EPT[MOD] FRB
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
And it seems like the single high yield gas still causes problems. I feel like you're now just trying to copy BW, unlike you originally claimed. It's funny, though, because you are copying inaccurate BW data, are you not? | ||
|
Namrufus
United States396 Posts
typed in FRB, pressed go, no results? + Show Spoiler [mod load screen thing] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AR5mM.jpg) I'm connected, and other mods come up if I search for other terms. maybe you have it published as private or something? just tried it again, seems to work! | ||
|
Natespank
Canada449 Posts
I think the high ground concept should enter testing sooner rather than later as well. Anybody disillusioned with 6m will encounter similar problems with this specifically because of a lack of positional advantages. See MMA vs Alive last night btw? Those were some nice positional games  | ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
| ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
I guess I'll have to go back and test it again, but my inital thoughts on the 8lym was that mining was a tad bit too slow in comparison to the costs of things -- I think a lot of these musings are back in the Breadth of Gameplay thread. Anyway, I guess there's more testing/thinking to do about it now. Are you planning on reintroducing random mischance for high ground into your next version of this "pro mod"? | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
<3 | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 06 2012 11:12 Barrin wrote: I feel like I might be forgetting something.. Hmm. High Ground will come after FRB GT #2. This 8m with 4pt thing is a lot better than I expected it to be when I wrote the High Ground thread. 8m/4pt goes a long way towards being what I am really after, High Ground can wait. I read the High Ground thread and I'm interested in what's holding you back on that front. Are you trying to mimic the BW high ground advantage exactly and working on the implementation? Or are you trying to redesign the high ground advantage? I ask because mimicking the BW miss chance through the data editor would be trivial, but a bit tedious. If it helped you at all in this justified endeavor I could encapsulate it in a mod for you. | ||
|
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
| ||
OverUsedChewToy
New Zealand6 Posts
| ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
I don't see anything in the 'Breadth of Gameplay' thread redirecting here. I'd almost recommend locking that thread with links at the beginning and end to this one just to encourage the conversation to move here. Right now it's looking to me like 'FRB GT' is the correct search term for the new edition, and any others (for example, plain 'FRB') lead to outdated 6m1hyg maps. If that's the case it should be clearly marked at the top of the page which search term gets you to the new edition, because I'm hoping new FRB players will hop into the thread, read the core ideas and immediately start looking for a game, so we should point them in the right direction. :D One last thing I can think of right now. I might just be a derp (it's happened before!) but when I read the 'How do I use this mod on my maps' it looked at first to me like I needed to download something to play FRB, rather than it being a custom game available in the lobby. After a minute figured out that that section is for mapmakers, but it might be nice to put it in spoilers so the mapmakers can look at it if they want but folks like me don't stumble into it and get confused. However, it could be that I'm the only person who'll make that mistake, so take this with a grain of salt. Other than those nitpicks I'm eager to get started! See you all in game. | ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
| ||
|
Yonnua
United Kingdom2331 Posts
| ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
I think you should really reconsider this out, cause this wont lead to more interesting games, only longer games. You wont have to expand more then from normal games, and you will see the same amount of deathballs, so this is not only not better from normal games, but much much worse. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 07 2012 01:08 moskonia wrote: I fully supported you with the original idea and tried to convince my friends to play also on FRB maps, but this is just stupid, as people pointed, it will just lead to slower deathball games, I played 6m maps and they feel great to play, the only thing they need is 2 gasses that yield 3 points in each collection, and you didn't even do that one here. I think you should really reconsider this out, cause this wont lead to more interesting games, only longer games. You wont have to expand more then from normal games, and you will see the same amount of deathballs, so this is not only not better from normal games, but much much worse. I must present this counter-question, because the same sort of thing's been said about HotS, but how do you know it'll be worse? The end result is the same - less income per base. However, it also takes longer to reach this reduced income, compared to 6m, so if anything there should be fewer deathball action. Also, because there are still 8 mineral patches in a base, having more workers will be required to achieve enough income to even sustain a deathball, where the increased number of workers will make the resulting army a bit smaller - or make it take much longer to get/remax a deathball. I know it's easy to be skeptical, since it's unproven, but it's usually better to keep an open mind, and give it a chance. Who knows, it could work. | ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
On May 06 2012 22:52 Superouman wrote: I'm against 8m1g and for 6m1g because the worker count to saturate an expand stays the same. It's not only about reducing the income but also reducing the worker count per base so you can gather resources from more bases which are more spread out 100% approve ! The players must expand fast because their bases is satured and not because they have slow income. The next step is to have a better high ground mecanic that encourages the player on the high ground! As I said, units on a ramp shouldn't have the vision on the high ground. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:08 Gyro_SC2 wrote: 100% approve ! The players must expand fast because their bases is satured and not because they have slow income. The next step is to have a better high ground mecanic that encourages the player on the high ground! As I said, units on a ramp shouldn't have the vision on the high ground. That ramp thing would only help a Terran defend his own base, which they can already do really well. The high ground advantage needs to involve something more substantial. | ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
The problem at the moment is: there is no strategic advantage position, not enought control space mechanic. So a lot of games are just big balls fighting. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330085 I think each race benefits of a defensif high ground mechanic! | ||
| ||
