|
On November 24 2014 09:19 jcr2001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 14:16 jcr2001 wrote:
Does anyone know exactly what happened to this idea? From what I understand, it seems like it wasn't favoured because it just had the same deathball problems, just slower, and on 4 base. Are they implying that it's a unit design issue? It also looks like it wasn't really tested in HotS, after all those crazy changes to promote aggression came in. In general, we found that when people were playing macro-oriented styles, games did tend to be scrappier and feature more multi-pronged play. One issue from the tournament that we ran is that this was just a one-time thing for these players, and only a few of them played on FRB maps at all leading up to the event, so there was a lot of early cheese that ended games quickly. As a result of the changed economy, players didn't know how to defend the early aggression, and there weren't enough games played or attention given to the gamemode for a real meta or standardized builds to develop. That being said, there were some really interesting games. The optimist in me believes that if players were to play FRB over the course of several months, we would start to see a healthier balance between early aggression, viable expansion defense, and exciting games. Ah yes, I remember watching your casts back when it was 6m1g FRB. Thank you for casting those games! What exactly do you mean by "scrappier"? Is that in some sense, the aim of the experiment: to encourage all-over-the-map action? I thought it was a good idea but I never saw any games from it and HotS came out. I'd like to see Blizzard experiment more with economy rates to encourage multi-base play than just putting a timer on players. Then again, everything needs testing; maybe Blizzard's idea is better.
Thanks for the support but I actually never casted! I was just the person who assembled the tournament lineup and pull in the small amount of sponsorship and extra broadcasting (on the now defunct cybersports.tv) that we received. Senex and Pull were the two casters, both for general community FRB games and the eventual tournament.
And yes, by "scrappier" I did mean that the macro games we saw featured more action taking place with smaller armies at different spots on the map. Since expansions were more numerous, people needed to split their army more in order to either do damage to their opponent without losing a base of their own, or to defend/attack in multiple spots. It could just be confirmation bias on my part, though!
|
On November 25 2014 09:25 yakitate304 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 09:19 jcr2001 wrote:On November 20 2014 14:16 jcr2001 wrote:
Does anyone know exactly what happened to this idea? From what I understand, it seems like it wasn't favoured because it just had the same deathball problems, just slower, and on 4 base. Are they implying that it's a unit design issue? It also looks like it wasn't really tested in HotS, after all those crazy changes to promote aggression came in. In general, we found that when people were playing macro-oriented styles, games did tend to be scrappier and feature more multi-pronged play. One issue from the tournament that we ran is that this was just a one-time thing for these players, and only a few of them played on FRB maps at all leading up to the event, so there was a lot of early cheese that ended games quickly. As a result of the changed economy, players didn't know how to defend the early aggression, and there weren't enough games played or attention given to the gamemode for a real meta or standardized builds to develop. That being said, there were some really interesting games. The optimist in me believes that if players were to play FRB over the course of several months, we would start to see a healthier balance between early aggression, viable expansion defense, and exciting games. Ah yes, I remember watching your casts back when it was 6m1g FRB. Thank you for casting those games! What exactly do you mean by "scrappier"? Is that in some sense, the aim of the experiment: to encourage all-over-the-map action? I thought it was a good idea but I never saw any games from it and HotS came out. I'd like to see Blizzard experiment more with economy rates to encourage multi-base play than just putting a timer on players. Then again, everything needs testing; maybe Blizzard's idea is better. Thanks for the support but I actually never casted! I was just the person who assembled the tournament lineup and pull in the small amount of sponsorship and extra broadcasting (on the now defunct cybersports.tv) that we received. Senex and Pull were the two casters, both for general community FRB games and the eventual tournament. And yes, by "scrappier" I did mean that the macro games we saw featured more action taking place with smaller armies at different spots on the map. Since expansions were more numerous, people needed to split their army more in order to either do damage to their opponent without losing a base of their own, or to defend/attack in multiple spots. It could just be confirmation bias on my part, though!
Ah right, my bad! I should have read the post more carefully.
If such games were occurring in WoL, I wonder how it'd be like in HotS. I think this idea ought to have another try 
|
i'm gonna be trying this myself. the economy changes have me all excited for experimenting, and i didnt get to mess with this one yet.
we may have to see different maps designed just for these kinds of changes, to see the full effects. im watching one on tal'darim altar, and i'm pretty sure something like cloud kingdom or daybreak may make this work better. obv much testing is still required.
|
On November 15 2014 12:04 Timetwister22 wrote:
However, spreading out across the map should be a decision that can help define a player's skill, not an act forced upon the player to just stay even in the game. Forcing or greatly limiting the decisions in a competitive RTS is generally a bad idea. Hence why I like the logic behind FRB. If my understanding is correct, FRB encourages expanding instead of forcing it, and grants benefits to players who take more than 3 mining bases. Thus, I like FRB better, and would greatly like Blizzard to try out FRB, or a similar variation of it, in the LotV beta.
If the reward is big enough, it is more or less a forced upon the player who wants to be successful.
Since SC2 has a quite large playerbase already, I understand Blizzard's approach to not completely redesign the economy, but to work within an established gameplay. Having twice as much workers to begin with and only 1000 minerals per patch is easy to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
