|
An interview with the Devs of StarCraft: Remastered
March 26th, 2017 05:27 GMT
With StarCraft: Remastered fast approaching, many questions remain about the exact nature of the project and just what exactly "remastered" stands for. Brood War fans have felt dread and excitement in equal measure since the project was announced, and the trailer may have done enough to swing it in the latter's favor. As Brood War's most ardent community, we were given the opportunity to talk to some of the devs and find out more about StarCraft: Remastered. This interview was conducted through text with Robert Bridenbecker: Vice President, Technology Strategy and Planning; and Pete Stilwell: Senior Producer, Classic Games, mediated by Bob Colayco, PR Manager.The GraphicsWhat was the process behind the revamped graphics? Did the team simply port the graphics 1:1, or did they take any specific liberties in reinterpreting Brood War in HD? The original graphics look a lot “grittier” and dirtier while the remastered graphics look more ‘polished’. Was this a conscious decision or simply an effect of remastering?
Our core objectives with the art were twofold: First was to maintain the original unit silhouettes and animations. We got feedback from players that the shapes and movements heavily influenced recognition during gameplay. Second was filling in the details in an authentic way. We talked to the original artists as much as we could to discover, “what did you imagine those handful of pixels actually were?”
You mentioned that SC:R will be available in up to 4k. How will the field of vision and resolution be like? Will the unit to screen ratio be maintained, or will the field of vision look bigger—hence making the units smaller? Can you provide more specific examples?
The screen ratio has been maintained. Your field of view is still that of Brood War. The client supports play in 4:3 or widescreen – and switching between them on the fly – without missing a beat. This switching between 4:3 standard def or widescreen HD can happen back and forth with just the press of a button. Some of the unit sprites look like a perfect match, but some, like the marine, look quite different. Since fans might have trouble accepting units that look even marginally different, could you explain why these units look different, or if there were any specific reasons to tweak appearances a little? The shipped version will maintain the silhouettes and animations. The detail work was sometimes a bit tricky. Large units have a lot of flat pixels in the original. Seeing huge swaths of monotone on a Battlecruiser or many of the buildings didn’t strike us as true to what the concepts and original artists intended. We could have programmatically replaced the art if we were going for that type of effect. Instead, we tried to fill those spaces in with the style and details that matched each race. Graphics has a direct impact on gameplay. For example, clicking spider mines and selecting just the right number of units. Did the graphics team consider gameplay ramifications while remastering the units? Maintaining gameplay is our first priority. The game is still built around the original graphics and gameplay engine; everything is still 2D. Collision and associated aspects that affect gameplay are still foundationally the same. We’ve just amped it up a bit to handle 4k. The GameplayYou’ve already announced that SC:R will retain most, if not all of the quirks that made BW so special. However, it’s inevitable that some changes could have unforeseen effects on gameplay. How extensively have you play tested SC:R? What subtle differences have you noticed so far? We’re still using the original gameplay engine. The team plays daily — for specific testing reasons — and on Friday nights for fun on maps like Hunters. While none of us are pro level, the game looks and feels the same as 1.16 to us. One of the biggest concerns from the community was that ‘modern’ game mechanics (such as MBS, unlimited selection, etc) would be introduced into the game. Was it always the goal to replicate BW exactly as is, or was there an argument for ‘modern mechanics’ during the remastering process? Are there any specific ‘modern functions’ you plan on introducing such as custom hotkeys? We knew instinctively not to mess with a game regarded so highly for its balance. We haven’t made any changes to gameplay. One fact that we want to share about the development process is that we interviewed key people in the community extensively about these types of issues, before jumping into full development. Our goal was to gain understanding on what sorts of improvements would be welcome, and which aspects of the game we should not try to change. Those whose feedback we consulted included current and former Brood War pros, casters, modders/developers, and esports operations staff. Based on this feedback, we feel confident about the direction we took, and now that the project is public, we can open up that feedback to the broader community. The features we’ve added are based on popular add-ons the community has adopted over the years and don’t directly affect gameplay: keybinds, APM meter, auto-saving replays, and others outside the game for matchmaking and similar functions. How did you go about replicating all the unexpected “bugs” that made BW micro so special? Did you simply reuse code from the original game, or did you find a solution to replicate the nuances of BW’s gameplay? StarCraft: Remastered is able to achieve this effect as it uses all the same gameplay code as Brood War. This means that Dragoons and Goliaths are still a bit derpy in how they react to movement commands. The Reaver’s shot doesn’t always find a target. Mutas stack. The fact is that the gameplay is identical enough that old replays from 1.16 will play and work just fine under StarCraft: Remastered. Have you play tested with current and past professional players? What are some of their more valuable feedback? How has their response been? We’ve been talking with designers, former pros in our Blizzard office, and current pros since the project began.
We recently let Flash, Jaedong, Stork, and Bisu play a build. Despite all the hours of research we spent gathering feedback from key people in the Brood War community, this was quite a nerve-wracking moment for us for obvious reasons. Much to our relief, these pros seemed to have great fun. They didn’t fight each other. Instead, they macroed up, built a bit of everything, and started microing against their own buildings. That was our true test. Their feedback to us was positive, and they were incredibly pleased with the state of things. The only criticism we got was for a few pieces of art that weren’t finished yet. The Game and Its FutureWho was involved in the remastering process? Were there any original BW developers or Blizzard employees that helped in the remastering process? Could you give us a little more background on the team that worked on SC:R? Classic Games is a good mix of original devs and ones that grew up playing these games. Original developers who are on new projects were liberally consulted as well. This is a project close to the hearts of everyone at Blizzard. How long has Blizzard been working on SC:R? We started preproduction about 18 months ago. We’re about a year in on active development. Do you foresee any future patches for BW? What was the reason behind this patch? Will you simply be making QOL patches, or do you have any other plans for patching? We don’t have concrete plans for after release. Our focus has been on the community during development, so we’d like to take some time after release to let the community react. You’ll continue to be our guiding light after release. Two bugs that are planned to be patched are goons getting stuck and the valkyrie sprite bug where if enough valkyries were present on the screen, they would stop shooting because of the sprite limitation bug. Can you please explain which bugs, if any, will be fixed in this release? Happily, those two bugs will be fixed in Remastered. Some bugs have become ‘features’ over the years, but we found everyone we talked to thought those were good fixes. One important area that needs fixing is replays, which are currently plagued with bugs. Will Blizzard look into fixing replays for classic BW? One of our testers created a bot that plows through replays endlessly to look for aberrant behavior. We have no issues with replays from 1.16, though we don’t currently have plans to support older versions. We’ve seen the BW meta evolve on its own with very little intervention. Are these any plans for more balance patches or will Blizzard leave the players to their own doings? What are Blizzard's expectations? No plans. As you’ve pointed out, new strategies are still emerging and we agree that changes are unnecessary. What kind of matchmaking will be available for classic Brood War? What kind of ladder system will be available? How closely will the menus and matchmaking mimic classic BW? Will the menu and GUI structure simulate classic Brood War? We’re maintaining the Chat Channels and other defining features. We’re giving an aesthetic that mimics what players are used to from the original game if you prefer the old-school style of custom game lobbies and negotiating game terms before hopping into a game. For the sake of modern convenience and an accurate ladder, we are also giving the option of jumping more quickly into a match, with fewer buttons and menus to navigate. More details about the online UI will be released in the coming weeks, so stay tuned to the official website. You mentioned that antihack will be made available for BW. Any details on its implications on third party software that previously allowed players to play BW on different third party servers and other minor tools? One of the reasons we wanted to replace the more popular add-ons was to be less disruptive with the new anti-cheat measures. We attempted to reach many of the add-on makers, but some have moved on or couldn’t be found. Right now, players enjoy playing on multiple accounts, especially for different races. Will Blizzard continue to allow multiple accounts in BW and SC:R, or will you have a different solution for this? We have created a feature to permanently link legacy accounts to your modern account. No more 90 day timeouts either. Will there be esports support for SC:R in the future? E.g. observer tools like gameheart, zoom out. We are adding a few features to improve the experience for viewers at home and Observer slots in game lobbies.
Feedback from the shoutcasters was to temper our enthusiasm for data though. They believe the excitement of Brood War is often in the discovery of what is about to happen. We’ll introduce a few new key features and gauge feedback. As usual, we’ll err on the side of caution with change. Are there any plans to make BW and SC:R compatible? If gameplay is designed to be identical between both games, can players choose to play BW and SC:R and play against each other? Would replays be playable in both graphic modes? Players will be able to connect and play, watch replays, or share saved games seamlessly between free Brood War, and the SC:R upgrade. It’s all the same client! Each player and observer in the game can opt to play in standard or high def individually, and you can switch instantly and seamlessly at the press of a button right inside the game or while watching a replay.
|
|
The real reason we got a server upgrade.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
One of our testers created a bot that plows through replays endlessly to look for aberrant behavior. We have no issues with replays from 1.16, though we don’t currently have plans to support older versions. I hope this comes eventually, I love old replays
Still, this is just... so exciting!! I'm sad I won't be able to play nearly as much as I want to right now...
Now to decide if I go back to Protoss or continue with Terran, hmmm.
|
United States1224 Posts
Awesome interview, thanks guys!
|
thx 4 the interview. price?
|
SC is saved ESPORTS is SAVED
|
Chuckled at the point where they said Goons will remain derpy. Hehe!
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22271 Posts
Price is yet undetermined
|
|
Being able to play the old and new graphics in the same game is crazy, I also am so hyped that you can play completely for free on old Brood War
|
Amazing!
Thank you Blizzard for listening to the community!
|
On March 26 2017 14:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote: thx 4 the interview. price?
it's free, right? they said v1.18a is free so i'm assuming this is, too. or maybe i got it wrong?
p.s. tnx for this interview, tl.
|
You have to appreciate the cautious approach they're taking. It makes it clear they know their audience to whom a single adjustment is a potential catastrophe and something to be skeptical of. You wouldn't give Super Mario a machine gun in a Super Mario Bros. remake etc.
Thanks classic games dev team
|
Fantastic interview. Classic BW; classic TL high-level content.
|
So SCR and SC can play together. Remastered is basically a skin which people pay for like in MOBAs. WOW Blizzard didnt fuck this up this time
|
"Players will be able to connect and play, watch replays, or share saved games seamlessly between free Brood War, and the SC:R upgrade. It’s all the same client! Each player and observer in the game can opt to play in standard or high def individually, and you can switch instantly and seamlessly at the press of a button right inside the game or while watching a replay."
This is the best part.
|
I'm amazed at the bit where someone with SC:R can play against someone using the classic BW
|
Wow! I'm really amazed, diligence and competence i haven't seen from Blizzard in years. Awesome job.
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +Players will be able to connect and play, watch replays, or share saved games seamlessly between free Brood War, and the SC:R upgrade. It’s all the same client! Each player and observer in the game can opt to play in standard or high def individually, and you can switch instantly and seamlessly at the press of a button right inside the game or while watching a replay.
That is so freaking incredible. That's actually better than the best case scenario I had in my head. So every nuance will be replicated. Well done!
|
|
so will we be able to launch the game through the battle.net launcher and b.net 2.0 or will it be its own client and everything on the original battle.net?
|
Lol... as someone else said earlier in another thread "drowning in my own jizz"
My question: what about mapmaking? Wonder if everything will be compatible (this makes it seem like it will be)
|
On March 26 2017 15:05 CuSToM wrote: so will we be able to launch the game through the battle.net launcher and b.net 2.0 or will it be its own client and everything on the original battle.net?
This is the one thing I'm still not sure on. I assume Remastered will be Bnet 2.0, but Classic BW I'm guessing will be using the older, but updated UI.
|
On March 26 2017 15:05 CuSToM wrote: so will we be able to launch the game through the battle.net launcher and b.net 2.0 or will it be its own client and everything on the original battle.net? I'd imagine it'd be both? You launch it via the launcher but it uses b.net 1.0 accounts and setup? They said that BW and the Remaster will be cross compatible
|
Players will be able to connect and play, watch replays, or share saved games seamlessly between free Brood War, and the SC:R upgrade. It’s all the same client! Each player and observer in the game can opt to play in standard or high def individually, and you can switch instantly and seamlessly at the press of a button right inside the game or while watching a replay.
This and the fact that TBLS was fine with it is more than good enough for me.
|
On March 26 2017 14:43 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +One of our testers created a bot that plows through replays endlessly to look for aberrant behavior. We have no issues with replays from 1.16, though we don’t currently have plans to support older versions. I hope this comes eventually, I love old replays Still, this is just... so exciting!! I'm sad I won't be able to play nearly as much as I want to right now... Now to decide if I go back to Protoss or continue with Terran, hmmm.
Don't yoke please, you know where your true allegiance lies.
Just to clarify, rebind-able hotkeys were added, correct?
|
Canada5565 Posts
Feedback from the shoutcasters was to temper our enthusiasm for data though. They believe the excitement of Brood War is often in the discovery of what is about to happen. We’ll introduce a few new key features and gauge feedback. As usual, we’ll err on the side of caution with change.
Hmm
|
On March 26 2017 15:28 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +Feedback from the shoutcasters was to temper our enthusiasm for data though. They believe the excitement of Brood War is often in the discovery of what is about to happen. We’ll introduce a few new key features and gauge feedback. As usual, we’ll err on the side of caution with change.
Hmm
Probably being able to see whats inside dropships as well as build time progress? I'm guessing this means we won't be seeing supply and unit counts, which I'm more than okay with.
|
Ok, I'm am 100% hyped for this, glad they're making it. But honestly... I actually prefer the way most of the original graphics look.The new probes, scvs, seige tanks, zerglings, and more, just look worse than the original in my opinion. Yeah there's some units, like the dropship that look better, but a lot of it is about equivalent or less aesthetically pleasing.
Perhaps I'm just too jaded in nostalgia, but that's what it looks like to me.
|
On March 26 2017 15:58 jrkirby wrote: Ok, I'm am 100% hyped for this, glad they're making it. But honestly... I actually prefer the way most of the original graphics look.The new probes, scvs, seige tanks, zerglings, and more, just look worse than the original in my opinion. Yeah there's some units, like the dropship that look better, but a lot of it is about equivalent or less aesthetically pleasing.
Perhaps I'm just too jaded in nostalgia, but that's what it looks like to me.
you can keep the original version
|
On March 26 2017 14:54 Ribbon wrote: I'm amazed at the bit where someone with SC:R can play against someone using the classic BW
Well, 1.8 will have all the under the hood changes.
|
Man everything in this interview sounds perfect. Almost too good to be true.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 26 2017 15:58 jrkirby wrote: Ok, I'm am 100% hyped for this, glad they're making it. But honestly... I actually prefer the way most of the original graphics look.The new probes, scvs, seige tanks, zerglings, and more, just look worse than the original in my opinion. Yeah there's some units, like the dropship that look better, but a lot of it is about equivalent or less aesthetically pleasing.
Perhaps I'm just too jaded in nostalgia, but that's what it looks like to me. I actually prefer the original graphics too but I wanna see it in game. And I think it's maybe a slight case of nostalgia.
On March 26 2017 15:24 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 14:43 Liquid`Jinro wrote:One of our testers created a bot that plows through replays endlessly to look for aberrant behavior. We have no issues with replays from 1.16, though we don’t currently have plans to support older versions. I hope this comes eventually, I love old replays Still, this is just... so exciting!! I'm sad I won't be able to play nearly as much as I want to right now... Now to decide if I go back to Protoss or continue with Terran, hmmm. Don't yoke please, you know where your true allegiance lies. Just to clarify, rebind-able hotkeys were added, correct? Will probably play TvP at least, because fuck PvP I was PvT PvZ TvP for a good part of sc1.
Yeah, rebindable hotkeys.
|
On March 26 2017 15:58 jrkirby wrote: Ok, I'm am 100% hyped for this, glad they're making it. But honestly... I actually prefer the way most of the original graphics look.The new probes, scvs, seige tanks, zerglings, and more, just look worse than the original in my opinion. Yeah there's some units, like the dropship that look better, but a lot of it is about equivalent or less aesthetically pleasing.
Perhaps I'm just too jaded in nostalgia, but that's what it looks like to me. Well, thats the beautiful thing, we get the best of both worlds. You can play on the old client and other people can play on the new client.
|
The keybinds and the art of some units are what I'm dissapointed about. Zerglings have gotten huge tentacles sticking out infront of their faces that type of thing and keybinds should stay the same, everyone learns them with ease and they add the extra dimension of keyboard accuracy in higher level plays.
|
On March 26 2017 16:21 ICanFlyLow wrote: The keybinds and the art of some units are what I'm dissapointed about. Zerglings have gotten huge tentacles sticking out infront of their faces that type of thing and keybinds should stay the same, everyone learns them with ease and they add the extra dimension of keyboard accuracy in higher level plays. keybinds are a very small price to pay for what we're getting.
|
The last answer is probably the coolest thing about this. Blizzard got this absolutely spot on.
|
btw have probes gotten larger?
|
On March 26 2017 16:10 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 15:58 jrkirby wrote: Ok, I'm am 100% hyped for this, glad they're making it. But honestly... I actually prefer the way most of the original graphics look.The new probes, scvs, seige tanks, zerglings, and more, just look worse than the original in my opinion. Yeah there's some units, like the dropship that look better, but a lot of it is about equivalent or less aesthetically pleasing.
Perhaps I'm just too jaded in nostalgia, but that's what it looks like to me. Well, thats the beautiful thing, we get the best of both worlds. You can play on the old client and other people can play on the new client. I think this is the best case scenario, even more than anyone could have speculated. BW:Remastered is so close to the original that they're even planning on full cross-client compatibility. That's incredible, and the community doesn't become split that way.
The biggest issue is if they screw up patch 1.18 somehow, and although it does seem some people are already unhappy about custom keybindings, I think the F2P switch and other features will still make it worthwhile.
|
Players will be able to connect and play, watch replays, or share saved games seamlessly between free Brood War, and the SC:R upgrade. It’s all the same client! Each player and observer in the game can opt to play in standard or high def individually, and you can switch instantly and seamlessly at the press of a button right inside the game or while watching a replay.
This is probably the most important part. This is amazing. Even if players decide to stick around with good ol' BW, the community will not be split up.
|
On March 26 2017 16:46 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 16:10 lestye wrote:On March 26 2017 15:58 jrkirby wrote: Ok, I'm am 100% hyped for this, glad they're making it. But honestly... I actually prefer the way most of the original graphics look.The new probes, scvs, seige tanks, zerglings, and more, just look worse than the original in my opinion. Yeah there's some units, like the dropship that look better, but a lot of it is about equivalent or less aesthetically pleasing.
Perhaps I'm just too jaded in nostalgia, but that's what it looks like to me. Well, thats the beautiful thing, we get the best of both worlds. You can play on the old client and other people can play on the new client. I think this is the best case scenario, even more than anyone could have speculated. BW:Remastered is so close to the original that they're even planning on full cross-client compatibility. That's incredible, and the community doesn't become split that way. The biggest issue is if they screw up patch 1.18 somehow, and although it does seem some people are already unhappy about custom keybindings, I think the F2P switch and other features will still make it worthwhile. Honestly, if of all things we're bitching about is custom keybindings, this announcement was a huge success.
|
I'm in love with Blizzard again...after 7 years
|
United Kingdom1658 Posts
So they seem to genuinely understand what's important. Really, I'm impressed. I didn't imagine reading this interview, if it ever came, and thinking "Yes... yes I agree with that... yup, that's right...".
|
TLADT24917 Posts
What I liked the most about this is that Blizzard understands how important the game is to the community so they tried to stay as close as possible to the original game while also adding much needed QoL features. Sure, some models might need some tuning but overall, it's a huge step in the right direction.
|
faith in blizzard possibly restored? :o
Gotta give kudos to the engineers working on this. Must've been hell working on almost 20 year old code that was probably all bandaged together to finish on time
|
"How long has Blizzard been working on SC:R?
We started preproduction about 18 months ago. We’re about a year in on active development."
lol, Blizzard prevent leaking better than CIA.
|
Lichter, you knew about this the whole time. HOW FAR UP DOES THIS CONSPIRACY GO?
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBLv0qrDQcA¨
all in all i have to give my hats off to blizzard, putting aside the really minor things they have handled it brilliantly, they knew exactly what they had to do and they nailed it basically. I still dont like custom keys tho x(
|
On March 26 2017 16:58 ImbaTosS wrote: So they seem to genuinely understand what's important. Really, I'm impressed. I didn't imagine reading this interview, if it ever came, and thinking "Yes... yes I agree with that... yup, that's right...".
So now you got to get with Sayle and do some castings of the new, shiny game.
|
On March 26 2017 17:13 ninazerg wrote: Lichter, you knew about this the whole time. HOW FAR UP DOES THIS CONSPIRACY GO? BigFan too, and he was posting in the speculation thread a lot as well. I wonder when this interview was done, and how many of his comments were subtle hints
|
Japan11285 Posts
On March 26 2017 17:21 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 17:13 ninazerg wrote: Lichter, you knew about this the whole time. HOW FAR UP DOES THIS CONSPIRACY GO? BigFan too, and he was posting in the speculation thread a lot as well. I wonder when this interview was done, and how many of his comments were subtle hints Yeah, he played us all. :D
edit - as for the interview. I find it quite funny how several of the questions can be simply answered by "we used the same engine" lol.
It seems like what they said in this interview reflects on the information given today.
|
Reading this on Naver news, after months or maybe years of not-visiting-tl-anymore... now is a great day to be back. I for one massively support this remastered. The time has come. Been always a BW fan and sadly not-a-fan of SC2.
|
Japan11285 Posts
On March 26 2017 17:28 riyanme wrote: Reading this on Naver news, after months or maybe years of not-visiting-tl-anymore... now is a great day to be back. I for one massively support this remastered. The time has come. Been always a BW fan and sadly not-a-fan of SC2. You don't have to be sad because you didn't like SC2. Spread the good news of Remastered back home.
|
So I listened to the Yahoo interview with Pete Stilwell. Apparently they flew back and forth to Korea several times to gather feedback, and apparently there are only 20 developers on the team for this. He seems like a cool guy and is very aware of what's important to this community. I'm just kinda worried about how small the development team is, but they seem very passionate about this project considering how they're really trying to nail that 1:1 recreation and cross-client compatibility.
|
On March 26 2017 17:44 eviltomahawk wrote: So I listened to the Yahoo interview with Pete Stilwell. Apparently they flew back and forth to Korea several times to gather feedback, and apparently there are only 20 developers on the team for this. He seems like a cool guy and is very aware of what's important to this community. I'm just kinda worried about how small the development team is, but they seem very passionate about this project considering how they're really trying to nail that 1:1 recreation and cross-client compatibility.
It's kinda refreshing to have developers listen to the fans, isn't it? :D
|
Wowowow, please someone wake me up. Hold on with your articles, my heart can't take so much excitement at once. Dev teams are badasses for putting so much graphic work in less than 20 month development.
|
On March 26 2017 17:44 eviltomahawk wrote: So I listened to the Yahoo interview with Pete Stilwell. Apparently they flew back and forth to Korea several times to gather feedback, and apparently there are only 20 developers on the team for this. He seems like a cool guy and is very aware of what's important to this community. I'm just kinda worried about how small the development team is, but they seem very passionate about this project considering how they're really trying to nail that 1:1 recreation and cross-client compatibility.
Yeah totally agree here. I wasn't surprised that the team was 20 devs only, working in software development companies for 12 years now, i know that not all project scale that much. Pretty sure there was no benefit in increasing the team at some point. Also, 20 talanted developers can do magic. As they did.
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
Cross client compatibility is the greatest news. It means if I don't take to the new graphics I can still play the BW I love!
|
On March 26 2017 16:21 ICanFlyLow wrote: The keybinds and the art of some units are what I'm dissapointed about. Zerglings have gotten huge tentacles sticking out infront of their faces that type of thing and keybinds should stay the same, everyone learns them with ease and they add the extra dimension of keyboard accuracy in higher level plays.
Who cares about the keybinds. You don't have to switch it and hotkeys aren't going to be why you win or lose a game .
Personally pumped and can't wait for the remastered version to release :D. So happy there is a match making system and even better improvements then what I was expecting.
|
Really good interview, I don't see this as anything but big success. They listened and pretty much did everything right.
|
Bisutopia19033 Posts
Feedback from the shoutcasters was to temper our enthusiasm for data though. They believe the excitement of Brood War is often in the discovery of what is about to happen. We’ll introduce a few new key features and gauge feedback. As usual, we’ll err on the side of caution with change I dont remember being asked about this. Then again Im sure someone out therd casts more Starcraft then I do.
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
On March 26 2017 18:06 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +Feedback from the shoutcasters was to temper our enthusiasm for data though. They believe the excitement of Brood War is often in the discovery of what is about to happen. We’ll introduce a few new key features and gauge feedback. As usual, we’ll err on the side of caution with change I dont remember being asked about this. Then again Im sure someone out therd casts more Starcraft then I do.
Yeah just went to re-read the interview and saw this. This one question makes me so so happy.
|
On March 26 2017 17:56 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 16:21 ICanFlyLow wrote: The keybinds and the art of some units are what I'm dissapointed about. Zerglings have gotten huge tentacles sticking out infront of their faces that type of thing and keybinds should stay the same, everyone learns them with ease and they add the extra dimension of keyboard accuracy in higher level plays. Who cares about the keybinds. You don't have to switch it and hotkeys aren't going to be why you win or lose a game . Personally pumped and can't wait for the remastered version to release :D. So happy there is a match making system and even better improvements then what I was expecting.
As a terran player, for example, using w instead of p for vulture patrol micro is going to make things much easier.
Just think about the scenario where we sneak 1 volture to zerg main, not having to move the hand to the p button, while macroing from 1-6 hotkeys. huge buff for T.
|
France1916 Posts
Can you link the full size BW original pics present in the article please?
|
On March 26 2017 18:24 upro)wraith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 17:56 blade55555 wrote:On March 26 2017 16:21 ICanFlyLow wrote: The keybinds and the art of some units are what I'm dissapointed about. Zerglings have gotten huge tentacles sticking out infront of their faces that type of thing and keybinds should stay the same, everyone learns them with ease and they add the extra dimension of keyboard accuracy in higher level plays. Who cares about the keybinds. You don't have to switch it and hotkeys aren't going to be why you win or lose a game . Personally pumped and can't wait for the remastered version to release :D. So happy there is a match making system and even better improvements then what I was expecting. As a terran player, for example, using w instead of p for vulture patrol micro is going to make things much easier. Just think about the scenario where we sneak 1 volture to zerg main, not having to move the hand to the p button, while macroing from 1-6 hotkeys. huge buff for T.
Exactly Also protoss macro will but much easier by not having to press P for probes or pylons Hopefully custom hotkeys will be banned on offline tournaments since it can give unfair advantage in case new progamers rise. I don't mind regular players using them because it is necessary change to attract new players. In worst case scenario zerg race will become extinct and we will only play P and T.
|
I have to say, it seems like Blizzard really value the feedback from their longtime fans. This is everything we could have hoped for.
|
Better than the best case scenario. Simply amazing.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
Cross-client compatibility worries me. Starcraft's p2p network model is a pain in the arse with modern router setups. IIRC we have never managed to get 2v2 to work from behind a single router. Hopefully they've done something about it. That and automated ladder/matchmaking is all I want from this.
|
Iam just worried that i wont be able to install broodwar since i get an error message: "microsoft visual c++ runtime library" Can it have to do with me having windows 10? I hope so.. Lets pray..
|
@Foxxan,
One of the things they specifically mentioned in the livestream annoucenment as part of the 1.18 patch is compatibility with modern OS. You should be fine.
|
Really hope you are right. Can probably remove my sweat now.
|
On March 26 2017 18:31 Netto. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 18:24 upro)wraith wrote:On March 26 2017 17:56 blade55555 wrote:On March 26 2017 16:21 ICanFlyLow wrote: The keybinds and the art of some units are what I'm dissapointed about. Zerglings have gotten huge tentacles sticking out infront of their faces that type of thing and keybinds should stay the same, everyone learns them with ease and they add the extra dimension of keyboard accuracy in higher level plays. Who cares about the keybinds. You don't have to switch it and hotkeys aren't going to be why you win or lose a game . Personally pumped and can't wait for the remastered version to release :D. So happy there is a match making system and even better improvements then what I was expecting. As a terran player, for example, using w instead of p for vulture patrol micro is going to make things much easier. Just think about the scenario where we sneak 1 volture to zerg main, not having to move the hand to the p button, while macroing from 1-6 hotkeys. huge buff for T. Exactly Also protoss macro will but much easier by not having to press P for probes or pylons Hopefully custom hotkeys will be banned on offline tournaments since it can give unfair advantage in case new progamers rise. I don't mind regular players using them because it is necessary change to attract new players. In worst case scenario zerg race will become extinct and we will only play P and T.
I thought the hotkeys are different depending on language in the original game? Or is the english client forced on everyone in tournaments?
|
On March 26 2017 16:32 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 16:21 ICanFlyLow wrote: The keybinds and the art of some units are what I'm dissapointed about. Zerglings have gotten huge tentacles sticking out infront of their faces that type of thing and keybinds should stay the same, everyone learns them with ease and they add the extra dimension of keyboard accuracy in higher level plays. keybinds are a very small price to pay for what we're getting.
what do you mean small price, everyone is gonna be able to have progamer level mutalisk micro without putting in any effort with all the keys bein next to eachtoher
|
I think people are way too worried about keybinds lol. Yes it makes the task easier but it's not going to make your mutalisk micro better.
|
On March 26 2017 19:27 ICanFlyLow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 16:32 lestye wrote:On March 26 2017 16:21 ICanFlyLow wrote: The keybinds and the art of some units are what I'm dissapointed about. Zerglings have gotten huge tentacles sticking out infront of their faces that type of thing and keybinds should stay the same, everyone learns them with ease and they add the extra dimension of keyboard accuracy in higher level plays. keybinds are a very small price to pay for what we're getting. what do you mean small price, everyone is gonna be able to have progamer level mutalisk micro without putting in any effort with all the keys bein next to eachtoher
So what? The playing field is still even, everyone will have the same tools. Is it a bad thing that the foreign scene will be a bit more competitive? In any case, I don't foresee any foreigners being able to challenge Flash anytime soon just because of the keybind change
And this is coming from someone who uses F keys A LOT, i consider myself to have decent mechanics, this change doesn't bother me at all.
Also rebinding hotkeys won't have a big impact on micro (this is more of a mouse related aspect, it'll make a small difference tho). That being said it'll help people macro, i.e: you can rebind 0/9/8 to closer keys for buildings, you can rebind F keys to closer keys etc.
|
On March 26 2017 17:44 eviltomahawk wrote: So I listened to the Yahoo interview with Pete Stilwell. Apparently they flew back and forth to Korea several times to gather feedback, and apparently there are only 20 developers on the team for this. He seems like a cool guy and is very aware of what's important to this community. I'm just kinda worried about how small the development team is, but they seem very passionate about this project considering how they're really trying to nail that 1:1 recreation and cross-client compatibility.
The number of developers actually needed to build something is usually smaller than people expect. Even projects like Windows 95 and the first version of Internet Explorer had teams of only dozens or 100-200 engineers. Software engineering team bloat often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Especially when you consider that not changing too much about BW was one of everyone's hopes, having a small but dedicated team is fantastic news.
With such a small team, it's more likely everyone is aligned toward making a great game, and less likely politics and emergent differing incentives get in the way. That's another problem with bigger teams - it becomes increasingly likely that incentives between small groups become misaligned.
|
On March 26 2017 19:27 ICanFlyLow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 16:32 lestye wrote:On March 26 2017 16:21 ICanFlyLow wrote: The keybinds and the art of some units are what I'm dissapointed about. Zerglings have gotten huge tentacles sticking out infront of their faces that type of thing and keybinds should stay the same, everyone learns them with ease and they add the extra dimension of keyboard accuracy in higher level plays. keybinds are a very small price to pay for what we're getting. what do you mean small price, everyone is gonna be able to have progamer level mutalisk micro without putting in any effort with all the keys bein next to eachtoher i going to tell u a secret,not for pressing hold you are good at microing dragons :D
|
IMO For the average A-B rank ladder players the mutalisk/wraiths/vultures control are going to become somewhat easier with rebinded keys. Progamers with quick reflexes will benefit less.
Thinking about Jaedong double mutalisk control micro that requires 500 apm. With 'P' and 'H' rebinded this strat could become problematic.
|
On March 26 2017 19:47 upro)wraith wrote: IMO For the average A-B rank ladder players the mutalisk/wraiths/vultures control are going to become easier with rebinded keys. Progamers with quick reflexes will benefit less.
Thinking about Jaedong double mutalisk control micro that requires 500 apm. With 'P' and 'H' rebinded this strat could become problematic. u dont micro 2 pack of mutas with patrol,the risk to your mutas overextended is very very high
|
On March 26 2017 19:49 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 19:47 upro)wraith wrote: IMO For the average A-B rank ladder players the mutalisk/wraiths/vultures control are going to become easier with rebinded keys. Progamers with quick reflexes will benefit less.
Thinking about Jaedong double mutalisk control micro that requires 500 apm. With 'P' and 'H' rebinded this strat could become problematic. u dont micro 2 pack of mutas with patrol,the risk to your mutas overextended is very very high Don't you use patrol to kite scourge or wraiths?
I can see some benefits for changing 'H' key to 'E' for example making 2 pack of mutas easier to control.
|
yeah idk who thought keybinds were a "desired" feature because they're considered a hack on fish akin to maphacking. speaking of fish, have they commented on this? will they be upgrading their servers to accommodate? i'm curious to see if people will actually make the transition to an hd broodwar when the free version is so well established at this point.
however, i'm excited to see the automated tournaments that someone mentioned earlier in the thread. Additionally, updated server structure on foreign sites would be a most welcome addition, because while fish might be godtier compared to battlenet, iccup isn't.
the new graphics i can take or leave, they're not as stylized as they need to be to really make an impact or bring broodwar into the "mainstream" 2017 esports scene. they just look like an inferior version of the old sprites in most cases. however, like jinro mentioned, it might look better in motion/in game.
all of this only matters if the game plays 1 to 1 with the original, which is still a massive undertaking for a relatively small team. while JD flash bisu might say that the game is 1 to 1 after playing 5 games while the team was in kr, keep in mind the dozens of years that the original had to expose all of the small changes.
i'm cautiously optimistic because i love broodwar, but given blizzard's recent track record i can't give them the benefit of the doubt
|
there is no "transition" to be made, it's the same game with 2 different graphics modes, you can literally switch between them in-game. i imagine streamers and tournament broadcasters will probably use the HD version, but for individual players it's up to them.
|
On March 26 2017 20:06 -NegativeZero- wrote: there is no "transition" to be made, it's the same game with 2 different graphics modes, you can literally switch between them in-game. i imagine streamers and tournament broadcasters will probably use the HD version, but for individual players it's up to them.
fish's server structure and all of the anti hack/QOL mods like MCA64 is based off of 1.16, not BWHD. it's the exact same as when d2 got an update, everyone plays on the old legacy patch to keep using all of the mods/QOL stuff that had already been developed that was incompatible with the new version. that's the transition that i'm talking about (other than the paywall)
|
On March 26 2017 20:10 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 20:06 -NegativeZero- wrote: there is no "transition" to be made, it's the same game with 2 different graphics modes, you can literally switch between them in-game. i imagine streamers and tournament broadcasters will probably use the HD version, but for individual players it's up to them. fish's server structure and all of the anti hack/QOL mods like MCA64 is based off of 1.16, not BWHD. it's the exact same as when d2 got an update, everyone plays on the old legacy patch to keep using all of the mods/QOL stuff that had already been developed that was incompatible with the new version. that's the transition that i'm talking about (other than the paywall) didn't blizz say fish is officially becoming compatible with bw in 1.18? they definitely said there's going to be some form of antihack support
|
This interview is everything I used to love about blizzard.
|
On March 26 2017 14:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote: price? i dont give a fuck ! :D stfu and take my money !!!!!1111
|
On March 26 2017 20:14 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 20:10 Endymion wrote:On March 26 2017 20:06 -NegativeZero- wrote: there is no "transition" to be made, it's the same game with 2 different graphics modes, you can literally switch between them in-game. i imagine streamers and tournament broadcasters will probably use the HD version, but for individual players it's up to them. fish's server structure and all of the anti hack/QOL mods like MCA64 is based off of 1.16, not BWHD. it's the exact same as when d2 got an update, everyone plays on the old legacy patch to keep using all of the mods/QOL stuff that had already been developed that was incompatible with the new version. that's the transition that i'm talking about (other than the paywall) didn't blizz say fish is officially becoming compatible with bw in 1.18? they definitely said there's going to be some form of antihack support
oh i didnt see that! if that's the case then that's wonderful
|
Wow! Just wow! And fuvk yeah! Just Wow and Fuck yeah! And fuck me. Like all of it. They did all of it, they did it right! Even the chatrooms!
Really impressed with the original graphics able to play vs Remastered.
Love the tone amd attitude of respect for the pro scene, the long preproduction time where they've done a real deep-going feedbackjob with players, casters,communitypeople. That's the biggest and most important thing here. I mean they could have done exactly all this but based on their own beliefs in what we want. Or just because it's financially smart for a company that can afford it. But them putting their ear to the ground to listen and maintaining respect for our thoughts and feedback makes all the difference. They learned their lesson from sc2, are not making a big deal out of it. Just casually mentioning the existence of chatrooms. I imagine it's a very difficult job to do this as well. We're all a very individualistic type of players with strong opinions on what we want. So they need to know where to listen in this forest of strong opinions.
I'm curious on who they asked among casters, players and communitypeople. The N.D.A should be out of date now. They've had good relations with Day9, probably asked him right? Frozen Arbiter? Klazart...? Artosis, Tasteless? Koreans? Or just Tbls at the end of the process?
I imagine what sc2 could have been if these people had led the work back then with this knowledge and attitude. Bringing in the old programmers. Being interested in and open for the third party programs, even looking for those programmers. I remember fearing that they'd shut down icc, anti hack launcher back when they were talking about money rights and rights for the game before the sc2 release. But this here is lovely and wise. Maybe the gamingworld has changed, modding and helping out a game is viewed differently in Blizzards office today. Maybe sc2 needed to happen for this to happen. But I can't kill the the thought of what sc2 could have been if Dustin browder didnt ask us if we really wanted chatrooms, they paid respect to what korea and kespa had done to help bw grow. Maybe this would have been released then instead. Or a sc2 version built more understanding o the accidents and gamedecisions that made Bw into what it was. Then maybe it would hav reached a balance that could remain as its meta developed on its own. Most pf us were all being nice and believing in sc2 saying it'd need time(which it did), we should look positive at its future. Yeah. But yeah..
Here we are now, I hope this+sonic and others keeeping bw breathing+ Tbls and other pos returning+ ogn returning could let Bw Rise from the "ashes". It's a differnet world than 7 years ago, but maybe it could become big enough for young players to pick it up, new babys and flashes bringing a new era.
I want to watch and play bw in my retirementhome, I want to have someone to play it with. Any TL-folks in the business?
|
Looks great. Several things IMO: Tanks in the 2nd picture look like they are invisible compared to their previous density looks. Probes and lings are somewhat fuglier. Marines are significantly darker which in turn will make them harder to micro against especially on maps like Ground Zero for example where it will be hard to distinguish them looking at the screen, and not on the minimap.
|
RE:Dev team size I agree that typically direction is more important than sheer manpower. The folks at M2 who did the Sega 3D remakes are one of my favorite cases. Hell, one guy converted the entire first stage of SoR2 as a proof of concept + Show Spoiler +. http://blogs.sega.com/2015/07/21/3d-streets-of-rage-2-makes-its-way-into-the-sega-3d-classics-interview-part-1/
Really wish they spoke more about cross-compatibility and clarified some details. Do both BW v1.18a and Remaster support legacy Bnet and the new match-making? Since Remaster supports widescreen, does 1.18a support widescreen as well and will everyone need to adjust to that (because why would you choose to play with less vision than your opponents)? If the answer to both questions is true, then Remaster is effectively a paid skin. I'd say that's a strange business concept, but Blizz knows how to work their brand power. A shame in-game spectating couldn't happen. Unless every streamer does twice as much work, a viewer might get turned off having to watch what they deem inferior graphics (Remaster for me).
|
On March 26 2017 20:28 LRM)TechnicS wrote: Marines are significantly darker which in turn will make them harder to micro against especially on maps like Ground Zero for example where it will be hard to distinguish them looking at the screen, and not on the minimap.
I think if we ask for it a possibility to change colours of the units in game would come along.
|
On March 26 2017 14:54 Ribbon wrote: I'm amazed at the bit where someone with SC:R can play against someone using the classic BW
This is actually scary to me, classic network code is P2P and sucks behind firewalls. How can they be compatible? Surely remastered isn't still P2P...
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
On March 26 2017 20:34 R1CH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 14:54 Ribbon wrote: I'm amazed at the bit where someone with SC:R can play against someone using the classic BW This is actually scary to me, classic network code is P2P and sucks behind firewalls. How can they be compatible? Surely remastered isn't still P2P... Classic will have everything in the next patch bar the new textures. It's going to be on the same servers and everything.
As in the textures are the only "improvement" over original BW which is why you can switch between graphics modes in the HD release.
|
On March 26 2017 20:34 R1CH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 14:54 Ribbon wrote: I'm amazed at the bit where someone with SC:R can play against someone using the classic BW This is actually scary to me, classic network code is P2P and sucks behind firewalls. How can they be compatible? Surely remastered isn't still P2P... Oh no.... If its scary to R1ch, I'm freaking mortified.
|
super good news man!!!! this already made my day better :D
|
Teamliquid being excited about an update of BW ? Never thought I'd see the day.
|
|
I just visited https://starcraft.com/en-us/ On the 4th "Remastered in HD" screen the example is clear: marines are significantly harder to distinguish looking on screen. Muta vs mnm micro is already very challenging for the zerg on competitive level, now with marines being harder to distinguish it will be even more challenging.
|
On March 26 2017 21:04 LRM)TechnicS wrote:I just visited https://starcraft.com/en-us/On the 4th "Remastered in HD" screen the example is clear: marines are significantly harder to distinguish looking on screen. Muta vs mnm micro is already very challenging for the zerg on competitive level, now with marines being harder to distinguish it will be even more challenging. not saying you're not wrong, but those are brown marines not red marines which you would typically be using if you were microing against them as the zerg. also, in sc2 i believe they added the feature where you can always play against whatever color you choose??? so maybe that'll be a thing and you can make the terran always be yellow for maximum visibility
ALSO LOL did anyone see the pylon's death animation on that website?? it looks like a fucking nuke going off hahahahahaha
|
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
|
also, they confirmed LAN will be in it in the trailer! we finally got the technology!!!!
|
"Right now, players enjoy playing on multiple accounts, especially for different races. Will Blizzard continue to allow multiple accounts in BW and SC:R, or will you have a different solution for this?"
We have created a feature to permanently link legacy accounts to your modern account. No more 90 day timeouts either.
Seems like you can link legacy accounts, but creating new accounts will be limited or nonexistent?
"You mentioned that antihack will be made available for BW. Any details on its implications on third party software that previously allowed players to play BW on different third party servers and other minor tools?"
One of the reasons we wanted to replace the more popular add-ons was to be less disruptive with the new anti-cheat measures. We attempted to reach many of the add-on makers, but some have moved on or couldn’t be found.
RIP wdetector? Sounds like it. RIP Fish server too? I'm glad they're working on BW but it's kind of a huge fuck you to the grassroots community if they shut down existing third party servers.
on edit: I'm hoping these tools are simply incompatible with the new versions and that they don't actively try to shut down the existing server alternatives or something. These are the only way to play without hackers at the moment.
|
On March 26 2017 21:23 integral wrote:Show nested quote +"Right now, players enjoy playing on multiple accounts, especially for different races. Will Blizzard continue to allow multiple accounts in BW and SC:R, or will you have a different solution for this?"
We have created a feature to permanently link legacy accounts to your modern account. No more 90 day timeouts either. Seems like you can link legacy accounts, but creating new accounts will be limited or nonexistent? Show nested quote +"You mentioned that antihack will be made available for BW. Any details on its implications on third party software that previously allowed players to play BW on different third party servers and other minor tools?"
One of the reasons we wanted to replace the more popular add-ons was to be less disruptive with the new anti-cheat measures. We attempted to reach many of the add-on makers, but some have moved on or couldn’t be found. RIP wdetector? Sounds like it. RIP Fish server too? I'm glad they're working on BW but it's kind of a huge fuck you to the grassroots community if they shut down existing third party servers. Fish will built into the game next patch.
|
Do you have a source for that? I'd love to see it.
I'm really really glad they're working on it, but similarly I am super concerned about blizzard taking control of the anti-hack system. Third parties were the ONLY way, for years and years.
|
On March 26 2017 21:08 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 21:04 LRM)TechnicS wrote:I just visited https://starcraft.com/en-us/On the 4th "Remastered in HD" screen the example is clear: marines are significantly harder to distinguish looking on screen. Muta vs mnm micro is already very challenging for the zerg on competitive level, now with marines being harder to distinguish it will be even more challenging. not saying you're not wrong, but those are brown marines not red marines which you would typically be using if you were microing against them as the zerg. also, in sc2 i believe they added the feature where you can always play against whatever color you choose??? so maybe that'll be a thing and you can make the terran always be yellow for maximum visibility ALSO LOL did anyone see the pylon's death animation on that website?? it looks like a fucking nuke going off hahahahahaha
I doubt there will be an option to select opponent's color by our liking. Proven wrong here won't hurt though. By any chance do you remember whether the shift-tab option changes the color of opponent units as well as ours and the colour of the opponent on minimap?
If there will be an option to select what graphics the player will see in-game (old or new), then it won't matter for me. But for the newcomer that chose BW HD, it will matter.
|
On March 26 2017 20:34 R1CH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 14:54 Ribbon wrote: I'm amazed at the bit where someone with SC:R can play against someone using the classic BW This is actually scary to me, classic network code is P2P and sucks behind firewalls. How can they be compatible? Surely remastered isn't still P2P... It's a bit vague, but it sounds like they're going to both keep the old Battle.net and have an additional "bridged" layer for modern Battle.net. My guess is games will still always be P2P but everything else will be bridged over to/from the new Battle.net?
Based on the interview here at around 7 minutes: https://esports.yahoo.com/blizzard-interview-000000355.html
|
I'm just so so, happy that they asked community people for advice and how should the game feel. I'm extremelly thankful they did that.
|
On March 26 2017 21:29 integral wrote: Do you have a source for that? I'd love to see it.
I'm really really glad they're working on it, but similarly I am super concerned about blizzard taking control of the anti-hack system. Third parties were the ONLY way, for years and years. It was in Mike Morhaime's speech.
|
On March 26 2017 21:32 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 21:29 integral wrote: Do you have a source for that? I'd love to see it.
I'm really really glad they're working on it, but similarly I am super concerned about blizzard taking control of the anti-hack system. Third parties were the ONLY way, for years and years. It was in Mike Morhaime's speech. Thanks, I'll go find it.
|
What are the required PC specs for the remastered Brood War? Will we still be able to use our custom maps from original Brood War?
Bridenbecker: The required specs would be just enough to run Hearthstone.
Stilwell: We will of course support custom games. We want our players to enjoy the original contents as much as possible. Chat channels and use map settings will still be there. We did make improvements in the ladder system, and are also actively communicating with custom map developers. Custom maps are closely related with their communities. source: https://www.invenglobal.com/lol/articles/1411
I am the last surviving mapmaker for the diplomacy UMS scene, I haven't been spoken with at all. WTF? Diplo is the largest competitive UMS map community for the last decade and one of the only surviving active communities...
Just spoke to my korean mapmaker friend, he hasn't been contacted at all either. I don't see much on staredit.net either. Who are they talking to, lol?
What does this mean for EUD, extended supply, cannot create more units?
|
Rose.of.Dream and the likes maybe?
|
10387 Posts
On March 26 2017 21:55 integral wrote:Show nested quote +What are the required PC specs for the remastered Brood War? Will we still be able to use our custom maps from original Brood War?
Bridenbecker: The required specs would be just enough to run Hearthstone.
Stilwell: We will of course support custom games. We want our players to enjoy the original contents as much as possible. Chat channels and use map settings will still be there. We did make improvements in the ladder system, and are also actively communicating with custom map developers. Custom maps are closely related with their communities. source: https://www.invenglobal.com/lol/articles/1411I am the last surviving mapmaker for the diplomacy UMS scene, I haven't been spoken with at all. WTF? Diplo is the largest competitive UMS map community for the last decade and one of the only surviving active communities... Just spoke to my korean mapmaker friend, he hasn't been contacted at all either. I don't see much on staredit.net either. Who are they talking to, lol? What does this mean for EUD, extended supply, cannot create more units? seems like your best option now is to then contact them directly, or through a reputable community figure, so that you can get these issues addressed. If their main portal to BW were things like TL and such, other communities such as Diplo and Fastest would get overlooked, because there's little to no exposure to it at all here.
|
On March 26 2017 21:08 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 21:04 LRM)TechnicS wrote:I just visited https://starcraft.com/en-us/On the 4th "Remastered in HD" screen the example is clear: marines are significantly harder to distinguish looking on screen. Muta vs mnm micro is already very challenging for the zerg on competitive level, now with marines being harder to distinguish it will be even more challenging. ALSO LOL did anyone see the pylon's death animation on that website?? it looks like a fucking nuke going off hahahahahaha
It's quite extravagant compared to how things have been. If that's a pylon exploding, then what does a Nuke look like?
But after these years with sc2 I've come to think of buildings differently. In sc2 they go down so fast, so when I see bw and three tanks working on a nexus for 25 sec then a big boom might be a reward for it. But I'm thinking only main buildings here, and that the animation would have to be very quick so it doesnt disturb the gameplay in case you can't see your units during the explosion.
But then again. The best thing is not changing the game based on emotions coming as a contrast to the diferences of sc2 and bw instead of it plainly making sense for the game itself.
|
Fantastic job and I really commend the team for staying true to the original in every shape and form (not only concerning graphics).
However, I don't like the look (yet) of some units such as zerglings, ultralisks. siege tanks, goliaths,... Maybe these models still need some updates as they did mention this in the interview. The buildings also don't seem to integrate with the creep very well.
I might stick with the original graphics if these things stay the same.
|
Has there been anything concrete on the sound remastering? The website has a vague mention about re-recorded bits, but that's it.
One of the big letdowns of SC2 is how whimpy a lot of the sounds were. In BW you can instantly tell how much damage your hydras or lings are doing, in SC2 the sounds give you much less feedback.
|
On March 26 2017 21:08 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 21:04 LRM)TechnicS wrote:I just visited https://starcraft.com/en-us/On the 4th "Remastered in HD" screen the example is clear: marines are significantly harder to distinguish looking on screen. Muta vs mnm micro is already very challenging for the zerg on competitive level, now with marines being harder to distinguish it will be even more challenging. not saying you're not wrong, but those are brown marines not red marines which you would typically be using if you were microing against them as the zerg. also, in sc2 i believe they added the feature where you can always play against whatever color you choose??? so maybe that'll be a thing and you can make the terran always be yellow for maximum visibility ALSO LOL did anyone see the pylon's death animation on that website?? it looks like a fucking nuke going off hahahahahaha
There is this feature in sc2 which is very cool since you always play with/against the color you wish to, even in tournament play. No effect whatsoever on balance/gameplay, just a nice qol addition. took them 5/6 years tho :D
|
On March 26 2017 22:31 B-royal wrote: Fantastic job and I really commend the team for staying true to the original in every shape and form (not only concerning graphics).
However, I don't like the look (yet) of some units such as zerglings, ultralisks. siege tanks, goliaths,... Maybe these models still need some updates as they did mention this in the interview. The buildings also don't seem to integrate with the creep very well.
I might stick with the original graphics if these things stay the same.
Yeah, for me lings, rines, scvs and maybe probes look somewhat not too good.
Also goliaths, tanks and vultures feel like they lost their "shiny metal" looks while gaining a more detailed but shallow look. The sieged tank especially looks like being under a friendly arbiter.
Overall though most of the stuff looks great and props to the devs. Hope it brings new blood.
|
One important question I haven't seen addressed in the interview or here yet (unless I missed something):
Will we be able to play with the original sprites in widescreen mode?
Because they literally only have to add a bit to the sides of the old interface for this to be achieved. If using the old sprites forces you into 4:3 mode then this sucks. It is a huge mistake if this is the case.
My personally feelings about the HD graphics is that it changes the aesthetics for the worse. It looks too 'clean' without much charm to it. The grittier look of the original looks better, especially at native resolutions such as 1920x1080, however, this was only achievable with buggy hacks. And Blizzard doesn't want you to see more of the map, anyhow. So I realise that being able to play Brood War in native 1920x1080 (as a max) is a pipe dream for me.
But the next best thing for me would be having the HD release support the limited widescreen mode using the original sprites, too.
|
One of our testers created a bot that plows through replays endlessly to look for aberrant behavior. We have no issues with replays from 1.16, though we don’t currently have plans to support older versions.
thats awesome
|
On March 26 2017 22:44 LRM)TechnicS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 22:31 B-royal wrote: Fantastic job and I really commend the team for staying true to the original in every shape and form (not only concerning graphics).
However, I don't like the look (yet) of some units such as zerglings, ultralisks. siege tanks, goliaths,... Maybe these models still need some updates as they did mention this in the interview. The buildings also don't seem to integrate with the creep very well.
I might stick with the original graphics if these things stay the same. Yeah, for me lings, rines, scvs and maybe probes look somewhat not too good. Also goliaths, tanks and vultures feel like they lost their "shiny metal" looks while gaining a more detailed but shallow look. The sieged tank especially looks like being under a friendly arbiter. Overall though most of the stuff looks great and props to the devs. Hope it brings new blood. Agreed with all of these specific units looking weird or wrong. Glad it's not just me.
|
On March 26 2017 21:30 LRM)TechnicS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 21:08 Endymion wrote:On March 26 2017 21:04 LRM)TechnicS wrote:I just visited https://starcraft.com/en-us/On the 4th "Remastered in HD" screen the example is clear: marines are significantly harder to distinguish looking on screen. Muta vs mnm micro is already very challenging for the zerg on competitive level, now with marines being harder to distinguish it will be even more challenging. not saying you're not wrong, but those are brown marines not red marines which you would typically be using if you were microing against them as the zerg. also, in sc2 i believe they added the feature where you can always play against whatever color you choose??? so maybe that'll be a thing and you can make the terran always be yellow for maximum visibility ALSO LOL did anyone see the pylon's death animation on that website?? it looks like a fucking nuke going off hahahahahaha I doubt there will be an option to select opponent's color by our liking. Proven wrong here won't hurt though. By any chance do you remember whether the shift-tab option changes the color of opponent units as well as ours and the colour of the opponent on minimap? If there will be an option to select what graphics the player will see in-game (old or new), then it won't matter for me. But for the newcomer that chose BW HD, it will matter.
in broodwar??? in broodwar shift tab has 3 settings: 1: minimap normal colors, in game normal colors 2: minimap team = yellow, enemy = red, in game normal colors 3: minimap team = yellow, enemy = red, in game team = yellow, enemy = red
|
On March 26 2017 22:32 Bacillus wrote: Has there been anything concrete on the sound remastering? The website has a vague mention about re-recorded bits, but that's it.
One of the big letdowns of SC2 is how whimpy a lot of the sounds were. In BW you can instantly tell how much damage your hydras or lings are doing, in SC2 the sounds give you much less feedback.
SC1 sound design is absolutely perfect :D
|
On March 26 2017 22:23 SirGlinG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 21:08 Endymion wrote:On March 26 2017 21:04 LRM)TechnicS wrote:I just visited https://starcraft.com/en-us/On the 4th "Remastered in HD" screen the example is clear: marines are significantly harder to distinguish looking on screen. Muta vs mnm micro is already very challenging for the zerg on competitive level, now with marines being harder to distinguish it will be even more challenging. ALSO LOL did anyone see the pylon's death animation on that website?? it looks like a fucking nuke going off hahahahahaha It's quite extravagant compared to how things have been. If that's a pylon exploding, then what does a Nuke look like? But after these years with sc2 I've come to think of buildings differently. In sc2 they go down so fast, so when I see bw and three tanks working on a nexus for 25 sec then a big boom might be a reward for it. But I'm thinking only main buildings here, and that the animation would have to be very quick so it doesnt disturb the gameplay in case you can't see your units during the explosion. But then again. The best thing is not changing the game based on emotions coming as a contrast to the diferences of sc2 and bw instead of it plainly making sense for the game itself.
i mean clearing a protoss expansion with cracklings and darkswarm is going to look like color vomit with those death animations and swarm/storm/reavers
|
On March 26 2017 22:54 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 21:30 LRM)TechnicS wrote:On March 26 2017 21:08 Endymion wrote:On March 26 2017 21:04 LRM)TechnicS wrote:I just visited https://starcraft.com/en-us/On the 4th "Remastered in HD" screen the example is clear: marines are significantly harder to distinguish looking on screen. Muta vs mnm micro is already very challenging for the zerg on competitive level, now with marines being harder to distinguish it will be even more challenging. not saying you're not wrong, but those are brown marines not red marines which you would typically be using if you were microing against them as the zerg. also, in sc2 i believe they added the feature where you can always play against whatever color you choose??? so maybe that'll be a thing and you can make the terran always be yellow for maximum visibility ALSO LOL did anyone see the pylon's death animation on that website?? it looks like a fucking nuke going off hahahahahaha I doubt there will be an option to select opponent's color by our liking. Proven wrong here won't hurt though. By any chance do you remember whether the shift-tab option changes the color of opponent units as well as ours and the colour of the opponent on minimap? If there will be an option to select what graphics the player will see in-game (old or new), then it won't matter for me. But for the newcomer that chose BW HD, it will matter. in broodwar??? in broodwar shift tab has 3 settings: 1: minimap normal colors, in game normal colors 2: minimap team = yellow, enemy = red, in game normal colors 3: minimap team = yellow, enemy = red, in game team = yellow, enemy = red
I thought the settings were two, glad to learn something new after all these years, lol.
|
Seems they have really done their homework. Bravo Blizzard. SCBW and TL getting REALLY back together would be a dream come true. It is a longshot, but maybe this can do something similar to BW that CSGO did to CS1.6.
|
The fact that you can still use the original with the new is very nice. I think that's a HUGE positive.
Actions obviously speak louder than words, but from the way the guys involved in this are talking it sounds like they are doing things almost completely different from SC2 and taking a TON of feedback from the community.
I was in the "not that excited" group for quite some time, but I'll admit that I'm now starting to get pretty hyped...especially after reading this interview.
|
On March 26 2017 16:58 ImbaTosS wrote: So they seem to genuinely understand what's important. Really, I'm impressed. I didn't imagine reading this interview, if it ever came, and thinking "Yes... yes I agree with that... yup, that's right...".
Dude yea. I'm pretty shocked. I was with you in not being all that excited...but if they aren't blowing smoke up our behind this actually looks decently cool; especially on the back of the promise you can play old school BW with the BW: R
|
On March 26 2017 23:11 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 16:58 ImbaTosS wrote: So they seem to genuinely understand what's important. Really, I'm impressed. I didn't imagine reading this interview, if it ever came, and thinking "Yes... yes I agree with that... yup, that's right...". Dude yea. I'm pretty shocked. I was with you in not being all that excited...but if they aren't blowing smoke up our behind this actually looks decently cool; especially on the back of the promise you can play old school BW with the BW: R
if it's good you will have to throw more BW parties, 6 years later!
|
Another important thing I noticed is that with the SC:R graphics, a player/observer sees a bit more on the screen to the left and a bit more to the right when compared with the old BW graphics look. This amounts to a significant difference.
From the perspective of a ZvT player, I will have to choose between these two options:
a) play with SC:R settings - have a wider look on the screen but distinguish marines harder or b) play with old BW settings - distinguish marines easier but have a tighter look on the screen
|
On March 26 2017 23:14 LRM)TechnicS wrote: Another important thing I noticed is that with the SC:R graphics, a player/observer sees a bit more on the screen to the left and a bit more to the right when compared with the old BW graphics look. This amounts to a significant difference.
From the perspective of a ZvT player, I will have to choose between these two options:
a) play with SC:R settings - have a wider look on the screen but distinguish marines harder or b) play with old BW settings - distinguish marines easier but have a tighter look on the screen
they are going to add resolution support for higher aspect ratios i'm betting
|
On March 26 2017 23:11 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 16:58 ImbaTosS wrote: So they seem to genuinely understand what's important. Really, I'm impressed. I didn't imagine reading this interview, if it ever came, and thinking "Yes... yes I agree with that... yup, that's right...". ... especially on the back of the promise you can play old school BW with the BW: R
Yeah I satisfyingly thought the same, until I noticed BW:R has a wider look on the screen than the old BW. I will have to be picking between a wider screen look vs easier muta vs mnm micro... Unless they make the old BW screen as wide as the BW:R.
|
Amazing.
Team size: Anyone know how big the team was that made the original games? It's entirely possible it was smaller.
Graphics: They're different, it was jarring. But.. On some of the zoomed in bits I got this feeling with some units like I'd just put my glasses on and I was just resolving things better. Not every unit, but goons and a couple others. I think it's mostly a case of having watched the same thing for years so any change feels a bit icky. Again though, some units seems less well done than others so we'll see.
Sound: Don't touch it.
Dreams: At some far flung point in the future an AI that dynamically takes a replay a re renders it in 3d down to individual blades of grasp and the drool on zergling mandibles. Every unit is unique, blood stains stick, battle cruisers have names stencilled on them, claws break You can move the camera as you want and the whole thing looks like CG circa 2017. Replays only of course, this is about as good as the game can ever look and play right... But I want to watching a replay to be like going to the cinema...
What ever whateves. This is amazing. Ladder, compatibility. Hell, I might just give my self a few weeks to get back into it again.
Amazing.
|
On March 26 2017 23:17 LRM)TechnicS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 23:11 L_Master wrote:On March 26 2017 16:58 ImbaTosS wrote: So they seem to genuinely understand what's important. Really, I'm impressed. I didn't imagine reading this interview, if it ever came, and thinking "Yes... yes I agree with that... yup, that's right...". ... especially on the back of the promise you can play old school BW with the BW: R Yeah I satisfyingly thought the same, until I noticed BW:R has a wider look on the screen than the old BW. I will have to be picking between a wider screen look vs easier muta vs mnm micro... Unless they make the old BW screen as wide as the BW:R.
Oh, no. Wait. I missed it. It's in the last sentence of the interview.
"Each player and observer in the game can opt to play in standard or high def individually, and you can switch instantly and seamlessly at the press of a button right inside the game or while watching a replay."
|
Interested to learn more about the SC:R ladder system. Will it be ranked based on MMR with an activity requirement instead of meaningless SC2-type points?
|
On March 26 2017 23:31 paralleluniverse wrote: Interested to learn more about the SC:R ladder system. Will it be ranked based on MMR with an activity requirement instead of meaningless SC2-type points?
if fish is involved it'll probably be identical to their ladder
|
Bisutopia19033 Posts
The end of year foreigner tournament I am planning just got a lot more hype. Start ranking up everyone!
|
On March 26 2017 23:38 BisuDagger wrote: The end of year foreigner tournament I am planning just got a lot more hype. Start ranking up everyone!
Which rank will count? RIP iccup for sure.
I also hope they won't be porting over bronze/grandmaster league.
|
On March 26 2017 22:32 Bacillus wrote: Has there been anything concrete on the sound remastering? The website has a vague mention about re-recorded bits, but that's it.
One of the big letdowns of SC2 is how whimpy a lot of the sounds were. In BW you can instantly tell how much damage your hydras or lings are doing, in SC2 the sounds give you much less feedback. I can hear the original game sounds through the loud music in the trailer, so I assume that those are maintained.
The music got touched up and remastered when it got added into SC2 as an option. I wonder if they'll use that version or if they'll go for a new recording entirely.
It's reasonable to assume that they'll be re-recording dialogue for the campaign and maybe for in-game units. I hope they can use the original voice actors, and I hope they can give a decent second performance. The big awkward problem is Jack Ritschel having passed away since he voiced the Overmind, Zeratul, and Duke. I wasn't a fan of the Overmind and Zeratul voices in SC2, so I'm not sure what they're going to do there.
|
Thanks for the interview. Really cool stuff.
StarCraft: Remastered is able to achieve this effect as it uses all the same gameplay code as Brood War. This means that Dragoons and Goliaths are still a bit derpy in how they react to movement commands. The Reaver’s shot doesn’t always find a target. Mutas stack. The fact is that the gameplay is identical enough that old replays from 1.16 will play and work just fine under StarCraft: Remastered.
Players will be able to connect and play, watch replays, or share saved games seamlessly between free Brood War, and the SC:R upgrade. It’s all the same client! Each player and observer in the game can opt to play in standard or high def individually, and you can switch instantly and seamlessly at the press of a button right inside the game or while watching a replay.
|
A question that was not covered, from someone who have dived deeper into how pro maps are being made. They use tons of "hacking" to create ramps that are not in the original graphics set, they also use tools for rotational and mirror symmetry and so forth. The way these old pro maps where being built, it would probably look like shit with the new hd graphics, it will stick out like a sore thumb. Did anyone aks blizzard if they intend to expand the graphics set with ramps of various widths and also going upwards and not only downwards? Most if not all pro maps use these hacked features.
Consider for example Blue Storm and old classic map, it has a gap that is so small that only smaller units can pass through, it also has a ridge through the middle made up of ramps. It would be impossible to build with the regular map editor. Thats just one example.
|
On March 27 2017 00:32 s73v3 wrote: A question that was not covered, from someone who have dived deeper into how pro maps are being made. They use tons of "hacking" to create ramps that are not in the original graphics set, they also use tools for rotational and mirror symmetry and so forth. The way these old pro maps where being built, it would probably look like shit with the new hd graphics, it will stick out like a sore thumb. Did anyone aks blizzard if they intend to expand the graphics set with ramps of various widths and also going upwards and not only downwards? Most if not all pro maps use these hacked features.
Consider for example Blue Storm and old classic map, it has a gap that is so small that only smaller units can pass through, it also has a ridge through the middle made up of ramps. It would be impossible to build with the regular map editor. Thats just one example.
That's a good point but I think of secondary importance. The custom terrain will look pretty bad but considering how careful blizz is with changing anything, I doubt they'd add new ramps. Bit disappointing but not the end of the world.
|
Bisutopia19033 Posts
On March 27 2017 00:15 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 23:38 BisuDagger wrote: The end of year foreigner tournament I am planning just got a lot more hype. Start ranking up everyone! Which rank will count? RIP iccup for sure. I also hope they won't be porting over bronze/grandmaster league. I will auto accept anyone who ranks A on iccup for 2017 (fish ranks apply similarly ). The rest is tbd.
|
On March 26 2017 23:13 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 23:11 L_Master wrote:On March 26 2017 16:58 ImbaTosS wrote: So they seem to genuinely understand what's important. Really, I'm impressed. I didn't imagine reading this interview, if it ever came, and thinking "Yes... yes I agree with that... yup, that's right...". Dude yea. I'm pretty shocked. I was with you in not being all that excited...but if they aren't blowing smoke up our behind this actually looks decently cool; especially on the back of the promise you can play old school BW with the BW: R if it's good you will have to throw more BW parties, 6 years later!
Hell yea man! Maybe there would be enough interest to make it worth it again. Colorado State BW LAN? One can dream
|
This is awesome! I am the most hyped I've been in SC in years
|
This is very exciting! But I'm curious, if they are fixing the valk sprite and dragoon stop bug, will replays from 1.16 really work, still? Or will they "unpatch" those bugs if you load up an old replay?
|
On March 27 2017 00:32 s73v3 wrote: A question that was not covered, from someone who have dived deeper into how pro maps are being made. They use tons of "hacking" to create ramps that are not in the original graphics set, they also use tools for rotational and mirror symmetry and so forth. The way these old pro maps where being built, it would probably look like shit with the new hd graphics, it will stick out like a sore thumb. Did anyone aks blizzard if they intend to expand the graphics set with ramps of various widths and also going upwards and not only downwards? Most if not all pro maps use these hacked features.
Consider for example Blue Storm and old classic map, it has a gap that is so small that only smaller units can pass through, it also has a ridge through the middle made up of ramps. It would be impossible to build with the regular map editor. Thats just one example. It should not be too bad. Terrain that blended fine in the old graphics will probably blend at least okayish with the new textures, as they really try to make them look very similar. If they keep all the contrasts ramped up so much, some of the more dirty blends may become more obvious to spot, but that remains to be seen. There are no changes to the map file format and game mechanics, so nothing should change as far as playing old maps is concerned and the old editors should still be usable to create new maps, albeit only with the old graphics. So it would be really nice if they would actually release an official map editor with the new graphics, but all the power of the existing ones (or ideally more : having real-time pathfinding predictions/simulations, display options for all tile properties and maybe more flexible unit sprite support would all be much needed additions). A real concern for me right now is whether extended unit 299 (creep spawner) will still work as before...
|
On March 27 2017 01:13 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 00:15 B-royal wrote:On March 26 2017 23:38 BisuDagger wrote: The end of year foreigner tournament I am planning just got a lot more hype. Start ranking up everyone! Which rank will count? RIP iccup for sure. I also hope they won't be porting over bronze/grandmaster league. I will auto accept anyone who ranks A on iccup for 2017 (fish ranks apply similarly ). The rest is tbd. does that include peruvians?
|
It’s all the same client! Each player and observer in the game can opt to play in standard or high def individually, and you can switch instantly and seamlessly at the press of a button right inside the game or while watching a replay.
This makes my heart sing!
|
I might have died and went to heaven
|
Why TF Blizzard??? How can we have AoE 2 HD and HoMM3 HD gameplay not being touched. Only HD remastered and that is. Who needed this improvements? Look at the probe icon. WTF is this? Look at the guardian icon too... The panel... Sorry but it is not looking better... I am disappointed. :/
|
I logged into SCBW to play a few weeks back and it was a barren wasteland. Practically no one was on. Wanted to play a 2v2v2v2 BGH for old time sake, but it seems like in the near future I will be able to!
|
On March 27 2017 03:40 Me_ToKa wrote: Why TF Blizzard??? How can we have AoE 2 HD and HoMM3 HD gameplay not being touched. Only HD remastered and that is. Who needed this improvements? Look at the probe icon. WTF is this? Look at the guardian icon too... The panel... Sorry but it is not looking better... I am disappointed. :/ I'm sure they had already expected this, which is why swapping between HD+Normal is able to be done on the fly mid game
|
On March 27 2017 03:41 Snijjer wrote: I logged into SCBW to play a few weeks back and it was a barren wasteland. Practically no one was on. Wanted to play a 2v2v2v2 BGH for old time sake, but it seems like in the near future I will be able to!
Wanted to play 3v3 hunter, someone's lagging.
Next game, someone's lagging
Next game, someone's lagging
Log out
This has been going on for so many years whenever I just want to play a few games.
No more
|
I will never press 0p again to make probe...this is making protoss macro much easier. overall this is good but disappointing that they are adding custom hotkeys
|
Cool stuff. I was hoping for an AI upgrade, but I guess it was far fetch.
|
I'm excited, but will definitely hold my final verdict once I see how it affects the Korean pros and if they accept it as the same gameplay
|
feeling very pleased with this interview
|
I wish you would have asked questions about the DeepMind AI. Having it moved to SC1 would be a great training tool. And we still don't know if there will be additional game modes such as co-op.
|
I see a lot of complain about custom hotkeys, is it REALLY that big of a change ? I was totally ok to keep all the path finding and 12 unit limit etc etc, but people still seems worried about custom hotkeys and i cant understand how it can be a problem... does it really affect balance ? It's a long time i want to start bw and this update is exactly what i wanted to start ( with match making AND custom hotkey ) but when i see people complain about keybind i just see meaningless complain ( i may be wrong ). I find the old hotkeys really awfull, they just hinder the pleasure to play in my opinion.
|
i hope that the community will convince blizzard to ditch custom hotkeys.
|
On March 27 2017 06:20 paxconsciente wrote: i hope that the community will convince blizzard to ditch custom hotkeys.
Custom hotkeys is one of the reason i want to play bw remastered, can u argue better than that i want to understand if this is really a big deal, some veterans are not against.
|
|
On March 27 2017 06:20 paxconsciente wrote: i hope that the community will convince blizzard to ditch custom hotkeys. I think the community is too split over that for Blizzard to react to any strong consensus
|
On March 27 2017 06:20 paxconsciente wrote: i hope that the community will convince blizzard to ditch custom hotkeys. State your reasoning so I can dismantle your arguments or stop trolling.
|
On March 27 2017 06:20 paxconsciente wrote: i hope that the community will convince blizzard to ditch custom hotkeys. All the people who insist on the holy layout of BW hotkeys again be reminded that right now hotkey layout is by no means fixed but depends on the language version one is playing. So this really only levels the playing field.
|
I view custom hotkeys as an improvement although I am not planning on using it myself since I like them as they are by default for P
|
Ok... this site has me back. After years of struggling how SC2 was designed in some ways (too much possible cheese/one-hit strategies, too high damage output, too short battles, too volatile...) and how they never tried to fix it, I am finally going back to starcraft. And all this while Flash has become a winner again ♥
|
I would also like the hear the argument against custom hotkeys. I don't see anything like SC2 rapid-fire being worth doing since ability casting doesn't work that way.
I'm also curious about how they'll handle aspect ratio. I know you can switch freely but wouldn't playing in widescreen be advantageous? Seems to me that it should be limited for ladder play at least
|
On March 27 2017 06:23 Crozo64 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 06:20 paxconsciente wrote: i hope that the community will convince blizzard to ditch custom hotkeys. Custom hotkeys is one of the reason i want to play bw remastered, can u argue better than that i want to understand if this is really a big deal, some veterans are not against. I think its a good idea, cause i hate to tell you low level players who think mashing e instead of p will make them jump 2-3 ranks are sorely mistaken
|
Very great read, glad TL put this together! I'm excited for this and looking forward to reading and seeing it more in the coming weeks.
On March 27 2017 06:48 Freakling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 06:20 paxconsciente wrote: i hope that the community will convince blizzard to ditch custom hotkeys. All the people who insist on the holy layout of BW hotkeys again be reminded that right now hotkey layout is by no means fixed but depends on the language version one is playing. So this really only levels the playing field.
This. As someone who has played BW for more than a decade, I won't be switching my hotkeys up now. Why would anyone be worried that some new person who just wants some different layout is going to have some big advantage? Where you move your hands on your keyboard already just depends on keyboard size and the mobility/length of your fingers. Pro players will presumably stick to their hotkeys because they have thousands of hours of muscle memory to fall back on, and no 'fancy efficient layout' is going to be the deciding factor in anything.
|
Bisutopia19033 Posts
On March 27 2017 02:29 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 01:13 BisuDagger wrote:On March 27 2017 00:15 B-royal wrote:On March 26 2017 23:38 BisuDagger wrote: The end of year foreigner tournament I am planning just got a lot more hype. Start ranking up everyone! Which rank will count? RIP iccup for sure. I also hope they won't be porting over bronze/grandmaster league. I will auto accept anyone who ranks A on iccup for 2017 (fish ranks apply similarly ). The rest is tbd. does that include peruvians? Peruvians are first pick obviously.
|
Ok that's exactly what i thought, custom hotkeys is not important for balance. It's just better for new comers like me ( im a sc2 player with a customed hotkey layout ) for the comfort of play and nothing more.
|
On March 27 2017 08:48 Crozo64 wrote: Ok that's exactly what i thought, custom hotkeys is not important for balance. It's just better for new comers like me ( im a sc2 player with a customed hotkey layout ) for the comfort of play and nothing more.
Custom hotkeys can in theory affect balance, because some things become slightly easier to do (such as hitting "o" for Siege mode being harder than "e", and missing by even just 0.2 seconds can be game changing).
But, the truth is, it was possible to modify keyboard keys already anyway. Also, different versions of BW in different languages had different hotkeys, so if it was *that* big of a deal someone could have taken advantage of it perfectly legally.
I think it's a worthwhile addition. All that really matters is that pro level balance isn't affected, and that's not going to happen just because of this.
|
someone get a ladder system going for this game when its released. Like the good ol days "wgtour,pgtour,gamei,kali" that would be so gold. I wud def grind the ladder up to high rank
|
so nice to see someone as high quality as Blizzard putting resources into the RTS genre
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 27 2017 05:57 Kazbul wrote: I wish you would have asked questions about the DeepMind AI. Having it moved to SC1 would be a great training tool. And we still don't know if there will be additional game modes such as co-op.
Yeah I'm curious too.
Deepmind/blizz were supposed to come out with an api for sc2 ai in early 2017 but we are rapidly moving past that point with no word.
|
I wonder if when you toggle on to use the old graphics instead of HD it still gives you the wide screen support etc. Hoping that's not bundled in with the HD setting + key bindings.
Ideally I would like an option to get all the benefits of the latest version but keep the old graphics if I want. If not, I'm still happy. Loving Blizzard!
|
Biggest issue for me is that patrol key will be much more accessible. This will lead to increased efficiency with mutalisks, wraiths and vultures leaving protoss unimproved except for scouts. You could argue that good players already master the ways of using patrol with necessary units.
However as we all know, this is a game of very small margins so the time and/or loss of attention when moving your hand to press patrol can be used for something else which might make it too powerful.
In theory, using two control groups of air units like Jaedong will also be much easier since you now can put your mutas on keys 1-2 and have a patrol key close.
(Just thoughts and not facts of any kind)
|
On March 27 2017 12:01 sickkungen wrote: Biggest issue for me is that patrol key will be much more accessible. This will lead to increased efficiency with mutalisks, wraiths and vultures leaving protoss unimproved except for scouts. You could argue that good players already master the ways of using patrol with necessary units.
However as we all know, this is a game of very small margins so the time and/or loss of attention when moving your hand to press patrol can be used for something else which might make it too powerful.
In theory, using two control groups of air units like Jaedong will also be much easier since you now can put your mutas on keys 1-2 and have a patrol key close.
(Just thoughts and not facts of any kind) I think the patrol key in the Spanish version of the game is "R," but someone needs to double-check about that. If that's the case, then there's already an uneven advantage right there.
|
This interview makes everything that much better. Really impressed at their care for community concerns
|
Thanks a lot for providing the interview.
In my opinion quality of life changes like keybinding remaps and resolution fixes makes this incredibly attractive to play. I could play both WC3 and SC2 at a relatively high level (Low/mid masters sc2) but was always C- (usually D) at best on iccup. And with QOL changes, I would play BW over a lot of other games even as a lower skilled player. It's just a much more enjoyable game for me. Since the skill ceiling is so high you can win or loose or make a comeback just by having a particular aptitude in one skill set. Really very few games I'd rather sink time in with these new updates added,
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Sounds like they did a very good update for the game and I have to say that there's nothing in this update that strikes me as wrong or bad. I approve.
|
Sounds like they shortchanged all of you and you love it
"same engine"
Funny .. really funny how the more things change the more they stay the same.
|
On March 27 2017 15:52 fluidrone wrote: Sounds like they shortchanged all of you and you love it
"same engine"
Funny .. really funny how the more things change the more they stay the same.
That's what we want. Have u been living under a rock?
They made SC2. That is what a new engine looks like. Brood war is as timeless as chess , a programming anomaly. You don't try to make chess 2.
Clearly you have never played.
|
Exacly. Stick to SC2 if you want new things.
|
Everything looks great, I can't wait! My only question is will the 1.18 classic have 16 support as well? Quite an obvious advantage if someone's playing that on 4:3 versus someone using the SC:R version! Either way, I'm super hyped!
|
Was he trolling us with the answer where he say "we can't tell any different, we feel the game is the same as BW, we just played BGH" LOL! At that point I thought "oh no they are doing the same mistakes all over again".
Rest of the interview put me at ease.
|
This all sounds amazing, though the one thing I am concerned about is Blizzard being able to have absolute control over BW in Korea again. What does this mean for 3rd party tournaments like ASL? If I remember right, the last time Blizzard tried to gain control of BW in Korea, we lost the OSL and MSL...
|
Wow so many people complain about custom keys when its one of the best changes ever starcraft is not a robot game where u just hit buttons fast and u become the best in the world,its a strategy game where u must use your creativity to beat your opponents...
|
On March 26 2017 14:43 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +One of our testers created a bot that plows through replays endlessly to look for aberrant behavior. We have no issues with replays from 1.16, though we don’t currently have plans to support older versions. I hope this comes eventually, I love old replays
probably not going to happen. very unlikely as they also forever killed off all WoL replays. it shows replays are not a big concern for blizz
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
On March 27 2017 17:45 Angra wrote: This all sounds amazing, though the one thing I am concerned about is Blizzard being able to have absolute control over BW in Korea again. What does this mean for 3rd party tournaments like ASL? If I remember right, the last time Blizzard tried to gain control of BW in Korea, we lost the OSL and MSL...
Considering Blizzard went out of their way to go to Korea and speak to pros, shoutcasters and other groups (likely afreeca) I would imagine this shouldn't be a problem this time.
I think Blizzard has finally realised that BW is their big eSports game outside of Overwatch now.
|
On March 27 2017 17:45 Angra wrote: This all sounds amazing, though the one thing I am concerned about is Blizzard being able to have absolute control over BW in Korea again. What does this mean for 3rd party tournaments like ASL? If I remember right, the last time Blizzard tried to gain control of BW in Korea, we lost the OSL and MSL... I mean ultimately, they could do so at any time. Nothing's changed in that regard.
Heyoka said Mike Morhaime is regretful of how they handled the scene. Tournament organizers are respecting Blizzard's IP by getting tournament licenses, and Blizzard gave up trying to get revenue from these organizers holding the leagues.That's was the source of like 90% of the animosity in the late 2000s. The other source of contention I guess was them trying to supplant BW with SC2, and thats frankly not going to happen. Blizzard seems to have a good relationship with Afreeca, SpotTV, and OGN nowadays. I don't think there's cause for concern because of all these reasons.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Using one of those old tools for running Starcraft as a previous patch worked goodly enough for me for watching old replays. Glitchy still, though far less so than in 1.16 and from what I gather early Starcraft replays were all naturally glitchy.
|
This remastered version is the absolute best news that I have read here, since I joined this community. Also the best news I have ever read about any video game, ever.
Excellent interview!
|
On March 27 2017 12:01 sickkungen wrote: Biggest issue for me is that patrol key will be much more accessible. This will lead to increased efficiency with mutalisks, wraiths and vultures leaving protoss unimproved except for scouts. You could argue that good players already master the ways of using patrol with necessary units.
However as we all know, this is a game of very small margins so the time and/or loss of attention when moving your hand to press patrol can be used for something else which might make it too powerful.
In theory, using two control groups of air units like Jaedong will also be much easier since you now can put your mutas on keys 1-2 and have a patrol key close.
(Just thoughts and not facts of any kind) You can already do all of that by using A) keyboard macros, B) AutoHotkey. I guess the first method can be seen as cheating, have seen people have issues with keyboard macros before. But I've never seen anyone have issues with AutoHotkey--it just changes which key is set where.
In any case I don't think any of your concerns are relevant here, most people will probably stay on their legacy hotkey setup as they're used to it. This is probably the only change that I think is fine when it comes to accessibility.
|
On March 27 2017 17:48 jonhy- wrote: Wow so many people complain about custom keys when its one of the best changes ever starcraft is not a robot game where u just hit buttons fast and u become the best in the world,its a strategy game where u must use your creativity to beat your opponents...
Time for Boxer to come back and beat Flash, JD, Bisu. All creativity
|
On March 27 2017 23:35 Andre wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 12:01 sickkungen wrote: Biggest issue for me is that patrol key will be much more accessible. This will lead to increased efficiency with mutalisks, wraiths and vultures leaving protoss unimproved except for scouts. You could argue that good players already master the ways of using patrol with necessary units.
However as we all know, this is a game of very small margins so the time and/or loss of attention when moving your hand to press patrol can be used for something else which might make it too powerful.
In theory, using two control groups of air units like Jaedong will also be much easier since you now can put your mutas on keys 1-2 and have a patrol key close.
(Just thoughts and not facts of any kind) You can already do all of that by using A) keyboard macros, B) AutoHotkey. I guess the first method can be seen as cheating, have seen people have issues with keyboard macros before. But I've never seen anyone have issues with AutoHotkey--it just changes which key is set where. In any case I don't think any of your concerns are relevant here, most people will probably stay on their legacy hotkey setup as they're used to it. This is probably the only change that I think is fine when it comes to accessibility. Yeah sorry sickkungen. Software or even hardware changes already make this possible. So unless you think people with a DVORAK keyboard shouldn't be allowed to play ladder, then your argument doesn't really hold.
|
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!
|
Croatia9362 Posts
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! In case they don't, you might be interested in this: http://www.staredit.net/topic/16823/
|
Wow, that looks pretty crazy. That also reminds me, I wonder if Blizzard will also be fixing security issues like uninitialized memory reads from UMS maps or the various buffer overflows. Probably a pre-requisite for a working anticheat.
|
Great questions and i m very happy about the answers too. Maximum hype!
|
Find it hard to believe more people are not concerned by the disparity between "gameplay will stay the same" and "yeah, we're gonna let you see more of the screen at any time if you want to."
Overall I'm pretty happy with what I've read, but to me that extra horizontal screen space is something that affects gameplay and thus should be restricted to observer/replay only. I wonder what's the best way to contact them with these concerns.
|
On March 28 2017 01:34 Jealous wrote: Find it hard to believe more people are not concerned by the disparity between "gameplay will stay the same" and "yeah, we're gonna let you see more of the screen at any time if you want to."
Overall I'm pretty happy with what I've read, but to me that extra horizontal screen space is something that affects gameplay and thus should be restricted to observer/replay only. I wonder what's the best way to contact them with these concerns. legit concern imo, best way to know would be to test, wonder what bisu stork flash jaedong thought about it few people are still on 4:3 screens I guess, but Im one of them^^ since CRT is still best technology haha I dont feel like I want other players to play with side bars if they have a wider screen and feel like I can take on equal skill player even with slightly smaller view without feeling at a real disadvantage but . . . legit concern ; since original version will keep 4:3 ratio, and as far as I understand we can play with people using the remastered client using original version, how much of a disadvantage are you at for having this slightly smaller field of vision?
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
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.
|
On March 27 2017 16:04 probelife66 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 27 2017 15:52 fluidrone wrote: Sounds like they shortchanged all of you and you love it
"same engine"
Funny .. really funny how the more things change the more they stay the same. That's what we want. Have u been living under a rock? They made SC2. That is what a new engine looks like. Brood war is as timeless as chess , a programming anomaly. You don't try to make chess 2. Clearly you have never played. i'm 42 and i did love/play starcraft vanilla when it came out and then brood' thank you, purely judged on its game merits sc2 is inferior in everything but possibly graphics yes and?
i was just saying something else that eluded you, no worries. + Show Spoiler [that is what u missed] +i'm just saying that they could have comed out with new things for it.. not that it should be a different game.
If you are re doing a game like scbw, you should sell it with - things maybe which you aren't thinking about like the possibility to enter/recover from replays .. you know things that are not the game but still are .. savvy? - a new worldwide ladder/event - etc
.. and blizzard clearly thought out how not to do those things!
|
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#527
I 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.
|
On March 28 2017 01:34 Jealous wrote: Find it hard to believe more people are not concerned by the disparity between "gameplay will stay the same" and "yeah, we're gonna let you see more of the screen at any time if you want to."
Overall I'm pretty happy with what I've read, but to me that extra horizontal screen space is something that affects gameplay and thus should be restricted to observer/replay only. I wonder what's the best way to contact them with these concerns.
That is an extra advantage that people with new monitors have in AoE2 now, you can see almost half of the map in big resolutions, so you can handle better your armies and eco.
|
On March 28 2017 02:15 palexhur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 01:34 Jealous wrote: Find it hard to believe more people are not concerned by the disparity between "gameplay will stay the same" and "yeah, we're gonna let you see more of the screen at any time if you want to."
Overall I'm pretty happy with what I've read, but to me that extra horizontal screen space is something that affects gameplay and thus should be restricted to observer/replay only. I wonder what's the best way to contact them with these concerns. That is an extra advantage that people with new monitors have in AoE2 now, you can see almost half of the map in big resolutions, so you can handle better your armies and eco. As someone who played AoE2 back in the early 00s, it was really mind blowing coming back to the scene last year and seeing just how big my view could be. I honestly played on default resolution for the first month without realizing I could zoom out. When I did, the whole game changed for me. Harass never did quite as much damage to me again. I saw towers coming up every time I managed my woodline. It was a tremendous boon to my play.
The change to Brood War is not as dramatic from the shots I've seen, which is both a good and bad thing. Good in the sense that it won't be as drastic of a difference if it is kept for play, and indicative of Blizzard's relatively conservative stance on the Remaster. Bad in that it still is a change but perhaps not extreme enough to get people to scratch their heads and think of the consequences as they might have had the resolution been scaled up to the levels it is in AoE2.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On March 28 2017 01:51 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On March 28 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On March 28 2017 02:47 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
no need to "upgrade" a 4:3 I think, as far as Im concerned my CRT is better than any LSD/LED thing for quality of picture and especially responsiveness (so actually I gain a small advantage from that^^)
when BW came out I think all screens pretty much were 4:3 with few exceptions, makes sense to me to allow wider nowadays, so long as the disadvantage is very small which I expect it is (if it were not side bars would be more reasonable wouldnt they? arcade games ported to consoles or pc add side bars and that doesnt bother people, these games are different though and would likely suffer more from a change of gameplay screen ratio, as in becoming too different from the original plus need a lot of retuning). Making the game accessible to newcomers without dumbing it down I feel is probably the number 1 advantage of remastering
overall I just agree with LegalLord
|
On March 28 2017 03:52 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On March 28 2017 03:56 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +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 I think it is important to always maintain an influx of new people coming or coming back if the game is to grow (or not shrink) and be shared and fun times etc. But I think with or without widescreen expand support its good, it just seems reasonable to bring this to the game to me. Its not as important as public server with "lan lat" and no need to port forward and a functionning ladder
|
On March 28 2017 03:59 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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 Kingdom13774 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 Kingdom13774 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 Kingdom13774 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 Kingdom13774 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 Kingdom13774 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.
|
Motherfuckers, we could have totally skipped the SC2 part, that's all anyone ever really wanted...
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
By getting "stuck" I mean two Goliaths or Dragoons getting clumped on top of each other in such a way that they cannot move at all. That shit is really dumb.
I personally don't prescribe to the "BW's bugs are actually features" position. Some bugs were actually better left in the game than corrected because they added to the depth of play. But many bugs are really just bugs. Let's face it, BW is a pretty buggy game that we as older players have learned to come to terms with. Doesn't mean that in some ways the game is somewhat obsolete.
Line rally, mild resolution changes, the game not bugging out - these are gameplay changes that contribute very positively to QOL but little to balance, so they are good gameplay changes. More non-neutral changes like scarabs detonating... well that's worthy of a real debate. Much of the problem lies in that it took at least 5 years to flesh out the fundamentals that ushered in "modern style" Brood War. Arguably Savior's contributions to Zerg macro mechanics redefined the game in ways not previously seen - and that came not from balance, but experience. Any non-insignificant changes could open a new style, that could either open a new style or make one race horribly overpowered.
|
I like the idea of casters running SC:R while the competitors run whatever, for prettier casting in crazy matches!
|
This is fuckin insane.
"20 years from now you'll be playing StarCraft Remastered, it's the same, just looks better" -Me in high school
|
France12466 Posts
When will we be able to download BW for free?
|
On March 28 2017 08:29 Poopi wrote: When will we be able to download BW for free? Thursday
|
Glad that they asked TBLS about any changes instead of some random TL posters
|
Only feature I'm concerned about: zoom It'd be great to be able to zoom out, you'd feel like a whole battlefield commander, not trapped to a tiny view range.
|
So there are two "dragoon" issues:
1) When a dragoon goes to shoot and a unit moves away or something during the attack animation (or something similar) the goon locks up and does nothing.
2)This shit:
#2 absolutely should be fixed. I personally think fixing #1 is okay as well, but #2 is stupid. You can't free the units when it happens either. Seen it happen with goliaths and other units as well.
|
That's more of an FS ramp issue (in that particular spot) than a dragoon issue. It's happened to my mech army multiple times in the same position.
|
from the openbw thread was discovered that it was caused by the map protection.
|
On March 28 2017 00:31 R1CH wrote: Wow, that looks pretty crazy. That also reminds me, I wonder if Blizzard will also be fixing security issues like uninitialized memory reads from UMS maps or the various buffer overflows. Probably a pre-requisite for a working anticheat. They will be removing EUD, according to a korean interview, to handle these security concerns. Unfortunately, this breaks extended supply (exceeding supply cap) and at least half the current UMS maps which use features like building upgrades for cannons. And if they remove a lot of the extended and unused units, this will also severely limit the number of death counts that mapmakers can use as variables. Mapmaking in BW is already like coding when you're only allowed to have ~100 variables, so any reduction at all there will be extremely painful.
BW:Remastered might be nice for the core game and very simple UMS maps, but for most of the current custom maps scene this looks like a complete disaster. It remains to be seen whether the influx of new players will offset the catastrophic loss of the current map pool. Many of these maps are not played very much anyway right now due to inactivity, so for those it's a wash already, but there are several that are still quite active...
|
I really hope they will officially support wide ramps and backwards ramps. It will be even more visible with better graphics
|
Great interview! They really want to convey the message that they did it for the fans and i think they succeed
|
Going through the work of making BW and SC:R compatible with each other, but not even going to add the xel naga race?w0w
Seriously though this is fucking amazing! Some of the sprite changes are kind of weird, but I understand that it can be difficult. Overall they are close enough, and if I'm playing SC:R and don't have a reference to compare it to, I won't really be able to tell the differences or things that I liked more about the original sprites.
I'm so impressed that they went through the trouble of making them the same game basically and compatible.
Can't wait to see what the comic/interludes are going to be like
Also I read that the audio is re-recorded, does that mean they got the VAs to voice all their lines again or what?
|
i want to be able to restart from anywhere in the replay!
|
On March 28 2017 10:32 L_Master wrote: So there are two "dragoon" issues:
1) When a dragoon goes to shoot and a unit moves away or something during the attack animation (or something similar) the goon locks up and does nothing. this is what they said they'd fix (and hopefully not just for goons).
2)This shit: #2 absolutely should be fixed. I personally think fixing #1 is okay as well, but #2 is stupid. You can't free the units when it happens either. Seen it happen with goliaths and other units as well.
This is not a Dragoon-specific problem in any way. In fact, the easiest way to reproduce this is by morphing some Lurkers on the ramp, so they overlap when hatching. The problem here is: Can this be fixed without affecting pathfinding in other ways as well? And if not, would it be an acceptable change? Personally I'd say: Fixing it would probably affect path-finding in fringe cases, but it should be done either way, as this bug is completely game-breaking and an absolute pain to avoid from the map-makers' side – at best! (unless good pathing prediction/simulation in-editor actually becomes available, but so far it does not seem that they are working on an editor update...)
|
On March 28 2017 10:48 Sero wrote: That's more of an FS ramp issue (in that particular spot) than a dragoon issue. It's happened to my mech army multiple times in the same position.
It is map dependant. However, it affects many maps, not just FS (FS just happens to be the map that everybody knows in and out). Dantes Peak has multiple of these, for example. It happens with certain tiles (that have unwalkable subtiles in the bottom right corner, in most cases) at specific locations on specific maps (as with all things pathing-related, fixing that problem in a map does not necessarily require changing the ramp itself – any other change with influence on path-finding on the map might do the job...)
|
On March 28 2017 10:58 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote: from the openbw thread was discovered that it was caused by the map protection. This is simply and utterly wrong. It is the pathfinding algorithm that causes this, and map protection (unless it is the weird kind that introduces null-tiles in the bottom row) has no influence on that.
|
On March 28 2017 11:28 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2017 00:31 R1CH wrote: Wow, that looks pretty crazy. That also reminds me, I wonder if Blizzard will also be fixing security issues like uninitialized memory reads from UMS maps or the various buffer overflows. Probably a pre-requisite for a working anticheat. They will be removing EUD, according to a korean interview, to handle these security concerns. Unfortunately, this breaks extended supply (exceeding supply cap) and at least half the current UMS maps which use features like building upgrades for cannons. And if they remove a lot of the extended and unused units, this will also severely limit the number of death counts that mapmakers can use as variables. Mapmaking in BW is already like coding when you're only allowed to have ~100 variables, so any reduction at all there will be extremely painful. BW:Remastered might be nice for the core game and very simple UMS maps, but for most of the current custom maps scene this looks like a complete disaster. It remains to be seen whether the influx of new players will offset the catastrophic loss of the current map pool. Many of these maps are not played very much anyway right now due to inactivity, so for those it's a wash already, but there are several that are still quite active... To be fair though, you cannot really expect them to preserve what is essentially hacking of the in-game memory, not only because this also would allow for all kinds of other manipulation but also would it require all the memory addresses remain unchanged through the patch/remake. I guess and extended range of "official" triggers would be nice to have, but there would not be forward- or backwards map compatibility either way. In any case, it would be great if a new official editor were to be worked on.
On March 28 2017 11:39 st4ck0v3rfl0w wrote: I really hope they will officially support wide ramps and backwards ramps. It will be even more visible with better graphics In a way they do support them, the old editors will remain valid, albeit nor getting the graphical update. If terrain blends will look a lot worse remains to be seen. There is actually not terribly much that could be done in terms of "official support" for "extended terrain". Some of the blanks in the current terrain palettes could be filled in with additional textures, but making a map would still be a lot more than "pick ramp from palette and slam it in" (just think about how limited SC2 maps are because of the few available ramp angles...)
|
Just found this interesting answer in the forum:
So far it is only a "I don't really want to promise anything yet" kind of statement, but at least it is a positive one...
|
On March 28 2017 20:09 Freakling wrote:Just found this interesting answer in the forum: So far it is only a "I don't really want to promise anything yet" kind of statement, but at least it is a positive one... Wow, I hadn't thought they would support the Editor in any way given that this is explicitly stated in the license agreement (iirc, might only refer to solve problems or so). But then again, if they patch bw in this kind of way, the editor has to be updated, too, in order to adapt terrain in new maps in the future. But then again, this is at least the community's expectation which doesn't necessarily mean that blizzard would care about that ... ^^
|
On March 28 2017 20:09 Freakling wrote:Just found this interesting answer in the forum: So far it is only a "I don't really want to promise anything yet" kind of statement, but at least it is a positive one... I wouldn't rely on a greenpost. thats not official at all and typically forum MVPers are super shills.
|
|
|
|