SC2Mapster

i think armageddon should be changed so that it kills everything, including the senders own units. i just played a game and all he had to do was send units and then use armageddon to kill off my counter and he had a free pylon kill.

as for units that you can make from the pylon, not sure about other units but tanks, IMO, cost too little. 400 for a unit that can rake up 50+ kills seems a bit too cheap (mineral-wise). all you gotta do is send some cheap units to attract aggro and let the tank get the kills but thats ridiculous

It's just the order of which you joined the game in. youll always end up as enemies this way. You cant re-arrange due to massive blizzard fail

I've played about 25 games with my friend since this started. I've hosted games and we've joined games. He ALWAYS ends up across from me, no matter where he is in the lobby. We are also always the people with the highest rating. Don't tell me I'm wrong unless you have a better explanation.

madduke1 wrote:

@p4l1ndr0m3

Your actually both wrong, your not put against your closest rating match either, I played with a guy that never played before and was across from me. It doesn't seem to make any sense yet, but its not picked based on placement nor rating/

I think there should be a range up based on Elapsed time. It is siginificantly easier to win a game 2v1 late game, then it is to win it 2v1 start of the game. I can out think my opponents attacks however I simply do not have the income to hang on if my opponent drops within the first minute. If the game lasts 5 minutes better chance. 10 minutes I should be unstoppable at that point.

Something does need to be done about 2 vs. 1. Against just 1 competent player it's impossible. All one play has to do is send an elite unit with something expensive like tanks or colossi, then send zerglings. Last match I played I kept getting bombarded by thors, colossi, and zerlings nonstop and only managed to hold out with vespene gas. No matter what I sent to my opponent across from me he could always counter easily because I never had the time to build up to 2000 minerals and any force I sent out was always met by resistance from the player on the sidelines.

I think perhaps the player on the sidelines should have a 1000 mineral cap, or can't use elite units. Countering groups of varied units is always going to take a good amount of minerals and doing it against elite units thrown into the mix while already defending against another is just too much.

@Abcohen- In themselves the reaper isn't effective because of banelings but even if they do go banelings, doing something like rauder and ghost to kill them before they reach you can be effective. Plus remember to suicide when necessary because it is one of the most important abilities to use.

An additional reason for using reapers is that they're fast, can be devastating towards beginners and force the game into action right away because I always intend to win as fast as possible and outplay my opponents.

@Sianon: I strongly disagree. There are many times where players can win a 2v1 scenario; you just have to play very conservatively.

@Feremuntrus: Reapers are never an effective start, because they are countered by a lower cost unit. In any case, even if the idea were to scare off newer players, it should at least be added as an option to vote on during the pre-game.

@Siaon- personally disagree with the game ending statement. Most people do die right away in 2 v 1 situations but when the player is good they can manage to win by playing perfect all game long.

@Abcohen- personally disagree as well with the mineral increase at the start. True ling, marine and zealot starts are suicide but i always and always start with a fast reaper. This allows for several things. (remember reaper is not the only way to start, be creative.)

1. Me winning against him

2. My opponent picking the wrong counter and it results in his disadvantage.

3. My opponent successfully counters them with several of the available options. (ultra, stalker, roaches, etc.)

If my opponent is able to counter I simply suicide them to avoid a loss in income. Now back to the topic of a mineral increase. I think the scenario I described adds to the competitiveness of the game. It's a very quick scenario for my opponent to know the counter and thus allows both players to understand counters easier. Why start with a hydra colossi combo from the start when the beginner doesn't even know that hydras have plus damage to armor.

The mineral increase will scare away beginners and lessen the popularity of the game.

@p4l1ndr0m3

Your actually both wrong, your not put against your closest rating match either, I played with a guy that never played before and was across from me. It doesn't seem to make any sense yet, but its not picked based on placement nor rating/

@ Faldez, that is incorrect. You are automatically put against the closest match to you. In the case of my friend and I, we are both over 1200 rating, which means we are always in the lanes across from one another. Position in the lobby makes no difference. Trust me, we've tried.

Feremuntrus raises another good point: the income boost is not equivalent to the 600 min boost.

+1 income only surpasses 600 min as an economically sound choice if the game will continue for 10 minutes after the boost. Considering the majority (in my estimation, 75%) of games end before 5 minutes, the income boost is nearly half as useful as 600 min.

Another issue I would like to bring attention to is the one of starting mineral count. After playing hundreds of BattleCraft games (both solo and with friends in 2v2), we see practically no reason for you to start with so few minerals; Zealots/Marines/Zerglings are never a practical opener. If the starting mineral count were increased to at least 300 (many of us feel it should be 500) then the variety and speed of openers would greatly increase. There would no longer be the "mandatory" waiting period at the start of each match for you to get to the necessary mineral mark to send a diverse army (no good player should be sending 1 of any unit by itself).

p4l1 - As long as one of you are the "host" you can click and drag players around to change the teams if you are on the icky custom/custom settings. Have one of you in the first slot and the other in the third slot, and you should be on the same team.

Nother comment. I'm noticing this and I do it myself all the time as well but no one ever picks the income boost over minerals. You need to buff it by making it either +2 or +3 or do something else to make it more useful.

I really enjoyed playing this game with my friend (on the same team). Now we always have to play across from one another and it has gotten rather old. So I guess I won't be playing BC any more until I can play with a party member.

It is a shame since it is a great game otherwise.

Instead of merely warning people that they are playing the wrong version, why not write some sort of code that simply ends the game if it is "Custom/Custom" instead of "Tug/2v2". Then post a giant message telling them to remake the game using the proper settings. I guarantee this will put the "Tug/2v2" back on top within a day.

Tordecy, when I create a game instead of joining, it defaults to custom/custom, which is probably why it is currently the popular version. I switched it to tug/2v2 and opened to the public. One person joined after 10 minutes, then they left, I gave up. I quit the game and created again, it still defaulted to custom/custom. I gave up and just started joining the popular one again, but now that "warning" is pretty annoying, I know it is the wrong version, but there is not much I can do about it.