|
This is a little idea I thought up that I am thinking of putting into a custom map. The game starts out with a random unit composition. e.g. 5 marines, 20 zerglings. Both players then "bid" in units to win this composition. If a player wins the auction, they get to use the original composition in the fight. The opposing player uses whatever was bid.
So player 1might bid an archon. Player 2 then bids an archon and 3 lings. Player 1 bids archon + 3 lings + 2 stalkers. Player 2 bids archon + 10 lings + 2 stalkers. Player 1 thinks this composition is better than the original, and decides to take it.
Then its a micro war between the two final compositions.
Some positives of this method:
Map is always balanced
Makes theory-crafting a useful ingame skill
Allows for randomly generated units and composition. Game never gets stale.
Negatives:
If someone bids wrong, they could have composition losses
Bidding takes a lot of time out of the gameplay
The auction method may confuse new players.
This method would work inside a starcraft micro map, but also should work for other games like chess.
This could also work for 3 player games. First an original unit set is chosen. The same method for 2 players is used to pick the second unit set, except this time with 3 players bidding for the original. After someone wins the first set, he is removed from the bidding. The remaning two players then bid for the original winning bid. At the end everyone ends up with a theoretically equal unit set. This could also be expanded for more than 3 players.
EDIT: Woo its my birthday
 
|
 COol idea. I like it in  TheoRy. My interest would probably depend on how well it was implemented.
Edit: Happy Birthday!
|
Happy birthday, but I don't think I'm understanding how this works. In the example you gave, player 1 is "winning the auction" and getting an archon plus some other stuff, and player 2 is getting...?
What WOULD be a really cool custom map is to have players implement some kind of fair-division algorithm. For example, have a two player map open with a ton of random units in the center of the map, say 10 of every T1 unit and 2 of all the others, or whatever. Player 1 has full control of the units at first, and moves half of them to the right side of the map and half of them to the left side of the map, divided up however he wants. Player 2 then gains control of whichever half of the map he likes, and then their two armies fight.
Or have a three player map open with the same bunch of units, Player 1 splits them in half, Player 2 chooses a half for himself, and then both Player 1 and Player 2 split their army into 3 groups. Player 3 takes control of one of Player 1's groups and one of Player 2's groups, whichever he likes best. (This scales to any number of players, but gets cumbersome).
|
What prevents people from overbidding each time? 1 Zealot vs 1 zergling? Ok I bid 1 zergling and 1 BC. Well now I bid 1 Zealot and 2 BCs. Maybe I just misunderstood your explanation. And I disagree with the theorycrafting being useful. Theorycrafting won't help people win micro battles
|
On November 27 2011 01:57 Imperium11 wrote:COol idea. I like it in TheoRy. My interest would probably depend on how well it was implemented. Edit: Happy Birthday!
What is with the random TLPD jokes?
|
On November 27 2011 02:01 Iranon wrote:
Happy birthday, but I don't think I'm understanding how this works. In the example you gave, player 1 is "winning the auction" and getting an archon plus some other stuff, and player 2 is getting...?
What WOULD be a really cool custom map is to have players implement some kind of fair-division algorithm. For example, have a two player map open with a ton of random units in the center of the map, say 10 of every T1 unit and 2 of all the others, or whatever. Player 1 has full control of the units at first, and moves half of them to the right side of the map and half of them to the left side of the map, divided up however he wants. Player 2 then gains control of whichever half of the map he likes, and then their two armies fight.
Or have a three player map open with the same bunch of units, Player 1 splits them in half, Player 2 chooses a half for himself, and then both Player 1 and Player 2 split their army into 3 groups. Player 3 takes control of one of Player 1's groups and one of Player 2's groups, whichever he likes best. (This scales to any number of players, but gets cumbersome).
In my example, player one "loses" the auction. He gets the archon etc, and player two wins the original marine+zergling.
The method you described i think is usually explained with cake. It should also work, but it cuts out participation for one player, and more importantly removes the games control over one of the compositions.
|
happy birthday joel (: ,
first of all, i wanted to talk a little about a custom map i played on starcraft out of nostalgia---it's only remotely similar though, haha. it was a bidding/auction defense, where you bid for defending units, then the normal routine of units running a path occurs (TD without towers, think poker defense). where it is obviously different is the depth where players eventually get the sort of units they want despite hiccups or bad choices or attempts at a monopoly---ironically, the actual game balance.
what i like in custom games when it comes to a battle of composition, is when some sort of 'build-order' comes into play.
you can think of desert strike in sc1 or sc2 where you can predict a player's course of action, or what they will build as the game is panning out; like a miniature game of chess or a melee game. it tests your understanding of what has a chance at working, and what would put you at a disadvantage or give you some sort of lead.
what i would recommend is that you take a very stylistic approach to how you build the map, be it the look and feel of the actual fighting field, position of where you would bid for everything, or the general use of space for your map.
custom maps can help train a player to become better at a game of melee with positive effects on thinking, and even on mechanics----helping a player begin to use x-shift-f2~f5 hotkeys for example, or... helping the player get in the habit of creating routines in their play just by how they act when they play a custom game again and again.
adding some sort of multitasking or hectic situations to the game might be a good way to go about things.
i love the premise of your idea, but i would also love very deep and meaningful usages of everything possible in the sc2 engine. starcraft 1 maps could remain to be so basic (and fun/challenging), and playing 'creatively' or differently by say, picking an unwanted unit, could sometimes mean you would lose outright. that was not a bad thing in the slightest, but maybe that could change with your map ^^
i hope i have given you a small gist of what my ideas for you were, and i'll eternally love thoughtful custom games, haha
*edit* additionally, why not try to make it into a sort of team-melee game? ^O^. multiple unit controllers, and adds a sense of discussion with you and another player/friend. there could always be other things on the map to do (via my 'multitasking' suggestion)
|
On November 27 2011 02:03 awu25 wrote:
What prevents people from overbidding each time? 1 Zealot vs 1 zergling? Ok I bid 1 zergling and 1 BC. Well now I bid 1 Zealot and 2 BCs. Maybe I just misunderstood your explanation. And I disagree with the theorycrafting being useful. Theorycrafting won't help people win micro battles
When you bid, you essentially offer your opponent the unit composition. Someone always gets the original composition.
|
Neat idea. Happy Birthday!
|
Its a good idea. It wouldn't necessarily be balanced at all, but whoever it would be the player's fault if it wasn't.
|
Is there anyone on NA server sc2 who wants to test this with me?
|
It would be nicer if it was:
Original bid
Player 1 chooses counter bid
Player 2 chooses if he prefers original bid or counter bid
|
On November 27 2011 07:13 ReketSomething wrote:
It would be nicer if it was:
Original bid
Player 1 chooses counter bid
Player 2 chooses if he prefers original bid or counter bid
That does simplify it quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
