+- +-

+-Recent Topics

[News] End of season tournament by Ridd1cK[DFWM] November 19, 2024, 07:14:39 pm
[Support Center] remove game by ClanAlp November 14, 2024, 02:52:40 pm
[Support Center] add game by LivE.SworD November 10, 2024, 02:56:32 pm
[Support Center] Season end issue fixed by Vulture November 10, 2024, 02:48:29 pm
[Support Center] add game by LivE.SworD November 10, 2024, 02:47:29 pm

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats

Members
Total Members: 3642
Latest: Maroldeinifs
New This Month: 73
New This Week: 11
New Today: 2
Stats
Total Posts: 27132
Total Topics: 2480
Most Online Today: 685
Most Online Ever: 3142
(January 23, 2020, 05:58:40 am)
Users Online
Members: 6
Guests: 569
Total: 575

Author Topic: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps  (Read 26373 times)

DonFreecss

  • Broodling
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« on: December 29, 2020, 03:33:08 pm »
What, when, where, why, and how?

What? FPM Space & subsequently the SCW iterations have remained the same for 2 decades--we need some type of change

Why? The meta has stagnated, the corner bases are far superior than 12, 3, 6, & 9, our RvR rule-set works more effectively with a 4-spawn map (due to scouting 3 locations rather than 7), there's too much emphasis on either turtling at your choke or containing someone at their choke--freedom of expression and build orders are replaced by multiple CC/Nexus builds into 50 gateways/factories.

Where? The SCW community & the Fastest community as a whole--a 4-player map adds more strategy in 1v1s and 2v2s and a success--in regard to community feedback--could possibly rejuvenate the scene (through both new player's curiosity and old player's interest and pride in maintaining their high rank despite the changes).

When? As soon as possible. If there's a shared interest in a new map which actually utilizes high/low terrain, has a wider choke which can't be reached easily with siege tanks on either side, and has destructible doodads which both lead to new areas and the opponents side-entrance, then comment below.

How? I've already nearly finished the 4-player map with SCMDraft2 and just need play-testers (they'll simply feel it out and judge it based on aesthetics, effectiveness, whether it's enjoyable, does it work in combating the problems I set out to solve and does it introduce any newer ones).

Extra Idea/Additional Comments: This would be an entirely separate map and needs a pitch of its own, but does the idea of 20-40 stacked minerals, rather than 50, sound appealing? This would mean we'd achieve maximum worker saturation by mid-game and would place emphasis on build orders, counters, and micromanagement rather than slewing out a fuck ton of any unit you happen to choose at the time. The income would still be ridiculously vast [25W*8*3.36] = 672 minerals per second and [21.6*5W] = 108 gas per second (assuming 25 workers on minerals and 15 workers on 5 separate gas geysers).

If you're bilingual and would be so kind as to inform the Peruvian community (which, holy shit, there's a bunch of them) of the contents of this post, I'd be grateful. Feel free to leave suggestions of your own or simply tell me how stupid and bad I am.

Sincerely,
D3inleague // Sherou // DonFreecss // NauTii-Link

Au`

  • Broodling
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2020, 04:17:33 pm »
agreed.

the current map is largely unchanged since i played as a 13 yr old in 2003..

its not a bad map, but compared to other fastest choices its quite unbalanced..

seem's like a no-brainer, objectively.. but I know some folks don't appreciate change lol so good luck!!

#ChangeTHEmap


FaINeR

  • Season Winner
  • Reaver
  • *
  • Posts: 371
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2020, 04:27:06 pm »
You can play with any map of this link for scw 22  and space 4.0 is a map only corners  4 spots-

https://www.starcraftworld.net/index.php?action=league&mode=joinleague

Au`

  • Broodling
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2020, 04:44:26 pm »
Very nice, thanks FaINeR. Good to know!

214

  • Broodling
  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2020, 06:51:24 pm »
You can play with any map of this link for scw 22  and space 4.0 is a map only corners  4 spots-

https://www.starcraftworld.net/index.php?action=league&mode=joinleague

you made ugly choke for corners on 4.0

FaINeR

  • Season Winner
  • Reaver
  • *
  • Posts: 371
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2020, 07:41:57 pm »
it is wider to avoid turttle games  is perfect for a map 4 corners

DonFreecss

  • Broodling
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2020, 04:52:39 am »
The mineral patches being at the bottom actually help in the beginning due to not having to walk all the way up to their patch (and also, workers usually prefer to return minerals/gas to the center-bottom part of their main building, further accelerating their income).

Despite this, I was still able to easily snipe most buildings with tanks and two nukes were able to one shot the nexus from the safety of their base. Assuming my map doesn't get approved (was never expecting it to), perhaps we can simply stretch the middle bases downward or the top left/right bases upward--or, if we compromise each base, they'd each only have to lose 1/2 - 3/4s of a supply depot in vertical units.

A more realistic and applicable suggestion I have would be splitting the 50 stacked minerals into 25 stacks (one stack near the top and the other near the bottom). This would make those game-ending scarabs or tank drops a bit less frustrating. I'm also under the impression that workers split into 25 stacks versus 50 would actually result in a higher income--if dispersed properly--due to the wandering worker glitch (only applicable prior to workers finding their designated patch I believe). This isn't at all play-tested but I'd happily run 10 simulations with each race to determine it's validity.

And lastly, I'd personally enjoy seeing the middle terrain become a bit nerfed, at least around the outside of chokes. Low money maps are constantly tinkering with terrain that's build-able on and terrain that isn't and it makes for exciting shifts in meta. Perhaps just enough terrain to fit a few missile turrets or a proxy robo, so aggression isn't deterred, but 16 gates in the center rallying into your base is sometimes a bit overwhelming. Bear in mind I'm a map maker and watch every KSL/ASL but I'm still far from a player who would be considered good.

(P.S. my files were too large to attach, but it's easy to glance at the distance and see it's a siege tank's wet dream)

QcCOrado

  • Broodling
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2020, 12:18:29 pm »
ive been working on some projects too for Fastest map.
I mean, it is not the same game as SC : Broodwar Low money.
It is not the same game, i repeat.

So why do we have still same prices on everthing? it is acutally imbalancing the hole thing because races are not suppose to have that kind of riddim.

I Agree for the 4 corners, its just pure logic.
I dont angry high/low terrain tho, because it is not same type of maps.

And i suggest we rework the price of upgrades and also permit more then just 3 ups.
I have a setted up map right now wich as 5 levels of upgrades, theyre double the price of the standart.

So, both players at level 5 will fight equaly, but the 5th level just kills building way faster, arent we playing fastest map ever ? yea, we are, but we been sleeping on upgrading this map for decades.

QcCOrado

  • Broodling
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2020, 12:22:57 pm »
The mineral patches being at the bottom actually help in the beginning due to not having to walk all the way up to their patch (and also, workers usually prefer to return minerals/gas to the center-bottom part of their main building, further accelerating their income).

Despite this, I was still able to easily snipe most buildings with tanks and two nukes were able to one shot the nexus from the safety of their base. Assuming my map doesn't get approved (was never expecting it to), perhaps we can simply stretch the middle bases downward or the top left/right bases upward--or, if we compromise each base, they'd each only have to lose 1/2 - 3/4s of a supply depot in vertical units.

A more realistic and applicable suggestion I have would be splitting the 50 stacked minerals into 25 stacks (one stack near the top and the other near the bottom). This would make those game-ending scarabs or tank drops a bit less frustrating. I'm also under the impression that workers split into 25 stacks versus 50 would actually result in a higher income--if dispersed properly--due to the wandering worker glitch (only applicable prior to workers finding their designated patch I believe). This isn't at all play-tested but I'd happily run 10 simulations with each race to determine it's validity.

And lastly, I'd personally enjoy seeing the middle terrain become a bit nerfed, at least around the outside of chokes. Low money maps are constantly tinkering with terrain that's build-able on and terrain that isn't and it makes for exciting shifts in meta. Perhaps just enough terrain to fit a few missile turrets or a proxy robo, so aggression isn't deterred, but 16 gates in the center rallying into your base is sometimes a bit overwhelming. Bear in mind I'm a map maker and watch every KSL/ASL but I'm still far from a player who would be considered good.

(P.S. my files were too large to attach, but it's easy to glance at the distance and see it's a siege tank's wet dream)

1-2x 25 minerals is faster. been tested ages ago with perfected map. thats why they exist.
2-base space should not be changed. 4 corners way more logical.
3-Two nukes is not one shot :P its 2 shots :P

heavymachinegun

  • Hydralisk
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2020, 01:51:57 pm »
haha hahahaha hahahahahhahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha

good luck with this idea BUT there already are many maps like the ones all of you propose and still people here only play vgt map and they dont seem to want a different map

vgt map is just shit but it is their shit so dont even expect another map to be taken into account as an option

you better kick off your own league instead

FaINeR

  • Season Winner
  • Reaver
  • *
  • Posts: 371
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2020, 02:52:30 pm »
DonFreecss  Check all maps of this link. you can download these maps and play for league scw 22

Here:
https://www.starcraftworld.net/index.php?action=league&mode=joinleague

KinG-MeMz

  • Broodling
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • No introduction needed
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2020, 09:24:31 pm »
In the middle of the new map there should be a crown with KinG-MeMz on it.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2020, 10:59:32 pm by KinG-MeMz »

Newbport

  • Supporter
  • Reaver
  • *
  • Posts: 444
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2020, 02:14:30 am »
Any type of change or proposal of change here is basically regarded as an offense against the 'community'.

Like machinegun said, you're probably better off starting your own league.
May evil drown in its source.

KYJ

  • Broodling
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2020, 05:36:16 pm »
In the middle of the new map there should be a crown with KinG-MeMz on it.


Hail the king!

DonFreecss

  • Broodling
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal: Actually balancing the SCW maps
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2021, 04:57:50 am »
Yeah, this is about how I expected this discussion to go.

1.) Mention fastest is different than low money and should inherently never adopt or attempt to adopt new features, check!

2.) Mention that the status quo has existed for over a decade and therefore shouldn't and can't be altered, check!

3.) And Fainer, as much as I respect you for not closing this forum and maintaining a level-headed tone, these maps you offer barely differ from one another and they pander to an audience of conservative players (except the 4 player version, which I respect due to the removal of the poor bases and winning feels much more earned).

4.) Lastly, I understand starting my own league would be ideal, but I'm not nearly as popular or respected in order to garner a sufficient amount of contestants. This is why I was appealing to the community as a whole in hopes that change was something the community finally wanted or were willing to try. I suppose I'll try to introduce my ideas to the BGH or low-money community to see if any interest is renewed.

5.) P.S. By.Brain aka the best korean fastest player (at one point, at least) made a deep run into ASL 9 I believe and got 8th place. His playstyle was riveting to watch and even Tastosis were shocked at his psuedo-Mini protoss macro and harrass. Brain is a man of versatility and achievement and we should consider emulating his methods of success. Rather than fearing adversity and avoiding it, we should face it, deem it worthy or unworthy, and each player should self-evaluate their goals in Brood War; is it more of a hobby or a form of competition.

When Flash was first developing the 1-1-1 in TvZ he had a sub 20% winrate and was mocked--a month later he was maintaining an 80%+ winrate with this same build and people were now imitating him. Brood War is a tapestry and we should treat it as such.

 

Season Info

SCW Season 49
Location: Op UGL@USWEST
Open: Nov 11 - Dec 22
1v1
RankPlayerRecord
1 QlolQ25-9
2 LgX[SaTurN-15-0
3 Adler[aV]16-6
4 pGf.CryptoBro15-8
5 Integrator]nG-13-1

2v2
RankPlayerRecord
1 L-Mx]Don~46-19
2 -]K[L-ZeuZ46-27
3 Omn1[gK]46-33
4 LivE.SworD29-20
5 KA`GallO19-19

Help keep the league active.

LiveStreams

Powered by EzPortal