|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On March 19 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 05:11 purakushi wrote:On March 19 2013 05:07 Targe wrote:On March 19 2013 04:53 ch33psh33p wrote:
People REALLY need to read Barin's analysis on base resource management in map making before saying anything about this FS. Kespa's analysis seems extremely off, as any kind of testing has shown that this is not the way to go about making more BW-esque dynamic maps. Didn't he come to the conclusion that 6 mineral fields didn't work out as well as he expected? If the map doesn't work out I'm sure kespa will drop the idea, but hey, it will lead to some weird games for now ^^ Yes he did. He updated it to 8 minerals, 4 per trip, 1 hyg, 6 per trip. That is very close to BW. However, Barrin also denounced the newer FRB, stating it was not what he had in mind. Economy wise it was fine, but he wants more (high ground advantage, etc) to SC2. Just thinking economy alone, KESPA should use FRB, imo. While it could be better, FRB is quite easy to implement, so it would be a good approach. (I feel like I have repeated this so many times in this thread, but no one reads and are just saying the same things lol oh well) isnt FRB a mod?
I think it only involved map making changes however feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
|
Kespa maps are always the best
|
these maps are so different from most of the other maps we got (if not all), so im looking forward to R4 with these maps, or at least some of them. Which maps will they be dropping, the GSL-maps and arkanoid?
|
On March 19 2013 05:17 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 19 2013 05:11 purakushi wrote:On March 19 2013 05:07 Targe wrote:On March 19 2013 04:53 ch33psh33p wrote:
People REALLY need to read Barin's analysis on base resource management in map making before saying anything about this FS. Kespa's analysis seems extremely off, as any kind of testing has shown that this is not the way to go about making more BW-esque dynamic maps. Didn't he come to the conclusion that 6 mineral fields didn't work out as well as he expected? If the map doesn't work out I'm sure kespa will drop the idea, but hey, it will lead to some weird games for now ^^ Yes he did. He updated it to 8 minerals, 4 per trip, 1 hyg, 6 per trip. That is very close to BW. However, Barrin also denounced the newer FRB, stating it was not what he had in mind. Economy wise it was fine, but he wants more (high ground advantage, etc) to SC2. Just thinking economy alone, KESPA should use FRB, imo. While it could be better, FRB is quite easy to implement, so it would be a good approach. (I feel like I have repeated this so many times in this thread, but no one reads and are just saying the same things lol oh well) isnt FRB a mod? I think it only involved map making changes however feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
i am not that familiar with it, but i recall that it made a bunch of changes to gameplay and resource gathering in addition to just limiting the number of mineral patches/geysers.
Gameplay Modifications:
Mineral: 4 minerals per trip (from 5), new graphic
Rich Mineral: 6 minerals per trip (from 7)
Gas: 5000 gas per geyser (from 2500)
Gas: 4 per trip gas geysers gone (basically), you can only use 6 per trip geysers, sorry.
MULE: 24 minerals per trip (from 30)
Inject Larva: 3 larva per cast (from 4)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=335302
|
On March 19 2013 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 05:17 Targe wrote:On March 19 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 19 2013 05:11 purakushi wrote:On March 19 2013 05:07 Targe wrote:On March 19 2013 04:53 ch33psh33p wrote:
People REALLY need to read Barin's analysis on base resource management in map making before saying anything about this FS. Kespa's analysis seems extremely off, as any kind of testing has shown that this is not the way to go about making more BW-esque dynamic maps. Didn't he come to the conclusion that 6 mineral fields didn't work out as well as he expected? If the map doesn't work out I'm sure kespa will drop the idea, but hey, it will lead to some weird games for now ^^ Yes he did. He updated it to 8 minerals, 4 per trip, 1 hyg, 6 per trip. That is very close to BW. However, Barrin also denounced the newer FRB, stating it was not what he had in mind. Economy wise it was fine, but he wants more (high ground advantage, etc) to SC2. Just thinking economy alone, KESPA should use FRB, imo. While it could be better, FRB is quite easy to implement, so it would be a good approach. (I feel like I have repeated this so many times in this thread, but no one reads and are just saying the same things lol oh well) isnt FRB a mod? I think it only involved map making changes however feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. i am not that familiar with it, but i recall that it made a bunch of changes to gameplay and resource gathering in addition to just limiting the number of mineral patches/geysers. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=335302
I would not call it a bunch. It is summarized here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17788834
These changes are quite easy to make and implement.
Please note, what KESPA Fighting Spirit has is far from the effects of FRB.
|
On March 19 2013 04:49 LighT. wrote:
I feel what's lacking in SC2 is battling for expos..the more I think about all the maps...
In SC:BW, after the mid games, what players were fighting for was position + mining bases, constantly taking each other expansions and trying to mine teh hell out of it.
In SC2: WoL/HoTS, what players are fighting for is position + eliminating mining bases, rather than recapturing them since the maps are designed in a way that an expansion always favors one person over the other from a defensive standpoint
I was thinking about seeing players take over one of the other starting positions in 4-player maps. We saw this very often in BW and not that often in SC2.
But you're right, fighting over expansions is even rarer. I don't recall players destroying expansions and putting their own expansion right on top of it in SC2. This was a very normal occurrence in BW. It's something mapmakers should encourage far more in the future.
|
On March 19 2013 05:33 purakushi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 19 2013 05:17 Targe wrote:On March 19 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 19 2013 05:11 purakushi wrote:On March 19 2013 05:07 Targe wrote:On March 19 2013 04:53 ch33psh33p wrote:
People REALLY need to read Barin's analysis on base resource management in map making before saying anything about this FS. Kespa's analysis seems extremely off, as any kind of testing has shown that this is not the way to go about making more BW-esque dynamic maps. Didn't he come to the conclusion that 6 mineral fields didn't work out as well as he expected? If the map doesn't work out I'm sure kespa will drop the idea, but hey, it will lead to some weird games for now ^^ Yes he did. He updated it to 8 minerals, 4 per trip, 1 hyg, 6 per trip. That is very close to BW. However, Barrin also denounced the newer FRB, stating it was not what he had in mind. Economy wise it was fine, but he wants more (high ground advantage, etc) to SC2. Just thinking economy alone, KESPA should use FRB, imo. While it could be better, FRB is quite easy to implement, so it would be a good approach. (I feel like I have repeated this so many times in this thread, but no one reads and are just saying the same things lol oh well) isnt FRB a mod? I think it only involved map making changes however feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. i am not that familiar with it, but i recall that it made a bunch of changes to gameplay and resource gathering in addition to just limiting the number of mineral patches/geysers. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=335302 I would not call it a bunch. It is summarized here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17788834These changes are quite easy to make and implement.
maybe for blizzard, but any modification to the game play has to be implemented globally not on a tournament by tournament basis. it causes a bunch of practical issues.
|
On March 19 2013 05:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 05:33 purakushi wrote:On March 19 2013 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 19 2013 05:17 Targe wrote:On March 19 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 19 2013 05:11 purakushi wrote:On March 19 2013 05:07 Targe wrote:On March 19 2013 04:53 ch33psh33p wrote:
People REALLY need to read Barin's analysis on base resource management in map making before saying anything about this FS. Kespa's analysis seems extremely off, as any kind of testing has shown that this is not the way to go about making more BW-esque dynamic maps. Didn't he come to the conclusion that 6 mineral fields didn't work out as well as he expected? If the map doesn't work out I'm sure kespa will drop the idea, but hey, it will lead to some weird games for now ^^ Yes he did. He updated it to 8 minerals, 4 per trip, 1 hyg, 6 per trip. That is very close to BW. However, Barrin also denounced the newer FRB, stating it was not what he had in mind. Economy wise it was fine, but he wants more (high ground advantage, etc) to SC2. Just thinking economy alone, KESPA should use FRB, imo. While it could be better, FRB is quite easy to implement, so it would be a good approach. (I feel like I have repeated this so many times in this thread, but no one reads and are just saying the same things lol oh well) isnt FRB a mod? I think it only involved map making changes however feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. i am not that familiar with it, but i recall that it made a bunch of changes to gameplay and resource gathering in addition to just limiting the number of mineral patches/geysers. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=335302 I would not call it a bunch. It is summarized here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17788834These changes are quite easy to make and implement. maybe for blizzard, but any modification to the game play has to be implemented globally not on a tournament by tournament basis. it causes a bunch of practical issues.
If anyone can, it would be KESPA that basically forces Blizzard to change something. 
or at least consider it much more than when the community has brought it up time and time again
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On March 19 2013 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2013 05:17 Targe wrote:On March 19 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 19 2013 05:11 purakushi wrote:On March 19 2013 05:07 Targe wrote:On March 19 2013 04:53 ch33psh33p wrote:
People REALLY need to read Barin's analysis on base resource management in map making before saying anything about this FS. Kespa's analysis seems extremely off, as any kind of testing has shown that this is not the way to go about making more BW-esque dynamic maps. Didn't he come to the conclusion that 6 mineral fields didn't work out as well as he expected? If the map doesn't work out I'm sure kespa will drop the idea, but hey, it will lead to some weird games for now ^^ Yes he did. He updated it to 8 minerals, 4 per trip, 1 hyg, 6 per trip. That is very close to BW. However, Barrin also denounced the newer FRB, stating it was not what he had in mind. Economy wise it was fine, but he wants more (high ground advantage, etc) to SC2. Just thinking economy alone, KESPA should use FRB, imo. While it could be better, FRB is quite easy to implement, so it would be a good approach. (I feel like I have repeated this so many times in this thread, but no one reads and are just saying the same things lol oh well) isnt FRB a mod? I think it only involved map making changes however feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. i am not that familiar with it, but i recall that it made a bunch of changes to gameplay and resource gathering in addition to just limiting the number of mineral patches/geysers. Gameplay Modifications: Mineral: 4 minerals per trip (from 5), new graphic Rich Mineral: 6 minerals per trip (from 7) Gas: 5000 gas per geyser (from 2500) Gas: 4 per trip gas geysers gone (basically), you can only use 6 per trip geysers, sorry. MULE: 24 minerals per trip (from 30) Inject Larva: 3 larva per cast (from 4) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=335302
Nvm me then. My bad.
|
The main issue that I have with Barrin's second FRB mod (8min/4pertrip) is that while it reduces income to be similar to BW's, it does NOT reduce the AMOUNT of workers per base to be similar to BW's. I've always said that workers take up way too much supply in SCII...Biggest change being two gas instead of one.
This gold mineral change, while not optimum, at least allows for less workers overall meaning more army supply. I think in that regard it's a much better change.
|
I'm curious to see it in action, in spite of doubters. Barrin also said a year ago that he figured mapmakers were running out of creative options to make maps, but when I look at this pool of maps, I wonder.
|
On March 19 2013 05:52 Qwyn wrote:
The main issue that I have with Barrin's second FRB mod (8min/4pertrip) is that while it reduces income to be similar to BW's, it does NOT reduce the AMOUNT of workers per base to be similar to BW's. I've always said that workers take up way too much supply in SCII...Biggest change being two gas instead of one.
This gold mineral change, while not optimum, at least allows for less workers overall meaning more army supply. I think in that regard it's a much better change.
Yeah, there are other ways of doing what you mention. The main thing about Barrin's FRB is that it is straightforward.
Increasing the mining time solves the issue you mention (I had the actual numbers to get a BW economy somewhere, but it is something along the lines of ~5 seconds with 6 per trip; by default it is ~2.7 with 5 per trip), but then you get into the area of how quickly someone saturates a base and whatnot, which is especially important to the player with fewer bases.
SC2BW's implementation fixes all of these issues pretty well, but it requires triggers and messing with worker mining AI. I do not think Blizzard would like that, even though I highly prefer SC2BW's approach.
Really, though, you also have to consider that SC2 units cost more supply than BW units. Combined with macro booster mechanics, that is a huge reason why maxing is so easy.
|
These maps are sick. Definitely tuning in. I'm sick of seeing the same maps being played over and over, furthermore I generally don't enjoy the maps that blizzard makes.
|
I got to say with the insane performance by the kespa players at MLG, HOTS, and this hilariously awesome and interesting map pool I am super pumped for the next round on SPL.
|
I can't see how face off would possibly be balanced unless it becomes cross spawns only, but other than that the maps look like they'd be really good for the game, especially fighting spirit! However, I would like the first two to have some work done on the aesthetics, possibly including a reskin.
|
It is forced cross spawns.
|
If that is supposed to look like the original colosseum map... they've raped it, raped it hard. :'(
EDIT : it just doesnt look like the same map anymore, I wonder why they even bothered giving it the same name
Some of the maps could use some more aesthetic smuck aswell to be honest. Some of those maps look really dull, and that is not saying anything about the layout. The maps here on TL generally just look so much prettier. Gameplay wise it might still turn out to be pretty interesting tho.
|
On March 19 2013 06:51 Maghetti wrote:
It is forced cross spawns.
uuh... what's the point of having those other (crazy) spawn positions then?
|
On March 19 2013 07:01 Schelim wrote:uuh... what's the point of having those other (crazy) spawn positions then?
It is forced one way or the other 1/7 or 5/11.
■ Face Off v0.1 (페이스 오프)
▶ # of players : 4 (1, 5, 7, 11 o'clock) ▶ Size : 136 × 136
▶ Rush distance : 1~7 35 secs / 5~11 42 secs ▶ Mapmaker : Lunatic Sounds (주종현)
▶ Concept
The map creates different battle situations and map characteristics with two unique spawning position pairs within one map,
▶ Characteristics
① Only spawns diagonally - either 1/7 or 5/11 positions.
② 1~7 position calls for standard play, taking natural, then 3rd on the nearby hill then expanding counter-clockwise.
③ With 5~11 positions, air distance is short while the ground distance is much longer. Players can take either bases after their natural, and they will fight with high-tier units since they can secure four bases relatively easily. <-from one page back
|
aah, thanks. that makes sense. should be a really interesting - albeit crazy - map imo
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
