| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
It's possible that would encourage harassment, though, because the players will want to deal damage but not engage into the enemy's strong position. I'm not sure which way it would, but I fear it would be the former for players who haven't played on FRB much (which is everyone.) | ||
|
monitor
United States2403 Posts
| ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:38 Gfire wrote: But with a highground advantage, I imagine players will be less inclined to attack It's possible that would encourage harassment, I think with highground advantage, players will do less a-move timing push. They will have to think more about where to attack, where to defends and that would encorage harassment. Broodwar is a good game for this reason. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On May 07 2012 03:32 Gyro_SC2 wrote: I think with highground advantage, players will do less a-move timing push. They will have to think more about where to attack, where to defends and that would encorage harassment. Broodwar is a good game for this reason. Yes. I think long-term that will probably be true. But when it becomes harder to attack, players will start questioning themselves. They won't know whether it's good to attack at a certain time or not (until they have more experience,) and so they will just do the default thing, which is to sit back. I'm just picturing a FRB GT 2 in the near future and everyone just turtles for a really long time into deathball. Unless pros play on it full time for some time, I don't think that we'll see it develop to what it could be. Some players who play an aggressive, harass-based style already might do fine, but most players will probably end up more passive than usual until they've figured out how to play it a little better. This is a good reason to delay the highground advantage for a while, and look just at the resources for the time being, so I support that decision. I'm also not sure what is the best way for the highground advantage to work (chance-based system seems less than optimal.) As far as pro-mods go though, I'm still working on a unit spreading mod which is something I want to offer as a third point to this cause. | ||
|
monitor
United States2403 Posts
On May 07 2012 04:06 Gfire wrote: Yes. I think long-term that will probably be true. But when it becomes harder to attack, players will start questioning themselves. They won't know whether it's good to attack at a certain time or not (until they have more experience,) and so they will just do the default thing, which is to sit back. I'm just picturing a FRB GT 2 in the near future and everyone just turtles for a really long time into deathball. Unless pros play on it full time for some time, I don't think that we'll see it develop to what it could be. Some players who play an aggressive, harass-based style already might do fine, but most players will probably end up more passive than usual until they've figured out how to play it a little better. This is a good reason to delay the highground advantage for a while, and look just at the resources for the time being, so I support that decision. I'm also not sure what is the best way for the highground advantage to work (chance-based system seems less than optimal.) As far as pro-mods go though, I'm still working on a unit spreading mod which is something I want to offer as a third point to this cause. Highground can make attacking into the main/natural harder, but at later stages of the game it makes controlling space easier. Ultimately it improves the defenders advantage but ALSO makes it easier to contain somebody, siege an area near an expansion, or harass an expansion. | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
On May 07 2012 01:38 NewSunshine wrote: I must present this counter-question, because the same sort of thing's been said about HotS, but how do you know it'll be worse? The end result is the same - less income per base. However, it also takes longer to reach this reduced income, compared to 6m, so if anything there should be fewer deathball action. Also, because there are still 8 mineral patches in a base, having more workers will be required to achieve enough income to even sustain a deathball, where the increased number of workers will make the resulting army a bit smaller - or make it take much longer to get/remax a deathball. I know it's easy to be skeptical, since it's unproven, but it's usually better to keep an open mind, and give it a chance. Who knows, it could work. How do I know it will be worse? for me it is obvious, this idea is really different from the original thought, and accomplishes a different thing completely. The first idea was meant for people to expand more, so it encourages less deathabll things, since harassment is much stronger, so it makes people split up their army when defending, and people are rewarded if they do multiple attacks at the same time. Also, with 6m people who expand very fast throughout the game can make it so they get maxed almost the same as in 8m, so it rewards greedy people who are aggressive with expanding and not people who are afraid to expand and like to turtle on 2-3 bases. This idea on the other hand, does not encourage to expand more often, it does not reward multi pronged attacks more then normal, and so is very different from the original. What it does encourage is the choice between making more workers, fro more income, or making less worker, for stronger army. This choice already exist in the game, and while people might have more workers - less army - smaller deathball, the games will be simply longer, and the worst part is after someone lost alot of stuff, they wont have the money to make it again, so things like a Protoss deathball where you need to have "the 300 supply army" as Zerg to defeat it without BL's , will be much stronger. That is why I dislike the idea. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
My hopes are high! | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
| ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:32 Gyro_SC2 wrote: @urashimakt The problem at the moment is: there is no strategic advantage position, not enought control space mechanic. So a lot of games are just big balls fighting. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330085 I think each race benefits of a defensif high ground mechanic! What I said was the particular incarnation of a high ground advantage you intimated wouldn't be very effective at accomplishing that. Needs to be something that benefits all 3 races throughout the whole match, instead of just Terran at the beginning. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 07 2012 05:00 moskonia wrote: How do I know it will be worse? for me it is obvious, this idea is really different from the original thought, and accomplishes a different thing completely. The first idea was meant for people to expand more, so it encourages less deathabll things, since harassment is much stronger, so it makes people split up their army when defending, and people are rewarded if they do multiple attacks at the same time. Also, with 6m people who expand very fast throughout the game can make it so they get maxed almost the same as in 8m, so it rewards greedy people who are aggressive with expanding and not people who are afraid to expand and like to turtle on 2-3 bases. This idea on the other hand, does not encourage to expand more often, it does not reward multi pronged attacks more then normal, and so is very different from the original. What it does encourage is the choice between making more workers, fro more income, or making less worker, for stronger army. This choice already exist in the game, and while people might have more workers - less army - smaller deathball, the games will be simply longer, and the worst part is after someone lost alot of stuff, they wont have the money to make it again, so things like a Protoss deathball where you need to have "the 300 supply army" as Zerg to defeat it without BL's , will be much stronger. That is why I dislike the idea. This a fair summation I think. I would add one thing. Because the income rate is lower, the importance-time of a unit or set of units is amplified. The 300/200 that it takes to build one colossus is more precious and takes longer to accrue, and not only that, but the build time of the tech and production of the unit itself is shorter compared to the time it takes to mine the resources for it. This means every unit is more precious and will spend more time on the battlefield in a role of exaggerated importance. This might seem like a good thing, but it really just focuses the players on not fucking up their micro because losing a unit is even more detrimental. This rewards minimap awareness and unit babysitting more than multitask or "control" imo. But I haven't completely made up my mind, because when you think about the preciousness of units at different points of a game in BW, this is similar. edit: Also I have an adjustment in mind that I really think will achieve everything that we want, but I would like to talk to Barrin about it first before throwing random toppings onto a pizza he's cooking. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
Some might not agree, but I like FFE or hatch first to be acceptable openers under correct conditions. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 07 2012 13:13 urashimakt wrote: It's also useful to note that 6m FRB rewarded 1 base play more than macro play, simply because your very early resource collection was still on the SC2 level while the saturated resource collection was much slower than usual. A player pushing very early would be at an even more immense advantage to someone who attempted to macro up than they would be in the regular game. If you're approaching saturation on 6m FRB, your military units aren't suffering diminishing returns but your workers certainly are. Some might not agree, but I like FFE or hatch first to be acceptable openers under correct conditions. Are you speaking from experience or is this conjecture? This analysis doesn't take into account the time it takes to make a relevant attacking force and get it across the map. Macro up is not a meaningful term for one base play. Do you mean, the mineral investment of taking your natural leaves you too vulnerable to one base play? Or that teching leaves you too vulnerable? In my experience, tech units quickly eclipse the piddling amount of tier zero units you get off one base in 6m, and static defense is also powerful in the same way. For example, one immortal and some micro shuts down warpgate attacks so hard in PvP in 6m. You reach functional mineral saturation at 12 workers in 6m. This is about the time you make your first military structure. I don't see how a rush becomes any more viable under these conditions. If you're talking about expanding, it all hinges on race asymmetry and tech units. One important thing you bring up is that in 6m, surplus worker production in expectation of your natural eats a lot more of your maxed 1base economy. However, I think most people cut workers depending on the early game situation even if they are expanding, in order to make whatever they need to defend. | ||
|
monitor
United States2403 Posts
On May 07 2012 13:52 EatThePath wrote: Are you speaking from experience or is this conjecture? This analysis doesn't take into account the time it takes to make a relevant attacking force and get it across the map. Macro up is not a meaningful term for one base play. Do you mean, the mineral investment of taking your natural leaves you too vulnerable to one base play? Or that teching leaves you too vulnerable? In my experience, tech units quickly eclipse the piddling amount of tier zero units you get off one base in 6m, and static defense is also powerful in the same way. For example, one immortal and some micro shuts down warpgate attacks so hard in PvP in 6m. You reach functional mineral saturation at 12 workers in 6m. This is about the time you make your first military structure. I don't see how a rush becomes any more viable under these conditions. If you're talking about expanding, it all hinges on race asymmetry and tech units. One important thing you bring up is that in 6m, surplus worker production in expectation of your natural eats a lot more of your maxed 1base economy. However, I think most people cut workers depending on the early game situation even if they are expanding, in order to make whatever they need to defend. I might be way off, but on 6 maps- Isn't expanding is relatively a higher % of income investment on than 8m maps? Probes are less efficient per cost because you have less minerals but the probe still costs the same as if you had more minerals to spend. Units are also more expensive in ratio to the income. I don't know what the implications are exactly. Does this mean the fix would be to scale back the cost of every unit and structure? Probably not since that would essentially still make the game deathbally, it'd just remove the 3base cap. Essentially raising the supply cap to 300/300 (as Day9 once suggested in the beta) would do a similar thing. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 07 2012 13:52 EatThePath wrote: Are you speaking from experience or is this conjecture? This analysis doesn't take into account the time it takes to make a relevant attacking force and get it across the map. Macro up is not a meaningful term for one base play. Do you mean, the mineral investment of taking your natural leaves you too vulnerable to one base play? Or that teching leaves you too vulnerable? In my experience, tech units quickly eclipse the piddling amount of tier zero units you get off one base in 6m, and static defense is also powerful in the same way. For example, one immortal and some micro shuts down warpgate attacks so hard in PvP in 6m. You reach functional mineral saturation at 12 workers in 6m. This is about the time you make your first military structure. I don't see how a rush becomes any more viable under these conditions. If you're talking about expanding, it all hinges on race asymmetry and tech units. One important thing you bring up is that in 6m, surplus worker production in expectation of your natural eats a lot more of your maxed 1base economy. However, I think most people cut workers depending on the early game situation even if they are expanding, in order to make whatever they need to defend. Experience. If your fast expand build doesn't include pumping workers past 2 per mineral batch and maynarding to your natural, you've just invested a lot of very important minerals into something that's not going to pay off any time soon. It would be a mistake to do the fast expand. If the initial mineral income before saturation is also slowed down, there's still room to attempt a fast expo. If what you hope to see achieved is a smaller number of workers required to fully saturate a base then I propose that a solution come from somewhere less dangerous than the 6m idea. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 07 2012 14:07 monitor wrote: I might be way off, but on 6 maps- Isn't expanding is relatively a higher % of income investment on than 8m maps? Probes are less efficient per cost because you have less minerals but the probe still costs the same as if you had more minerals to spend. Units are also more expensive in ratio to the income. I don't know what the implications are exactly. Does this mean the fix would be to scale back the cost of every unit and structure? Probably not since that would essentially still make the game deathbally, it'd just remove the 3base cap. Essentially raising the supply cap to 300/300 (as Day9 once suggested in the beta) would do a similar thing. Yes, the sunk cost of expanding is 33% more per income rate, which is huge. However, it's good that you acknowledge the implications of that are nowhere near clear cut. We could talk about it for days. I can't pick any "highlights" because there are so many factors and they all make a difference, like the ones above. About scaling the costs, you have to be precise about it because the costs are multiple but I know what you mean. Mineral, gas, build time, supply used... those are what most people would scale. But then, what have you achieved? If you only alter a selection of those, like mineral and gas cost, you're doing some major disturbances to balance (and design). Even if you do literally scale those four costs by 3/4 -- you are hoping to induce more base locations in an average game -- now you have a situation where you have essentially made all units larger, faster, and longer range. (Conversely you could say you've shrunk the terrain.) So do you also adjust the unit stats? And the AoE sizes? Raising the supply cap does indeed seem like the cleanest way to require the taking of more bases without having to make any other tweaks. (But I'm sure you'd find things that need tweaking, all the same; think of lategame monocompositions at 200 vs 300 supply like mass carriers.) However we'd still be in a world where people die at all the same timings and all-ins, though that is naturally decreasing as time goes on. | ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
(But I would like the highground avantage system.) | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On May 07 2012 14:28 urashimakt wrote: Experience. If your fast expand build doesn't include pumping workers past 2 per mineral batch and maynarding to your natural, you've just invested a lot of very important minerals into something that's not going to pay off any time soon. It would be a mistake to do the fast expand. If the initial mineral income before saturation is also slowed down, there's still room to attempt a fast expo. If what you hope to see achieved is a smaller number of workers required to fully saturate a base then I propose that a solution come from somewhere less dangerous than the 6m idea. But rushes aren't effective just because of the timings, and the longer the game goes on the less that 300-400 minerals matters, the ratio of your army to theirs continually approaches 1:1, without even considering your potentially larger economy. The worker production makes a difference of course but that's why I mentioned about cutting workers if you need to make units instead. Anyone who doesn't expand is face with having to do damage or else be behind, and I'm not convinced there's a window to do that damage. Thus fast expands are still incentivized adequately. And this has been my experience, though I haven't thoroughly tested rushes and FEs. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2573 Posts
If you're already going down the path of modding maps to achieve your goals, then why not reproduce the inneficient mining of BW workers to increase the reward for taking an additional expansion? Increasing the mining time of a worker by 20% instead of reducing mined resources by the same ratio would reduce your income rate by the same amount for the first eight workers, and would make it impossible to perfectly pair two workers to the same mineral, so you'd get decreasing ROI after the eighth worker as each worker bounced more and more frequently before finding a free spot. The result would be that with 70 workers, you'd need 9 bases to have perfect worker efficiency, and there would thus always be an advantage to having more bases than your opponent. | ||
|
Fencar
United States2694 Posts
 Maybe 1 supply roaches, with a nerf to their HP and damage as well. It probably wouldn't go through, but one can dream, right? | ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
We just need to put some sight blocker-invisible in each ramp. I need help because im not a good mappers ! At first I wanted to put the sight blocker at the top of the ramp but I had the problem that they block the space for the building construction in the game :S . After I wanted to put the sight blocker in the ramp, but I wasn't able to change the footprint thing ? thank | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
PiG Sty Festival
Replay Cast
Code For Giants Cup
SOOP
ShoWTimE vs Clem
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
