EPTBalancing Battle Royal - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
| ||
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
On May 11 2009 02:28 AlwaysGG wrote: add turret lol dream too much ? THE ELEPHANDER!!!! Oh UMS maps, how I miss you! | ||
Chill
Calgary25963 Posts
Further, your indestructible Turret idea shows you given no thought to this at all. Like if I EVER, at any point in the game, get a DT against Zerg there or a Lurker against Protoss there, what do they do? Just wait it out? O_O? | ||
|
Sr18
Netherlands1141 Posts
| ||
|
nK)Duke
Germany936 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + TAKE THIS, REVENGE FOR MECH BUILD | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
On May 11 2009 03:03 Chill wrote: You are asking to change the fundamental rules of StarCraft in your map. Suddenly there's a neutral player. Do you think that's a good idea and a road professional StarCraft wants to walk down? Further, your indestructible Turret idea shows you given no thought to this at all. Like if I EVER, at any point in the game, get a DT against Zerg there or a Lurker against Protoss there, what do they do? Just wait it out? O_O? It's really not that absurd considering the things they do with maps these days. Being forced to play in ums would be annoying from a practice perspective though so I doubt it would ever happen. It's not like there aren't neutral units in other popular RTS games. If the engine had better support for that sort of thing I wouldn't put it past the koreans to try putting neutral hostile (that sounds contradictory) units in the game | ||
|
DM20
Canada544 Posts
On May 11 2009 03:42 floor exercise wrote: It's really not that absurd considering the things they do with maps these days. Being forced to play in ums would be annoying from a practice perspective though so I doubt it would ever happen. It's not like there aren't neutral units in other popular RTS games. If the engine had better support for that sort of thing I wouldn't put it past the koreans to try putting neutral hostile (that sounds contradictory) units in the game Ya but other popular RTS games are bad. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66071 Posts
On May 11 2009 03:42 floor exercise wrote: It's really not that absurd considering the things they do with maps these days. Being forced to play in ums would be annoying from a practice perspective though so I doubt it would ever happen. It's not like there aren't neutral units in other popular RTS games. If the engine had better support for that sort of thing I wouldn't put it past the koreans to try putting neutral hostile (that sounds contradictory) units in the game Then won't it basically be WC3 without hero units? "OH SHIT I LOST MY MUTAS TO NEUTRAL CREEPS" | ||
|
Insane Lane
United States397 Posts
| ||
Carnac
Germany / USA16648 Posts
| ||
|
Patrio
Norway706 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66071 Posts
On May 11 2009 03:59 Patrio wrote: why not just add psistorm to force the overlord to go around? this will also make mutas travel longer to get to the other base wad | ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
On May 11 2009 03:03 Chill wrote: You are asking to change the fundamental rules of StarCraft in your map. Suddenly there's a neutral player. Do you think that's a good idea and a road professional StarCraft wants to walk down? Further, your indestructible Turret idea shows you given no thought to this at all. Like if I EVER, at any point in the game, get a DT against Zerg there or a Lurker against Protoss there, what do they do? Just wait it out? O_O? well what about teh map with d-web and a command-center in the middle? | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66071 Posts
On May 11 2009 04:12 Patriot.dlk wrote: well what about teh map with d-web and a command-center in the middle? They're different The neutral turrets in discussion are supposed to attack units. Command center does no attack, just another neutral building like Xel'Naga Temple or w/e. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
| ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On May 11 2009 04:16 konadora wrote: They're different The neutral turrets in discussion are supposed to attack units. Command center does no attack, just another neutral building like Xel'Naga Temple or w/e. It's not that different, considering that the command center can produce infested Terrans. Heck, even neutral buildings that can open or close passages by existing or being destroyed manipulates the map's characteristics. "No triggers" is a somewhat arbitrary line IMHO. | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On May 11 2009 04:16 konadora wrote: They're different The neutral turrets in discussion are supposed to attack units. Command center does no attack, just another neutral building like Xel'Naga Temple or w/e. I think the point is that, even though adding a neutral unit that attacks will change the game "fundamentally", so have other features in maps today. The concept of doodads and neutral buildings like the cc in the center + disruption web in holy world and similar triggers (DMZ anyone?) on other maps also fundamentally changed the game from the old and heady Lost Temple and Silent Vortex days, and it's opened up options significantly for maps, generally for the better (at the time, people were also like "neutral buildings? stacked buildings??? Permanent D-webs? Don't be silly."). No where in his years of Starcraft training did Kal have to learn how to fight infested terrans. Edit: ah thanks! And a last question: if the regular map editor on starcraft somehow had neutral turrets you could place in a melee game that attacked everyone, would there be such a stink about this? | ||
|
ven
Germany332 Posts
On May 11 2009 04:20 SerpentFlame wrote: Also, Chill had a point about the dark templar and lurker idea that I don't quite comprehend; neutral buildings do not provide universal detection: only the neutral player will be able to see it, and he doesn't have any ground attacking units anyways. So even if I get a dark templar and stand it right next to the turret, the zerg player still won't be able to see it. It's the other way around. P/Z detection will die to the turrents, rendering the DT/Lurker in place virtually invulnerable. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25963 Posts
On May 11 2009 04:20 qrs wrote: It's not that different, considering that the command center can produce infested Terrans. Heck, even neutral buildings that can open or close passages by existing or being destroyed manipulates the map's characteristics. "No triggers" is a somewhat arbitrary line IMHO. Why is is arbitrary? It's very, very well-defined. If it works in a melee map -> put it in. If not, keep it out. We want to affect the map, not the rules. | ||
| ||
