|
Lets talk about bases:
mandatory picture is mandatory.
To give you the broad strokes, almost all maps encourage rushing, both mains either having a short air distance or short run distance. EVEN desert oasis can be crossed with leisure having the longest walking path of all the maps, 54 seconds to a minute depending on what army you use. If Zerg scouted your army intent on pushing, or performing a timing attack they could just barely manage to plop down a few spine crawlers before you knock at their door. You would also get another cycle of larvae before worrying too much.
But most maps are not like that, most maps you see your opponent moving out, 15 – 25 seconds later he is in your face and most base preparations must be done prematurely, you can predict but it is never accurate and mostly guesswork.
Thus I have started asking myself questions:
Should the maps be bigger? How many expansions should there be? On how many of those do I put gas before it deteriorates game play into 200, 200 mech dominating the entire map because of easy to defend, take and ultimately hold third and fourth while still having an easy not so risky than it should warrant walk distance towards their respectable opponents.
What size should my map be? What size should be considered as tournament worthy standard?
Next when it comes to expanding there are ways to punish one base play, but also ways to reward expanding earlier. To encourage people thinking of taking an earlier expansion, you can either:
1. Make the natural easy to defend. 2. Limit the amount of resource found inside the main. 3. All of the above.
It came to me that a tournament could include any map they wanted to and that all of these things do not matter, its all about what these people have decided upon as standard, what the community wants to see, what they are familiar with and how the game flows.
Currently the game flows well with the following:
8 mineral patches and two geysers. High yield has 6 mineral patches and two geysers.
this was purely to make me seem smart
What are the effect you see from the current setup?
2 gas in the main makes it easy to tech, into higher tier units but you wont be able to mass them without 4x ++ worth of refineries running, one base play is cute but ultimately as the game progresses once you have your tech you aim to expand after pushing out with the initial advantage such tech gives you and then your aim is to out produce your opponent and win with this initial advantage or at least snowball the momentum created by the initial immortal push and advance forward to colossi.
We can then safely say that one expansion is all anyone would be inclined to take during the course of a game, unless you want to effectively mass Carriers, Battle cruisers or Ultralisks
Ultralisks (300 mineral and 200 gas PER UNIT is insanely expensive), but that is fine because as Zerg, you can usually get away with 3-4 bases worth of gas to spend, while the other races kind of struggle to field more than 3-5 of these massive game changing units.
What happens when you take away the second extractor?
Most of the current strategies will be slowed down extensively. You would see a heavy amount of tier 1.5 perhaps even exclusively so.
Anyone with half a brain can reason that, If you want to slow down the mid, late or even the super late game all you need do is remove the second geyser from the entire map and suddenly every base you take only yields half the amount of gas that you normally would get.
Once you drop the amount of minerals gained per expansion what then? How long do you want a player to effectively manage off one base?
Are you satisfied with this 2 geyser play? Should expansions yield less?
I am not qualified to answer, so I am asking instead.
Day9 flirted with 300 population cap by stating that armies got maxed relatively quick compared to brood war, and in general could sustain 200 / 200 off two base for a limited amount of time.
I’m saying if armies get maxed fast, why not lower the amount of resource each expansion has to promote frequent expanding.
Yes by now it should be clear that I play Zerg and want other races to expand more often so that I can have my gumdrops and ice-cream because honestly, after a certain point when mech generally wants to take its third I have been maxed and waiting patiently for 10 minutes while saturating my fifth expansion.
The above statement is a gross exaggeration but should get the point across. Bases have too much minerals compared with gas. Maybe lowering either amount or both would be a good thing?
TLDR? here are some polls ;D
Poll: Should the maps be bigger?Desert Oasis / Cross position metalopolis (1 min walk distance should be though of as standard. (133) 63% I prefer Stepps of war style maps about 20 sec rush distance, it should be standard. (34) 16% I WANT EPIC SIZED MAPS SO I CAN EXPAND TWICE before even worrying about my opponent (31) 15% The maps should all be incineration zone with a 15 second rush distance because my penis is big. (14) 7% 212 total votes Your vote: Should the maps be bigger? (Vote): I prefer Stepps of war style maps about 20 sec rush distance, it should be standard. (Vote): Desert Oasis / Cross position metalopolis (1 min walk distance should be though of as standard. (Vote): I WANT EPIC SIZED MAPS SO I CAN EXPAND TWICE before even worrying about my opponent (Vote): The maps should all be incineration zone with a 15 second rush distance because my penis is big.
Poll: How many mineral patches should your main have?8 (168) 91% 6 (6) 3% 7 (5) 3% 5 (5) 3% 184 total votes Your vote: How many mineral patches should your main have? (Vote): 8 (Vote): 7 (Vote): 6 (Vote): 5
Poll: 1 or two geysers?I feel two geysers give just enough gas for 1 base. (168) 94% I feel 1 geyser should be enough gas for 1 base. (11) 6% 179 total votes Your vote: 1 or two geysers? (Vote): I feel two geysers give just enough gas for 1 base. (Vote): I feel 1 geyser should be enough gas for 1 base.
Poll: Mineral only expansions?Kinda meeh, when i expand its because I want gas. (109) 64% As a third? definately (49) 29% Yes, and it should be high yield. (10) 6% Other? please specify. (2) 1% 170 total votes Your vote: Mineral only expansions? (Vote): As a third? definately (Vote): Kinda meeh, when i expand its because I want gas. (Vote): Other? please specify. (Vote): Yes, and it should be high yield.
Poll: High yield gasYes as a standalone expansion (84) 49% Yes, with the high yield minerals (40) 23% No, not even with the high yield. (38) 22% Why make regular vespene? High yield for the masses! (9) 5% 171 total votes Your vote: High yield gas (Vote): Yes, with the high yield minerals (Vote): Yes as a standalone expansion (Vote): No, not even with the high yield. (Vote): Why make regular vespene? High yield for the masses!
Poll: The current way minerals and gas are handledIs not broke, so dont fix it. (115) 64% I would like people to experiment with it. (62) 35% Other, please specify. (2) 1% 179 total votes Your vote: The current way minerals and gas are handled (Vote): Is not broke, so dont fix it. (Vote): I would like people to experiment with it. (Vote): Other, please specify.
Poll: you enter a game, and every base has 1 geyserIts a good thing that would never happen. (56) 34% its fine, my opponents will be running off 1 vespene too so his tech will be equally delayed. (45) 27% Good old 7thpool - 8rax - proxy gayte? HERE I CUM (28) 17% I downtumb the map because i couldnt mech fast enough to save my life. (18) 11% I adapt by expanding twice! (13) 8% Maybe this is the solution to armies getting maxed awfully fast? (6) 4% 166 total votes Your vote: you enter a game, and every base has 1 geyser (Vote): I adapt by expanding twice! (Vote): I downtumb the map because i couldnt mech fast enough to save my life. (Vote): Good old 7thpool - 8rax - proxy gayte? HERE I CUM (Vote): its fine, my opponents will be running off 1 vespene too so his tech will be equally delayed. (Vote): Its a good thing that would never happen. (Vote): Maybe this is the solution to armies getting maxed awfully fast?
|
i duno i havent tested or didnt play brood war i was too young but dont you get less gas per trip? someone said its equal gas off 2 geysers anyway, but if so, this only means that you need MORE probes to get an equal amount anyway im not too bothered with the 8min/2gas and 6min/2gas i think its fine as it is but yes i agree with the maps that they are too short and id like to see longer games, a lot of the times you see players rushing and then you cant build fast enough if for eg you went for an earlier expo with less units and have been droning, but obviosuly a map that is HARD to rush due to distance will be shit because rushing is part of the game i think blizz maps wont even be used in the competitive scene anyway and incineration zone is horrible lol.
|
i like the idea of having a little less minerals at mains or specific expansions, but one gas is terrifying D: terran bio can do silly things with only one gas in my experience
|
Protoss need 2 gas at their main more than the 2 other races
|
Most of the data, information and points in this thread are inaccurate or not tested properly..started getting pretty frustrated when you were randomly chucking around rush distance times like 1 minute for DO/metalopolis, and 20seconds for steppes...
If you take out 1 of the geysers, you get a game which will be like, marine vs ling vs zealot with a tiny amount of tech units.
I see you tried to put effort into the thread, but your questions/points are a mess.
|
On June 14 2010 14:00 KCrazy wrote: i like the idea of having a little less minerals at mains or specific expansions, but one gas is terrifying D: terran bio can do silly things with only one gas in my experience
its better (easier) to have terran bio ball trying to compete for the map against lings, roaches and banelings than to have terran mech sitting inside its base, perching its tanks forward one babystep at the time for 30 - 45 minutes of the game, patiently taking its time never over extending. never showing a weakness always killing your drops with vikings and your nydusworms die too well placed defenders. Everytime i faced terran before reset i would die alittle inside, scout often and hope for bio.
it never came ;/
Most of the data, information and points in this thread are inaccurate or not tested properly..started getting pretty frustrated when you were randomly chucking around rush distance times like 1 minute for DO/metalopolis, and 20seconds for steppes...
the information is in INGAME seconds and rounded up seem pretty accurate from where i stand.
If you take out 1 of the geysers, you get a game which will be like, marine vs ling vs zealot with a tiny amount of tech units. if you take out the geyser in the main and not on the natural you would get a longer period when tier 1 could effectivly be used. Perhaps food for thought? if you want to get more than one tech path perhaps get an earlier expansion?
the questions are vague enough that you can shape a meaning out of it but your not thinking, simply stating what you feel would happen yet not seeing the possibility that one base play might need to be toned down.
|
I feel that the game is a bit more balanced on small maps. The inherent mobility of air units makes them far too powerful on maps like Desert Oasis.
|
On June 14 2010 14:04 UnderWorld_Dream wrote: Protoss need 2 gas at their main more than the 2 other races
You must be joking. Terrans are by far the most gas hungry race. Unless you go brainless Marauderspam, in which case you should probably just play AOE and just peasant rush all day.
|
i voted for incineration zone because my penis is huge
its not
|
I believe we should have maps similar to lost temple, metalopolis, steppes of war. The Sin Chupung Ryeong port was excellent as well. Kulas Ravine was also good. Scrap was good as well. I'd prefer to steer away from larger maps as they don't provide interesting gameplay. Pure macro games are a little boring imo. I suggest that if anyone wants to play a pure macro game that they should go play fastest map possible
|
Huge maps please. With MBS and automine there needs to be some other way of rewarding good macroers.
|
without 2 gas, where is the incentive to bother teching to T2? Just take terran as an example, you wouldn't be able to make factory then starport + tanks, and you certainly wont be able to FE because 1 basing would rape any attempts. Barracks spam would prevail. Stupid idea, and if you were actually thinking about it, you wouldn't have raised it.
I'll reiterate, your post is just full of inaccuracies. Just look at your claim that Ultras cost 300 gas. How can you try to put forward credible arguments or ask relevant questions when you don't have necessary game knowledge to back them up?
|
personally I think the pop cap's a bit screwed up atm, because compared to broodwar you have a lot more pop taken up by workers, late game you have 40-60 workers, which all take up 1 pop while you would have almost 1/2 that in broodwar because they would pick up 8 minerals not 5, and twice as much gas, from only 1 geyser.
You hit pop cap fast because 1/3rd of your army is drones/probes/scv's also the addition of spawn larvae, reactors, and chrono boost allows you to power economy and get an army really fast with no setbacks if you time it right. This coupled with the fact that compared to broodwar;
- queens are cheaper than hatcheries for more larvae - a reactor is essentially another barracks for 50/50, instead of 150/0 (your going to build some with tech labs definately, but your also going to build some with reactors, so the point still stands) - warpgates once researched speed up the production of gateways
Your cash is more streamlined into army, and less of it goes towards buildings, this coupled with workers taking up a large portion of your army, and acellerated unit production you hit 200/200 far faster than you ever did in broodwar.
Simple answer would be to increase the pop cap to 225 or something, or maybe even 250.
but that would look a little weird.
|
On June 14 2010 15:22 pyr0ma5ta wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 14:04 UnderWorld_Dream wrote: Protoss need 2 gas at their main more than the 2 other races You must be joking. Terrans are by far the most gas hungry race. Unless you go brainless Marauderspam, in which case you should probably just play AOE and just peasant rush all day.
no he just thinks that since sentries cost 100 gas he should be entiteled to mass them
How do you afford early sentry spam? early two gas off one main
I'll reiterate, your post is just full of inaccuracies.
you found one, i fixed it forgot to type in the mineral cost anyhow, statement still stands.
without 2 gas, where is the incentive to bother teching to T2? Just take terran as an example, you wouldn't be able to make factory then starport + tanks, and you certainly wont be able to FE because 1 basing would rape any attempts. Barracks spam would prevail. Stupid idea, and if you were actually thinking about it, you wouldn't have raised it.
Bunkers? wallin? its not like you are new to the subject of stationary defence and sim city. One base play rapeing things? with one geyser? what are they going to mass if only allowed 6 mineral patches (16 workers for near full saturation) =?
Pure macro games are a little boring imo. Sc2 has no pure macro games, not even idra is trying to get away with "pure macro." Pure macro does not currently exist in sc2.
Its the idea of double expand before pool. Does it work with the current map pool? Is there even incentive to double expand? didnt think so.
|
On June 14 2010 16:03 Madkipz wrote:Its the idea of double expand before pool. Does it work with the current map pool? Is there even incentive to double expand? didnt think so.
There sure as fuck is incentive.
There's incentive to expand 7 times before making any units if you can get away with it, and "can I get away with it" is a question answered by the map, for the most part, not the game.
|
I would like maps with only one gas at the main and one or both gas at the natural high yielded. This would make T3 at one base impossible and allows more harass at T2.
This would maybe make Zerg a bit too strong. Is there a way to make Zerg weaker by map design? Small chokes in the middle, maybe?
|
No maps shouldn't be bigger. Lost Temple is the perfect size for a map, Meta a bit bigger. Imagine units taking as much time as units going from one base to another in Katrina (BW Map) in Sc2, that would be a huge pain. Rarely do I see pure macro games, as already mentioned, but those just turn out to be boring games. IdrA games are good enough of "macro games" for me.
|
Perhaps reduce the amount of minerals/gas at your main/natural so that it is mined out ~the rate of current gold, and raise the total amount at the gold bases, promoting play to keep your gold and deny theirs through the later game.
Just off the top of my head
|
1 Gas would favor zerg heavily as they can play pretty independent of gas with lings/blings and roaches.
As for map size, I like to see variety in map sizes. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a 35-45s rush distance map and a desert oasis sized map.
|
What happened to maps with 9 mineral patches? Why only 8?
|
On June 14 2010 23:18 slimshady wrote:What happened to maps with 9 mineral patches? Why only 8?
Holy crap you want more than 8 ? srsly? 8 patches on both the main and natural is already heavily into the scrub friendly departement, macro ? just spam workers and win lol, atleast with 6-7 you hit saturation pretty fast and mine out at a pretty decent rate. 9 would take forever to mine out Just look at how long 8 patches last.
On June 14 2010 23:10 Logo wrote: 1 Gas would favor zerg heavily as they can play pretty independent of gas with lings/blings and roaches.
As for map size, I like to see variety in map sizes. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a 35-45s rush distance map and a desert oasis sized map.
so steppes is too short, oasis is too long somewhere in the middle is just riiiiiiiiiight?
On June 14 2010 23:10 Logo wrote: 1 Gas would favor zerg heavily as they can play pretty independent of gas with lings/blings and roaches.
As for map size, I like to see variety in map sizes. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a 35-45s rush distance map and a desert oasis sized map.
this i can agree with somewhat, at least for the main it should have two, but expansions? im feel 4x geyser running off one expansion is too much gas.
|
Everyone should feel free to mess around with melee designs. It's all about variety! That's why we switch the map in best-of matches!
|
@Madkipz
Yeah I suppose 1 gas expos could work, but again it still might favor zerg. A roach/hydra on 3 gas from zerg would be really hard for a 3 gas Protoss to stop. Without a heavy force of templars or colossi they'd get overrun pretty easily.
Anytime you cut gas you are putting more favor on zerg who can use mineral heavy units and superior drone production to power out to another expansion.
Most mid game threats to zerg involve heavy gas unit compositions (colossi, tanks, thors, etc.) so delaying gas gives them more time to power economy and early game threats to zerg are countered with low gas units anyways.
It's also a little riky to be experimenting this early. There's no harm in it, but you can't be sure balance will be maintained. Blizzard is probably going to balance around 8minerals/2 gas so minor tweaks and changes to balance that setup could break things like 1 gas expansions.
Also as a side, what about 1 rich gas expansions instead of 2 gas? Would it be less gas overall, but more than 1 normal gas. Something to think about at least.
|
lol@graph, not even close to the real thing
|
On June 14 2010 23:10 Logo wrote: 1 Gas would favor zerg heavily as they can play pretty independent of gas with lings/blings and roaches.
As for map size, I like to see variety in map sizes. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a 35-45s rush distance map and a desert oasis sized map. Can't Terran play as independent with bio army? Marines costs only gas and marauders cost 25 gas just as roaches and they share almost all of their upgrades. Protoss might have a little problem but they should be able to build a decent low gas army with zealots and stalkers.
I would welcome some diversity. Do all maps need to have the same base setup? Can't there be some maps with single gas geyser at base, some with double gas geysers and maybe maps with even more gas geysers? Having different looking maps would force us to use different build orders and not to have a standard 2-3 build orders which we can use in every game.
|
How do we go from stepps of war to desert oasis? Poll is rigged. It's pushing maps to be too big with DO.
|
On June 14 2010 23:22 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 23:18 slimshady wrote:What happened to maps with 9 mineral patches? Why only 8? Holy crap you want more than 8 ? srsly? 8 patches on both the main and natural is already heavily into the scrub friendly departement, macro ? just spam workers and win lol, atleast with 6-7 you hit saturation pretty fast and mine out at a pretty decent rate. 9 would take forever to mine out Just look at how long 8 patches last.
Maybe you shouldn't be asking questions if you're only going to ridicule the answers that disagree with you. Some of the polls only have ridiculous options too.
Anyway, some time ago I measured rush distances for all the ladder maps (IZ wasn't out yet at the time) with a marine walking from main building to main building, real life time on faster:
Steppes of War: 40 sec Metalopolis: 32/42/48 sec Lost Temple: 35/44/47 sec Kulas Ravine: 42/45/47 sec Scrap Station: 49 sec Blistering Sands: 52 sec Desert Oasis: 70 sec
Note the big difference between different positions on Metalo/LT. Most of these maps seem to fall between 40-50 sec, and I'd say increasing that to 45-55 sec wouldn't be such a bad idea.
|
On June 14 2010 23:53 CagedMind wrote: How do we go from stepps of war to desert oasis? Poll is rigged. It's pushing maps to be too big with DO.
Desert oasis is relativly small compared to how huge you CAN make a melee map.
Steppes of War: 40 sec Metalopolis: 32/42/48 sec Lost Temple: 35/44/47 sec Kulas Ravine: 42/45/47 sec Scrap Station: 49 sec Blistering Sands: 52 sec Desert Oasis: 70 sec
wouldnt ramp to ramp be a more accurate assessment of just exactly how fast a control group of MMM etc would reach you? if you measure from main to main it easily adds 5 seconds of traveltime on both ends.
lol@graph, not even close to the real thing
its not meant to be accurate, its meant to prove a point in the saturation departement and be pretty, everyone likes graphs.
Maybe you shouldn't be asking questions if you're only going to ridicule the answers that disagree with you. only the unreasonable and relativly stupid ones, i dont see you defending his 9 mineral statement
|
Sometimes you defend on the ramp, sometimes you defend at your mineral line. Feel free to post numbers ramp to ramp, with reapers, natural to natural, air route and so on if you test those.
|
I was forced to vote for 4. because my junk is big.... No, but seriously I would like to play around with the map editor and see the affects of 1 geyser per base. I don't know how this would adversely affect the MU's. One thing that comes to mind is that if it encourages primarily 1.5 tier play then terran might be at an advantage since so many of their units are not gas heavy. We might see nothing but MM w/stim. On the other hand (as a toss player) if I mass gate units (against a terran) I typically lose unless its a timing push or the other player screwed up... I am always going robo bay and once in a while stargate play.... This does all make me wonder what data Blizz originally used to decide 2 geysers per base...
|
As someone mentioned, I think you underestimate how quickly you max out your army.
|
On June 15 2010 00:00 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 23:53 CagedMind wrote: How do we go from stepps of war to desert oasis? Poll is rigged. It's pushing maps to be too big with DO. Desert oasis is relativly small compared to how huge you CAN make a melee map. 255x255 maps don't really factor into what competitive size maps should be. DO is too fucking huge when you consider the layout.
|
On June 15 2010 00:24 CagedMind wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 00:00 Madkipz wrote:On June 14 2010 23:53 CagedMind wrote: How do we go from stepps of war to desert oasis? Poll is rigged. It's pushing maps to be too big with DO. Desert oasis is relativly small compared to how huge you CAN make a melee map. 255x255 maps don't really factor into what competitive size maps should be. DO is too fucking huge when you consider the layout.
Not in my oppinion, its huge compared with the rest of the map pool presented to you at this current time. DO sized maps might very well end up becoming standard.
|
On June 14 2010 13:58 JaspluR wrote: i duno i havent tested or didnt play brood war i was too young but dont you get less gas per trip? someone said its equal gas off 2 geysers anyway, but if so, this only means that you need MORE probes to get an equal amount
Actually Blizzard stated that even with the reduced rate of gas collection, 8 gas takes as long to get in SC2 as in BW due to improved peon AI.
On June 14 2010 15:33 jalstar wrote: Huge maps please. With MBS and automine there needs to be some other way of rewarding good macroers.
And yet with a massive map, you don't believe your opponent would have more time to get more units? MBS and Automine only make your life easier, they don't macro for you: you still have to make the units somehow.
On June 14 2010 15:43 slowmanrunning wrote: personally I think the pop cap's a bit screwed up atm, because compared to broodwar you have a lot more pop taken up by workers, late game you have 40-60 workers, which all take up 1 pop while you would have almost 1/2 that in broodwar because they would pick up 8 minerals not 5, and twice as much gas, from only 1 geyser.
You hit pop cap fast because 1/3rd of your army is drones/probes/scv's also the addition of spawn larvae, reactors, and chrono boost allows you to power economy and get an army really fast with no setbacks if you time it right. This coupled with the fact that compared to broodwar;
- queens are cheaper than hatcheries for more larvae - a reactor is essentially another barracks for 50/50, instead of 150/0 (your going to build some with tech labs definately, but your also going to build some with reactors, so the point still stands) - warpgates once researched speed up the production of gateways
Your cash is more streamlined into army, and less of it goes towards buildings, this coupled with workers taking up a large portion of your army, and acellerated unit production you hit 200/200 far faster than you ever did in broodwar.
Simple answer would be to increase the pop cap to 225 or something, or maybe even 250.
but that would look a little weird.
Really? Raise the supply limit? Balance-wise that isn't right. That would mean a Terran player could have up to 50 extra Marines while a Protoss would only get 25 Zealots. Couple that with Stim-Packs and 255-unit control groups and you have a serious mess on your hands. 200/200 is just fine. In Brood War you'd have, what, maybe 3 less peons per expansion? It's not that much of a difference, especially when peons mine faster in SC2.
|
How about maps where there are Gas only Expansions? Like 3-4 geysers.
|
what's wrong with some variety?
|
On June 15 2010 01:21 Krowser wrote: How about maps where there are Gas only Expansions? Like 3-4 geysers.
oddly enough players seem to want high yield stand alone gas expansions, it never occured to me that people would feel inclined to waste 400 minerals just for high yield vespene and it intrigues me.
On June 15 2010 01:36 TheElitists wrote: what's wrong with some variety?
there is nothing wrong with variety, im simply trying to establish (for myself) what some of the TL.net users precieve as positive development and negative development within the decition departement when regarding macro.
On June 15 2010 01:56 Kralic wrote: I do not think making maps super big will help this game at all. My #1 reason would be mobility of the races.
Zerg: Nydus worm can be made anywhere on the map. Protoss: Proxy pylons can be made anywhere on the map. Terran: March those troops across the map.
I just do not think it would be fair to Terran. Like most have said the pop cap is the big issue. Sure you can make a tank line of mech units going from your base to their base, but 3 food per tank is harsh.
Lo and behold mech has been nerfed without touching a single unit ;D
|
I do not think making maps super big will help this game at all. My #1 reason would be mobility of the races.
Zerg: Nydus worm can be made anywhere on the map. Protoss: Proxy pylons can be made anywhere on the map. Terran: March those troops across the map.
I just do not think it would be fair to Terran. Like most have said the pop cap is the big issue. Sure you can make a tank line of mech units going from your base to their base, but 3 food per tank is harsh.
|
Broodwar 1 gas>SC2 2 gas. In SC2 you no longer get gas after geysers are depleted, this makes gas more important. Having two gases thus gets you less gas in longer games, making Broodwar 1 gas much more valuable, so having mineral only expansions in standard maps would not work in SC2 like it did in BW.
|
I want a poll option saying "I like maps to be unique. Different rush distances, chokes, etc. I love Desert Oasis, Steppes and even Incineration zone if Terran isn't involved."
|
people shouldnt just assume that blizzard "got it right" with the gas/min numbers per base. Blizz maps that came with the game didnt even have gas at the closest base
I think 2 base is a little too easy todo, and you're never really pressured to get another one. So perhaps 2 gas in main, but 1 at expos?
Map makers should play around with this idea ofc, just like in bw. My main point is for people to not just assume blizzard got it right this time or last time.
|
i feel like your whole post revolves around the thought that "In sc1, there was 1 geyser per base, but in sc2 theres 2 per base, WTF THATS 2x as many". surely you realise that the gas income from 2 geysers in sc2 is the same as the gas income from 1 geyser in sc1 right?
|
On June 15 2010 00:52 Lysis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 13:58 JaspluR wrote: i duno i havent tested or didnt play brood war i was too young but dont you get less gas per trip? someone said its equal gas off 2 geysers anyway, but if so, this only means that you need MORE probes to get an equal amount Actually Blizzard stated that even with the reduced rate of gas collection, 8 gas takes as long to get in SC2 as in BW due to improved peon AI. No, that was minerals, 2 geysers in sc2 = 1 geyser in sc1.
|
i feel like your whole post revolves around the thought that "In sc1, there was 1 geyser per base, but in sc2 theres 2 per base, WTF THATS 2x as many". surely you realise that the gas income from 2 geysers in sc2 is the same as the gas income from 1 geyser in sc1 right?
I have never infact said so out right, you are right i realise that 2 geysers in sc2 is the same gas income as 1 geyser in sc1.
I think 2 base is a little too easy todo
I simply feel the same way.
|
Blizzard will just take the best maps from the community and rebadge them as their own anyway.
It's in the T&C. Just keep making good UMS maps and Blizzard will take notice. They'll still give you credit for it (if their past performance with the SC/WC3 UMS map packs was anything to go by).
|
yeah the AI in sc1 for gas mining is pretty much the best it can be.
gonna take this time to plug my two maps that i've posted, both of which are larger than the majority of the blizzard maps, have rush distances of about 1 minute and encourage more territory control and army positioning than any of the blizzard maps.
Desolation Butterfly Effect
|
actually, this thread/idea of playing around with gas/mins should be a huge deal.
if people are too worried about being maxed out on two bases (which is retarded, it turns it into a w3 hybrid/gamestyle) lowering incomes would be the simplest way to fix this compared to raising the population cap, etc.
|
this thread/idea of playing around with gas/mins should be a huge deal.
more so than the extent it is discussed to this point. I would like higher level players to have statements on the matter but havent bothered to bother anyone with it.
|
I think maps need variety. Sticking with one map size stifles the evolution of strategies and the diversity of match ups. Being skillful on one map (size) is not the same as being a skillful SC player.
I would be happy with larger maps than DO within the map pool, but definitely no smaller than Incineration Zone.
As to whether bases should have less minerals/gas... Test it. Personally I think the way maps are laid out at the moment is fine (8 min, 2 gas), but I am open to other ideas if they allow for more strategy-diverse match ups.
And I am fine with 200 supply and how you can reach it from 2 bases.
|
|
|
|