|
So i was wondering, would you people like to have this when 2v2, 3c3 or 4v4 comes around?.
I mean we all love HUNTERS and Big Game Hunters for Team Match Making maps.
But i was wondering what you guys think of this?, will it change the game too much?, is it an StarCraft 2 thing that should never be around?. how do you guys fell if Blizzard actually changes the engine a little bit to add this features.
How it would be implemented? don't ask me...maybe you click the map preference and click a point where you want to join ?
By the way i am not saying to have "only Base Share maps" but there should be 3 categories in TMM in Remastered INMO:
* Scattered. (normal start point, classic BW TMM)
* Base Share.
* Fastest.
This goes in hand with some other questions... like:
* If we get Base Shared maps can they be smaller than 256*256 ¿?, because the distance is well... to long and the map way to big.
* How will this affect game balance? is it worth it to have a 4v4 south vs north games?, has anyone actually played a game like this on BW?
|
On December 17 2017 02:17 hyfrehyfre wrote:
So i was wondering, would you people like to have this when 2v2, 3c3 or 4v4 comes around?.
I mean we all love HUNTERS and Big Game Hunters for Team Match Making maps.
But i was wondering what you guys think of this?, will it change the game too much?, is it an StarCraft 2 thing that should never be around?. how do you guys fell if Blizzard actually changes the engine a little bit to add this features.
Fixed starting location shared base maps have been around since the release. However, it would be nice to have a feature to randomize starting locations teamwise only, as this so far can only be implemented with triggers that are so clunky they tend to cause players to leave the gay before it's even begun…
+ Show Spoiler +How it would be implemented? don't ask me...maybe you click the map preference and click a point where you want to join ?
If all players are set to randomize SL and there is only one force, true randomization happens, meaning any player can spawn anywhere (and with any pre-placed units, if it is a UMS map); else only player colours are randomized.
What would be needed is a third randomization algorithm that would take two steps: 1, Randomize team starting positions, 2. Randomize players starting position between starting positions for each team.
By the way i am not saying to have "only Base Share maps" but there should be 3 categories in TMM in Remastered INMO:
* Scattered. (normal start point, classic BW TMM)
* Base Share.
* Fastest. Bases need not necessarily be shared for a map that requires certain team spawn configurations. Fastest is more about economy modification than layout.
This goes in hand with some other questions... like:
* If we get Base Shared maps can they be smaller than 256*256 ¿?, because the distance is well... to long and the map way to big. 192² is also an option. Especially when proper minimap stretching is implemented for all map sizes.
* How will this affect game balance? is it worth it to have a 4v4 south vs north games?, has anyone actually played a game like this on BW? I think most people will not particularly care about the finer points of balance outside of 1v1 melee.
|
Fixed starting location shared base maps have been around since the release
AS far as i know only you can make this on UMS right? i read everything you wrote i am still not convinced, the starting location is always randomized. Having a system as you say to "choose" where to starts, or "randomize inside ally start points" is exactly what i am requesting.
+ Show Spoiler +Bases need not necessarily be shared for a map that requires certain team spawn configurations. Fastest is more about economy modification than layout.
yes exactly... the thing is that shared base is a nice things to have, i don't particularly like SC2, but i really enjoyed share base maps because they are really interesting. Some of the have more than one entrance, huge things you need 2 or 3 people to block, based to the rear of the main base etc... also attacking in a sync way is interesting.
i would DREAM to test this mode in BW i think it can be nothing more than fun.
+ Show Spoiler +192² is also an option. Especially when proper minimap stretching is implemented for all map sizes.
Also from 192 to 256 there are well how to say it... a universe of intermediate sizes not being used by the engine. I think 192 is way to narrow for Shared Bases, and 256 well to big.
I think you could "fill" 28% of a 256 map with rocks or things like that an "emulate" a perfect size Base Share map, but at the end if you have never played Starcraft 2 you might not understand whats cool about shared bases.
I think most people will not particularly care about the finer points of balance outside of 1v1 melee.
I hope so... i think that sometimes the BW community is way to conservative, is not like we are talking about "changing pathing" or "unit selection number", those things are dumb, i like my BW classic. But from all the features i would like translated to BW from SC2 this is one...with, better replay mode nothing more nothing else... i think PURIST should learn to be more optimistic.
|
On December 17 2017 06:36 hyfrehyfre wrote:AS far as i know only you can make this on UMS right? i read everything you wrote i am still not convinced, the starting location is always randomized. Having a system as you say to "choose" where to starts, or "randomize inside ally start points" is exactly what i am requesting. In melee mode spawns will always be rendomized between all SLs. Fixed spawns are only possible in UMS, but spawns cannot randomized per team.
+ Show Spoiler +Bases need not necessarily be shared for a map that requires certain team spawn configurations. Fastest is more about economy modification than layout. yes exactly... the thing is that shared base is a nice things to have, i don't particularly like SC2, but i really enjoyed share base maps because they are really interesting. Some of the have more than one entrance, huge things you need 2 or 3 people to block, based to the rear of the main base etc... also attacking in a sync way is interesting. i would DREAM to test this mode in BW i think it can be nothing more than fun. If in-team randomization is not a huge issue for you, this can easily be done already. CardinalAllin/Jukado has made some fixed spawn teamplay maps you can check out.
+ Show Spoiler +192² is also an option. Especially when proper minimap stretching is implemented for all map sizes.
Also from 192 to 256 there are well how to say it... a universe of intermediate sizes not being used by the engine. I think 192 is way to narrow for Shared Bases, and 256 well to big. The engine does not support arbitrary map sizes. However, a map does not need to be square and only the longer edge of the map generally needs to be a "legal" size, so 192x256 is definitely possible, something like 180x256 should basically work as well and something along the lines of 192x180 probably works as well.
I think you could "fill" 28% of a 256 map with rocks or things like that an "emulate" a perfect size Base Share map, but at the end if you have never played Starcraft 2 you might not understand whats cool about shared bases. Show nested quote +I think most people will not particularly care about the finer points of balance outside of 1v1 melee.
I hope so... i think that sometimes the BW community is way to conservative, is not like we are talking about "changing pathing" or "unit selection number", those things are dumb, i like my BW classic. But from all the features i would like translated to BW from SC2 this is one...with, better replay mode nothing more nothing else... i think PURIST should learn to be more optimistic.
Don't exagerate. No "purist" would actually object against this. As I said, allied play maps are nothing new to BW. The BroodWar/Allied-folder is full of them.
|
The best blizzard allied map is river runs through, it inly needs minor changes to account for siege tanks being able to hit expo geysers overwater.
Double diamond is a good concept and pretty nicely designed map but it usually ends up a boring stalemate with deathfleets either side.
Not a fan of shared base maps where you spawn directly close to your ally because of zerg creep issues.Friends 98 is such a map.
|
The BroodWar/Allied-folder is full of them.
Dude... thanks for opening my mind i had no idea this existed :O why people dont play this more?.
You just have to organize the game room 8 spots in order and they will spawn in shared bases... the distance is too long.
Maybe at some point in the future they can modify the game just a little bit to work like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
That is from a game called Red Alert from the diseased company WESTWOOD which you can also play on CNCNET for free now. You can pick a number and the map shows the place you start...
The best blizzard allied map is river runs through
yes i played it... to much distance between east and west but very close, also the starting points are always the same which is OK i guess... but some randomization between those places always keeping the "west", "east", "north", "south" "corner" logic would be nice to see in a new Shared Base logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZSU7vRUC6Xc/U9wSLps0XII/AAAAAAAAAOs/yjvZ9Ppj5CU/s1600/CnCNet.png)
