EPTThoughts?
Personally, I'm tired of the outer bases never being used and the entire thing being zvz.
Balancing Battle Royal
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
SiegeTanksandBlueGoo
China685 Posts
Thoughts? Personally, I'm tired of the outer bases never being used and the entire thing being zvz. | ||
|
Tooplark
United States3977 Posts
| ||
|
Ra.Xor.2
United States1784 Posts
| ||
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=91666¤tpage=8 A few interesting ways that you could think about balancing it would be to make the gas geysers buildable, but I don't think that you can put them close enough to create the unit size issues that you want while still making them buildable. Another way you could balance it would be by reducing the health of the neutral buildings that provide the second pathway into the nat. This could possibly allow the fast vult no dropship play to work, but it's not going to help protoss all that much. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66160 Posts
- Make the main + nat higher ground, sort of like Troy. This will allow easier defense for Terrans and Protoss, although it might help the zerg too due to higher ground sunkens or lurkers. - Reduce Xel'Naga temple's HP to 75% Faster destruction, faster push, harder for Zerg. This is for melee version of course :< But the OP's idea is pretty neat, won't be playable on ICCup though  | ||
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
|
Wurzelbrumpft
Germany471 Posts
On May 11 2009 01:50 Chill wrote: Yes let's add UMS features to a proleague map. Wait, what? they play all their games in ums anyway.. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66160 Posts
On May 11 2009 01:52 Wurzelbrumpft wrote: they play all their games in ums anyway.. That's only because of the 'observer' requirement, not for some fancy triggers. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
| ||
|
Ideas
United States8097 Posts
| ||
|
n
United States48 Posts
On May 11 2009 01:53 Klive5ive wrote: Let's make a beacon in both bases. If you put 2 marines on the beacon you get a Jim Raynor. Your idea is good, but it's pointless if there aren't light-switch and masser beacons at the bottom right corner. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66160 Posts
On May 11 2009 01:59 n wrote: Your idea is good, but it's pointless if there aren't light-switch and masser beacons at the bottom right corner. Yeah, turn it into Zone Control /w Mass Attack. =/ | ||
|
Itachii
Poland12466 Posts
| ||
|
Scyther3176
United Kingdom13 Posts
| ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8552 Posts
| ||
|
Latham
9560 Posts
| ||
|
AlwaysGG
Taiwan952 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + JK, I actually think the idea of UMS triggers and such are the next step in progaming maps, but I don't think anyone is ready for enemy turrets... Not to mention it would be really annoying trying to stop your terran units from attacking the turrets while they're standing around/you're trying to run your marines to defend against turrets. To change the balance of this map (while being playable in melee), they need to take the geyser out of the main. FE every game for gas... but at least it slows down the zerg mutalisk attack, while giving some other interesting gameplay changes (in an already wacky map). | ||
|
SiegeTanksandBlueGoo
China685 Posts
On May 11 2009 02:32 Chef wrote: You could always make it a shadow rush map where every Terran unit builds 30% faster. + Show Spoiler + JK, I actually think the idea of UMS triggers and such are the next step in progaming maps, but I don't think anyone is ready for enemy turrets... Not to mention it would be really annoying trying to stop your terran units from attacking the turrets while they're standing around/you're trying to run your marines to defend against turrets. To change the balance of this map (while being playable in melee), they need to take the geyser out of the main. FE every game for gas... but at least it slows down the zerg mutalisk attack, while giving some other interesting gameplay changes (in an already wacky map). Make missile turrets indestructible and they won' be targeted at all by units. AI just treats it like it wasn't there. Maybe only 3-4, just enough to prevent the overlord from flying straight there. | ||
|
SiegeTanksandBlueGoo
China685 Posts
On May 11 2009 01:50 Chill wrote: Yes let's add UMS features to a proleague map. Wait, what? Hi, I contributed to this thread. | ||
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
Calgary25980 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
Singapore66160 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
Singapore66160 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
Singapore66160 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
Calgary25980 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. | ||
|
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 States18918 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 States8552 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66160 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, USA22254 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 States8552 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. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On May 11 2009 10:17 KnightOfNi wrote: 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. 2 hat muta is a big part of the reason mech got so popular. 1 rax cc->bio vs 2 hat muta is advantage for the zerg on alot of the modern maps. | ||
|
MuffinDude
United States3837 Posts
| ||
|
fanatacist
10319 Posts
| ||
|
Mania[K]al
United States359 Posts
OWAIT. This seasons map pool is pretty bad. | ||
|
Zubins
United States118 Posts
On May 11 2009 16:57 Mania[K]al wrote: Or replace it with a map that has free infested terrans. OWAIT. This seasons map pool is pretty bad. I disagree. Besides Battle Royale, Heartbreak Ridge, Outsider, and Garden of God are all great maps. Having 1 shitty map in proleague doesn't make the entire map pool shitty | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66160 Posts
On May 11 2009 22:29 Zubins wrote: I disagree. Besides Battle Royale, Heartbreak Ridge, Outsider, and Garden of God are all great maps. Having 1 shitty map in proleague doesn't make the entire map pool shitty Battle Royal (It is NOT Royale) might be balanced with a few changes... it really has potential >.< | ||
|
Zubins
United States118 Posts
| ||
|
FaZ-
United States187 Posts
On May 11 2009 03:03 Chill wrote: 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. The HP of the Temples is different in say, Medusa and Battle Royale. (I'm convinced there was an error in translation.) So, that definition is already flawed. Look at SC2, they've already incorporated rescuable "Watch Towers." It's up to the community to define what is acceptable, and I don't think invincible burning Missile Turrets would be a huge deal at all. I don't think the turrets are the best counter, though. If you made the area right next to the geysers buildable, I think that would be a decent fix. Protoss could put a cannon or two up when they FE to protect their geysers, Terran could put a bunker or even just a supply depot to force the zerglings to come in in a line. Other than that, I'm at a loss. I don't understand how the map wasn't better tested before release, though. | ||
| ||
