I miss 2v2v2v2 BGH. - Page 5
Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
Reptilia
Chile913 Posts
| ||
Terr
237 Posts
| ||
TexSC
United States195 Posts
Just came across this and it reminded me of what you are doing | ||
tsuxiit
1305 Posts
With that said, I think we should compile a list of the dinky imbalances that existed in BGH. Like the cliff in the top left should be able to fit only exactly one siege tank and nothing else on it. I'll try to think of the other ones but I mainly wanted to put in my 2 cents about those geysers. edit: along with being able to cannon behind the mineral line at the 7 o'clock position: | ||
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
tnkted
United States1359 Posts
I'd be down to maptest if you need people! This looks super fun! | ||
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
Kyhol
Canada2574 Posts
RACE WARSSSS RACEEEE WARRRRSSS! I can see the nukes now. | ||
WinterNightz
United States111 Posts
Yes, in BW, gas was much more valuable, but that really just results in a new level of strategy, thinking, "when and where do I get my next gas?". In SC2, now we have every ladder map has expansions each with the same amount of mineral patches and the same amount of geysers (not counting gold). I guess it just feels like having 2 high-yield geysers and leaving the minerals the same will skew the mineral:gas ratio waaaaaay too hard. Having normal-yield minerals and normal-yield geysers just like they were in the original BGH just feels more traditional and safe. Just my opinion, though. Either way, keep up the good work! I'm looking forward to it. | ||
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On December 14 2010 09:37 Duskbane wrote: Wait, what? Patches shouldn't run out in BGH In 2v2v2v2s, they certainly did. The expos will run dry fairly regularly and the mains will start to have dry patches in really long games. At least when I played 2v2v2v2 BGH that happened. EDIT: Also, why not use this as an opportunity to fix the horrible imbalances on BGH that were even worse for 2v2v2v2? If your team spawns 12 and 6 (or 11 and 6, 11 and 7, 12 and 7), you have very little chance of winning. If you spawn 6 and 7, you have like an 80% chance of winning. There are teams that just leave if they spawn in separate shared path mains. Obviously some imbalances are what made BGH what it was, but the shared path bases were pretty game breaking. | ||
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
WinterNightz
United States111 Posts
What I mean is that with old 8 minerals per trip and 8 gas per trip, a saturated base with n mineral patches and m geysers will give an income of n*8 minerals and m*8 gas. Meaning pushing gas to 8 per trip but leaving minerals at 5 per trip will skew too far towards a glut of gas. (in my opinion) When I said Having normal-yield minerals and normal-yield geysers just like they were in the original BGH just feels more traditional and safe. I was actually referring to normal in the SC2 sense. 5 per trip and 4 per trip. Yes, they're both slower than the 8 per trip in BW (both were 8 in BW, right? it's been a while. I could be completely off base), but the relative income is closer to what everyone is used to.What I would prefer would be having the same number of patches and geysers, and just leaving their behavior the same as ladder games. But that's just me. edit: yeah, 15 patches to 2 gas is super mineral heavy. but I'm just thinking about the ratio. 7.5 mineral patches per "normal" geyser sounds a lot less crazy to me than 3.75 mineral patches per "normal" geyser. Normal being the 4-gas per trip. EDIT AGAIN: Really, I think it's just because I play protoss. And I don't like the feeling that having lots of gas gives, where Protoss use less zealots and Zerg use more mutalisks. But that's just a personal frustration with ladder. XD | ||
tsuxiit
1305 Posts
edit: Is there a built-in functionality for high-yield geysers? i.e. to play with these 8-returning geysers you wouldn't need to play on Use Map Settings necessarily? | ||
WniO
United States2706 Posts
This is the one you have currently. This is in broodwar and this is what i did in the sc2 editor in like 2 minutes. /// From the overview your version looks simply incredible, but its just a little too big. | ||
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
On December 18 2010 10:12 WniO wrote: From the overview your version looks simply incredible, but its just a little too big. thats the point. | ||
tsuxiit
1305 Posts
| ||
WniO
United States2706 Posts
whats the point? | ||
| ||