EPTlet me know if any others are out there
The Altitude League - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
let me know if any others are out there | ||
|
jeppew
Sweden471 Posts
surely it is propaganda from Falcynn to sully team ACE's good name. (nevermind the fact that 15 seconds of the video is ACE.tyr killing stuff.) | ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
this is a well known fact | ||
|
NfoMonkey
Estonia22 Posts
TS should have some sort of handicap, since some of their players are too awesome and equal about 1.5-2 regular players or we can claim mass hax and have em banned. | ||
pachi
Melbourne5338 Posts
On April 21 2009 08:01 travis wrote: Oh wait, who is protest boy? He was on the server I joined when I was getting raped hard hehe he made one of the maps and may be pillar's roommate, i forget. | ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
On April 21 2009 20:54 pachi wrote: he made one of the maps and may be pillar's roommate, i forget. i think you're talking about maimer | ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
why is hills not available as a map? It's probably the most balanced map out there honestly. And mayhem and asteroids? I'd rather play on woods so i talked to chobo about the map list--right now these are all the remotely viable TBD maps Hills Cave City Grotto Woods Mayhem Core Middleground Asteroids -------- I don't know if it's important that Chobo have only 7 available. But if so, we should discuss which maps should go and what should stay. Personally I would dump asteroids and Mayhem since I think those are most imbalanced maps right now on the list. Plus, do we really want random bomb spawns and massive turrets to be in league matches? my response: for reference, the actual map pool as of right now is: Mayhem, Core, Woods, Lost City, Middlegrounds, Cave, Asteroids i really don't think hills will lead to any interesting game play. every time i have played hills has been the same as any other time, plus or minus a few types of planes. the reason we choose 7 maps is for ease of the veto system and if there is any map to cut it is hills - at least, that is the consensus that has been voiced thus far. if you guys have different ideas, i am more than willing to listen. but please, someone tell me a) why hills will lead to interesting gameplay b) why turrets, if balanced properly, will lessen competition c) why the neutral bomb spawns wouldn't encourage (good, competitive) things such as map control if we're looking for a purely player v player match up, we could just have a blank patch of sky with two bases (i am almost describing hills right now! except for, you know, a single hill and a dinky cave) but we have gravitated toward maps which afford us the best chance for interesting play and have the added dimension of dealing with and taking advantage of the environment in addition to opposing players. | ||
|
tec27
United States3715 Posts
Past that, here are maps I am fine with, in order of preference (best first): Middleground Core Woods Grotto Cave Asteroids Mayhem Lost City Honestly, I'd choose Lost City almost every time for the map to get rid of to keep 7 maps. The map is really uninteresting and has some problems that make it very, very hard to beat any decent defense. Mayhem certainly may be imbalanced towards mirandas and explodets, but I don't think its insurmountable. I also think mayhem has one of the more interesting bomb spawn setups, so thats something to consider. Neutral bomb spawns are far superior to non-neutral ones, imo, even if they are somewhat random. The randomness is not entirely random, you can still tell when an item is spawning and control when it is picked up. And since on mayhem you know its either going to spawn health or a bomb, this isn't an issue, imo. Asteroids may be a bit excessive on turrets, but I don't think its that bad, and will merely be a bit longer of a game. Personally, I'm all for removing maps which offer little to no opportunity for decent games, and leaving the rest up to the veto system. Edit: Apparently according to cokane I'm too new of a player to possibly understand the subtle nuances of hills. Sorry then, please disregard all my analysis  | ||
|
jeppew
Sweden471 Posts
b) turrets will make matches longer, but i think they're good because they present a secondary objective. by bombing turrets your opponents won't have much safety in their own base, making bombing runs/sniping easier and they can't retreat to heal too easily. so when you get a bomb you'll have to decide, will i bomb a turret and make it easier for my team in the long run or go for the base which will win us the game? c) really important imho, it almost completly stops turtling. the only form of overly defensive play that is possible on a map with a neutral bomb is waiting for your opponent to bring the bomb to you, wich doesn't work if they just drop it before they die each time. it forces both teams to go out on the map and secure the middle, there'll be alot of dogfights instead of the bumrushes into a defensive wall of bullets you see on "normal" tbd's. also, neutral bomb maps usually have more ways into the others base, like middleground and mayhem where the map "loops", making more bombing run strategies possible. (asteroids loops aswell but it only loops at the top, making that path really slow and almost impossible to take because everyone will know you're coming 30 seconds ahead of time) | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On April 22 2009 00:26 tec27 wrote: Honestly, I'd choose Lost City almost every time for the map to get rid of to keep 7 maps. The map is really uninteresting and has some problems that make it very, very hard to beat any decent defense. Agreed. While Lost City is a fun map to play on sometimes in pubs, I really really think it would be boring as hell in organized team matches. Mainly due to the choke point in the middle. Whenever I've played on Lost City with decent players, it basically becomes a camp fest for 30-40 minutes with neither side being able to make it very far past the central wall, and the game really only seems to end once people start leaving and/or getting replaced by lesser skilled plaers. For future reference, I think that really any map with a central choke point that isn't a neutral bomb spawn will lead to really boring campfests during organized team matches. On April 22 2009 00:26 tec27 wrote: Fuck that, we're starcraft experts, we know everything there is to know about strategy Edit: Apparently according to cokane I'm too new of a player to possibly understand the subtle nuances of hills. Sorry then, please disregard all my analysis | ||
|
NfoMonkey
Estonia22 Posts
| ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
or, really, cokane and i are having the discussion and we're waiting for others to weigh in :D | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On April 22 2009 00:46 NfoMonkey wrote: Unfortunately...that's just about the only decent strategy I see every game. Every time that strategy isn't used, it just goes back to being a campfest.nah, usually its because half the team doesnt have the balls to pass the choke point, last few games on lost city (sure ive had good teams) we have made a heavy formation of planes helping the bomber pass through, f*** everything up on the way and toss the bomb. its usually because people dont want to get shot down why the choke point maps take so long. It's like a NR20 game on fastest map possible. You just camp, and only rush when you have everything you need to fuck up the other guys. | ||
|
BG1
Canada1550 Posts
| ||
|
freelander
Hungary4707 Posts
I can't submit my team till that | ||
|
NfoMonkey
Estonia22 Posts
| ||
|
freelander
Hungary4707 Posts
On April 22 2009 04:05 NfoMonkey wrote: oh a new team eh... you should submit your team and then a day later quit the league, to avoid epic failure and pwnage... *opposing team related hate off* have a nice day mate die now later it'll be more painful | ||
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
| ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
| ||
|
freelander
Hungary4707 Posts
| ||
| ||
