EPTOh, and do you happen to know who Teroru is? He isn't some random guy, I'll tell you that.
[Mapmaking] The gas issue! - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
Oh, and do you happen to know who Teroru is? He isn't some random guy, I'll tell you that. | ||
|
Purind
Canada3562 Posts
| ||
|
poor newb
United States1879 Posts
just put 4 on all gas, 1 extra worker mining gas isnt much of a big deal in most cases | ||
|
Peatza
Sweden393 Posts
In any case, to make a balanced map you'll need the 4 different gas directions available. If you find yourself at position with slightly worse gas, then just put another peon at it. You won't lose because of one less peon, but you will with 400 less gas. This is something blizzard should fix in the next patch. | ||
X)Benny
France1270 Posts
Big deal or not, the is a source of unbalance that can be easily corrected, thus it should be. | ||
|
poor newb
United States1879 Posts
| ||
|
boongee
United States967 Posts
| ||
|
LazySCV
United States2942 Posts
| ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
This post is mainly pointing out that for perfect balance - gas postion, and not only distance - is important. It would be nice to see more tests. | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On June 15 2005 06:10 ihatett wrote: Agreed. There are far worse issues with maps than that. It isn't evened mined much slower, either, and people aren't reviewing harshly based on that, anyways. The hell it isn't. If you don't put 4 workers on a geyser that needs 4 (i.e. to the right or below) then you WILL have to modify your build order to adapt to the lack of gas. It is VERY NOTICEABLE. | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On June 17 2005 09:56 poor newb wrote: how about make all geysters a little further so all of them require 4 workers to mine with You'd still want to make sure that they mine at nearly the same rate with 3 workers. You can't expect that every player in every game is going to put and keep 4 workers on their gas as soon as they take it. | ||
|
ihatett
United States2289 Posts
Either way, it is often more imbalanced to move the geyser than to require putting 4 on, and considering that so many people didn't know about this without anyone noticing a problem, it can't have much of an effect. | ||
|
Peatza
Sweden393 Posts
On June 19 2005 14:22 ihatett wrote: Either way, it is often more imbalanced to move the geyser than to require putting 4 on, and considering that so many people didn't know about this without anyone noticing a problem, it can't have much of an effect. I agree with ihatett. After 15 minutes the best strategy and overall tactics has already determent who's going to win, that the less gas doesn't matter. The one who has the most knowledge should be the one who wins, and if you get such an position and don't know that you should put 4 peons on gas then to bad for you. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
If you ever played ZvZ you'd know one muta is all the difference to winning the game. 12 muta vs. 11 muta doesn't leave just one muta left for the winner, it leaves SEVERAL, which is air domination in the future and GG. There are matchups where this doesn't matter as much, but in ZvZ that's crazy. Maybe I should hope it doesn't get fixed so I can start winning more often on people who don't know this.... | ||
|
hefty
Denmark555 Posts
On June 20 2005 02:35 Peatza wrote: - I agree with ihatett. After 15 minutes the best strategy and overall tactics has already determent who's going to win, that the less gas doesn't matter. The one who has the most knowledge should be the one who wins, and if you get such an position and don't know that you should put 4 peons on gas then to bad for you. I disagree. Ihatett: Pointing out that many people never noticed the difference in gas harvesting isn't proof that this is not an important issue. If you do the aftermath when you played the game, and succeed in concluding you had less gas, it's still unlikely that you are going to blame the game engine for this. After all, most people expect a distance of x hexas to be a distance of x hexas (which it obviously isn't). People who play thousands of games will eventually notice the effects of bad gas placement, but I don't see why map makers should let less experienced players down. Besides, although the gas placement can have a great effect on your maps, tactically speaking, you are normally able to compensate for this somehow. We deal with the downwards-ramps, and the gas positions is a problem much like that. At least get the mains right, as said, the exps' gas placement isn't that decisive a factor. Peatza: This is simply wrong. First of all - not all games have the winner determined after 15 mins of play. Second, saying that the more knowledgeble player will win is obviously a false statement -you see players at all skill levels lose to players that must be considered to be below their skill level. And saying that the winnning player by definitions played that particular game better also isn't true. Many 'random' (the concept of 'random' is debatable in a game engine) factors effect the course of the game. Furthermore, you must realize that of two players playing exactly equally well, the one with the better gas placement will win. It' s very hypothetical situation, but it makes a clear point. | ||
|
Peatza
Sweden393 Posts
If you lose against someone, then you have no right to say that you played or can play better then him. Doesn't matter who you are, if you lose then you lose because he played better(in that game). This is how I see it but it doesn't entirely hold true every time, there are major bugs that may cost you your win and maybe you didn't play seriously. Don't do that to often though, it destroys your karma. "If players are playing exactly equally well"... it doesn't exist, the one with the best moves wins. Human nature, non-is equal... maybe in death. You battle to find out who's the best. This is if they both have proper gas placement. If you lose with a "bad" gas placement, then sure the worse position was a part of your lose but you can't blame entirely on that. He didn't win entirely because he had better gas and you didn't lose entirely because you had a worse one. I believe that most map makers and myself will slowly start using this system Starparty has pointed out but you should still be able to use the bad gas positions if you make sure that every counter expansion/base also gets one. | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
| ||
|
hefty
Denmark555 Posts
# 1 If you choose to define a player's ability from isolated games, you must also accept that it is very different which players are the best in every singel moment. Take NaDa for instance - he is unarguebly one of the best terran players in the world, right? Yet, he loses games all the time, perhabs each day, because he plays taht many games, and can't do his best in every single one. With your definition he is only one of the better players at certain times each day > < (Sorry for making this so abstract/theoretical, but I feel you force me to). # 2 I know people can't play equally well! I even pointed that out saying "hypothetically speaking". I wrote this part to make a point, and I thought it was pretty clear. Seems like you didn't get it though. # 3 Of course you can't entirely blame the loss on a gas placement, and I never said I would. But people dislike playing on unbalanced maps because they don't like losing due to map flaws. Grand Inquisitor said it all, really. # 4 Well, the whole problem was that the right gas placement works against symmetri. Therefore, saying that you'll make sure that each counter exp/base also get a 'bad gas' doesn't make sense. That would fuck up the symmetri as well. Of course you can make you maps as you like. But I, for one, would regard bad gas placement as a flaw, just as I regard bad mineral placement as a flaw. That doesn't mean I wont play your maps - just that I'd prefere them with fixed gas. ^ ^ | ||
|
Peatza
Sweden393 Posts
On June 20 2005 06:33 hefty wrote: Peatza. Going through your arguements one by one. # 2 I know people can't play equally well! I even pointed that out saying "hypothetically speaking". I wrote this part to make a point, and I thought it was pretty clear. Seems like you didn't get it though. You're right, I didn't get that part entierly. Stop using complicated words so that everyone can understand.(I know it wasn't that complicated but..) Sure comlicated words looks nice, but I don't get the point. On June 20 2005 06:33 hefty wrote: Peatza. Going through your arguements one by one. # 3 Of course you can't entirely blame the loss on a gas placement, and I never said I would. But people dislike playing on unbalanced maps because they don't like losing due to map flaws. Grand Inquisitor said it all, really. # 4 Well, the whole problem was that the right gas placement works against symmetri. Therefore, saying that you'll make sure that each counter exp/base also get a 'bad gas' doesn't make sense. That would fuck up the symmetri as well. People like playing on unbalance maps you say... until now, most of the people here at TL.net didn't now about this, exactly like the rest of the people playing bw. Non has complained until now. Two choices of bad gases doesn't fuck up the symetri more then only Two choices of good gases. | ||
|
hefty
Denmark555 Posts
People like playing on unbalance maps you say... until now, most of the people here at TL.net didn't now about this, exactly like the rest of the people playing bw. Non has complained until now. Nono, I say people 'dislike' playing on unbalanced maps. Dislike means 'don't like'. Two choices of bad gases doesn't fuck up the symetri more then only Two choices of good gases. Exactly my point! :S I guess we have a language barrier here. Maybe I can explain in Danish over msn or something. Didn't try to use complicated words, this is my language. | ||
| ||
