|
On March 28 2017 04:02 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 03:56 L_Master wrote:On March 28 2017 02:47 Jealous wrote:On March 28 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 01:51 Jealous wrote: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#527I 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. 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. 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 it is important to always maintain an influx of new people coming or coming back if the game is to grow and be shared and fun times etc. But I think with or without widescreen support the game is good, it just seems reasonable to bring this to the game to me
Yes, but it's definitely a delicate little act.
Obviously, including say...unlimited selection would hugely cater to attracting new players. You can see it here on TL how many players want it...and it's 10x worse anywhere else. However, the second you do that BW has ceased to become BW. Even ignoring the impact on balance, you've fundamentally altered core aspect of the game.
But there are other things that I'm absolutely for that would certainly help for catering to newer players without changing the game. General compatibility updates. The Gfx stuff for obvious reasons. Matchmaking is huge, we've had that discussion about life as a D- on ICCup a million times; matchmaking for 2v2/3v3 as well as UMS games would be huge. People really enjoying being able to chill and have that "team excuse" when they play. It keeps people active and enjoying the game, some of whom will eventually play more seriously. Those sorts of changes are the kind I feel strongly are worth being open to.
|
On March 28 2017 04:11 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 04:02 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On March 28 2017 03:56 L_Master wrote:On March 28 2017 02:47 Jealous wrote:On March 28 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 01:51 Jealous wrote: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#527I 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. 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. 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 it is important to always maintain an influx of new people coming or coming back if the game is to grow and be shared and fun times etc. But I think with or without widescreen support the game is good, it just seems reasonable to bring this to the game to me Yes, but it's definitely a delicate little act. Obviously, including say...unlimited selection would hugely cater to attracting new players. You can see it here on TL how many players want it...and it's 10x worse anywhere else. However, the second you do that BW has ceased to become BW. Even ignoring the impact on balance, you've fundamentally altered core aspect of the game. But there are other things that I'm absolutely for that would certainly help for catering to newer players without changing the game. General compatibility updates. The Gfx stuff for obvious reasons. Matchmaking is huge, we've had that discussion about life as a D- on ICCup a million times; matchmaking for 2v2/3v3 as well as UMS games would be huge. People really enjoying being able to chill and have that "team excuse" when they play. It keeps people active and enjoying the game, some of whom will eventually play more seriously. Those sorts of changes are the kind I feel strongly are worth being open to.
Absolutely. I fully welcome all of the changes made to client-side out of game experience, all the bells and whistles. I want everyone from PotatoToss to Mr.IBuiltALinuxRig to be able to play Brood War. I want people to have the option of matching with someone of their skill level because it is more pleasurable despite probably not being more useful for improvement. I welcome unlimited sprites outside of 1v1 and 2v2 modes. Port issues resolved. OS compatability. I welcome damn near anything that makes this game easier and more accessible that does NOT include gameplay changes. I think that line is very thick and clear. The line for what is "appealing" and "acceptable" is much finer and subjective imo.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Let's face it. It aged well but BW is a game from 1998 with an engine from 1998. All of its good features need to be preserved and changes need to be made with care. But it's not a perfect game and there are aspects that genuinely need improvement.
A graphics overhaul, I don't care either way. But I do have to say the game is prettier with its new graphics and support for Windows 7/8/10 is an absolute necessity. Bugfixes are also a necessity; Battle.net is notoriously buggy for all manner of reasons to the point that we have had to make our own custom community solutions to keep the game afloat.
We can tweak a few minor things without it affecting gameplay adversely. A bigger screen seems almost trivial - and if it turns out to be a problem we could make it so that "tournament play" has a fixed screen resolution that has to be obeyed by all players. Internalized tools that do the job of ICCup, WFBrood, and the like - also a very good change. We are right to worry about gameplay being touched, and balance changes really don't need to be made at this point. But the game's not perfect, it's starving for sufficient players, and honestly we just need to learn to make small concessions for the sake of the longevity of the game. On its current course it's going to continue to lose relevance despite having lots and lots of potential.
|
On March 28 2017 04:11 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 04:02 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On March 28 2017 03:56 L_Master wrote:On March 28 2017 02:47 Jealous wrote:On March 28 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On March 28 2017 01:51 Jealous wrote: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#527I 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. 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. 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 it is important to always maintain an influx of new people coming or coming back if the game is to grow and be shared and fun times etc. But I think with or without widescreen support the game is good, it just seems reasonable to bring this to the game to me Yes, but it's definitely a delicate little act. Obviously, including say...unlimited selection would hugely cater to attracting new players. You can see it here on TL how many players want it...and it's 10x worse anywhere else. However, the second you do that BW has ceased to become BW. Even ignoring the impact on balance, you've fundamentally altered core aspect of the game. But there are other things that I'm absolutely for that would certainly help for catering to newer players without changing the game. General compatibility updates. The Gfx stuff for obvious reasons. Matchmaking is huge, we've had that discussion about life as a D- on ICCup a million times; matchmaking for 2v2/3v3 as well as UMS games would be huge. People really enjoying being able to chill and have that "team excuse" when they play. It keeps people active and enjoying the game, some of whom will eventually play more seriously. Those sorts of changes are the kind I feel strongly are worth being open to.
Yeah agree
unlimited selection wouldnt work if compatibility with original client is maintained, in that it would give an important advantage to the unlimited players, now for the widescreen expand the advantage is so small. I think of tanks sieging up in the perfect range, but I can hear them anyway and you get good at knowing where they are before they get there.. seeing a drop from a little further away sometimes, but often the minimap rather tells you or you wont see them anyway.. that can have brutal impact though if you see instead of not or vice versa. Debatable uh. I just dont care, I think a possible "fix" there would be to give more vertical pixels to a 4:3 player so that they actually see a little more vertical space and the overall area is similar.
so say if Im playing at 1024*768 the 16 would have a fov equivalent to a 640*1137 which gives nearly the same pixel area (would have to take into account that a bit more of that space is wasted by the expanded UI at the bottom for 16 and instead compare battlefield view area), but that could be a good and fair way to do this dont you think?
considering original stays the same, that means not increasing fov on 4:3 but actually decreasing vertical fov a little for 16 ; this might be awkward giving too little vertical space to 16 users ;; im just gonna leave the smileys --a
|
How is fixing the valkyrie bug a bad thing in any way? Raising the sprite limit isn't suddenly going to let players micro valks like mutas, and paying 250/125 each and then having them not fire is fucking bullshit.
|
On March 28 2017 04:10 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 03:59 L_Master wrote:On March 28 2017 03:52 Jealous wrote: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. 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.
Personally, I think someone would have to be naive or crazy to think it absolutely would not affect play. That seems almost blindingly obvious.
Arguing to what extent is quite a bit more difficult, especially because there are so many possible interactions at different times. Maybe you could try to look at macro timings for terran and see what portion of a second you save having to slide the screen around to fit an extra barracks vs one more being on a screen that is ever so slightly (from what I've seen from the pictures) wider. Let's say we decide that's 0.2s. The question then is what effect does that 0.2s have? Obviously, it's advantageous, but it is it drastically so; or does it contribute to a win one game in ten thousand?
I'm not sure someone could answer even that single, specific scenario accurately. I think it would be absolutely impossible to then try to consider how that one specific scenario would interact with other scenarios like flanking advantages, possibly an advantage ins setting up mines, harass differences etc.
Which is the long winded way of saying something very similar to what you're saying; which is that changing the screen size will have an impact on the game, and I find it very difficult someone could put an argument together saying it won't.
Which leads to "what do you do then", in the context of not wanting to alter gameplay on any reasonable level. I see two options
1) Leave gameplay as is. Do not touch the size at all.
2) Try the bigger screensize and see what the impact is. Re-evaluate after a healthy number of pro games and feedback and makes a decision about whether the given change altered BW gameplay at a noticeable level.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 28 2017 04:25 ZeroChrome wrote:
How is fixing the valkyrie bug a bad thing in any way? Raising the sprite limit isn't suddenly going to let players micro valks like mutas, and paying 250/125 each and then having them not fire is fucking bullshit.
People are worried that ANY changes to BW that affect balance could possibly destabilize the delicate balance that has made the game as balanced as it is, no matter how useful the change can be from a QOL perspective.
I personally highly disagree with that argument and have made the case that T>Z>P in balance, and furthermore that balance is in part a factor not only of the game itself but of people making the most of what tools their race gives them.
|
On March 28 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:
Let's face it. It aged well but BW is a game from 1998 with an engine from 1998. All of its good features need to be preserved and changes need to be made with care. But it's not a perfect game and there are aspects that genuinely need improvement.
A graphics overhaul, I don't care either way. But I do have to say the game is prettier with its new graphics and support for Windows 7/8/10 is an absolute necessity. Bugfixes are also a necessity; Battle.net is notoriously buggy for all manner of reasons to the point that we have had to make our own custom community solutions to keep the game afloat.
We can tweak a few minor things without it affecting gameplay adversely. A bigger screen seems almost trivial - and if it turns out to be a problem we could make it so that "tournament play" has a fixed screen resolution that has to be obeyed by all players. Internalized tools that do the job of ICCup, WFBrood, and the like - also a very good change. We are right to worry about gameplay being touched, and balance changes really don't need to be made at this point. But the game's not perfect, it's starving for sufficient players, and honestly we just need to learn to make small concessions for the sake of the longevity of the game. On its current course it's going to continue to lose relevance despite having lots and lots of potential.
It's starving for sufficient players on ICCUP although there has been recent growth, the near-murdered official servers that have seen practically no upkeep, and some third-party servers on some hours. The activity is alive and well on fish, which is harder to access and participate in as a foreigner but has had a healthy population of 20 apm noobs in my experience. With the upcoming induction of fish into the official game by Blizzard and the likely relevant compatability changes on Fish's side, I find the changes that could have an impact on gameplay to be of trivial importance to the user but of potential damage to the integrity of the experience of the established community.
|
Im not sure how people would feel about having to "suffer" lines on the sides of their screen but it would be most fair and safe by default actually to not allow expanded view.. idk big question mark, I feel like I would just vote for allow expanded view and I would deal with the disadvantage ; or allow resolution change to 1024 on original............ if you have smaller view though you are more accurate with the details too
so difficult to write about I want to say just damnit let them have a little bit expanded view on remastered roll it back later if needed o____o who knows, gotta test
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 28 2017 04:31 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:
Let's face it. It aged well but BW is a game from 1998 with an engine from 1998. All of its good features need to be preserved and changes need to be made with care. But it's not a perfect game and there are aspects that genuinely need improvement.
A graphics overhaul, I don't care either way. But I do have to say the game is prettier with its new graphics and support for Windows 7/8/10 is an absolute necessity. Bugfixes are also a necessity; Battle.net is notoriously buggy for all manner of reasons to the point that we have had to make our own custom community solutions to keep the game afloat.
We can tweak a few minor things without it affecting gameplay adversely. A bigger screen seems almost trivial - and if it turns out to be a problem we could make it so that "tournament play" has a fixed screen resolution that has to be obeyed by all players. Internalized tools that do the job of ICCup, WFBrood, and the like - also a very good change. We are right to worry about gameplay being touched, and balance changes really don't need to be made at this point. But the game's not perfect, it's starving for sufficient players, and honestly we just need to learn to make small concessions for the sake of the longevity of the game. On its current course it's going to continue to lose relevance despite having lots and lots of potential. It's starving for sufficient players on ICCUP although there has been recent growth, the near-murdered official servers that have seen practically no upkeep, and some third-party servers on some hours. The activity is alive and well on fish, which is harder to access and participate in as a foreigner but has had a healthy population of 20 apm noobs in my experience. With the upcoming induction of fish into the official game by Blizzard and the likely relevant compatability changes on Fish's side, I find the changes that could have an impact on gameplay to be of trivial importance to the user but of potential damage to the integrity of the experience of the established community.
Even you can't possibly believe that any revival of BW would be on the back of people migrating to Fish and using their server to play. The game won't survive as just a "Korean plus dedicated spattering of foreigners from abroad" phenomenon.
|
On March 28 2017 04:31 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
Im not sure how people would feel about having to "suffer" lines on the sides of their screen but it would be most fair and safe by default actually to not allow expanded view.. idk big question mark, I feel like I would just vote for allow expanded view and I would deal with the disadvantage ; or allow resolution change to 1024 on original............ if you have smaller view though you are more accurate with the details too
so difficult to write about I want to say just damnit let them have a little bit expanded view on remastered roll it back later if needed o____o who knows, gotta test
This.
I agree with pretty much everything @L_Master said and this is my preferred solution for competitive play. Replays, obsing, campaign, casual melee, UMS - let them have it if they want it. But please keep the competitive environment unchanged or with the requirement of maintaining status quo.
Someone a few posts above asked about the disadvantage of Valkyrie sprite limit fix. The answer is simple : currently played TvT in the endgame would change, period. Why risk changing a game you're simply trying to aesthetically fix? The mass wraith lategame we have seen for years in many games could become functionally obsolete without a Valkyrie contingent. In very recent games, the inability of firing from the Valks has had an impact on who wins the engagement. It's something players already have in their understanding of the game. I don't want Sea to beat Flash in the new version's replay system because his Valks started working. I don't want to make the game different from the game Sea and Flash have spent their life playing and mastering just so NoobieTerran1748 can use them in his fastest map possible game.
Why is it so difficult to accept that "X unit won't work in Y scenario" when that is the foundation of this game's builds and strategies?
|
On March 28 2017 04:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 04:31 Jealous wrote:On March 28 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:
Let's face it. It aged well but BW is a game from 1998 with an engine from 1998. All of its good features need to be preserved and changes need to be made with care. But it's not a perfect game and there are aspects that genuinely need improvement.
A graphics overhaul, I don't care either way. But I do have to say the game is prettier with its new graphics and support for Windows 7/8/10 is an absolute necessity. Bugfixes are also a necessity; Battle.net is notoriously buggy for all manner of reasons to the point that we have had to make our own custom community solutions to keep the game afloat.
We can tweak a few minor things without it affecting gameplay adversely. A bigger screen seems almost trivial - and if it turns out to be a problem we could make it so that "tournament play" has a fixed screen resolution that has to be obeyed by all players. Internalized tools that do the job of ICCup, WFBrood, and the like - also a very good change. We are right to worry about gameplay being touched, and balance changes really don't need to be made at this point. But the game's not perfect, it's starving for sufficient players, and honestly we just need to learn to make small concessions for the sake of the longevity of the game. On its current course it's going to continue to lose relevance despite having lots and lots of potential. It's starving for sufficient players on ICCUP although there has been recent growth, the near-murdered official servers that have seen practically no upkeep, and some third-party servers on some hours. The activity is alive and well on fish, which is harder to access and participate in as a foreigner but has had a healthy population of 20 apm noobs in my experience. With the upcoming induction of fish into the official game by Blizzard and the likely relevant compatability changes on Fish's side, I find the changes that could have an impact on gameplay to be of trivial importance to the user but of potential damage to the integrity of the experience of the established community. Even you can't possibly believe that any revival of BW would be on the back of people migrating to Fish and using their server to play. The game won't survive as just a "Korean plus dedicated spattering of foreigners from abroad" phenomenon.
I never said that, although I could see how you could take that from my post so I apologize for not being clearer. I think fish will remain a staple of competitive play in Brood War. I think revamped official servers will be the way they were in the early - mid 00s - the place where everyone is welcome and has the easiest access to. These predictions are not at all predicated on Brood War changing in any way, shape, or form on a gameplay level and only on the accessibility level. These are changes that would create activity options without potentially hurting gameplay, and is what I want to see in BW Remastered far more than sprite limits and widescreen options.
|
On March 28 2017 04:44 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 04:31 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
Im not sure how people would feel about having to "suffer" lines on the sides of their screen but it would be most fair and safe by default actually to not allow expanded view.. idk big question mark, I feel like I would just vote for allow expanded view and I would deal with the disadvantage ; or allow resolution change to 1024 on original............ if you have smaller view though you are more accurate with the details too
so difficult to write about I want to say just damnit let them have a little bit expanded view on remastered roll it back later if needed o____o who knows, gotta test This. I agree with pretty much everything @L_Master said and this is my preferred solution for competitive play. Replays, obsing, campaign, casual melee, UMS - let them have it if they want it. But please keep the competitive environment unchanged or with the requirement of maintaining status quo. Someone a few posts above asked about the disadvantage of Valkyrie sprite limit fix. The answer is simple : currently played TvT in the endgame would change, period. Why risk changing a game you're simply trying to aesthetically fix? The mass wraith lategame we have seen for years in many games could become functionally obsolete without a Valkyrie contingent. In very recent games, the inability of firing from the Valks has had an impact on who wins the engagement. It's something players already have in their understanding of the game. I don't want Sea to beat Flash in the new version's replay system because his Valks started working. I don't want to make the game different from the game Sea and Flash have spent their life playing and mastering just so NoobieTerran1748 can use them in his fastest map possible game. Why is it so difficult to accept that "X unit won't work in Y scenario" when that is the foundation of this game's builds and strategies?
Without a valkyrie contingent? Wouldn't this, if anything, encourage a Valkyrie contingent. This would make a high number of valks ever so slightly more attractive of an option.
That in mind, changes like these I could almost go either way on, particularly if it's random. Now, if it's now that at say, 10 valkyries, they won't work right...that's fine; keep it. But if it's an unpredictable bug like the ramp vortex one, I could entertain that being fixed.
Sure, any good competitive player is aware that could happen; but I do take some issue with the conversation that goes like this:
Person A: "Dude wtf, I built like 12 valks cause this guy was massing corsairs against me and then they didn't shoot. Feckin Lammmeee"
Person B: "Oh yea, that's a bug in the coding; guess you'll just have to be wary of it next time."
Person A: "Man, they should just fix that"
Person B: "Nah man, that bug really helps make BW a part of what it is"
Most things aren't bugs. Pathing units wandering the base, reaver scarabs, stacking, etc. aren't bugs. They are consequences of how pathing was programmed. I think there is a legitimate argument to be made that units should work as intended. If valks are intended not to work at a certain number, then they should be programmed to do so. Not be unpredictable and buggy about it.
Honestly I don't think it's that fair an analogy to say it would be like playing basketball, but every time in the 4th quarter at 7:57 on the clock you get smashed by a brick in the face if you jump up to high to block someones shot. Sure, if some one fills you in you;d know better and not make the mistake; but it's still ridiculous that it would happen in the first place.
I don't want Sea to beat Flash in the new version's replay system because his Valks started working.
This is actually really interesting, but I assume the replay would just devolve into a buggy as hell mess, because you'd have units that didn't exist in the original game now alive after the engagement trying to wander around...or hanging out stationary I guess?
I don't want to make the game different from the game Sea and Flash have spent their life playing and mastering just so NoobieTerran1748 can use them in his fastest map possible game.
I understand this, but do think there is a difference. Doing it so NoobieTerran can use valks in his FMP game I'd be staunchly opposed to. However, the reason the change would be implemented is to make the game work in a predictable, equitable manner that the games creators intended. There is room for disagreement, but I feel that's a much more compelling point than just doing it to pander to our friend NoobieTerran 1748.
In this specific case, I really do think it is a "one scenario" case, and a rare one at that. I'm willing to entertain a change that could have a modest impact on a very specific subset of situations in a mirror matchup for a logical fix of a bug.
I'd need to see it tested to know how I feel for sure, but this specific change I'm not opposed to on principle.
|
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!
Yes please! I remember back in the day my fastest possible map FFAs would stop allowing new units because of too much shit. The toss players would mass carriers (8 interceptors is a lot of units) and put photon cannons on every square inch of their base, and all the zerg players with 50 hatcheries with 3 larvae each and 30 overlords. This kills the unit count.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I've personally always felt that scarabs should detonate if they dud. Definitely would be a controversial and high-impact change and I wouldn't push for it.
But frankly, there's no reason that stupid shit that doesn't contribute to the game, that just happens to be in there, should be kept in there because "it makes the game what it is." No, it doesn't, it's just a stupid thing that happens to exist in a game that's overall very good. There's no balance-based reason, for example, that dragoons or goliaths should get stuck in certain situations. That just frustrates for no particular purpose.
And I'd further support a few small but meaningful changes like rally points being drawn as a line from the building in question, rather than what there is in there right now. There is similarly nothing skill-based about your gateways not having the right rally point because the game is glitchy. Those kinds of things do need to be fixed. In both BW:R and BW:Vanilla.
|
On March 28 2017 05:17 LegalLord wrote:
I've personally always felt that scarabs should detonate if they dud. Definitely would be a controversial and high-impact change and I wouldn't push for it.
But frankly, there's no reason that stupid shit that doesn't contribute to the game, that just happens to be in there, should be kept in there because "it makes the game what it is." No, it doesn't, it's just a stupid thing that happens to exist in a game that's overall very good. There's no balance-based reason, for example, that dragoons or goliaths should get stuck in certain situations. That just frustrates for no particular purpose.
And I'd further support a few small but meaningful changes like rally points being drawn as a line from the building in question, rather than what there is in there right now. There is similarly nothing skill-based about your gateways not having the right rally point because the game is glitchy. Those kinds of things do need to be fixed. In both BW:R and BW:Vanilla.
The scarab thing is a huge balance reason. The percentage play against reaver drops nowadays is to pull your workers to your other base's mineral field. This will always lead to the scarab tailing the workers until they dud (unless they get lucky). If they actually exploded, that's a huge balance change. Reaver drops will be a ton more consistent.
I'm actually a proponent of balance changes for the most part but if you're committed to avoiding them then you definitely want to avoid changing the scarab mechanics. And even if Blizz does balance changes, this would be wayyyyy too drastic of one.
|
On March 28 2017 05:07 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 04:44 Jealous wrote:On March 28 2017 04:31 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
Im not sure how people would feel about having to "suffer" lines on the sides of their screen but it would be most fair and safe by default actually to not allow expanded view.. idk big question mark, I feel like I would just vote for allow expanded view and I would deal with the disadvantage ; or allow resolution change to 1024 on original............ if you have smaller view though you are more accurate with the details too
so difficult to write about I want to say just damnit let them have a little bit expanded view on remastered roll it back later if needed o____o who knows, gotta test This. I agree with pretty much everything @L_Master said and this is my preferred solution for competitive play. Replays, obsing, campaign, casual melee, UMS - let them have it if they want it. But please keep the competitive environment unchanged or with the requirement of maintaining status quo. Someone a few posts above asked about the disadvantage of Valkyrie sprite limit fix. The answer is simple : currently played TvT in the endgame would change, period. Why risk changing a game you're simply trying to aesthetically fix? The mass wraith lategame we have seen for years in many games could become functionally obsolete without a Valkyrie contingent. In very recent games, the inability of firing from the Valks has had an impact on who wins the engagement. It's something players already have in their understanding of the game. I don't want Sea to beat Flash in the new version's replay system because his Valks started working. I don't want to make the game different from the game Sea and Flash have spent their life playing and mastering just so NoobieTerran1748 can use them in his fastest map possible game. Why is it so difficult to accept that "X unit won't work in Y scenario" when that is the foundation of this game's builds and strategies? Without a valkyrie contingent? Wouldn't this, if anything, encourage a Valkyrie contingent. This would make a high number of valks ever so slightly more attractive of an option. That in mind, changes like these I could almost go either way on, particularly if it's random. Now, if it's now that at say, 10 valkyries, they won't work right...that's fine; keep it. But if it's an unpredictable bug like the ramp vortex one, I could entertain that being fixed. Sure, any good competitive player is aware that could happen; but I do take some issue with the conversation that goes like this: Person A: "Dude wtf, I built like 12 valks cause this guy was massing corsairs against me and then they didn't shoot. Feckin Lammmeee" Person B: "Oh yea, that's a bug in the coding; guess you'll just have to be wary of it next time." Person A: "Man, they should just fix that" Person B: "Nah man, that bug really helps make BW a part of what it is" Most things aren't bugs. Pathing units wandering the base, reaver scarabs, stacking, etc. aren't bugs. They are consequences of how pathing was programmed. I think there is a legitimate argument to be made that units should work as intended. If valks are intended not to work at a certain number, then they should be programmed to do so. Not be unpredictable and buggy about it. Honestly I don't think it's that fair an analogy to say it would be like playing basketball, but every time in the 4th quarter at 7:57 on the clock you get smashed by a brick in the face if you jump up to high to block someones shot. Sure, if some one fills you in you;d know better and not make the mistake; but it's still ridiculous that it would happen in the first place. Show nested quote + I don't want Sea to beat Flash in the new version's replay system because his Valks started working. This is actually really interesting, but I assume the replay would just devolve into a buggy as hell mess, because you'd have units that didn't exist in the original game now alive after the engagement trying to wander around...or hanging out stationary I guess? Show nested quote +
I don't want to make the game different from the game Sea and Flash have spent their life playing and mastering just so NoobieTerran1748 can use them in his fastest map possible game.
I understand this, but do think there is a difference. Doing it so NoobieTerran can use valks in his FMP game I'd be staunchly opposed to. However, the reason the change would be implemented is to make the game work in a predictable, equitable manner that the games creators intended. There is room for disagreement, but I feel that's a much more compelling point than just doing it to pander to our friend NoobieTerran 1748. In this specific case, I really do think it is a "one scenario" case, and a rare one at that. I'm willing to entertain a change that could have a modest impact on a very specific subset of situations in a mirror matchup for a logical fix of a bug. I'd need to see it tested to know how I feel for sure, but this specific change I'm not opposed to on principle.
I do think we are saying the same thing, or at least I attempted to say the same thing as you in the part you bolded. Introducing Valkyries becomes more of a necessity with sprite limit removed, would be a better way to express what I was trying to say.
I don't think the Valkyrie bug is unpredictable at all. I will grant that it is hard to mathematically predict in the sense of "I have 24 Wraiths and he has 24, if he has 2 Valkyrie and I have 3 then my 3rd won't work" or something of that nature is (to my limited knowledge, but within what I have observed in TvT) beyond the scope of what most players work out. If that is your definition of unpredictable, that it can't be fully ascertained prior to an engagement, then I agree - it is unpredictable. However, having the knowledge that Valks like to bug out when there is too much shit going on and using that as a factor in your engagement choices and macro options, I think that it is very predictable. Players snipe Valkyrie first anyway even if they are not shooting most of the time, from what I've seen - largely because they become more valuable as less sprites are in the game during an engagement. Thus, changing the sprite limit won't affect the decision you make in the engagement (need to snipe Valk in Wraith vs. Wraith battles) but it will affect how many Valks are there for you to snipe and how much damage they do before you eliminate all of them, which is a major factor in my opinion. I will admit it introduces an interesting strategic option because Valks don't attack ground but when fully functional will be a massive boon to Wraith vs. Wraith engagements and are also a greater supply/cost investment. However, I don't find this to be a necessary addition to the game nor do I think that its benefits justify the potential impact on late-game TvT in the pro scene. But that's just restating my opinion over, so I apologize.
A little more on replays - they said that they will be backwards compatible, but they also stated that their gaming experience was limited. They stated that they worked with TBLS, but there is only on Terran there and one that is not known for Valkyrie usage. How thorough were they in ensuring that the proposed sprite limit wouldn't affect replays? I can't see a single way they could mitigate that change when looking back at massive air vs. air TvT.
I do have to respect your point about the Valks being useful in a manner that is expected of them at production/by design. There is definite foundation for that stance. But by the same token, Scarabs should work as they do in SC2:BW and explode on impact, Sunken Colonies shouldn't match Siege Tank range because of vision attack buffer or whatever you even call that, and two storms stacked should do double damage by that mentality. Brood War is simply not a game that is traditionally enforcing things that may appear "logical" and the community that exists now, and more importantly the professional players that we all love and follow do not need this to be an aspect of the game. It is the noob who will experience the frustration of expecting X and getting Y when he builds Z. The risk is that said noob will leave and never return. The gain of fixing this is that he may potentially stay and learn. My experience with Brood War so far has shown that people noobs who wouldn't invest the time to ask someone or post on a forum to find out why Valkyrie didn't shoot don't stay around long enough anyway. Catering to noobs and logical expectations may allow us to bring more people into the fold, and of those extract a small percentage willing to get decent, and a much smaller percentage to become great. This is super theorycraft, but I don't think that eliminating a certain percentage of noobs that are easily frustrated because things don't work as they expect them to is better than potentially alienating the current and established playerbase through seemingly innocent "fixes" of this nature.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
No, by no means would that change be balance neutral. We agree there.
|
On March 28 2017 05:17 LegalLord wrote:
I've personally always felt that scarabs should detonate if they dud. Definitely would be a controversial and high-impact change and I wouldn't push for it.
But frankly, there's no reason that stupid shit that doesn't contribute to the game, that just happens to be in there, should be kept in there because "it makes the game what it is." No, it doesn't, it's just a stupid thing that happens to exist in a game that's overall very good. There's no balance-based reason, for example, that dragoons or goliaths should get stuck in certain situations. That just frustrates for no particular purpose.
And I'd further support a few small but meaningful changes like rally points being drawn as a line from the building in question, rather than what there is in there right now. There is similarly nothing skill-based about your gateways not having the right rally point because the game is glitchy. Those kinds of things do need to be fixed. In both BW:R and BW:Vanilla.
I'll mirror what neobowman said about scarabs and not address it in my own words here.
As far as Dragoons/Goliaths getting "stuck," it depends what you mean. Dragoon chasing SCV gets stuck because SCV exited the range of Dragoon while Dragoon was firing? That is something that does have an effect on the game and fixing it will as well, but I am personally not terribly against it (and not because I play Protoss, because it applies to all units, even Zerglings). One side of me says that being cognizant of this issue and thus needing to spare apm into making sure you do snipe that SCV after the bug before the SCV reaches the Terran base is a skill check. The other side of me says that if you already sent the command to target the SCV and send the Dragoon to do so, it should perform as expected. So, I am divided, which is more than I can say for most issues in the game and therefore I can say that I can't be fervent in my defense against making this change.
However, if you mean Dragoons/Goliaths bugging out on ramps when facing Carriers for example, I think that absolutely must stay where it is for obvious reasons. If this is what you mean, let me know so I can invest more time in explaining why this should remain in the game.
For your last point about rally lines, this will again impact the game. Even pro players have trouble with rallies sometimes; newer and mid-tier players especially, with one gateway being rallied to some place you don't want it to be because of your 1a2a3a4a5a overlapping with a Gateway key you set and now you can't figure out which gate is the one sending 1 Zealot at a time to die at Terran's 3rd. This would fix that to some extent but my personal opinion is this is not a change I would be completely against. It is more akin to my stance above: I can respect arguments from both sides, so while my overall stance is "don't change anything," this is one of the more minor things and thus I wouldn't gripe too hard about it.
Things like resolution though, I obviously will gripe about.
|
The valkyrie scenario isn't really comparable to the reaver. The reaver dud is something that is specifically triggered by worker micro, and the scarab will work if they didn't react. The reaver still works in actual army engagements.
The valkyrie bug is triggered by just making more units and removes them from play in all situations whether they had to make a reaction or not. It's not a cute trick that you use as a counterplay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
