| BWMN Time |
| 02/03/2026 |
| 22:55 |
| News |
| new account |
| list users |
| Login: |
| Replays |
| Map DB |
| ICCup |
| Map Access |
| New map |
| Edit map |
 |
Forum - main
start location numbers page: 1 | ||
| hey i posted a thread on TL about start location numbers for 1v1's, i'd like to hear the opinions of map making gods (TESTBUG O_O <3) like yourselves about this heres what i posted: what is the ideal amount of start locations in a 1v1? looking for opinions, preferences 4 start locations is very popular, eg python, luna, lost temple. however, when scouting in the wrong direction, one must add extra defenses that one might not need in fear of the unknown. however these empty bases later become expansion possibilities. here i see a rock-paper-scissors sort of thing where people go for rush//fast expo and either fail or succeed because they're enemy is in a far position//close position 3 start locations, such as longinus leaves for less of "scouting luck," and you only need to scout 1 base to know your opponent. 2 player maps such as blue storm and loki have no scouting luck, you know where your opponent is. but most 2 player maps are usually cross map, and even though for zerg opening with pool rather then hatch is less risky since you know where to go already, the cross map distance makes it far for your lings to travel. there is no luck aspect, so would two player maps, more then the others, truly test players by skill rather then luck//preparation? there is also a Fastest 1v1 league called "vile gaming," and there is rediculously 8 start locations, which leaves for many rush//expo choices, and 9pool//overpool is almost unheard of due to the luck of scouting. any thoughts on this? 8 is too much IMO, maybe with a few tweaks fastest 1v1's might actually become decent. | ||
| 2009, 04, 05 01:15 | ||
| if your gonna have a fastest map first of all ur start base should have at least 1 or 2 hex distance from mineral so u get somewhat idea of how many workers u got there. and thats one of the biggest issues about it. another issue is that you dont have a reason to expand which calls for uninteresting play so at this tweaked fastest u talk about it should either be less minerals or not simply 500000 minerals in them so expanding gives advantage. but after all it wont be fastest anymore just a lame mix that nobody will enjoy | ||
| 2009, 04, 05 02:03 | ||
| but what i want to discuss is the start locations :X | ||
| 2009, 04, 05 02:22 | ||
| There is no way to properly use the space in a map where expoing is pointless. Thus, the best way to make space is to have many mains and the widest possible middle so that there is enough room for fighting with 8 maxed armies. Having fewer positions just means you have to put a lot of work into getting some kind of strategically oriented center, probably involving weird tight paths and stuff to force nonlinear pathing or some crap like that. I guess maybe that's more interesting than normal fastest maps, but I don't think fastest players are interested in interesting maps, else they'd just play normal maps. | ||
| 2009, 04, 05 05:21 | ||
| page: 1 | ||
Reply:
You have to be logged in to post
 |