Staredit Network

Everyone always es about terrain not being symetrical and how one persons expansion is closer then theirs. The way I see it, I want more melee maps with a wide variety of terrain defects, one persons minerals a bit farther away then the others, one persons with a bit less, an exp right next to them one far away.

To really find a good tactician is to find a player who can adapt to their terrain, just like real wars, everything isnt all symetrical and "balanced" Dont get me wrong, you cant go overboard with this stuff, but if you base it on actually terrain differences then I think melee play would require more stratigey and terrain useage in your plan other then who can mass the most units.

What are your views on this?

Well, I don't like the idea of one guys minerals a lot closer than anothers, but map variations would be nice.

As long as theres trade off's like minerals being close, but choke is a little bigger. not a good example but thats how i feel about it

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think it would be a big problem if the trade offs were well balanced. IF you wanted to make a wap of this sort you would have to do very extanesive testing. The editing required for the tiny balanced issues would be huge too. Another interesting effect of this would be to see how little changes/ iniqualities can either be exploited or devistating depending on race. overall i think it's not a half bad idea though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats the thing, you guys are to worried about Balance, In real war the battlefields ARNET balanced, you have to adapt to what you're given and use real tactics and terrain advantages to use to overcome your advisary.

I hate symetrical terrain. That's why I love LT.

Yes i also want terrain with wide variety of terraining, just as long as the distances from the expansion sites to the start off areas are evenly distributed among all areas.

You're right, a good tactician is a player who can adapt to their terrain well. But most of the time, they have to play the map hundreds of times to adapt to the terrain well. That's why people claim they are so good on LT. They say they can adapt to the terrain, but the real question is, can they adapt to terrains of different maps as well and effectively as needed to? A true tactician would be someone who could "improvise" with these new terrains and set themselves up well as quickly as they can. Kind of like in the show "Whose Line is it Anyways" where they all have to think of something instantly without early notice.

Ah, I love that show!

Anyways, when I get my SC cd reinstalled(accidentally uninstalled it and only have my BW cd) I'll try to make a balanced, not symmetrical, fun melee map going.

But Starcraft isn't like real war.
It's not even a simulation, it's a game.

It's a game where you fight in a war.

I must say I prefer to have a map that isnt perfectly simetrical, it just gets boring. As was said before thats whats so great about LT, but LT has some minor bugs that none of the versions seem to fix.

If your going to make different bases make them different, but make sure they all have the same weaknesses, if you will notice I did that on the map I made. In LT the 3:00 base has a gas that can be tank blasted from High Elevation which none of the other bases suffer from, and the 9:00 base gets the biggest shaft in that both expos can be hit from the High Elevation. There is no compensation on the map, and while this has been corrected in some versions, in the original version the 9:00 base had an area inaccesiblt to ground units that could siege its main just below the Start Location.

So make Terrain different! Personally when I look at a map such as (4)Remote Outpost my eyes hurt from the symetry on the minimap. Plus then you know what to expect, nothing quite like the thrill of new lands to discover.



Your point?

It's one thing to have varied terran it's another to have unbalanced maps, if you wanted make maps that are advantages for one side completely then you can.... it's just no one will play them more the once. you said that a real tactition would adjust to their surroundings, thats all fine and dandy, but I seroisly doubt that any map that is built on the basis you suggested TEC_GHost would be played largely on b.net

And that would be almost entirely because of the :censored:ing ridiculous amount of strictly money-map players.

I would play a map such as Ghost described.

It's a load of crap to make one base have more minerals than their opponents. Why play something like that when the other team has an advantage.

If you want to talk about ADVANTAGES work mainly with terrain.
Like player is on a LARGE island with many resources (but other than on the island, all other resources are far away, that keeps them on the island mainly).

And... Surrounded by high dirt (easy to invade) they have to set up a perimeter.

And... ONE passage enterance (like a HUGE river crossing the screen, and ONE bridge) - Or passage into base, either an OPEN base, a SINGLE entrance base, or a multiple entrance base.

THAT requires setting up due to surroundings, not freakin' mineral or gas advantage...

umm, LT is like the most evan/symmetrical map
and i dont like that idea because terran could move thier Command center nd adapt, plus this is a game, not real life, so it should e even

Lost temple is not symmetrically balanced map by any stretch of the imgination. Each position has its own little quirks. Like 12's all mineral natural being the easiest to defend, and out of the way. 9's natural being in front of the ramp entrance. Again, not the best, just the most popular map.

Play Luna, that map rocks

well you got to admit its pretty damn balanced, i didnt mean what i said, balance and symmetry is different, sorry

LT is incredibly imbalanced tactics-wise.

3 is insanely easy to defend against 12. Tanks, lurkers, and goons all work for this. High ground > low ground advantage is painful.

3 terran can tank push and then get map control and do pretty much anything.

9-12 are the farthest groundwise but the closest air-wise. Ling rushers hurt. 4RnZ droppers helped.

9 has a sheltered ramp which makes defending it with zerg SO much easier.

4 island has low ground to north perfect for CoL drops

I could go on and on...

ya 9 vs 12 is the most glaring issue on lt

if your going to be like that, you could find at least a thousand flaws on every map, so i still think lt is balanced very well.

I've tried using reasoning like this, but starcraft will never be life-like or realistic.