BattleCraft
Push spawned attackers toward the enemy side to destroy their life crystal while protecting your own. Pick the right units over your enemy to push through your enemy's attackers.
-
Search for "BattleCraft" on battlenet:
- US: "BattleCraft"; filter "Tug of War"
- EU: "BattleCraft BETA"
- SEA: "BattleCraft BETA"
I'm open to suggestions like balance, glitches, fixes, and stuff.
Things to do:
- Balance Balance Balance
- Fixing glitches
- New units and heroes
- Custom GUI
-
I'm remaking a classic from SC1 for SC2.
Recommended players: 2 [1v1] or 4 [2v2]
Some details:
- Buy attacker armies at the top left corner of the map. Each individual unit purchase creates an army of that unit. These units will automatically attack toward the enemy's life crystal.
- Buy defensive structures and heroes at your Life Crystal. In addition to minerals, these special units require vespene gas.
- Mineral count increases automatically. To fasten the pace of game as time goes by, income and vespene gas increases as you kill more units.
- For more convenient purchasing, hotkeys are initiated at the start for each player. [1-4] are for buying attacker armies while [w] is the life crystal.
- You can still play with/computers by adding AI for a player slot. The AI just makes random units so don't expect it to be any good.
Original map from SC1 by: Spikes10012
Comments
-
_ForgeUser4357305 Owner
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 14, 2010lol that Rating system makes so much sense. I was playing solo and my rating seemed to go up somewhat decently. Then I team up with a friend that has 1500 rating. We lost one game out of an insane amount of wins and I did not gain not one point.
So playing solo is much better for rating mode :-P We need the 4v4 map so we can let our partners die and just kill whats left and gain rating again lol.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 14, 2010You asked for a tank that was good against light-focused units, not a general tank. A unit that was a tank for everything would be overpowered.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 14, 2010I want the full range of colors in Tug/2v2. I want to be light pink. Also, I think queens and ultras cost more than what they say sometimes.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 14, 2010Archons are armored and they have a lot of HP, 500 if I recall correctly. More expensive than MULEs but they do some serious damage, especially with their splash against tightly packed air units.
Then there are Queens which while there health isn't super high (350 I think), they are only classified as biological and psionic.
It does suck though that only Sentries have armor.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 14, 20101650 rating here. Ive noticed that 500 over someone elses rating you will no longer collect more rating. Basically having to rely on 2v1 wins.
@Strilanc Roaches dont stand against things like tanks and archons and stuff.
I agree with aeldaar. I think there needs to be MULES kept light, but maybe an elite version of mule that ISNT light.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 14, 2010There is already an armored tanking unit: roaches. They stand up to ghosts/hellions/reapers/banelings/etc with no trouble. In fact, roaches are so awesome they kill sadistic assassins one on one.
I do agree that colossus seem really strong (when supported). I always feel forced to get colossus of my own to counter.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 14, 2010hi tordecybombo, I really like your map! Got up to 1800, which is to say I've played it a bunch. I have a few balance concerns if you're interested.
ghosts are a cheap light unit that shoots light, hydras are light but shoot heavy, stalkers and marauders are heavy and shoot heavy. Why isn't there a cheap heavy unit that shoots light air + ground?
some games you get paired with a bad partner who dies immediately, and then you have two giant armies on you at once and die without a chance. If the defending player there got an actual mineral boost, or 3 gas, something to give him a foothold and climb out, it seems that would make for more interesting and less frustrating games
the only real options for 'tanking' units are mules and sentries, both light and die instantly to sadistic assassins. How about an expensive heavy unit with lots of armor and hp?
especially with fog and/or against less experienced players, making a colossus and then just sitting on zerglings until you win feels too strong. I don't have a good idea to fix this, and zergling/reaper tanking is a cool strategy in general, but early game you have to use your resources perfectly, and sometimes just predict that they're going all in to have a chance
You probably know this one, but if your partner quits out you can just hotkey his buildings and control both lanes. For the instances when someone quits out of the lobby right before the game starts, could the defending player still have both lanes? A straight up 1v2 is a bad time
and last, a question. I get the rounds played and rounds won columns in -stats, but what do the others mean
Thanks again for making such a good game, and keep up the good work!
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 14, 2010Ratings update every time your or your opponent's life crystal is destroyed. The calculation of ratings is as follows:
R_a = your rating
R_b = opponent's rating
S_a = your score = 0.0 if your life crystal was destroyed OR 1.0 if your opponent's life crystal was destroyed.
E_a = your expected score = 1 / (1 + 10^( (R_b - R_a) / 400 ) )
K = k-factor = constant 32 at the moment
R_a' = your updated rating = R_a + K * (S_a - E_a)
In other words, you have to face people closer to your rating to increase your rating further.
In the case of a 1v2 (you versus 2 players), your opponent's rating will be the combined rating of the two opponents you're facing. It shouldn't exactly be the combined rating but oh well. Quitting or dropping before your life crystal is destroyed will count as a loss.
Why does this calculation work? Take these excerpts from wikipedia for the Elo Rating System:
-
Performance can't be measured absolutely; it can only be inferred from wins, losses, and draws against other players. A player's rating depends on the ratings of his or her opponents, and the results scored against them. The relative difference in rating between two players determines an estimate for the expected score between them.
A player's expected score is his probability of winning plus half his probability of drawing. Thus an expected score of 0.75 could represent a 75% chance of winning, 25% chance of losing, and 0% chance of drawing. On the other extreme it could represent a 50% chance of winning, 0% chance of losing, and 50% chance of drawing.
An example may help clarify. Suppose Player A has a rating of 1613, and plays in a five-round tournament. He loses to a player rated 1609, draws with a player rated 1477, defeats a player rated 1388, defeats a player rated 1586, and loses to a player rated 1720. His actual score is (0 + 0.5 + 1 + 1 + 0) = 2.5. His expected score, calculated according to the formula above, was (0.506 + 0.686 + 0.785 + 0.539 + 0.351) = 2.867. Therefore his new rating is (1613 + 32· (2.5 - 2.867)) = 1601, assuming that a K factor of 32 is used.
Note that while two wins, two losses, and one draw may seem like a par score, it is worse than expected for Player A because his opponents were lower rated on average. Therefore he is slightly penalized. If he had scored two wins, one loss, and two draws, for a total score of three points, that would have been slightly better than expected, and his new rating would have been (1613 + 32· (3 - 2.867)) = 1617.
When a player's actual scores exceed his expected scores, the Elo system takes this as evidence that player's rating is too low, and needs to be adjusted upward. Similarly when a player's actual scores fall short of his expected scores, that player's rating is adjusted downward. Elo's original suggestion, which is still widely used, was a simple linear adjustment proportional to the amount by which a player overperformed or underperformed his expected score. The maximum possible adjustment per game (called the K-value) was set at K = 16 for masters and K = 32 for weaker players.
-
You'll probably have to setup parties and opponent parties so you can consistently face higher rated opponents. Due to lack of matchmaking, the risk of losses hurting ratings is much higher. I'll probably decrease the sensitivity of rating change (k-factor) at higher rating levels so losses don't hurt as much.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 14, 20101700+! o_o
I'm just curious, how many rounds do you have on record?
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 14, 2010How does this rating thing work? Ive won over 20 games in a row and my rating does not progress at all. Some days it goes up fast and some days it doesn't move. Example I am playing games right now every game has been aggro with fog and 20 in a row wins, no movement im stuck at 1729. Actually was at 1759 but dropped in one game out of many wins i lost earlier in the night.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 13, 2010That solution works because the way in-game players are setup are by the order in which players joined the lobby. In my map, I made players 1 & 3 in Team 1 and 2 & 4 in Team 2.
So say you're the first to join, you'll be player #1. You add an AI that'll take up slot #2 aka player #2 in-game. Then you invite a friend that'll be player #3 and that way you'll be on the same team as your friend. Now you kick the AI which frees up slot #2. Next person to join will take up slot #2 I think.
Never thought about it until Zeplic posted. gj Zeplic :)
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 13, 2010Zeplic: Thank you so much! Your solution works perfectly.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 13, 2010Dear Nucleus1,
I previously posted a solution to the retardation that swapped game versions.
Have a friend Don't be in a party Create Game Battlecraft Add A.I. Invite Friend Kick A.I. Open to Public.
Have fun
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 13, 2010I fully admit to not understanding the issue completely, but my impression is the "good" version (i.e. 2v2 tug) always worked fine for me. At the very least, when it is the popular one, I have the option to make my own game and keep the settings as they should be while still attracting people.
Certainly you'd agree that the "good" version works with parties much more often than the other one?
My idea might not solve the problem completely as you state, but I think it'd go a long way toward improving the situation.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 12, 2010Problem is adding a new version isn't going to fix the party thing because "Custom" is innately selectable in all maps.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 12, 2010Dear Tordecybombo:
First let me offer my sincere gratitude for your work on Battlecraft. I play it several hours per week at a minimum and I know whenever I join a game it's going to be fun. I play it more than any other custom game by far.
However, like many people here, I have a hard time getting my friends to play with me given the state of affairs with parties. Here are my suggestions, and I truly hope they can help you and the great game you put so much work into:
Consider making a third battlecraft version (with fixed parties as with "tug / 2v2"), but name it "Battlecraft 2.0". Keep the ".0" to draw attention to the numeral. After a popularity reset, people will be confronted with two nearly identically named versions of Battlecraft (the current 2 choices), and this magical new "Battlecraft 2.0". Hopefully the masses will take the hint and make the 2.0 version the most popular.
Most people see "2.0" on anything and instantly get the hint that it is a better version.
You might consider adding more functionality to the 2.0 version (completely optional) or you might simply copy the working version of battlecraft that you already have.
I have another idea for you but it is more complicated. If you're willing to give the ideas I mentioned here a try and they fail I'd be more than happy to suggest alternatives.
Respectfully and Gratefully,
Morty
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 12, 2010work in progress
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 11, 2010Question, is the latest changelog changes a work in progress or is it already implemented because i would like to know when it will be online in the public servers for testing.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 11, 2010cant disable it
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 11, 2010Why not just disable custom play?