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.
very agree (Warcraft III does not have these flaws, though it has very simple macro tactically its pretty good cause the pathing and combat mechanics are good (depth), not fluidified-streamlined-simplified-accelerated)
I do think there's a (big) issue with new players being told to practice some of the hardest and most reactive builds. Like new zerg players being told to play 3 hatch spire into 5-6 hatch hydra in zvp, or new terrans being told to practice their 2-1 push in tvp. That is an absolutely terrible idea for even 1500 mmr players, and an even worse idea for players below that. Suggestions like that (and to some degree the entire notion of 'be copycats') make brood war seem like a much less accessible game than what actually is the case
That's true, but you have to go looking for it to find that kind of advice. If you're the sort of person who looks up how to play before you even try playing a few games, it probably won't deter you. I would suspect it's more common people play a few games with their friends, realise they're having fun, and then look up a way to beat their friends, at which point virtually any strategy at all will bring them good success even if they only retain 5% of what they read. The people who are most vulnerable to the fault of that advice are probably people who've played casually a few years and want to get better.
we did play the game at a fairly relaxed, high concept strategy kind of level. The mechanics that would win people games really grew on top of an increasingly sophisticated level of strategic understanding, first by seeing what people could do to win key battles with great micromanagement, and later by seeing how people could get very far ahead with increasingly good macromanagement. StarCraft really did not start out as the wrist destroying game we know it as today. We were eased into it lol.
yes, yes and yes.
I also think SC and BW are amazingly and surprisingly fun, to a very serious degree, at both: player vs interface and player vs player phase. That's how I got hooked to it, for sure. When playing vs interface, the way units behave is what make the game so much more unique and exciting than any other RTS I ever tried. Asking what the game needs to be more pickable for newplayers nowadays is a tricky question since if the game wasn't exactly how it is, it would most likely not and never got to where it was and still is today, and also, if you want, to be regarded by many the best game ever, etc. Why not so much new players pick it today? In my oppinion It has something to do with what Chef and others said, when we picked the game playing it online was much more easier in absolute terms than it is today. By easy I mean, one could get into the player vs player, meta vs meta, experience phase, at a decent level, with much much less mechanich feats than it is required today, I could easy imagine an "average APM for amateur players" graphich increasing over the years nonstop. BW is a rare case of meta, micro, macro and builds growing better over the years for like 20 years now, even at amateur bnet level, it's just crazy. It is what it is, picking up the game today, and trying to get 'into it' is a fucking huge task, although there seem to be some who get into bw and in a short period of time become very good at it. Those are special people imho, above the average to say the least.
On January 04 2019 13:39 giugn wrote: You guys are behing quite creative. Why not just say: "SC2=F2A LOL BW=100% SKILL"? The fact that no one gives Prometheus any contra. What the fuck
we did play the game at a fairly relaxed, high concept strategy kind of level. The mechanics that would win people games really grew on top of an increasingly sophisticated level of strategic understanding, first by seeing what people could do to win key battles with great micromanagement, and later by seeing how people could get very far ahead with increasingly good macromanagement. StarCraft really did not start out as the wrist destroying game we know it as today. We were eased into it lol.
yes, yes and yes.
I also think SC and BW are amazingly and surprisingly fun, to a very serious degree, at both: player vs interface and player vs player phase. That's how I got hooked to it, for sure. When playing vs interface, the way units behave is what make the game so much more unique and exciting than any other RTS I ever tried. Asking what the game needs to be more pickable for newplayers nowadays is a tricky question since if the game wasn't exactly how it is, it would most likely not and never got to where it was and still is today, and also, if you want, to be regarded by many the best game ever, etc. Why not so much new players pick it today? In my oppinion It has something to do with what Chef and others said, when we picked the game playing it online was much more easier in absolute terms than it is today. By easy I mean, one could get into the player vs player, meta vs meta, experience phase, at a decent level, with much much less mechanich feats than it is required today, I could easy imagine an "average APM for amateur players" graphich increasing over the years nonstop. BW is a rare case of meta, micro, macro and builds growing better over the years for like 20 years now, even at amateur bnet level, it's just crazy. It is what it is, picking up the game today, and trying to get 'into it' is a fucking huge task, although there seem to be some who get into bw and in a short period of time become very good at it. Those are special people imho, above the average to say the least.
imo, an ideal way to learn broodwar is basically just ramping up your complexity gradually, like
2 gate pvz really hard, into a more macro 2 gate, follow that 2 gate up with a hanbang, quit using the 2gate and using 1 gate tech, learn some harass in there, figure out a good three base timing, learn forge fe and on and on like that. Not saying this is the scientific way to learn it or anything, but i think thats a pretty natural and intuitive process [and literally what happened in terms of the community as a whole]. Imagine trying to do a 2 gate, or whatever you think of as the kind of conceptually natural and basic builds of broodwar, on a map like eddy or electric circuit.
I think we've done a great job as a community at changing and adapting in order to keep the pro circuit functioning and alive, but in doing so we basically scorched everything behind us without ever looking back.
~~~~~~~~
Obviously related but as a separate thought, what does anyone think of maps gradated to ones rank? i.e at the very bottom of a ladder, you might have a couple maps that were phased out for meta imbalances, but they suit new players extremely well. << Not like you can say letting a 50 APM E player fuck about on an island map is going to impinge on the sanctity of the ladder experience (or that such a thing can even exist in the context of 500+ mmr swings with the match maker].
how do old maps "suit" new players in particular compared to new maps? implying that new maps force new players to play a select few "meta" builds is ludicrous. nothing more than a pathetic excuse for why theyre losing, when in fact they should just be questioning their own understanding of the game and their mechanical ability. a player that opens a shit build with a deep understanding of the game will beat an opponent with a build order advantage with no idea why his build of choice even exists. this idea that noobs are forced to play meta builds is stupid. theyre not, and they should never be under the impression that they have to play them on any given map. understanding your builds is far more important than merely executing them like some kitchen recipe without thought for why youre doing what youre doing.
I believe his idea is that players start on older maps and slowly explore the game, increase their understanding and eventually arrive at current builds and such.
that can be done on newer maps just the same? id bet my left nut that not one new player (ie. < D rank) understands maps and terrain well enough where their build actually matters.
On January 04 2019 15:07 BigFan wrote: I believe his idea is that players start on older maps and slowly explore the game, increase their understanding and eventually arrive at current builds and such.
Well, that and i never said old maps, i said maps that we've moved on in terms of the meta. The salient detail is that the map would be more newb friendly, not its age. I also already clarified what i meant by newb friendly maps, which was not synonymous with old.
On January 04 2019 15:03 evilfatsh1t wrote: how do old maps "suit" new players in particular compared to new maps?
Frankly i had this discussion with others not a single page ago, just go back and read.
On January 04 2019 15:19 evilfatsh1t wrote: that can be done on newer maps just the same? id bet my left nut that not one new player (ie. < D rank) understands maps and terrain well enough where their build actually matters.
Honestly, im enraged at how poor your reading comprehension is.
Dazed: We should have more newb friendly maps! *explains what that means* You: OH YOU WANT OLD MAPS??? Dazed: modern maps are built for the modern meta and balance, limiting both the array of what is possible [playing on an island map at all would be an example] and what is effective [a rush] You: You can rush on all maps! Maps have no impact on game play for bad players!!!!!
I mean, what? I never said someone literally couldnt rush, I never said old maps in some generic contextless way were better.
Both of these maps you can rush on. Those rushes will win you games on any level. You can play one base, fast expand, on both maps, you can play just about any style on any map. But if anyone is to seriously contend that the array of what is possible on these maps is not moved [at any level of play], that person is an abject fool. One map is better for a newbie to pick up and figure out the game, one is better for established players. If you cant figure out which is which and why, again, abject fool.
firstly, stop talking about "meta". "meta" is only relevant to players that are within the top 1%, not just for starcraft but for any game. as a former dota pro i cringed literally every time some random pub player would say X hero should/should not be played because of the meta. like....you dont even know why the meta exists so why restrict yourself to some imaginary rule that anything off meta is unplayable? its fucking stupid.
in relation to the above point, claiming that noobs dont have the freedom to try whatever they want and be imaginative with "meta" maps because they have to follow "meta" builds is retarded. if a new player truly thinks that, theyre approaching the game completely wrong.
also if you think you cant do new, unexpected cheesey shit on any of the current meta maps then go watch last/larva/fbh streams. they regularly pubstomp with a variety of cheesey/troll builds and units, and many of them will be builds specific to the map because they abuse terrain (including your so called meta maps). a lot of them can be replicated by the average user too, its just people havent seen or thought of it before.
if youre looking for really niche scenarios with particular maps that new players can exploit to have fun or experiment with, then theyre not really trying to improve are they. these cases are irrelevant to new players trying to seriously play the game
I think builds are mostly for optimization. They are constructed based on multilevel of shortcomings, issues, problems, counters that unless players face and realize themselves in their games and gameplays and actively want to solve these obstacles, they will not be able to learn much out of builds.
I think balanced maps is what I consider noob friendly. So noobs are not in a bad position from the get go, even in a noob vs. noob game. Just bc of a matchup.
In general the best scenario is to not have a lot of map rotation. Because for every knew map you have to learn and invest time into the basics. Walling, expos, scout paths/patterns, abusable features, base planing ,etc.
This feels a lot like "wasted" time in the beginning, because you want to focus on the elemental basics that are equally important across all maps.
On January 04 2019 18:39 evilfatsh1t wrote: i read what you said. like i said, its ludicrous.
firstly, stop talking about "meta". "meta" is only relevant to players that are within the top 1%, not just for starcraft but for any game. as a former dota pro i cringed literally every time some random pub player would say X hero should/should not be played because of the meta. like....you dont even know why the meta exists so why restrict yourself to some imaginary rule that anything off meta is unplayable? its fucking stupid.
in relation to the above point, claiming that noobs dont have the freedom to try whatever they want and be imaginative with "meta" maps because they have to follow "meta" builds is retarded. if a new player truly thinks that, theyre approaching the game completely wrong.
also if you think you cant do new, unexpected cheesey shit on any of the current meta maps then go watch last/larva/fbh streams. they regularly pubstomp with a variety of cheesey/troll builds and units, and many of them will be builds specific to the map because they abuse terrain (including your so called meta maps). a lot of them can be replicated by the average user too, its just people havent seen or thought of it before.
if youre looking for really niche scenarios with particular maps that new players can exploit to have fun or experiment with, then theyre not really trying to improve are they. these cases are irrelevant to new players trying to seriously play the game
Hey dude I don't want to be rude, but I consider you could relax just a bit and enjoy this a little more. We are having fun talking about non objective matters. Clearly none knows with 100% certainty many or any of the things we are discussing since issues like "why dont more new ppl play the game", "what is the best way for a newb to pick up bw in 2018" and "how map balance and styles of maps would affect the newbs learning process" don't have a right answer to it, and that's why it's fun to share ideas and views on the metter. We all know 2+2 is 4 and that's why none is talking about it on forums. Taking that into consideration I don't understand why would someone take the trouble to missquote others and then insult their intelligence for jumping into conclusuins you just invented, that is bananas, don't you agree? Your hole point is based on your idea that other guy claimed something he never claimed, then you are dennying something none ever said with unneeded animosity and insults included, then you have no point, so why post anything at all? You could just share your ideas and show us all how smart an ex dota pro really is... can you?
I do belive for a slow learing process where the fun is the main goal 1 base play could be the way to start for a total newb. Many people may just be willing to learn something new as long as that something provides the right amount of enjoyment. Keyboard mechanichs finesse might come much later in that scenario, as I don't think that is exactly the funny part of the game, so maybe maps that encourage 3 or 4 bases play so hard as CB may not be the best pick for those players.
EPT
