|
I don't think that's a good solution. That would mean I could kill a reaver and my ally might not get it, and then I'll kill a zealot and he'll get it... Makes it very lucky based annoying imo.
It would be better to have units stop transfering when a player has 150 supply or something, that way the trigger can start acting again when he loses too many units. That or to have units stop transferring after a time limit so that it would be easier to finish players off.
It would be much nicer if we could figure this out properly... but it seems like almost an impossible problem. We would have to be able to keep track of every unit that gets moved... The only line of thought I have is creating 1 unit that transfers, and one unit that goes on an island for some neutral player... But it doesn't work so well if you're getting units that are the same race as you... And also it will make the game lag faster anyway since twice as many units are created, even though they do expire...
|
What if units you were getting were "queued" on a neutral island, with a beacon that summoned them, but a timer? Every time you pull a unit that your partner has earned for you, you must wait 30 seconds (or whatever) before pulling again. You could also have a beacon for destroying units on this island, and a cap on its population (no more than X units available to "drop"). That'd:
-allow you to time when things show up, which adds another (thin) layer of tactics.
-allow you to get the units you actually care about, rather than a random system where you could get unlucky.
-make units more likely to go away.
-cap the flood of incoming units.
The number of units is still theoretically unbounded, but it'd take longer to get there.
--oberon
|
Calgary25991 Posts
I don't know the solution but I'll tell you the problem:
I just sit with a billion Tanks. I become a black hole - units are moving around but once they come to me they never get recirculated. Then I just move out and rape. There needs to be a solution to that.
|
That's kinda deep, we might have to call in a philosophy major.
|
On February 16 2010 12:59 Chill wrote:
I don't know the solution but I'll tell you the problem:
I just sit with a billion Tanks. I become a black hole - units are moving around but once they come to me they never get recirculated. Then I just move out and rape. There needs to be a solution to that.
Ah, so it's a gameplay/strategy issue. That changes things somewhat.
The problem with this in real bughouse is that you can drop anywhere -- it's easier to attack than defend, because to attack you only have to hit one place, but to defend you have to effectively attack everywhere your opponent can attack from. Additionally, attacking pieces typically exert control over the center of the board, while defensive ones often only serve their one purpose. Another possible turtling equivalent (not moving on one board) is limited by the clocks.
That said, I'm not sure how to port any of that, fully or partially, to BW.
On to the more specific case: assuming your strategy is undominated, there'd be a Nash equilibrium of no one ever doing anything but turtling. That kinda sucks. There are two possibilities I can see:
1) This is true. There needs to be more attacking incentive to upset this equilibrium.
2) This is not true. You played with people who were too loose with their units, allowing you to sit around doing nothing.
I'm not good enough to tell if (2) is true, so I'll focus on (1). I think one way to do this would be to limit minerals/gas per expansion -- you can't turtle if you run out of things to mine super-fast. What if minerals and gas, instead of 1500/5000 were 500/1500? Would this incentivize faster, more aggressive games? Would it still allow standard build-orders, and avoid upsetting map balance?
I'm interested in hearing what people think.
Edit:
On February 16 2010 13:06 Chef wrote:
That's kinda deep, we might have to call in a philosophy major.
I had a minor, which was 5/8ths of a major. Can I give 5/8ths of a response?
--oberon
|
I think the success of this map depends on it being accessible. The concept was normal StarCraft, with this one fairly automatic feature that would make the game really interesting and force players to react. By changing minerals to 500/1500, you change the balance of normal StarCraft. Zerg will have a much easier time I think of securing new expansions. Even though it's Tandem StarCraft, I don't think this will rectify itself.
This is just my opinion of course...
I think it would be ideal to work from solutions that keep the map accessible to people who have not played it before.
If we solve units transferring too many times, we will solve the problem Chill is talking about at the same time. I don't think this map has to completely imitate bughouse chess, it's just what has inspired it. What makes this map fun and cool is getting to strategise based on units your ally kills. What makes it bad right now is that armies never get smaller, so that an opponent cannot be worn down like in normal StarCraft, and games become very silly.
|
On February 16 2010 13:31 Chef wrote:
I think the success of this map depends on it being accessible. The concept was normal StarCraft, with this one fairly automatic feature that would make the game really interesting and force players to react. By changing minerals to 500/1500, you change the balance of normal StarCraft. Zerg will have a much easier time I think of securing new expansions. Even though it's Tandem StarCraft, I don't think this will rectify itself.
This is just my opinion of course...
I think it would be ideal to work from solutions that keep the map accessible to people who have not played it before.
If we solve units transferring too many times, we will solve the problem Chill is talking about at the same time. I don't think this map has to completely imitate bughouse chess, it's just what has inspired it. What makes this map fun and cool is getting to strategise based on units your ally kills. What makes it bad right now is that armies never get smaller, so that an opponent cannot be worn down like in normal StarCraft, and games become very silly.
Read Chill's post carefully. I don't see how preventing units from multi-cycling solves his issue. I could be missing something, of course.
--oberon
|
On February 16 2010 12:59 Chill wrote:
I don't know the solution but I'll tell you the problem:
I just sit with a billion Tanks. I become a black hole - units are moving around but once they come to me they never get recirculated. Then I just move out and rape. There needs to be a solution to that.
Shouldn't this just not happen? I mean, if the terran player isn't losing units, presumably his opponent isn't losing units either, and it just splits into 2 1v1s with a pussy terran who is probably going to lose. This isn't very fun, but that's the turtler's fault. If the terran's opponent tries to force something, then, well, he should just not do that instead.
|
On February 16 2010 13:57 huameng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 12:59 Chill wrote:
I don't know the solution but I'll tell you the problem:
I just sit with a billion Tanks. I become a black hole - units are moving around but once they come to me they never get recirculated. Then I just move out and rape. There needs to be a solution to that. Shouldn't this just not happen? I mean, if the terran player isn't losing units, presumably his opponent isn't losing units either, and it just splits into 2 1v1s with a pussy terran who is probably going to lose. This isn't very fun, but that's the turtler's fault. If the terran's opponent tries to force something, then, well, he should just not do that instead.
This is basically (2) on my list above -- other players reacted poorly to what Chill did. Hard to say, though.
--oberon
|
Calgary25991 Posts
On February 16 2010 13:57 huameng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 12:59 Chill wrote:
I don't know the solution but I'll tell you the problem:
I just sit with a billion Tanks. I become a black hole - units are moving around but once they come to me they never get recirculated. Then I just move out and rape. There needs to be a solution to that. Shouldn't this just not happen? I mean, if the terran player isn't losing units, presumably his opponent isn't losing units either, and it just splits into 2 1v1s with a pussy terran who is probably going to lose. This isn't very fun, but that's the turtler's fault. If the terran's opponent tries to force something, then, well, he should just not do that instead.
It's the nature of the game. In a normal 1v1 someone would just expand a lot and attack without regard for cost efficiency. But that doesn't work in tandem.
|
On February 17 2010 04:50 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 13:57 huameng wrote:On February 16 2010 12:59 Chill wrote:
I don't know the solution but I'll tell you the problem:
I just sit with a billion Tanks. I become a black hole - units are moving around but once they come to me they never get recirculated. Then I just move out and rape. There needs to be a solution to that. Shouldn't this just not happen? I mean, if the terran player isn't losing units, presumably his opponent isn't losing units either, and it just splits into 2 1v1s with a pussy terran who is probably going to lose. This isn't very fun, but that's the turtler's fault. If the terran's opponent tries to force something, then, well, he should just not do that instead. It's the nature of the game. In a normal 1v1 someone would just expand a lot and attack without regard for cost efficiency. But that doesn't work in tandem.
Nice icon.
In bughouse chess, one of key issues is sacrifice -- if you can sacrifice pieces for a significant advantage, great -- only you're kinda hosing your partner. The key is only to sacrifice when your partner is unhosable, or when your sacrifices will lead to such immediate victory your partner has no time to get hosed.
I don't think this is a good thing to bring to BW, however, even if it's possible -- it would involve one player on either team getting rolled, followed by a game of "find the floating barracks" while each winning player tries to end the game first. Zero funs.
What if the rules were changed so that you lose not when you have 0 buildings, but when you lose your civilian? We'd probably want to beef up the civilian substantially (more HP, maybe even a little armor), but it would make quick, targeted strikes more effective, and encourage aggressiveness. The immediate issue I see with this is stuff like spawn-broodling or MC -- I'm not really sure what the answer to that is.
--oberon
|
On February 17 2010 07:11 oberon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2010 04:50 Chill wrote:On February 16 2010 13:57 huameng wrote:On February 16 2010 12:59 Chill wrote:
I don't know the solution but I'll tell you the problem:
I just sit with a billion Tanks. I become a black hole - units are moving around but once they come to me they never get recirculated. Then I just move out and rape. There needs to be a solution to that. Shouldn't this just not happen? I mean, if the terran player isn't losing units, presumably his opponent isn't losing units either, and it just splits into 2 1v1s with a pussy terran who is probably going to lose. This isn't very fun, but that's the turtler's fault. If the terran's opponent tries to force something, then, well, he should just not do that instead. It's the nature of the game. In a normal 1v1 someone would just expand a lot and attack without regard for cost efficiency. But that doesn't work in tandem. Nice icon. In bughouse chess, one of key issues is sacrifice -- if you can sacrifice pieces for a significant advantage, great -- only you're kinda hosing your partner. The key is only to sacrifice when your partner is unhosable, or when your sacrifices will lead to such immediate victory your partner has no time to get hosed. I don't think this is a good thing to bring to BW, however, even if it's possible -- it would involve one player on either team getting rolled, followed by a game of "find the floating barracks" while each winning player tries to end the game first. Zero funs. What if the rules were changed so that you lose not when you have 0 buildings, but when you lose your civilian? We'd probably want to beef up the civilian substantially (more HP, maybe even a little armor), but it would make quick, targeted strikes more effective, and encourage aggressiveness. The immediate issue I see with this is stuff like spawn-broodling or MC -- I'm not really sure what the answer to that is. --oberon
Ran into the floating building problem. I had the other guy completely beat but he hid buildings for 10 minutes and we lost. Also, losing resources for letting the civilian die is too light a punishment. If you have good macro, it doesn't even make a difference.
|
I see a problem with the civilian loss punishment. It punishes good players much less than bad players. If your macroing well lousing your civ won't make to much difference, you might not have a completely full production round this time but you will next time. But if your macroing bad you louse the minerals you should have spent and you now have little to try to rebuild with since you have no money and you might have built more production buildings to take advantage of your money, but now you don't have any.
|
On February 17 2010 07:27 Zack1900 wrote:
I see a problem with the civilian loss punishment. It punishes good players much less than bad players. If your macroing well lousing your civ won't make to much difference, you might not have a completely full production round this time but you will next time. But if your macroing bad you louse the minerals you should have spent and you now have little to try to rebuild with since you have no money and you might have built more production buildings to take advantage of your money, but now you don't have any.
Well, your fault for being bad then.
|
Anyone wanna play now? I prefer frogmelter's version, chilling in op mG.
|
I'll play with you after I eat if you're still on. Gonna be about 30 minutes tho.
|
give them heros that you've edited to have the same stats and it wont take up any supply
|
Problem is heroes come with upgrades. Unless you made all normal units upgraded by default (much loss of strategy and timing in SC, making in inaccessible), this is not a good solution.
I don't want to play frogmelters version of the map until he fixes the unit stats he screwed up  I'd rather try the desti version.
I think that the idea about forcing players to be certain races is almost the only viable solution right now. Sure it's kind of lame you don't get to choose your race, but at least it makes the map functional the way it's intended to be... I don't know. I'm only willing to theorycraft at this point, I can't spend hours making triggers again lol. Although this method would be just deleting triggers, so it'd be quite a bit easier.
|
Don't forget that there are no heroes for brood war units (Minus the ones with plot roles, aka Razsomething and Zeratul)
Edit: Fix the victory conditions!
|
Why don't you just give your ally the minerals/gas taken up by the destroyed unit instead of the units themselves? This solves most problems but limits it to 1 race per player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
