Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-23T11:06:35+02:00

You will. It has happened but it will happen only once every 100 or 200 games

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 23 Apr 2013, 11:06

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-23T10:58:38+02:00

prodromos wrote:
thing, the transition from t1 to t4 depends not only on map size but on players' skill as well.
Match 2 players of equal skills and you will see t3 and t4 even on "theta".

No you wont.

Statistics: Posted by Tango_X — 23 Apr 2013, 10:58

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-22T20:39:59+02:00

Anyone an idea how I could have countered his naval? He just ran over my base with a tiny navy group really and I had no clue how to defend myself against it lol

Statistics: Posted by lextoc — 22 Apr 2013, 20:39

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-16T16:33:53+02:00

Seraphim glaciers is "only" 20x20. SupCom was also designed to be played in 40x40 and 81x81.
Three main problems with this:
The need for exceptional brain power,
The need of free time.
Supposing you find them which is difficult, you won't meet the 3rd requirement which is enough computer power.
Additionally, maps bigger than 10x10 are not meant to be played in 1v1 and I really don't want to elaborate on this.
One could always try experimentally a 2v2 ladder, though, on 20x20 maps max, that is at the limits of the
Average cpu..
One could meet enormous problems, given the reluctance of players joining games in general(much improved in faf compared
To gpg)
One last thing, the transition from t1 to t4 depends not only on map size but on players' skill as well.
Match 2 players of equal skills and you will see t3 and t4 even on "theta".
Skill comes with practice though, and practice can't be achieved by constantly fearing of losing your precious little points.
Imagine a 2v2 filling after half an hour of waiting- a lost cause from the beginning.

Statistics: Posted by prodromos — 16 Apr 2013, 16:33

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-15T12:00:16+02:00

on that map there is so much stuff to do... it feels like work.
besides that is no bad map for 1v1.

Statistics: Posted by Batmansrueckkehr — 15 Apr 2013, 12:00

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-14T14:03:10+02:00

ShadowKnight wrote:
In my personal opinion, Supcom is a game about transitions. From early raiding into t1 spam, t2, pd creeps, etc... It is about how you go from a very small, efficient macro to an increasingly larger economy which opens up more possibilities and units.

Exactly my point. Isn't it a shame that SO many games end with only one or two transitions?

That's where we ask the question about balance and if it was a good game or not imo. It's pretty logic not all games get to T4 at all.

Statistics: Posted by lextoc — 14 Apr 2013, 14:03

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-14T11:32:02+02:00

You have to balance between air navy land spam on islands and eco on Sera glaciers

once i have had almost all islands but still lost game
also it has possibilities of dropping stuff to your main, wich is enteresting too (that means you better scout)
also small islands contain alot of mexes, yuo need to worry about them too, wich adds a lot of micro, dropping, scouting, or you can just go with t2 navy and kill stuff

so i like sera glaciers, even if i would not like to play it to often

Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 14 Apr 2013, 11:32

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-14T06:28:32+02:00

In my personal opinion, Supcom is a game about transitions. From early raiding into t1 spam, t2, pd creeps, etc... It is about how you go from a very small, efficient macro to an increasingly larger economy which opens up more possibilities and units.

Exactly my point. Isn't it a shame that SO many games end with only one or two transitions?

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 14 Apr 2013, 06:28

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-14T05:30:37+02:00

I once set up an 8 player FFA on Seraphim Glaciers, with the idea that each of the four main islands would have its own little 1v1 ranked game going on, with the person who eliminates their other opponents sooner having a critical advantage for the rest of the game. Unfortunately for me, I managed to get TAG_Rock on the same island as me, so that game didn't turn out so well for me

Statistics: Posted by Pathogenic — 14 Apr 2013, 05:30

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-14T01:07:11+02:00

ShadowKnight wrote:
Plasma_Wolf wrote:I'd say that 40x40 maps are a bit too large for 1v1 games...

GPGNet accidentally put me on shards sometimes
Oh and on Shuriken Island you can have a paragon up in record time (Or 9 Colossusses for that matter)

40*40 Maps are what this game was MEANT to be, not the T1 spam BS that has taken over. Epic scale, not epic micromanagement. IMO we need MORE of the big maps even in 1v1, as that is where the real skill comes into play. Then we might see some build which aren't 'Spam T1 like a mad nutter for first 8 minutes', and I might come back to playing regularly.

You have no idea what you are talking about if Chris Taylor wanted this game to be only about the late game, he wouldn't have made 4/5 of his game into the early and mid game. In my personal opinion, Supcom is a game about transitions. From early raiding into t1 spam, t2, pd creeps, etc... It is about how you go from a very small, efficient macro to an increasingly larger economy which opens up more possibilities and units.

Statistics: Posted by Swkoll — 14 Apr 2013, 01:07

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-14T00:37:15+02:00

funny that you all know what the game WAS MEANT to be
never knew that you all developed it

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 14 Apr 2013, 00:37

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-13T23:44:17+02:00

Plasma_Wolf wrote:
I'd say that 40x40 maps are a bit too large for 1v1 games...

GPGNet accidentally put me on shards sometimes
Oh and on Shuriken Island you can have a paragon up in record time (Or 9 Colossusses for that matter)

40*40 Maps are what this game was MEANT to be, not the T1 spam BS that has taken over. Epic scale, not epic micromanagement. IMO we need MORE of the big maps even in 1v1, as that is where the real skill comes into play. Then we might see some build which aren't 'Spam T1 like a mad nutter for first 8 minutes', and I might come back to playing regularly.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 13 Apr 2013, 23:44

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-13T15:09:36+02:00

I'd say that 40x40 maps are a bit too large for 1v1 games...

GPGNet accidentally put me on shards sometimes
Oh and on Shuriken Island you can have a paragon up in record time (Or 9 Colossusses for that matter)

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 13 Apr 2013, 15:09

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-13T14:24:10+02:00

Most ladder maps boil down to having the better T1 spam, for me Seraphim Glaciers (and other 20x20 or 40x40 maps) were always a nice change in pace.

Statistics: Posted by Benoker — 13 Apr 2013, 14:24

Re: Seraphim Glacier

2013-04-13T13:56:42+02:00

lextoc wrote:
Now look, that's one of those boring matches, took 30 minutes to complete and it was boring as hell. But I'll play it from now on, the other replays were pretty intereseting

So that just means that not Seraphim glacier is boring, but that you continuously were playing against opponents who were no match on that map.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 13 Apr 2013, 13:56