|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On November 11 2012 21:36 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:24 very cool gamer wrote:On July 15 2012 04:09 Evangelist wrote:
Er, just a moment. You say Blizzard are catering to casual players rather than intelligent etc players. That is not true. Yes, you can easily macro up a deathball and a move across the map, but pros have a tendency to rip holes in said deathballs - part of their job is to come up with ways to deal with that.
Part of the enjoyable mystique of SC2 is that you watch a pro, they do something awesome and you go "FUCKING A, I want to do that" and immediately half the people of that race do shitty versions of it. BW was so arcane that half the time it was impossible to tell what they actually did, and WC3's amazing plays were usually too subtle to be quantized.
Now no offence but I've seen plenty of games on ladder even amongst we "casuals" where 3-4 bases are taken. There are clear palpable macro advantages from taking additional bases especially in speed of remax and teching. Pros tend to do it much better than casuals.
A really engaging game allows for personal enjoyment in both watching and playing. SC2 manages this fine. I feel like the attempts of the "ex-BW community" to make the game more like BW are just going to hurt it in the long run. seriously fucking lol that you're basically attributing the highest levels of BW play to magic if you rewound this site like five years there would be, and you might find this hard to believe, a statistical majority of users who could parse BW It was impossible to tell what they did because: A - the spectator interface was absolute balls B - there were like 5 people who cared about and therefore watched BW It's not "lol", it's simply a valid observation of how laughable the foreigner BW community was compared to the current SC2 community.
It wasn't impossible to tell what professional players did. Just because you were really bad at it doesn't mean everyone was. I was able to follow games well enough. Don't project your own inadequacies on others. X-D
Also, do you really think you should be calling the BW community laughable when you couldn't even follow the games? If a 10 year old said Calculus was a joke compared to Arithmetic would you really take him seriously? :-D
|
So... does anyone still play these maps? I keep going into the FRB channel so I can try them out and it's always empty.
Anyway, if anyone wants to play a few, my tag is leb.859 (master Z)
|
I've read the idea of this a few times but I think this iteration best voices the advantages of switching to low yield bases. Bravo!
Any chance kespa will implement 6/2 patches in their league maps? I think that's the only way. Some large tournament adopts the change and blizzard has to concede defeat. This is how small maps were fixed.
Also my tag is hundo.519 if anybody wants to play! Masters (R)
|
Hey everyone.
With people recently talking about high ground advantages, tell me: how is the FRB "scene" going?
I know I should have good reasons to bump this. I have a few question and I'd like it if the community could answer them:
1) IIRC, high ground advantage couldn't be tested with WoL's map editor. Can it be tested in HotS?
2) I've seem some maps here and there putting fewer resources in expasions. Is this a trend?
3) Don't mapmakers think HotS's launch will be a great opportunity to try to do FRB/High groun advantage tournaments?
Sorry for my ignorance  I really want to know
|
|
|
Wow, such a fast answer from you. Hi, Barrin :D
Mind if I am maybe a little too honest? First I thought this should get big, then popular, then (at least) a sound idea for Blizzard... until HotS. That's why I even got frustrated that it didn't got big fast enough.
But now... it's like I can clearly see how big this can get, and how slowly it can possibly grow. The thing is, HotS beta and the sinergy between TL, Reddit and Bnet forums helped to create a better atmosphere for discussion. I think that if people go on creating, experimenting and discussing, someday FRB/highground will be at least as big, as a custom map(s), as Big Game Hunter got. And it can get as big as DotA got in War3, why not?
The strategical problem I see here is, custom maps will not draw any bigger attention soon because they're either not as competitive as ladder, and not as no-brainy as unranked ladder. I'm a bronzey myself and I'd have nothing to do in custom maps but to be beaten to pulp by diamonds and masters.
I think Blizzard wants to help custom maps to grow, and so does key community elements like Husky and Day9. You guys must know it better then I do but I think posts like this one (a plea for more experimental maps) and this one (for custom maps for casuals) could make history just like FRB did. And a bigger custom map scene is better for everyone.
You still didn't answer my questions though :/
|
|
|
On February 05 2013 00:04 Barrin wrote:
(3) Yes we do, but it's too late really.
Too late for what? It's more than a month till launch. It isn't time enough to set a tournament for March, for example. Butafter march, there will be a new batch of people coming in - actually, a lot of people coming back - and they're going to stay for a few months. They'll play the crap of campaign at first, then Blizzard traps will lead them into unranked ladder, the Arcade and the community.
Some two months after launch people will still be there, and looking for new stuff to do in Starcraft. That's when stuff need to be ready... I don't even think it would work if it was ready earlier than that. The meta game won't even be settled until middle/late 2013.
I know there's no hurry until LotV; but I mean now it's a good time to get some popularity, even if temporary.
|
Bisutopia19343 Posts
At the time this article came out I really believed it would start a swell in the community and we might see some changes in the main game. It's a shame too because with all the blizzard test maps it'd be a perfect time to see how the fan base responds to such a change.
|
On February 05 2013 01:08 BisuDagger wrote:
At the time this article came out I really believed it would start a swell in the community and we might see some changes in the main game. It's a shame too because with all the blizzard test maps it'd be a perfect time to see how the fan base responds to such a change.
With HotS mechanically ready to ship I doubt we'll see any reform in this department unfortunately. It's a nice idea, but I can't see it happening.
+ Show Spoiler +By mechanically I mean the unchanged game flow and "Blizzard"-like mineral/gas distributions.
|
On February 05 2013 01:08 BisuDagger wrote:
At the time this article came out I really believed it would start a swell in the community and we might see some changes in the main game. It's a shame too because with all the blizzard test maps it'd be a perfect time to see how the fan base responds to such a change. I think people grossly overestimate how much desire to significantly change SC2 through things like this actually exists. If it were more widely accepted that SC2 is dying and needs a complete overhaul you would be onto something. But it's a very, very small subset of the community that actually feels this way. And most of them aren't extremely active players, anyway, by virtue of not enjoying the game as it is.
|
Bisutopia19343 Posts
On February 05 2013 01:21 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 01:08 BisuDagger wrote:
At the time this article came out I really believed it would start a swell in the community and we might see some changes in the main game. It's a shame too because with all the blizzard test maps it'd be a perfect time to see how the fan base responds to such a change. I think people grossly overestimate how much desire to significantly change SC2 through things like this actually exists. If it were more widely accepted that SC2 is dying and needs a complete overhaul you would be onto something. But it's a very, very small subset of the community that actually feels this way. And most of them aren't extremely active players, anyway, by virtue of not enjoying the game as it is.
I'm not an active player at all. But as someone who is extremely informed and watches every match for both SC1 and SC2, I have a good understanding of what makes a game fun to watch. I never said anything close to sc2 was dieing and I don't think that is what it would take to have blizzard run a test map that might make the game develop into something greater.
But if we wanna talk about games that are doing well with ESports like in a game like LoL the game is always changing by adding heroes which makes the matchups and strategy even more dynamic. If we have to wait 3 years before we get new units to change the game then maybe blizzard needs to start investing in changing the game in other ways. A great way to do this is to submit different map types. Imagine maps in the map pool with low mineral patch counts and high mineral patch counts. There doesn't need to be a strict rule on resources. This is just one ways of keeping the game new and exciting which tends to be the demand for viewers these days. Maps are probably the cheapest way of adding new content to SC2 also.
But directly at you:+ Show Spoiler +just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I think SC2 is dieing. I never talked like that and find it unbelievably insulting when someone throws that at me. So learn who you're speaking to first. Such a lame excuse for a poorly written post.
|
On February 05 2013 01:21 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 01:08 BisuDagger wrote:
At the time this article came out I really believed it would start a swell in the community and we might see some changes in the main game. It's a shame too because with all the blizzard test maps it'd be a perfect time to see how the fan base responds to such a change. I think people grossly overestimate how much desire to significantly change SC2 through things like this actually exists. If it were more widely accepted that SC2 is dying and needs a complete overhaul you would be onto something. But it's a very, very small subset of the community that actually feels this way. And most of them aren't extremely active players, anyway, by virtue of not enjoying the game as it is.
What the fuck are you spewing guy? This whole "SC2 IS DYING" mentality is toxic to begin with. If you're doing anything for the reason of saving a NOT dying game, you're just blowing smoke up your ass.
edit: Beat me to it BD, but yeah. Apologies for the now-belabored point.
|
On February 05 2013 01:59 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 01:21 RampancyTW wrote:On February 05 2013 01:08 BisuDagger wrote:
At the time this article came out I really believed it would start a swell in the community and we might see some changes in the main game. It's a shame too because with all the blizzard test maps it'd be a perfect time to see how the fan base responds to such a change. I think people grossly overestimate how much desire to significantly change SC2 through things like this actually exists. If it were more widely accepted that SC2 is dying and needs a complete overhaul you would be onto something. But it's a very, very small subset of the community that actually feels this way. And most of them aren't extremely active players, anyway, by virtue of not enjoying the game as it is. I'm not an active player at all. But as someone who is extremely informed and watches every match for both SC1 and SC2, I have a good understanding of what makes a game fun to watch. I never said anything close to sc2 was dieing and I don't think that is what it would take to have blizzard run a test map that might make the game develop into something greater. But if we wanna talk about games that are doing well with ESports like in a game like LoL the game is always changing by adding heroes which makes the matchups and strategy even more dynamic. If we have to wait 3 years before we get new units to change the game then maybe blizzard needs to start investing in changing the game in other ways. A great way to do this is to submit different map types. Imagine maps in the map pool with low mineral patch counts and high mineral patch counts. There doesn't need to be a strict rule on resources. This is just one ways of keeping the game new and exciting which tends to be the demand for viewers these days. Maps are probably the cheapest way of adding new content to SC2 also. But directly at you: + Show Spoiler +just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I think SC2 is dieing. I never talked like that and find it unbelievably insulting when someone throws that at me. So learn who you're speaking to first. Such a lame excuse for a poorly written post. Sorry, I wasn't really directing my post at you specifically. I meant it more in general. There seems to be this pervasive mindset among a vocal minority that it is widely accepted fact that SC2 is dying and is a terrible game etc.
I think adding things like different resource levels/wacky maps etc. would be an AWESOME thing to add to the unranked ladder in HotS. Or maybe have a separate "Chaos" ladder where different maps/games have non-standard resource levels and rulesets and the like. As somebody who's decent at the game but doesn't really have time to play it and stay on top of everything I would love something like this. At the very least it would allow mapmakers to flex their creative muscles and give us some crazy mapmaking contests.
I just think "other ways to have fun with SC2" is a far more healthy an ultimately productive mindset than the "WE MUST MAKE SC2 BETTER OR IT WILL DIE RAHHHHHHHHHH" that I see bandied about on TL.net with surprising frequency.
|
Bisutopia19343 Posts
On February 05 2013 02:07 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 01:59 BisuDagger wrote:On February 05 2013 01:21 RampancyTW wrote:On February 05 2013 01:08 BisuDagger wrote:
At the time this article came out I really believed it would start a swell in the community and we might see some changes in the main game. It's a shame too because with all the blizzard test maps it'd be a perfect time to see how the fan base responds to such a change. I think people grossly overestimate how much desire to significantly change SC2 through things like this actually exists. If it were more widely accepted that SC2 is dying and needs a complete overhaul you would be onto something. But it's a very, very small subset of the community that actually feels this way. And most of them aren't extremely active players, anyway, by virtue of not enjoying the game as it is. I'm not an active player at all. But as someone who is extremely informed and watches every match for both SC1 and SC2, I have a good understanding of what makes a game fun to watch. I never said anything close to sc2 was dieing and I don't think that is what it would take to have blizzard run a test map that might make the game develop into something greater. But if we wanna talk about games that are doing well with ESports like in a game like LoL the game is always changing by adding heroes which makes the matchups and strategy even more dynamic. If we have to wait 3 years before we get new units to change the game then maybe blizzard needs to start investing in changing the game in other ways. A great way to do this is to submit different map types. Imagine maps in the map pool with low mineral patch counts and high mineral patch counts. There doesn't need to be a strict rule on resources. This is just one ways of keeping the game new and exciting which tends to be the demand for viewers these days. Maps are probably the cheapest way of adding new content to SC2 also. But directly at you: + Show Spoiler +just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I think SC2 is dieing. I never talked like that and find it unbelievably insulting when someone throws that at me. So learn who you're speaking to first. Such a lame excuse for a poorly written post. Sorry, I wasn't really directing my post at you specifically. I meant it more in general. There seems to be this pervasive mindset among a vocal minority that it is widely accepted fact that SC2 is dying and is a terrible game etc. I think adding things like different resource levels/wacky maps etc. would be an AWESOME thing to add to the unranked ladder in HotS. Or maybe have a separate "Chaos" ladder where different maps/games have non-standard resource levels and rulesets and the like. As somebody who's decent at the game but doesn't really have time to play it and stay on top of everything I would love something like this. At the very least it would allow mapmakers to flex their creative muscles and give us some crazy mapmaking contests. I just think "other ways to have fun with SC2" is a far more healthy an ultimately productive mindset than the "WE MUST MAKE SC2 BETTER OR IT WILL DIE RAHHHHHHHHHH" that I see bandied about on TL.net with surprising frequency.
I agree although I think we should have less fear about introducing change into the ladder. So maybe that "chaos ladder" you mention could double as a test ladder too. That way if certain maps prove successful enough they could be integrated into the ladder for serious play too.
Side note: My final thoughs on SC2 dieing discussion. That thought process won't exist anymore if it is ignored. So instead of being a person pointing out that other people think that way just ignore it. We all know how those people feel and if they believe it affects us then they will continue to spew their nonsense. The best route to take is the silent one. Move past their posts and just provide good solid content yourself.
also thanks mortal lol.
|
On February 05 2013 02:19 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 02:07 RampancyTW wrote:On February 05 2013 01:59 BisuDagger wrote:On February 05 2013 01:21 RampancyTW wrote:On February 05 2013 01:08 BisuDagger wrote:
At the time this article came out I really believed it would start a swell in the community and we might see some changes in the main game. It's a shame too because with all the blizzard test maps it'd be a perfect time to see how the fan base responds to such a change. I think people grossly overestimate how much desire to significantly change SC2 through things like this actually exists. If it were more widely accepted that SC2 is dying and needs a complete overhaul you would be onto something. But it's a very, very small subset of the community that actually feels this way. And most of them aren't extremely active players, anyway, by virtue of not enjoying the game as it is. I'm not an active player at all. But as someone who is extremely informed and watches every match for both SC1 and SC2, I have a good understanding of what makes a game fun to watch. I never said anything close to sc2 was dieing and I don't think that is what it would take to have blizzard run a test map that might make the game develop into something greater. But if we wanna talk about games that are doing well with ESports like in a game like LoL the game is always changing by adding heroes which makes the matchups and strategy even more dynamic. If we have to wait 3 years before we get new units to change the game then maybe blizzard needs to start investing in changing the game in other ways. A great way to do this is to submit different map types. Imagine maps in the map pool with low mineral patch counts and high mineral patch counts. There doesn't need to be a strict rule on resources. This is just one ways of keeping the game new and exciting which tends to be the demand for viewers these days. Maps are probably the cheapest way of adding new content to SC2 also. But directly at you: + Show Spoiler +just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I think SC2 is dieing. I never talked like that and find it unbelievably insulting when someone throws that at me. So learn who you're speaking to first. Such a lame excuse for a poorly written post. Sorry, I wasn't really directing my post at you specifically. I meant it more in general. There seems to be this pervasive mindset among a vocal minority that it is widely accepted fact that SC2 is dying and is a terrible game etc. I think adding things like different resource levels/wacky maps etc. would be an AWESOME thing to add to the unranked ladder in HotS. Or maybe have a separate "Chaos" ladder where different maps/games have non-standard resource levels and rulesets and the like. As somebody who's decent at the game but doesn't really have time to play it and stay on top of everything I would love something like this. At the very least it would allow mapmakers to flex their creative muscles and give us some crazy mapmaking contests. I just think "other ways to have fun with SC2" is a far more healthy an ultimately productive mindset than the "WE MUST MAKE SC2 BETTER OR IT WILL DIE RAHHHHHHHHHH" that I see bandied about on TL.net with surprising frequency. I agree although I think we should have less fear about introducing change into the ladder. So maybe that "chaos ladder" you mention could double as a test ladder too. That way if certain maps prove successful enough they could be integrated into the ladder for serious play too. Side note: My final thoughs on SC2 dieing discussion. That thought process won't exist anymore if it is ignored. So instead of being a person pointing out that other people think that way just ignore it. We all know how those people feel and if they believe it affects us then they will continue to spew their nonsense. The best route to take is the silent one. Move past their posts and just provide good solid content yourself. also thanks mortal lol. Yeah, for sure about the "Chaos" ladder thing. If certain maps/map styles end up being really fun and playable it's a great way to get testing data and either add them directly or work elements from them into the existing "standard" style of maps.
And you raise a good point about ignoring the negativity. I'll keep it in mind. Cheers :D
|
I think there are other ways to increase the depth of the game without making changes that make the game much less accessible for casual players and viewers of the game. So I really disagree with the proposal of having different sets of rules for how many mineral patches and gas an expansions yields. It's very hard to balance the game if there is variance on that factor.
|
On February 05 2013 05:58 Baum wrote:
I think there are other ways to increase the depth of the game without making changes that make the game much less accessible for casual players and viewers of the game. So I really disagree with the proposal of having different sets of rules for how many mineral patches and gas an expansions yields. It's very hard to balance the game if there is variance on that factor.
How does it make is less accessible? The things it affects (build orders, higher level strategies) are opaque to noobs and noobie spectators anyway. There don't have to be rules for non-8m2g bases, it's just non-8m2g bases.
|
Really, the first milestone to any kind of map changes is to make pros use these changes in Tournaments first.
Not necessarily the whole map pool, but like one or 2 maps in the pool using this idea.
If it provides better matches, the map pool will expand on it. Then, if major tournament start using them and its quite accepted they provide better matches, Blizzard will follow. It will take them one year to aknowledge it but they will eventually come to make the change if it is a common practice in tournament.
|
On February 05 2013 06:37 rezoacken wrote:
Really, the first milestone to any kind of map changes is to make pros use these changes in Tournaments first.
Not necessarily the whole map pool, but like one or 2 maps in the pool using this idea.
If it provides better matches, the map pool will expand on it. Then, if major tournament start using them and its quite accepted they provide better matches, Blizzard will follow. It will take them one year to aknowledge it but they will eventually come to make the change if it is a common practice in tournament.
Kind of--in 2010 Desert Oasis always produced the best games (spectator wise) but everyone hated the map (player wise) and it was one of the first maps to disappear. It was good since it created hectic and crazy games, it was bad because it was no fun to play on.
Don't get me wrong--6min2gas seems like a LOT of fun to play on, but just because it *produces* better games (viewer wise) does not mean it will catch on player wise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
