EPTAn interview with the Devs of StarCraft: Remastered - Page…
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
R1CH
Netherlands10341 Posts
| ||
2Pacalypse-
Croatia9527 Posts
On March 27 2017 23:47 R1CH wrote: I really hope the sprite / unit limit is completely removed or increased to the point of never possibly being reached. I have a lot of UMS maps that just completely bug out (no units firing) when you have eight players and enough buildings / units. Would be nice to be able to play them as designed! In case they don't, you might be interested in this: http://www.staredit.net/topic/16823/ | ||
|
R1CH
Netherlands10341 Posts
| ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3421 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10253 Posts
Overall I'm pretty happy with what I've read, but to me that extra horizontal screen space is something that affects gameplay and thus should be restricted to observer/replay only. I wonder what's the best way to contact them with these concerns. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On March 28 2017 01:34 Jealous wrote: Find it hard to believe more people are not concerned by the disparity between "gameplay will stay the same" and "yeah, we're gonna let you see more of the screen at any time if you want to." Overall I'm pretty happy with what I've read, but to me that extra horizontal screen space is something that affects gameplay and thus should be restricted to observer/replay only. I wonder what's the best way to contact them with these concerns. legit concern imo, best way to know would be to test, wonder what bisu stork flash jaedong thought about it few people are still on 4:3 screens I guess, but Im one of them^^ since CRT is still best technology haha I dont feel like I want other players to play with side bars if they have a wider screen and feel like I can take on equal skill player even with slightly smaller view without feeling at a real disadvantage but . . . legit concern ; since original version will keep 4:3 ratio, and as far as I understand we can play with people using the remastered client using original version, how much of a disadvantage are you at for having this slightly smaller field of vision? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
I am not opposed in principle to changes to BW. As well-balanced as it is, the game is from 1998, hasn't been balance patched in over 15 years, and needs at least a few minor tweaks to be properly modernized. But those changes should be done with consensus and they should apply to both versions since the BW old guard are rightfully skittish in regards to any possible modifications to the game. | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
On March 27 2017 16:04 probelife66 wrote: i'm 42 and i did love/play starcraft vanilla when it came out and then brood' thank you, purely judged on its game merits sc2 is inferior in everything but possibly graphics yes and?+ Show Spoiler + On March 27 2017 15:52 fluidrone wrote: Sounds like they shortchanged all of you and you love it "same engine" Funny .. really funny how the more things change the more they stay the same. That's what we want. Have u been living under a rock? They made SC2. That is what a new engine looks like. Brood war is as timeless as chess , a programming anomaly. You don't try to make chess 2. Clearly you have never played. i was just saying something else that eluded you, no worries. + Show Spoiler [that is what u missed] + i'm just saying that they could have comed out with new things for it.. not that it should be a different game. If you are re doing a game like scbw, you should sell it with - things maybe which you aren't thinking about like the possibility to enter/recover from replays .. you know things that are not the game but still are .. savvy? - a new worldwide ladder/event - etc .. and blizzard clearly thought out how not to do those things! | ||
|
Jealous
10253 Posts
On March 28 2017 01:43 LegalLord wrote: I don't see much of a problem with expanding the view. I can't see that it might favor any race in particular. Biggest problem I can think of is that it's going to become disadvantageous in a very slight way to be playing the low graphics version, but that difference appears to be extremely minor. I am not opposed in principle to changes to BW. As well-balanced as it is, the game is from 1998, hasn't been balance patched in over 15 years, and needs at least a few minor tweaks to be properly modernized. But those changes should be done with consensus and they should apply to both versions since the BW old guard are rightfully skittish in regards to any possible modifications to the game. Here is a brief overview of just some of the effects a larger screen size could have: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/520049-starcraft-remastered-coming-in-may?page=27#527 I won't pretend to be qualified in saying if this will affect racial balance with any sense of certainty, but I think the impact on gameplay, especially at the non-professional level, is absolutely there. Something someone else pointed out is the difficulty in sniping small units like mines and possible difficulty in selecting spell casters during big engagements. While not definitive, these small changes are exactly the kind of thing that have the potential to alter the playing experience. As for the latter part of your post, I think that any direct balance patches would be detrimental regardless of whether they are "beneficial" or not because it opens the floodgates for balance whine and the expectation of X being patched if you cry wolf loud enough. That's exactly the type of thing that has been a SC2 issue that I don't want in BW. | ||
|
palexhur
Colombia730 Posts
On March 28 2017 01:34 Jealous wrote: Find it hard to believe more people are not concerned by the disparity between "gameplay will stay the same" and "yeah, we're gonna let you see more of the screen at any time if you want to." Overall I'm pretty happy with what I've read, but to me that extra horizontal screen space is something that affects gameplay and thus should be restricted to observer/replay only. I wonder what's the best way to contact them with these concerns. That is an extra advantage that people with new monitors have in AoE2 now, you can see almost half of the map in big resolutions, so you can handle better your armies and eco. | ||
|
Jealous
10253 Posts
On March 28 2017 02:15 palexhur wrote: That is an extra advantage that people with new monitors have in AoE2 now, you can see almost half of the map in big resolutions, so you can handle better your armies and eco. As someone who played AoE2 back in the early 00s, it was really mind blowing coming back to the scene last year and seeing just how big my view could be. I honestly played on default resolution for the first month without realizing I could zoom out. When I did, the whole game changed for me. Harass never did quite as much damage to me again. I saw towers coming up every time I managed my woodline. It was a tremendous boon to my play. The change to Brood War is not as dramatic from the shots I've seen, which is both a good and bad thing. Good in the sense that it won't be as drastic of a difference if it is kept for play, and indicative of Blizzard's relatively conservative stance on the Remaster. Bad in that it still is a change but perhaps not extreme enough to get people to scratch their heads and think of the consequences as they might have had the resolution been scaled up to the levels it is in AoE2. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 28 2017 01:51 Jealous wrote: Here is a brief overview of just some of the effects a larger screen size could have: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/520049-starcraft-remastered-coming-in-may?page=27#527 I won't pretend to be qualified in saying if this will affect racial balance with any sense of certainty, but I think the impact on gameplay, especially at the non-professional level, is absolutely there. Something someone else pointed out is the difficulty in sniping small units like mines and possible difficulty in selecting spell casters during big engagements. While not definitive, these small changes are exactly the kind of thing that have the potential to alter the playing experience. As for the latter part of your post, I think that any direct balance patches would be detrimental regardless of whether they are "beneficial" or not because it opens the floodgates for balance whine and the expectation of X being patched if you cry wolf loud enough. That's exactly the type of thing that has been a SC2 issue that I don't want in BW. First part, I don't necessarily disagree with your points but I just think that it's more so skittishness in regards to changing a game that is considered to have a "precarious, finely tuned balance" than a genuine concern that this will be the change that breaks the game. As for the second part. Yes, any change will oven the floodgates of balance whine. But for all intents and purposes it doesn't seem to be a change that warrants it. And I personally am not among the "BW is balanced perfectly" old guard (1 2). This change seems small and almost trivial from a gameplay perspective - but it would be a greatly important one from a modernization perspective. This game shouldn't just be built to cater to us old guard. Yes, our concerns need to be respected - we have been here longer than the newcomers, we understand the game better than they will for a long time, and the game shouldn't be changed in ways that scare us off. But at the same time, we are a small group and we shouldn't seek to be exclusive. I wouldn't say that a bigger screen is an important modernization for the game on its own, but among other things it is one of those balance-minimal quality-of-life changes that make the game more suitable for a newer era. And we shouldn't seek to be so skittish about such improvements that we sabotage the possibility of drawing in more people. | ||
|
Jealous
10253 Posts
On March 28 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote: First part, I don't necessarily disagree with your points but I just think that it's more so skittishness in regards to changing a game that is considered to have a "precarious, finely tuned balance" than a genuine concern that this will be the change that breaks the game. As for the second part. Yes, any change will oven the floodgates of balance whine. But for all intents and purposes it doesn't seem to be a change that warrants it. And I personally am not among the "BW is balanced perfectly" old guard (1 2). This change seems small and almost trivial from a gameplay perspective - but it would be a greatly important one from a modernization perspective. This game shouldn't just be built to cater to us old guard. Yes, our concerns need to be respected - we have been here longer than the newcomers, we understand the game better than they will for a long time, and the game shouldn't be changed in ways that scare us off. But at the same time, we are a small group and we shouldn't seek to be exclusive. I wouldn't say that a bigger screen is an important modernization for the game on its own, but among other things it is one of those balance-minimal quality-of-life changes that make the game more suitable for a newer era. And we shouldn't seek to be so skittish about such improvements that we sabotage the possibility of drawing in more people. I can't agree with your position, to be honest. I would prefer that BW be untouched and we can continue to play/watch the game we've loved for over a decade in peace without the potential for it to changed at a whim by Blizzard. New players come to Brood War to this day; obviously not a lot, but a non - zero amount. If modernization and accessibility for the sake of popularity is what people want, then I'd rather they launch a BW2 with all the frills and sparkles that would come with such an announcement and leave BW alone. This forced integration and the mentality of "lets make a small allowance/sacrifice just so people who pick up the game and have no guarantee of contributing anything or even staying around long enough to benefit the scene are more welcome in a community that has existed for years and is the backbone of why this is even possible" is not something I subscribe to. I'd be perfectly happy if Brood War got even smaller in all aspects. As long as I can call up some friends who are / were just as dedicated as I to the game and get a few matches going, as long as I am a part of numerous Discord communities that love and discuss the game, I'm happy. I don't see the absolute need to make concessions to attract people who have had the option of playing Brood War for the better part of 20 years but chose not to, but will come now to reap the harvest. | ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
I can't wait for this. Summer can't come soon enough. | ||
|
Jealous
10253 Posts
On March 28 2017 03:39 Meta wrote: People have been prioritizing widescreen monitors in other games for balance reasons for years. I don't think that being able to see more of the screen with a widescreen monitor will be a huge problem. Sorry 4:3 users, it's time to upgrade. I can't wait for this. Summer can't come soon enough. Could you elaborate a little more on your stance here? Given the things I've listed in the linked post above, could you provide me with a counter-argument? Genuinely curious about the opposite stance here as in the linked thread no one really directly addressed my stressed points. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On March 28 2017 02:47 Jealous wrote: I can't agree with your position, to be honest. I would prefer that BW be untouched and we can continue to play/watch the game we've loved for over a decade in peace without the potential for it to changed at a whim by Blizzard. New players come to Brood War to this day; obviously not a lot, but a non - zero amount. If modernization and accessibility for the sake of popularity is what people want, then I'd rather they launch a BW2 with all the frills and sparkles that would come with such an announcement and leave BW alone. This forced integration and the mentality of "lets make a small allowance/sacrifice just so people who pick up the game and have no guarantee of contributing anything or even staying around long enough to benefit the scene are more welcome in a community that has existed for years and is the backbone of why this is even possible" is not something I subscribe to. I'd be perfectly happy if Brood War got even smaller in all aspects. As long as I can call up some friends who are / were just as dedicated as I to the game and get a few matches going, as long as I am a part of numerous Discord communities that love and discuss the game, I'm happy. I don't see the absolute need to make concessions to attract people who have had the option of playing Brood War for the better part of 20 years but chose not to, but will come now to reap the harvest. I guess the really tricky question to answer is what is and what isn't a concession to attract new people. The graphics update itself, while obviously intended to attract new people, is not a concession if done right. Nor is a proper matchmaking ladder. A few of the things people want I'm totally okay with because they don't change gameplay, i.e. a toggleable 2-shade minimap for new players. No advantage to a player that knows the map, no change on gameplay, clearly intended to attract newer players. Definitely not a concession because your not giving up or altering gameplay. My concern about the "every and any conceivable aspect of BW is holy and should not be touched" mentality stems from your same desire. Which is to say that I would very much like to still login and be able to play BW 30 years from now. That would be an incredible thing. However, the playerbase of BW is gradually shrinking. There are always people that stop playing, and if you get to the point no one new comes in you reach a limit where it just doesn't work. No, I don't want this wonderful game made easier, dumbed down, or gameplay altered. No way in hell. But I also would really like to still be able to play BW a decade or three down the line. I don't think that happens for a second if patch 1.16 remained all there ever is. You'll reach a point where the player base has dwindled so extensively it's no longer reasonable to find games. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
when BW came out I think all screens pretty much were 4:3 with few exceptions, makes sense to me to allow wider nowadays, so long as the disadvantage is very small which I expect it is (if it were not side bars would be more reasonable wouldnt they? arcade games ported to consoles or pc add side bars and that doesnt bother people, these games are different though and would likely suffer more from a change of gameplay screen ratio, as in becoming too different from the original plus need a lot of retuning). Making the game accessible to newcomers without dumbing it down I feel is probably the number 1 advantage of remastering overall I just agree with LegalLord | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On March 28 2017 03:52 Jealous wrote: Could you elaborate a little more on your stance here? Given the things I've listed in the linked post above, could you provide me with a counter-argument? Genuinely curious about the opposite stance here as in the linked thread no one really directly addressed my stressed points. Your points are valid. I really don't see flaw in them. The unknown is the implications. They could be so minor they amount to even less than marginal gains and nobody really notices. They could tip balance in one direction. They could result in noticeable changes that sum up to no changes in balance. I'm not sure it's possible to discern that result via theorycrafting. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On March 28 2017 03:56 L_Master wrote: I guess the really tricky question to answer is what is and what isn't a concession to attract new people. The graphics update itself, while obviously intended to attract new people, is not a concession if done right. Nor is a proper matchmaking ladder. A few of the things people want I'm totally okay with because they don't change gameplay, i.e. a toggleable 2-shade minimap for new players. No advantage to a player that knows the map, no change on gameplay, clearly intended to attract newer players. Definitely not a concession because your not giving up or altering gameplay. My concern about the "every and any conceivable aspect of BW is holy and should not be touched" mentality stems from your same desire. Which is to say that I would very much like to still login and be able to play BW 30 years from now. That would be an incredible thing. However, the playerbase of BW is gradually shrinking. There are always people that stop playing, and if you get to the point no one new comes in you reach a limit where it just doesn't work. No, I don't want this wonderful game made easier, dumbed down, or gameplay altered. No way in hell. But I also would really like to still be able to play BW a decade or three down the line. I don't think that happens for a second if patch 1.16 remained all there ever is. You'll reach a point where the player base has dwindled so extensively it's no longer reasonable to find games. Yeah I think the more the playerbase shrinks, the higher the skill (and knowledge) difference is for anybody who is either new or even just coming back and the lesser the chance that these newcomers or coming back players may stick around! so I think it is important to always maintain an influx of new people coming or coming back if the game is to grow (or not shrink) and be shared and fun times etc. But I think with or without widescreen expand support its good, it just seems reasonable to bring this to the game to me. Its not as important as public server with "lan lat" and no need to port forward and a functionning ladder | ||
|
Jealous
10253 Posts
On March 28 2017 03:59 L_Master wrote: Your points are valid. I really don't see flaw in them. The unknown is the implications. They could be so minor they amount to even less than marginal gains and nobody really notices. They could tip balance in one direction. They could result in noticeable changes that sum up to no changes in balance. I'm not sure it's possible to discern that result via theorycrafting. Absolutely agreed with the last line, but that's what I want. All I have heard so far is "nah, that won't be a big deal" which is a very easy rebuttal to make without some conceptual support to back it up. That's what I'm looking for - why in theory this change WON'T affect play. I have heard an argument or two that I won't outline here for brevity's sake, but they didn't really undermine my stance and in one case they only supported it. As to your other post, I completely agree that there are ore people retiring than joining and that without updates this game would shrink to almost unmanageable lows. However, communities like the one still alive in WC2 have a small but die-hard dedicated population that is playing well past their predicted expiration date (marriage, kids, adulthood in general). I'd rather be a part of a community of 200 that takes the game seriously than be a part of a bastardized variant of what we have now that at one point in its life generated a lot of new hype because of one new patch. Not saying that this is necessarily the case here, but if we examine the two extremes and agree that we are currently somewhere in between on the spectrum, my leanings are pretty much solidified where they are unless I see a compelling reason to jump on the new hype train. | ||
| ||
