EPTMy take on Fog of War - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
[Fin]Vittu
Canada507 Posts
| ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
On May 21 2018 10:01 B-royal wrote: All black is good. It gives a clear distinction between parts of the map you've scouted, and parts you haven't. This makes it easier for people to realize the possibility of a hidden expansion, or the location of a cheese. Rofl. You expect people to keep complaining for years about something they can't change any more? Most likely the people that hate the custom hotkeys, like myself, refuse to use them, and possibly refuse to play with people that use them. I personally would like to be part of the second group as well, but that would mean I would never be able to play ladder. Not that I'm playing the game much anyway, maybe 5 games every 5 months. I've got Blizzard to thank for that! Ok, I admit poor argument by me. When you say you got Blizzard to thank for not playing, you can't mean the custom hotkeys? :/ | ||
|
ajmbek
Italy460 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4409 Posts
| ||
|
10dla
127 Posts
On May 21 2018 16:14 lestye wrote: Oh wow, I hadn't realized that at all. Is that only for spectators though? I would take a wild guess and say its observer only | ||
|
ortseam
996 Posts
On May 21 2018 20:19 ajmbek wrote: as i know there is no way to hide zerg creep if you just shade the map This is wrong, you can only see creep if you explore that part of the map | ||
|
CHEONSOYUN
568 Posts
for anyone who wants to play the game even a little bit seriously, the black minimap is a very minor obstacle | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
| ||
|
10dla
127 Posts
On May 22 2018 04:07 ArvickHero wrote: I feel like the most compelling argument for keeping the unexplored black minimap is the idea that hidden expansions and proxies are more effective as a result. Whether or not that is actually the case, I have no idea, but I think it'd be a real shame if proxies and hidden expansions lost their effectiveness as a result of a pre-explored minimap. Why exactly are they more likely to be found? Its so much more obvious where you havent scouted yet with pitch black spots on the minimap. Or because your opponent doesnt know that there could be minerals? Once again, thats simply circumvented with a sidescreen map layout picture | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On May 22 2018 04:07 ArvickHero wrote: Yeah, I have a feeling an all black minimap subtly allows for people to forget about certain bases, or proxy locations etc. I feel like the most compelling argument for keeping the unexplored black minimap is the idea that hidden expansions and proxies are more effective as a result. Whether or not that is actually the case, I have no idea, but I think it'd be a real shame if proxies and hidden expansions lost their effectiveness as a result of a pre-explored minimap. In any case the change seems pointless. If someone is pussy enough not to play a map they dont know because they cant examine it, greyed out, constantly as they play, I doubt that person is playing a new map altogether. That kind of mindset is...extreme, and not undone by mere convenience; its a pathology. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On May 22 2018 04:38 Dazed. wrote: Yeah, I have a feeling an all black minimap subtly allows for people to forget about certain bases, or proxy locations etc. In any case the change seems pointless. If someone is pussy enough not to play a map they dont know because they cant examine it, greyed out, constantly as they play, I doubt that person is playing a new map altogether. That kind of mindset is...extreme, and not undone by mere convenience; its a pathology. It's not pointless at all, it removes a burden of knowledge which doesn't add anything positive to the game. I totally get that one wouldn't wanna make the terrain buildable if you don't have real vision, that's something i can see as reasoning, but i don't think you would need blacked out fog of war for that. Anything else brought up so far in this thread isn't convincing in the slightest. I would really wanna see the actual reasoning of the developers on why they implemented the fow like that. I would honestly say it's just bad design, which is ok ofc, it's an old game but there is no point in not changing it really. edit: To address the "people might forget easier about proxies", i can tell you that proxies still happen in sc2. Why do people forget about proxies? Because the game gives you a lot to do already, being on top of scouting everything simply is quite the task. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5093 Posts
On May 21 2018 18:43 Freakling wrote: You need to know the specific kind of symmetry beforehand, though. And on odd-spawn (3/5/7-player) maps people still tend to click at the wrong spots and get lost while scouting. And while symmetry can hep you guess the ṕotential spawns of your opponent, you'd still have to do a lot of extra scouting just to find out where to get a good third (especially in ZvP you want to know that before scouting). How is that bad per se? Again, this only matters if your opponent is a master of the map. Again, how do you get lost with your scout in the early stages of the game, for real? Deducing potential spawning locations and checking up on your scout in the early game is not difficult. But knowing in time that you fucked up your scouting does not really solve the issue… Let's be honest here. What is a few seconds going to make a difference in a low level game? You're making it seem like your scouts are getting stuck or are like WAY off the base you need to check. It's not going to matter in the long run when you have to readjust losing a few moments. Also you won't have the star sense anyway to see anything's off if the guy is going for an early type of rush (unless it's like a 4 pool or a proxies or something). Your point? My point is that you'd have to be extremely unlucky to face off every single time against someone who has intricate map knowledge of the map you're playing. This means that most of the time you'll be mostly at a slight disadvantage if you haven't played the map 3+ times. Also, what keeps you from looking at the map before or between games to look at what's possible? Is this what bothers you? + Show Spoiler + Then you probably aren't aware of the effect that many players tend to cheese on maps unknown to them precisely because they don't know anything about the map and thus want to avoid more complex strategies. Having full disclosure of terrain and expansion locations from the start makes it easy to do an ad-hoc adaption of any standard build (unless the map is very nonstandard in some way – and even then actually seeing the map can help you determine what might work and what not, shifting the problem from screwing up players from the get-go, thus making them hate, fear and avoid an experimental map without ever really having explored its potential, to having to make up a creative strategy on the go, which is actually a worthwhile skill for a player to have). I feel like you're blowing this way out of proportion. How many times will players improvise/adapt their strategies at lower levels? This is because of the FoW? Or are there other factors at play? People tend to go in the game of doing x and potentially modifying it in reaction to what the other player is doing. Is it actually that hard to prep on a certain, study it a little bit before you go into a game on it? Do you actually think you're going to be able to pull off crazy stuff the first (few) time(s) you play on a map with soft FoW? As you said, it's pretty demanding to play BW, dozens of things demand your attention and management, so having to form a mental model of the map on top of that can be pretty hard. You only get glimpses of certain spots at a time, can't really process all the details. Even knowing "minor" details like whether the main has a ramp or where the natural is located and how its choke looks before you send out a scout can make a lot of difference (for example when determining the build order and when to send out the first scout). But the vision doesn't stay black dude. I don't get it. I guess I just don't understand your plea for soft FOW. For me personally, it doesn't matter. I don't want to intricately look at their base while I'm macro'ing to suddenly understand that "HA, I can put a Vulture on the high ground to kill his economy with!" Like I said. It's blown up way too much and it probably wouldn't matter that much anyway if it was acquired, so why would you want it? The appeal of true FoW is that your map is what you've explored and keep using, not the entire map. The only argument you really have, imo, is exactly the one I have: preference. You prefer to play on non-true FoW, while I don't (care). This isn't merit for any changes to occur. Edit: in response to proxies: progamers, with intricate knowledge of the map stull proxy from time to time and their opponents still don't always find it/sniff it out. So I doubt that a random player deciding to proxy you will suddenly be sniffed out much faster if you don't have true FoW. Edit2: @Red_Viper: burden of knowlegde? Give me a break. You won't intensely study a map while you're playing or it'll suddenly click when you're playing the game. You don't have the time for that. You start understanding a map by playing the map, not by seeing where you can or can't go.. | ||
|
Ethelis
United States2397 Posts
On May 22 2018 04:07 ArvickHero wrote: I feel like the most compelling argument for keeping the unexplored black minimap is the idea that hidden expansions and proxies are more effective as a result. Whether or not that is actually the case, I have no idea, but I think it'd be a real shame if proxies and hidden expansions lost their effectiveness as a result of a pre-explored minimap. I'm inclined to believe this is a real factor but it's hard to prove. I wouldn't like a change and risk affecting that part of the game. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Knowing the map is always a burden of knowledge, but the current implementation makes it just more time consuming to learn it and gives a bigger advantage to people who already know it vs people who play a map the first time. There really isn't anything interesting about making it harder for people to learn a map. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5093 Posts
I'm not convinced at all you'll be able to pick up a lot more of the map that's not covered in true FoW, because you don't have the time -except for maybe in the early game- to look at map features. I'm not at all convinced you'll suddenly be able to comprehend maps a lot more when you have soft FoW from the start. | ||
|
10dla
127 Posts
On May 22 2018 04:38 Dazed. wrote: Yeah, I have a feeling an all black minimap subtly allows for people to forget about certain bases, or proxy locations etc. In any case the change seems pointless. If someone is pussy enough not to play a map they dont know because they cant examine it, greyed out, constantly as they play, I doubt that person is playing a new map altogether. That kind of mindset is...extreme, and not undone by mere convenience; its a pathology. Can you believe these pussies on ICCup? This is how pussy they are: https://iccup.com/en/starcraft/gamingprofile/patrashu.html 99% Fighting Spirit. Occasionally Python when you feel crazy. And its like that on every player. How much more hardcore than ICCup can you be? Where do people play on X different maps on rotation? Now try searching for a custom game on Battle.net. Take a wild guess what map they are playing. I always wonder: In what world are you playing in which people are just as HARDCORE as you? Planet Kespa? | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
I certainly know that i learned sc2 maps way faster because of this compared to bw ones. There is a reason this implementation of fow is basically standard in any game now. It reduces the burden of knowledge for a feature which otherwise would have no positive effect on the game. As i said before, there is nothing interesting about simply learning the map, you just have to do it. Helping people to learn it faster and more easily is just reasonable. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
Mountain out of a mole hill. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On May 22 2018 06:50 Dazed. wrote: I've played sc2 and broodwar, both at low and kinda decent levels, and at least from my own experience any concern about the mini map one way or the other is crazy/inexperienced. It just doesnt have an impact one way or the other, in terms of pre planning, figuring out the map, etc...I mean unless your an actual retard, it only takes maybe a ten minute game to figure out a map, and its usually symmetrical, the amount of players are told before the game starts...i donno. I dont see how anyone could load up longinus and remain confused and unable to adjust as the game developed organically, let alone going forward in repeats of that map. Mountain out of a mole hill. Then pls tell me why it's the new standard to have it transparent? Apparently developers agree in general that it's "better" that way. Also if you don't think there is a difference one way or another surely nothing speaks against changing it  | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
For UMS maps, black fog of war is definitely important. So the feature requires a little more work than you may think. And in some ways, the very roots of SC1 are about this more casual sort of play, where you don't even know the map before you play. Thinking of FFAs and such. It's possible you would need to make the feature optional, which makes it more annoying to implement. I didn't cry when they added right-click to rally or other QoL features, so I don't think SC is as fragile as some people think (in fact I think 1.12 patch was a resurgence for BW that brought a lot of people back from Diablo II). I do think black fog of war has it's place in BW though, so I wouldn't want it to be completely removed. | ||
| ||
