| BWMN Time |
| 01/28/2026 |
| 08:57 |
| News |
| new account |
| list users |
| Login: |
| Replays |
| Map DB |
| ICCup |
| Map Access |
| New map |
| Edit map |
 |
Forum - main
the particular 886 style page: 1 | ||
| I understand the need to create more standard maps, but one thing I've noticed with Starparty's 886 maps is that he makes the mineral only much less of a neutral/vulnerable expansion than an extra owned expansion. You can keep the 886 concept without making every map a mini-Azalea. I think it would be worthy to consider maybe shifting the expansion model so that the mineral onlys are more neutral and vulnerable. | ||
| 2006, 02, 18 20:05 | ||
| For balance reasons this is actually not a bad thing though. Plus huge macro games rock :] I see no problem there. | ||
| 2006, 02, 18 20:08 | ||
| Actually, I think balancewise it could have an adverse effect: look at maps like Arena, where the players can pretty easily secure 3 bases without much work. You have to keep in mind that in the matchups that are played in StarCraft, expansions have different worths to the races. It also provokes the boring macro-oriented rut that maps like Luna fall into. I'm not saying that games where the players are able to secure enough expansions to have a long drawn out macro war aren't cool, but when you see them all the time, and maps become more and more conducive to that style of play, then it gets boring. Personally, I would like to see maps that take a little bit more deviation from the traditional 886 style that Starparty has essentially established: small tweaks and then see how that will affect the game, so that eventually the repetoire of map knowledge and map balance factors will grow. | ||
| 2006, 02, 18 23:59 | ||
| well said.. i tried to do that but no1 wants to see change .. i try to make different stuff but everyone jus pushes it aside. like i sed .. u lead the way and u got at least me behind you | ||
| 2006, 02, 19 00:29 | ||
| NastyMarine you are mistaking me for saying that you guys should try to radically change the model, or add radical new changes. You cannot put a frog into a boiling pot and expect it not to jump out. However, if map makers play a little bit with the formula, such as my suggestion of placing the mineral onlys in a way that they are more vulnerable, and less belonging to a player (for an example, look at Lost Temple's format: the expansions are still clearly player owned, but they are much more vulnerable than the mineral onlys of Arena, and are typically out of the way) It's already been established that most of the community doesn't take kindly to radical new ideas, and it's already established that the current trend of this site in making very standard maps that at times appear to be clones of each other goes well over with players. The next logical step is to vary the formula slightly, and take note of how the changes will affect map balance and gamestyles. Personally, I'm not a big fan of having such easy to take mineral onlys. I'm not a big fan of 1rax wall chokes either. Map makers should focus their energies to create maps that are exciting and fun, and not Luna-style macro slugfests- and making players (reasonably) more vulnerable would help achieve this. | ||
| 2006, 02, 19 00:59 | ||
| yeah i feel u i feel u.. i understand it all. i feel the same way. and im not saying exactly change the model but manipulating how a player defends or approaches an expo is wat could be an idea. which is kinda wat ur saying. And i kno that wont be done easily b/c most ppl on this site bitch about making map play the player.. but in essence thats what makes a map exciting and interesting.. but nothing will change netime soon...Lots off ppl love the regular.. couple ppl hate it. most accept it.... i accept it .. uneasily though lol modified by NastyMarine | ||
| 2006, 02, 19 01:15 | ||
| nasty, you are just too blind in your opinion "uh, i wanna do crazyyyyy stuff all the time but nobody likes it" changing a gaming style by saying "i do it that way, so you have to play like THIS" is not possible. and this is no offense, but most things unexperienced mappers create as "originality" is just imbalance, or damaging balance severly. just take your map with two entrances. did you think none has thought of this before? many did, but only a few were able to balance a 2-entrance-map at all. like, this causes problems in pvz and (not that much) in tvp.so you really need a decent skill and decent experience to handle such little, but _gameaffecting_ features. if it is NOT done properly and deliberated, we just say "drop it, doesn't work". an example of what we say if it is executed really good, take a look on "Permafrost". everyone had the thought "hey just drop the gas at main and let natural have gas instead". but there is only one succesful approach to it (afaik). so don't whine we would refuse new stuff (in fact, there are plenty of maps that are NOT 886). show that you can balance original changes, and we're on your side. but half-hearted or incompetent tries fail, and we will just say it. sounds harsh, but your statements were quite narcistic and "i am the victim"-style as well, so I just give the corresponding answer, cuz i don't like that :p | ||
| 2006, 02, 19 02:06 | ||
| what quote is that from???? lol im not blind and i dont do crazy things either on my maps.. u made it seem like Im an idoit in ur post.. def not cool.. nd how do u just lectured me as if i have no chance in becoming a good map maker and shit.. and the way i make maps makes no strong imba either. and u also make it seems like i half fast my posts and maps like im retarded. u def took too much glory in trying to fuck up my opinion "but your statements were quite narcistic and "i am the victim"-" when have i sed that too???? | ||
| 2006, 02, 19 02:25 | ||
| AiurZ, good points really. I will toy around with it someday and make a draft for what you are speaking of. | ||
| 2006, 02, 19 03:26 | ||
| Actually i don't get your point Aiurz. Or maybe i get it and don't know what you're complaining about. I see lots of different maps here, especially in expansion layout. Sure, 886 is the easiest way to balance a map, or at least brings a good balance with it. But not all 886 maps here look the same or have the same expansionlayout. You're right if you say that Starparty tends to have a more secure mineral only than other mapmakers, that's for sure, and i dislike that to some extend also, but others simply don't compy everything. Or at least i don't. And noone is forced to have the expansions in 886 layout either. Can't remember any sugguestion like "try to make the min only be more secure and more player oriented" or something like that. so by now, people tend to copy that idea as they think it's more likely to be played _MAYBE_. I actually don't know if someone thinks like that. I for myself have a "similar" expansion layout on Temple of Eden you might say. Still i tried to "copy" Neo Fortes expansion layout for both mineral only with one cliff, just as an example. Anyway, maybe i just get you wrong. ? modified by Listoric | ||
| 2006, 02, 19 04:49 | ||
| check out Tiger, if that was wmore what you meant. Otherwise, take a look at incubus 2004 - those are really neutral :o | ||
| 2006, 02, 19 13:54 | ||
| nasty, read your comment again -.- "And i kno that wont be done easily b/c most ppl on this site bitch about making map play the player.. but in essence thats what makes a map exciting and interesting.. but nothing will change netime soon...Lots off ppl love the regular.. couple ppl hate it." just as example. and really, i did not want to offend you. i just wanted that you - in the case you have this view of things - drop it. | ||
| 2006, 02, 19 15:04 | ||
| im doing a 977 map currently, a map with main base 9 minerals and 2 naturals that are 7 minerals. | ||
| 2006, 02, 23 18:36 | ||
| i often use 9/7 variations | ||
| 2006, 02, 23 19:20 | ||
| 9 in mainbase is still ok imo. more is just to much. | ||
| 2006, 02, 24 19:40 | ||
| if your map is a bit too open, you can go for 10 in mainbase imo serves balance a bit | ||
| 2006, 02, 24 20:58 | ||
| think so? quite an interesting idea. how should that make balance better? more lings = more dead tanks, or more marines = more dead lings? ^^ | ||
| 2006, 02, 24 21:25 | ||
| 6-6-12 ftw :D | ||
| 2006, 02, 24 22:55 | ||
| that should be obvious. open map, so you gotta balance tvp and pvz and tvz (for the first named each). in pvz, the more mins, the more the better toss economy pays out. you can have about 45 probes then and have an incredibly mining speed (on 8minerals, the mining max. speed is about 32-35, depends on placement). that gives p a boost, while zerg doesn't has a striking advantage. his economy will rarely reach even 30. in tvp, a terran mining bases "counts more" then a mining base of protoss. (that's why ya should have +1 more expo as toss than t does). so with the same effect, it strongens t. not to the extend in the former matchup, but also a bit. in tvz, look pvz. | ||
| 2006, 02, 24 23:33 | ||
| it would be intreasting to do a double gas main maybe 2 gas gysers with 2500 gas on main | ||
| 2006, 02, 26 04:26 | ||
| page: 1 | ||
Reply:
You have to be logged in to post
 |