|
Can't wait for seeing more 6m games, I just don't like the best-of-1 part.
But I guess with the amount of games massing up with best-of-threes in earlier rounds it would get too much to cast, so I won't blame you for it. 
|
What about getting some "famous" casters behind this idea? Day9, Husky or someone like that, would be a pretty good way to spread the word further. Sorry if this has been suggested or attempted, but I didn't see any mention of this so far.
|
Really like this and hope some good players join ^_^. Although I do dislike ro16 bo1 but I can see why for time reasons ^^.
|
On March 27 2012 09:33 Kefir wrote:
What about getting some "famous" casters behind this idea? Day9, Husky or someone like that, would be a pretty good way to spread the word further. Sorry if this has been suggested or attempted, but I didn't see any mention of this so far.
I agree completely, and we're working on securing a community caster. At the very least, if we don't get any famous casters for this first tournament, a successful event with good viewership numbers should help entice said casters in future editions of the tournament.
That being said, Pull and Senex both do a great job, regardless of how famous they are!
|
Things like this make me proud to be a part of the TL community! Hopefully I'll be able to sign up
|
This is so great. I hope this catches fire, so blizzard can do a 2gas version that works.
|
On March 27 2012 09:33 Kefir wrote:
What about getting some "famous" casters behind this idea? Day9, Husky or someone like that, would be a pretty good way to spread the word further. Sorry if this has been suggested or attempted, but I didn't see any mention of this so far.
I heard the current casters are pretty good 
As far as securing a community caster goes that's pretty much taken care of between senex and myself. We have mulled over the idea of possibly having some guest commentators though on some of the nights. Either way we promise to deliver
|
Pretty much what Pull said. If Husky, Day9 or whoever is interested in joining in the casting we'd love to have them. Everyone who's interested in that should write or tweet them and encourage them to take part. :D
|
Hey I can't seem to find 6m devolution by barrin, I see a 6m devolution by Andrew Chilson the same? Hope so that's the one I have been playing on lol
|
I believe it is blade  You can typically type 6m1hyg and search and find them. However, your best bet would be to join the "7m" channel on SC2 and ask / discuss it with the players there!
|
|
|
On March 27 2012 15:27 Barrin wrote:
I am Andrew "Barrin" Chilson.
ABC hehehehe ><
ah did not know that my bad ^_^. Just wanted to make sure I was playing on legit maps haha
|
On March 27 2012 11:05 Pull wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 09:33 Kefir wrote:
What about getting some "famous" casters behind this idea? Day9, Husky or someone like that, would be a pretty good way to spread the word further. Sorry if this has been suggested or attempted, but I didn't see any mention of this so far. I heard the current casters are pretty good As far as securing a community caster goes that's pretty much taken care of between senex and myself. We have mulled over the idea of possibly having some guest commentators though on some of the nights. Either way we promise to deliver
If you guys need someone for whatever reason on some of the nights, let me know (some IRL issue comes up or something). I've hosted a few tournaments in the past, and started doing some 6m casts recently.
|
On March 27 2012 11:05 Pull wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 09:33 Kefir wrote:
What about getting some "famous" casters behind this idea? Day9, Husky or someone like that, would be a pretty good way to spread the word further. Sorry if this has been suggested or attempted, but I didn't see any mention of this so far. I heard the current casters are pretty good As far as securing a community caster goes that's pretty much taken care of between senex and myself. We have mulled over the idea of possibly having some guest commentators though on some of the nights. Either way we promise to deliver
Haha, sorry, didn't mean to say anything bad about your casts. I really liked what I saw from you. The suggestion doesn't concern the casting itself, it's about making sure everyone knows of this. [Insert well-known caster] shouldn't necessarily cast this tournament, but at least talk about it, and perhaps start casting games of this format themselves. In addition to your casts, not instead~
Anyway, great job so far, love your effort on this ;O Keep it up!
|
On March 27 2012 05:13 Barrin wrote:I'm not really convinced you completely understand what can make "more room for strategies". Here is a large part of the story that is common to miss. Show nested quote +(except from Breadth of Gameplay in SC2) Fallacy B:"But isn't lowering the resources per base going to give players less options and thus make it less interesting?"It's important to understand that when you give one person something you're also giving it to the other person. When you give each player more resources, you are giving both of them what they need to both defend and attack. Interestingly enough, this has not proven to create back-and-forth games by itself. However, when you limit their resources, you are limiting their tools. You are forcing them to make decisions with which tools to use. This gives both players the opportunity to find which tool(s) the opponent lacks and attempt to punish it with superior use of another tool. This does not necessarily imply imbalance or coin-flipping, and Asymmetric forces are exciting. In other words, giving both players all the tools they need (more resources) is like a macho-man, arm-wrestling, head-butting match (that catalyzes the snowball effect). Limiting the tools they have (less resources) turns it into an intricate dance (in a masculine way ^^). This is not about just a few people, this is about an entire game and history RTS gaming... and the gameplay issue cuts much deeper than balance. This is the game we play, and this is about staying true to what it should have been in the first place. Balance should have been done around lower income rate (achievable in multiple ways) in the first place. Almost unanimous by recognizable people who have been around long enough to know what they're talking about. We just need to make it bigger and bigger so Blizzard gets it. While I believe 2g > 1g... 6m1hyg with 2000m/5000g is the very best we can do without touching the data editor.
i'm sorry but that's pure horseshit, if you want bw, go play bw, sc2 is the game that blizzard made and either you can enjoy playing it or you can not and stop, you want the game to be the way you want it, and that's fine, but you have no right to say this is about staying true to what it should have been in the first place. I've seen this in countless communities and it's always bullshit, on another note, roaches are stupidly overpowered in your map, I don't even have to play it to figure that to be true, just do some simple math, less gas means no sentries, no sentries mean early game zvp is completely out of whack, also stop trying to remake sc2 into bw, they havent even balanced sc2 WOL yet and now you want to completely change the way the game is played, also if you're not willing to put the time into the mod to go into the data editor, you clearly don't want it enough
|
On March 28 2012 00:00 Coramoor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 05:13 Barrin wrote:I'm not really convinced you completely understand what can make "more room for strategies". Here is a large part of the story that is common to miss. (except from Breadth of Gameplay in SC2) Fallacy B:"But isn't lowering the resources per base going to give players less options and thus make it less interesting?"It's important to understand that when you give one person something you're also giving it to the other person. When you give each player more resources, you are giving both of them what they need to both defend and attack. Interestingly enough, this has not proven to create back-and-forth games by itself. However, when you limit their resources, you are limiting their tools. You are forcing them to make decisions with which tools to use. This gives both players the opportunity to find which tool(s) the opponent lacks and attempt to punish it with superior use of another tool. This does not necessarily imply imbalance or coin-flipping, and Asymmetric forces are exciting. In other words, giving both players all the tools they need (more resources) is like a macho-man, arm-wrestling, head-butting match (that catalyzes the snowball effect). Limiting the tools they have (less resources) turns it into an intricate dance (in a masculine way ^^). This is not about just a few people, this is about an entire game and history RTS gaming... and the gameplay issue cuts much deeper than balance. This is the game we play, and this is about staying true to what it should have been in the first place. Balance should have been done around lower income rate (achievable in multiple ways) in the first place. Almost unanimous by recognizable people who have been around long enough to know what they're talking about. We just need to make it bigger and bigger so Blizzard gets it. While I believe 2g > 1g... 6m1hyg with 2000m/5000g is the very best we can do without touching the data editor. i'm sorry but that's pure horseshit, if you want bw, go play bw, sc2 is the game that blizzard made and either you can enjoy playing it or you can not and stop, you want the game to be the way you want it, and that's fine, but you have no right to say this is about staying true to what it should have been in the first place. I've seen this in countless communities and it's always bullshit, on another note, roaches are stupidly overpowered in your map, I don't even have to play it to figure that to be true, just do some simple math, less gas means no sentries, no sentries mean early game zvp is completely out of whack, also stop trying to remake sc2 into bw, they havent even balanced sc2 WOL yet and now you want to completely change the way the game is played, also if you're not willing to put the time into the mod to go into the data editor, you clearly don't want it enough
This isn't BW, this is about making SC2 more fun. If you haven't played FRBs yet, STFU and go troll elsewhere.
|
On March 28 2012 00:00 Coramoor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 05:13 Barrin wrote:I'm not really convinced you completely understand what can make "more room for strategies". Here is a large part of the story that is common to miss. (except from Breadth of Gameplay in SC2) Fallacy B:"But isn't lowering the resources per base going to give players less options and thus make it less interesting?"It's important to understand that when you give one person something you're also giving it to the other person. When you give each player more resources, you are giving both of them what they need to both defend and attack. Interestingly enough, this has not proven to create back-and-forth games by itself. However, when you limit their resources, you are limiting their tools. You are forcing them to make decisions with which tools to use. This gives both players the opportunity to find which tool(s) the opponent lacks and attempt to punish it with superior use of another tool. This does not necessarily imply imbalance or coin-flipping, and Asymmetric forces are exciting. In other words, giving both players all the tools they need (more resources) is like a macho-man, arm-wrestling, head-butting match (that catalyzes the snowball effect). Limiting the tools they have (less resources) turns it into an intricate dance (in a masculine way ^^). This is not about just a few people, this is about an entire game and history RTS gaming... and the gameplay issue cuts much deeper than balance. This is the game we play, and this is about staying true to what it should have been in the first place. Balance should have been done around lower income rate (achievable in multiple ways) in the first place. Almost unanimous by recognizable people who have been around long enough to know what they're talking about. We just need to make it bigger and bigger so Blizzard gets it. While I believe 2g > 1g... 6m1hyg with 2000m/5000g is the very best we can do without touching the data editor. i'm sorry but that's pure horseshit, if you want bw, go play bw, sc2 is the game that blizzard made and either you can enjoy playing it or you can not and stop, you want the game to be the way you want it, and that's fine, but you have no right to say this is about staying true to what it should have been in the first place. I've seen this in countless communities and it's always bullshit, on another note, roaches are stupidly overpowered in your map, I don't even have to play it to figure that to be true, just do some simple math, less gas means no sentries, no sentries mean early game zvp is completely out of whack, also stop trying to remake sc2 into bw, they havent even balanced sc2 WOL yet and now you want to completely change the way the game is played, also if you're not willing to put the time into the mod to go into the data editor, you clearly don't want it enough
There's a great post about all of this here on TL where you can feel absolutely free to discuss all of the balance issues that you feel exist and blah blah. However, we're going to keep this thread focused on the tournament Thanks man.
Here's your link...http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242
|
On March 28 2012 00:27 Pull wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 00:00 Coramoor wrote:On March 27 2012 05:13 Barrin wrote:I'm not really convinced you completely understand what can make "more room for strategies". Here is a large part of the story that is common to miss. (except from Breadth of Gameplay in SC2) Fallacy B:"But isn't lowering the resources per base going to give players less options and thus make it less interesting?"It's important to understand that when you give one person something you're also giving it to the other person. When you give each player more resources, you are giving both of them what they need to both defend and attack. Interestingly enough, this has not proven to create back-and-forth games by itself. However, when you limit their resources, you are limiting their tools. You are forcing them to make decisions with which tools to use. This gives both players the opportunity to find which tool(s) the opponent lacks and attempt to punish it with superior use of another tool. This does not necessarily imply imbalance or coin-flipping, and Asymmetric forces are exciting. In other words, giving both players all the tools they need (more resources) is like a macho-man, arm-wrestling, head-butting match (that catalyzes the snowball effect). Limiting the tools they have (less resources) turns it into an intricate dance (in a masculine way ^^). This is not about just a few people, this is about an entire game and history RTS gaming... and the gameplay issue cuts much deeper than balance. This is the game we play, and this is about staying true to what it should have been in the first place. Balance should have been done around lower income rate (achievable in multiple ways) in the first place. Almost unanimous by recognizable people who have been around long enough to know what they're talking about. We just need to make it bigger and bigger so Blizzard gets it. While I believe 2g > 1g... 6m1hyg with 2000m/5000g is the very best we can do without touching the data editor. i'm sorry but that's pure horseshit, if you want bw, go play bw, sc2 is the game that blizzard made and either you can enjoy playing it or you can not and stop, you want the game to be the way you want it, and that's fine, but you have no right to say this is about staying true to what it should have been in the first place. I've seen this in countless communities and it's always bullshit, on another note, roaches are stupidly overpowered in your map, I don't even have to play it to figure that to be true, just do some simple math, less gas means no sentries, no sentries mean early game zvp is completely out of whack, also stop trying to remake sc2 into bw, they havent even balanced sc2 WOL yet and now you want to completely change the way the game is played, also if you're not willing to put the time into the mod to go into the data editor, you clearly don't want it enough There's a great post about all of this here on TL where you can feel absolutely free to discuss all of the balance issues that you feel exist and blah blah. However, we're going to keep this thread focused on the tournament Thanks man. Here's your link...http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242
i'll gladly play the tournament if you'll have me, doesn't stop be thinking the concept in general is just bw hangover crap
On March 28 2012 00:26 -ForeverAlone- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 00:00 Coramoor wrote:On March 27 2012 05:13 Barrin wrote:I'm not really convinced you completely understand what can make "more room for strategies". Here is a large part of the story that is common to miss. (except from Breadth of Gameplay in SC2) Fallacy B:"But isn't lowering the resources per base going to give players less options and thus make it less interesting?"It's important to understand that when you give one person something you're also giving it to the other person. When you give each player more resources, you are giving both of them what they need to both defend and attack. Interestingly enough, this has not proven to create back-and-forth games by itself. However, when you limit their resources, you are limiting their tools. You are forcing them to make decisions with which tools to use. This gives both players the opportunity to find which tool(s) the opponent lacks and attempt to punish it with superior use of another tool. This does not necessarily imply imbalance or coin-flipping, and Asymmetric forces are exciting. In other words, giving both players all the tools they need (more resources) is like a macho-man, arm-wrestling, head-butting match (that catalyzes the snowball effect). Limiting the tools they have (less resources) turns it into an intricate dance (in a masculine way ^^). This is not about just a few people, this is about an entire game and history RTS gaming... and the gameplay issue cuts much deeper than balance. This is the game we play, and this is about staying true to what it should have been in the first place. Balance should have been done around lower income rate (achievable in multiple ways) in the first place. Almost unanimous by recognizable people who have been around long enough to know what they're talking about. We just need to make it bigger and bigger so Blizzard gets it. While I believe 2g > 1g... 6m1hyg with 2000m/5000g is the very best we can do without touching the data editor. i'm sorry but that's pure horseshit, if you want bw, go play bw, sc2 is the game that blizzard made and either you can enjoy playing it or you can not and stop, you want the game to be the way you want it, and that's fine, but you have no right to say this is about staying true to what it should have been in the first place. I've seen this in countless communities and it's always bullshit, on another note, roaches are stupidly overpowered in your map, I don't even have to play it to figure that to be true, just do some simple math, less gas means no sentries, no sentries mean early game zvp is completely out of whack, also stop trying to remake sc2 into bw, they havent even balanced sc2 WOL yet and now you want to completely change the way the game is played, also if you're not willing to put the time into the mod to go into the data editor, you clearly don't want it enough This isn't BW, this is about making SC2 more fun. If you haven't played FRBs yet, STFU and go troll elsewhere.
based on barrin's own quotes, this is about making sc2 more like bw, whether that's more fun is entirely up for debate or whether that would need a crapton of balancing, again entirely up for debate, but that doesn't change what he's trying to do
|
edited the double post, sorry
|
On March 28 2012 00:40 Coramoor wrote:
based on barrin's own quotes, this is about making sc2 more like bw, whether that's more fun is entirely up for debate or whether that would need a crapton of balancing, again entirely up for debate, but that doesn't change what he's trying to do
Right below the first image http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=321242 there's a warning ... read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
