EPTPersonally I dont like the Starbow proyect. Yes, it is nice and fix lot of problems, but still It is not Starcraft2, It never could be adopted by competitive play.
[MOD] FRB - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
haitike
Spain2716 Posts
Personally I dont like the Starbow proyect. Yes, it is nice and fix lot of problems, but still It is not Starcraft2, It never could be adopted by competitive play. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On July 03 2012 09:29 haitike wrote: Barrin is playing Diablo3 it seems. I dont know if He still thinks this mod is a good idea. Personally I dont like the Starbow proyect. Yes, it is nice and fix lot of problems, but still It is not Starcraft2, It never could be adopted by competitive play. Yeah but that's not the point... -_- No one said it was going to be and who said we wanted it to be? | ||
|
haitike
Spain2716 Posts
I wanted to say that I dont like it like a "FBR sucessor that fix competitive SC2". My english is so bad sometimes  | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On July 03 2012 11:01 haitike wrote: Starbow proyect is fine, I have played it and It is super fun. I wanted to say that I dont like it like a "FBR sucessor that fix competitive SC2". My english is so bad sometimes Yeah I have no idea what you're talking about. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
I think the next step after this stabilizes is to look at gas and work on finding a way to implement a curve with the current system for the next rendition of FRB. NVM I see maps made by Barrin. <3. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
| ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On July 05 2012 10:05 moskonia wrote: People have realized this is bad, it just gives slower deathballs, and so they abandoned it, this "progress" killed the FRB imo. Yes, exactly. | ||
|
haitike
Spain2716 Posts
Starbow use FRB, isnt it? | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
This really highlights the necessity/importance of gas in the MUs, more than anything else. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
Yes it used to but Kabel took it out. We're still in testing phase so there is a possibility that it could be implemented back into Starbow. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
I don't think it gives slower deathballs at all. Rather It opens up a lot more avenues of play What does this even say? do you have any evidence, or are you just being a fanboy? there is no reason this is better then 6m1hyg or the normal game. Reducing the income is just silly and screws balance to a point where the only reason to continue trying to do this is because you miss BW and BW had less income, which imo is a silly reason. Unless you have evidence which this mod makes better games no one will take it seriously, and as shown people stop liking it. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On July 05 2012 21:29 moskonia wrote: What does this even say? do you have any evidence, or are you just being a fanboy? there is no reason this is better then 6m1hyg or the normal game. Reducing the income is just silly and screws balance to a point where the only reason to continue trying to do this is because you miss BW and BW had less income, which imo is a silly reason. Unless you have evidence which this mod makes better games no one will take it seriously, and as shown people stop liking it. + Show Spoiler + You don't have to attack me, you know. I'm fucking tired of all the people who rage around calling others out. I'm sorry I didn't expand on my statement in that post. But I'm not willing to rewrite my explanations 40+ times for all the people who instant reply to a thread without considering what other people have said or even testing the mod/idea in question. I'll fire one right back at you. Have you tried this mod? Have you tested it? Have you considered the principles at work here? I have. If you have, go ahead and give me your reasons. I consider things others say. I change my opinions based on what other people say...but a lot of people here just fire off without considering all sides of an issue, and that doesn't promote any sort of discussion. And ofc I'm a fanboy of this idea. I'm a fanboy b/c I think that it changes the gameplay for the better. I'm a fanboy b/c I think that it opens up more strategic options for SCII. But at the same time I would be perfectly willing to go with 6m/1hyg if it had a higher income rate per worker and implemented a system of diminishing returns. Obviously diminishing returns would work wonderfully with this system as well. I was originally opposed to this. But then I realized one of the big issues here, which was gas control. Obviously for this system to be perfect it would have to have a saturation curve w/diminishing returns. I don't miss BW. I never played BW competitively. I arrived on scene around the announcement of SCII and this has always been the game I play. But at the same time I have observed BW and take things from it that I think SCII is lacking and look for a way to transpose them. Here is my current conjecture. That deathballs occur rapidly in SCII due to the easy access to high amounts of vespene at every expansion, and by extension the easy access to third base w/ gas. The SCII 3 base saturation max revolves around gas. All the timings in this game revolve around gas. I don't much care for the mineral side of this, more for the gas side. Forcing players to expand around the map to acquire their 3rd/4th gas is a big deal. Lower gas income is a big deal. I have played around 30 games on this so far and the lower gas count influences gameplay dramatically. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On July 05 2012 21:53 Qwyn wrote: + Show Spoiler + You don't have to attack me, you know. I'm fucking tired of all the people who rage around calling others out. I'm sorry I didn't expand on my statement in that post. But I'm not willing to rewrite my explanations 40+ times for all the people who instant reply to a thread without considering what other people have said or even testing the mod/idea in question. I'll fire one right back at you. Have you tried this mod? Have you tested it? Have you considered the principles at work here? I have. If you have, go ahead and give me your reasons. I consider things others say. I change my opinions based on what other people say...but a lot of people here just fire off without considering all sides of an issue, and that doesn't promote any sort of discussion. And ofc I'm a fanboy of this idea. I'm a fanboy b/c I think that it changes the gameplay for the better. I'm a fanboy b/c I think that it opens up more strategic options for SCII. But at the same time I would be perfectly willing to go with 6m/1hyg if it had a higher income rate per worker and implemented a system of diminishing returns. Obviously diminishing returns would work wonderfully with this system as well. I was originally opposed to this. But then I realized one of the big issues here, which was gas control. Obviously for this system to be perfect it would have to have a saturation curve w/diminishing returns. I don't miss BW. I never played BW competitively. I arrived on scene around the announcement of SCII and this has always been the game I play. But at the same time I have observed BW and take things from it that I think SCII is lacking and look for a way to transpose them. Here is my current conjecture. That deathballs occur rapidly in SCII due to the easy access to high amounts of vespene at every expansion, and by extension the easy access to third base w/ gas. The SCII 3 base saturation max revolves around gas. All the timings in this game revolve around gas. I don't much care for the mineral side of this, more for the gas side. Forcing players to expand around the map to acquire their 3rd/4th gas is a big deal. Lower gas income is a big deal. I have played around 30 games on this so far and the lower gas count influences gameplay dramatically. I know this is unrelated in a sense but you could try out the Starbow mod which includes some of the Brood War units into SC2 along with the features that made SC2 awesome. There are units for area control and stuff and it changes the gameplay majorly. I think you would like it. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On July 06 2012 08:03 MNdakota wrote: I know this is unrelated in a sense but you could try out the Starbow mod which includes some of the Brood War units into SC2 along with the features that made SC2 awesome. There are units for area control and stuff and it changes the gameplay majorly. I think you would like it. That's true, I do like Starbow, and have played it. But what I am looking for is a better version of HOTS. Better than the changes they are currently suggesting now. I have no idea how I would go about that in the map editor which is why I'm not really tempted to start it but I have a lot of changes in mind that the community wants that I would love to try and implement. Then show it to Blizzard? I have no idea. There's just not enough community support for these kinds of things. | ||
|
gCgCrypto
Germany297 Posts
yes i know one should not dig up old threads for no reasong but DARN IT! I just read Blizzards next patch ideas. Overlord speed to hatch and small crap like that. Dont they realize how broken their economy system is? While FRB might not have worked out perfectly it was the closest and best atempt at fixing the economy system without making the worker ai worse (SC2BW and i beleve starbows attempt, which Blizz would NEVER do) and you even got Davie to react and say they might concider it if the community got behind FRB (sadly way to late, after FRB was close to dead) so basicly what i am attempting in all my bitterness about Blizzards inability to fix such core issues and my frustration about said thing is to maby revive this thing. There has been a LOT of thought put into FRB. WAY too mutch to just go under and be forgotten (like it did now TT) Most importantly the community needs to pressure Blizzard to, if they dont want to adapt one of the community fixes, come up with their own fix. To all those saying "welp it didnt work, forget about it" damnh it did work, it wasnt balanced becasu ethere is only so mutch you can do as a mapmaker withough creating a mod. so if anyone else still feels like projects like this and specifily FRB should be revived and pushed, before (if it isnt already) its to late and there is no time left in the beta then please let Blizzards devs know (IN A PLEASANT WAY!!!) that you think their economy system need IMEDIATE reqork and point them to FRB, to Starbow or even to SC2BW/SCBW. Point them to One Goal as soon as they release their 3rd patch that is to focus on economy systems or write your own ideas. If reviving this was a bad idea then i´m sorry but i think, again, maby its just the frustration, its worth the try. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
| ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
It is often said that BW saturation rules are better because 47 min workers in SC2 provide optimal saturation on 3 bases, in BW it can still go much higher. This isn't a completely fair comparison. In SC2 you start with two more workers, they harvest less, they produce more quickly, you have two gasses. Everything says: "You are supposed to have more workers in SC2 at any given point". And this is true. It takes far longer in BW to get 47 workers on mins than it does in SC2. So all would be well, except one fatal flaw: Workers still cost the same amount of supply. Essentially, 70 workers in BW is equivalent to about 110 workers in SC2. Which is just more than you ever want to get because that eats in your max too much (unless you're Siskos, I have no problem playing P and Z up to 120 workers but that aside, I play like a retard anyway). Together with units in SC2 just in general taking more supply than in BW. Effectively it's like playing BW with a pop cap of 120. The pop cap in BW didn't see nearly as much actual significance as in SC2. People maxing was actually something that was something of note. Now it does add a certain strategic element in SC2, in BW it's just a case of 'more is more', in SC2 you actually have to throw units away far more often to decide what you want to max on. But still, I feel the FRB thing can far more easily be expressed by simply raising the supply cap to 300 and that is all. With a 300 supply cap people will probably be content to say go to 120 workers, thereby requiring more than 3 bases. | ||
|
Doominator10
United States515 Posts
My comp. starts having issues even when 80+ zerglings are on the screen at once. Certain custom games (Marine Arena anyone?) I can't play because the huge amount of stuff happening really takes away from my enjoyment. While I always did think that it would be better if the pop. cap was higher (I'd even take 250), I don't think it would cater well to people who can't afford higher-end computers / internet / laptops / etc. | ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
On February 09 2013 13:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: Actually, I wanted to make a post detailing a way to simplify this concept for a long time but it can be summed up by this novel observation: It is often said that BW saturation rules are better because 47 min workers in SC2 provide optimal saturation on 3 bases, in BW it can still go much higher. This isn't a completely fair comparison. In SC2 you start with two more workers, they harvest less, they produce more quickly, you have two gasses. Everything says: "You are supposed to have more workers in SC2 at any given point". And this is true. It takes far longer in BW to get 47 workers on mins than it does in SC2. So all would be well, except one fatal flaw: Workers still cost the same amount of supply. Essentially, 70 workers in BW is equivalent to about 110 workers in SC2. Which is just more than you ever want to get because that eats in your max too much (unless you're Siskos, I have no problem playing P and Z up to 120 workers but that aside, I play like a retard anyway). Together with units in SC2 just in general taking more supply than in BW. Effectively it's like playing BW with a pop cap of 120. The pop cap in BW didn't see nearly as much actual significance as in SC2. People maxing was actually something that was something of note. Now it does add a certain strategic element in SC2, in BW it's just a case of 'more is more', in SC2 you actually have to throw units away far more often to decide what you want to max on. But still, I feel the FRB thing can far more easily be expressed by simply raising the supply cap to 300 and that is all. With a 300 supply cap people will probably be content to say go to 120 workers, thereby requiring more than 3 bases. Good post. I think 300 supply cap is a very strong possible alternative to FRB, although the above poster's concerns are valid where having simply too many units on the screen at a time could cause performance issues for many, not to mention micro matters less and less the bigger the battles get. Yes, you would have more small skirmishes across the map if more bases were needed, but you would still have huge battles as well. Another alternative is to edit the speed of mining and/or how many minerals are returned per trip. This is extremely easy to edit under the units tab. | ||
| ||
