|
This is NOT a BW vs SC2 topic thread. Be cautious of what you post. Starting Page 26, warnings/bans will be handed out if this note is ignored. |
Should BW stay the way it is gameplaywise? Of course it should. BW maybe not as popular as other games, but the fact is that in Korea, it transcended being simply a game, but a hobby. And it doesn't matter if it's not as popular as other games or activities - just like there isn't a lot of people playing chess or jumping into ice cold water in winter with only your pants on. Changing ruleset of BW now, would be like allowing people to use hands in soccer or remove dribbling rule in basketball. After all, it's a remaster, not a remake.
There is already a game that has all the goods that people ask from BW, like unlimited unit selection and whatnot - it's SC2.
You can't change rules and features of BW just to accomodate the hypothetical "casual/new playerbase". BW fans play BW because they like it the way it is. Maybe they do find clicking each individual building enjoyable (I know I do, it gives me a rythm and helps me relax), maybe they do feel some kind of kick when they successfully cast 3 spells in quick succession. "Improve" the UI, and you take it all away. By doing it, you basically kick BW fans in the balls, while inviting new people to try the game out. That won't work, because they won't get the BW experience, they will get an experience that is nothign like BW. So if you want to please a crowd with a remaster, it makes sense to please your current fans, not "new/casual playerbase who thinks BW hard but BW good game" that might not exist, Some casual players will try BW with easier controls, obviously. But casual players don't stick around for long, they will get bored, try different game and forget about BW, with easy or hard controls. BW has been alive mostly thanks to "dedicated", "elitist", "hardcore" crowd that is looked down upon on this and other forums as a form of cancer. I'd rather say "thank you" to those guys who keep on playing on Fish and iCCup.
No i also never said that. I merely suggested that discussing these things might actually be interesting. The problem is that as soon as you bring it up there are tons of people who don't even read what you write / don't want to understand it / cannot understand it and it immediately becomes the same old bw vs sc2 topic again where bw is perfect in every sense of the word and everyone who thinks otherwise (or simply tries to reflect on different povs) is defined as not worth talking to. I think the mistake you did, is to try to start such disscussion in a thread that is about BW being modernized (graphically or otherwise, irrelevant), where people express their views and feelings (if you love something, you gonna have strong feelings, and feelings have no place in any discussion) and where people already started SC1 vs SC2 wars. If you want to discuss how BW would look like with some changes to pathing/controls etc., you should rather start a new thread, where you clearly describe your intent. Make some prospositions, show us your point of view, ask couple of questions to start up the discussion. Don't try to talk about things in a thread where people already are on the defensive after some outsiders proposed that "BW would be better with SC2 controls" or something like that.
|
On August 10 2016 02:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2016 02:07 BLinD-RawR wrote:On August 10 2016 01:57 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 10 2016 01:47 juvenal wrote:All you do is calling people names, claiming they're opinions are wrong and useless, claiming you've got some interesting points to discuss and all you actually contributed was the question Captain Obvious would've been proud of: On August 10 2016 00:39 The_Red_Viper wrote: What can be done to attract these players while also make the hardcore crowd happy? And you started it off with On August 10 2016 00:39 The_Red_Viper wrote: How fucking dense can people actually be in here? Then you demanded we listen to you. Yeye, go on, we're listening carefully now. I never demanded anyone to listen to me, i demanded that people are actually open minded about discussion because that's a reasonable thing to do. Reflect on a subject, argue about it from multiple povs (you don't even have to agree with a pov to see that it has interesting, reasonable arguments to make nonetheless) and come to conclusions based on that. Saying any form of discussion about it is void because bw is already perfect or whatever reason you can come up with is incredibly lazy and destructive. Maybe i shouldn't have started my second attempt with name calling, but i actually believe that a lot of "hardcore" bw fanatics (not fans) are incredibly dense, so there is that. edit: i also never claimed that i have all the answers to these important questions (nobody does btw), i merely suggested that it's worth the discussion. then start said discussion its ideal to have everyone discuss the same thing in the thread but at least it would be nice if someone were to discuss it with you instead of arguing that nobody wants to talk about it. its silly to argue about arguing so lets not do that. let me start, I genuinely believe that simple curiosity over how BW has managed to to survive this long might draw out a small number of new audience, obviously not a lot but you have agree its pretty wild that BW has managed to stay relevant after this long even after its pro scene is dead. Don't imply that nobody tried to bring these topics up. The reaction to it is the reason i started with this in the first place. As soon as someone tries to start a discussion the usual ignorant statement spawn immediately ("lol you know nothing about bw", "anybody who says something like this should just be ignored", yadayadayada). Let's be real for a moment here. About your statement, yes sure i don't doubt that this is true to som extent, if it would be f2p a lot of people would surely check it out. The objective then has to keep them playing though or in the case of an upfront cost to make them buy it in the first place. A lot of sc2 people would probably check it out just because they hear tasteless and co talk about bw (and now even see them cast bw), so blizzard will surely make some money here. But ideally as a community you want these people to stay, no? Personally i don't have a problem with these limitations, which is why it's funny that i get attacked for simply proposing that the average gamer doesn't agree with that pov though.
make ums unlimited and creative maybe? Only a handful played bw competitively back in the days. A lot of people played UMS, teamplay, and fastest. The most crucial aspect of bw was social community. It truly felt like family. I always loved loggin on to bw because of my friends. Maybe make bw REALLY social kinda like mmorpg type of social.
|
On August 10 2016 02:12 B-royal wrote: The_Red_Viper I like your posts in the song of ice and fire thread, but you're out of your element here. You understand changing pathfinding, multiple building selection and unit selection limits would change brood war for the worse. You understand that the relevancy and continued survival of brood war hinges on it being arguably the most hardcore RTS game in existence. So why would you try to appeal casual gamers? Sc2 has all the things that some people in this thread are arguing for and the average gamer considers Sc2 too harcore and would rather play a MOBA. An attempt at an analogy... It's like trying to make extreme rock climbing more appealing to the less adventurous rock climber, making it essentially not extreme rock climbing anymore.
Finally, the introduction of BW HD could come with a lot of bad ramifications for the current BW players such as the undertaking of legal action against the private servers. If then BW HD is a completely different game from the original, this would be another kick in the face to BW supporters and players that have made this game achieve a legendary status.
People claim there's no monetary incentive to appeal only to the harcore brood war players (which is wrong, considering that an entire switch of Korea to BW HD could be quite rewarding). But why do people think there's a monetary incentive to appeal to the so-called casual gamer? Where's this mythical casual gamer that would love brood war if only it had multiple building selection, better pathfinding and unlimited unit selection? I can see a few dozen of always the same people arguing for these features in anything related to brood war, that's about it.
You understand changing pathfinding, multiple building selection and unit selection limits would change brood war for the worse Yes it would probably change the game for the worse, most likely. We cannot be 100% sure because afaik nobody ever tried it, but it's a reasonable assumption to make at least.
Sc2 has all the things that some people in this thread are arguing for and the average gamer considers Sc2 too harcore and would rather play a MOBA That is simplifying the issue though. BW with these mechanics =/= sc2. (you can argue about changing some things, others not, pathfinding is imo the biggest factor here personally) Maybe people would actually like a bw with these features a lot more than sc2 (not speaking about the hardcore bw scene here) There are a lot of design decisions in bw that would still make the game feel completely different from sc2, don't you agree?
Finally, the introduction of BW HD could come with a lot of bad ramifications for the current BW players such as the undertaking of legal action against the private servers. If then BW HD is a completely different game from the original, this would be another kick in the face to BW supporters and players that have made this game achieve a legendary status Which is why i suggested multiple times already that there should probably be two modes in this. One with bw as it is now and one with changes.
Where's this mythical casual gamer that would love brood war if only it had multiple building selection, better pathfinding and unlimited unit selection? I can see a few dozen of always the same people arguing for these features in anything related to brood war, that's about it. Personally i don't wanna say that changing these few things would magically make casual gamers enjoy the game 100%. But it's reasonable to say that these changes would appeal to more people than the current iteration of bw, no? These things are brought up because it's the easy thing to suggest, obviously there are other things that could be changed to make it more accessible, the discussion shouldn't stop here. But what does blizzard want to achieve with bw hd? Get the bw audience to buy a new version or also appeal to other gamers.
|
As for the "myth of a casual gamer": maybe I am just one of a kind? I don't know. But I played BW many years ago (like, I dunno 2006 to 2010) and I liked it, but the game was annoyingly hard to deal with. When I first heard about SC2, I was soooo looking forward to all these UI simplifications. That promise was delivered upon and SC2 was a game I liked more. But it was and still is a very different game from BW in other aspects that UI and so the desire to play "BW without all the pain" is still not fully fulfilled in me. Thus, as I have already said, I would gladly pay money for that. Sure, I can play a custom game of SC2BW, but with whom? The very fact that it would be a Blizz release guarantees at least some players and I can trust them in making pretty cool matchmaking, they have shown they can do that.
Again, I might be the only person in the world with this mindset... but, I am? I was never special in anything, so maybe this is my thing? But I don't think so. I think that I am the casual gamer we are looking for and that there have to be more people like that. I am never gonna play BWHD if it has identical gameplay to BW, because I know that after 6 years of SC2 I would hate the guts of SC without automine and MBS.
On the other hand, I know that some people like BW as it is - and those people do have BW as it is, right? Are you really seriously worried that Blizzard is going to get after you and try to force you to play BWHD only? I think that's pretty far-fetched. Anyway, I still think that "dual" BWHD with both options and matchmaking for both options would be best. Not that Blizzard reads this anyway, so we aren't really gonna make a difference here, but I would still like to understand, why that would be such a big problem.
|
I guess most people asking for "modern" features to be added to BW don't really understand the implications those features would have on the balance of the game. Imagine how much the balance would change with MBS, automining, unlimited selection, smartcasting, and perfect pathing... Good luck trying to split against storms or avoiding dark swarms all over the place. Cracklings would also be suddenly extremely powerful. And do you think Blizzard would be able to balance it? Would anybody want Blizzard patching the game every now and then like they do with SC2?
It's almost like you guys think that people don't want "modern" features because BW is sacred or because we want to keep the game "artificially hard", so only the "true BW purists" are able to play it.
Also, being completely honest, do you think that even if these "modern" features were implemented, the game would attract a lot of newer players? Is it happening to LoTV? Why isn't LoTV flooding with new players everywhere?
|
im gonna have to agree with The_Red_Viper on one thing, if anything. Most BW fans, especially on this forum, are extremely zealous and praise BW nearly religiously. I mean i love Brood war as much as the next guy, but sometimes people take it a little too far any time somebody brings up some kind of change.
There's ways to change the game without changing its gameplay mechanics. stuff like how the ladder works, how lobby works, matchmaking, etc. BW's current matchmaking system (imo) is extremely flawed. I'm a d- player, and it's hard for me to find actually d/d- players who are around my skill level, as there are a ton of smurfs and/or players who have just been playing much longer than i have, even if they're still a lower rank than I am. I see c- players leeching off of d/d- players by making games titled "1v1 d/d-" and instant start games if a d/d- player comes in.
|
But what does blizzard want to achieve with bw hd? Get the bw audience to buy a new version or also appeal to other gamers. Maybe I'm on a different page than everyone else, but isn't the whole point of HD Remasters to pander to nostalgia and older audiences? I imagine if they wanted to appeal to new gamers, they'd make a new game, instead of taking an old game and changing it so that it just looks like an old game.
|
SC2 sucks and BW is great.
Ban me please, I'll just post again if I get a warning.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 10 2016 02:36 Airking990 wrote: im gonna have to agree with The_Red_Viper on one thing, if anything. Most BW fans, especially on this forum, are extremely zealous and praise BW nearly religiously. I mean i love Brood war as much as the next guy, but sometimes people take it a little too far any time somebody brings up some kind of change.
There's ways to change the game without changing its gameplay mechanics. stuff like how the ladder works, how lobby works, etc.
I think most people would welcome automatchmaking, a new ladder, etc. Most are just contrary to adding/changing features that would interfere a lot with gameplay.
|
On August 10 2016 02:39 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2016 02:36 Airking990 wrote: im gonna have to agree with The_Red_Viper on one thing, if anything. Most BW fans, especially on this forum, are extremely zealous and praise BW nearly religiously. I mean i love Brood war as much as the next guy, but sometimes people take it a little too far any time somebody brings up some kind of change.
There's ways to change the game without changing its gameplay mechanics. stuff like how the ladder works, how lobby works, etc. I think most people would welcome automatchmaking, a new ladder, etc. Most are just contrary to adding/changing features that would interfere a lot with gameplay. i think most people are heavily distrustful of Blizzard in that matter. But we have to consider the possibility of it literally just being upscaled bw, keeping everything the same and just getting higher-res sprites, and even scaling up collision boxes and stuff without any of the smoothing you might expect from an HD Remaster and trust Blizzard a little bit.
If worst comes to worst, we still have Brood War as it is, can downgrade our games (because the game comes installed off their website on patch 1.15, and you need to update to 1.16. Downloads for 1.16 are still everywhere and we can revert) and just play on stuff like ICCup and ShieldBattery (when it comes). If it gets worse than that and Blizzard starts pulling out DMCA takedowns on defiler.ru, iccup, fish, etc., that's where i draw the line. These groups dont even profit off of running BW and get along via donations.
(fuck you nintendo for the DMCAs on AnotherMetroid2Remake)
|
On August 10 2016 00:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2016 22:48 Qeet wrote: this thread should be closed it just attracts sc2 people who try to bait others into a sc2 vs bw discussion with stupid suggestions no one should take serious like mbs, unlimited unit selection, automining, improved pathfinding and what not How fucking dense can people actually be in here? It's not about sc2 people wanting these features, it's about making bw (potentially) more accessible for the mainstream audience. There are pros and cons for such a step. You simply ignore the pros because bw is sacred in your head which is ridiculous. Would it be worth it to change the gameplay that much? Who knows but that's exactly the discussion which would be interesting. Do i personally think that 12 units per group, the pathing, etc are important for the gameplay? Yes absolutely! Do i think that these things will attract modern gamers (or as you call it "sc2 people" ; this misses the point btw)? No! What can be done to attract these players while also make the hardcore crowd happy? That's one interesting discussion focus. Is it even necessary for blizzard to make the hardcore crowd happy / is it realistic to have a ton of new players when you change some things? Etc This "as soon as someone talks about qol changes, new design objectives or anything like that i simply call him a sc2 noob and be done with it" train of thought is ludicrous at best. I still think two modes would be ideal, one with bw as it is and one with changes for potential new players
Note: I have not been on Battle.net in a long time, so I have no idea what BW on their servers is like anymore. I'm writing this post from the point-of-view of a person who plays occasionally and visits a forum where most people are into competitive gaming in one way or another.
I think many of the balance and gameplay, etc., issues that we are addressing in this thread do not even matter to "mainstream" gamers. What most people are suggesting as changes would only really matter to, well, us. Maybe to other competitive people. Why would you want to make such changes for those types of people? And to what end? Would you draw enough numbers to justify the changes? It doesn't make any sense to me because their whole mentality is that they want to compete. I think we need to be clearer on the audience we want to attract: casual gamers or competitive gamers.
I think people here sometimes make an unwarranted assumption: that "casual" (or "mainstream") gamers want to compete seriously, taking their game to higher levels, where the competition is as much against oneself as one's opponent. And I don't think many, if not most, of them do. I think higher levels for a "casual" gamer means going from level 45 to 46. If we start, instead, from the assumption that what casual gamers want is something completely different from hardcore competition, the conclusions reached are radically different. Then the idea of introducing "easier" ways to play the game just don't hold water. Now what we are saying is that to appease the "hardcore", we're going to "simplify" the game, which makes no sense.
The game is simple enough to be played casually. The problem is that most of us here are not really "casual" about BW. This is TL. We obviously take it more seriously and have or want to have a deeper understanding of the game. At higher levels, of course it's difficult to play. Anything is. But it's simple enough to be played casually. And there is more than one way the game can be enjoyed. Making something more "accessible" doesn't have to necessitate making changes to the gameplay. In my opinion, I actually think making gameplay changes would only piss off BW fans and be completely lost on casuals.
In fact, most games and sports are like this at a certain level. Anyone can grab a soccer ball and some friends and go have a game. Not everyone wants to compete seriously. Are we going to change soccer's gameplay to allow hands because some people might not be able to play effectively? What if they don't want to play seriously? Then it wouldn't even matter. Everyone likes friendly competition, but huge amounts of practice to get to "the next level" is not really most people's thing in any sport or game. But most games/sports allow me that avenue to play at a friendly level if I wanted, but also play more seriously if I wanted (some games have more depth than others, obviously).
I think that's BW's problem (and potentially even SC2's problem, for that matter): it's very limited for casual gamers to play each other. Brood War was very popular for a long time even among "casual" players who had no intention of competing or even gave a shit about the professional scene. It isn't popular enough to continue drawing in new blood at the moment and the game's exposure is very low. As such, it's a pretty hostile and barren environment for anyone trying to pick up the game for the first time. They would see that there would be a handful of UMS games and a bunch of games where they get slaughtered because they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. It would be far friendlier if there were constantly new faces for new people to play with and against, and if there were different types of games.
I remember playing this game all those years ago. Most people who played didn't give a shit about playing the game for some competitive kick. Most people didn't give a damn about taking their game to the next level. Most people I knew didn't even think about gameplay (in a 1v1 context). There were so many different types of games that kept so many people entertained in different ways. There were those who laddered. There were those who played casually. There were those who played UMSes (try counting those), and 2v2s, and 3v3s, and 4v4s, and BGH and fast money maps, and FFAs (often on some horribly-balanced Blizz map). Hell, some people didn't even play. They sat around in channels talking with friends or playing those trivia bots. There is more than one way to enjoy a game (or its community).
In my opinion, making any changes to the gameplay at this point in time is utterly useless. Yes, I'm a staunch BW conservative (I do think that the game is pretty much complete). But I also think it's because any gameplay changes would probably be lost on most casual gamers, anyway. (The two mode thing might be an alternative.) I think that many, if not most, of us at this site have a shortsightedness. We think of competition and having fun through a fine lens. But that's not the only way to look at a game. The competitive will always be the competitive. If someone joining a game wants to compete or joins with the intention of competing, they'll do it, even if they have to lose a thousand games when they first start playing, no matter how "difficult" it's perceived to be. But if we're going to attract casual players, we need to realize that not everyone is looking to play seriously and there is more than one way to enjoy a game. No amount of gameplay and balance changes is going to change that, and all of the gameplay and balance changes in the world may not matter to many, if not most, of those people.
e2a: I definitely think that any changes to make the UI more user-friendly, and other similar changes, would be a big improvement and would help draw in casual players. One of the barriers is definitely trying to set up games and forwarding ports and all of that crap that most people do not want to bother with.
|
Nobody is going to introduce "friendly" features for "casual gamers" because even my mum knows that it will break the current BW balance. Trying to bring this Leviathan topic here only stirs up unnecessary drama. Former BW progamers and high skilled players are the only authority here who I and many other BW fans would take seriously. So, if you're a casual Joe, no point in being angry with the way BW community treats any comments regarding the balance.
|
On August 10 2016 02:28 Shinokuki wrote: make ums unlimited and creative maybe? Only a handful played bw competitively back in the days. A lot of people played UMS, teamplay, and fastest. The most crucial aspect of bw was social community. It truly felt like family. I always loved loggin on to bw because of my friends. Maybe make bw REALLY social kinda like mmorpg type of social.
that's true man I miss those days shit guys what about the chat are they gonna make a shit chat again so we can't talk or criticize the game lol they did this for every single game after merging with activision, gamers criticizing the game on chat channels hurt their profits so they kill chat even when people were asking for a good chat interface for months they just came up with some lame excuse for putting a half assed chat interface in the end (like "oh no its gonna be full of spammers" you think you want it but you don't...)
|
On August 10 2016 02:48 feckless wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2016 00:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On August 09 2016 22:48 Qeet wrote: this thread should be closed it just attracts sc2 people who try to bait others into a sc2 vs bw discussion with stupid suggestions no one should take serious like mbs, unlimited unit selection, automining, improved pathfinding and what not How fucking dense can people actually be in here? It's not about sc2 people wanting these features, it's about making bw (potentially) more accessible for the mainstream audience. There are pros and cons for such a step. You simply ignore the pros because bw is sacred in your head which is ridiculous. Would it be worth it to change the gameplay that much? Who knows but that's exactly the discussion which would be interesting. Do i personally think that 12 units per group, the pathing, etc are important for the gameplay? Yes absolutely! Do i think that these things will attract modern gamers (or as you call it "sc2 people" ; this misses the point btw)? No! What can be done to attract these players while also make the hardcore crowd happy? That's one interesting discussion focus. Is it even necessary for blizzard to make the hardcore crowd happy / is it realistic to have a ton of new players when you change some things? Etc This "as soon as someone talks about qol changes, new design objectives or anything like that i simply call him a sc2 noob and be done with it" train of thought is ludicrous at best. I still think two modes would be ideal, one with bw as it is and one with changes for potential new players Note: I have not been on Battle.net in a long time, so I have no idea what BW on their servers is like anymore. I'm writing this post from the point-of-view of a person who plays occasionally and visits a forum where most people are into competitive gaming in one way or another.I think many of the balance and gameplay, etc., issues that we are addressing in this thread do not even matter to "mainstream" gamers. What most people are suggesting as changes would only really matter to, well, us. Maybe to other competitive people. Why would you want to make such changes for those types of people? And to what end? Would you draw enough numbers to justify the changes? It doesn't make any sense to me because their whole mentality is that they want to compete. I think we need to be clearer on the audience we want to attract: casual gamers or competitive gamers. I think people here sometimes make an unwarranted assumption: that "casual" (or "mainstream") gamers want to compete seriously, taking their game to higher levels, where the competition is as much against oneself as one's opponent. And I don't think many, if not most, of them do. I think higher levels for a "casual" gamer means going from level 45 to 46. If we start, instead, from the assumption that what casual gamers want is something completely different from hardcore competition, the conclusions reached are radically different. Then the idea of introducing "easier" ways to play the game just don't hold water. Now what we are saying is that to appease the "hardcore", we're going to "simplify" the game, which makes no sense. The game is simple enough to be played casually. The problem is that most of us here are not really "casual" about BW. This is TL. We obviously take it more seriously and have or want to have a deeper understanding of the game. At higher levels, of course it's difficult to play. Anything is. But it's simple enough to be played casually. And there is more than one way the game can be enjoyed. Making something more "accessible" doesn't have to necessitate making changes to the gameplay. In my opinion, I actually think making gameplay changes would only piss off BW fans and be completely lost on casuals. In fact, most games and sports are like this at a certain level. Anyone can grab a soccer ball and some friends and go have a game. Not everyone wants to compete seriously. Are we going to change soccer's gameplay to allow hands because some people might not be able to play effectively? What if they don't want to play seriously? Then it wouldn't even matter. Everyone likes friendly competition, but huge amounts of practice to get to "the next level" is not really most people's thing in any sport or game. But most games/sports allow me that avenue to play at a friendly level if I wanted, but also play more seriously if I wanted (some games have more depth than others, obviously). I think that's BW's problem (and potentially even SC2's problem, for that matter): it's very limited for casual gamers to play each other. Brood War was very popular for a long time even among "casual" players who had no intention of competing or even gave a shit about the professional scene. It isn't popular enough to continue drawing in new blood at the moment and the game's exposure is very low. As such, it's a pretty hostile and barren environment for anyone trying to pick up the game for the first time. They would see that there would be a handful of UMS games and a bunch of games where they get slaughtered because they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. It would be far friendlier if there were constantly new faces for new people to play with and against, and if there were different types of games. I remember playing this game all those years ago. Most people who played didn't give a shit about playing the game for some competitive kick. Most people didn't give a damn about taking their game to the next level. Most people I knew didn't even think about gameplay (in a 1v1 context). There were so many different types of games that kept so many people entertained in different ways. There were those who laddered. There were those who played casually. There were those who played UMSes (try counting those), and 2v2s, and 3v3s, and 4v4s, and BGH and fast money maps, and FFAs (often on some horribly-balanced Blizz map). Hell, some people didn't even play. They sat around in channels talking with friends or playing those trivia bots. There is more than one way to enjoy a game (or its community). In my opinion, making any changes to the gameplay at this point in time is utterly useless. Yes, I'm a staunch BW conservative (I do think that the game is pretty much complete). But I also think it's because any gameplay changes would probably be lost on most casual gamers, anyway. (The two mode thing might be an alternative.) I think that many, if not most, of us at this site have a shortsightedness. We think of competition and having fun through a fine lens. But that's not the only way to look at a game. The competitive will always be the competitive. If someone joining a game wants to compete or joins with the intention of competing, they'll do it, even if they have to lose a thousand games when they first start playing, no matter how "difficult" it's perceived to be. But if we're going to attract casual players, we need to realize that not everyone is looking to play seriously and there is more than one way to enjoy a game. No amount of gameplay and balance changes is going to change that, and all of the gameplay and balance changes in the world may not matter to many, if not most, of those people. e2a: I definitely think that any changes to make the UI more user-friendly, and other similar changes, would be a big improvement and would help draw in casual players. One of the barriers is definitely trying to set up games and forwarding ports and all of that crap that most people do not want to bother with.
I agree 100% with you. I remember playing this game in Battle.net even before BW, and 1v1 wasn't even the most played mode afaik. I loved playing 2v2, 3v3 on BGHs and many people played a lot of different UMS maps. The way I see it, the "2 rulesets" idea would be bad because it would segment the playerbase even more. Maybe the "modern" ruleset would be good for SC2 players that want to transition, but don't like to put in the effort to play classic BW. The true casual player though wouldn't probably care that much.
|
On August 10 2016 02:34 opisska wrote:Again, I might be the only person in the world with this mindset... but, I am? I was never special in anything, so maybe this is my thing? But I don't think so. I think that I am the casual gamer we are looking for and that there have to be more people like that. I am never gonna play BWHD if it has identical gameplay to BW, because I know that after 6 years of SC2 I would hate the guts of SC without automine and MBS.
Funny, as these are the two features implemented way worse in SCII than I imagined during the first rumors SCII would have them. I remember how unnerved I was by the MBS, as it wasn't making things much easier than they were in BW, probably because I was used to clicking buildings one by one. Pressing so much more buttons isn't really harder if you're used to it, it doesn't take too much to get it down to begin with, it's just a matter of dedication and concentration (which you need in both games for the late stages). However, once you are used to it, you'll find MBS annoying or in a best case scenario no improvement at all, as it has problems of its own - if slight lags occur, you either produce too much, the wrong mix or nothing at all. I don't think there's much gain in this mechanic compared to the feeling of being more precise and aware of what you're doing once you left the lower ranks. Please note, I'm leaving out the warp-feature-thing you had with Pylons and whatnot for Protoss, this works a lot differently and actually was rather making life easy for me. A minor improvement was the option to rally all buildings at once, but... not too mind boggling for non-professionals I think.
Aside from that, auto-gather can be quite terrible in BW, again, once you left the lower ranks. The eco/army supply balancing needs thought, it's a very typical thing for beginners, especially Zerg users, to screw that up. All this tiny features, in the long run, will hold you down: Terran overpowering against Protoss, Protoss against Zerg and Zerg economy in general, just to list random examples that matter.
The real pain is the unit selection limit, this was the go-to feature to make life easier for me, a rather slow player (around 180-210 apm in average when active) in SCII. You don't need many number hotkeys, you're free to move armies without double or tripple checking, or spending any thought on other edgy things. However, implementing this into Brood War would be fatal for the balance. Imagine huge Mutalisk stacks, or a roaming Protoss death ball.
|
On August 10 2016 02:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I never demanded anyone to listen to me, i demanded that people are actually open minded about discussion because that's a reasonable thing to do. Reflect on a subject, argue about it from multiple povs (you don't even have to agree with a pov to see that it has interesting, reasonable arguments to make nonetheless) and come to conclusions based on that. Saying any form of discussion about it is void because bw is already perfect or whatever reason you can come up with is incredibly lazy and destructive.
Destructive for what? Not for a game design, obviously. Blizz will do whatever they want, they wont listen "BW fanatics" as me, they will not take "fanatical" opinion into consideration and if they will decide to change f.e. twitchy pathfinding (wich was good thing IMO, as the game looks like less blobby becouse of this - notable exception - scaraabs) they will do this and nobody gonna stop them. So what it is destructive for? Your need to be listened? Well, I'm not going to provide it, you like it or not. Everyone with IQ above that of shellfish can predict what changes can be done even without your sophisticated ideas.
|
On August 10 2016 03:07 GeckoXp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2016 02:34 opisska wrote:Again, I might be the only person in the world with this mindset... but, I am? I was never special in anything, so maybe this is my thing? But I don't think so. I think that I am the casual gamer we are looking for and that there have to be more people like that. I am never gonna play BWHD if it has identical gameplay to BW, because I know that after 6 years of SC2 I would hate the guts of SC without automine and MBS. Funny, as these are the two features implemented way worse in SCII than I imagined during the first rumors SCII would have them. I remember how unnerved I was by the MBS, as it wasn't making things much easier than they were in BW, probably because I was used to clicking buildings one by one. Pressing so much more buttons isn't really harder if you're used to it, it doesn't take too much to get it down to begin with, it's just a matter of dedication and concentration (which you need in both games for the late stages). However, once you are used to it, you'll find MBS annoying or in a best case scenario no improvement at all, as it has problems of its own - if slight lags occur, you either produce too much, the wrong mix or nothing at all. I don't think there's much gain in this mechanic compared to the feeling of being more precise and aware of what you're doing once you left the lower ranks. Please note, I'm leaving out the warp-feature-thing you had with Pylons and whatnot for Protoss, this works a lot differently and actually was rather making life easy for me. A minor improvement was the option to rally all buildings at once, but... not too mind boggling for non-professionals I think. Aside from that, auto-gather can be quite terrible in BW, again, once you left the lower ranks. The eco/army supply balancing needs thought, it's a very typical thing for beginners, especially Zerg users, to screw that up. All this tiny features, in the long run, will hold you down: Terran overpowering against Protoss, Protoss against Zerg and Zerg economy in general, just to list random examples that matter. The real pain is the unit selection limit, this was the go-to feature to make life easier for me, a rather slow player (around 180-210 apm in average when active) in SCII. You don't need many number hotkeys, you're free to move armies without double or tripple checking, or spending any thought on other edgy things. However, implementing this into Brood War would be fatal for the balance. Imagine huge Mutalisk stacks, or a roaming Protoss death ball.
Hehe, this is really weird, because for me, MBS was a huge improvement and remained even when I switched to Zerg - which has much less buildings to select in the first place. The point of MBS is the ability to macro without looking at your base. Surely, you have to go to the base to do other things, but the big difference is that you can order units at the moment you need to do so without losing focus elsewhere. In my imagination, MBS would be even more useful in BW, because not only you need much more hatches (no inject) but also there is much more to do with army (note, I never really argued for lifting the 12-unit limit, I kinda can see how that would be a problem and I am not sure what to think about it).
And how can automine be detrimental, I can't see that, really. The only thing the non-auto-mining worker does is that it stands idly around. Are you trying to suggest that being reminded to check your economy by the threat of having idle workers, is a good thing? There we would have to conclude we have a conceptual disagreement, because I don't really like this kind of thinking - I don't really know how to correctly generalize it, but it's along the lines "X is good for you, because it teaches ..." - I hate that everywhere in life, so I surely won't like it in a game I play for fun ....
As I said, I am not really clear on the 12-unit question. Yeah, I like that it isn't in SC2, but I can imagine that in BW the consequences would be huuuuuge. The same with smartcast - I love it, but smartcast Defilers, really? I don't know ... But MBS, automine, general bug correction (basically everything that's illegal in pro play anyway plus the sprite thing and goon derp), those I would really love to have included in a playable BW version.
|
China6282 Posts
Basically Blizzard can't win with either approach.
|
On August 10 2016 02:16 The_Red_Viper wrote: The objective then has to keep them playing though
I think this is where the confusion is coming from.
I don't really want any changes, and nor do the "bw fanatics" as you love to label us, because this ISN'T our objective. I imagine for most people in the bw section the main objective is making sure bw continues to work on modern systems and that the Pro scene is able to flourish, not that 100,000 new people take up the game.
|
All i know is that casuals will not play the game competitively. Brood war's UMS was the best thing that ever happened to casuals. We have tens of thousands still playing UMS on fish server EVERYDAY. Do you guys realize how creative UMS are getting these days? One punch man, Super Mario, One piece, Naruto, DBZ, and etc. These UMS kept up the community. There are maybe 2000~3000 seriously "ladder players." So what I'm proposing to blizzard is to UP the graphics in a good way or make UMS reach the maximum capacity for creativity and have editors have good amount of authority to make any UMS they want. This is what casuals will most likely play. On top of that, have blizzard make bw more social as well. We already to have a nice chat interface but I'm sure there's a way to make it even more social ( kinda like what Shieldbattery is doing right now). Even if sc2 guys want MBS, unlimited unit selection, I'd doubt they'll continue to play. They'll move on to other games like sc2, overwatch, and etc. But UMS is a completely different ball game. It's the most unique feature of starcraft franchise. So what i'm proposing to blizzard are these features
HD resolution, make units clearer ( can't tell if goons are spiders or robots), match making system, better obs interface, F2P, incentive design (rewards, awards, ranks, portraits), UMS, and other non game changing things.
|
|
|
|