EPTCreating maps where there is only 1 gas geyser at the 3rd/4th base locations would slow down the formation of the "Deathball" composition, which could address late-game racial imbalances without affecting early/mid-game balance.
+ Show Spoiler [Other resource tweaks to consider] +
Instead 1 Gas for each 3rd/4th/5th base you can also consider:
1 High Yield Gas, 8 Mineral Patches = 75% gas, 100% minerals of a normal base.
1 High Yield Gas, 6 Mineral Patches = 75% gas, 75% minerals of a normal base.
1 Normal Gas, 8 Mineral Patches = 50% gas, 100% minerals of a normal base.
1 Normal Gas, 6 Mineral Patches = 50% gas, 75% minerals of a normal base.
Etc.
+ Show Spoiler [Other resource tweaks to consider] +
Instead 1 Gas for each 3rd/4th/5th base you can also consider:
1 High Yield Gas, 8 Mineral Patches = 75% gas, 100% minerals of a normal base.
1 High Yield Gas, 6 Mineral Patches = 75% gas, 75% minerals of a normal base.
1 Normal Gas, 8 Mineral Patches = 50% gas, 100% minerals of a normal base.
1 Normal Gas, 6 Mineral Patches = 50% gas, 75% minerals of a normal base.
Etc.
Late-game balance is a very sensitive subject in SC2 these days (as is any kind of balance discussions). Maybe this is an idea that has already been gone over in a myriad other threads. And I'm sure a lot of people are annoyed by people starting threads with balance suggestions, but I figured it wouldn't be that big a deal to post a blog on the subject.
The SC2 map-making community has done a tremendous job of tweaking the competitive balance of the game simply by adjusting the map pool. Starting with building larger maps (back in the Steppes of War days), to removing gold bases, IMO the map-making community has had just as dramatic an effect on competitive balance in SC2 as the changes made by Blizzard.
So with all the discussion about the balance of late-game TvP (and to a lesser extent late-game TvZ) I wonder if there is a map-making change that could be done to address the issue. My idea is:
What if we had maps where the main/natural had two gases like we have now but the potential 3rd and 4th expansions only had 1 gas geyser? The standard number of 8 mineral patches would remain the same for all bases.
+ Show Spoiler [Other resource tweaks to consider] +
Instead 1 Gas for each 3rd/4th/5th base you can also consider:
1 High Yield Gas, 8 Mineral Patches = 75% gas, 100% minerals of a normal base.
1 High Yield Gas, 6 Mineral Patches = 75% gas, 75% minerals of a normal base.
1 Normal Gas, 8 Mineral Patches = 50% gas, 100% minerals of a normal base.
1 Normal Gas, 6 Mineral Patches = 50% gas, 75% minerals of a normal base.
Etc.
This type of resource tweaking is similar to the "Fewer Resourced per Base" (FRB) movement, but it's not nearly as dramatic a change. The early/mid-game and one/two base play would be largely unchanged because the main and natural would the same amount of resources as we have now. Only Zerg can get to 3 bases early, and even then they wouldn't need to take 6 gases that early. But the reduction in gas in the late-game would slow down the formation of the "Deathball" and allow less gas intensive Terran armies to go toe-to-toe against Protoss and Zerg.
On 4 player maps, players could expand to the other starting positions instead of the standard 3rd and 4th bases to give themselves the extra gas, but it would be harder to defend so that trade-off exists. On 2 player maps, I'm thinking every expansion outside of the main and natural would only have 1 gas, expect maybe a faraway expansion that would replicate the dynamic from 4 player maps with the other starting positions.
Other changes can be made as required. Maybe this level of gas availability requires 3rd and 4th bases be easier to defend. Those kinds of changes can be made based on feedback for this style of map-making.
My thoughts on how it would affect each matchup:
TvP: This is the main impetus for this change. Right now late-game PvT just seems to have one formula: if Toss turtles up on 3 bases without Terran doing a lot of damage early, Toss will build up a deathball that's extremely cost efficient and crushes though the Terran army with the help of insta-reinforcing Zealots and Archons.
With this change a 3 base Toss goes from 6 gases to 5 which limits how fast they can build up their key splash units (Collossi and HT's). Terran on the other hand doesn't need nearly as much gas to build up their MMMVG composition, so the reduction in gas wouldn't affect them as much.
The less gas intensive Terran armies could fight toe to toe against Protoss and make the late-game much more balanced and back and forth.
TvZ: While not as controversial as the current TvP debate, TvZ also has heated discussions about late-game balance. Ever since the snipe nerf, a lot of Terrans from different levels have complained about late-game TvZ. The recent buff to Queens and overlord speed has only increased the chatter that Terrans need some help.
There are gas-intensive units on both sides of the matchup, so my thought is that there would be pros and cons for each. Zerg would have less of their key late-game units (Infestors, Broodlords and Ultras), but at the same time Terrans would find it harder to deal with tech switches due to less gas for Mauraders/Vikings. The Zerg does have the Queen to be a mineral sink which would augment the power of their army with transfuses.
Terran would have less Tanks and Mech play would be really hurt. But Marine-based compositions would be a lot stronger since Marines make the perfect mineral-sink and the Zerg would have less Infestors and Banelings. In this less gas scenario, due to the power of the mineral-only Marine, Terran probably ends up with more pros than cons, and maybe that is enough to give Terrans a boost in the late-game.
PvZ: Both Protoss and Zerg require a lot of gas in the late-game. Zergs need Boodlord, Infestor, and Corrupters. Protoss needs Stalkers, Collossi, HT/Archons and Mothership. My thinking is that both sides would be hurt as much as each other so a lower gas map would not dramatically affect the balance of this matchup.
For the mirror matchups there would not be any issues about balance, but less gas would create changes in style, so I thought it would be worth addressing.
PvP: No changes. PvP almost never goes to 3 bases anyway. And even if it did, this would just mean smaller collossi vs collossi fights.
ZvZ: ZvZ's don't always go to 3 bases so those games wouldn't change. In 3 or more base scenarios, less gas means less infestors and maybe more spines (mineral sink), which could lead to longer macro games. Hard to say. But I don't think that less gas would hurt ZvZ stylistically.
TvT: This is the mirror with the biggest change. Mech TvT would definitely take a hit in a lower gas scenario. Mech TvT isn't the standard composition (we see Marine Tank the majority of the time) but there are definitely top Terrans who still have success with Mech (Alive and MKP come to mind). Losing Mech in TvT and TvZ would be a distinct possibility and I'm sure some people would be saddened by the loss (see Artosis), but that's the trade-off for the other benefits of the lower gas change. Also maybe this is where the next step of map-making would step in. Maybe making the 3rd or 4th easier to defend would compensate for having less gas.
I readily admit that this "1 gas at the 3rd/4th" idea is just theorycrafting. And maybe there are some huge holes in my logic that I haven't thought of. But I think it's worth discussing. Instead of just balance whining on the boards and flaming Blizzard, maybe we should be looking to our map-making community to see if some map changes can address game imbalance. This is just an idea to spur discussion.
Nostalgia
