|
Poll: How do you feel about the high-yield mineral patches?They're fun, I like having them in every map. (324) 81% Not a big fan, probably not a good idea on higher level maps. (74) 19% 398 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the high-yield mineral patches? (Vote): They're fun, I like having them in every map. (Vote): Not a big fan, probably not a good idea on higher level maps.
Now, we can clearly see that Blizzard loves their gold mineral patches and puts at least 1 per map, no exception. However, I've so far seen a few people who try to remake the old BW competitive maps opting not to use any. Come to think of it, although it's not necessarily a bad idea to have high-yield mineral patches, on some maps and matchups they will inevitably end up favoring one side when it comes to competitive gaming. They just seem to be too big of a deal in imbalance when people will be constantly trying to eliminate all and every little imbalance from later maps. "Oh, see, this little edge here seems a bit off, might eventually fit a high templar there who will be able to storm the expo" and right after we have "What, twice as much minerals on a single expo? Sure, who cares a zerg can take it early on and defend it way easier with creep highways! But that little ledge, let's remove that!" Then again, it might not turn out to be a big deal, but by design they are supposed to give an unfair (note that the word isn't used negatively here) advantage over the opponent, which comes at the cost of something else.
TLDR: gold mineral patches might be a huge deal when it comes to balancing pro-level maps where only skill is supposed to matter, and can end up breaking decent maps for certain match-ups
|
Maps will always have some imbalance.
|
yea, I can see gold minerals being removed for imbalances. I don't think the pro scene will be anywhere near the level the sc1 scene was where we could clearly see map imbalances because both players were at or near the top of the skill cap. The learning curve being a lot easier will put a lot more names on the "top" list and I think overall that's going to hurt the game. Less skill involved means larger pool of people who're among the top.
|
TBH, I've always thought that MULES with gold minerals were kind of imbalanced. Late game, a terran should have 2-3 CCs and they will be able to call up to 8 MULES. I just think MULES are kind of broken when it's being used on gold minerals. Not to mention, you only need energy to call them down.
|
I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway.
|
I think they are a good idea, but it depends on the map itself. Some maps, gold minerals are too easy to get/defend, which can lead to some imbalances (esp with terran).. but theres other maps, where the only gold minerals are in pretty wide open area's, where they are a high risk/reward (which they should be), and for that, it is a good idea.
Maps like Metalopolis and Scrap Station, are the ones where I feel the placement of gold minerals are good, they are pretty open so that as long as you scout the spots, they can be punished (or at least, spread your opponents army enough that you could do a drop on their main or something to disorient them)..
Unlike Blistering sands, where the gold minerals are tucked in the corner, which are much easier to defend. That is not a good example for gold minerals in my opinion, although its not significantly bad.
|
On June 09 2010 02:58 Warri wrote: I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway.
Except for terran. Terran mules + GOLD = AWESOME
|
On June 09 2010 02:58 Warri wrote: I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway.
The whole point of the golden expos IS to get dried out faster since they are riskier and more difficult to defend. You get more minerals in the short run, a quick boost to power up an army and overpower the opponent. So I think you didn't really get the whole logic behind it to begin with
|
I like high yield mineral patch so i voted for the first option. But even though I like them, doesnt mean I want them on every single map. Sometimes it could add flavor to a map if it had a high yield mineral patch but it can be overdone if every map has them.
|
I think people miss the point of gold expos. It's not that much more res/min, but it's much cheaper and faster to get up and has less inherent risk of raiding because you have less invested (less workers) which is balanced out by being in an easier to attack spot.
I think overall the gold expos balance out well. If they didn't you'd see the zerg favored maps be way different than what they are. Metalopolis, arguably Zerg's best map, has its gold expos somewhat rarely used while maps like LT almost always see gold expos taken, but isn't considered Zerg favored. Same with Blistering Sands really.
|
Gold patches don't give twice as much minerals as a single expo. The collection rate for a single worker is 40% higher but there are less mineral patches on gold expos than on regular expos which means that you can't have the same amonth of workers gathering minerals at the same time.
I think high yield minerals is a great idea and add some spice to maps. Getting gold is more dangerous so each player will have to consider if it is worth the extra gain. Another drawback of getting gold is that it probably will be scouted earlier. I can't see gold becoming a no brainer for pros to get.
|
On June 09 2010 03:01 SkCom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 02:58 Warri wrote: I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway. The whole point of the golden expos IS to get dried out faster since they are riskier and more difficult to defend. You get more minerals in the short run, a quick boost to power up an army and overpower the opponent. So I think you didn't really get the whole logic behind it to begin with But they dont have that effect unless youre terran and have gathered 300 energy. Its still 42 instead of 40 minerals per cycle.
|
On June 09 2010 02:58 Warri wrote: I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway.
Not to mention the placement of the gold expos are made so they're hard to defend.
Suggesting gold expos are "imbalanced" by design is utter rubbish.
|
I'd vote on a middle-ground option, "whatever works".
|
The thing I hate about them is that terran can just put a command center on them, call down mules, transfer a few SCVs even if the gold gets spotted or whatever they made so much of it that it isnt a lose..
|
On June 09 2010 03:04 Warri wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 03:01 SkCom wrote:On June 09 2010 02:58 Warri wrote: I dont quite get your point. The current goldexpos (at least on blizzard maps) are 6 patches which is a total of 9000 minerals, while normal expos are 8blue patches which is a total of 12000 minerals. While you need 24 instead of 18 workers to fully saturate the normal expo, the golden expo is dry way faster but does not deliver that much more ress/minute because its only 42 instead of 40 mins per worker cycle. Goldexpos are overrated. The only critical scenarios are very earlygame where you dont have that many workers and want to saturate faster, or lategame where you can indeed just call 6mules every cycle. The first scenario is prevented by rocks on most of the maps anyway. The whole point of the golden expos IS to get dried out faster since they are riskier and more difficult to defend. You get more minerals in the short run, a quick boost to power up an army and overpower the opponent. So I think you didn't really get the whole logic behind it to begin with But they dont have that effect unless youre terran and have gathered 300 energy. Its still 42 instead of 40 minerals per cycle.
This is only true once you have fully saturated the expansions. The gold patch gives you a bigger advantage while you are in the process of saturating it over a normal expo. It also finishes saturating faster so that time is a bonus also, and full saturated is 6 less workers needed and can go to army and save 300 minerals.
|
I agree with Skyze, I like gold minerals but I don't think every map needs them or benefits from them.
I think same thing can applied to Xel Naga watch towers as well. In the few custom games that I played on Destination I really enjoyed the lack of watch towers since I felt like I had a more active role in scouting around the middle of the map and it seems to add a bit more of an incentive to contain your opponent.
|
On June 09 2010 07:37 Orange Goblin wrote: Suggesting gold expos are "imbalanced" by design is utter rubbish.
Rude language aside, a bold and definite statement could be considered "less than optimal"; a suggestion, or an idea, however, should never be discarded as simply "rubbish". You're basically saying "what you just came up with, yeah, that idea of yours? pretty damn stupid, you're an idiot". Ideas are a dime a dozen, so you will obviously not agree with all of them; then again, without suggestions and discussions on the current state of affairs things would ever hardly change and evolve. And given your obvious incapacity to argue or lead an intelligent conversation and lack of respect, I'd be wary of even saying a word around here lest people thought you're a, how can I put this so you can understand it, utter moron. If you're going to disagree with something, at least give a counter-argument. Now back to the thread and some actual arguments...
|
|
the only problem with golds that I have is the fact terrans benefit them massively more then the other 2 races, for 2 reasons. Terran always has the least number of workers mining, due to no mechanic to speed up building workers, on top of a period of time where they cannot build workers (orbital command making) This means the fact it requires less workers to saturate is a really big deal in and of itself. Then there is the big deal, which is that the MULE, generally billed as trade 50 energy for 270 minerals, suddenly becomes a lot more powerful on a gold mineral patch.
I really hope to see some creative use for gold mineral patches, but I don't want to see them over-used, or being crowbar'd into every map, even when they really don't fit with the map style.
|
I dislike both the gold minerals and the towers... they strike me as a heavy-handed way to force a particular map position to be valuable.
|
Come to think of it, what's everyone's stance on the towers as well? I don't have a definite opinion on them yet however it can hardly be denied that they are an important factor in many, if not most, games. Do they make scouting way too easier, being static and not requiring the player to cosntantly have his mind on microing a scout?
|
desert oasis. I defended against a cannon rush. He didn't do ANY damage. So i figure this game is over, i keep macroing and make my troops. I believe i choose to go for an immortal drop. He defends. I then go attack with my troops and he defends. wtf. I then realize he had expanded to a high yield expo. In regular sc this would not be possible and i would've won, but here he was able to come back and beat me. In sc the only equivalent would be to double expand, but that would set you back way too much. Not saying this is a bad thing or anything, im just saying that i didn't even think of this possibility after defending the cannon rush.
|
not all new maps should contain every option the mapmaker has. but i bet creative ideas will evolve around these new things sc2 brought us!
|
Most maps I am vespene starved anyway so if anything if i capture the gold minerals I build a whole bunch of reactor rax/factory and pump out rine/hellion respectively. But the ideal composition in my army requires alot of gas (tanks/thors/ghosts/ravens)
|
I wonder how an all rich resources map would work out.
|
I somehow really like to play at lost temple but I'm not sure why. Well, I just thought that having no gold minerals is a possible reason. Just like the new mechanics, maybe we are just used to broodwar much and we don't want to accept these kind of changes. Maybe we just need to wait (and hope) for the korean progaming to switch to SC2 and everything would feel natural just like playing broodwar before.
|
On June 09 2010 08:14 DM20 wrote: I wonder how an all rich resources map would work out. It would throw off builds far far too much. Gold bases should never be your main or your nat, and I don't think rich gas should make an appearance at all, and if so it should never be at the same base as gold minerals.
|
I love the gold minerals but in future years I'm not too sure how they will play into the metagame. In scbw the PvZ matchup currently revolves around protoss FE and zerg double expo. If such a metagame shift were to occur in sc2, the zerg would basically gain a free advantage by taking the gold. When it comes to that point, discussion will come up but for now they are fine.
I think a more interesting question would be how the rich gas geysers will play into the map pool. I detest double gasses in sc2 so I'm hoping the rich geysers start getting incorporated more.
|
On June 09 2010 08:15 NicksonReyes wrote: I somehow really like to play at lost temple but I'm not sure why. Well, I just thought that having no gold minerals is a possible reason. Just like the new mechanics, maybe we are just used to broodwar much and we don't want to accept these kind of changes. Maybe we just need to wait (and hope) for the korean progaming to switch to SC2 and everything would feel natural just like playing broodwar before.
LT has 2 prominant and very used gold mineral bases, I don't get what you're trying to say here. Also it will make hardly any difference in the strat if korean progaming turns to SC2, because the reason BW feels like it does is due to the fact everything is very figured out. and that won't happen for at least 3 years, because there will be expansions adding new things over the next few years.
|
It would throw off builds far far too much. Gold bases should never be your main or your nat, and I don't think rich gas should make an appearance at all, and if so it should never be at the same base as gold minerals. I was thinking about making a map with 1 rich geyser and making it twice the size of the normal ones. I wonder how that would affect the game
|
Gold expo's are fine and benefit aggresive play which is a good thing, ie. taking a more risky to defend expo is better then taking a easy one. At least like they are put in maps now it's fine, either rocks or a hard to defend spot. Also I can't say they really benefit one race more then the other. Terran has the MULE and lower worker count to potentially abuse it more but terran also has the most trouble defending spread out bases. Protoss is benefitted least by them perhaps but they also have a easier time defending them because of their warpgate mechanic. All in all it's fine as long as they stay hard to obtain spots, a map with a gold natural or whatever would definately suck. A gold island expo also seems a bad idea as that would favor terran flying over there too much (islands favor terran in general imo).
|
technically, i see potential in them: something to fight over, otherwise we'd be fighting at main/natural chokes all day.... well, mostly.
however, with just 6 patches @ 7minerals vs the regular 8 patches @ 5 minerals, i'm not too impressed. but then the terran comes along with his MULEs and has to blow this thing out of proportion... do not like.
i'd rather have certain expos with 10 regular patches, so every race profits equally. or better yet, high-yield gas instead.
|
What people have to consider before saying "Gold favors Terran because late game they can put 1892734128942639478 MULEs on it" is that Terrans often have an absurd amount of spare minerals as the units we like to play with cost so much gas.
Only when the game reaches the point of being mined out and then some fluke battle happens where both players lose their armies simultaneously does the advantage of 12 mules on a gold patch matter, as only then would amassing a billion mineral only units matter.
Edit: And even then the late-game terran probably has enough minerals to do it without the gold expo in the first place.
|
On June 09 2010 08:10 pzea469 wrote: desert oasis. I defended against a cannon rush. He didn't do ANY damage. So i figure this game is over, i keep macroing and make my troops. I believe i choose to go for an immortal drop. He defends. I then go attack with my troops and he defends. wtf. I then realize he had expanded to a high yield expo. In regular sc this would not be possible and i would've won, but here he was able to come back and beat me. In sc the only equivalent would be to double expand, but that would set you back way too much. Not saying this is a bad thing or anything, im just saying that i didn't even think of this possibility after defending the cannon rush. Then imo you didn't scout enough and tried too hard to push for a win. Pretty sure if you didn't scout for expos in BW and underestimated your opponent there would be a good chance of you losing in that case too.
|
they have smart use, and in some situations (like a Zerg facing an opponent who fast expands) you need to make the decision to get the bigger influx of minerals at the cost of a defensible base.
|
They need to make a gold vespene geyser...
|
United States22883 Posts
They're fine. BW had things like double gas. Shiladie has a pretty good point, but they could probably do something like high yield gas too.
|
for now it's not such a big of a deal due to the classic "it's only beta". I support the fact that it favors terran's late game -> the "special ability" of the terran is to be able to farm minerals highly so gold expo....yay! I'm sure time will figure it out and we might see some BO relying on taking those gold expo poping up at any point in the future of the game and i'm sure it's gonna be superfunfun to watch because it reminds me warcraft3 style
|
|
My big problem with gold mineral patches is that they're such a boon to the Terran race. For Protoss and Zerg, the advantage you get is that you only need 75% as many workers in minerals to saturate the mineral line, and then you get pretty much the same income as you would from a regular expansion; for Terran, you get the added benefit of all your Orbital Commands deploying MULEs with 40% extra effectiveness, which is pretty huge.
|
the existence of high yield/gold minerals in the game is simply to encourage players to think strategically.
high risks vs high gain
as long as the minerals are where it is hard to defend, and the risks involved justifies to gain, what's there to complain about?
|
On June 09 2010 02:56 starcraft911 wrote: yea, I can see gold minerals being removed for imbalances. I don't think the pro scene will be anywhere near the level the sc1 scene was where we could clearly see map imbalances because both players were at or near the top of the skill cap. The learning curve being a lot easier will put a lot more names on the "top" list and I think overall that's going to hurt the game. Less skill involved means larger pool of people who're among the top.
I agree, there's just not enough mastery in SC2, who will ever master the game to such a degree as Flash does currently in BW? How can anyone be that severely dominant with such a low skill-ceiling? T_T
|
The issue is gold minerals further amplifies the advantages to whoever that has map control, which makes the matchup's one sided-ness increase at an exponential value.
|
On June 09 2010 09:58 MaD.pYrO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 02:56 starcraft911 wrote: yea, I can see gold minerals being removed for imbalances. I don't think the pro scene will be anywhere near the level the sc1 scene was where we could clearly see map imbalances because both players were at or near the top of the skill cap. The learning curve being a lot easier will put a lot more names on the "top" list and I think overall that's going to hurt the game. Less skill involved means larger pool of people who're among the top. I agree, there's just not enough mastery in SC2, who will ever master the game to such a degree as Flash does currently in BW? How can anyone be that severely dominant with such a low skill-ceiling? T_T
On June 09 2010 10:01 jstar wrote: The issue is gold minerals further amplifies the advantages to whoever that has map control, which makes the matchup's one sided-ness increase at an exponential value.
my concerns basically
|
It will be interesting but its not in the pro-scene's interest to significantly diverge from the design of ladder maps, at least for the first few years.
That said its no coincidence that some of the new features/designs we see in the maps now are things that were developed on pro-maps.
|
Favors the more aggressive race that can expand before the other in matchups.
|
I think the games playout really interesting whenever theres no gold minerals on the map, like fighting spirit
|
On June 09 2010 09:14 MassAirUnits wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 08:10 pzea469 wrote: desert oasis. I defended against a cannon rush. He didn't do ANY damage. So i figure this game is over, i keep macroing and make my troops. I believe i choose to go for an immortal drop. He defends. I then go attack with my troops and he defends. wtf. I then realize he had expanded to a high yield expo. In regular sc this would not be possible and i would've won, but here he was able to come back and beat me. In sc the only equivalent would be to double expand, but that would set you back way too much. Not saying this is a bad thing or anything, im just saying that i didn't even think of this possibility after defending the cannon rush. Then imo you didn't scout enough and tried too hard to push for a win. Pretty sure if you didn't scout for expos in BW and underestimated your opponent there would be a good chance of you losing in that case too. I'm not trying to argue that its imba or anything. And in bw i dont think there would've been any way to stop my push. I didn't scout for expos, true, but i had already thought of the possibility of my opponent getting an expo, even two, and concluded that he would'nt be able to stop my push. All im saying is that i didn't THINK about the possibility of my opponent taking a high yield expo. High yields seem to make it easier for a player who seems doomed to lose to come back. Why? because it costs the same as a regular expo and produces way more immediate benefits. I'm not saying that this is a BAD thing, but it is definitely one thing that high yield expos do and should be something to think about.
|
As long as gold minerals stay in open, hard to defend spots, I think it is okay. As long as the saturation doesn't mean containing the other player to their base. To me, it adds a fun distinctive characteristic to SC2. Destructible rocks at the HY Expansion is a good idea, as not to give fast map control + high yield a advantage.
monitor
|
Your poll is missing options.
I like the high yield expansions, but I in no way think they should be on every map. I would like to see some variation in map design. Having all the same features on every map is kinda boring.
|
On June 09 2010 13:14 pzea469 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 09:14 MassAirUnits wrote:On June 09 2010 08:10 pzea469 wrote: desert oasis. I defended against a cannon rush. He didn't do ANY damage. So i figure this game is over, i keep macroing and make my troops. I believe i choose to go for an immortal drop. He defends. I then go attack with my troops and he defends. wtf. I then realize he had expanded to a high yield expo. In regular sc this would not be possible and i would've won, but here he was able to come back and beat me. In sc the only equivalent would be to double expand, but that would set you back way too much. Not saying this is a bad thing or anything, im just saying that i didn't even think of this possibility after defending the cannon rush. Then imo you didn't scout enough and tried too hard to push for a win. Pretty sure if you didn't scout for expos in BW and underestimated your opponent there would be a good chance of you losing in that case too. I'm not trying to argue that its imba or anything. And in bw i dont think there would've been any way to stop my push. I didn't scout for expos, true, but i had already thought of the possibility of my opponent getting an expo, even two, and concluded that he would'nt be able to stop my push. All im saying is that i didn't THINK about the possibility of my opponent taking a high yield expo. High yields seem to make it easier for a player who seems doomed to lose to come back. Why? because it costs the same as a regular expo and produces way more immediate benefits. I'm not saying that this is a BAD thing, but it is definitely one thing that high yield expos do and should be something to think about.
What the hell? It doesn't cost the same. There's the 400 minerals, plus the cost of increased difficulty to defend it in that it is farther (both harder to defend and transfer workers to) or has rocks (these latter factors are not as easily quantifiable but probably even more important). As others have said, the income rate is largely the same (for Zerg and Protoss) to that of a non-gold mineral site, so a single gold expansion probably wasnt the reason you lost (probably more that you didnt SCOUT).
|
New LastShadow maps: sc2 observer maps (advertised as extra functions for observers!) where one starting location has blue minerals and the other has gold! Can't stop the latter's unreal macro and sick timing sense now!
|
On June 09 2010 13:34 Entropic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 13:14 pzea469 wrote:On June 09 2010 09:14 MassAirUnits wrote:On June 09 2010 08:10 pzea469 wrote: desert oasis. I defended against a cannon rush. He didn't do ANY damage. So i figure this game is over, i keep macroing and make my troops. I believe i choose to go for an immortal drop. He defends. I then go attack with my troops and he defends. wtf. I then realize he had expanded to a high yield expo. In regular sc this would not be possible and i would've won, but here he was able to come back and beat me. In sc the only equivalent would be to double expand, but that would set you back way too much. Not saying this is a bad thing or anything, im just saying that i didn't even think of this possibility after defending the cannon rush. Then imo you didn't scout enough and tried too hard to push for a win. Pretty sure if you didn't scout for expos in BW and underestimated your opponent there would be a good chance of you losing in that case too. I'm not trying to argue that its imba or anything. And in bw i dont think there would've been any way to stop my push. I didn't scout for expos, true, but i had already thought of the possibility of my opponent getting an expo, even two, and concluded that he would'nt be able to stop my push. All im saying is that i didn't THINK about the possibility of my opponent taking a high yield expo. High yields seem to make it easier for a player who seems doomed to lose to come back. Why? because it costs the same as a regular expo and produces way more immediate benefits. I'm not saying that this is a BAD thing, but it is definitely one thing that high yield expos do and should be something to think about. What the hell? It doesn't cost the same. There's the 400 minerals, plus the cost of increased difficulty to defend it in that it is farther (both harder to defend and transfer workers to) or has rocks (these latter factors are not as easily quantifiable but probably even more important). As others have said, the income rate is largely the same (for Zerg and Protoss) to that of a non-gold mineral site, so a single gold expansion probably wasnt the reason you lost (probably more that you didnt SCOUT).
well by cost i meant minerals. And i see that it may seem like there isn't much of a gain from high yield vs normal minerals but thats only if you have a the workers to fully saturate a regular expansion. If its not too late in the game, and my opponent just failed at cannon rushing me and he is behind on workers, then getting a high yield expo is a HUGE advantage vs a regular expo.
I really couldn't scout right away because there were cannons outside my ramp. But that doesnt really matter. All im saying is that i figured that there was nothing he could do to stop this push. I figured he was too behind. I didn't let up on my macro, I pushed and lost. My bad, i didn't think about high yield. Ok fine. My argument isn't that its gay and unbalanced and that i made no mistake, i'm just saying that gold expos can cause players who seem to be way behind, specifically on worker count, to come back more easily. I'm also not saying that this is a BAD thing, i'm just saying that this should be thought about when discussing high yield on maps.
|
On June 09 2010 13:25 Mastermind wrote: Your poll is missing options.
I like the high yield expansions, but I in no way think they should be on every map. I would like to see some variation in map design. Having all the same features on every map is kinda boring.
This. I think there should be some maps with high yield, and some without.
Probably a few more with than without, since gold minerals offer variety between themselves depending upon placement.
|
On June 09 2010 09:56 MrStorkie wrote: the existence of high yield/gold minerals in the game is simply to encourage players to think strategically.
high risks vs high gain
as long as the minerals are where it is hard to defend, and the risks involved justifies to gain, what's there to complain about?
there's no additional risk in taking a gold vs taking a regular expansion. they're both just expansions. sure, you can argue that the enemy is more likely to check the gold expansion over regular expansions, but then at that level of play, you should be checking every expansion anyways, so its moot point.
imo, for the sake of balanced entertaining gameplay, i'd rather not have high yield in the game.
|
They're one of the better new strategic options. I think we will eventually see maps with mixed or all-gold patches at the mains to permit more variety in functional build orders and grant a bit of extra power to random players.
|
Putting only 1 gas on gold expansions would be pretty interesting i think, they would be arguably less valuable than "standard" expansions so they could get put in more defensive locations and they would allow for really interesting games methinks!
|
There are rich gas in the game, according to the map editor. They have the same physical size and amount of gas, but provide 6 per trip instead of 4.
|
there's no additional risk in taking a gold vs taking a regular expansion. they're both just expansions. sure, you can argue that the enemy is more likely to check the gold expansion over regular expansions, but then at that level of play, you should be checking every expansion anyways, so its moot point.
Taking a gold expansion should be risky because it is separated from your natural and main, and very easily bombarded by tanks. For example, on Metalopolis the high yield is in the center, very difficult to defend compared to taking your natural, which has a fairly small choke point and a second natural. Here are easy examples on Metalopolis:
1) Zerg creep highways can't reach to that High Yield expansion in early game, while they can extend it to a natural easily.
2) Protoss cannot defend that high yeild and from harassment in the main, while they can defend a natural.
3) Terran Mech can't cover their own choke and three sides of the High Yield, while it can cover the natural expansion.
These are just reasons off the top of my head why it is risky on Metalopolis. WAAAY more if you want. Think about it.
|
On June 09 2010 14:16 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +there's no additional risk in taking a gold vs taking a regular expansion. they're both just expansions. sure, you can argue that the enemy is more likely to check the gold expansion over regular expansions, but then at that level of play, you should be checking every expansion anyways, so its moot point.
Taking a gold expansion should be risky because it is separated from your natural and main, and very easily bombarded by tanks. For example, on Metalopolis the high yield is in the center, very difficult to defend compared to taking your natural, which has a fairly small choke point and a second natural. Here are easy examples on Metalopolis: 1) Zerg creep highways can't reach to that High Yield expansion in early game, while they can extend it to a natural easily. 2) Protoss cannot defend that high yeild and from harassment in the main, while they can defend a natural. 3) Terran Mech can't cover their own choke and three sides of the High Yield, while it can cover the natural expansion. These are just reasons off the top of my head why it is risky on Metalopolis. WAAAY more if you want. Think about it.
What I mean is - what if you were to change the gold minerals to regular blue minerals? How does that effect the strategy of expansion? All of the above still applies regardless of the mineral color.
Indeed, I find that only the Metalopolis example in particular has the issue of having three entrances/being able to be seen from the watchtowers, so there is "risk" if you want to fast expand to this location. Obviously your enemy isn't going to let you have the gold so early in a game. Nor any other expansion for the matter. On nearly all the other maps, the gold is structured more or less like a regular expansion.
|
For me its way to much risk > benefit from high yields
|
It's likely you will just see pro players acquire the necessary units or tactics to prevent/kill off the advantage of your opponent having a gold mineral base, the process in itself is very vulnerable plus the vulnerable location and other factors contributing, I don't really see it being imbalanced, just another factor to account for, which I think ADDS to the difficulty, increasing player skill base among the pros. Players adapt first, they don't pray for changes mid game.
You always had to scout in SC, BW, and in SC2 it is increasingly more advantageous to vigorously scout, so why not start doing that? To be honest, Scouting is far more 'imbalanced' than gold minerals, you can really roll face when you know how to take the strategic advantage, and you can always scout and only costs 50 minerals, presuming the scout dies.
|
Personally I think the ability to take early island expos probably has more potential issues than almost any of the gold mineral patches. Terran turrets do A LOT of damage and with the load-up ability can more quickly saturate an island expo. I don't mind that this tactic is available I just think it doesn't involve enough risk right now on some maps. If you're playing TvZ and your opp doesn't have air units taking your 2nd or your 3rd on LT. It bothers me that there is really only one way to assault a planetary fortress with 4 towers on LT and it's to get brood lords which have a hard time even being supported by ground units because of the terrain.
|
have the gold expansions only have one vespene geyser, so there is a gas trade-off for taking the gold patches.
|
why not just convert all mineral patches to gold patches? you could just reskin the regular minerals to gold (or platinum if thats your thing, even diamond!) and everyone will be happy
|
i think high yield expo's should be in the center of the map like a very late game expo that almost impossible to defend and it should have a lot more patches than the 6 right now .. but i definately think the the gold expo on lost temple is too easy to defend
|
It's kind of weird how, instead of mineral only patches, there are high yield mineral patches. Not to say the golds are placed in the same strategic positions as mineral onlys, but there definitely has been that spread of getting less out of an expansion/getting a lot more out of an expansion.
I would like to see more maps with mineral onlys or 1-gas bases/naturals. Just makes for slightly more interesting play rather than having all the gas you want on 2-base (and 1-base early on). Which, funnily enough, just results in huge excesses of minerals because players just burn that gas on gas-heavy units and end up with 3k minerals in the late game and "nothing" to spend it on.
Want to go void rays? You'll only have a few. 24 mutalisks? Sorry. I think it'd be interesting; and an interesting way to check if the lower tiers are actually balanced.
|
Used correctly, don't see why not. Some maps though don't really warrant any (no harder to defend expos or such perhaps)
|
Didnt need this shit in brood war, dont need it now
|
Gold minerals provide an advantage usually with some associated risk, the opponent knows that an expansion is more valuable there so it may be checked or focused down first, it may be easier to assault, it may be closer to the enemy. The point is its only an imbalance if one player lets it be for the other.
If you assume you have to take out the enemies gold at all costs, they can keep their army and defense there only to thwart you with the added income; however, if you know they want to expand there and over commit then you can assault where they are weak.
I'm not too worried about gold minerals as it adds another layer of depth to the game. Complexity = more interesting and diverse games.
|
not sure how something can be considered "imbalanced" when its equally available to both players...
and gold patches involve quite a bit of risk to be taken and are generally harder to defend, so its not as if you stumble out into your natural and start mining gold.
|
|
|
|