As a rule of thumb, if your response to legitimate points against your request is “shut up, i dont care” then youre just being rude for the sake of rudeness.
1 Like
So…like…basically all of your points? I suggested real solutions, I even found ways to work around the original issues claimed, I pointed out that their statement and past actions do not contravene this…then you basically just said “shut up accept no”
So…enjoy calling yourself out? You are literally in here to be rude and attempt to argue against a feature a portion of the community wants back because…well??? I don’t know why? Because you think they should sit down and shut up from what I can tell.
Ah yes, going “no you” is a great argument. Someday im sure it will convince somebody of something.
1 Like
And now a representative has popped in to flatly tell you this will not happen for current SC2:
That’s as “the answer is no.” as it gets. This. Will. Never. Happen.
I’m sorry you called yourself out? What do you want? You came in here to literally do what you were arguing against.
Same goes to Whovian honestly. You ran out of arguments, ignored counters, now are trying to treat forum support as official blue…That’s no offense to Leviathan honestly. But the fact is that MVPs aren’t Blizzard or really that official when it comes right down to it. They’re forum users with a different rank. They have no more insight than the average forum goer.
Blizzards dropping of support specifically only mentioned that development was stopping for new paid content not all development. They specifically said fixes and other support would still be happening.
Just to be transparent, I’m not a Bliz employee. I’m just a player/community member who Bliz trusts to be knowledgeable and accurate in technical/customer support areas.
My post above was only my opinions on why ultra wide is a virtual impossibility based off the points I presented:
Bliz has implied they don’t want it in any mode.
Marginal marketshare.
Game’s developmental life is over.
A remaster doesn’t explicitly equate to changing their mind.
That the thread didn’t need to necro’d because this has been around for 10 years meaning Bliz is well aware of the desire.
1 Like
You never countered any counter arguments, you just repeat your tired rhetoric of “but it used to exist and I want it”
You stand by ridiculous claims that software has to explicity state every single potential thing it doesn’t support or it means they support it by failure to mention they don’t. Which is an impossible requirement, as potential things to support grows by the day. You’d have to have a full team constantly updating that list every hour. That’s precisely why literally no software does that anywhere. Despite that, Blizzard did make it clear they do not, will not, and have no desire to support UW for SC2. Full stop.
You never named a single example to backup your claim that games over a decade old have had developers openly state they’re no longer making functional additions to their games come back to add support for features as a matter of regular course.
They also specifically stated what they would be doing: Bug fixes, balance patches, and new season rollouts. None of which encapsulate adding support of new features.
You also never gave a response to the technical issues with doing conditional resolution enabling; you simply eschewed them as “not an issue” with no elaboration as to what magical hand-waiving makes that true.
So for you to claim:
Is the pot calling the kettle black, at best; and an outright lie at worst.
The entire post processing thing countered your resolution change concerns. So no I have not just been saying only “it used to exist I want it” I gave solutions to your resolution changing concerns because they were not insubstantial though, I do think people with Ultrawides are used to dealing with that sort of thing as the price to pay for the cutting edge…but if you don’t want to risk it or you want a more polished approach, you post process letterbox it and resize the UI as proposed, then it’s still “3440x1440” or whatever your 21:9 of choice is, but the view for the player is the same as a 16:9 player. I shouldn’t really have to restate this here…again…because it wasn’t even just proposed by me at this point, someone else also pointed out the literal same solution…
That fact that, again, it is not a new feature, it’s an old feature that people want back counters your complaints about new feature. That’s another counter right there. You keep claiming it’s a new feature, and it isn’t…new, would mean, well, new. It having been there before, is not new. That is what we call “old”.
I never claimed it had to state what it didn’t support, I just pointed out that software does not typically list every resolution they do or don’t support. The fact that it was available in the menu in the original game means it was supported at one point.
I also pointed out that they made updates around Brood War specifically regarding supporting different resolutions like retina around 2017-2018. So they have a history of doing exactly what is being asked for games that are even older. Brood War was made around 4:3, updating from that to retina is apples to apples almost the same. Only difference is this time they’re dealing withe people complaining about advantages, which the only reason people are giving in and asking for mode dependent rendering. Which itself was countering an argument from people complaining about advantages.
Also I’m just going to point out additionally that you keep saying there are “no devs” but you do realize that SC2 still falls under the purvue of the Classic Games dev team at Blizz right? Same as Brood War. Which we already established has a history of similar updates on a longer timespan.
Also that the list of examples they used was not stated in a way to be exhaustive. Specifically the part where they said “We’re going to continue supporting StarCraft II in the same manner as we have with our previous longstanding games, such as Brood War” The only explicitly stated thing was that they are ceasing development of paid for content. And again, saying “such as Brood War” and Brood War having also gotten updates for specifically new aspect ratio resolutions, would show that it is not precluded by their statement.
You got counters, you didn’t answer them, now you’ve reverted to “But they aren’t gonna” like you have any say in it. (Spoilers…you don’t) So if your only response at this point is “But they aren’t gonna” why…again…do you still stick around?
If you’re only purpose here is to get in the way of a suggestion that would not negatively affect you in any way, but would make a portion of the audience happy…again I ask, why…are…you…here? IF you really feel like you can’t help and it isn’t gonna happen, just ignore the thread and get out of the way.
I’ll actually add one more thing here too…I honestly don’t think you need to worry about the aspect ratio even in competitive. There’s a reason a fair few Brood War pros still use 4:3. Ultrawide makes it more cinematic, but it’s not actually better in every way, you can see more, but also you’re less focused and you have to look around more for your mineral count, minimap, etc. It’s pluses and minuses and those players who still play Brood War letterboxed to 4:3 have realized that the minuses of even 16:9 in that way are not always worth the wider view. But I’m willing to let people have their cake on that one…if they want to believe that advantage is enough to make a difference. But then you have to consider the alternate ways to implement it.
Yes and I pointed out that opening access to the hooks that even allow that would also allow 3rd party tools to override and enable an advantage in competitive Versus. This is totally unacceptable.
It was never a feature, it was always a bug which is why they patched it out. Features are only ever intentional. You don’t aggressively patch out features such that the hooks that allowed them in the first place are disabled. You only do that for bugs. Prove SC2 intended to have UW and I’ll change my tune. Show me where they wrote it was officially supported and intended. If you can’t, then it’s a bug. Not because they didn’t state it; but because they didn’t state it and they aggressively removed all options for it. Those two in concert prove it was never intended and it was considered a bug in-house.
No you just heavily implied that not explicitly saying they don’t support UW means they support it.
But yeah sure pretend you don’t mean it the second it’s inconvenient. These statements logically mean the only way for you to accept a game not having support for a particular resolution is by explicitly stating they don’t. That is ridiculous.
That’s not actually true. Support has to be intentional. It being present means that they simply overlooked implementing a resolution limit; which they later corrected as is evident by the fact that they did exactly that.
This is a lie. They never updated Brood War to support retina, or UW, or anything else. What they did do is remaster the game and release StarCraft: Remastered; an entirely different product. As I also pointed out, if they do a remaster of SC2, then they might add UW support. What they won’t do is update SC2 to do it. Everyone has pointed this out to you.
Actually they have established no such history. The classic games division has only a history of updating games to launch through Battle.Net. Show me the update where they added UW support to The Lost Vikings. I can wait. Oh, they didn’t? Guess they don’t have that established history.
And again they never updated Brood War. They released StarCraft: Remastered; a different product. But please keep making arguments from lies.
To beat a dead horse. It isn’t going to happen and it brings me great schadenfreude to continuously point this out to you.
Nope, I’m gonna keep coming back. UW won’t happen in SC2 unless they make SC2: Remastered; a new product.
Yes, because they released StarCraft: Remastered and so now they play that instead. They play it on 16:9. In fact, they so clearly didn’t add native support for this in original BW that if you run Remastered without an online connection for it to verify your license it runs in 4:3 with black bars covering the extra screen space. The features you reference are 100% only for the Remastered product. They do not add new features to Classic games.
I’m absolutely certain 99% of forum goers would have no substantial impact from this. But it would severely impact the highest echelon of players, which is the pro-scene.
Maphacks are already not that uncommon. Do you really think people are going to bother going and hacking 21:9 when they can just maphack 16:9? You yourself even said this won’t affect but the top echelon of players who are more likely to get caught doing this stuff anyway, just as they would using maphacks.
You keep claiming it was a bug but it was literally allowed in the menu…that’s something they added, it was a feature, just because it doesn’t fit your narrative doesn’t mean you’re right to call it a bug, they changed their minds on a feature, we’re here to change it back.
“Heavily implied” meaning used the same logic you did, but you didn’t like it. You used the same logic to claim support, but the fact is games don’t just list out resolutions in either direction. Your point is moot and you’re just grasping for straws.
You don’t overlook something when you add it to the menu for a decent chunk of the entire base game and only remove it when people complain.
Look at the patch notes. For original Brood War…Have fun with that. There’s a lot.
Anyway I’m not going to bother responding to the rest because the above applies…look at the Brood War patch notes. It’s there.
So you’re literally just here to be toxic and get in the way of players requesting something that literally wouldn’t affect you in any way? You’re such a constructive forum member! How great for you! How proud is your mother?
You know, actually, it’s great because you’re doing exactly what I proposed anyway. Keeping this thread going and keeping it at the top. So even if you’re just deliberately trying to be toxic, hey, keeps the thread going.
Yes because a resolution hack would be using existing tools instead of maphack software which, by all accounts, is subscription based. It also would mostly be used by lower level players or bottom GM players to get a leg-up. This would negatively affect pro players who would then have to play against people that could actually leverage that advantage. That it would introduce this risk at all is reason enough to never implement it in the existing product.
It’s cute that you think hackers care about getting caught, assuming they actually do get caught, on a f2p game.
They didn’t add it. They just used to poll the GPU for supported resolutions and offered what they got. They later trimmed down the list when they realized that doing so introduced a bug: UW. You’re litterally wrong about it being a feature; it’s abundantly clear you’ve never worked on software professionally.
I don’t have to grasp for anything; I’m right. They don’t and won’t support UW for SC2. You’re right that games don’t provide a full list of resolutions they support. And SC2 doesn’t support UW.
You do when you don’t add anything to a menu and you’re just polling the GPU for supported resolutions.
Already did. None of them introduced new features between sunsetting of BW for SC2 (which released in 2010) and the release of Remastered. In fact there were no patches during that period. Crazy. Thank you for proving my point.
Yup, again, thanks for proving me right. If you stop replying, the forum post will die and I win…if you keep replying I get to keep doing this and experiencing schadenfreude…so I also win. This is my favorite part ^^
Yup I sure am. And I’ll be back here every time just to share it with you <3 SC2 will never support UW. SC2 Remastered might, assuming they make one. But SC2 won’t. 
Hey, I’m fine with you bumping the thread. Just keeps it at the top, keeps everyone seeing it, keeps the idea out there just with the title alone.
Also, the fact that it wasn’t trimmed out before release after testing, says they left it as a feature. It’s not a bug, it was never listed as a bug fix. It was a feature change. You believe whatever you want though.
So, basically you don’t care about maphacks which are far far more advantageous than 21:9 because they’re subscription based? So you just care about 21:9 because you want to be toxic in this thread, got it. So you don’t even care about your own points really if you don’t care about hacking to begin with. Not to mention there wouldn’t be just, existing software if they pillarbox it post process. You’d have to make a new tool, essentially doing exactly what a maphack does but instead of disabling the fog of war processing, disabling the pillarboxes.
I still have to laugh at how much people claim 21:9 would be an advantage when many many pros even in Remastered swear by 4:3. Almost like the extra real estate doesn’t really do that much for you…and in some ways is disadvantageous.
Again, they allowed it in the menu and didn’t remove it until it was brought up. It would have been an obvious enough “bug” to have been removed far far earlier if they didn’t want it. It was a feature they changed their mind on.
You were grasping to say that I implied they had to say what it didn’t support…I never said that, I said devs don’t typically provide a full list in either direction, so you saying it was not listed and therefore not supported, was equally as wrong as saying it the other way would be…your point was pointless, and has no bearing on supported vs non supported.
By using polling they were supporting whatever they got. They changed their mind on that later, as they are wont to do, and as we are to asking them to change it again.
there were multiple patches for Brood War between 2017 and 2021, original Brood War, not remastered, though many apply to both. There were by my count an even 50 patches between 2017-2021. Which is inclusive of the period I referenced…imagine that. I never said there were any before that in the 2010s.
Not all had feature implementations, most were balance and maps, but there were multiple features also introduced. Mostly around multiplayer but also various OS support features. Specifically mac OS and associated display support.
The resolution support was still pillarboxed but it doesn’t actually run at a lower resolution. It does, ironically, basically what we proposed here. Pillarboxes the game, and constrains the mouse cursor to that pillarbox while still technically being at your desktop resolution. Imagine that…Blizzard came up with the same solution. Only difference is that to preserve Brood War as Brood War it is the entire game instead of just competitive modes because only the purists are playing the actual client.
Anyway, you’re bumping the post for me does more good to me to keep it at the top, the title alone and the post count and discussion around it can only help. So hey, keep it up.
That’s patently false. The first commercially available UW screen came out in 2012. In 2010, when the realeased the game (and they started working in it on the early 00’s) they wouldn’t have had any UW screens to test with so no GPU would have returned an UW value. It is a bug fix. You’re just wrong about what features actually are because you are, again, ignorant of professional software development practices.
Quote where I said I don’t care about maphacks.
I do care about it. There’s a world of difference between illegal map hacks and enabling easily leveraged hooks to alter UW implementation using existing tools that are free. There’s no reason to hand free advantages to ladder players. Maphacks aren’t easy to stop, it’s an arm’s race. There’s no reason to hand more tools to cheaters which is what enabling UW at all would do. If you’re opposed to maphackers you have to be opposed to anything that gives a person an unfair in game advantage: Such as extra screen space.
ASL is universally played in 16:9.
It’s a disadvantage in SC: Remastered because of how the UI is designed and because SC: Remastered still uses BW’s horrific pathing/unit control. If you lose a unit in the same corner as the minimap you can’t get it back if it’s not on a hotkey. This isn’t the case in SC2. Map design in BW is also corner to corner, so every bit of space matters. In SC2 maps are designed with dead-air near base corners and spaced so the UI isn’t interrupting unit control. Having extra screen space to work with would only ever been an advantage in SC2; which is one of the key reasons they disabled UW support.
It was a bug because UW litterally did not exist when they were making SC2. They didn’t expect it. You might as well ask them to code around VR in the 00’s too when that was barely a twinkle of an idea.
You said this only after I called you out on your ridiculous requirement.
Except what I said was that it wasn’t listed and then vehementally removed so that it couldn’t be shoehorned in. This falls under “read the room.” If the entire audience is booing your speech they’re not supporting you. Blizzard boo’d at UW, and you’re acting like that means they wanted UW to be in the game so they should add it in.
And they never will, in your life or mine <3
No there were patches for SC: Remastered. They’re only listed under BW on Liquidpedia, a 3rd party site, for convenience.
But that’s the only period that matters: Between when they ended dev support for BW and when they released a new product. My entire point being when they ended dev support: They didn’t add a single new feature until they had a new product in SC: Remastered. I get that this simple idea is hard to grasp, but do your best.
And I can use a free post processing tool with 0 effort and the pillarboxes are gone giving me a competitive advantage over someone with a free version that has the pillar boxes. GGNORE.
Here’s the beautiful part: It literally doesn’t matter if this stays at the top because UW will never happen anyway 
Not saying they wouldn’t have to harden it but if they implemented it correctly it would require more than existing free tools. Also yes…there are pros that play remastered in 4:3 and stream it even as such…
As far as their patch time period, they can go in phases with their products however they like, the point is they did eventually begin adding new features again, they didn’t ever fully end support. They get to choose when they do things, we’re just asking for them to choose to add a QoL feature for people who enjoy their single player.
You can keep saying it won’t happen, but the beautiful thing truly is that you’re not Blizzard, so you have zero say in it.
So much for your “this is easy to do” then huh? The conditionals to have letterboxed and non-letterboxed given a particular mode aren’t even being considered here and those are the sort of flags, if they were added, I could alter in 5 minutes with Cheat Engine.
Literally only after they released a new Remastered product, which I already said if they made SC2: Remastered that’s probably when they’d support UW. They do not have a dev team dedicated to SC2 to do it now and have demonstrated they have no intention of it in SC2.
Yes they did. They ended support when SC2 was released and literally only started supporting it again when they made it a new product: SC: Remastered. There were 0 patches in between those periods because they ended support. Again, I get that you find this incredibly simple idea difficult to grasp but really give it your all and I think you can get it. SC2 Support has ended just like BW’s did. This means for it to resume it has to be: _________ Fill in the blank, you can do it!
And they’ve chosen not to for SC2 as we know it. If they decide to remaster it, you might get your wish and I hope you do.
I don’t have to have a say in it; it’s fact. You don’t kill every single hook to a resolution and end official dev support to come back and revert that decision as well as tackle hardening against the exploits that restoration adds back. That’s a genuinely difficult and costly undertaking for a F2P game that they barely find the dev time for basic bug fixes. I mean, the ladder border bug has been around for 3 years now? They only just “fixed” it in the last week or so. That wasn’t even a patch, implying it was a backend/db issue. You live in an interesting world where they both have enough dev support to implement a protected feature but don’t have the dev support to fix issues that are actually impacting the community for years on end.
Spoiler: The blank was “Remastered” in case you got this far without figuring it out.
It’s still not that hard to do in the grand scheme of things. But I really don’t care about pandering to that crowd anymore.
The funny thing is all I’m asking for (as well as the other people) is support for it in the future of SC2, which is exactly what you’re saying could happen. There was a 7 year gap in Brood War support…where are we at for SC2? Similar timeframe, more or less couple years out but not that far off. All we’re trying to do is get them to consider re-adding support for it at some point in SC2, I don’t think anyone cares if they decide to tack a “remastered” on the name at that point or not.
We just want to be able to play SC2 in 21:9, as long as that happens, I don’t think anyone really cares how. So to be frank I don’t care if they do what they did with BW and update client and then merge it or however they want to do it, as long as I can play the campaigns in UW. If they want to play it off as a remaster, so be it, if they decide to pick support back up, that’s fine too. Don’t care how it happens.
That’s all that was ever being asked for initially. The more complex solutions around gamemodes were just to reply to people overblowing the advantage of screen real estate. No one who wants ultrawide particularly cares if they do them or not I’d be willing to bet, as long as SC2 content, can be played in UW, at some point. No one is demanding it happen this week, no one is demanding it be implemented this month, just that it be fixed at some point.
The only fix I’d want to see them implement sooner, is for it to handle 16:9 on UW screens without just stretching the image…why the hell they defaulted to making it stretch is beyond me. (and you can fix it in drivers but it isn’t very cooperative)
If it makes you feel better then consider it a suggestion for them to remaster it sooner.
You don’t care about proving definitively to Blizzard that this is an ezpz change? Must not care much about it then.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if they choose to make an SC2: Remastered product, which would not be SC2 as they are distinct, it would make sense to add support for new features.
BW isn’t supported anymore. SC: Remastered is supported. They are different products requiring different purchases. If you put in a BW disk from 1998 you will not get access to SC: Remastered.
They’re distinct. The original product and a for purchase remaster are utterly distinct. It doesn’t matter if you view it as the same thing; they require different licenses and are registered as different products.
It will be through a Remaster if at all. Short of a remaster, there’s no chance they will be patching SC2 to add official UW support.
So you just want ~2% of users to dictate the hardware necessary to mitigate a competitive advantage to the other 98%? And you wonder why I don’t like the idea of this for SC2.
The fact that you chose to word this as a demand is hilarious. I encouraged the idea for it in Remaster, now I kinda hope they make a Remaster and intentionally block the UW ratios there just to show you what they think of demands.
Again, because post-processing effects are easily altered so there’s no way to enforce the black-bars with PP; and if you’re forcing it through drivers to alter the resolution in Versus to add blackbars then the hooks for standard UW would still be open and thus vulnerable to unintended behavior. It’s a lose-lose.
I mean, it did until you listed UW as a demand. Unless you’re Bobby Kotnik or MicroSoft I am pretty sure you don’t get to make demands.
In the original request it wasn’t making a distinction between SC2 or a future SC2 remastered. I was just pointing out that the suggestion deserves to be brought up and stay relevantly in the conversation.
It is what you’re saying…because people just want the content, they don’t care about the name.
Blizz themselves hands out the free BW client in patch 1.23.
Again, people want the content in the resolution, beyond that no one cares if you want to be a stickler about it, doesn’t matter.
The thing about 2% of the player base dictating something is funny when even you said the advantage of UW would only even help the top few percent…either way you’re basing whether it’s allowed or not on a small percentage of players it would actually affect. Blizz constantly changes games based on minor percentages of players.
Not to mention, someone not currently having an ultrawide doesn’t preclude them from being interested. Especially if say, they had a favorite RTS game that announced support. Many more people are interested in them still than have dropped money on them. I can’t imagine going back after going to 21:9 either. How do we show them market interest? Simple, we bug them about it a bit.
(Also again, Steam survey is not always accurate since it is a random sampling and not a total survey, and tends to fail to recognize things at random, plus many users, especially power users, just decline it by default. Myself included. The one time I did it it didn’t even register my GPU.)
I don’t recall demanding it. I recall saying I think the suggestion deserves to be brought up until it gets fixed. It’s not a demand, it’s a statement that it deserves to stay in the conversation, which it does. Demanding it would be “I expect this to be fixed” with some kind of consequence to it not happening. I just said it deserves to be brought up and asked for until it is. Because it’s a big oversight.
You completely missed the point of the current mishandling of 16:9…I can literally force black bars right now, it just isn’t happy about it and tends to crash. I’d prefer they fix the support for the resolution they want me to use without me having to do outside work. Your options are stretched game, or risk a crash as it is. That is absolutely a bug they should fix.
Again…never demanded it, just want it to happen, wanting it to stay in consideration and eventually happen /= demand.
