|
Seems like it's Barrin's turn to call out Siskos for being nothing more than an antagonistic troll of the mapmaking community. It's as if the task falls upon someone new every time Siskos makes/replies to a thread.
As for the OP, I'm with MorroW when he says it's a terrible "fix". It doesn't solve any of the issues regarding economy in SC2, it only exacerbates the late game scenarios of each race and forces the technical requirements up in order to play the game. I for one don't want to have to purchase a better PC to avoid lagging hardcore in an even worse to play late game.
Then there's the mapmaking implications. 300 supply max makes the late game even more ridiculous on smaller map designs, forcing maps to have a larger minimum size to accommodate for there to be any sort of dynamic map movement at that point (think how stale split map scenarios already are on, say, Daybreak ZvZ or ZvP). Last thing we need is to have every map be Whirlwind-sized or face the most stale late game scenarios you have ever had to stomach.
|
1."Fixing"... just fucking stop. It is your opinion, nicely explained and presented, but name it "An idea to IMPROVE the game", game is not broken or out-of-order.
2. I think this idea would make SC2 more a-move friendly.
|
I'll just say, if the problem is supply cap, why have a supply cap? (I know there are reasons, but this is a thought experiment.)
Without a cap, the game becomes cost efficiency on composition. Most bang for your buck unit to unit. Is it better to make two stalkers and a sentry, or a colossus? The game becomes a process of never building shitty units unless you have to, trying to only spend your money on worthwhile units. Eventually the proportion of early game shitty units is inconsequential.
So, this is like the composition wars we have now but worse.
|
On March 08 2013 04:34 EatThePath wrote:
I'll just say, if the problem is supply cap, why have a supply cap? (I know there are reasons, but this is a thought experiment.) My thoughts honestly, that's why if this becomes a attainable I'll raise it and raise it. There's a performance concern of course but tha'sit.
Without a cap, the game becomes cost efficiency on composition. Most bang for your buck unit to unit. Is it better to make two stalkers and a sentry, or a colossus? The game becomes a process of never building shitty units unless you have to, trying to only spend your money on worthwhile units. Eventually the proportion of early game shitty units is inconsequential.
So, this is like the composition wars we have now but worse. Surely it's the inverse? As I detailed, because you only have 200 pop to work with people have been figuring out how to max on units which cost the least supply possible. Which is I believe why people have been massing infestors or ghosts in TvP lately. Both units just cost almost no supply so it basically becomes a contest of who can get the most expensive max by using only units that cost very little supply.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 08 2013 04:54 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 04:04 SiskosGoatee wrote:
...
The fact that I claimed, and still claim, I never said otherwise and demanded proof of that should imply that indeed I'm partly here to help and I say so now outright. Thank you. Show nested quote +And that is in no way mutually exclusive with that I believe RTS's are waaaaaaaay too resemblant of a chaotic system to reason about how they are going to behave. Note that this is the position as well. They've said time and time again that they never designed any interactions and that you can't do that. They just made some units they thought were cool without really knowing all that clearly how people would use them and they waited to see how people would use them. that's what I'm speaking of. Advertising your game as something that can be messed around with to discover hidden potential is a key psychological selling point. Look up "Mastery Autonomy Purpose". When WoW was first released they said the same damn thing about each class on each page (it's what they started out saying). They didn't advertise it as such though, the tone was more 'We actually had no idea what we were doing and we still don't.'
"300 SUPPLY CAP IS THE ANSWER!!!"? You overstate my confidence. It's an experiment I'm willing to persue, nothing more. The 'fixing the game' tag is of course sarcastic because that's how people call these things. Hence the 'again' behind it.
I look forward to a proper explanation but I'm not holding my breath. Explanation of what/
All I'm confident about is that a 300 pop cap will do roughly the same as FRB. In that it will ensure you no longer gain your optimal income on 3 base and therefore are forced to take more bases. I personally prefer this solution to that problem rather than altering the mining behaviour of the game because it doesn't mess with early game balance, that is all. To put my logic succinctly:
- a 300 pop cap will make you want to max on 120 workers instead of 70
- 120 workers on 3 bases is mad oversaturation unlike 70 workers on 3 bases
- therefore, people will want to secure more than 3 mining bases.
That's all.
So this is the problem you are worried about? Why not just edit the units if they are too strong per supply? And btw this supply thing is a lot more complicated than it looks, see unique production types (i.e. larva), not going into it. Show nested quote +Which is I believe why people have been massing infestors or ghosts in TvP lately. Both units just cost almost no supply so it basically becomes a contest of who can get the most expensive max by using only units that cost very little supply. No dude lol. Those are premier caster units, their strength is that they can keep on giving (a lot, see energy) if you keep them alive. Their strength is cost efficiency, supply efficiency is a mere byproduct.
And this is where we disagree. Why don't people mass high templar to the same extend as people mass infestors and ghosts or even ravens for isntance? Why do people require support for their infestors in the mid game but start to support infestors with more infestors in the lategame? If it was just cost efficiency people would make almost pure infestor or ghost comps in the midgame. No, the point is that 1 infestor costs as much supply as a roach, is obviously a lot better than a roach, but costs a looot more than a roach. Making a purely infestor composition only becomes worth it at the point supply becomes the limiting factor instead of money. I guarantee you, and of this I am resolutely confident. If infestors' supply cost was proportional to their minerals and gas cost, people would not be massing infestors like they do now.
|
|
|
Sigh, this thread T_T
I basically agree with MorroW and Barrin. Simply increasing the supply cap to XYZ is just short-sighted and does not improve many other economic aspects of the game. Even with its flaws, there are many more improvements from FRB than what you have stated. "More supply per Race" either does not address those issues or exacerbates them. You are focused too much on the large army/end-game scenario, but there is much more to it. For instance, even with an increased supply cap, SC2 still has its super explosive economy, so that does not even really matter. It just allows players to have super-duper armies slightly after their super armies. >_>
Basically, to put it lightly, just increasing the supply cap is not going to improve actual gameplay.
|
On March 08 2013 05:19 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 18:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:
...
It's true, albeit deceptive and incomplete information.
... Your hypocrisy would be amusing if it weren't so staggering. I have addressed every point you have made and you refuse to do the same for me, Eh what, the last thing you replied to me was picking two paragraphs out of my gigantic post here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17965148
As you just did so again by the way.
continuing to blindly assert claims that have been duly challenged; "roughly the same as FRB" my ass. You have proven too intellectually dishonest to have a proper dialogue with, please remind me that I'm wasting my time if I ever try to convince anyone other than the audience of any future conversations we might have. Well well well, maybe this is the wrong time of the month for you who knows. Need a hug or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On March 08 2013 05:28 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 05:07 SiskosGoatee wrote:
No dude lol. Those are premier caster units, their strength is that they can keep on giving (a lot, see energy) if you keep them alive. Their strength is cost efficiency, supply efficiency is a mere byproduct. And this is where we disagree. Why don't people mass high templar to the same extend as people mass infestors and ghosts or even ravens for isntance? Because storms are big, last a long time, cost a lot of energy, and templars require backup more than infestors/ghosts. Fungal is bigger, lasts as long?
No, the real answer is that storm doesn't stack, neither does feedback, but infseted terrans and snipe does. Templar have no spammable spell.
Show nested quote +Why do people require support for their infestors in the mid game but start to support infestors with more infestors in the lategame? Research time basically. Infestors create infested marines that are a cheap, re-supply-able, all-around fighting unit. Fungal growth only gets better as more units get on the field.
Show nested quote +If it was just cost efficiency people would make almost pure infestor or ghost comps in the midgame. No, the point is that 1 infestor costs as much supply as a roach, is obviously a lot better than a roach, but costs a looot more than a roach. Cost efficiency of casters comes at a cost... lowered initial strength. Get over it?
Making a purely infestor composition only becomes worth it at the point supply becomes the limiting factor instead of money. I guarantee you, and of this I am resolutely confident.
only
only
You are making yourself look like a fool.[/quote]What's wrong with the word 'only' here?
Show nested quote +If infestors' supply cost was proportional to their minerals and gas cost, people would not be massing infestors like they do now. Have you ever tried to set a standard for this proportion? I've spent quite a lot of time, many many hours, working on this recently (for UMS map) and I have full lists of data. There is no standard fucking proportion for this shit dude. Go try it and let's see what you get.
On March 08 2013 05:32 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 05:21 SiskosGoatee wrote:continuing to blindly assert claims that have been duly challenged; "roughly the same as FRB" my ass. You have proven too intellectually dishonest to have a proper dialogue with, please remind me that I'm wasting my time if I ever try to convince anyone other than the audience of any future conversations we might have. Well well well, maybe this is the wrong time of the month for you who knows. Need a hug or something? Ad hominem to further dig yourself in the intellectually dishonest hole. Nice one. This coming from you. Did you not just fill your entire post with insults?
And yet again I see you're doing an excellent job replying to everything I said by the way.
On March 08 2013 05:37 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 05:21 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 08 2013 05:19 Barrin wrote:On March 07 2013 18:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:
...
It's true, albeit deceptive and incomplete information.
... Your hypocrisy would be amusing if it weren't so staggering. I have addressed every point you have made and you refuse to do the same for me, Eh what, the last thing you replied to me was picking two paragraphs out of my gigantic post here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17965148As you just did so again by the way. You're right, my mistake. I only address the points that are of opposition to mine. Anything I haven't addressed I concede to; we can let others decide for themselves if you've given me the same courtesy, therein lies my confidence.
...Then you essentially concede to almost everything I said?
|
With the way income scales in SCII I'd never take more than 4 mining bases anyhow.
I think your logic is a bit flawed, in that you assume that people want to expand beyond 3 bases with the current system, but do not because it would eat too much into army supply.
Stacking on an extra 100 supply isn't going to change the way people play this game. Players are not going to move up to 120 workers in a game. They way income scales in this game is ridiculous already - a player would have no need to continue building workers beyond 80 or 90, because after a certain point what begins to matter is NOT army size but cost efficiency.
Essentially what this would allow is for a player with a macro advantage to have a larger window to capitalize on it. But it's not going to change the fact that income in this game is accelerated so much, and that at the end of the day what matters is managing your remaining mining bases, or in an all stages...COMPOSITION.
I'll agree with you, to a point. I've thought about increasing supply cap a lot. But there are much better solutions out there. Essentially what you should be doing is removing supply cap.
Just remove it, if you really want to push this as far as you can. What you will find is that bases and race mechanics become the problem, and that you will begin to make maps with more and more...and more...
It's aesthetically unpleasing. BW had that aesthetic. If you continue to expand SCII's system, it becomes more and more unappealing. That's why people suggest other changes. There's no reason to expand up when it just becomes a giant clusterfuck.
|
|
|
On March 08 2013 05:50 Qwyn wrote:
With the way income scales in SCII I'd never take more than 4 mining bases anyhow.
I think your logic is a bit flawed, in that you assume that people want to expand beyond 3 bases with the current system, but do not because it would eat too much into army supply.
Stacking on an extra 100 supply isn't going to change the way people play this game. Players are not going to move up to 120 workers in a game. They way income scales in this game is ridiculous already - a player would have no need to continue building workers beyond 80 or 90, because after a certain point what begins to matter is NOT army size but cost efficiency. Well, the entire idea of this concepts depends on it. I might be wrong but I feel that if you got 100 extra pop to play with, say 40 of that will go to workers and 60 will go tow army. Say you only stick on 70 workers and your opponent gets 110, your opponent will arrive at 190 army supply then before you do and then attack you and on top of that have a powerful remax which you don't. It seems reasonable to assume that if you give people 100 extra supply to play with at least some of it would go to more income.
I mean, for sake of argument reverse the situation, say you have only 150 pop, I don't think people would go to 70 workers then but rather something like 55 right?
I'll agree with you, to a point. I've thought about increasing supply cap a lot. But there are much better solutions out there. Essentially what you should be doing is removing supply cap.
Well, like i said, if it turns out people can still easily max, I'd have make it even higher. I want maxing to be so hard that for most intends and purposes there is no cap yeah.
On March 08 2013 05:52 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 05:43 SiskosGoatee wrote:
...Then you essentially concede to almost everything I said?
Everything that I didn't specifically address, or that wasn't so obviously wrong as to not be worth addressing, yes. Ah, like this time again?
No idea where you get the idea that you reply to everything I say because you don't really.
|
|
|
You can keep going down this road, but it's just going to get more and more messy. The last third of my previous post is something I really want to push across.
The reason why such changes are so convoluted? People want an AESTHETIC. The game flow has to be simple. Beautiful. BW erred on the side of less. And it made that less FEEL like more. There's a lot of factors at play here...but why scale upwards into a clusterfuck when you could make a better system at a smaller level that is much more easily appreciated?
|
Yeh, that's a nice excuse dude. Everything you don't address is either so blatantly wrong that you don't need to address or you concede it and you're not even telling me which it is so I have no idea to know where you stand. Urgh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
