|
In Starcraft 2, a big part of the game is risk vs reward. As it is currently, I find that plays that should be "Greedy" should have more risk involved. An example of this is a fast expand build. The Current fast expand builds are mostly safe from early pressure. Look at FFE vs Zerg. That strategy eliminates most early pressure from the zerg player.
A fast expansion is what I would consider "greedy play." You invest a lot of minerals early game for more economy. However, there is many builds that take the fast expansion opening and make it safer against early pressure. An expansion is actually very cheap. 4 zealots, 8 marines, or 12 lings. Most of the danger of expanding isn't because you have less minerals, but because you have more area to defend. Plus, in the early game, those small amounts of units typically isn't enough to kill the expansion.
When it comes to the point for fast 3-base to fast 3-base is becoming more and more common, especially in TvZ. (3OC to the fast 3 hatcherys of the zerg player.) If this play becomes more and more standard, then where does the line fall where a play becomes a "Greedy play." A play that puts you behind for a substantial amount of time, but if left untouched it gives you a solid advantage.
A lot of this talk of "Greedy play" comes down to the map. Think about taking a fast third on a map like Terminus RE. Now think of doing the same build on a map like TDA or Shattered Temple, or to an extreme, Jungle Basin. Most of those maps are removed from ladder, and TDA is being asked to be removed. Having Rocks on the third has become an instant failure state for your map. For an example of this see Condemned Ridge.
Some ideas that I have to make fast bases and other "Greedy" Strategys be more risky is to increase the cost of expanding, and to lower the expansions HP.
If you increase the cost of expanding, then you make it harder to play safer in the early game. I think that 100 minerals added to the current cost of Expansions would make this be a lot more risky to expand quickly.
Expansions having less HP makes them much weaker. It means that the small amounts of units in the early game would be able to kill your fast expansion. Halving the HP of all bases would mean that they would be easier to kill in the early game. However, the health of lairs, hives, and planetary fortresses would be the same.
I think that weakening the overall economy is one of the first steps that needs to happen to stop players from getting the "Deathball."
If the resources come slower then the point where your army maxes out will also be later.
Please tell me what you think about weakening the "greedy plays" and making them be larger risks.
|
I'd say that any play that is more economically risky than the norm can be considered greedy.
As it is, all ins are quite powerful in this game. I suspect the vast majority of people prefer that greed not be nerfed, because seeing all-in after all-in gets old.
PS: In PvP, expansions are already really risky as it is.
OP, you should add a poll to see if people want greed to be less viable, more viable, or left as is.
|
|
|
On July 08 2012 13:37 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 13:37 Demonhunter04 wrote:
I'd say that any play that is more economically risk than the norm can be considered greedy. which means that by definition greedy play can never be 'standard'
well "standard play" has become greedier and greedier.
|
Isn't the characteristic greedy based on the possibility of being punished or the other player should be punishing had he properly noticed the fast-expand?
ost of the danger of expanding isn't because you have less minerals, but because you have more area to defend.
What? No. Not in the early game, you just have a wider ramp. So technically it is more area, but it's also typically one entrance to defend.
Some ideas that I have to make fast bases and other "Greedy" Strategys be more risky is to increase the cost of expanding, and to lower the expansions HP.
lol Marauder drops incoming.
I think that weakening the overall economy is one of the first steps that needs to happen to stop players from getting the "Deathball."
It delays it or changes the composition into less of one unit, more of cheaper ones (more stalkers instead of colossus, etc.)
|
On July 08 2012 13:38 courtpanda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 13:37 Barrin wrote:On July 08 2012 13:37 Demonhunter04 wrote:
I'd say that any play that is more economically risk than the norm can be considered greedy. which means that by definition greedy play can never be 'standard' well "standard play" has become greedier and greedier.
Yeah, I understand what you guys are saying. Sure, players tend more and more towards economy-oriented play if unchecked, but eventually aggressive builds start being employed more frequently and it returns balance to the force game.
|
On July 08 2012 13:35 Monochromatic wrote:
I think that weakening the overall economy is one of the first steps that needs to happen to stop players from getting the "Deathball."
If the resources come slower then the point where your army maxes out will also be later.
Please tell me what you think about weakening the "greedy plays" and making them be larger risks.
Barrin's solution to the deathball accomplishes your goals. Encouraging faster expansions with simultaneously weaker economies is the way to go to reduce the deathball. See his sig for the relevant thread.
|
|
|
Um there is already enough risk doing expansion builds, maybe not for ladder in Bo1 format but in tournaments with BoX. There are many 1 base pushes that are designed specifically to beat certain expansion builds, so there's always a risk...
Greedy play is just something that has a risk. If you get away with it, then good. If you are investing more into defense, then that's more... solid.
"Standard" is a very vague term. Let's call it the norm... meaning a build that is flexible and used a lot. So 1 rax expand, 1 gate expand, 15 hatch builds, etc.
Because not all standard builds are 100% safe and/or because the game incorporates asymmetric information, they are all greedy to a degree.
That's all there is to it, really...
|
If you are doing a build that you cannot hold if your opponent attacks then you are being greedy in my book.
|
On July 08 2012 13:44 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 13:42 Demonhunter04 wrote:On July 08 2012 13:38 courtpanda wrote:On July 08 2012 13:37 Barrin wrote:On July 08 2012 13:37 Demonhunter04 wrote:
I'd say that any play that is more economically risk than the norm can be considered greedy. which means that by definition greedy play can never be 'standard' well "standard play" has become greedier and greedier. Yeah, I understand what you guys are saying. Sure, players tend more and more towards economy-oriented play if unchecked, but eventually aggressive builds start being employed more frequently and it returns balance to the force game. the metagame, there i said it,
Took the word from my mind 
|
its not only 400 (300 for zerg) invested...but also additional space to wall-off, the time it takes to build it, the things you COULD have built with that 400 minerals (nearly 3 Rax worth), and the decrease in "quick tech" that you give up
its really all about OPPORTUNITY COST...the cost of Early Expanding is the lack of early-game production structures, inability to assert super-quick map control or scout that well, and the lack of quick tech, like Ling Speed, fast Robos, quick Stim, etc...
|
On July 08 2012 13:35 Monochromatic wrote:
In Starcraft 2, a big part of the game is risk vs reward. As it is currently, I find that plays that should be "Greedy" should have more risk involved. An example of this is a fast expand build. The Current fast expand builds are mostly safe from early pressure. Look at FFE vs Zerg. That strategy eliminates most early pressure from the zerg player.
A fast expansion is what I would consider "greedy play." You invest a lot of minerals early game for more economy. However, there is many builds that take the fast expansion opening and make it safer against early pressure. An expansion is actually very cheap. 4 zealots, 8 marines, or 12 lings. Most of the danger of expanding isn't because you have less minerals, but because you have more area to defend. Plus, in the early game, those small amounts of units typically isn't enough to kill the expansion.
When it comes to the point for fast 3-base to fast 3-base is becoming more and more common, especially in TvZ. (3OC to the fast 3 hatcherys of the zerg player.) If this play becomes more and more standard, then where does the line fall where a play becomes a "Greedy play." A play that puts you behind for a substantial amount of time, but if left untouched it gives you a solid advantage.
A lot of this talk of "Greedy play" comes down to the map. Think about taking a fast third on a map like Terminus RE. Now think of doing the same build on a map like TDA or Shattered Temple, or to an extreme, Jungle Basin. Most of those maps are removed from ladder, and TDA is being asked to be removed. Having Rocks on the third has become an instant failure state for your map. For an example of this see Condemned Ridge.
Some ideas that I have to make fast bases and other "Greedy" Strategys be more risky is to increase the cost of expanding, and to lower the expansions HP.
If you increase the cost of expanding, then you make it harder to play safer in the early game. I think that 100 minerals added to the current cost of Expansions would make this be a lot more risky to expand quickly.
Expansions having less HP makes them much weaker. It means that the small amounts of units in the early game would be able to kill your fast expansion. Halving the HP of all bases would mean that they would be easier to kill in the early game. However, the health of lairs, hives, and planetary fortresses would be the same.
I think that weakening the overall economy is one of the first steps that needs to happen to stop players from getting the "Deathball."
If the resources come slower then the point where your army maxes out will also be later.
Please tell me what you think about weakening the "greedy plays" and making them be larger risks.
Expo first is Greedy enough. You want it to go back to the old metagame where it was all 1 base play. That's because the maps didnt really allow for safe 2 base and beyond plays. So from all the complaints blizzard made the newer maps more accustomed for 2+ base plays because they make for longer games and sometimes very exciting ones.
If you dont like greedy plays then go 1 base and punish everyone for it
|
Standard play generally develops when players figure out what amount of greed they can get away with and still be safe against attacks. That's why 1 base play is pretty rare in every matchup except pvp and tvt. As the metagame develops standard play will become more economic because players will become better and more able to deal with early pressure. Eventually the metagame will reach the point where a certain amount of "greed" is safe and therefore is pretty standard. You can't have a metagame where "greedy builds" are standard because then you could blind metagame and punish the greed too easily which would result in safer play becoming standard.
I think that when both players focus much more on economy, you get a more stable game that is more indicative of the players skill. I don't see why expanding should be more risky than it already is because that would make the early game much more volatile and therefore even more empower all ins.
|
Expansions cost more than 400. If a terran has 3ccs they are spending 150 on SCVs every cycle and they're not going to see the benefit of that for a few minutes.
Personally I think you can't call a build like FFE greedy because there are variations that are safe against every opening zerg players use. Its when the players start throwing in things like nexus and gateway before cannon that it becomes greedy, because on some maps it creates opportunities where the zerg could build a round of zerglings and kill them.
|
The game is way too greedy at the moment, imo.
The ever increasing size of maps, and all of the nerfs to early game shenanigans from the all 3 races since the beta are to blame. Plus, all 3 races have timings in the game where they are just plain favored overall as opposed to each having equal opportunity to win at any point in the game.
This is why Terran is struggling right now, as most balance changes have directly affected their early game. This is not balance whine. Protoss have had nerfs to prevent early game pressure (Warp Gate tech) as well, while Zerg have always been better off by sitting in their base (Zerg has never been very good with early game attacks anyways). The queen buff was basically all they needed to not have to make any units until 9 minutes.
The game is in a bad spot right now. It's not fun to play, it's not fun to watch, not that many people play anymore, and the metagame basically fell into a hole it's not coming out of. This is because "greedy" = standard, at least right now. If you aren't playing greedy in today's metagame, your basically all-in. It would be nice if Blizzard increased the risk of greed in HOTS, but I wouldn't count on it. The last few changes (or how these changes were done) from recent patches have largely been "wtf".
It's sad because I think people are growing tired of watching FFE vs 3 Hatch, Hatch First vs. 3 orbital, 1g Nexus vs. Gasless Expand. I know I am.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
Please don't open threads about how you would make SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
