Staredit Network

I was thining, why not make a map that is meant for 4 players, but have 5 starting spots. this way if your playing 2v2 you dont inheritly know exaclt where your enemy is so you have to do some exploring. you would of course have to make all 5 bases equal becuase it's random start location, but it would add another element to the 2v2 game on a 4 player map. It would also allow for some extra expansion room, and maybe you could take away one or 2 of the expansions from somewhere else becuase players could expand here.

what are your thoughts in this idea?

If there are 5 starting locations placed, there will be 5 slots 'Open' until you close one of them.

There is nothing you can do about that.

I not exactly sure what your saying, i know thee would be 5 open slots, but as you stated you just close one

hmm, i know this would work, if i did it i would use 8 ppl. and have it 2v2.

but frankly, im not a big fan of that idea. besides you could just use an eightplayer map and close 4 slots.

yes you could, bt you would also have to make a bigger map to accomodatye 9 equal starting locations or you would have to make each starting location preety crappy. if you only used 5 you wouldn't get that much of a reduction in starting space so you could still use smaller maps.

oh, i understand what your saying now i didnt before, i dont know if that would work. you should test it.

Maybe if you fool around with Player settings you can allow 5-8 Random start locations with only 4 slots. Not tottaly sure but its an idea.

Anyhow I like the idea.

I believe melee maps always make starting locations random.

I mean adding the start locations and somehow fooling with player settings to allow them to register as a spot but have only 4 players available(max)

Yes they are always random, but he wants to know if you can have 5 start locations and four slots.

No you can't. Unless you fool around with player 13 and above start locations. So if you put P1-4 Start locations and a P13 Startlocation maybe it would work.

That's not possible to do with Staredit. What your saying is toying with Blizzard's programming.

I can see where you're coming from with the idea Rhiom, but it's pretty much useless. There's an easier way to do what you're doing, and that's by closing the fifth spot in the game.

thats what I proposed in this first place, and then just saying that it really is only meant for 4 players. tadah!!! some people had a problem with this somehow.

Lol, he never mentioned doing that. I assumed he would close slots, plus he said he was going to as well.

I just modified a 3 player map that came from Blizzard by removing a start location and adding a start location for P13. Assuming that P13 shows the same results as the other P13+ players, here is what I collected:

(start 3 = P13 start location, "X" = filled)

Game #: 1 2 3 4 5 6

---

Start 1: X X X X X X

---

Start 2: X X X X X X

---

Start 3:

Therefore, P13 (and above?) do not affect the random position placing at the start of a melee game.

---

EDIT:
(melee game start location facts)

• Players 9-11 are disregarded.
• Players 13-255 are disregarded.
• Race settings are disregarded, they are always "user selectable" (except for P12, which is always "neutral")
• All controller settings that are not "inactive" are set to "human".
• The last start location to be placed for P1-P8 becomes the start location used in shuffling for that player (therefore, if P1 has 5 start locations, the first 4 to be placed are disregarded).
• All units are disregarded except for resources owned by P12.

Conclusion:
You cannot do what you are asking without closing slots.
It is very interesting that only P1-P8 are included in the shuffle, it is almost as if Blizzard anticipated the buffer overflow (conspiracy theories?).

wakka wakka.

K thanks for checking this out for us.

I also think all units except for minerals are disregarded for p12 as well, we are sure of this post 1.12 at least, check out my rigging game for protoss thread.

I just tested that and yes, you are correct. I'll update my post above, thank you for clearing that up

EXCUSE ME.
I CLEARED THAT UP IN THE PROTOSS RIGGING THREAD.
I SHOULD GET CREDIT.
lol, jk i dont care.

aside from all of that, this would be a great idea if you do make the map small with less expansions than a 2v2 would noramally have.

well, it would definitly have to have less expansions becuase you have to figure in the extra mai base that people could expand to, so this could count as and "expansion". but it would also be a very good expansion.

do you think to balance this out it would be a smart idea to have less expansions all around but give each expasion more minerals/ gas.

rhiom, we are talking about having random start loacations for a full game, not expansions.

?, no what im saying is if you have 5 player start spots, for a 4 player map then u have to have all 5 bases even start, this means that later on someone can expand to one of these empty bases which will change the game dynamics, so to balance what do you suggest we do, or do u say leave it the same regardless of the maount of starting spots.

Hmm. 1:1 games are often played on 4 player maps. If anything it would make the game more fun because then people would want to fight over that expansion. So long as you only gave them their nats and no true expansions. I'm not a huge fan of 2vs2 (mainly because I can almost never count on my allie) but I think this would be really fun... Just make sure the map doesnt have island expansions or anything and it should be fine... you could make it wheel of war style or something (not the map... just the starting postions).


I don't know if you just mean base wise but you always have to scout stratagies, with only one exception, that would be that it's just a newb game.

Although this would add a random advantage factor it might balance it out that if you find the empty base first, you automatically know where the other 2 players are (when if you just found the opponent first there would be a little mystery as to where the other oppenent is [although if both players are good enough to scout it won't even matter]). I think you should just make a 6 player map meant for 2vs2, it might make it a bit more balanced.

Other than that it's a neat idea and I hope to see a map from you soon showcasing it.

Good luck,

PsychoTemplar

i know you always have to scout but in this it will slow down rushs... plus change the way the map can be played.

Yea, most 4 ppl maps are played 1v1. So its basically not much different than the idea thats going around right now. Yea, i have to agree Templar, i dont care too much for 2v2.