I choose units that are easier for me to execute in Brood War. That means non-spell casting units even though those units are major game changers. In SC2, the ability to tab through my selected units to get to the ability I need to cast and only cast one at a time encourages me to uses those units that would otherwise by very hard to execute well.
3. Selecting more then twelve: I do not care if unlimited selection existed, but to have three armies in 3 locations and to be able to keep them on just 3 hotkeys is actually quite nice
Pretty much everything else in BW I can live with. For example, selecting individual buildings and assigning workers is very easy to do and doesn't feel like a chore.
Not quite so related:
Additionally, I think Co-Op is quite great to play from time to time. This is a feature I wish could make it back in to BW. It's a great way to still have a melee feel but still include another human.
|
On January 03 2019 02:42 LG)Sabbath wrote:
Having a tough UI does not directly lead to better tactical ideas in the game, but ironically SC2 reduced the tactical ideas by removing damage types, making AoE attacks easier to use and thus more powerful, making units not have pathing issues and clumping up more easily, and so on. Most of these things were done in the name of user friendliness, but they reduced the tactical ideas available in the game. It should be possible to improve the UI while keeping the tactics the same but, again, Blizzard don't know how to do this.
It does though, movement in BW is far more subtle because it's difficult to organize and execute. Regardless of what you mentioned, the game would be less tactical if big blob armies could 1a around and react to anything instantly.
|
I'd love to see a new poll added to the OP. It's been a while.
|
On January 03 2019 04:44 Espers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 02:42 LG)Sabbath wrote:
Having a tough UI does not directly lead to better tactical ideas in the game, but ironically SC2 reduced the tactical ideas by removing damage types, making AoE attacks easier to use and thus more powerful, making units not have pathing issues and clumping up more easily, and so on. Most of these things were done in the name of user friendliness, but they reduced the tactical ideas available in the game. It should be possible to improve the UI while keeping the tactics the same but, again, Blizzard don't know how to do this. It does though, movement in BW is far more subtle because it's difficult to organize and execute. Regardless of what you mentioned, the game would be less tactical if big blob armies could 1a around and react to anything instantly.
It does in this particular instance, but you can come up with UI changes that are luck-based or entirely pointless manual chores that don't add any skill to the game. I'm not sure BW has any of those though, so improving the UI of BW might not lead to any improvements in tactical ideas in the game.
|
the problem with bw imo is that the lack of balance patches necessitated blander maps where by definition the results were going to come down more to execution than any other feature. Compare old maps to new, and you can see very clearly that maps are intentionally being made blander-- naturals are perfunctory, not difficult to take, limited cliffs, ectera. With simple bland geography you remove a lot of the play making abilities in bw-- which softens the balance out at higher levels, but at the same time necessitating ever higher level of apm' and base management.
Compare 2001 to 2006 and compare 2006 to 2018, in terms of the mechanical demand, the average bases taken, how easily the maps were designed to get into the macro overdrive part of the game, etc. Its clear. We smoothed out balance while avoiding a patch, but there are consequences, namely, a shrinking map pool, a game that is overly mechanically focused, and of course, player injuries. You could patch broodwar in such a way as to limit the [extreme] need of mechanics without simplifying gameplay. It would just be difficult to do.
|
On January 02 2019 23:14 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2019 22:57 ggsimida wrote:On January 02 2019 22:33 The_Red_Viper wrote:
This isn't proven or anything, but in general i think it is far to say that in player versus player games the fun comes from engaging with your opponent, to make decisions, execute them and see how it pans out vs the human enemy you are up against. BW's game mechanics actively fight against the human vs human interaction and thus make it less accessible. You just have to do a lot of thing and press a lot of buttons to have any meaningful interaction with the opponent and even these interactions might be not extremely intriguing because of the pathfinding and the general clunkiness.
lol i always wondered how this sort of argument arise, probably from low apm players who got pwned in too many games in a row. 'holy fuck i lost because my goons got stuck on a ramp waaa, this is strategee game we should not fighting against da systemmmm". to me one of the satisfactions of BW is THE mechanical aspect. that high apm can present distinctly remarkable results on the battleground. my 200-300 apm i can make the goons go smoothly up the ramp. the 50 apm dude gets his stuck and wandering, he deserves it and gets punished short and sweet. in sc2 for instance i actually hated how the units move, everything is too smooth and the units move around like hivemind sardines in a perfect ball thats its mildly disconcerting. i know its obv a mindset from players in the top % of the playerbase but thats a inkling on its appeal from the hardcore perspective. the perfect mix of mechanics and strategy while most games often lean towards one side (rhythm games) or the other (chess) See instead of engaging the argument you immediately try to make fun of it because you think you being good at the current game and its workings makes your subjective opinion worth more. It doesn't. All you told me is that you need more apm to execute certain things (and very basic ones at that), that's already part of my argument, it makes the game less accessible. If you think that is a good thing, so be it.
I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that, beyond personal preference, two low level players in bw will have less fun than equally not apt players in sc2? That makes no sense. Two bad players, when equal, will play an intense game in the same fasjion two superp players do. They build their base, micro and make strategical decisions the same way. It's not relevant that they express their ideas less proficient because they control the mechanical aspect worse than good player. What matters is that they express it roughly equal to the other player. It is untrue that bad players have no deeper strategical ideas too, from my experience they do. Soi don't see what you try to argue here, can you enlighten me?
|
On January 03 2019 04:19 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 02:42 LG)Sabbath wrote:
Although it should be possible to make the game more friendly without sacrificing strategical ideas, Blizzard has not done so with SC2 and it's hard to argue at this point that they are any good at it.
Having a tough UI does not directly lead to better tactical ideas in the game, but ironically SC2 reduced the tactical ideas by removing damage types, making AoE attacks easier to use and thus more powerful, making units not have pathing issues and clumping up more easily, and so on. Most of these things were done in the name of user friendliness, but they reduced the tactical ideas available in the game. It should be possible to improve the UI while keeping the tactics the same but, again, Blizzard don't know how to do this.
First of all, you'd have to separate game "problems" or UI concepts lead into tactical ideas vs those that do not. For example, the pathing issues might seem like a problem, but in real life the pathing issues also exist, a person can get lost or confused, so it's actually more realistic to keep them. It leads to more realistic gameplay. You could change the pathing issues, add more or remove the worthless ones, but I don't necessarily agree with making units move perfectly in general, like they mostly do in SC2. Maybe make this have less of a luck factor. At the moment it's hard to guess when a marine is going to get stuck and not respond to any commands, for example, but it sometimes happens. I'm actually enjoying the current state of SC2 more then I did at any previous point. I love everything about BW and wouldn't change it, but sometimes when I'm looking to play a relaxing game of StarCraft I boot up SC2 over SC1. Here's why: 1. Starting worker count: As a parent I'm very short on time. The starting worker count being higher allows me to get to the meatier parts of the game and experience more units and still end the game in a decent time. 2. Tab through abilities + casting one at a time + shift casting: Since my skills as a player aren't superb, I choose units that are easier for me to execute in Brood War. That means non-spell casting units even though those units are major game changers. In SC2, the ability to tab through my selected units to get to the ability I need to cast and only cast one at a time encourages me to uses those units that would otherwise by very hard to execute well. 3. Selecting more then twelve: I do not care if unlimited selection existed, but to have three armies in 3 locations and to be able to keep them on just 3 hotkeys is actually quite nice Pretty much everything else in BW I can live with. For example, selecting individual buildings and assigning workers is very easy to do and doesn't feel like a chore. Not quite so related: Additionally, I think Co-Op is quite great to play from time to time. This is a feature I wish could make it back in to BW. It's a great way to still have a melee feel but still include another human.
I get where you're coming from, sometimes you just want have some lazy fun, and maybe an "easy" game mode could be added with those changes, but these things all reduced the strategical ideas in the game.
1. Starting worker count > no more 4/5 pool and crazy cheese strategies, you just happen to enjoy macro strategies more
2. Easy casting > non-casting units become weaker since they can more easily be stormed or w/e, it changes the game into more of a "mix and match units" instead of a unit management game.
3. Selecting more units, already discussed in the post above but yeah, less army-management tactics since someone can just respond instantly with their entire army, every game becomes just 2 huge blobs of units moving around the map.
|
On January 03 2019 05:55 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2019 23:14 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 02 2019 22:57 ggsimida wrote:On January 02 2019 22:33 The_Red_Viper wrote:
This isn't proven or anything, but in general i think it is far to say that in player versus player games the fun comes from engaging with your opponent, to make decisions, execute them and see how it pans out vs the human enemy you are up against. BW's game mechanics actively fight against the human vs human interaction and thus make it less accessible. You just have to do a lot of thing and press a lot of buttons to have any meaningful interaction with the opponent and even these interactions might be not extremely intriguing because of the pathfinding and the general clunkiness.
lol i always wondered how this sort of argument arise, probably from low apm players who got pwned in too many games in a row. 'holy fuck i lost because my goons got stuck on a ramp waaa, this is strategee game we should not fighting against da systemmmm". to me one of the satisfactions of BW is THE mechanical aspect. that high apm can present distinctly remarkable results on the battleground. my 200-300 apm i can make the goons go smoothly up the ramp. the 50 apm dude gets his stuck and wandering, he deserves it and gets punished short and sweet. in sc2 for instance i actually hated how the units move, everything is too smooth and the units move around like hivemind sardines in a perfect ball thats its mildly disconcerting. i know its obv a mindset from players in the top % of the playerbase but thats a inkling on its appeal from the hardcore perspective. the perfect mix of mechanics and strategy while most games often lean towards one side (rhythm games) or the other (chess) See instead of engaging the argument you immediately try to make fun of it because you think you being good at the current game and its workings makes your subjective opinion worth more. It doesn't. All you told me is that you need more apm to execute certain things (and very basic ones at that), that's already part of my argument, it makes the game less accessible. If you think that is a good thing, so be it. I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that, beyond personal preference, two low level players in bw will have less fun than equally not apt players in sc2? That makes no sense. Two bad players, when equal, will play an intense game in the same fasjion two superp players do. They build their base, micro and make strategical decisions the same way. It's not relevant that they express their ideas less proficient because they control the mechanical aspect worse than good player. What matters is that they express it roughly equal to the other player. It is untrue that bad players have no deeper strategical ideas too, from my experience they do. Soi don't see what you try to argue here, can you enlighten me?
If you want to take sc2 as an example, sure. Could take any other more popular game as well though. I definitely do not agree that two bad players no matter how bad can have "intense" games in bw. For that it is way too inaccessible, which was my first point really. You simply need more clicks to do anything which i would define as the main source of fun: player vs player interaction. Meaningful interaction at that, a moving workers to the other side of the map wouldn't be included for example. You need an army or harassment units, for that you first need to macro and then the actual control of these units adds a layer on top of it as well (and why do you need to control them? Because you engage the opponent, you get to the pvp part)
A lot of bw's mechanics directly go against this though, it starts as soon as the game begins, getting resources which you need to have pvp interactions requires you to send each and every worker to mine manually. As soon as you have 13 units you need 2 control groups to manage them, the pathing makes it harder to get units to do what you want. There simply is a lot of hurdles in the way of 'having fun'.
Now i do not think that pvp interactions are the only part which creates fun, i personally simply enjoy having to press a lot of buttons, getting in a certain rhythm to manage as many tasks as possible, etc.
I still think it is a fair assumption that most people do not have fun that way though, and if i look at more popular games there seems to be a design trend and accessibility is defintiely one big one. I do not think that it's a bad thing either, people who argue from that pov usually just want to feel special for liking this "hardcore" game, seems juvenile.
Now the 2nd part is also important and sc2 for example falls into this trap as well. It definitely is way more accessible than bw, but it still fails to promote the pvp aspects, to make people actually engage each other. It is no surprise that low lvl players oftentimes just build a base and an army and do not try to actively pursue the pvp interactions. The game doesn't do a good job of creating objectives to make it happen. I already named examples in my reply to you before, the popular games have it at their core to promote player vs player interactions.
Now as i said, there is definitely more to it than that, in general a lot of the popular games are teamgames, that's an inherent advantage as well, people are social beings and it only helps if your gameplay revolves around it. But usually one could just add team options (battle royale games basically do this), so i think the core gameplay is the main factor to consider.
|
honestly, the problem for new comers is meta, not method [game engine, whatever]. Play 2 rax acad on LT or python against a 3 hatch lurker zerg, especially if he isnt rushing defilers...its a blast, very accessible for new comers. Or a similar situation in a different matchup, bulldog rushes,2 gate pvz, or 2 facts, yada yada. The reality is the maps we play are on are ginormous and largely bereft of anything you can utilize strategically. Because the meta is, in tandem with that, so figured out, new players are just sitting around on giant maps they cant exploit using builds they cant do, its a shit show. Broodwars meta has progressed to the point that it isnt interesting to pick up [and breaks your wrist to master], but it wasnt always like this.
Giant bland maps = terrible for new players.
edit: To unpack my reasoning a bit: back when i was a much worse player, 80-110 apm, i remember trying to play the macro meta of that day, though the maps were a lot tinier. because of my low apm and poor mechanics, trying to play the meta with large armies on multiple bases often meant half or more of my time was spent back at base trying desperately to produce troops, i wasnt good enough to do anything else, so i didnt do anything else. I spent all my time trying to build men while floating money, my games against fellow players would often take a long time since neither of us could exploit advantages, due to map size and poor macro.
On the other hand, when I forgot about the modern meta and tried something more cheesy or aggressive or clever, I was actually able to wrap my skills around that and have a game, especially if the other player was following suit. I learnt how to multi task not in macro games but in hectic back and forth games on smaller maps, and my gameplay gradually became more complex, etc.
I can only imagine the frustrations new players go through today given the map size is so much larger and money so plentiful. newbies playing on maps like eddy and circuit breaker are likely going to be put off...
|
On January 03 2019 07:36 Dazed. wrote:
Broodwars meta has progressed to the point that it isnt interesting to pick up [and breaks your wrist to master], but it wasnt always like this.
This confuses me. You can still do breakneck cheeses in this game and they are still effective on almost all ladder maps. if anything i normally tell new players to do 1base stuff until they understand how the beginning of the game works. (e.g. 2fact every game in tvt).
People make their own fun in a game, some players just do nothing but strong 1 base plays, some go heavy macro. I don't see how maps, especially for new players, even matter. Hell even most maps don't change much for my level (which isn't that high).
I'd say if anything it's a problem with high-level players telling low-level players what to do without thinking about the fact they have the curse of knowledge.
|
On January 03 2019 08:54 SchAmToo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 07:36 Dazed. wrote:
Broodwars meta has progressed to the point that it isnt interesting to pick up [and breaks your wrist to master], but it wasnt always like this.
This confuses me. You can still do breakneck cheeses in this game and they are still effective on almost all ladder maps. if anything i normally tell new players to do 1base stuff until they understand how the beginning of the game works. (e.g. 2fact every game in tvt). People make their own fun in a game, some players just do nothing but strong 1 base plays, some go heavy macro. I don't see how maps, especially for new players, even matter. Hell even most maps don't change much for my level (which isn't that high). I'd say if anything it's a problem with high-level players telling low-level players what to do without thinking about the fact they have the curse of knowledge. Of course you can do all of these things, but its a matter of degree, and i think the degree is off for new players. A new player is going to want to experience a wide variety, see what the game has to offer, and of course do something manageable relative to their skills, we dont play on maps conducive to that. We play on maps designed to kill that, for the most part, and it obviously has an impact on game play the whole way down.
|
Bisutopia19239 Posts
On January 03 2019 05:55 LG)Sabbath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 04:19 BisuDagger wrote:On January 03 2019 02:42 LG)Sabbath wrote:
Although it should be possible to make the game more friendly without sacrificing strategical ideas, Blizzard has not done so with SC2 and it's hard to argue at this point that they are any good at it.
Having a tough UI does not directly lead to better tactical ideas in the game, but ironically SC2 reduced the tactical ideas by removing damage types, making AoE attacks easier to use and thus more powerful, making units not have pathing issues and clumping up more easily, and so on. Most of these things were done in the name of user friendliness, but they reduced the tactical ideas available in the game. It should be possible to improve the UI while keeping the tactics the same but, again, Blizzard don't know how to do this.
First of all, you'd have to separate game "problems" or UI concepts lead into tactical ideas vs those that do not. For example, the pathing issues might seem like a problem, but in real life the pathing issues also exist, a person can get lost or confused, so it's actually more realistic to keep them. It leads to more realistic gameplay. You could change the pathing issues, add more or remove the worthless ones, but I don't necessarily agree with making units move perfectly in general, like they mostly do in SC2. Maybe make this have less of a luck factor. At the moment it's hard to guess when a marine is going to get stuck and not respond to any commands, for example, but it sometimes happens. I'm actually enjoying the current state of SC2 more then I did at any previous point. I love everything about BW and wouldn't change it, but sometimes when I'm looking to play a relaxing game of StarCraft I boot up SC2 over SC1. Here's why: 1. Starting worker count: As a parent I'm very short on time. The starting worker count being higher allows me to get to the meatier parts of the game and experience more units and still end the game in a decent time. 2. Tab through abilities + casting one at a time + shift casting: Since my skills as a player aren't superb, I choose units that are easier for me to execute in Brood War. That means non-spell casting units even though those units are major game changers. In SC2, the ability to tab through my selected units to get to the ability I need to cast and only cast one at a time encourages me to uses those units that would otherwise by very hard to execute well. 3. Selecting more then twelve: I do not care if unlimited selection existed, but to have three armies in 3 locations and to be able to keep them on just 3 hotkeys is actually quite nice Pretty much everything else in BW I can live with. For example, selecting individual buildings and assigning workers is very easy to do and doesn't feel like a chore. Not quite so related: Additionally, I think Co-Op is quite great to play from time to time. This is a feature I wish could make it back in to BW. It's a great way to still have a melee feel but still include another human. I get where you're coming from, sometimes you just want have some lazy fun, and maybe an "easy" game mode could be added with those changes, but these things all reduced the strategical ideas in the game. 1. Starting worker count > no more 4/5 pool and crazy cheese strategies, you just happen to enjoy macro strategies more 2. Easy casting > non-casting units become weaker since they can more easily be stormed or w/e, it changes the game into more of a "mix and match units" instead of a unit management game. 3. Selecting more units, already discussed in the post above but yeah, less army-management tactics since someone can just respond instantly with their entire army, every game becomes just 2 huge blobs of units moving around the map.
I guess I should clarify. I like those changes/features in SC2, I would not attempt to integrate them into BW. It's perfect as is. But I do enjoy SC2 because it has been balanced around those features already.
|
On January 03 2019 08:59 Dazed. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2019 08:54 SchAmToo wrote:On January 03 2019 07:36 Dazed. wrote:
Broodwars meta has progressed to the point that it isnt interesting to pick up [and breaks your wrist to master], but it wasnt always like this.
This confuses me. You can still do breakneck cheeses in this game and they are still effective on almost all ladder maps. if anything i normally tell new players to do 1base stuff until they understand how the beginning of the game works. (e.g. 2fact every game in tvt). People make their own fun in a game, some players just do nothing but strong 1 base plays, some go heavy macro. I don't see how maps, especially for new players, even matter. Hell even most maps don't change much for my level (which isn't that high). I'd say if anything it's a problem with high-level players telling low-level players what to do without thinking about the fact they have the curse of knowledge. Of course you can do all of these things, but its a matter of degree, and i think the degree is off for new players. A new player is going to want to experience a wide variety, see what the game has to offer, and of course do something manageable relative to their skills, we dont play on maps conducive to that. We play on maps designed to kill that, for the most part, and it obviously has an impact on game play the whole way down.
Both styles work on maps for ladder, especially since a lot of them have low-ground mains which makes it easier for newbies to lose to cheese (and me!). Your point is a map like python is more able to do the "wide range" of things vs something like Fighting Spirit?
I really don't think new players care much about map at all, and it doesn't change much for them. New players just do whatever the hell because...they're new and dont know better. They definitely can't macro into late game off the bat, but that's not the maps fault...
The biggest problem still for new players is a lack of concentrated, up to date, mechanical videos and beginning tips. Something like the old SC2 bronze to masters stuff.
|
People should just play games that aren’t BW if the UI/Mechanics are that frustrating for them.
Not even trying to be mean.
People that love playing BW can recognize that the difficulties in execution are part of what makes the game rewarding and are part of makes BW a ‘deep’ game.
People that only enjoy watching BW just want their games to look what they see when the very best BW players play.
It’s like people who want to pick up an instrument like guitar and piano and be able to play Classical/Bebop Jazz/Other technically difficult pieces without going through the difficulty. May want to find a different engaging hobby.
|
I agree with Dazed on a lot of points (although I think we had a lot of interesting maps all through the KeSPA era, and we're seeing ASL try some more interesting stuff). My own experience with StarCraft, including before Brood War, was playing on a local area network with my brother and his friend. We beat up on computers and it was fun. When we got internet I remember playing lots of micro wars, team melee, random ums maps, and hunters games. It was probably 2004 before I even got interested in playing a lot of one on one matches, and for a year or so of that I had about 50 - 80 apm, and the people I played with did as well. You might not believe it, but those games were intense and a long 80 apm match could make me sweat. You don't get to 300 apm because you're not trying to play fast, you just haven't mastered the interface yet, and you're not really spam clicking as much because you haven't learned yet that in BW if you don't click something 50 times it sometimes just doesn't happen lol. I also loved making maps and the campaign editor and 3rd party editors were quite interesting to play with, and it was cool that I could have people to play with. I eventually got decent at one versus one, but I wouldn't say that my games only got intense after I hit 150 - 200 apm. Games get intense when you and your opponent are both trying to divide each other's focus and play the psychological side of the game, not when you're so familiar with the game that you can basically play a safe strategy on auto pilot and find lots of opponents completely complicit with that.
I would say some of the most intense moments in BW for me have been when slow dropping lurkers... Trying to get everything in place at the right time, and then the long suspense of hoping it won't be seen while it slowly goes over the cliff and you take your one shot to make the strategy work. It's substantially less intense when you've got a road map and you're not taking any risks and you're just trying to get good at the basic mechanics. Usually when you do that it's actually more frustrating, because you're not looking for strategic wins you're looking for just trying to slip up as little as possible.
Anyway, I think it's fully possible a game could create those intense risky little moments, and for me that would be the heart of what I like best about one on one Brood War, and about watching one on one Brood War too. The tug of wars can be interesting too from a high level perspective, but the highlight reels are big storms and dodging your workers away from danger and the tension of hold lurkers. And what makes those moments so great is how big the swing in the game is for whoever it pays off for. That's why watching plagued vessels pop to a muta is so glorious. It gives the element of a comeback, it shows the fragility of the position players in, and contrary to what's been said, I actually think that it works better at lower levels. It's the high level players that learn how to hang onto a small lead for the whole game and just crush their opponent gradually getting further ahead. Where at a lower level a player can get ahead and then lose half his army to lurkers because he was looking in the wrong place lol, and not because he isn't frantically clicking and trying to keep everything under control.
I think it's less because Brood War is a bygone game that people can't handle anymore, and more because creating a game filled with those intense moments was actually quite an accomplishment. I can't see people not liking it if a game of similar calibre were made. If we have to talk about SC2, I would say that the thing SC2 struggled to overcome (when I would occasionally watch a game many years ago) was that games tended to be decided by one moment, and then all the tension would disappear, and if you weren't savvy to when that moment was the impact of it would be kind of lost on you and then you'd listen to the casters say the game was basically over for 5-10 more minutes.
I don't really feel like my love of Brood War really got more deep when I got better at it. If anything, those days of 80 apm were probably the most magic. 30-40apm is definitely comp-stomp territory, but people love that too lol, and most people eventually get better. I think 50-60apm is probably the magic number for when you start being able to play one on one and enjoy the strategy rather than just comp stomp. And that's really just learning the hotkeys, which is still a hurdle of all rts and games in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
