| Forum Index > BW General |
|
BlueStar
Bulgaria1171 Posts
On December 13 2019 22:58 PorkSoda wrote: I’m guessing that screenshot was made by some digital marketing team at blizzard that knows nothing about the games or maps. I'd rephrase it: I’m | ||
|
Cele
Germany4016 Posts
In the meantime, if everyone here is really as annoyed as they say, just remember your iccup account. The server is in no great condition, but it's functional 1v1 and 2v2 ladder, no major bugs and admins who work actively against hacks and excessive bm. | ||
|
LaStScan
Korea (South)1289 Posts
| ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
On December 14 2019 00:36 LaStScan wrote: Neo Hall of Vahalla is also 4 player map. can't be played for 4v4. Take a look at screenshot closely lol... On December 13 2019 11:00 LaStScan wrote: I find it strange because New HBR is 2 player map and you can't play 2v2... Maybe they didn't have TOP vs BOTTOM mode and it turned out to be like that or who knows. It's most likely a mash up made by a graphics artist who had little to do with competitive Brood War. No conspiracy here. | ||
|
PorkSoda
170 Posts
On December 13 2019 05:36 Red.T45 wrote: We have the opportunity to go back to 1.16 aka b4 SC:R and start using MCA launcher and all the other 3rd party tools again when ever we decide to, right? I mean, these things never went away, we just stopped using them in favor of SC:R. What would we lose by doing so? Some polished grafics and the matchmaking. Matchmaking is a loss, sure. Grafics? Not really. We do have that opportunity, but the problem is convincing the whole player base to move at once. There’s a specific sociological name associated with this phenomenon, but the short of it is that enough enough people don’t migrate over together it’s bound to fail. | ||
|
dark.matter
179 Posts
| ||
|
SchAmToo
United States1141 Posts
On December 14 2019 04:05 PorkSoda wrote: We do have that opportunity, but the problem is convincing the whole player base to move at once. There’s a specific sociological name associated with this phenomenon, but the short of it is that enough enough people don’t migrate over together it’s bound to fail. If you have a superior product, the people won't have to be convinced. I don't see how ICCUP or SB are superior products to SC:R, I know this is signing my death warrant on this website, but SC:R has a lot... A LOT of great stuff. | ||
|
EndingLife
United States1602 Posts
| ||
|
PorkSoda
170 Posts
| ||
|
LG)Sabbath
Argentina3024 Posts
On December 13 2019 10:14 SchAmToo wrote: Not really advertising so I doubt a case could be made for false adverts. It is a promise that's been broken though.  I was just answering your question and actually I think it's hard to claim false advertising even with the screenshot showing the 2v2 mode, it doesn't explicitly say it's auto matchmaking. On the other hand I understand people's frustration and even though they can claim that SC:R didn't make them that much money to be worth putting more developers into, it's pretty obvious that any small company that made half as much from their game would have put a LOT more love and time into it afterwards to keep the ball rolling. Blizzard just doesn't care about SC anymore, it's not a source of big bucks for them in the long term. | ||
|
tec27
United States3702 Posts
On December 14 2019 06:46 SchAmToo wrote: If you have a superior product, the people won't have to be convinced. I don't see how ICCUP or SB are superior products to SC:R, I know this is signing my death warrant on this website, but SC:R has a lot... A LOT of great stuff. I'd hope that's not a particularly controversial opinion. Imagining that playing ICCup with zero changes from how it was 4-5 years ago wouldn't result in the same shrinking player base and frustrations is a major "grass is greener" undertaking. The things Blizzard chose to implement aren't bad per se, they're mostly obvious things. And they're largely even the same things we focused on initially with SB. The problem is that Blizzard mostly implements things in a ham-fisted way, without really understanding the motivations of the people who will use it. They spend far too much time asking players what they want, and far too little time thinking about why they want those things. I 100% believe that having a crappy version of those things is probably better than having no version of those things. The problem here, to me, is that in implementing the crappy versions of those things, Blizzard didn't bring the community any closer to the good version of those things. As could have been fairly expected, Remastered doesn't contribute in any real meaningful way to Blizzard's bottom line, and they are not a charity, so work on it has been mostly deprioritized. We are left with a team that is about the size of what ShieldBattery had working on it, but without the community understanding that ShieldBattery had. And worse, their work in updating the game to more modern infrastructure also includes updates that simply make it quite challenging to build on top of. Alongside the obvious changes to things that took months of work to integrate with (e.g. game launching), they've added things like their anti-hack/anti-debugger solution from Overwatch. The intentions of these things are, I'm sure, noble: they want to stop people from hacking. But these things are not impenetrable for hackers: there are ways around these things that, with the right amount of expertise, you can implement. But Blizzard has historically been very litigious against distributing software to do that, or documenting how it can be done. So if, say, an open source project like ShieldBattery wanted to build on top of the Remastered client, at least part of our client would have to remain closed source, and it becomes very hard to distribute reverse engineering efforts across the team. Even then, it's a larger risk to the project as a whole. Being in a position where the version you have will still not sustain the game/community long-term, and this newer version is actually further (at least as far as amount of effort) from something that would isn't great. That's the spot I feel like we're in now, and it's very frustrating. But I totally agree that the solution isn't to expect everyone to just give up on the half-good versions of those features. | ||
|
Kertorak
125 Posts
On November 20 2019 19:55 AntiHack wrote: I think the Korean scene have no problems with repetitive games because sport is repetitiveness if you didn't know guys. Manage to develop the joy of improvement or this game is probably not for you. P.s. you can still make 1v1 custom lobbies with whatever map you like. Still in Broodwar, people enjoyed new maps, new challenges (by getting used to the new map finding the building placement etc etc!!!!!), new updates, perhaps slightly balance (I agree not too much) I think maps a very good way to keep the game cool, without having to change its balance or inventing fancy units that don't make sense, like in sc2... BW wouldn't be as it is without Blizzard handing over community map upgrading... Regarding a certain scene, just because one scene likes it, doesn't mean it's good. THe korean sscene and culture is vastly different... Even back then there is a big difference between Korean/foreigners in general like foreigners don't play 12 hours, they are better with actually playing less. ... just one of the examples. | ||
|
QuadroX
386 Posts
If at some point we decide that community tournaments must be played on iccup due to instability of sc:r client, people will install it and play no problem. | ||
|
BlueStar
Bulgaria1171 Posts
Nobody asked for the auto matchmaking or the other 'enhancments' that are coming back to fuck us all ffs. | ||
|
Poegim
Poland293 Posts
| ||
|
LG)Sabbath
Argentina3024 Posts
On December 14 2019 20:51 BlueStar wrote: We just wanted the old game to run on 64bit system with polished graphics. Nobody asked for the auto matchmaking or the other 'enhancments' that are coming back to fuck us all ffs. Auto MM is literally the only reason I still play, even though my game lags and is not entirely enjoyable in its current state | ||
|
BlueStar
Bulgaria1171 Posts
Sorry poegrim, my bad. | ||
|
fazek42
Hungary438 Posts
On December 14 2019 06:46 SchAmToo wrote: If you have a superior product, the people won't have to be convinced. I don't see how ICCUP or SB are superior products to SC:R, I know this is signing my death warrant on this website, but SC:R has a lot... A LOT of great stuff. I agree with this. SB and Iccup are superior to SC:R in some aspects, and inferior in other aspects. For me overall the Iccup experience was better, but for someone who couldn't port forward, set compatibility settings, cares about HD graphics, custom hotkeys, etc., and doesn't care about friends list, hackers, 2v2 ladder, performance issues, country ladder, clans, buggy patches-jumpy cursors etc., SC:R will win out. And I agree that it's key to keep the playerbase in one central place -- ironically, this is something that SC:R has been failing at since release with it's separate-server architecture -- except for 1v1 matchmaking, which is reasonably global. Which is good. But it baffles my why they have to release a remaster where in a bunch of areas the new version is a lot shittier than the old one, even though it is objectively a lot better in a bunch of other areas. And even if they did have to release it, why couldn't they fix all these shortcomings in TWO MOTHERFLIPPING YEARS. edit.: tec27 pretty much answers this post in his post above ↑ | ||
|
LaStScan
Korea (South)1289 Posts
| ||
|
TelecoM
United States10768 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5Yln5Pt.jpg)
