|
On October 11 2025 03:09 RogueTheGOAT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2025 02:40 Magic Powers wrote:On October 11 2025 01:45 RogueTheGOAT wrote:On October 10 2025 23:48 Magic Powers wrote:On October 10 2025 21:54 RogueTheGOAT wrote:On October 10 2025 18:44 Comedy wrote:On October 08 2025 18:00 Mizconout wrote:On October 08 2025 17:55 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:On October 08 2025 17:49 Mizconout wrote:
I thing is with the advent of sc2 evo I'm not really sure what's the point of playing brood war anymore. We literally get new balance updates with the old iconic units. It's just better. Cool story literally the most low-effort post you could have here. I know you're a legend here, but seriously, being so dismissive of my attempts to gain hype for the new era of sc2 and sc1 communities coming together to save rts after sg's fall. Starcraft needs some wins right now. We got a sc2 update from officially from blizzard. GGG has quit rts altogether. Help me and excited in this moment. Don't shut me down. I guess noone really pointed it out so you really might not know. But BW units need the old engine and client to function properly - sc2 client takes away all micro and control that makes BW 'art'. You can't do the same trickshots or have the same micro skill in that client. Most of what you're talking about would be worth sacrificing if you could remove all of the jank without impacting balance. On October 10 2025 21:54 RJBTVYOUTUBE wrote:On October 10 2025 18:44 Comedy wrote:On October 08 2025 18:00 Mizconout wrote:On October 08 2025 17:55 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:On October 08 2025 17:49 Mizconout wrote:
I thing is with the advent of sc2 evo I'm not really sure what's the point of playing brood war anymore. We literally get new balance updates with the old iconic units. It's just better. Cool story literally the most low-effort post you could have here. I know you're a legend here, but seriously, being so dismissive of my attempts to gain hype for the new era of sc2 and sc1 communities coming together to save rts after sg's fall. Starcraft needs some wins right now. We got a sc2 update from officially from blizzard. GGG has quit rts altogether. Help me and excited in this moment. Don't shut me down. I guess noone really pointed it out so you really might not know. But BW units need the old engine and client to function properly - sc2 client takes away all micro and control that makes BW 'art'. You can't do the same trickshots or have the same micro skill in that client. very true. BW just has everything fall just right into place, by chance or by design. By chance. There is 0% chance that Blizzard intended even half of the shit that has resulted in a "balanced" game. People keep calling it "jank", but it's not jank. It's limitations. And limitations aren't inherently bad. When you remove limitations, you add other limitations. In SC:R more fluidity often means less complexity. Substituting the lost complexity is often impossible. Brood War's lack of fluidity is a major part of its balance and Starcraft 2's fluidity plays a huge part of why it is hard to balance, but pretending that the game handling like it came out in 1998 adds some impossible to mimic level of complexity is nonsense. Complexity is also not a virtue; Strategic depth is. Goliaths and Dragoons stumbling around like drunken sailors does not add strategic depth. Being able to only select a single building at a time does not add strategic depth.Combat in Brood War is a lot slower than SC2 which leads to fewer extremely grating moments of losing the game because you looked away from your army for 2 seconds right as 900 banelings rolled in. The janky movement plays a part of that, but as we can see from Warcraft 3, you can have slower paced combat without the game handling like you're stuck in the mud. You say these things don't add strategic depth, but I disagree. Please substantiate your argument with evidence. Strategic depth in the context of an RTS is the ability to take the game in different directions while still having a fair chance of winning. The need to babysit your units or to make macro comparably more difficult only serves to limit the breadth of strategies available to players.
Against protoss I can take the game in a different direction by abusing the illogical pathing of scarabs, and with protoss I'm forced to use my reavers optimally to minimize the illogical pathing so that I will be abused less.
This is a tactical element of the game and a good example of how clunky units can create strategic depth by increasing the tactical breadth. There are countless other examples.
|
On October 11 2025 03:09 RogueTheGOAT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2025 02:40 Magic Powers wrote:On October 11 2025 01:45 RogueTheGOAT wrote:On October 10 2025 23:48 Magic Powers wrote:On October 10 2025 21:54 RogueTheGOAT wrote:On October 10 2025 18:44 Comedy wrote:On October 08 2025 18:00 Mizconout wrote:On October 08 2025 17:55 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:On October 08 2025 17:49 Mizconout wrote:
I thing is with the advent of sc2 evo I'm not really sure what's the point of playing brood war anymore. We literally get new balance updates with the old iconic units. It's just better. Cool story literally the most low-effort post you could have here. I know you're a legend here, but seriously, being so dismissive of my attempts to gain hype for the new era of sc2 and sc1 communities coming together to save rts after sg's fall. Starcraft needs some wins right now. We got a sc2 update from officially from blizzard. GGG has quit rts altogether. Help me and excited in this moment. Don't shut me down. I guess noone really pointed it out so you really might not know. But BW units need the old engine and client to function properly - sc2 client takes away all micro and control that makes BW 'art'. You can't do the same trickshots or have the same micro skill in that client. Most of what you're talking about would be worth sacrificing if you could remove all of the jank without impacting balance. On October 10 2025 21:54 RJBTVYOUTUBE wrote:On October 10 2025 18:44 Comedy wrote:On October 08 2025 18:00 Mizconout wrote:On October 08 2025 17:55 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:On October 08 2025 17:49 Mizconout wrote:
I thing is with the advent of sc2 evo I'm not really sure what's the point of playing brood war anymore. We literally get new balance updates with the old iconic units. It's just better. Cool story literally the most low-effort post you could have here. I know you're a legend here, but seriously, being so dismissive of my attempts to gain hype for the new era of sc2 and sc1 communities coming together to save rts after sg's fall. Starcraft needs some wins right now. We got a sc2 update from officially from blizzard. GGG has quit rts altogether. Help me and excited in this moment. Don't shut me down. I guess noone really pointed it out so you really might not know. But BW units need the old engine and client to function properly - sc2 client takes away all micro and control that makes BW 'art'. You can't do the same trickshots or have the same micro skill in that client. very true. BW just has everything fall just right into place, by chance or by design. By chance. There is 0% chance that Blizzard intended even half of the shit that has resulted in a "balanced" game. People keep calling it "jank", but it's not jank. It's limitations. And limitations aren't inherently bad. When you remove limitations, you add other limitations. In SC:R more fluidity often means less complexity. Substituting the lost complexity is often impossible. Brood War's lack of fluidity is a major part of its balance and Starcraft 2's fluidity plays a huge part of why it is hard to balance, but pretending that the game handling like it came out in 1998 adds some impossible to mimic level of complexity is nonsense. Complexity is also not a virtue; Strategic depth is. Goliaths and Dragoons stumbling around like drunken sailors does not add strategic depth. Being able to only select a single building at a time does not add strategic depth.Combat in Brood War is a lot slower than SC2 which leads to fewer extremely grating moments of losing the game because you looked away from your army for 2 seconds right as 900 banelings rolled in. The janky movement plays a part of that, but as we can see from Warcraft 3, you can have slower paced combat without the game handling like you're stuck in the mud. You say these things don't add strategic depth, but I disagree. Please substantiate your argument with evidence. Strategic depth in the context of an RTS is the ability to take the game in different directions while still having a fair chance of winning. The need to babysit your units or to make macro comparably more difficult only serves to limit the breadth of strategies available to players.
How units behave is an active element in ones strategy, or at least, shouls be considered as one. Also while BW falls under the RTS genre, it is more like a combination of Strategy, Micro and Macro management, and fighting game. Which would classify it as a MOBA of sorts....
|
FBH + effort vs Mini + Mong on that crazy FS map! 
|
FBH + effort vs Calm + Rain on ums FS map ! man , they are laughing and having so much fun !!
Long live BW !
|
On October 14 2025 03:05 prosatan wrote:
FBH + effort vs Calm + Rain on ums FS map ! man , they are laughing and having so much fun !!
Long live BW !
used to play some UMS games back in the day in between BGH/hunters/LT games...can be fun for sure.
BW >>>>
π€·ββοΈπ€·ββοΈ
|
hey, made a change to liquipedia. it said firebats do (8) (+1) (x3), when they actually do (8) (+1) (x2).
it said: "Your changes will be displayed to readers once an authorized user accepts them."
can someone who is an authorized user accept the changes? made the edit a few days ago. thanks ππ
|
|
|
On October 16 2025 02:20 perfectspheres wrote:
hey, made a change to liquipedia. it said firebats do (8) (+1) (x3), when they actually do (8) (+1) (x2).
it said: "Your changes will be displayed to readers once an authorized user accepts them."
can someone who is an authorized user accept the changes? made the edit a few days ago. thanks ππ
What is your source and reasoning for this change? As far as I know, you are straight up incorrect, but I welcome being corrected.
ETA: If everyone posted every time there was a delay in approving changes, that is all this forum would be, in my experience. Editors with access to approve changes are relatively few in number and changes to base stats should be heavily scrutinized before any change is made. Waiting for an edit to go through is normal. Remember, most of the people processing these edits are unpaid volunteers, and there aren't as many watching the BW pages as there are elsewhere, both in Liquipedia and in terms of the internet at large. I've seen situations where months go by between suggested edit and approval/dismissal. Just to temper your expectations for any future edits you make.
Why approve changes which are demonstrably false? Just because usually only 2 out of 3 attacks hit, that doesn't mean that it is always the case. Leaving it at x3 with the note below explaining why it might sometimes be 1 or 2 makes much more sense to me than changing it to x2 when it is sometimes x3 also.
I haven't checked all of them, but from what I recall, unit pages post the maximum damage the unit can deal, not what damage they sometimes deal because of situations like moving targets or targets being too small or targets having some armor class or whatever. It's cleaner and makes more sense IMO.
I've done a change rollback until perfectspheres posts some proof that x2 is accurate and x3 is not.
|
|
|
Flash vs Mini right now ! Let's watch both streams
|
Semi-island maps are great for spectators and just meta in general. They should definitely keep at least one semi-island. It just gets so many unused units being used
|
On October 16 2025 23:46 goody153 wrote:
Semi-island maps are great for spectators and just meta in general. They should definitely keep at least one semi-island. It just gets so many unused units being used
I actually think the current one in ASL is kind of boring, I'd much prefer something a bit more spicy, especially with the highground nat it just feels the beginning of the game is very boring and its way too hard to attack on that map.
That being said I agree with you, semi island maps are great, we should definetly have one, but just something else than the one we have this season!
|
On October 17 2025 01:02 Ikirouta wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2025 23:46 goody153 wrote:
Semi-island maps are great for spectators and just meta in general. They should definitely keep at least one semi-island. It just gets so many unused units being used I actually think the current one in ASL is kind of boring, I'd much prefer something a bit more spicy, especially with the highground nat it just feels the beginning of the game is very boring and its way too hard to attack on that map. That being said I agree with you, semi island maps are great, we should definetly have one, but just something else than the one we have this season! kind of agree. they went over board on the land part of the map by making only one path/super long rush distance and very easily defended natural. if you had a more normal land part of the map + the islands as they are, I think it would've run a lot better. more paths, shorter rush distance, and a normally designed natural. were good to go!
|
On October 17 2025 01:02 Ikirouta wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2025 23:46 goody153 wrote:
Semi-island maps are great for spectators and just meta in general. They should definitely keep at least one semi-island. It just gets so many unused units being used I actually think the current one in ASL is kind of boring, I'd much prefer something a bit more spicy, especially with the highground nat it just feels the beginning of the game is very boring and its way too hard to attack on that map. That being said I agree with you, semi island maps are great, we should definetly have one, but just something else than the one we have this season!
Oh they can totally introduce a new semi-island map. Doesnt have to Roaring Currents or god forbid Sparkle LOL xD
It looks pretty great the meta development
Like i've seen wraith openings vs protoss and sometimes it works. That kinda never happens. Or zerg actually building queen as a spellcaster vs the other races. Reaver-shuttle-corsair getting resurgence and not just storm every game
Alot of wraith openings vs zerg. It was pretty great.
On October 17 2025 06:56 Ze'ev wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2025 01:02 Ikirouta wrote:On October 16 2025 23:46 goody153 wrote:
Semi-island maps are great for spectators and just meta in general. They should definitely keep at least one semi-island. It just gets so many unused units being used I actually think the current one in ASL is kind of boring, I'd much prefer something a bit more spicy, especially with the highground nat it just feels the beginning of the game is very boring and its way too hard to attack on that map. That being said I agree with you, semi island maps are great, we should definetly have one, but just something else than the one we have this season! kind of agree. they went over board on the land part of the map by making only one path/super long rush distance and very easily defended natural. if you had a more normal land part of the map + the islands as they are, I think it would've run a lot better. more paths, shorter rush distance, and a normally designed natural. were good to go!
Totally. They totally just introduce a far more better semi-island map
Clearly tho having semi-island map is quite beneficial for the meta
|
We're in for a treat !
Jaedong vs Bisu in a Bo 3 right now !
|
On October 17 2025 20:13 prosatan wrote:
We're in for a treat !
Jaedong vs Bisu in a Bo 3 right now !
Is there any english casted stuff of this ? Or most of these games come from the soop stream ?
|
On October 16 2025 03:12 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2025 02:20 perfectspheres wrote:
hey, made a change to liquipedia. it said firebats do (8) (+1) (x3), when they actually do (8) (+1) (x2).
it said: "Your changes will be displayed to readers once an authorized user accepts them."
can someone who is an authorized user accept the changes? made the edit a few days ago. thanks ππ What is your source and reasoning for this change? As far as I know, you are straight up incorrect, but I welcome being corrected. ETA: If everyone posted every time there was a delay in approving changes, that is all this forum would be, in my experience. Editors with access to approve changes are relatively few in number and changes to base stats should be heavily scrutinized before any change is made. Waiting for an edit to go through is normal. Remember, most of the people processing these edits are unpaid volunteers, and there aren't as many watching the BW pages as there are elsewhere, both in Liquipedia and in terms of the internet at large. I've seen situations where months go by between suggested edit and approval/dismissal. Just to temper your expectations for any future edits you make. Why approve changes which are demonstrably false? Just because usually only 2 out of 3 attacks hit, that doesn't mean that it is always the case. Leaving it at x3 with the note below explaining why it might sometimes be 1 or 2 makes much more sense to me than changing it to x2 when it is sometimes x3 also. I haven't checked all of them, but from what I recall, unit pages post the maximum damage the unit can deal, not what damage they sometimes deal because of situations like moving targets or targets being too small or targets having some armor class or whatever. It's cleaner and makes more sense IMO. I've done a change rollback until perfectspheres posts some proof that x2 is accurate and x3 is not.
You can try playing the game to see what it says for the damage in-game. It's 16 base damage (concussive), 8x2 flamethrowers.
They do splash damage. Saying they do 24 damage would be like saying siege tanks can 100+ damage per shot in siege mode.
Perhaps the splash should be listed as well (similar to mutalisks' 9-3-1), but the base damage listed in game for firebats is 16, not 24 π€·ββοΈπ€·ββοΈ
|
On October 17 2025 06:56 Ze'ev wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2025 01:02 Ikirouta wrote:On October 16 2025 23:46 goody153 wrote:
Semi-island maps are great for spectators and just meta in general. They should definitely keep at least one semi-island. It just gets so many unused units being used I actually think the current one in ASL is kind of boring, I'd much prefer something a bit more spicy, especially with the highground nat it just feels the beginning of the game is very boring and its way too hard to attack on that map. That being said I agree with you, semi island maps are great, we should definetly have one, but just something else than the one we have this season! kind of agree. they went over board on the land part of the map by making only one path/super long rush distance and very easily defended natural. if you had a more normal land part of the map + the islands as they are, I think it would've run a lot better. more paths, shorter rush distance, and a normally designed natural. were good to go!
I'm fairly certain that the map maker included only a single attack path with a long rush distance because otherwise the islands would be ignored. The problem is that extreme rush distance makes normal PvZ builds pretty weak, but giving Zerg 4 bases with gas for free makes going Skytoss an autoloss.
If Roaring Currents were to be kept around for another season, I'd remove a gas from one of the land 3rd bases (maybe the low ground one since taking it can also cover your natural) and take another look at the amount of unbuildable terrain, especially outside of the natural.
|
On October 17 2025 20:50 goody153 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2025 20:13 prosatan wrote:
We're in for a treat !
Jaedong vs Bisu in a Bo 3 right now ! Is there any english casted stuff of this ? Or most of these games come from the soop stream ?
don't think so goody 
|
United States44451 Posts
On October 17 2025 22:07 perfectspheres wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2025 03:12 Jealous wrote:On October 16 2025 02:20 perfectspheres wrote:
hey, made a change to liquipedia. it said firebats do (8) (+1) (x3), when they actually do (8) (+1) (x2).
it said: "Your changes will be displayed to readers once an authorized user accepts them."
can someone who is an authorized user accept the changes? made the edit a few days ago. thanks ππ What is your source and reasoning for this change? As far as I know, you are straight up incorrect, but I welcome being corrected. ETA: If everyone posted every time there was a delay in approving changes, that is all this forum would be, in my experience. Editors with access to approve changes are relatively few in number and changes to base stats should be heavily scrutinized before any change is made. Waiting for an edit to go through is normal. Remember, most of the people processing these edits are unpaid volunteers, and there aren't as many watching the BW pages as there are elsewhere, both in Liquipedia and in terms of the internet at large. I've seen situations where months go by between suggested edit and approval/dismissal. Just to temper your expectations for any future edits you make. Why approve changes which are demonstrably false? Just because usually only 2 out of 3 attacks hit, that doesn't mean that it is always the case. Leaving it at x3 with the note below explaining why it might sometimes be 1 or 2 makes much more sense to me than changing it to x2 when it is sometimes x3 also. I haven't checked all of them, but from what I recall, unit pages post the maximum damage the unit can deal, not what damage they sometimes deal because of situations like moving targets or targets being too small or targets having some armor class or whatever. It's cleaner and makes more sense IMO. I've done a change rollback until perfectspheres posts some proof that x2 is accurate and x3 is not. You can try playing the game to see what it says for the damage in-game. It's 16 base damage (concussive), 8x2 flamethrowers. They do splash damage. Saying they do 24 damage would be like saying siege tanks can 100+ damage per shot in siege mode. Perhaps the splash should be listed as well (similar to mutalisks' 9-3-1), but the base damage listed in game for firebats is 16, not 24 π€·ββοΈπ€·ββοΈ
I believe the game is wrong. Itβs been a long time since I read it but I think a large enough unit can be hit by all 3 attacks. Most of the time only 2 will apply to a single target but there are technically 3 or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
