I've looked around for a good BGH remake, but they're all 128x128 based on the old SC1 map which in Starcraft 2 feels way too small and cramped.
I think we should start an initiative to either re-create BGH for SC2 or create a map that will serve the same purpose. We need a go-to map for the epic 2v2v2v2 with infinite resources, don't we!? I've tried my hand at it but I'm really miserable at mapmaking and I can't something that really captures the exact feel that Big Game Hunters had in SC1 (and, of course, has the same dinky little imbalances like cannoning behind the mineral line at the 6 o'clock position and the tank drop cliffs and everything). So is anyone up for it?
Not sure if I have not come across a reminiscence of it somewhere on sc2mapster I think (sorry forgot specifics). You should post specs you feel define BGH. Resources, main sizes, shape concepts drawbacks, go specific if you want to get any attempts... I guess you'd get posts just for the attempt at describing BGH. Only one thing comes to mind: I like (the thread, the goal and BGH)
On December 12 2010 10:46 TheNessman wrote: Fully support this.
I used to love BGH 2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2.... but now I don't, still would support a map like this, i would play it again maybe, if it was good.
I'm going to mess around with map editor over holidays. It's on my to do list. I'll probably experiment around with this, but as I never played BW, I doubt I'd ever make a remake of some map that has no nostalgia for me. :/ Might make some other random 2v2v2v2 map lol.
Part of the problem is that it's very difficult to get a game going, because of the popularity system. Even with an ideal map for 2v2v2v2, you'll have difficulty getting it to catch on.
EDIT: I personally DON'T want a pure remake, i want a new map, but until then pure remakes are fine. *wish i could map*
EDIT2:
On December 13 2010 12:37 jamesr12 wrote:
i played a bgh remake that was loyal to the old one, it just wasnt the same, we need a new 2v2v2v2 that is equally quirky and fun.
This is how I feel, except that we need a new one even if the old one ends up great, I want a different nostalgia for SC2.
Required: extra resources in each base (extra patches/geyers) Max resources in each patch/geyser (obviously) 8 bases (4 corners + sides) note: bases have built in mistakes, such as the masses of useless land at 3 and 9 of bgh 8 expos, right outside of bases MASSIVE land is sort of like isthmuses all over (protip: isthmuses is proper LOL) Center has a full expo tankable edges on mains
Bonus/more in bgh spirit: cliffs at corners and 6 able to be tank dropped ( and reaper/collosi abuse) bases split into 3 groups of two, with 1 group having alternate routes to center, and note: leaves 2 bases completely isolated
On December 12 2010 12:22 MavercK wrote: you can search for SC2BW and find my remake of BGH which has 2v2v2v2 as a game mode.
that's the one, sorry I couldn't place it, and a brilliant job done by MavercK (though i would have selected another texture mix the layout is at kudos level, meticulous result)
@exleos: thanks for posting sc bgh visual
I think the biggest challenge are the mid areas between main and center (open middle of course), not sure the max size provided by sc2 is sufficient for an sc2 bgh...? (God I hope they expand the max size) But then again I haven't played MavercK's version so I might be off on a tangent.
On December 12 2010 12:22 MavercK wrote: you can search for SC2BW and find my remake of BGH which has 2v2v2v2 as a game mode.
that's the one, sorry I couldn't place it, and a brilliant job done by MavercK (though i would have selected another texture mix the layout is at kudos level, meticulous result)
@exleos: thanks for posting sc bgh visual
mines a direct port using the import map feature. it should be perfectly 1:1 BGH remake. i did have to change the mineral/gas positions to fit the starting locations however. thats all i've changed
On December 12 2010 12:22 MavercK wrote: you can search for SC2BW and find my remake of BGH which has 2v2v2v2 as a game mode.
that's the one, sorry I couldn't place it, and a brilliant job done by MavercK (though i would have selected another texture mix the layout is at kudos level, meticulous result)
@exleos: thanks for posting sc bgh visual
mines a direct port using the import map feature. it should be perfectly 1:1 BGH remake. i did have to change the mineral/gas positions to fit the starting locations however. thats all i've changed
I think the map needs to be larger, though. Everything feels too tight.
On December 12 2010 12:22 MavercK wrote: you can search for SC2BW and find my remake of BGH which has 2v2v2v2 as a game mode.
that's the one, sorry I couldn't place it, and a brilliant job done by MavercK (though i would have selected another texture mix the layout is at kudos level, meticulous result)
@exleos: thanks for posting sc bgh visual
mines a direct port using the import map feature. it should be perfectly 1:1 BGH remake. i did have to change the mineral/gas positions to fit the starting locations however. thats all i've changed
I think the map needs to be larger, though. Everything feels too tight.
could have something to do with starcraft 2's camera being more zoomed out than sc1's
MavercK, I saw your remake first, and the appearance texturing and everything on it was truly top-notch, you did a great job. But like PH said, when you actually play on it it feels like 128x128 is way too small and cramped for SC2; the map sizes scale really strangely, partly due to the camera like you said and partly due just to how Blizzard designed Starcraft 2 units and buildings. Perhaps a scale model at 192x192 would suffice even for perfect SC2 BGH play. It's just that right now on 128x128 BGH it feels like you're playing some sort of SCBW mini-game instead of playing like it should feel, grand and massive and strategically dynamic, etc.
I think the transposition is too good for it's own good.
The change between sc1 to sc2 seems to have stappled the w3 sizes of units as the "game size norm": the marine would be "bigger (relative to layout)" in sc2 than in sc1. hero size in sc2 is bigger than in sc1 or even equal to w3 (which was Huuuuge) the tiniest objects in sc2 would be more "refined" or complex (not smaller but it's a comparable parameter improvement (dunno about that yet though)) than in w3 (and of course sc1)...
In the case of transposition, the downscale of the units/structures in sc2 would be the ideal solution (long and tedious)... or guess someone will have to draw it.
Yes day9, we want to experience this in SC2! Don't you?
EDIT: for the thread. Can't you take an image of the starcraft 1 BGH and then pull that image into the map editor then trace over it? Easier than doing it from memory, and you can scale it to whatever size you want.
Yes day9, we want to experience this in SC2! Don't you?
EDIT: for the thread. Can't you take an image of the starcraft 1 BGH and then pull that image into the map editor then trace over it? Easier than doing it from memory, and you can scale it to whatever size you want.
i played a bgh remake that was loyal to the old one, it just wasnt the same, we need a new 2v2v2v2 that is equally quirky and fun.
Many people in this thread believe it wasn't the same because the current BGH remakes are too small. So, in this thread is an effort to remake BGH in all of it's old glory, and make it possibly bigger so it fits SC2 better.
Looks like this is going to be a "Who can make the best BGH for SC2"-Thread, if we get Day to make a daily on the best one we come up with we'll have defeated the popularity system.
On December 13 2010 11:49 Day[9] wrote: For the record
Please watch day[9] daily #65 :D
Wow, that was a kickass game. That's like the exact reason I wanted to do this. If you were to bring this topic up during a Daily to really get this project going I would be honored. I'm willing to bet it would lead to the the perfect BGH remake for us to play on in no time, just since so many people watch your shows!
By the way, do you have any idea what I am talking about with the overlay?
Yes I do know what you're talking about actually (I didnt see your edit before had to look around lol). I was doing something pretty similar when I was cataloging similar texture types... I think I will use a technique like this to copy the layout, but I don't have a way to make the image transparent... im gonna see if I can find a way though.
edit: well I can't find a good program but I'm pretty good at aligning the big picture and the editor with Windows Picture and Fax Viewer /flex >.<
On December 14 2010 07:25 Barrin wrote: I'm trying to make this as close to the original as possible... someone who's played the original thousands of times should get some serious dejavu factor when they play this one. Every last inch of the map is going to be pretty frikkin close to the original...
Very good news! I am one of those that played on it thousands of times
When you play on it, does the size (of each base, of the paths, overall) feel right? (as in, did the 180x180 work out well?) Can't wait for the progress report. Thanks for doing this!
The 2v2v2v2 TL match was great to watch. Sometime's it's fun to play custom games, but sometimes it's omgamazing fun to do 2v2v2v2 matches with people who are aggressive and know the game.
Yea i'd really like a 2v2v2v2 BGH for sc2. It was full of cheeses a lot of the time, but i still enjoyed playing it, i sucked at starcraft, so it was a good place to not worry about laddering or anything like that.
Terran MULES seem pretty OP on an infinite resources map since you can supersaturate to essentially infinity without having to ever expand.
I was thinking about this, but actually I think the deadspace behind minerals that you can't even path to for a lot of the bases (mostly naturals though) might make up for this. What I mean is that mules might put themselves on the side that gets trapped and therefore maybe 30% of the time they'll be useless. We'll see though.
Yeah I found an 896x896 picture before your first post with that actually
Terrain is like 99% and it's looking goooood!!! I will probably put a progress report here later today when I think I can't make it any better to see if there's anything I missed (alt-tabbing between my overlay and the editor as much as I am has the potential to give anyone a seizure!). I'm trying to make this as close to the original as possible... someone who's played the original thousands of times should get some serious dejavu factor when they play this one. Every last inch of the map is going to be pretty frikkin close to the original... the only real problem is the way the tiles in the original worked themselves: in sc2 we have perfect 45 degree increment angles on everything, but in sc1 it was 22.5 degree angles, 67.5 degree angles and 135 degree angles. I'm doing the best I can with it though.
Re: mules.
If the mules get stuck sometimes, you can always call them down to patches where they can't get stuck. If worse comes to worse, you can call them down away from patches and manually send them to mine. There should be no reason to get them stuck (although it's nice map design to not have this kind of booby trap in the first place).
On December 14 2010 09:05 Barrin wrote: Buildings shown to give idea of sizes. I am happy to say that I think there is less than a 5% differential from this version than the original. Most of that coming from the angle rendering I mentioned earlier, but perhaps about 1% comes from me making the entrances seem correct (some entrances took 3 buildings to wall off, one of them took 5). All main->nat entrance now take 4 buildings to wall off, some better than others. Some require 4 barracks, some require 3 barracks and a supply depot (or addon).
Any feedback appreciated.
This is near pixel perfect! Just a feeeew nit-pics the 4:30 nat extends a bit too far downward The 3'oclock and 4:30 river could use a touch up, including the 4:30 choke The bulge into the lake inbetween the 12 oclock expansion and the 3oclock expansion is a bit too big
Other than that, it is damn pixel perfect!
Absolutely awesome. Do you think that you will be able to get the green patches, the unbuildable patches, and the cliffs as close to the original as the rest of the map?
Also, I don't remember the chokes being that huge, but I guess it is a product of making the map bigger, and how the unit/building size ratio is a bit different in sc2 compared to sc1. I look forward to any more progress!
Buildings shown to give idea of sizes. I am happy to say that I think there is less than a 5% differential from this version than the original. Most of that coming from the angle rendering I mentioned earlier, but perhaps about 1% comes from me making the entrances seem correct (some entrances took 3 buildings to wall off, one of them took 5). All main->nat entrance now take 4 buildings to wall off, some better than others. Some require 4 barracks, some require 3 barracks and a supply depot (or addon).
Any feedback appreciated.
Dude, that looks totally perfect. To my eyes, just the right size and everything. I can't wait to see how it looks and plays when you're done.
Some things are still not right, like chokes and such, but it won't be hard to fix. Glad we're releasing on different servers, so there'll be a different TL BGH for EU and for NA.
You wanted pixel perfect, I'll give it to you! The update looks better. Good luck with the terrain and the mineral/gas placement. As for the grass texture, I think somewhat close to the original would be best, but that's just me . I'll check back in soon and provide some feedback.
I always loved how BGH was somewhere between "fastest possible" and "standard". I hope the new one has the same feel!
EDIT: I think i see some more nit-picky stuff. After I'm done with my exam (wednesday) I'll take it into paint.net and mark it up. For now, I made this animated GIF to help you spot the differences:
Ahhhhh, so many old BGH memories are coming back! Whoever decides to make a perfect remake, please spend a lot of time on the map imbalances with all the different positions. The imbalances made the map extremely dynamic in 3v3 and 2v2v2v2 - the games were always completely different with all the combinations that could happen. I remember spawning at the top left in a 2v2v2v2 with my ally at 5 and two allied enemy players at 12 and 1. Five minutes later I have a two armies at my entrance and a tank drop from 9 o'clock at my cliff...FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU. I'm sure many others can relate
I have to agree. I have tried a bunch of the BGH remakes and they are all pretty much lame IMO. I was hoping to find one that was more suited for SC2. I hope that we get one soon!
I just played a couple of BGH games (on the regular 128x128) in SC2 and I do agree with everyone that it needs to be bigger but I also think it shouldn't be too big since that would make it way too hard to wall off your entrance. Maybe something like 160x160 might be ok or maybe even smaller, the only way to find out is to test it in-game.
Also, I have seen a lot of people put only 2 gas geysers in each base but that's too few since in SC2 the gas geyser count doubled, so we need a total of 4 gas geysers in each base. And if that messes with the map too much, then you could just double the amount of gas a worker collects each time, but I'm not sure if that would be 100% balanced.
Haven't played it, but it seems like terran would be ridiculous in 2v2v2v2 if you got stabilized on two bases. No one else can increase their income except through immediate conquest but you can just build orbitals since the patches are infinite. Just an initial impression from thinking about how it would work in sc2.
On December 15 2010 08:30 hangarninetysix wrote: Haven't played it, but it seems like terran would be ridiculous in 2v2v2v2 if you got stabilized on two bases. No one else can increase their income except through immediate conquest but you can just build orbitals since the patches are infinite. Just an initial impression from thinking about how it would work in sc2.
In BGH, you generally have way more money than you could hope to spend unless you have ridiculously amazing macro, so I wouldn't be worried about that. Watch day9 daily 65 or 50 and you'll see what I'm talking about.
the map exists in SC2, in fact there are like 20 different versions people have made. I think this kind of map won't be possible until 1.2 goes live so we can use chat to organize some 2v2v2v2's other than that it's a crap shoot if you join the right game or if it's even set up properly, not to mention the popularity system is horrid for this kind of thing.
On December 15 2010 10:24 Barrin wrote: btw TexSC hold off on doing any more nitpicking.. I'm doing a lot of revisions everywhere I will post a current gif later today or tomorrow.
also most of the chokes are getting smaller now too btw.
No problem, I have a test tomorrow anyway! I will wait for your reply (I haven't even looked at it since I posted the GIF). Any help you want let me know.
i have only gotten the chance to play one of these, i can't wait until the maps get fleshed out a bit more. those games were to much fun and were the perfect way to relax after a long day of school work
On December 12 2010 11:06 FreezerJumps wrote: Part of the problem is that it's very difficult to get a game going, because of the popularity system. Even with an ideal map for 2v2v2v2, you'll have difficulty getting it to catch on.
Are you gonna add any SC2 stuff, like xel-naga towers, smoke walls, or high-yield minerals in the middle, or keep it pure nostalgia? High yield minerals + gas in the middle would make fighting for the middle pretty fun... but if you're going for 100% nostalgia then that would kind of ruin it
I wonder if it would be possible to add all the BW units, and it would be like playing BW but with fancy SC2 graphics ^__^
On December 12 2010 12:22 MavercK wrote: you can search for SC2BW and find my remake of BGH which has 2v2v2v2 as a game mode.
that's the one, sorry I couldn't place it, and a brilliant job done by MavercK (though i would have selected another texture mix the layout is at kudos level, meticulous result)
@exleos: thanks for posting sc bgh visual
mines a direct port using the import map feature. it should be perfectly 1:1 BGH remake. i did have to change the mineral/gas positions to fit the starting locations however. thats all i've changed
I think the map needs to be larger, though. Everything feels too tight.
On December 12 2010 12:22 MavercK wrote: you can search for SC2BW and find my remake of BGH which has 2v2v2v2 as a game mode.
that's the one, sorry I couldn't place it, and a brilliant job done by MavercK (though i would have selected another texture mix the layout is at kudos level, meticulous result)
@exleos: thanks for posting sc bgh visual
mines a direct port using the import map feature. it should be perfectly 1:1 BGH remake. i did have to change the mineral/gas positions to fit the starting locations however. thats all i've changed
I think the map needs to be larger, though. Everything feels too tight.
AMEN WE WANT IT BIG!!!!
All the versions on b.net right now are just direct imports of the old map, which is 128x128 (which is why there are so many, all you need to do is load up and publish). Barrin is working on a 180x180 version, which will "feel" perfect.
Hey, Barrin, everything looks TOTALLY kickass and I can't thank you enough for the tremendous amount of work you've put into this. One question though: Do you really think we should have 8-returning geysers? In my personal opinion, if we want this map to live and thrive in SC2 as the go-to 2v2v2v2 map, I'm not so sure we should rely on old BW mechanics that will be unfamiliar and off-putting to people new to Starcraft and stuff. I mean the way I have it in my imagination is it being a pure Starcraft 2 map (without any custom map settings at all, even). I think the ONLY aspect in which this map should be an homage to Brood War is in the idea of why you would play on it (infinite resources, ridiculous imbalances, unpredictability, etc).
With that said, I think we should compile a list of the dinky imbalances that existed in BGH. Like the cliff in the top left should be able to fit only exactly one siege tank and nothing else on it. I'll try to think of the other ones but I mainly wanted to put in my 2 cents about those geysers.
edit: along with being able to cannon behind the mineral line at the 7 o'clock position:
Personally, I'm of the camp that would prefer normal geysers.
Yes, in BW, gas was much more valuable, but that really just results in a new level of strategy, thinking, "when and where do I get my next gas?". In SC2, now we have every ladder map has expansions each with the same amount of mineral patches and the same amount of geysers (not counting gold).
I guess it just feels like having 2 high-yield geysers and leaving the minerals the same will skew the mineral:gas ratio waaaaaay too hard. Having normal-yield minerals and normal-yield geysers just like they were in the original BGH just feels more traditional and safe. Just my opinion, though. Either way, keep up the good work! I'm looking forward to it.
If the mules get stuck sometimes, you can always call them down to patches where they can't get stuck.
Yup! And those patches will probably run out a lot faster
Wait, what? Patches shouldn't run out in BGH
In 2v2v2v2s, they certainly did. The expos will run dry fairly regularly and the mains will start to have dry patches in really long games. At least when I played 2v2v2v2 BGH that happened.
EDIT: Also, why not use this as an opportunity to fix the horrible imbalances on BGH that were even worse for 2v2v2v2? If your team spawns 12 and 6 (or 11 and 6, 11 and 7, 12 and 7), you have very little chance of winning. If you spawn 6 and 7, you have like an 80% chance of winning. There are teams that just leave if they spawn in separate shared path mains. Obviously some imbalances are what made BGH what it was, but the shared path bases were pretty game breaking.
Sorry about the confusion... I didn't exactly word that too well.
What I mean is that with old 8 minerals per trip and 8 gas per trip, a saturated base with n mineral patches and m geysers will give an income of n*8 minerals and m*8 gas. Meaning pushing gas to 8 per trip but leaving minerals at 5 per trip will skew too far towards a glut of gas. (in my opinion)
When I said
Having normal-yield minerals and normal-yield geysers just like they were in the original BGH just feels more traditional and safe.
I was actually referring to normal in the SC2 sense. 5 per trip and 4 per trip. Yes, they're both slower than the 8 per trip in BW (both were 8 in BW, right? it's been a while. I could be completely off base), but the relative income is closer to what everyone is used to.
What I would prefer would be having the same number of patches and geysers, and just leaving their behavior the same as ladder games. But that's just me.
edit: yeah, 15 patches to 2 gas is super mineral heavy. but I'm just thinking about the ratio. 7.5 mineral patches per "normal" geyser sounds a lot less crazy to me than 3.75 mineral patches per "normal" geyser. Normal being the 4-gas per trip.
EDIT AGAIN: Really, I think it's just because I play protoss. And I don't like the feeling that having lots of gas gives, where Protoss use less zealots and Zerg use more mutalisks. But that's just a personal frustration with ladder. XD
I'd rather have 4 geysers that return 4 each even if it looked dumb. Just so it really is a Starcraft 2 map. But again, that's just my 2 cents.
edit: Is there a built-in functionality for high-yield geysers? i.e. to play with these 8-returning geysers you wouldn't need to play on Use Map Settings necessarily?
Ok. so like i said before heres what i tested. (TOP RIGHT BASE) This is the one you have currently. This is in broodwar and this is what i did in the sc2 editor in like 2 minutes. /// From the overview your version looks simply incredible, but its just a little too big.
People have already created scale models of BGH. But they suck to play on in SC2. Mostly because they are too small. We're thinking adaptation for gameplay, not for strict appearances.
On December 18 2010 12:03 tsuxiit wrote: People have already created scale models of BGH. But they suck to play on in SC2. Mostly because they are too small. We're thinking adaptation for gameplay, not for strict appearances.
they made it 128*128. which would be fine except sc2 terrain is so much different than sc1. the way i measured it out it should be roughly 162*162 (in bw it takes 31 ccs from left to right. so i lay out 31 ccs in sc2s editor and it comes to 162/162.)
For what it's worth I made a 14 player map where you could do team ffas and such, but I haven't found any other serious large map attempts (that aren't just effortless big money maps)
The problem probably isn't the lack of maps anyway, it's the custom game system that killed these gametypes
Oh boy oh boy, I'm looking forward to this. I remember BGH 2v2v2v2 from BW, tons of fun.
Any estimate when you'll finish the map? Love it so far, I like your work
One thing I noticed, in BW it was far easier to wall of your choke in for example Fastest. Now you have to build lik 5 raxes to wall off:p Maybe that was just a crummy map I played though...
Not sure if this has been mentioned before in the thread, but the Abyss map (official map in FFA) is sort of like BGH, if you raise the min count. Liquipedia Link
How close is this map to being done I personally can not wait for some 2v2v2v2 BGH action with my friends and would like a BGH that plays like the old one
On December 15 2010 08:30 hangarninetysix wrote: Haven't played it, but it seems like terran would be ridiculous in 2v2v2v2 if you got stabilized on two bases. No one else can increase their income except through immediate conquest but you can just build orbitals since the patches are infinite. Just an initial impression from thinking about how it would work in sc2.
in bgh you are never really blocked by mins, just gas.