Big Game Hunters was THE most popular Starcraft map. Everyone has played it, most have played it multiple times, and a few play it at a very competitive level. Of course it wasn't a "serious" map by any rate, but I think it was a blast to play - and apparently many people thought so too.
As much as BGH was a phenomenon, it has also become a remarkable fact that the map is dead in SC2. I believe that if we can pinpoint why people don't play BGH in sc2, we can essentially also manage to solve why people don't like to play sc2.
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because:
- Custom games don't allow the ally/unally feature unless it is user-created through triggers? - The custom game UI is terrible for user created maps? - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)? - Some people take BGH's very seriously - Lack of initiative; we need Blizzard to implement BGH as an official unranked game mode - Other reasons...?
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because: - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)?
This. I think you'd see huge infestor, blord, spine/spore armies devour the map. Also all those chokes force late game compositions because no army can go through (P: colossus/storm, T: tanks, Z: fungal/spines). edit: so I think it would just develop into camping, probably favoring zerg.
I played BGH daily for many years. Miss those ***2v2 BGH TOP ONLY*** games. The amount of strategies and play on the map was amazing. First time I played it I thought this was a NR match. Got destroyed before 10 min mark. Then you had to adapt to those 2 tanks drop play which caused me a lot of grief first. There were sites for BGH players to meet/share.
And contrary to people that didn't played BGH there were not many games longer on it so you can get to T3. Much shorter timing attacks were the norm.
I think that in SC2 the entire custom UI/popularity system is not appropriate. What will make BGH type really thrive is if Blizzard would implement it like you mentioned in an game mode. But ranked, so you can play with people of your level.
The thing is, BGH allowed players to have huge armies even if their macro sucked, while sc2 allows this for basically everyone so there's no need to play a money map to have huge armies. Secondly, early game micro is crap when comparing sc2 to sc, as zergs would just own everything with 5 hatch/queen ling armies, zealots are much more suckier, and marines without medivacs and stim also suck, and they don't have firebats. Early game mass tier1 fights were awesome in sc1 bgh, and you could spend like half an hour or even more just microing the shit out of your t1 units. I simply think it would not be as fun as sc1, hell I even tried some BGH variant in sc2 and guess what, they sucked. XD
Give the players that have cash at hand and a good concept to go with it the ability to form a ladder. Because blizzard quality was never up to the standard of community quality. .
inb4 surfer4life comes to the thread. oh, also, there are multiple versions of bgh on sc2 right now, and they are pretty fun. you know playing videogames should be fun. edit: yeah 2v2 bgh was kickass tvb.
Isn't that "fastest map possible" custom game similar to BGH in concept? BGH was fun back in the day when we had ancient computers, no internet, just LAN and a lot of time on our hands. The only reason I would play BGH is because of nostalgia.
I think it's most of those things but before I read them the first thing that came to mind was the diversity of the compositions you could have. I played 3v3 zc myself but it's just a more wide open money map... except mandatory no rush. For Terran, you could do tanks, wraiths, goliaths, bcs, ghosts (and nukes), science vessels. No bio though and valkyries were bugged out. Zerg? Anything. Even queens had their uses. Toss? Everything except scouts hehe. You'd have a pack of corsairs flying around knocking out detection, etc. So I think BGH would be pretty similar to this but with a lot more diversity in strategy than zc which was a.) Break the middle with seige units, b.) Mass air on one side, c.) Mass recall/nydus worm,
Now in sc2 I don't think you could do this. Zerg would inevitably end with bw infestor corruptor and you'd never see most of the other stuff but the main death balls of the respective races. So that's why I wouldn't play a money map in sc2
we need Blizzard to implement BGH as an official unranked game mode
makes no sense at all.
The reason why some maps are not played is imho BN2.0, if people don't see the map featured they don't play it, and if you want to play ityou can find it, but no one will join...
It probably has to do with the way we collect minerals and gas in SC2.
Resource gatherings is a lot faster in SC2 than it ever was in legit BW maps. So it was very fun to casually play maps like BGH or fastest to speed up the macro and get to the late game faster.
In a sense every map in SC2 is kinda like BGH IMO, with mules, larva inject and chrono boost....two gasses and all.
Big Game Hunters was THE most popular Starcraft map. Everyone has played it, most have played it multiple times, and a few play it at a very competitive level. Of course it wasn't a "serious" map by any rate, but I think it was a blast to play - and apparently many people thought so too.
As much as BGH was a phenomenon, it has also become a remarkable fact that the map is dead in SC2. I believe that if we can pinpoint why people don't play BGH in sc2, we can essentially also manage to solve why people don't like to play sc2.
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because:
- Custom games don't allow the ally/unally feature unless it is user-created through triggers? - The custom game UI is terrible for user created maps? - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)? - Some people take BGH's very seriously - Lack of initiative; we need Blizzard to implement BGH as an official unranked game mode - Other reasons...?
Feel free to share.
Because times are a-changing.
To be more precise: We now have better maps to play on.
Big Game Hunters was THE most popular Starcraft map. Everyone has played it, most have played it multiple times, and a few play it at a very competitive level. Of course it wasn't a "serious" map by any rate, but I think it was a blast to play - and apparently many people thought so too.
As much as BGH was a phenomenon, it has also become a remarkable fact that the map is dead in SC2. I believe that if we can pinpoint why people don't play BGH in sc2, we can essentially also manage to solve why people don't like to play sc2.
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because:
- Custom games don't allow the ally/unally feature unless it is user-created through triggers? - The custom game UI is terrible for user created maps? - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)? - Some people take BGH's very seriously - Lack of initiative; we need Blizzard to implement BGH as an official unranked game mode - Other reasons...?
Feel free to share.
Because times are a-changing.
To be more precise: We now have better maps to play on.
Nice Freudian slip. There certainly is quite a bit more a-moving going on! ;P
Big Game Hunters was THE most popular Starcraft map. Everyone has played it, most have played it multiple times, and a few play it at a very competitive level. Of course it wasn't a "serious" map by any rate, but I think it was a blast to play - and apparently many people thought so too.
As much as BGH was a phenomenon, it has also become a remarkable fact that the map is dead in SC2. I believe that if we can pinpoint why people don't play BGH in sc2, we can essentially also manage to solve why people don't like to play sc2.
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because:
- Custom games don't allow the ally/unally feature unless it is user-created through triggers? - The custom game UI is terrible for user created maps? - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)? - Some people take BGH's very seriously - Lack of initiative; we need Blizzard to implement BGH as an official unranked game mode - Other reasons...?
Feel free to share.
Because times are a-changing.
To be more precise: We now have better maps to play on.
Nice Freudian slip. There certainly is quite a bit more a-moving going on! ;P
A bit more than a bit! and a poor map pool as well (due to design/balance constraints)
Big Game Hunters was THE most popular Starcraft map. Everyone has played it, most have played it multiple times, and a few play it at a very competitive level. Of course it wasn't a "serious" map by any rate, but I think it was a blast to play - and apparently many people thought so too.
As much as BGH was a phenomenon, it has also become a remarkable fact that the map is dead in SC2. I believe that if we can pinpoint why people don't play BGH in sc2, we can essentially also manage to solve why people don't like to play sc2.
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because:
- Custom games don't allow the ally/unally feature unless it is user-created through triggers? - The custom game UI is terrible for user created maps? - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)? - Some people take BGH's very seriously - Lack of initiative; we need Blizzard to implement BGH as an official unranked game mode - Other reasons...?
Feel free to share.
Because teams are locked! Right now u can only play 4v4 or free for all. The whole point was 2v2v2v2 in my opinion.
The custom map system is just shit, that's pretty much why so few maps are being played.
I don't think there are other explanations needed. Many people don't know the map and don't search for it. It's not easy to find when you don't look for it.
This is indeed a good map. At first, I regarded this map as a noob map, and never played it for a long time, due to the infinite resources. However, after I played multiple times, I realized that 3v3 on this map is much better than on regular Hunters. Regular Hunters are too early game focused, you can't have a late game. On BGH, you are allowed to have a late game, which provides a lot more strategies to play for people.
Big Game Hunters was THE most popular Starcraft map. Everyone has played it, most have played it multiple times, and a few play it at a very competitive level. Of course it wasn't a "serious" map by any rate, but I think it was a blast to play - and apparently many people thought so too.
As much as BGH was a phenomenon, it has also become a remarkable fact that the map is dead in SC2. I believe that if we can pinpoint why people don't play BGH in sc2, we can essentially also manage to solve why people don't like to play sc2.
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because:
- Custom games don't allow the ally/unally feature unless it is user-created through triggers? - The custom game UI is terrible for user created maps? - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)? - Some people take BGH's very seriously - Lack of initiative; we need Blizzard to implement BGH as an official unranked game mode - Other reasons...?
Feel free to share.
Because times are a-changing.
To be more precise: We now have better maps to play on.
Nice Freudian slip. There certainly is quite a bit more a-moving going on! ;P
It's not as fun because the game's so much faster now, and 200 pop is extremely low for maps like that. With the amount of minerals BGH gives you can easily max out in minutes, at which point the game becomes a boring 200 / 200 vs 200 / 200 a-move-with-your-entire-army lag fest for most computers.
SC2 feels competetive, lack of "fun" unit interactions and macro mechanic does not really warrant existance of BGH, sadly. If BGH had removed sc2 macro mechanics, maybe....
1 main reason i think that maps like BGH and other money maps don't thrive is that custom games don't count towards wins of any kind anymore. In BW u had use map settings games which didn't count for anything, but u also had wins that counted from any other type of game (melee, top vs bottom, FFA, one on one) and it didn't even differentiate between a win in 1v1 on 4v4 so money maps were really just a different type of map, since the wins were basically just as satisfying no matter what you played. Ladder games were counted as separate wins, but the ladder also had rediculous amounts of hacked accounts on it so noone bothered (other than iccup,pgtour,wgtour etc.).
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because: - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)?
This. I think you'd see huge infestor, blord, spine/spore armies devour the map. Also all those chokes force late game compositions because no army can go through (P: colossus/storm, T: tanks, Z: fungal/spines). edit: so I think it would just develop into camping, probably favoring zerg.
yeah. in sc2 its only slightly harder to control a huge army vs a small one, and so it becomes much more advantageous to just have the biggest army possible. in sc:bw it was incredibly hard to control a huge army, and it took a huge amount of skill to do properly.
obviously, this was because: 1) you could only have 12 units in a control group and 2) the units were more spread and the pathing was ridiculous, which meant you needed to spend more time on each unit to get it to move the way you want.
I liked BGH because I could forget about the econ part and just have fun with huge armies. Less attention on econ and more on macro always seemed fun to me.
I get a similar feeling now when I play a team game and a team member drops. You get this surplus of resources and you have to ramp up your production. It just feels fun.
Ah, those good times...This is the first map I played after passing the campaign, with my brother, we tried to win 2vX computer. When finally succeeded in 2v6, I moved to online play. Spend most of my time on this map (around 2000 games), I sucked 1v1, it was so much fun, so many great strategies...
Hard to say why in sc2 it didn't become so popular. Maybe people saying t1 fights were so much more exciting?
Still, I'd love to see BGH with sc2 graphics, but bw mechanics and units.
On November 25 2012 00:42 bgx wrote: SC2 feels competetive, lack of "fun" unit interactions and macro mechanic does not really warrant existance of BGH, sadly. If BGH had removed sc2 macro mechanics, maybe....
I would actually say the opposite, or at least that was my feeling. I played BGH because playing 1v1 ladder games was too competitive, and I would play BGH because it was fun. With SC2, I can enjoy playing 1v1. I'll always be matched up against someone I can beat, unlike in BW where I didn't spend much time playing, so I had a low APM, which means I would get smashed almost every game, which just wasn't fun.
I think that is maybe why BGH was played so much, I can't be the only one who had a hard enough time just building an army, let alone attacking attack with in, add in trying to expand too. BGH got rid of worrying about expanding, for the most part it was just building up a high tech army, which was much easier to attack with.
On November 25 2012 00:42 bgx wrote: SC2 feels competetive, lack of "fun" unit interactions and macro mechanic does not really warrant existance of BGH, sadly. If BGH had removed sc2 macro mechanics, maybe....
I would actually say the opposite, or at least that was my feeling. I played BGH because playing 1v1 ladder games was too competitive, and I would play BGH because it was fun. With SC2, I can enjoy playing 1v1. I'll always be matched up against someone I can beat, unlike in BW where I didn't spend much time playing, so I had a low APM, which means I would get smashed almost every game, which just wasn't fun.
I think that is maybe why BGH was played so much, I can't be the only one who had a hard enough time just building an army, let alone attacking attack with in, add in trying to expand too. BGH got rid of worrying about expanding, for the most part it was just building up a high tech army, which was much easier to attack with.
My post was not the best, but we are both forgetting one thing, BGH alleviated the biggest problem which was "what can i afford from 1 base economy in reasonable time". And thats basically it. At that time. And it was multiplayer map, it was bound to be fun. 1v1 was always scary ;D
Backstabbing... haha, i could not find a words when that happened to me for a first time. It reminds me of hostiling in D2, such cool "cruel" mechanics are missing from gaming nowadays.
You have to remember how B.Net 1.0 worked to understand why BGH was so popular.
A map like BGH would never become popular on b.net 2.0 because the people that would be interested in playing it are already playing team games.
It was the casual friendly map of its day it was also the only real team map you could play on that was remotely popular that wasn't a fastest map ever.
I think a huge reason is because it isn't featured... I don't know that it would be boring because players would just mass X units, but I do know that you will NEVER find a game because of the shitty popularity system.
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because: - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)?
This. I think you'd see huge infestor, blord, spine/spore armies devour the map. Also all those chokes force late game compositions because no army can go through (P: colossus/storm, T: tanks, Z: fungal/spines). edit: so I think it would just develop into camping, probably favoring zerg.
another delusional protoss, in the case where you have limitless resources, the protoss army would completely destroy zerg
They should just make the custom game section like in BW. Newly hosted games on top of the list, refreshing the list and people got to name their lobbies like "2v2v2v2 BGH NO NABS!", shit was cash yo.
The current system is just retarded and e giant step backwards.
Big Game Hunters was THE most popular Starcraft map. Everyone has played it, most have played it multiple times, and a few play it at a very competitive level. Of course it wasn't a "serious" map by any rate, but I think it was a blast to play - and apparently many people thought so too.
As much as BGH was a phenomenon, it has also become a remarkable fact that the map is dead in SC2. I believe that if we can pinpoint why people don't play BGH in sc2, we can essentially also manage to solve why people don't like to play sc2.
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because:
- Custom games don't allow the ally/unally feature unless it is user-created through triggers? - The custom game UI is terrible for user created maps? - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)? - Some people take BGH's very seriously - Lack of initiative; we need Blizzard to implement BGH as an official unranked game mode - Other reasons...?
Feel free to share.
Because times are a-changing.
To be more precise: We now have better maps to play on.
That's simply not true. The reason is shitty UI. If I had ever seen BGH when browsing Arcade (which is pretty rare) I would have definitely joined. But who searching for map and then join and wait for hours, before some people actually join
It would be great to have a group of people playing BGH, I especially loved Racewars on that map because of it's potential, however, as someone mentioned... it does lack the ally/unally trigger.
The reason I don't like playing money maps(fastest possible) and to a lesser extent BGH is that mass army is not fun to play with. Maxed ultraling or mmtank is common occurrence in my 1v1s. Reproducing 60 zerglings takes 3click and isn't all that uncommon either in 1s. Just sitting their macroing doesn't take up many actions like it did in brood war. The essence of starcraft 2 isn't in its tediousness and therefore simplifying it just makes it boring.
Secondly noobie bashing is quite a bit harder. Going back to my first point, macroing off tons of production facilities is easy and therefore fucking around and going pure tank against noobie players isn't all that viable even if you are significantly better than them. I have a decent amount of experience in this due to the number of monobattle 4v4 pubs I've played. In brood war I could 1v3 my friends using joke strategies. In sc2 I can barely do joke strategies in 1v1s.
Thirdly, my home computer can barely handle maxed vs maxed in 1v1 scenarios. Having 5 maxed armies would result in -12fps.
Lastly, aesthetically sc2 doesn't look very cool with large armies due to bunching.
The fun of BGH was being able to make awesome armies and feel like a badass even though you can't even keep continually producing off of 3 rax. In SC2, no one has trouble producing decently sized armies. Plus, big army engagements end so fast it's like you spend all your tonos of money, make a huge army, and then lose it all in one big fight.
Big Game Hunters was THE most popular Starcraft map. Everyone has played it, most have played it multiple times, and a few play it at a very competitive level. Of course it wasn't a "serious" map by any rate, but I think it was a blast to play - and apparently many people thought so too.
As much as BGH was a phenomenon, it has also become a remarkable fact that the map is dead in SC2. I believe that if we can pinpoint why people don't play BGH in sc2, we can essentially also manage to solve why people don't like to play sc2.
Why do you think people don't play BGH? Is it because:
- Custom games don't allow the ally/unally feature unless it is user-created through triggers? - The custom game UI is terrible for user created maps? - An infinite resources battle royale wouldn't be fun in sc2 (explain why)? - Some people take BGH's very seriously - Lack of initiative; we need Blizzard to implement BGH as an official unranked game mode - Other reasons...?
Feel free to share.
Because times are a-changing.
To be more precise: We now have better maps to play on.
Rofl ... yes, its another rofl-answer again and this time its because "better maps" is a matter of perspective. So what is your authority for "todays maps are better"? Are you a map designer to be qualified for this answer? Have you played BGH with a bunch of friends and had fun with it?
If you dont know how fun it was - which seems likely from the stupid answer, which suggests that you think BGH is a ladder map - just watch Day[9] daily #65 ...
And some words of wisdom: "Change for change's sake is never justified; it must be justified by improvements which truly are improvements and not just improvements because the propaganda ads say so."
obviously just bnet2.0's fault. I tried to play some customs that I knew of, but no1 ever joins because there's no real like "browse" function where you see games hosted by ppl. Blizzard really needs to fix that if they ever want people to play customs...
BGH does not work in SC2 is because of warpgate and proxy pylons. The beauty of BGH was the fact that the map was so big and expansive, and there were random spawns. You'd often end up getting rushed if sandwiched in the wrong spot, or you had some incredible 1v1ish type battles against the guy closest to you in the event your teammates have their hands tied elsewhere. Now all you need is a pylon and bam, you can warp in anywhere, utterly destroying the chances of these 1v1ish type battles. Sure you can snipe all warp in pylons, but seriously as a Protoss myself, it's not that hard to get a pylon down, it doesn't belong in SC2, it's a stupidly hard mechanic to balance around and always have to consider in your game development forever and ever. BGH being made viable would be awesome, unfortunately Blizzard doesn't have a clue that it's the warpgate.
Well, let's not try to push our own balance agendas through.
If you think, however, that Fastest Map Possible is sc2's BGH, then I must tell you that the two are so remotely connected no BGH enthusiast will ever accept it as a suitable replacement.
I think some people in this thread have hit the nail on the head:
- SC2's arcade UI sucks. - People want to make big armies, because big armies = fun, you know? But armies don't feel big when you can max out by 15 minutes, sooner in a money map... - This is STARcraft, casual players want to experience epic space battles, not marine/ling craft.
- The custom game UI is terrible for user created maps?
This is the #1 reason, possibly the number 2,3&4 too. It's impossible to join a game that's not on the top 10list or so.
Other than that, maybe warpins could be broken. But BGH was figured out at top level so I assume it would be in sc2 by now if it'd been played like in BW.
I only played normal hunters on a decent level. Unfortunately I have not found a decent playable of that. The ones I found are too small. Found a good BGH version but you could not use classic hotkeys on it so it was unplayable.
On November 25 2012 17:03 deadmau wrote: BGH does not work in SC2 is because of warpgate and proxy pylons. The beauty of BGH was the fact that the map was so big and expansive, and there were random spawns. You'd often end up getting rushed if sandwiched in the wrong spot, or you had some incredible 1v1ish type battles against the guy closest to you in the event your teammates have their hands tied elsewhere. Now all you need is a pylon and bam, you can warp in anywhere, utterly destroying the chances of these 1v1ish type battles. Sure you can snipe all warp in pylons, but seriously as a Protoss myself, it's not that hard to get a pylon down, it doesn't belong in SC2, it's a stupidly hard mechanic to balance around and always have to consider in your game development forever and ever. BGH being made viable would be awesome, unfortunately Blizzard doesn't have a clue that it's the warpgate.
The question is: Was the chaotic gameplay FUN?
If the answer is YES then it might give some thought to the gameplay balancing for SC2, because you are clearly right in your observation that warping units in anywhere almost instantly is screwing up that kind of gameplay.
I would also say that the unlimited unit selection is another bad apple of Blizzards game design for SC2, because with such games you kinda have to be "all over the map" to defend and harrass everywhere, but if one player just takes every unit he has and goes for another player who is busy at several other locations the aggressor will win easily. Limiting the number of units to 12 per group was part of what made this possible.
Someone else already mentioned the fact that macroing up a huge army is ridiculously easy in SC2 and this is the final nail in the coffin that will bury BGH for SC2.
So without Warp Gate/Nydus Worms anywhere, unlimited unit selection and the production speed boosts it might be possible to have fun in BGH again. Oh and we would also need a sensible custom map system for BNet0.2 ...
ah BGH, one of the big reasons why SC endured for so long. Why does no1 play it in SC2? B/c we are all forced to play the ladder for the results to count.
On November 25 2012 18:16 hai2u wrote: ah BGH, one of the big reasons why SC endured for so long. Why does no1 play it in SC2? B/c we are all forced to play the ladder for the results to count.
No one is forced to do anything. Lets be realistic, no one cares about ladder points.
Some reasonings i found is that pussies in sc2 will complain about the imbalance of the map. Us veteran Brood War players worked around the tedious strategies from when terrans would drop tanks on the cliffs behind our minerals or when tanks could shell our naturals from their naturals. SC2 players would non stop bitch about stuff like that.
On November 25 2012 18:16 hai2u wrote: ah BGH, one of the big reasons why SC endured for so long. Why does no1 play it in SC2? B/c we are all forced to play the ladder for the results to count.
Lets be realistic, no one cares about ladder points.
That's true though, next to no one cares about their results at this stage. Some people will possibly care what league they're in, and those in masters may care about how many points they accrue in a season, but it's really trivial. Besides you play BGH for fun.
As to balance, BGH isn't even remotely balanced in any way, but people got over that quickly enough.
On November 25 2012 01:40 Acritter wrote: An open games list is definitely needed to improve the custom game experience.
This was brought in with 1.5, FYI. There is an open games option in the arcade . It's not the default view though, so it hasn't really changed anything.
Battles aren't fun in Sc2. I play BGH to this day on Fish server. What makes BGH fun is battles. The player can choose to battle with any composition they choose, more or less. The average battle in BGH in BW lasts just about the entire game; someone will always rush, and it's usually a matter of stabilizing from there. In Sc2 there is generally one single decisive engagement in the entire game and not much action outside of it. Maybe it's because of the efficiency of how damage is dealt in Sc2, I'm not an expert, I'm not really sure. But maxed battles are way more fun in BW.
Most matches in BGH finished way earlier than max battles. However I think you are right regarding the damage, it's also my feeling that everything dies quicker.
The best part was having the ally/unally option. nothing better then doing a 4v4, crushing the other 4 players, killing off all their buildings and then.......the game didn't end. One of your four didnt' have allied victory on. It then turned into a giant argument over chat until eventually 1 person (usually the best player) would get turned on and gangbanged by the 3 remaining players. That player would eventually die and guess what...the game wouldn't end.
EPT
. It's not the default view though, so it hasn't really changed anything.
