|
Ive had this thought for awhile, but what triggered this blog is: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=288232
200 supply is extremely common in SC2, almost everyone can agree about that. Now why does this happen? well i think its because blizzard misunderstands the limiting factor in economy based rts is Econ.
In sc2 we seem to have supply= power of the unit, this is the wrong approach I believe, it often gives little incentive to get more econ because your gonna be capped anyway. This also makes armies smaller because we are tryinng to make the tank as strong as 3 marines or whatever.
The first unit I'm gonna talk about key units that i believe costs too much supply and make armies smaller is the roach. This unit is amazing for the cost of the unit, and transitions well to the mid game. Problem is it costs 2 supply, for unit, that in mass, just gets worse and worse. Early on roaches seemed to be overpowered, that's why the 2 supply happened. But now, if you think about it, 1 suppply roaches don't seem like they would be a big deal. my tank marine army is still gonna make short work of the roach in all other times except for late games.
This also comes down to another supply sucker. The tank, why is the tank 3 supply? tanks cost alot of resources, we need alot just to support tank production. Why shouldn't i be rewarded? make it 2 supply.
banshee? are we really worried about people massing banshees? these things cost a fortune, why the hell are they 3 supply again?
thor? 6 suppply? again, they cost alot, they add to the "ball" but if you can get that many thors? the opponent should be able to get that many of the counter
immortals 4 supply? i'm thinking 2, the amount of econ to support that alot of immortals would be insane.
colossus 6 supply? this is the only unit that i can say is worth 6 supply in this game. and even then, that may be too much if you lowered some other units supplies?
ultras 6 supply? 4 if that, considering how overall bad they are.
infestors should be 1 supply i think, they are extremely expensive
HT, considering how overall bad they are, should cost maybe 1 supply, they are pretty expensive for 2 supply, so I'm not sure maybe make archon cost 1 more supply.
Also things like vikings and corrupters could arguably be lower supply if think like BCs, voidrays and colossus were lower supply.
I really have no validation, but deathballs happen because the game doesn't allow us to get REALLY big armies. they are just kind of big. This also goes into how hard gas is to get and stuff like that.
Essentially something like this would require a rebalance of the game. But i think my overall point stands is that the limiting factor of army should be economy, not army supply. That's why tank in BW that was, were not OP. Because getting that huge ball was EXPENSIVE, and took a long time, rather than getting 200 supply at the 15-20 minute mark.
again, this has no validation just a playful thought . But there is nothing wrong with supply efficient units, as long as late game the other races have supply efficient units also. It just seems really bloated and thats why you have little incentive, not enough supply for workers, not enough supply for army. Maybe the easier way would be to raise the supply cap.
  
|
|
|
On November 24 2011 00:12 chingchong99 wrote:
HTs are bad?
well no, they are not, but it just seems like, they cost 50/150, how the hell are you gonna mass these? the econ necessary for that would be so hard to get.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On November 24 2011 00:08 r_con wrote:
I really have no validation-
Why did I read this? Sure, less supply would cause bigger armies... Or having a higher supply cap could mean larger armies.
|
...
Why not just make workers worth no supply then we could have 200 supply worth of pure army...
|
well it has adverse effects on the rest of play 5th base onwards is kinda useless
and i hope mizU is trolling me, obviously so that there are not timings that can be abused, the other use of supply is to limit timings and require more resources to get X army.
|
On November 24 2011 00:19 mizU wrote:
...
Why not just make workers worth no supply then we could have 200 supply worth of pure army...
The problem is that it would wreck the early game economy if workers did not cost supply. I agree thatplayers max too quickly but imo that is a gamespeed problem not an economy problem. I would be curious what would happen if the game was played at 1 less speed but ability cooldowns and energy regen was kept the same.. Would we see moremicro in battles and make engagements last longer than 3 seconds? It would solve the maxing out in 15 minns problem.
|
Actually, I do agree with this - in 1v1 I think 300/300 is more appropriate.
Although, I think it's too late for WoL because something like this is too hard to balance. I would hope they make it so in HoTS, but I doubt it unfortunately.
|
I don't play SC2, so I can't comment on balance, but I agree it's very off putting that armies max so quickly. If your idea is that the game would be better if units were balanced more by cost than by supply, which would encourage expanding more and lead to bigger armies, then that is appealing to me, even though I know nothing about game theory.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
I think its stupid that Zerg needs like 80 drones, 4-5 queens and then roach 2 supply but the numbers you are throwing out are ridicilous.
|
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.
|
so basically what you want is for everything to cost the same but use less supply..... players wouldn't max out as fast but they'd still have the same size army at the same point of the game and the armies would grow even larger and fights be even more one sided at 200/200..... this game was balanced in a particular way, if you change thing this dramatically now it would completely break the game.... prolly in favour of Zerg since their shit already costs fuck all supply. 2 lings, 1 supply, 2 banes, 1 supply.
|
On November 24 2011 00:17 r_con wrote:well no, they are not, but it just seems like, they cost 50/150, how the hell are you gonna mass these? the econ necessary for that would be so hard to get.
Can't really forget that they can morph into archon's...
|
On November 24 2011 00:35 Kipsate wrote:
I think its stupid that Zerg needs like 80 drones, 4-5 queens and then roach 2 supply but the numbers you are throwing out are ridicilous.
well, i don't know about that, like, defilers were 1 supply in BW(edit: i am wrong, they were 2)
lurkers were 2
ultras were 4
tanks were 2
arbiters were 4
Hts were two(with WAY better storm)
science vessels were 2 (way better than ravens)
vultures were 2 supply and could plant down 3 spider mines!
edit
:
On November 24 2011 00:36 emythrel wrote:
so basically what you want is for everything to cost the same but use less supply..... players wouldn't max out as fast but they'd still have the same size army at the same point of the game and the armies would grow even larger and fights be even more one sided at 200/200..... this game was balanced in a particular way, if you change thing this dramatically now it would completely break the game.... prolly in favour of Zerg since their shit already costs fuck all supply. 2 lings, 1 supply, 2 banes, 1 supply.
This also has other effects in that you have more supply for workers, and you have to invest less in supply depots and overlords. So essentially 200/200 would happen less, securing more than 4 bases would have a point. and it wouldn't be the hey, i have money building up, time to build OC's all over the map cause i really can't invest in anything else.
|
|
|
wait so the more expensive a unit is the less supply it should be? Lowering the supply of most of these units would completely break the game without completely recreating these units because then you would have more of them... roaches can't be 1 supply if you played the beta and saw what was happening you would remember that you wouldn't survive past the early game as protoss vs mass roach with somebody who could even try to macro.
Stop trying to make 1-1-1 stronger and more efficient. Less supply on Siege Tanks and Banshee's means needing less depots means coming faster with more marines. Stalkers already do shit dps to banshee's in the first place I don't need an extra one flying at me which my awesome 2 supply immortal can not even shoot.
Thor's are 6 supply cause if you fight Mech you know Thor's are not the only unit in the army. I don't need 10 extra siege tanks and 4 extra thors with them because you've lowered the cap on BOTH units.
If you are having problems with death balls try to harass and hit timing windows where you can poke in and do some damage to the army and then leave again instead of playing a passive 200/200 max at 15 minutes and then go a-move and see who wins.
Ultralisk I could actually agree with making only 5 supply. 4 is a bit too low but tbh I think you are right about them. Infestors and HT lol no way. late game would turn into something really dumb with 30 of them running around WITH a giant army to back them up.
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.
|
On November 24 2011 00:08 r_con wrote: But now, if you think about it, 1 suppply roaches don't seem like they would be a big deal. my tank marine army is still gonna make short work of the roach.
Tell that to protoss. Their deathball would get wrecked by 200/200 one-supply roaches.
|
On November 24 2011 00:50 OmniEulogy wrote:
wait so the more expensive a unit is the less supply it should be? Lowering the supply of most of these units would completely break the game without completely recreating these units because then you would have more of them... roaches can't be 1 supply if you played the beta and saw what was happening you would remember that you wouldn't survive past the early game as protoss vs mass roach with somebody who could even try to macro.
Stop trying to make 1-1-1 stronger and more efficient. Less supply on Siege Tanks and Banshee's means needing less depots means coming faster with more marines. Stalkers already do shit dps to banshee's in the first place I don't need an extra one flying at me which my awesome 2 supply immortal can not even shoot.
Thor's are 6 supply cause if you fight Mech you know Thor's are not the only unit in the army. I don't need 10 extra siege tanks and 4 extra thors with them because you've lowered the cap on BOTH units.
If you are having problems with death balls try to harass and hit timing windows where you can poke in and do some damage to the army and then leave again instead of playing a passive 200/200 max at 15 minutes and then go a-move and see who wins.
Ultralisk I could actually agree with making only 5 supply. 4 is a bit too low but tbh I think you are right about them. Infestors and HT lol no way. late game would turn into something really dumb with 30 of them running around WITH a giant army to back them up.
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.
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with this argument on why it would break the game.
|
I think you're going about this whole concept of econ management and supply the wrong way. You have to consider supply as a third (or, for zerg, fourth resource). It's important how you spend the limited amount of supply you have, and honestly, I think once the top level of play becomes more and more about finesse, I don't think there will ever be many games where both players sit passively in their base and wait for a 200/200 deathball.
The first Day9 daily ever, FlaSh vs Hero, represents the kind of game I imagine in SC2s future. FlaSh is consistently aggressive with Marines in order to defend his natural by proxy. He continually pushes across the map, forcing Hero's Mutas to engage, and trading armies. Because FlaSh was losing so many Marines, he didn't have to build as many depots, and could still focus on his upgrades, tech, and economy.
My point is this: usually there BW professionals didn't hit 200/200 supply. This wasn't because they didn't want to, or because BW is a different game (it is definitely a different game, but the differences between SC2 and BW don't account for this phenomenon), but because professional BW players had so much time and experience with the game that they knew exactly what they could and couldn't do with the supply they had. They knew what their opponent should have, and they were aggressive because they had such a perfect understanding of the game. This will come to SC2 as well with time.
Changing the supply of the units is silly to me because that would be like changing the cost. Blizzard didn't pick just random numbers for a unit's supply. A lot of hard work went in to this game, and the same amount of sincere and earnest dedication went into every aspect of this game. Blizzard has some pretty smart people.
|
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
|
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 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.
|
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.
|
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).
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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!
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I think possibly in the future, "normal" gas geysers might be removed in place with "rich" ones. Similar to BW, that way you only need 3 workers per base for gas saturation. Will mean more supply for army and a tiny bit less for workers (at least 18-24?).
So instead of 2x2500 gas geysers, just 1x5000, which mines at 8 instead of 4.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Only things I think to possibly consider are the immortals lowering to 3 and ultras to 4 or 5. Thors are going to be removed so dont need to worry about those. Collossus are essentially like a reaver and a shuttle combined so the supply is ok.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
