|
Dear Team Liquid.
I was wondering what the reasoning behind not knowing where your opponent spawns on three and four player maps was. I searched on teamliquid and couldnt find anything. If you happen to have any insight on the matter, please share.
I know it's like this in a lot of games (e.g. SC:BW) but I don't get it. Is a point to it? (+1 if you get the last reference)
Thank you in advance.
EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: my question is what's the point of denying players the vital piece of information that is knowing which positions you spawned (cross or close ground or close air or whatever) and forcing players to rely on luck as to which position you scout first (e.g. Tel'darim).
|
i can't get the reference, because i cant even understand the question
You mean to dont need to scout to know where he is? like you know right whe the game start where your oponnent is?
|
It's so you don't know where they are? Lol.
If you always knew where they were at the beginning you could just send your scout there immediately. You would know that you are close ground positions right off the bat, and prepare for a bunker rush right away as Terran. You would know that you can FE easily if you see that they are cross positions.
I think it's a good thing because it adds a little element of surprise.
+ Show Spoiler +
Kind of a weird question to ask, not really sure how to answer it. Lol.
|
I think the reason they incorporate this is so that there's more expos.
Also, this means that you have the opportunity to execute riskier, more greedy builds. For example, on a 4 player map, you'd be more likely to 14cc (BW build order) than on a 2 player map.
|
Having to scout your opponent on maps that has more than 2 spawn spots is a vital element of StarCraft. If it's not there, it's not StarCraft.
|
Yah, I believe he is asking why 4 player maps (such as the majority of the 1v1 map pool) exist opposed to just 2 player maps with similar sizes (IE: shakuras being exact same but with top right and bot left spawns guaranteed, essentially making it 2 player)
I don't have any kind of statement from blizzard or any other game designer, but from pure speculation, i would guess that its to add just one more layer of interactivity and forcing you to work for something rather than being fed the information.
|
On April 06 2011 10:28 ZenDeX wrote:
Having to scout your opponent on maps that has more than 2 spawn spots is a vital element of StarCraft. If it's not there, it's not StarCraft.
how do you say "apart from retarded opinion, I would love to hear your reasoning" in a polite way?
|
Random spawn locations put variation into the kinds of builds used and the kind of tactics that go on in 4 player maps. Plus it gives all sorts a meaning and emphasis on early scouting. I'm sure you're aware that 2 rax works a whole lot better in close positions then it does cross positions, etc.
|
It adds another layer of intricacy to maps. If I play a ZvP on Metal close positions, it is a completely different game than ZvP on Metal cross positions. The varying spawn positions force you to have a dynamic game plan if you want to be successful.
There isn't really a right answer to your question. Why does the alphabet go A-Z? It's not a perfect metaphor, but it's close.
|
On April 06 2011 10:42 GregoRoach wrote:
There isn't really a right answer to your question. Why does the alphabet go A-Z? It's not a perfect metaphor, but it's close.
I was hoping some RTS game designers would share their insight or that someone could link something to shed light on my question.
|
Its strategy. Scouting and countering win games.
(This is said in the narrow context of this post)
Tactics are beating up units Y with X
Strategy is finding out what units ?? are, then once discovering them to be Y, building X.
Less possible spawn locations=less scouting. You can assume a few build orders will not happen and you can ascertain more information on your scouting trips just by preknowledge of where they spawned. On Slag Pits (vetoed) I never know what an opponent is doing until I scout it and their location. On Xel Naga Caverns I'm almost always certain exactly how he will build and where he will go.
Because of random/fixed spawn.
|
If you had certain knowledge of where your opponent was, that would make some super early aggression builds like 6 pool be pretty powerful.
|
On April 06 2011 10:49 Probe1 wrote:
Its strategy. Scouting and countering win games.
(This is said in the narrow context of this post)
Tactics are beating up units Y with X
Strategy is finding out what units ?? are, then once discovering them to be Y, building X.
Less possible spawn locations=less scouting. You can assume a few build orders will not happen and you can ascertain more information on your scouting trips just by preknowledge of where they spawned. On Slag Pits (vetoed) I never know what an opponent is doing until I scout it and their location. On Xel Naga Caverns I'm almost always certain exactly how he will build and where he will go.
Because of random/fixed spawn.
How is this a good thing?
Edit: on another note, what has Slag Pits got to do with anything? no major tournament uses that map
|
On April 06 2011 10:51 FinestHour wrote:
If you had certain knowledge of where your opponent was, that would make some super early aggression builds like 6 pool be pretty powerful.
I'd argue the exact opposite of this. Zerg can easily send and overlord to close by air, as a drone scout to close by ground and immediately deduce where you are in time for their cheesy shenanigans to come to fruition. However, as Protoss, if you scout them last on 4 player maps (assuming you don't send out double scout after not finding them at the first base) then you are royally boned.
I can't remember the last time I've posed to 6 pool on 2 player maps, but I definitely can lose to it if I scout it last on a 4 player map.
|
Strategies vary between 2-base and 4-base maps. Fast-expands are often more viable on 4-base maps, for example, because it usually takes longer to get them scouted. Rush builds are often less viable because they rely on quickly ascertaining your opponent's position. 4-base maps also usually have more complex 3rd and 4th expand options. Variety is good, so having a mix of 2-base and 4-base maps is good.
|
Because close positions are really really imbalanced(close position shattered temple tvz) lol?
Until strategies and better maps(ala the GSL maps) are put into more tourneys then forcing crossmap spawns to prevent retarded imbalance thats there if they dont crossmap spawn is essential
imo
|
United States991 Posts
Shakuras plateau: he will never spawn in the closest clockwise position
Example: Never in bottom left to top left or top right to bottom right. So I tend to scout cross positions first and then the longer of the 2 close positions. I have never had a match that was close positions on Shakuras.
|
Generally, it is the luck/randomness factor.
Like others said, this makes the strategy deeper and more diverse.
Of course, in the end, it is a bit of luck, but that is why you do "safe" builds, and that is why some people instead go for all-ins or risky builds.
|
United States991 Posts
I honestly think that all maps should have a default spawn cross positioning if possible, that would lead to the Macro games that happened in Brood Wars and SC1, or at least, so I've heard. I never actually played the game, but my friends (online and in real life) who have played the game said that they were amazing.
|
Reverse question. Why can't you have 4 and 3 player maps?
|
Intel is a vital part of this game. By denying intel from the developers (mapmakers) side, you can open up for different playstyles. It is all there to create diversity, hence the 2, 3 and 4 player maps. Different intel requires different playstyles.
If everything was 2 player maps, you'd see a lot less variety in builds and strategies.
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it.
|
I think it's to either force earlier scouting, increase the strength of blind builds (like hatch first, six pool, etc), or to allow for better expo spread. Because there are any set of spawn positions (follow up to after the early non-knowledge) it allows different strategies being required on the same map. As an example, I know that an early Reaper against Protoss is slightly better in close air positions on Metalopolis then on cross or close positions. Close air also allows for better harassment, which sets up the person with an inferior air force to play a bit more defensively. Cross positions mitigates this until the very end game, while close doesn't get to this stage.
It boils down to laziness, now that I phrase it that way - why build 50 maps when you can have 50 spawn positions on 15 maps?
|
Wasn't there a few maps where you have to double scout so the timings would work on BW?
Lately I've been double-scouting on Tal'Darim, especially ZvZ.
Also to the "why", this creates diversity on the maps, and also maps with more than one main base per player increase the number of total expansions possible in the map without creating an awkward map architecture.
|
On April 06 2011 13:00 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Generally, it is the luck/randomness factor.
Like others said, this makes the strategy deeper and more diverse.
Of course, in the end, it is a bit of luck, but that is why you do "safe" builds, and that is why some people instead go for all-ins or risky builds.
how does this any possible way make strategy deeper?
your logic disturbs me to the point of sickness
hur dur let's limit information given to the players so strategy becomes deeper?
|
On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it.
I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post.
Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid?
User was warned for this post
|
Bad 4 player maps are those that require completely (!) different strategies for different locations. Like metalopolis, as much as I like this map compared to others.
Good 4 player maps are there to add some variety to the games, make the "feeling" different. Also it forces you to scout earlier and more thoroughly. Like Tal'Darim. Since this map is so huge, even the rotational symmetry doesn't really matter, there isn't the typical "close position" bs like on metalopolis.
And yes, limiting information is necessary in a game where scouting plays a crucial part and where even "sneaky" strategies are possible. Otherwise we could remove the fog of war as well.
|
On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid?
For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy.
Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here.
|
Not knowing the location of your opponent is one thing which makes the game more difficult and rewards better players.
- You have to scout
- Choose a strategy based on spawning locations (close air/ground, cross)
- Very difficult to be very cheesy (6pool)
It also makes the games more interesting I think, because it adds excitement to the often boring beginning of a match:
- When will he scout him
- Which build will he choose
|
It also makes the game less plain and boring in the begining.
You can take as an example game 1 between MKP and MC from gsl wc.
|
It's because Blizzard likes RNG. They've said it hundreds of times, they like random chance. That's it.
|
As casters have mentioned quite a few times, on 2p maps, you're more likely to see proxies because you immediately know where your opponent is spawned. If you have to find them first, something like cannon rushing/proxy gates/rax is trickier to pull off. It's just added variety.
I think a better question would be, why would they provide this information to you? Without vision, you never know where any of your opponents units are, so why would the start of the game be any different?
|
On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here.
I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little.
And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me?
Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough.
|
The point of denying the players vital information as to where their opponents spawned is the same as the point of denying any information to the players at all-to add uncertainty, and thus variety and some measure of gamesense/skill, to the game.
Most (real-time) strategy games rely on the element of surprise in some way, shape, or form, and that's only possible with incomplete information. A good player both exploits this and plans for it accordingly, while a bad player does not; some measure of skill gap is thus created.
|
On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough.
No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight.
Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you.
It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine.
However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential.
As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent!
Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up...
This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation.
|
On April 07 2011 04:23 Phinix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough. No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight. Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you. It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine. However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential. As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent! Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up... This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation.
What you fail to grasp is that I dont care about random noobs' opinions. I was asking if someone knew anything about this. I was not asking for random opinions.
|
On April 07 2011 04:48 Jordbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 04:23 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough. No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight. Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you. It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine. However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential. As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent! Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up... This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation. What you fail to grasp is that I dont care about random noobs' opinions. I was asking if someone knew anything about this. I was not asking for random opinions.
Who are you hoping to get response from, exactly?
I don't think David Kim posts here all that often.
|
On April 07 2011 04:53 Phinix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 04:48 Jordbo wrote:On April 07 2011 04:23 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough. No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight. Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you. It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine. However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential. As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent! Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up... This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation. What you fail to grasp is that I dont care about random noobs' opinions. I was asking if someone knew anything about this. I was not asking for random opinions. Who are you hoping to get response from, exactly? I don't think David Kim posts here all that often.
I tried my luck.
|
Why don't you just PM these pros and get messages from them instead of having us try and waste our time helping you since most of the people who have posted so far are random noobs?
As to the OP 3-4 player maps are added to add to variety of strategies. They also make hyper aggressive builds not as viable (proxy raxes/gates)
|
On April 07 2011 04:54 Jordbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 04:53 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 04:48 Jordbo wrote:On April 07 2011 04:23 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough. No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight. Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you. It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine. However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential. As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent! Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up... This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation. What you fail to grasp is that I dont care about random noobs' opinions. I was asking if someone knew anything about this. I was not asking for random opinions. Who are you hoping to get response from, exactly? I don't think David Kim posts here all that often. I tried my luck.
Others have already spelled it out for you: More possible spawns = more possible strategies = richer dynamics. Imperfect information improves the game so long as all crucial information is obtainable by active scouting (as spawn location obviously is). Same reason we have fog of war.
Frankly, this would be better in the simple questions simple answers thread.
|
Don't open a thread if all your going to do is bash everyone who posts trying to answer your questions. Email Blizzard if you want a "Response from the authorities".
|
On April 07 2011 05:02 whatthefat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 04:54 Jordbo wrote:On April 07 2011 04:53 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 04:48 Jordbo wrote:On April 07 2011 04:23 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough. No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight. Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you. It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine. However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential. As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent! Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up... This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation. What you fail to grasp is that I dont care about random noobs' opinions. I was asking if someone knew anything about this. I was not asking for random opinions. Who are you hoping to get response from, exactly? I don't think David Kim posts here all that often. I tried my luck. Others have already spelled it out for you: More possible spawns = more possible strategies = richer dynamics. Imperfect information improves the game so long as all crucial information is obtainable by active scouting (as spawn location obviously is). Same reason we have fog of war. Frankly, this would be better in the simple questions simple answers thread.
Thank you for sharing your ignorance. I suppose I am looking the wrong place for intelligent posts. So much for my faith in teamliquid.
User was banned for this post.
|
think about it this way.
i'm sure you know the difference between 2 player map and 3-4 player map.
then compare that knowledge to a 6-8 player map if it was to be played 1v1, hunters for example.
FE builds will be more rewarding while cheese rush will not in a larger/more player map.
hidden rushes like dt rush will be more effective.
all in all it does have to with randomness/luck factor, which is not a bad thing at all.
(for example i played vs a protoss as terran on shattered, i scouted late and found him last, he nexus first. i couldnt do anything(early pressure) because i found out too late and i was planning on FE myself, so i decided to double expand)
i'm all for close position vs long position chances on a same map, i've always wished for a half island 4 player map where players can spawn as no island or half island.
|
On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:
basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough.
You do realize that this is a community site, right? the people who are reading your thread and commenting on it are as close as you're going to get to authorities. You probably didn't notice, but one of the many responses you received was from Superouman, who's map iCCup Testbug has been featured in major tournaments, including MLG Pro Circuit.
FYI it's a 3 player map.
Insulting people is not the way to get what you want, especially considering that you don't need to be a Blizzard game designer to understand the reasoning behind map design.
To my knowledge, there are three major reasons for having a 3/4 spawn map:
1. To force players to scout actively
2. To increase the number of bases
3. to facilitate different playstyles (example: close position metal favors aggressive play & leads to shorter games, while cross allows for a longer game, more macro, all that jazz.
The logic of the people posting here isn't that flawed, You just don't seem to be accepting our reasoning.
|
Don't start a post with "Dear Team Liquid" if the post isn't, in fact, addressed to Team Liquid.
|
On April 07 2011 05:06 Jordbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 05:02 whatthefat wrote:On April 07 2011 04:54 Jordbo wrote:On April 07 2011 04:53 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 04:48 Jordbo wrote:On April 07 2011 04:23 Phinix wrote:On April 07 2011 03:35 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 21:33 Blaize wrote:On April 06 2011 21:29 Jordbo wrote:On April 06 2011 13:06 Zavi_ wrote:
Also, don't blame luck for not finding your opponent first. You always have the choice to send out more scouting workers, you just decide not to. Because your economy suffers too much from it. But you always have a choice to get the required information as fast as you want it. I wanted to throw up when I read your stupid post. Edit: so you're saying because I have the option to sacrifice economy my concern is invalid? For a guy who wants to ask a slightly off the wall question. Attacking the people who are giving you a comment here and there and trying to help educate you with their opinions, is probably not the best policy. Unless your just a troll then by all means keep it up, I now have a running bet on how long you'll last here. I was looking for enlightenment and insight. People who have commented so far have granted me very little. And what's up with insulting me by inplying their worthless posts somehow was educating me? Edit: basically what I'm saying is this: I am not looking for average Joe's random opinion. I am looking for insight from authorities. Sorry about not making this clear enough. No, you weren't looking for enlightenment and insight. Judging by your responses to people giving you their honest input, you were looking to flame anyone who disagreed with you. It's apparent you don't like Randomized spawn locations; that's fine. However, many people agree that the need to scout more than one potential spawn position enhances strategic value and potential. As one quick example,... if you start on a map with 3 relatively close spawn positions that your opponent can potentially inhabit, both parties may more strongly consider early aggression, and should also be more aware of that possibility from their opponent! Because there's a greater likelihood that you can use the element of surprise if the opponent's scout doesn't reach you in time, a different dynamic has just opened up... This dynamic change is something that many may find appealing. It's a bit less of the humdrum "I know exactly what to do" feeling and instead may inspire greater excitement, fear, and anticipation. What you fail to grasp is that I dont care about random noobs' opinions. I was asking if someone knew anything about this. I was not asking for random opinions. Who are you hoping to get response from, exactly? I don't think David Kim posts here all that often. I tried my luck. Others have already spelled it out for you: More possible spawns = more possible strategies = richer dynamics. Imperfect information improves the game so long as all crucial information is obtainable by active scouting (as spawn location obviously is). Same reason we have fog of war. Frankly, this would be better in the simple questions simple answers thread. Thank you for sharing your ignorance. I suppose I am looking the wrong place for intelligent posts. So much for my faith in teamliquid.
All you are doing is shutting down every post that actually answers your question in the OP. If you DON'T want the opinion of these people DON'T make a thread asking for it. There is a PM system you can use or did you "fail to grasp that"?
It is seriously annoying to read your overly aggressive attitude towards people who give actual answers to what you are looking for, but because they aren't the creators of SC you discount what they are saying.
|
I'm pretty sure this guy was just trolling...
|
It's kinda an interesting idea. 6pool and stuff wouldn't necessarily be stronger because people would just learn to scout earlier as they started dying to it . . . but I'd have to check, 'cuz maybe the build timings would make it a guessing game whether it's 6Pool or 6Hatch5Pool. . . but the question isn't whether it should be in the game (I think it'd be kiiinda cool, but it would basically become more chess-like -- see next paragraph) but why it was in originally.
Tradition is the #1 answer. When Brood War was first made it was made in the image of similar strategy games, and 1 of those similarities was imperfect information. As ridiculous as it sounds, the guy who said "It wouldn't be Starcraft without it" was completely right: It's just the way the game is made. Starcraft is a game played w/ imperfect information; football, chess, darts, pool, wife-carrying, all these games are played w/ perfect information. Just the type of game it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
