| Blogs > r_con |
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
I just played a TvZ on Xel and go overrun by a 2 basing Zerg who made nothing but Roaches, batches and batches of Roaches. Guess what? On such a short distance, there's no way you can deal with batches of 10 Roaches coming wave by wave once your mech army is gone. And you want them to be 1 pop? Oh, and no-pop workers? So the Zerg can sit on a 100 workers and still make 200 Banes to raze everything? Please, put more thought and content into that stuff and post it in the Strat forum. If you dare. | ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
On November 24 2011 00:36 Soleron wrote: Maxed gameplay is so much more fun to watch because they can play with composition more, and remaxing means that just because you lose 1 battle doesn't mean the game is lost as in the early game. Yes, this is a good point. If supply wasn't the limiting factor then we would see massive armies with no resources banked and it would come down to that one final battle, with no significant chance of reinforcement. I think we'd see a lot more passive deathball play which isn't really fun to watch. Now, when a player hits 200 it is an incentive to attack, since they don't want their opponent to cap as well and put them on even terms. But if they could just keep massing and massing there wouldn't be as much incentive to attack. | ||
|
Arterial
Australia1039 Posts
So instead of 2x2500 gas geysers, just 1x5000, which mines at 8 instead of 4. | ||
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
StarCraft 2 has both economy and supply as limiting factors, simple as that. The supply limit forces you to attack once you're maxed out, otherwise you'll just be sitting around doing nothing. Blizzard might individually change the supplies of units for balance purposes, but their design principle based around a limited supply is solid. Removing the supply factor would remove a large amount of depth from the game. Altering the supply really wouldn't do anything except fuck up the metagame for a few months until the pros get used to it. Then they're back to maxed armies at whatever limit and the status quo would be maintained again. I know it "seems" like SC2's supply limit makes you field a smaller army vs other games that don't have supply limits, but in reality SC2 armies are actually larger overall compared to other games. This is because economy is accrued much faster in SC2 than other games that don't rely on supply. In most C&C games a 20 tank army is considered pretty huge, but in SC2 it's a common occurrence to have a mixed army of 40 gateway units running around. | ||
|
BamBam
745 Posts
On November 24 2011 08:50 Newbistic wrote: No.... StarCraft 2 has both economy and supply as limiting factors, simple as that. The supply limit forces you to attack once you're maxed out, otherwise you'll just be sitting around doing nothing. Blizzard might individually change the supplies of units for balance purposes, but their design principle based around a limited supply is solid. Removing the supply factor would remove a large amount of depth from the game. Altering the supply really wouldn't do anything except fuck up the metagame for a few months until the pros get used to it. Then they're back to maxed armies at whatever limit and the status quo would be maintained again. I know it "seems" like SC2's supply limit makes you field a smaller army vs other games that don't have supply limits, but in reality SC2 armies are actually larger overall compared to other games. This is because economy is accrued much faster in SC2 than other games that don't rely on supply. In most C&C games a 20 tank army is considered pretty huge, but in SC2 it's a common occurrence to have a mixed army of 40 gateway units running around. The OP isn't saying to remove the supply >_> What he is referring to is lowering the supply cost of units across the board so that you have more units to work with (and with more units, Id be willing to be we would see far more multi-prong attacks). Honestly, I think the supply cap should of been raised the moment blizz decided to introduce 2 geysers and overall supply expensive units. | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
Everything else you mentioned is fine without supply changes. and making stuff like infestors and HT 1 supply is just silly. The biggest supply issues are with zerg because now a base for zerg has far more workers and a queen per base when compared to bw where the units were cheaper and you had much less workers. Ghost emp/snipe rape on late game zerg wouldnt be as good if zerg freed up a bunch of economy tied up supply without losing that economy. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On November 24 2011 04:51 Kukaracha wrote: You're joking right? I just played a TvZ on Xel and go overrun by a 2 basing Zerg who made nothing but Roaches, batches and batches of Roaches. Guess what? On such a short distance, there's no way you can deal with batches of 10 Roaches coming wave by wave once your mech army is gone. And you want them to be 1 pop? Oh, and no-pop workers? So the Zerg can sit on a 100 workers and still make 200 Banes to raze everything? Please, put more thought and content into that stuff and post it in the Strat forum. If you dare. Um if Zerg is doing that then changing Roach to 1 supply doesn't make any difference, instead Roaches need to be weaker or cost more, that's the point of the thread. Supply only matters once you get to 200/200. And if you care about that then Thors/Marauders need to be less supply as well, thus balancing it out and making spawn larva less effective anyway. | ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
deathballs are usually a protoss thing or mech thing. they are a product of limiting supply. It seems wierd to say that, but let me explain. the way it work is because of this, in starcraft 2 you can only support 4 bases while still not dieing. 22 workers x 4 base = 88 workers 88 supply of econ. but realistically alot of protoss on get 3 base, and then max off that. They get bases as their bases run out. and run around with their deathball. WHY push, if you can't get more shit. why expand, when it doesn't make your army bigger or better. the deathball happens because you have no reason to push. why risk losing your army? its not like my opponents 10 base is benefiting him that much more? so lets use a simpler example 300 supply, rather than changing costs. you can't get 300 supply that fast anymore. you cant sit your ass on 3 base anymore. the guy with 5 base can ACTUALLY get a bigger army than you, faster. your "deathball" will never happen, cause i can just overwhelm it because i can actually use my economy to crush your defensive style, cause you sat your ass down on 3 base, while i had 5, where i actually have supply to benefit from the 5 bases with constant attacks. Deathballs did happen in broodwar by the way, but they were rare, because to get a deathball, your army had to be HUGE, this usually happened when people had exhausted the map of everything there was. you never saw 3 base deathballs, because 3 base wasn't enough to get a good 200/200 army, you had to have more bases, to get that BIG army, so thus, deathballs couldn't happen because you had to have your army spread out to defend all your bases. Deathballs are caused by the ease and speed to get to a supply cap. that's what causes defensive play in late game, that also causes the composition wars in all matchups because you aren't allowed more of stuff, thats why people on 6 base can lose to people on 3 base because they microed well in one battle, or had a better composition. that can't happen if you increase the supply cap because your three base would just get overwhelmed and they would never reach the supply cap. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6593 Posts
On November 25 2011 13:52 r_con wrote: its a combination of things. more supply does NOT mean that you can make bigger deathballs. deathballs are usually a protoss thing or mech thing. they are a product of limiting supply. It seems wierd to say that, but let me explain. the way it work is because of this, in starcraft 2 you can only support 4 bases while still not dieing. 22 workers x 4 base = 88 workers 88 supply of econ. but realistically alot of protoss on get 3 base, and then max off that. They get bases as their bases run out. and run around with their deathball. WHY push, if you can't get more shit. why expand, when it doesn't make your army bigger or better. the deathball happens because you have no reason to push. why risk losing your army? its not like my opponents 10 base is benefiting him that much more? so lets use a simpler example 300 supply, rather than changing costs. you can't get 300 supply that fast anymore. you cant sit your ass on 3 base anymore. the guy with 5 base can ACTUALLY get a bigger army than you, faster. your "deathball" will never happen, cause i can just overwhelm it because i can actually use my economy to crush your defensive style, cause you sat your ass down on 3 base, while i had 5, where i actually have supply to benefit from the 5 bases with constant attacks. Deathballs did happen in broodwar by the way, but they were rare, because to get a deathball, your army had to be HUGE, this usually happened when people had exhausted the map of everything there was. you never saw 3 base deathballs, because 3 base wasn't enough to get a good 200/200 army, you had to have more bases, to get that BIG army, so thus, deathballs couldn't happen because you had to have your army spread out to defend all your bases. Deathballs are caused by the ease and speed to get to a supply cap. that's what causes defensive play in late game, that also causes the composition wars in all matchups because you aren't allowed more of stuff, thats why people on 6 base can lose to people on 3 base because they microed well in one battle, or had a better composition. that can't happen if you increase the supply cap because your three base would just get overwhelmed and they would never reach the supply cap. Absolutely everything you were saying I was agreeing with right up till the whole broodwar 3 base never max out thing..... if I wasn't maxed out on 3 bases I was playing TERRIBLY that game... also do you remember the 160 supply 2 base Terran turtle 2/2 crawl across the map and laugh while taking every base along the way timing push? Zergs are exempt cause if they didn't have at least 3-4 bases idk how they were making units. Supply cap increase makes sense! This!!!!! Should have been your opening blog post. Makes a lot more sense than randomly trying to rearrange supply costs. Players should be rewarded for having such a strong economic base! I don't know how many times I used to lose in season 1 PvP while being on 3 bases and have slightly larger supply than my 2 basing counterpart and lose due to 200/200 losing to his collosi while I was trying to figure out if I could play PvP without collo's. Edit: I don't know if it came across but I STRONGLY agree with this as opposed to what you originally posted and I kinda attacked  | ||
| ||
|
|
StarCraft2.fi
PiGosaur Monday
StarCraft2.fi
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
WardiTV 2025
StarCraft2.fi
WardiTV 2025
StarCraft2.fi
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
