Best posts made by Sir-Prize

This has been said before, but it leads to actual confusion and difficulty playing vs Hunters, especially as the Mantis is nearly as fast as a LAB. Is it more difficult than changing the relevant field in a blueprint? Or is there any reason to keep it the same?

@Tagada https://www.twitch.tv/voiceoftex/ is pretty active.

In case there's anyone else out there using hotbuildex, @Dragun101's new mod is called "A Hotkey Keys" in the mod vault and is better than hotbuildex - it's not bugged and obviously has lots of other nice hotkey possibilities. Have just transferred my hotkeys over to it, was easy even for someone who's nearly coding illiterate. Thank you for making this mod.

@Askaholic said in About Neroxis map generator...:

we can throw up a casual/unrated/global rating queue that incorporates some random maps

Why an entirely new ladder and pool? Genuine question, don't wanna sound unappreciative. It's really great to hear this is being worked on and not just shutting down a good idea just because it's work for you btw, thank you and thanks @Sheikah so much for doing this - this idea about creating a whole new queue seems unnecessary on first glance to me.

Bump - Arctic Refuge is imbalanced in favour of the northern spawn(s) due to the trucks on the northern side of the civ base in the middle being worth thousands of mass. The buildings are also slightly weighted to the north as well - when I tested it I got about 3k more mass that was obviously northern in the Civ base than I got out of obviously southern mass. Didn't count stuff in the middle.

Hey @Dragun101, is it possible to add a mod or edit this mod to create hotkeys that cycle through these icons that appear when you have a unit selected:

And preferably these icons if it's an ACU/SACU:

This will mostly just allow quicker upgrades, so perhaps just making bindable hotkeys for various upgrades would also be good?

@FtXCommando Before @Brutus5000 implements Ladder Pool 41 please get a fix for Emerald Cliffs, it is imbalanced due to one of the Hydros being unbuildable.
https://i.imgur.com/w7F3oIc.png
https://i.imgur.com/Cd7QwcR.jpeg

Would be nice if there was a requirement for maps to be playtested more than 0 times before they were put straight in the pool, not just for this kind of basic bugfixing but you would get less of it.

@Auricocorico said in FAF version (GPG, unknown & inactive author map rework):

I recall that the pgen explosion is stronger the closer you are, right ?

Nah, death weapons have a flat damage cutoff at their max range, unlike nukes which have inner/outer ring. And they were already in range of eachother - just quickly tested it.

Honestly I've never understood the amazing amount of salt that comes out on both sides of the debate around using shift-G to more easily kill an ACU with T1 spam (and for that matter UI modding in general). Compared to now, comblocking required/will again require as little as 2-3 more clicks and being more zoomed in (move order past ACU, box-select first 1-3 tanks that pass ACU, move them to just in front of ACU). This is nearly as effective as shift-G with less risk of brutal overcharges. Maybe it's my out-of-date-1500 game knowledge, but I think people looking forward to being able to take significantly more risks with their ACUs in average and high level play might be in for a rude shock, especially as people are now more aware of the value of comblocking than in 2015. I think I'd prefer it stayed, if cheaters might be/are abusing it then get rid of it.

As a general point, I agree with having a UI that lets you more easily issue the orders you want to and to make more decisions for yourself directly through UI flexibility (UI Party's selection-splitting hotkeys are AMAZING for this, including just about replacing everything lost by removing shift-G) and indirectly through more thinking time. Having this approach seems to be a pretty fundamental design decision for Supcom both before and after FAF started, so it arguably damages the market appeal of FAF to go in the opposite direction. Scaling back UI control should only be done if something is absolutely ruining high level play, or clearly driving players away and endangering the community. I can't think of an example of the latter and I will just take the word of actual good players on things like ATP sniping being completely broken (actual balance decisions shouldn't be made by anyone else as they are, by definition, the people who best understand how to play the game optimally, sorry if that hurts people's feelings). I would quietly suggest that if people are concerned about lowering the FAF skill cap, they should read Tagada's post and then look at the skill cap as a unit/map balance issue. Given this game is meant to be about strategic choice based on all available info, not high-APM mechanics and managing a perma-zoomed in screen, we should be looking at making more unit comps and playstyles viable in various scenarios. If there are more meaningful strategic choices, not just a battle of execution in producing more of the "correct comp" than your opponent and/or taking better fights with it, good strategic players can shine. But again, I'm not good enough at this game to know if the skill cap is a real issue or better balanced units and maps are actually a good solution.

Also sidenote for @Tagada: Take your own advice on comparing FAF and Starcraft when you've only being playing SC2 for a couple of weeks and you're nowhere near the equivalent of even 1k FAF rating (Platinum players are ranked behind 30%-50%/70k-120k of active non-Korean ladder profiles, on FAF leaderboards that is currently 213-456 rating). You would be laughed out of town on any SC2 forum where you tried to argue that "in SC2 unless you are Zerg (Queen injects) the economy is basically Select all Nexus/CC/Hatchery make drones while having the hatchery's waypoint on mineral line/Gas" - that's like saying FAF macro is basically shift-clicking mass points with a couple of engineers. Stick to FAF, you make a lot more sense when you do

Yeah the tone of this thread is kinda depressing.

Anyway, I can't help but notice that the high rated 1v1 players in this thread (and in the mapgen tourney thread) are really interested in seeing this in ladder, perhaps an experimental month of the 1800+ bonus maps being mapgen would be worth it. I can't really see what the risk is to be honest, high level ladder stays dead and people complain about ugly/unfun/bugged/imba maps? What's the change?

If it's a gameplay mechanic it should have counterplay, which in this case either doesn't exist or is switching off "Always Render Strategic Icons"... a setting in the options menu that you don't even have to be in game to access. That's not gameplay. If it was an intended mechanic, Mantis would appear with tank icons for the user - not that lore really matters but from that perspective why would you jam your own sensors?

To a lesser extent it creates the same potential problems for the Cybran using Hunters+Mantis as it does for the opponent. You won't know what your land mix is when just looking at it, and have to remember what you sent where and go out of your way to actually select units in various places to confirm what's what, whereas other factions can just zoom out and know how many LABs and tanks they have and where they are. This is potentially meaningful, especially early, as you might well push in with a LAB in a fight that a Mantis could win but a Hunter will lose, or hang back when you could have raided with Mantis and taken a lead. This goes against the point of strategic icons, which is basically the selling point of the game.

TLDR this isn't really a fun or interesting skillset to punish or reward for either side, and it's pretty hard to believe it's a deliberate design choice beyond "Mantis have legs".

How would you balance the ACUs though...? They are already VERY strong against T1 spam aren't they?

Tagada I don't want to derail this thread, especially as I basically agree with everything you're saying about FAF and we have both said this is side point, so I'm deleting my longer reply. Let's just agree to disagree that balancing production/income/supply/correct worker vs army supply for a given situation/injects/chronos/MULEs in SC2 is easy.

@Sheikah said in Client v1.4.3 Upcoming Features:

Support generated maps in map pools

Heyooooooo

Tbh I don't think I've seen the 1800+ crowd so united behind a ladder idea before, if the 1800+ pool was partly or wholly mapgen for a month I think it would go down very well.

Guess it's not a big deal either way, just might see all the tryhards in the "casual" queue which will be a laugh but people get what they want, that's what matters.

edit - guess the risk is splitting 1v1 player base, especially if the "casual" queue isn't pure mapgen. If it's pure mapgen then the hosting of custom mapgen 1v1s will just move to an automatch feature, which would be an improvement, but if it's not then it might get a bit weird in a three-way split between the two queues and custom games.

@Valki said in 1v1 and 2v2 matchmaker pools for March:

Especially in 1v1 it happens often that my opponent leaves immediately when we start out on Badlands. I want to do that too but I am too honest.

1v1 and 2v2 should not be seen as training for teamgames and include the big 4v4 maps for that reason.

After reading this I had to go find the replays that made you post this, because what you're saying doesn't actually make sense. 1v1s on multispawn maps play completely differently to games where those slots are full for a team game. It's not "dishonest" to move out and take mexes, it's what you should do in any game regardless of the spawn count.

Variety is nice, but it's easier to learn the very basic, fundamental principle of the game that you HAVE to expand ASAP if you play on a map where the vast majority of the mexes are clearly on your side and you're supposed to have them. The same is true for 2v2s on 6/8 player maps, you need to learn how to expand no matter what, and the greater percentage of the mass you can realistically defend the easier it is to learn. I think maps like Sweepwing and Regor belong more in the 1300+ pools as they're harder to learn, the mass is far more contestable and you are far more dead if you drop under 50% map control for any period of time.

I personally think having a good chunk of maps with an obvious split of mexes leads to better games, here you can read Petric and Blodir explaining why that's the case better than I could without just paraphrasing them.

@archsimkat said in 1v1 and 2v2 matchmaker pools for March:

I thought Turtle Rocks would fall into that category to play, at least when compared with a lot of the other options for 1v1s on 20x20s

Just a quick side not that this definitely is a 10km and plays like a 10km. By that I mean transports feel useful but optional, even moreso than other 10km maps like EotS, Vya, Last Oasis, Vulcan's Reach, Twin Rivers. On 20km maps transports are never really optional imo. Also while there should probably be multiple fronts on Turtle Rocks, they're not far from eachother so one can reinforce another one very quickly. On 20km land maps this isn't the case, it's probably their other defining feature. Not that I dislike Turtle Rocks, it's just not a substitute for a 20km if that's what you wanted it for.

Anyway, like I said to you elsewhere I think this is a really good pool overall, that's probably in part because so many of them are well established 1v1 maps, especially in the lower brackets. I think the balance is maybe a little skewed towards high reclaim and mex counts, particularly in the 5km pool, but I think that's mostly a product of the maps that get made.