Full Capacity of Starcraft II

BGH stands for?. I haven't come to terms with everything lol, as far as I'm concerned money maps are just maps with endless minerals and gas.

 

Big Game Hunters

BGH and Fastest are both terms for Money maps.

 

Yes but there are KINDS of money maps, those- that are designed only for mass, and require no skill (Kind Of), and the one where the map requires strategy. The strategy of those maps are similar to non-money map.

 

I openly admit I don't know alot about money maps, I don't play them. Maybe you should explain

 

When I play a money map I use the normal maps but edit them to have 50,000 minerals and gas.

 

He means (i think so at least), that in BGH you need to expand etc., you dont need to do that on Money maps.

 

Well to actually get very good with non-money maps, playing campaign (Without Cheats) is one of the best ways. Also maps with 50, 000 resource nods are consider... Well don't require much skill.

 

Rex i think they need as much skill (if you mean BGH), because you must think more strategical.

 

Maps like BGH require more skill then Fastest. I played a game one time I was Protoss, and my allie was Terran, and our foe was Zerg, my allie got so many waves (He only had Bunks full of marines, and Seige Tanks) He had like 3 layers of walls before you could get to his bunker. The Layers was a Command Centers, Barracks, and supply Depots.

After an hour, I got hit really hard, but then I hate like 25 Gateways, I made so many Dragoons but they got killed and in 5 minutes all My Gateways died, my allie rushed in with BattleCruisers, Tanks, and Wraiths he managed to kill them all. After3 minutes he was holding them off (Waves of Ultraslisk, Hydralisks, Mutalisks, and a mix of Zerglings) Then We Massed Air and we did more damage then we thought, they had no units, or anything left, so we massed Probes, and SCVs, and we won.

What I'm trying to say is BGH requires way more Strategy then Fastest. Computers, are way harder to beat in BGH, then Fastest.

 

i would not agree with this if it was used on all maps,but i would agree if it would be on some maps.

 

We use Reaver and Vulture a LOT lol, sometime Queens to counter hight templar

 

I'm pretty sure most terrain in most maps suit all the units... and a huge lot of them support reavers and vultures. Basicly if a map is close together reavers are a definate option, and well if you're a terran with sanity most likely vultures are used in most maps... well not island maps but w.e. Also, any map can support the queen, it just sucks so no body uses it. Unless you make a map where the opponent automaticly gets a bunch of high templars or siege tanks, i'm not sure a map can help queens.

Also, I accually think fastest maps take a lot of skill. I can't really manage to have 30 gateways producing all the time... and you also have to micro the whole lot of them... so for me at least, the micro/macro is a lot harder on fastest, however i think it's a lot funner on a another map like lt or some of the blizzard made maps like boxer.

 

Minerals should, in SC2, be able to regenerate slowly over a period of time. When you think about it. resources on the earth, given time, eventually regenerate. Having minerals slowly regenerate would challenge micro maps and allow more maps, equivalent to that of maps like LT, to be more popular (this could also be an alternative to money maps). Though the average worker would output more than the mineral could regenerate, it just allows you to get more out of a mineral node. Gas should not regenerate however, as it is in infinite amount, so why make it regenerate? - Just a thought

 

Many resources on the earth don't actually regenerate which is why recycling and conservation is important.

In any case, I disagree with you, Drift. The battle over resource nodes is one of the most important aspects of the game, and with regenerating resources will be devalued. And what Blizzard did with the gas originally is fine.

I could see regenerating minerals being an alternative to money maps, but definitely not in game. Too much strategy revolves around the economy. Even a modest regeneration would have a profound effect.

 

Yea true, but Drift's idea is quite... Unique. How come I never thought of that.

 

Unique? I'm sorry but regenerating resources are actually more common than non-regenerating resources in RTSs. C&C? SupCom? Those other pillars both have access unlimited resources.

 

I say, let there be moneymaps. Its a rest from the true reality of Starcraft. Just go in an mass units, and see some slaughtering being made. Moneymaps is not a part of starcraft strategy. There is no strategy that can be made with infinitive resources. So, in the real games where the real skills are being tested.

 

Don't be stupid, strategy can be formed with anything. Money map simply means more resources it just lets games get larger and longer.

In money maps the player with the most expansions will have the same advantage in a normal map, but in a normal map fighting for the expansions will just be a higher priorty than a money map but both have equal strategies and I won't state them cuz its kinda obvious.
But if you're refring to the custom maps with a symetrical layout and high resources where each player gets one base with lots of mineral formations in it then thats a different story.

 

Well I have never played those games, and I never knew about them. Anyways I'll have to try them someday

 

C&C Is Command and Conquer, SupCom is Supreme Commander. They're both very big RTSs, with roots dating back to the same time as StarCraft. C&C games have slightly varied resources, but it is often tiberium crystals that regenerate and spread over time. SupCom, like its predecessor Total Annihilation, has energy resources produced by building powerplants and mass resources extracted continuously from mass nodes.