| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
OmniSkeptic
Canada66 Posts
- Backdoor speed zones and/or WOPs for direct scouting. I believe Hyper actually did have a map at one point that did something like this so you could scout by sending a probe along the outside of the map through speed zones even though the main bases were islands. Theoretically you could bypass the 4 spawn issue by allowing workers to traverse super quickly to opponent's mains | ||
|
Vision_
840 Posts
My suggestion to improve repeatability of SC2 : Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg) but they only produce workers in X seconds (let s say 18 sec), bases have no spells, it only produce workers slowly. Their building time is reduced to 50 seconds (approximately), you can upgrade bases to their original in paying difference : Terran : orbital command cost now 300, forteress cost now 300/150 (build time : 45) Zerg : If queen inject, this starting base only produce two larva (and no automatic production of larva). Hatchery upgrade cost 150 minerals (it can produce queen for 150 mineral as usual), (build time : 20) Protoss : Advanced Nexus cost 200 mineral (build time : 20) With this tweak and in creating small bases with 4 minerals field (and maybe with 1500 / 900 minerals amount) i think you can improve : - Speed base developpement (original idea of 12 workers) - Avoid boring repetitive shape of three bases patterns - Vary build orders - More freedom for mapmakers - Small bases (you can even create mineral field which are nearest distance to the base by two cases instead of three, at this moment small bases are done with three minerals field instead of 4) I m sorry, i haven t time to do such mod, in the best world you have to reduce workers start at 10 and give 100 minerals instead of 50. You will also have to revert the modification of supply in bases which have been the consequence of 12 workers. Kinds regards, | ||
|
CharactR
Canada96 Posts
On January 02 2025 16:21 Vision_ wrote: Hey guys My suggestion to improve repeatability of SC2 : Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg) but they only produce workers in X seconds (let s say 18 sec), bases have no spells, it only produce workers slowly. Their building time is reduced to 50 seconds (approximately), you can upgrade bases to their original in paying difference : Terran : orbital command cost now 300, forteress cost now 300/150 (build time : 45) Zerg : If queen inject, this starting base only produce two larva (and no automatic production of larva). Hatchery upgrade cost 150 minerals (it can produce queen for 150 mineral as usual), (build time : 20) Protoss : Advanced Nexus cost 200 mineral (build time : 20) With this tweak and in creating small bases with 4 minerals field (and maybe with 1500 / 900 minerals amount) i think you can improve : - Speed base developpement (original idea of 12 workers) - Avoid boring repetitive shape of three bases patterns - Vary build orders - More freedom for mapmakers - Small bases (you can even create mineral field which are nearest distance to the base by two cases instead of three, at this moment small bases are done with three minerals field instead of 4) I m sorry, i haven t time to do such mod, in the best world you have to reduce workers start at 10 and give 100 minerals instead of 50. You will also have to revert the modification of supply in bases which have been the consequence of 12 workers. Kinds regards, Idk why you're posting this here. This is a thread about a starcraft melee map contest, not the balance of the starcraft economy. | ||
|
Vision_
840 Posts
On January 02 2025 20:39 CharactR wrote: Idk why you're posting this here. This is a thread about a starcraft melee map contest, not the balance of the starcraft economy. Balance is not concerning by my suggestion, it s a question of flexibility, improve repeatability in giving more tools to mapmakers for adjust economy speed depending on how mineral fields are setup (numbers of minerals field would be an option to mix gameplay and variety on map) Why shouldn t i post here if my intention are to suggest variations in SC2 ? I guess mapmaking become repetitive with this 20th map contest, and i have freedom to suggest in this thread something new (which can become positive if some of members have time to work on). As long as it s not a full redesign of features with a tons of values modifications i think it s not a problem if i talk of this here. I know you can answer that it would be a part of modification of the game but i m pretty worried about SC2 future so i want to post the idea if some members are interested and where there is more viewers concerning the suggestion | ||
|
Mutaller
United States1036 Posts
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote: So we are just throwing in the towel and saying "SC2's future is done, might as well throw random shit at the game now that nothing matters anymore"? 3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating. Healing shrines? We are turning defender's advantage upside down. This will be abused by terran drops, battlecruisers, and more. Imagine taking a fight in the middle of the map with a numbers advantage after outmacroing and outplaying your opponent-but oops, they get to the healing shrine and now you lose the fight and the game is over. Again, unfun and frustrating. How does ANYONE propose to balance StarCraft 2 with something like healing shrines? I've never heard an answer to this problem. It's going to make so many balance problems and abusive strategies that will potentially drive away players. And remember we get ONE balance patch a year. With healing shrines, people are going to develop overpowered, abusive strategies, and we will be stuck with it for another year. It doesn't make any sense to introduce such volatile, untested mechanics 14 years into the game's lifespan. At minimum we should give the players one extra veto. Is it ESL making these decisions? Feedback from the community about the previous map pool (with amphion, ghost river, etc all the freestyle maps) was very negative with large amounts of people quitting until the map pool was changed. It's clear people don't want more chaos, madness and freestyle maps in this game. I'm sorry if this comes across as overly negative but I care about SC2, and putting in changes like this will drive away more players than it will attract. It's simply irresponsible, and it's something absolutely nobody is asking for (aside from a handful of vocal people in the mapping community who don't even play the game). If something as absurd as healing shrines make it into this game, in combination with blizzard breaking replays and dropping tournament support, this will be the breaking point in that I'd be quitting, and I certainly won't be the only one. Just take a look at dota 2 implementing healing shrines (basically the same thing): After Dec 2016 the playerbase took a nose dive, and some years later Valve decided to remove healing shrines. I'm grateful for everything Monster and Team Liquid do, and appreciate this post. I hope they can modify some of these rules in the interest of the playerbase and game quality. Say what you will about maps being "imbalanced" for having creativity. 12 pool is an annoying strat, but some of my favorite games played have been on creative or 3p maps like Catallena, King Sejong Station, and Golden Wall. A unique map pool would bring me back from AoE2 and BW. The state of maps being clones of each other is just as concerning to me as having imbalanced maps is to you. | ||
Mizenhauer
United States1782 Posts
On January 03 2025 07:43 Mutaller wrote: Say what you will about maps being "imbalanced" for having creativity. 12 pool is an annoying strat, but some of my favorite games played have been on creative or 3p maps like Catallena, King Sejong Station, and Golden Wall. A unique map pool would bring me back from AoE2 and BW. The state of maps being clones of each other is just as concerning to me as having imbalanced maps is to you. Yeah, Catellena, the map with asymmetrical creep spread so spawning in certain bases is automatically better than spawning in the other spots (refer to Rogue vs soO at Blizzcon 2017). | ||
|
CharactR
Canada96 Posts
On January 02 2025 23:49 Vision_ wrote: Balance is not concerning by my suggestion, it s a question of flexibility, improve repeatability in giving more tools to mapmakers for adjust economy speed depending on how mineral fields are setup (numbers of minerals field would be an option to mix gameplay and variety on map) Why shouldn t i post here if my intention are to suggest variations in SC2 ? I guess mapmaking become repetitive with this 20th map contest, and i have freedom to suggest in this thread something new (which can become positive if some of members have time to work on). As long as it s not a full redesign of features with a tons of values modifications i think it s not a problem if i talk of this here. I know you can answer that it would be a part of modification of the game but i m pretty worried about SC2 future so i want to post the idea if some members are interested and where there is more viewers concerning the suggestion "Balance is not concerning by my suggestion,... Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg)" Whether you want to admit it or not that changes that balance of the economy You can't mod the game in your submissions... and even if you could blizzard would not put a map that changes the balance of the economy on ladder unless they entirely just made a new update that revamped the economy for every map. if i submitted a map like this it'd be insta dq'd. so no, it's not the place for it. if you read the part of the post that says "No custom data which modifies units. Maps must meet Melee mode requirements: Triggers can't be edited, and Data needs to comply with Melee, legibility and QA requirements." you would know that. | ||
|
sidasf
62 Posts
On January 01 2025 09:42 OmniSkeptic wrote: Could you try not shitposting just for one time, that would be great 3+ Starting Positions have been in the rules as viable submissions for years already. Notice they haven't been picked like ever If the last map pool didn't cause you to quit, healing shrines won't either given healing shrines are not nearly as ubiquitous as the design flaws in that one. We'd be lucky to get a single map with a shrine on it, which even means it's perfectly veto-able. I am not shitposting and I don't appreciate you accusing me of doing so. In fact I think your insulting use of the term only weakens your argument. Which, really, it seems you don't have any kind of argument or rebuttal to my points at all, in this case it's you who is shitposting. On January 01 2025 16:36 KillerSmile wrote: I'm personally not a big fan of healing shrines either, but you vasty overstate their impact. Last TLMC we've had plenty of maps with healing shrines on them, they didn't get used on purpose a single time even tho to the end of the tournament Wardi set out a bounty to whoever uses one. They are usually out on the map away from other strategically important areas. People tend to not conserve units at low HP to bring them back to base with the exception of maybe Battlecruisers and other harassing flying units to repair them at home. If you do that they can immediately serve to defend a counter attack. If you use a healing shrine instead, your unit might be full HP again, but it's out in the middle of nowhere. I appreciate your post. The fact is that healing shrines are just a very, very powerful game mechanic-much more meaningful than increasing disruptor aoe removing queen transfuse off creep. It's a very big change that changes defenders advantage (since you now get a huge artifical advantage by attacking and being out in the map). It will be problematic to the point where maps with healing shrines will have OP/abusive strats, but we can't nerf those lest they become useless on non shrine maps. If you use a healing shrine instead, your unit might be full HP again, but it's out in the middle of nowhere. Just look at ghost river, where the healing shrine spot was about a ten second walk to the enemy base. That map would have been horrifying with healing shrines. Just 2 base all in w/ terran or roaches, retreat, heal, attack again=game over. The scenario you describe where you were otherwise outplaying somebody and then lose because the opponent was smart enough to get into a position where they get healed and you don't means you are the one that is being outplayed. You deserve to lose. That would actually be an intended and desired outcome for healing shrines, problem is we've never seen it. Technically, yes. In the same way that in Smash Bros Brawl, if you dash to try to take control but end up tripping, you were outplayed and lost. Point being, it's an awful mechanic. We've had 14 years of SC2 where if you outmacro the opponent, but also outmicro them, don't fall victim to multiprong/harass/unit switch, you will win. Now all of a sudden there might be an artifical objective in the middle of the map that turns everything we know from winning into losing. Ultimately every mapmaker, judge, pro player, and map picker must ask themselves this, lest harm the SC2 game and community: If this new mechanic creates an abusive/unfun/broken strategy that hurts ladder or competitive play, what is the solution to fixing it when blizzard says 'you don't get to patch the game for another 12 months'? Is it worth the risk introducing shrines? I do not see why is it even necessary or beneficial to put this game mechanic in 14 years into the game's life span. | ||
|
Vision_
840 Posts
On January 03 2025 10:23 CharactR wrote: "Balance is not concerning by my suggestion,... Bases now cost 200,200,150 (terran,protoss,zerg)" Whether you want to admit it or not that changes that balance of the economy Ideally if you are playing a race it s because you think the race is competitive and efficient. In term of balance it means that if the game works out so every unit is worth it, and if every unit is worth it so the mining rate doesn t matter. I wonder what you are going to argue now.. (then as all bases are affected, there is no effect on balance ) As you said there s data modification and so there s no place for this kind of map but if i m talking of this here it s only because i can ask to community to think about this idea. I agree on the fact data modification could prevent the map of being part of the contest, i m sorry if people haven t understand the goal of my post. | ||
|
CharactR
Canada96 Posts
On January 03 2025 18:06 Vision_ wrote: Ideally if you are playing a race it s because you think the race is competitive and efficient. In term of balance it means that if the game works out so every unit is worth it, and if every unit is worth it so the mining rate doesn t matter. I wonder what you are going to argue now.. (then as all bases are affected, there is no effect on balance ) As you said there s data modification and so there s no place for this kind of map but if i m talking of this here it s only because i can ask to community to think about this idea. I agree on the fact data modification could prevent the map of being part of the contest, i m sorry if people haven t understand the goal of my post. At best I honestly think this just isn't the thread for the people you want to see it to see it, and at worst it's just offtopic for the thread. "I wonder what you are going to argue now.. (then as all bases are affected, there is no effect on balance )" That is a dumb as hell argument, if every unit cost 1 mineral it would affect balance, doesn't matter if it's a building or an army unit. Sure it's an extreme example, but I hope you see the point. I'm not going to engage this further. | ||
|
Mutaller
United States1036 Posts
On January 03 2025 08:45 Mizenhauer wrote: Yeah, Catellena, the map with asymmetrical creep spread so spawning in certain bases is automatically better than spawning in the other spots (refer to Rogue vs soO at Blizzcon 2017). Fair enough issues like that should be addressed. 3p maps certainly have their issues, I do believe SC2 sadly got balanced to 2p maps starting with Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom. This is when 4 player maps started to become issues, while before they were commonplace. If we want creativity in maps maybe then as I listed above King Sejong Station and Golden Wall are the way. Experiment with natural locations, and backdoor entrances. Instead of additional spawns | ||
|
Vision_
840 Posts
On January 03 2025 22:59 CharactR wrote: At best I honestly think this just isn't the thread for the people you want to see it to see it, and at worst it's just offtopic for the thread. "I wonder what you are going to argue now.. (then as all bases are affected, there is no effect on balance )" That is a dumb as hell argument, if every unit cost 1 mineral it would affect balance, doesn't matter if it's a building or an army unit. Sure it's an extreme example, but I hope you see the point. I'm not going to engage this further. The cost tweak of base could be reduced to 1 mineral also, as long as there s some balance on other units. For my defence, i balance the cost in increasing the cost of the upgrade which will improve the "small harvesting base" to the original base,Too bad you don't want to admit that you are falling into false reasoning If you have friends, you can ask them what they think about this question, as long as you don't ask the question in a biased way they will answer you the same thing as me | ||
|
OmniSkeptic
Canada66 Posts
On January 03 2025 11:04 sidasf wrote: Just look at ghost river, where the healing shrine spot was about a ten second walk to the enemy base. That map would have been horrifying with healing shrines. Just 2 base all in w/ terran or roaches, retreat, heal, attack again=game over. ?????????? This is an example of a shrine that would've had little to no impact on the early or midgame given the reflection symmetry layout and small rush distance. | ||
|
Avexyli
United States689 Posts
On January 01 2025 04:45 sidasf wrote: 3+ Starting positions? Really? We've already done this in SC2's history and it was proven to be unbalanced and unfun. Losing to a 12 pool or a proxy because you scouted the wrong corner is not fun, it's frustrating. We have found a way to remove the RNG scouting issue, but we need community support to get Blizzard to implement it. | ||
|
Cygnus
United States840 Posts
On January 05 2025 10:40 Avexyli wrote: We have found a way to remove the RNG scouting issue, but we need community support to get Blizzard to implement it. Saw the "quick ping" demo, simple and straightforward. Funnily enough in my prior post attempting to "lead the charge" on ideas for maps with more than 2 players I had the disclaimer of this concept being the "easy way out", maybe this is just Occam's Razor in action. I support this https://x.com/avex_designs/status/1875728190884434401 | ||
|
Vision_
840 Posts
While the idea to speed the base developpement is good, the idea of changing the speed of the economy initially was not appreciated by the majority of players. Just want to note it again. | ||
|
NinjaDuckBob
175 Posts
Does anyone know if there is a (legal) way to lock spawn positions to a particular race? I think that could open up some variety for map styles, where a certain layout for a main and natural would be fine for Zerg but not fine for Terran or Protoss, so two spawn positions on the map could be Zerg-specific and the others could be specific to Protoss and Terran. Or, a 3-spawn map with each spawn being specific to a certain race would be an option (would need to solve for mirrors). | ||
|
OmniSkeptic
Canada66 Posts
On January 09 2025 11:43 NinjaDuckBob wrote: Does anyone know if there is a (legal) way to lock spawn positions to a particular race? Unfortunately there is not. This would also break mirror matchups for the first time even if we did find a way, which is a bit suspect. | ||
|
youngbit
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
NinjaDuckBob
175 Posts
On January 11 2025 06:35 OmniSkeptic wrote: Unfortunately there is not. This would also break mirror matchups for the first time even if we did find a way, which is a bit suspect. So I've been thinking about this, and I think the way to do this would be to have objects/units for blocking/creating paths that have a behavior/effect that scans for the nearest town hall building, and based on that it becomes invulnerable or self-destructs. For example, if you wanted a ramp for a main that works for Zerg but not for Protoss/Terran, you would have rocks on that ramp that scan for the town hall unit, and if it's a Hatchery then the behavior/effect causes the HP of those rocks to fall to 0. If it's a Command Center or Nexus, either they stay as destructable rocks or have a behavior/effect that makes them untargetable/immune to damage. Basically, if you can't change the area the spawn point is in, then change the area around the spawn point. It's less flexible than race-locked starting points, but it also solves for mirrors. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War BeSt Stormgate 646actioN  285firebathero  138Sexy 48Dewaltoss 47Shinee 42Rock 25Beast 17ajuk12(nOOB) 14Backho 10[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games ScreaM2328 hiko1194 Beastyqt774 FrodaN693 ceh9465 Lowko233 Liquid`VortiX169 ArmadaUGS157 Fuzer  141Trikslyr109 QueenE105 KnowMe100 Mew2King72 amsayoshi49 HTOMario2 |
|
PiGosaur Monday
OlimoLeague
LiuLi Cup
SKillous vs Solar
MaxPax vs SHIN
OSC
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Clem vs Krystianer
Dark vs Jieshi
OSC
OSC
The PondCast
Master's Coliseum
herO vs Reynor
MaxPax vs Serral
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
