|
Most top players would agree that 1 base play is very strong and unpredictable.
The effect of this is that players often end up having to turtle on one base for 7-9m before taking the second base. Doing so makes for an awkward transition where neither player was able to get to the tech they need for actual aggression (ghosts, council upgrades, infestors), and introduces another lull in the game until 13+ min.
What if mains only had one gas? There may have to be a bit of rebalancing of the mineral dump units, but maybe one gas would make everything a lot more controllable. It would be easier to count where the gas went. It would neuter the strength of many one base allins.
The point of a safer fast expansion is that it is more optimal for maxing econ, and getting the appropriate tech. Hopefully the result would be a smoother transition into the mid game where people have the tech and econ to attack earlier.
 
|
Sounds terrible, given that the most aggressive builds tend to be relatively low-gas.
|
Where did you get that idea? Almost every difficult 1 base build is 2 gas.
111 vs P
2 port banshees vs Z
3gate VR vs T
3gate blink stalkers vs T
3gate contain vs T
fast DTs
Almost every low gas build is trivial to handle.
|
Why would you fix one part of the game by completely removing another part of it? That's like proofreading an essay by removing paragraphs.
The problems people see isn't that there's too many possible builds, it's that it's too hard to scout it for some races. There's no reason to make the game less complex needlessly. Imagine if BW didn't have any tech builds. It'd be impossible to even go mech in some situations or go for early 2 hatch muta harass.
|
guys! 4gate is too good! let's make it so that protoss players can't do any build other than 4gate!
what? terrible idea
|
you're very naive if you think that changing the economic way sc2 works would help balance the game at all, let alone in this '1 base timing' window you're describing. Not only will it fundamentally shift the balance of standard 1 base compositions (protoss needs early sentries vs zerg to make it into the midgame with a reasonable position), removing the viability of these timings actually makes the game truly silly and boring for a longer period of time from the beginning.
overall this change makes no sense. how can you expect changing one of the most fundamental components of how economy in sc2 works to balance the all but infinite entropy of what progresses from that point onward. Even in bw the difference of mineral only 3rd changed balance and structure of games hugely, and sc2 isn't nearly that developed.
all in all, ridiculous idea. sorry to break it to you.
|
If anything mineral mechanics, not gas mechanics should be changed. Currently in sc2, bases gather the same amount of minerals per worker up until they reach 16 workers. If this were changed so that diminishing returns occurred after 8 workers it would make one basing much less viable.
|
Workers need to mine for longer but bring back more minerals.
This will make expos easier to defend because going 8 scvs split between two bases brings more money than 16 scvs on 1 base, unfortunately right now having an extra base makes no difference to economy till saturation.
There are a ton more reasons though.
Also less scouting options, no free scans, small maps, no scourge, perfect wall, etc.
No high ground advantage
No worker glitching, essential for defending really early rushes.
Marines can't be sandwiched between buildings to defend against zealots.
Supply depots are weaker.
Banelings do 80 damage to buildings.
Macro Mechanics.
|
It's not too hard to figure them out if you scout what units he has and how many at what time. Sean did a daily on this actually. That, combined with watching the replays to get an idea of the timings, can indicate stuff pretty clearly at the higher levels actually.
|
are you talking about high level ladder (where people are usually trying to mass wins as quickly as possible) or high level tournament play where players actually need to win? ... b/c I seldom see a tournament player on 1 base longer than 5 min.
|
On July 14 2011 14:02 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Marines can't be sandwiched between buildings to defend against zealots.
i can tell where you're coming from on all of these as a fellow BW player, but i think this one is not as necessary due to an increase in marine DPS. agree with your perspective in general though
|
On July 14 2011 13:19 naventus wrote:
Most top players would agree that 1 base play is very strong and unpredictable.
Do they? Really? Did you do the survey, or did you just make that up on the spot and hope we'd all agree to it? Even if it's true, I'm not sure they'd agree that it needs a nerf.
I'd guess if you were to survey actual Starcraft matches, you'd find that the higher you go skillwise, the more you'd find it's the top players who are disproportionately comfortable with very early 1rax/1gate/hatch first expanding, (except for maybe PvP, and even there, the elephant-in-the-room strategy uses only 1 gas). It's the lower leaguers who are too frightened to expand because of all the big scary bad guys that might be out there.
Less gas is a Zerg nerf, and it's a buff for 4gate in PvP - you want to edit the maps in ways that would probably warrant balance changes in the game proper, which is a bit of a tail-wagging-the-dog situation.
|
This would hurt protoss so badly
|
Maps that are large with small chokes and backdoor expansions already promote expo first very strongly. The thing is you see Blizzard purposefully incorporating small rush maps because they like that one base play is part of the game. So what I'm saying is, it's easy to disuade 1base all-ins with map design, but the powers that be don't want to.
|
This seems like balancing with a sledgehammer. It'd change everything about the game completely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
