Author
|
Thread |
 |
|
[24-7]Guan-Yu

Joined: 14 Sep 2000
Posts: 1808
Location: Haarlem, the Netherlands |
New version for 1v1 GOW (tourneys)
Like what if we changed the starting spot from 8 to s9 and from 6 to s6? Wouldnt that make things a bit more fair and interesting for 1v1 knockout games?
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:27 pm |
|
|
Sparkz102

Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Posts: 2999
Location: War2 |
Re: New version for 1v1 GOW (tourneys)
quote:
Originally posted by [24-7]Guan-Yu
Like what if we changed the starting spot from 8 to s9 and from 6 to s6? Wouldnt that make things a bit more fair and interesting for 1v1 knockout games?
a while back i made a gow map called "no clog"
so in that sense, yes, when u play classic gow, like u have for years, 6 and 8 are remotely useful now and u have to worry about the lower left part of the map again.
the idea is u can send from 8 to 2, go from 4 to 11 and from 12 to 6 etc etc any point-click destination will no longer get messed up via pathing
it doesnt mess up any intial spots, and keeps the beloved mudpaths
only change was some tree pathing configuration to leave the map with no collision or stranded units
and bases, like 9 that have more than 1 entrance(essentially 2farm/smith assumption) because of this have more than one "exit,entrance" but that doesnt matter, ur can "seal" that and still have ur choke to worry about - that can be busted through.
i've found it makes it more fast paced, u focus a little more on ur base/res and can micro ur macro a lil better, plus map control is a whole different game when ur not ninny stepping ur units around trees _________________ I am also a contradiction of my own lies
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:03 pm |
|
|
Swift
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 3223
|
Re: New version for 1v1 GOW (tourneys)
Thats fucking retarded Sparkz.
Anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by [24-7]Guan-Yu
Like what if we changed the starting spot from 8 to s9 and from 6 to s6? Wouldnt that make things a bit more fair and interesting for 1v1 knockout games?
If you do this then s9 > 9 and s6 > 5 would be even worse.
|
Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:08 am |
|
|
|