• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 20:00
CEST 02:00
KST 09:00
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202530RSL Season 1 - Final Week8[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams2Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Why doesnt SC2 scene costream tournaments
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL Corsair Pursuit Micro?
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread BWCL Season 63 Announcement
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 623 users

Blizzard has the wrong idea with supply? - Page 2

Blogs > r_con
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 Next All
AmericanUmlaut
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
Germany2577 Posts
November 23 2011 16:23 GMT
#21
I think changing the supply based on the current supply system would be a bad idea for all the reasons that others have already stated, but I think changing the system is a real possibility. One of the problems in my mind is that having 200 supply limit reduces the gradiation you can have in supply. For example, I feel like 2 supply is too much for a Roach, but 1 supply was demonstrably too little. If the supply limit were 1000 instead of 200, though, the equivalents would be 5 and 10 supply, and you'd have an in-between range to play with. Maybe having a Roach take up .7% of your total supply cap would work better than .5%; with the current system, you're constrained unless you do something like with Zerglings and have Roaches use fractional supply.
The frumious Bandersnatch
Iksf
Profile Joined March 2011
United Kingdom444 Posts
November 23 2011 16:28 GMT
#22
I agree with this, you really don't get rewarded for economy very much in sc2, having a healthy pop of workers can more commonly lose you the game than win it. I think the food cap should be increased though, not the actual units changed due to having more diversity in the food costs than if everything had to be, say, 1 supply 2 supply or 3 supply.
hehe
Profile Joined April 2009
United States132 Posts
November 23 2011 16:29 GMT
#23
On November 24 2011 01:23 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
I think changing the supply based on the current supply system would be a bad idea for all the reasons that others have already stated, but I think changing the system is a real possibility. One of the problems in my mind is that having 200 supply limit reduces the gradiation you can have in supply. For example, I feel like 2 supply is too much for a Roach, but 1 supply was demonstrably too little. If the supply limit were 1000 instead of 200, though, the equivalents would be 5 and 10 supply, and you'd have an in-between range to play with. Maybe having a Roach take up .7% of your total supply cap would work better than .5%; with the current system, you're constrained unless you do something like with Zerglings and have Roaches use fractional supply.

i think this is the best way to fix it. the only reason broodwar had 200 supply max is because the most units a map could hold was 1700.
Velr
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Switzerland10698 Posts
November 23 2011 16:34 GMT
#24
Workers eat to much supply
Roaches.

Sums up the problems pretty much?

I don't see P or T armies as to small.. But Z just looks stupid in SC2 (when going for Roach/Hydra).
r_con
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United States824 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-11-23 16:50:46
November 23 2011 16:48 GMT
#25
im not sure if we explored the 1 supply roach enough, cause that's the one people are hammering on about. How long did it take for zergs to fgiure out how to beat the protoss deathball? how long did it take for zergs to understand how to make it a pain for protoss to get their thirds? You can say you think they would be overwhelmed. But possibly not, there would have to timings in where toss simply couldn't have enough units cause of the 12.5 mineral reduction in roaches, where possibly more supply efficient immortal could deal with it.

The roach is the hard one, banshee, tank, etc. doesn't matter too much. the 1/1/1 example that was presented would require 1 less depot for when the 1/1/1 hit. and with other races having more supply freed up, cuold deal with the 5-10 more tanks.

But i think the better solution without a complete rebalance would be increasing the supply cap. Or even something crazy like a 200/200 upgrade at hive tech for 1 supply roaches.

The issue i have is that there is just not enough supply to make late game not silly, also, balancing compositions based on supply cap seems silly to me. Balancing compositions based on econ isn't as silly. also, the issue with deathball in SC2 is straight up the supply cap, because you can't both support an army and econ to replace that army fluidly in sc2 without a bank. the only race that can do that is terran, and that's because of the silliness of mass OC mules. deathballs happen, not because of the supply cap. because if that was the case, then why didn't broodwar have deathball syndrome, cause you could get more of almost all units in the game. it happened because of the very thing we think is causing deathballs more of , and that's just more supply to work with so players can't sit thier ass on 3-4 base. and just keep having micro battles with those 4 base because there is no reason to get more bases if your army isn't getting bigger and better because of those bases.
Flash Fan!
AcrossFiveJulys
Profile Blog Joined September 2005
United States3612 Posts
November 23 2011 16:49 GMT
#26
This is a good topic of discussion even though I think the OP isn't particularly well written. It certainly seems like all three races aren't rewarded in the way they should be by having 3+ bases. The only thing you can use your econ for is to rebuild. Imagine if the supply cap were 300; then if you were 2 bases ahead of your opponent you would be able to out macro the crap out of them, instead of e.g. TvP where T is on 4 bases, P is on 2 or 3, but P still wins because they end up with one strong 200/200 3/3 deathball.

On November 24 2011 01:34 Velr wrote:
Workers eat to much supply
Roaches.

Sums up the problems pretty much?

I don't see P or T armies as to small.. But Z just looks stupid in SC2 (when going for Roach/Hydra).


Agreed. I say raise zerg's supply limit to 300 but weaken all their units even if the other races are left untouched. Although this would make zerg weaker in early game, the other races have gotten nerfed and zergs have gotten better to the point where you very rarely see zergs dying to cheese/allin anymore.



Nokarot
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States1410 Posts
November 23 2011 16:55 GMT
#27
Blizzard might have used 200 max cap as a default number giving that Brood War had it, but I think its safe to say that they balance accordingly. Really, there is nothing here that you've put enough critical thinking in to to warrant changes to the way the game is balanced right now. Brood War was a different game- you can't balance sc2 based off ideas from sc1.

Zerg is balanced around the concept of having 80 workers and remaxing quickly- if suddenly you have 250-300 supply I'm confident that, in the games current state, Zerg would be hella dominant late game because of how fast they can remax (even a higher food count) if they build a larva/money trust fund. Every other race is limited in production by the number of buildings you have, and, while I recognize larva as a limiting factor, Zerg still has the potential to build 60 units simultaneously without investing in insane amounts of unit-producing-structures, something other races can't claim.

I am not saying that SC2 is perfect by any means, but any changes to the food counts at this point would throw off the game entirely. Then again, adding new units in HotS is already going to throw a wrench in our current idea of balance, maybe Blizzard will experiment with different supply values for the expansion as well.
beep beep boop
th2pun1sh3r
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States107 Posts
November 23 2011 17:10 GMT
#28
Why is the thor 6 supply.. hmm how about the fact that it splashes air units and rapes ground.Could u imagine an army of 90 thors. lol
"Rank-1 Master Random Sc2 Player"
thesideshow
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
930 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-11-23 17:17:59
November 23 2011 17:16 GMT
#29
On November 24 2011 01:55 Nokarot wrote:
Zerg is balanced around the concept of having 80 workers and remaxing quickly- if suddenly you have 250-300 supply I'm confident that, in the games current state, Zerg would be hella dominant late game because of how fast they can remax (even a higher food count) if they build a larva/money trust fund. Every other race is limited in production by the number of buildings you have, and, while I recognize larva as a limiting factor, Zerg still has the potential to build 60 units simultaneously without investing in insane amounts of unit-producing-structures, something other races can't claim.


It could be argued that the protoss deathball will become untouchable too. 300/300 deathball will have more sentries, allowing more forcefields -> better control over terrain -> negating the increased numbers of the opponent. It would also allow for more colossi which due to its range and aoe, makes it extremely scalable with larger army sizes.

I don't think increasing the total supply will make much of a difference tbh. Nearly everything is scalable. We'll then be saying that we don't have enough 'worker supply' to sustain 4+ bases. We can make all the same arguments we're currently making, be it 200 max or 300 max supply.
OGS:levelchange
stenole
Profile Blog Joined April 2004
Norway868 Posts
November 23 2011 17:22 GMT
#30
I think the 200/200 supply cap creates a necessary dynamic in order to make the game more than just getting more bases than the other guy. Making that cap less relevant forces the game to stay longer in midgame mode without transitioning to late game.
Al Bundy
Profile Joined April 2010
7257 Posts
November 23 2011 17:24 GMT
#31
I'm a video game designer too and I know better than blizzard. I say let's make Thors 1 supply, and queen 0 supply. Problem solved!
o choro é livre
OmniEulogy
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Canada6592 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-11-23 17:37:17
November 23 2011 17:36 GMT
#32
On November 24 2011 01:10 hehe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 24 2011 00:50 OmniEulogy wrote:
These units are NOT used in the same way they were in broodwar. Don't even try to compare how they were used in that game. And guess what? 200/200 at 13~ minutes was very doable in broodwar even with the lower supply units.

I'm not looking to start this debate but sc2 is already a long way off from the balance bw had due to years of patches. The last thing I think needs to have happened is to give us the ability to create even more bat-shit-insane armies.

broodwar had exactly 3 balance patches


sorry I think I said this poorly. I meant the patches were extremely far apart. Not that I hated having 3 minute long dweb for such a long time but yeah thanks.
LiquidDota Staff
sluggaslamoo
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
Australia4494 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-11-23 17:47:10
November 23 2011 17:45 GMT
#33
I don't know what the fuss is about, the OP makes a valid point.

Supply only really affects 200/200 army scenarios, but Blizzard thinks changing supply balances the unit across the board, which is stupid.

We can see this because early game roaches were considered OP. Changing the supply makes barely any difference, how can it? it made just enough to allow Protoss to hold the aggression because Zerg had to buy a few more overlords. Although maybe Toss just learned to defend better as well.

We also know that Zerg has a huge problem with the 200/200 protoss deathball. Way to fix it? Make roaches slightly weaker but make them 1 supply. Now you can have 150 roaches late game if you need (twice as much firepower), but they won't be too strong early game.

This applies to almost every high supply unit in the game, or substitute units like the medivac. A marine medic comp looks three times bigger than a marine medivac marauder comp, it achieves mostly the same thing as dropships weren't exactly difficult to get.

It would also make the game much better to watch, because the armies would be covering the screen more and you would have longer battles.

The max 300 supply is stupid, when so many units are 2 and up to 6 supply. Just change the supply costs and its problem solved.
Come play Android Netrunner - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=409008
Spicy_Curry
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States10573 Posts
November 23 2011 18:03 GMT
#34
The only one I can remotely agree to is the immortal being 2 supply. Since its not a warpgate unit the building time would just be a natural hindrance to the amount you can get.
High Risk Low Reward
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
November 23 2011 18:08 GMT
#35
Some units cost more supply then BW and the supply limit is at 200 instead of 300 for one simple reason that has nothing to do with balance or "design". It is all about game performance. Put more units on to the screen and less PCs will be able to run it, less people will play, less $ for Blizzard. (months and months ago Day[9] asked Blizzard about why not go for a 300 supply and this was the reason given)

In the future we might see a supply limit increase as the "average" PC in each house will be stronger. Although, there will be a decision to be made: increase the supply limit, or put more fancy effects, animations etc. Not sure what the majority would prefer though.
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
StarStruck
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
25339 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-11-23 18:49:15
November 23 2011 18:46 GMT
#36
On November 24 2011 03:08 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Some units cost more supply then BW and the supply limit is at 200 instead of 300 for one simple reason that has nothing to do with balance or "design". It is all about game performance. Put more units on to the screen and less PCs will be able to run it, less people will play, less $ for Blizzard. (months and months ago Day[9] asked Blizzard about why not go for a 300 supply and this was the reason given)

In the future we might see a supply limit increase as the "average" PC in each house will be stronger. Although, there will be a decision to be made: increase the supply limit, or put more fancy effects, animations etc. Not sure what the majority would prefer though.



Yup, it still isn't optimal though. As I mentioned somewhere else even if they were to increase the supply to 220 it would definitely help.


P.S. You don't need fancy effects and animations in a RTS. The simpler the design the easier it is for the spectators and players to watch/play.
a176
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada6688 Posts
November 23 2011 19:07 GMT
#37
BW's system is much more complicated than just resource income to supply. It plays a big part, but unit production speed, unit health, unit damage (read, BW damage system) all play a role in the overall macro game.

This is where SC2 and BW stand apart, because SC2 is a much more simplified version of the above. And it's because of this simplification, or should I say, oversimplification, what causes the game to appear to be so broken at times. I don't think there's nothing wrong with SC2 supply counts, especially considering SC2's high-damage system, but its really the balance between economy (workers/mules/warpgate) and army that blizzard needs to work on (read: will never work on) to make for a more entertaining game.

but as it stands, SC2 is evolving into its own niche. i think SC2 is still awaiting its next "true" star to push the game to its limits as far as a combat goes.
starleague forever
LAN-f34r
Profile Joined December 2010
New Zealand2099 Posts
November 23 2011 19:10 GMT
#38
The problem is that whenever an early game push turns out to be strong, blizz come along and nerfs it. 8rax, reaper builds, 2gate, 4gate, ect. Why shouldn't I make 100 drones before any army if you can't do anything to me?
The only barrier to truth is the presumption that you already have it. It's through our pane (pain) we window (win though).
Hidden_MotiveS
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Canada2562 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-11-23 19:29:06
November 23 2011 19:20 GMT
#39
Deathballs happen because there's a dearth of distinctive micro in quick battles where units clump and because splash is king. Increasing supply just lets people get more splash damage and stronger deathballs.

The reason for starcraft 1's supply cap and many rts games at the time was because computers couldn't handle any more. I can say that this is still probably true today given starcraft 2's graphics. It's been built into the balancing of strategy games and changing this will change how people will have to balance games.



On November 24 2011 01:23 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
I think changing the supply based on the current supply system would be a bad idea for all the reasons that others have already stated, but I think changing the system is a real possibility. One of the problems in my mind is that having 200 supply limit reduces the gradiation you can have in supply. For example, I feel like 2 supply is too much for a Roach, but 1 supply was demonstrably too little. If the supply limit were 1000 instead of 200, though, the equivalents would be 5 and 10 supply, and you'd have an in-between range to play with. Maybe having a Roach take up .7% of your total supply cap would work better than .5%; with the current system, you're constrained unless you do something like with Zerglings and have Roaches use fractional supply.

Zerglings already cost half a supply so this is doable without working with numbers that are too large that they start to scare people. When two pairs of zerglings are spawned, and one twin from both pairs die, the zerg player loses 1 supply.
Sapphire.lux
Profile Joined July 2010
Romania2620 Posts
November 23 2011 19:41 GMT
#40
On November 24 2011 03:46 StarStruck wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 24 2011 03:08 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Some units cost more supply then BW and the supply limit is at 200 instead of 300 for one simple reason that has nothing to do with balance or "design". It is all about game performance. Put more units on to the screen and less PCs will be able to run it, less people will play, less $ for Blizzard. (months and months ago Day[9] asked Blizzard about why not go for a 300 supply and this was the reason given)

In the future we might see a supply limit increase as the "average" PC in each house will be stronger. Although, there will be a decision to be made: increase the supply limit, or put more fancy effects, animations etc. Not sure what the majority would prefer though.



Yup, it still isn't optimal though. As I mentioned somewhere else even if they were to increase the supply to 220 it would definitely help.


P.S. You don't need fancy effects and animations in a RTS. The simpler the design the easier it is for the spectators and players to watch/play.


For sure. But the "omg it looks so beautiful on my new xxxx graphics card" and the "mehh, looks kind of dated" ways of looking at games are an important aspect of sales. Increase the supply and you have a better game, improve the graphics and you keep some people interested for a longer period of time while attracting others to. I'm happy with BW graphics btw, but not many are.
Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!"
Prev 1 2 3 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 10h
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Hyuk 994
NaDa 67
Aegong 38
Dota 2
monkeys_forever241
League of Legends
syndereN536
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1342
flusha386
Coldzera 146
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox295
AZ_Axe93
Other Games
tarik_tv8861
Grubby2142
Day[9].tv1124
shahzam567
C9.Mang0282
ViBE207
Maynarde151
Livibee76
Liquid`Ken9
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1211
BasetradeTV32
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• RyuSc2 62
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22278
League of Legends
• Doublelift5201
Other Games
• Scarra1707
• Day9tv1124
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
10h
ByuN vs Zoun
SHIN vs TriGGeR
Cyan vs ShoWTimE
Rogue vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs Solar
Reynor vs Maru
herO vs Cure
Serral vs Classic
Esports World Cup
1d 10h
Esports World Cup
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Online Event
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.