SC2Mapster

I think infestors are really a situational unit that can help push a base if your opponent is so so in skill level.

Its those exploding terrans that are a really good defensive unit. Ive seen some expensive combos get trashed. Drop those and save resources while they blow stuff up, you can use what you have to clean up. I think of it as a 600minerial close range nuke.

Need: 4v4 map Maybe a better rating system... lol Its so hard to let your ally get killed so that you can play a game where you gain rating. Although when you succeed thats a nice boost to rating. I am at 1960 and most people that play are 900. So even when it is 2v1 I lose a nice amount of rating compared to winning :-P

I just learned that, in 2v1, the solo player has both opponents spawn aggro units when the timer runs out. On top of one of the opponents' timers being allowed to run out with no spawns. That's incredibly backwards.

I've also noticed that there are arranged teams of players playing aggro mode, knowing they can spawn archon/zealot in sync and crush any team where both opponents aren't really good.

Nice, so what's a good estimate on when we can expect this new patch :)

I got an opinion regarding infestors. I'm starting to believe that infestors are just op when on defence and it is impossible to play without them in the late game. To get an idea of this, here's a recent 1 hour 10-20 minute game replay of their abuse. I'm not sure if it's the lings and mules that are the problem but it seems like a 2 v 1 can defend themselves easily in the late game.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=O7WBA87K

I'm pretty sure the points you get for killing groups is exactly proportional to how much they cost.

The income increase for kills is a good idea because it makes 2v1s possible. Instead of having to kill units 2 for 1, you have to kill more like 3 for 2 (after the initial waves).

The income system is great. Full stop. :-)

Kigal is right about the zerglings: As you spawn twice the normal amount of units for the 100 minerals, the opponent can gain twice the income boost killing zerglings than e.g. marines. Or did I forget something?

@Kigal: One of your aims in BattleCraft should be spawning cheaper units that have an advantage against the more expensive enemy units. Looking for the optimal counter units is fun and for me, it's the main fun factor in BattleCraft. Being smart in unit choice will result in a better income. What is wrong with that?

LxCrow> Then you already have an advantage, do we need to make it deeper by increasing the income? There wasnt that kind of stuff in BW, and it doesn't need it! There's only disadvantages, for example it drives people to camp as hell.

Kigal, your score and income increase faster when you kill more expensive units. This works well, send out 150 minerals worth of units to kill 500 minerals worth and your income is going to be higher than your opponent's because you played smart.

I really liked the battlecraft on broodwar and this one is totally different and IMO it sux hard for one reason: THE FACT that you earn money by killing a lot of unit.... Is killing a bunch of zergling the same as killing a bunch of broodlords? Seriously, this force the player to only buy very expensive and undividually strong unit, it favors aswell the camping mode so that you send as less as possible units to your opponent... and that limits a lot the strategy you could use, the units you could buy, etc...

So please, go back to the original system that increased your income as the game lasts. It's only when both player have same income that composition of unit will be the very critical point. And that's what we love in that game, don't we? :)

That'd be just the ticket!  I sometimes vote for aggro off after a few silly losses but then I get frustrated by the mega camping sessions.  I'd be in favor of an addition like this.

Post #160 on page 13 if anyone wants to read about "Stakes" mode.

Strilanc, I guess aggro creates the opposite problem of no aggro: everyone builds at the same time instead of no one building at all.

Maybe there's a better way to incentivize building units sooner rather than later.  Instead of being punished for not making units, perhaps you could be rewarded for making units sooner?  When the only benefit is a lack of punishment, I'm not compelled to act until the very last moment, which results in situations like I described below.

I'm not sure how that could be implemented from a practical standpoint, though.  Maybe it could work like a rewards credit card and making units would earn you points/minerals.  Some sort of interest could be applied so that the sooner you make units the more mineral bonus you would get over time.  The interest would have to be significant enough to make it at least a little more valuable to make 100 min of zerglings now rather than 350 min of colossi later.

Aggro mode making everyone spawn at the same time is one of its problems.

I created a thread for Battlecraft discussion on the bnet forums as there isn't much traffic here and I haven't seen a thread over there.  I'd like to discuss strategies and tactics.  It's http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/628258578

I'm a pretty well rated player (1400).  I don't mind having a terrible ally who dies first, I can often make a decent stand if not win a 1v2.  But I've had problems with aggro mode and a foolish ally that leads to ME dying first (and taking a hit on the rating).  How it usually goes:

1.  I send out my opening combo (archon/zealot, marauder/ghost, w/e) just before the first timer runs out.
2.  My ally does nothing.  Aggro units spawn for his opponent.
3.  Both opponents also send a reasonably well composed opening combo (+aggro units) near the same time and my army gets slaughtered in the middle w/o any backup from my teammate.
4.  My ally finally makes something after I've lost the battle in the middle.
5.  My opponent rolls up to my pylon with a nearly intact army and he has already sent a backup group of lings or reapers.
6.  I face a huge army with very deficient resources and die before my ally, thus losing to a much poorer player.

So you say, l2p, you shouldn't have died.  Ok, I can take that, but perhaps ratings could be calculated with the whole team in mind?  As I understand it ratings are calculated 1on1 and then 1on2 after the first player dies.  Could they be considered 2on2 the whole time?  That's the way the ladder matches are done.  It doesn't matter if one players leaves or dies, It's just the final outcome that matters.

When your ally dies, you should get their remaining minerals. Two reasons:

• Helps with the afk ally situation
• Helps with the "I just gave you 500 minerals and you wasted it typing 'gg'!"

Looks like there is a good update coming for us 2v1ers just doesnt seem to have hit yet.

Lack of battlecraft updates make me sad =(

I think the map should track how many times a player died first. It's less biased by your ally than number of losses.