EPTBalancing Battle Royal - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
DrTJEckleburg
United States1080 Posts
| ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
On May 11 2009 04:18 floor exercise wrote: What about neutral terran buildings that keep lifting off and landing in the same spot and if you don't time it right your units get crushed It will be like the windmill hole in mini golf. This idea rules. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
| ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
And I really don't think putting in a couple of neutral turrets would cause changes of omfgwtf proportions like some people are making it out to be. Just put like 1-3 destructible turrets that would make overlords take a detour to the other guy's base, so it takes longer for the ovie to scout. Wasn't the zerg being able to quickly scout the other player's build with an overlord listed as one of the main problems of the map's balance? There also needs to be a quick way to access the outer expansions, I'd say a path from the main to outside blocked by mineral patches would be a good way to do this. | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
| ||
|
Niton
United States2395 Posts
| ||
|
deathgod6
United States5064 Posts
On May 11 2009 04:18 floor exercise wrote: What about neutral terran buildings that keep lifting off and landing in the same spot and if you don't time it right your units get crushed Lol... putting Bound UMS ideas into a melee game. XD | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8556 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66358 Posts
On May 11 2009 09:48 deathgod6 wrote: Lol... putting Bound UMS ideas into a melee game. XD Doesn't only sieged tanks, burrowed units and interceptors get crushed when buildings land on them? | ||
|
KnightOfNi
United States1508 Posts
On May 11 2009 05:19 DrTJEckleberg wrote: you could put d-web over the geysers so melee units couldn't attack them and a vulture could actually leave the terran base if he mechs, just a thought. I'm liking this. You'd need more than 1 dweb to cover both geysers but it would still allow both players the OPTION to kill their own (especially against zerg), while not making it impossible for the players to avoid it being killed. In fact, this could potentially change the balance DRAMATICALLY since the zerg player usually kills off the assims (for one of the players) as one of the first things they do. Another thing that would be imperative to changing the balance of the map is to get rid of the center expansion, or at least get rid of the double gas. If there was something like a mineral only (or two) in the middle of the map as opposed to that double gas, this map would probably be much more balanced than it is right now. As of now, all the zerg player has to do against a terran is go 9pool --> killing the extractors in front of the terrans base --> 2 hatch mutas, followed by expoing to the middle cuz the terran can't do shit to stop it (since his assims are dead and I'm sure he hasn't had the chance to kill his xelnaga off during the harass). I don't even necessarily know why the terrans don't go 1rax FE into mass bio (with turrets) on this map. Isn't that the ACTUAL counter to 2hatch mutas? Mech isn't the answer to everything, especially on this map. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
Only because Blizzard put a crappy rule called melee game type 10 years ago it doesn't mean we need follow all their map making rules today. Blizzard also made a shit ton of crappy imbalanced maps 10 years ago. I like the idea of using triggers to help balance maps. | ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
| ||
|
Tyrant
Korea (South)234 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? How is this any different than mineral walls and neutral buildings/eggs that have been seen in a number of maps? The first time I saw the destroyable buildings on a map i thought it was pretty lame, but some of the maps it turned out to be quite interesting. I think the map will ultimate get scrapped though like many poorly balanced maps in the past, although I don't think the OP's idea is 'horrific' enough to completely dismiss. | ||
|
Person514cs
1004 Posts
On May 11 2009 03:34 Sr18 wrote: The best way to balance Battle Royale is to put it in the individual leagues. Force Terran and Protoss players to practice on it, strategies will evolve. This guy is right. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Plasma fucking blew for Zerg players. | ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
On May 11 2009 13:58 Tyrant wrote: I think the map will ultimate get scrapped though like many poorly balanced maps in the past, although I don't think the OP's idea is 'horrific' enough to completely dismiss. Kind've agreed, it's thinking a little outside the box at least. You could easily make them 1 HP turrets, or better yet, turrets that start out on fire so really all they do is delay ovie scouting. That's assuming the only problem with BR is early ovie scouting though. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
because this really worked out on Tears of the Moon for PvZ | ||
|
StRyKeR
United States1739 Posts
On May 11 2009 14:33 VIB wrote: What about putting some neutral addons here and there so T could get machine shop or even scan faster? How about a neutral nuclear silo and also a neutral covert ops? Actually, a rescue-able science facility with attached covert ops might work better. Then you just build barracks + academy and go for a nuke rush. I'm half-joking. If a map had a neutral nuclear silo in some remote corner of the map or somewhere important it could add strategic interestingness. | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8556 Posts
On May 11 2009 15:08 StRyKeR wrote: How about a neutral nuclear silo and also a neutral covert ops? Actually, a rescue-able science facility with attached covert ops might work better. Then you just build barracks + academy and go for a nuke rush. I'm half-joking. If a map had a neutral nuclear silo in some remote corner of the map or somewhere important it could add strategic interestingness. it could be blocked by a few minz so you would have to mine it out first before using it. | ||
| ||
