|
More Supply Per Race [MSR], mod file published on EU and NA at the moment.
Okay, so I take we all heard the stories, we've all seen this image:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/56JZY.png)
It's true, albeit deceptive and incomplete information. Why? Because comparing 47 workers to 47 workers isn't fair. SC2 workers gather 5 minerals and 4 gas instead of 8 minerals and 8 gas. You start with 6 workers instead of 4. Workers build faster in real time, even for Terran, let alone for Protoss and Zerg. You need to saturate two geysers. Essentially everything of SC2 worker mechanics says 'You are supposed to have more workers than in BW at any given point of the game'.
Alright? Well, that sounds fair, if we change it to comparing say 47 workers in BW to 65 in SC2 it again becomes a similar comparison. Great, problem solved. SC2 is the greatest game ever and Dustin Browder is a genius. Except for one fatal flaw:
workers still cost the same amount of supply per worker as they did in BW.
You simply need faaaar more workers in SC2 to field a similar income, units haven't gotten cheaper at all, but they cost the same supply per worker. You'd need about 120 SC2 workers to get a BW income of 70 workers, you can't afford that amount of supply in income, it'll eat into your max. Tell me Mr. Anderson, what good are a thousand remaxes if you are unable to scratch the enemy? Together with the escalating nature of SC2 lategame battles, the quicker re-enforcement, it generally means that whoever wins the battle wins the war, so you want to win the battle, so you want to stick to around a three base economy, even if you can't remax, because winning that one battle is so important.
So, enter solutions to solve this issue. FRB, mining pathing adjusted in mods such as StarBow and SC2BW. Quite convoluted really. Oh, let's talk about another couple of things: Like why red have a tendency to win here:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8sy8c.jpg)
And why is there no known protoss army being capable of beating this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uk4iV.jpg)
And above all why is this so insanely popular as an endgame army:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lw2yN.jpg)
The answer is again supply. I'll have you know that 3 marauders cost as much supply as one colossus, or 2 marauders as an archon. Look at the price tag of those units? Are 2 marauders seriously supposed to beat an archon? You can argue an archon made from two hts, but definitely not a dt archon. Why did the old roach/hydra/corruptor army didn't fear up versus the stalker/voidray/colossus army? The answer is again supply. While both players were 'maxed' one player simply had a faaaar more expensive army and therefore won, that player should win or something was wrong with the game. It isn't an issue of cost efficiency at all. Infestor/broodlord isn't cost efficient, it's supply efficient. That army is so sick expensive that it beats everything because both infestors and broodlords cost next to nothing in terms of supply, you can throw a billion of them into your max. 6 months back Terran players were complaining about lategame TvP. Now protoss players are complaining about lategame PvT. Terrans found the answer, they found a massable unit that takes very little supply. As silly as it sounds, maxing on primarily ghosts becomes very hard for protoss to touch. They cost as much supply as a marauder, do more dps to a zealot than a stimmed maurder, emp, snipe, cloak, drop nukes. They're simply better than a marauder, they also cost a lot more. But who cares? At this point of the game money isn't your concern, supply is. And what can Protoss do in reverse? Massing templar doesn't work because storm doesn't stack. Massing archons sounds good in theory, until you realize that mass ghost hardcounters mass archon. Same thing with infestors, it wasn't fungal, it was infested terrans that made them so popular in the lategame, these guys carry 8 marines in them for the pop cost of 2. Casters just cost very little supply, and as soon as you have a caster which has a spammable spell that stacks like snipe or infested Terrans, you got yourself a perfect lategame max unit.
Now, in BW, maxing was actually something memorable, it didn't happen every single game. Units produce less quickly, macro is harder, on top of that, units take less supply. The highest supply Z unit is the ultralisk at 4. Every other Z unit costs 2 or less. Basically, in BW, the supply cap was never intended as a balancing mechanic, it was a performance issue more than anything they put into the game thinking no one would actually ever really get 200/200 armies. In BW, it's well known that if T ever let Z max, there was nothing T could do. why? Because T uses the very supply heavy units of marines in TvZ, it was an issue of supply.
So now, the grand balance changes of this mod you have all been waiting for, the creme the la creme, years of programming and data editing has gone into finalizing this magnificent mod that will solve any and all problems in SC2:
+ Show Spoiler +
Protoss:
- Psi cap raised to 300 from 200.
Terran:
- Supply cap raised to 300 from 200.
Zerg:
- Control cap raised to 300 from 200.
This approach has numerous advantages over FRB. The most obvious one is that maps require virtually no editing, but the biggest one is that the early game does not require any rebalancing whatsoever, the early game isn't changed, your income is the same, the game only starts to flow differently as you reach the later stages of the game. Enjoy your 6 base 140 worker saturation and vast vast armies covering the entire screen, high end machine required.
|
Not saying it's going to work, but I would love to see blizzard at least give this a shot.
|
I don't think the OP exactly mentioned this, but this will push the lategame advantages of each race to their extremes. Zerg will remax even faster after a huge lategame battle (in comparison to T or P), but at the same time a big protoss or terran mech maxed deathball will be that much stronger than a maxed zerg. So maybe that balances out, maybe not. But thought it was worth mentioning.
|
On March 07 2013 19:38 Fatam wrote:
I don't think the OP exactly mentioned this, but this will push the lategame advantages of each race to their extremes. Zerg will remax even faster after a huge lategame battle (in comparison to T or P), but at the same time a big protoss or terran mech maxed deathball will be that much stronger than a maxed zerg. So maybe that balances out, maybe not. But thought it was worth mentioning. I think this mod will lead to, or at least should lead to people just not maxing any more. If 300 pop becomes attainable I will move it to 350. The purpose of this mod is to make maxing as rare as it is in BW rather than something that happens every match.
|
I think you are making deathballs stronger with this. I would mod "more supply per units", but that is definitely the developers business.
All of the cases you mentioned can be analyzed by looking at the army spending tab. Infestors, Broodlords, High Templars, Ghosts and Vikings are very supply efficient, meaning there is a high ratio of resources per supply.
Edit: Forgot to mention that you need to adjust SC2 to normal clock Did you do that?
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On March 07 2013 20:54 50bani wrote:
I think you are making deathballs stronger with this. I would mod "more supply per units", but that is definitely the developers business.
All of the cases you mentioned can be analyzed by looking at the army spending tab. Infestors, Broodlords, High Templars, Ghosts and Vikings are very supply efficient, meaning there is a high ratio of resources per supply.
Edit: Forgot to mention that you need to adjust SC2 to normal clock Did you do that?
Are you talking about the diagram? Because the result would remain the same whether it was in SC2 speed or real speed, it's the ratio between 6 and 3 bases that matters.
|
On March 07 2013 20:54 50bani wrote:
I think you are making deathballs stronger with this. I would mod Unlikely, the thing aboutr SC2 is that you can max on 3 bases and therefore deathball and defend 3 bases quite easily with one army since you nbever need more than 3 mining bases basically. You tend to take your fourth as your main mines out. THis mod means you need to hold say 4-5-6 bases to be able to max, defending 6 bases with one deathball isn't possible, you are forced to spread out.
|
This is brilliant. I had the same idea once, but then forgot about it since it seemed absurd.
|
I am not sure about this, it might turn out good but it will need a change in the way people play, because now it is OK to go up to ~120 workers (150% of 80), so basically unless something changes we will see an even longer macro fest...
Hopefully people will prefer to be more aggressive because when you have map control its easier to expand, because now we might see people take much more bases, and if you can deny a 5th and 6th, you will have the advantage, even though that sounds really weird...
What I do think is that smaller maps will have to go, since it does not matter if you can make 120 workers if you only have 5 bases available.
|
I like the simplicity of this, but it still does not address many other SC2 economic issues and ultimately is too short-sighted. While players will not max as quickly in this mod, it still does not alleviate, among other things, how explosive the SC2 economy is. Even if players are not maxed, games will still get to huge army versus huge army very (too) quickly. In addition, it does not increase the importance of expanding.
In the AMA, I mentioned the SC2Pro Mod that modifies the SC2 economy to fix/alleviate these problems. It requires more changes than your mod, but it is still minimal and does not change any unit interactions. Note, I am just talking about the economic changes in SC2Pro.
In SC2Pro, I also reduced supply costs of units and, while that may completely throw off the current balance, I think that the combination of the fixed economic system plus reduced unit supply costs is the best approach. Balance should come after design, after all. It should not require that much rebalancing as everything mostly stays balanced, anyway.
IMHO, even without the supply cost reductions, the SC2Pro economic system would benefit SC2 very much.
|
|
|
I'm really psyched to read about some peoples experience with this mod. Hopefully some savvy players will try it out as well.
Edit: Typos.
|
On March 07 2013 22:41 moskonia wrote:
What I do think is that smaller maps will have to go, since it does not matter if you can make 120 workers if you only have 5 bases available. I don't think this is true, you just won't max on these maps. the purpose of the mod is to make maxing a largely theoretical thing, something that almost never happens like in BW. I don't think you can actually max all that well with this mod any more, what it serves to do is actually create a very distinct advantage for a 5 base player over a 3 base player, as in 270 pop versus 200 or something like that.
|
|
|
On March 08 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote:
I really wish you would do some research on these topics before asserting already shot-down ideas. Screw that
On March 07 2013 18:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Okay, so I take we all heard the stories, we've all seen this image:
No. Arguing like this is intellectually dishonest.[/quote]While it's a hyperbole, I'm pretty sure most people have seen it at this point.
Show nested quote +It's true, albeit deceptive and incomplete information. Why? Because comparing 47 workers to 47 workers isn't fair. SC2 workers gather 5 minerals and 4 gas instead of 8 minerals and 8 gas. You start with 6 workers instead of 4. Workers build faster in real time, even for Terran, let alone for Protoss and Zerg. You need to saturate two geysers. Correct, they're different in those ways. What was that about deceptive and incomplete information?
Are you kidding me? No it does not, the picture proves it. Do you even understand the picture?
If you disagree there then you most likely do not understand the point I'm trying to make with this thread and what I'm attempting to solve. If you macro just as well you will have more workers in SC2.
... An SC2 base with 8 minerals, 24 mineral workers on it mines minerals up to 36% faster than an identical BW base...
Define 'identical', do you mean 24 workers as well? If you do you don't really understand the point I'm making,.
Yeah, it's a pretty convoluted problem. Stop pretending that it isn't. You really think you can so easily find something that Blizzard AND a legion of nerds couldn't for years? It's true, mapmaking is pretty easy compared to something like physics, I gave you that, but your arrogance is starting to rival your ignorance. Blizzard didn't attempt to fix it, and you haven't really read the topic correctly I feel.
Except for the fact that SC2 thoroughly lacks units that are good at efficiently controlling an area. There is no real high ground advantage. FRB basically already tried this, and without a stronger high ground mechanic this will always be a problem regardless of the economy. I'm not sure what high ground has to do with the fact that with this modification a 5 base player has a faaar larger advantage over a 3 base player than with a 200 pop cap.
On March 07 2013 19:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Nice plan!
Actually that's just truly moronic. Maybe we max too fast in SC2, but there is an important skill in knowing what to do when you are maxxed.. and especially when you know your opponent is maxxed. It gives the un-maxed player a chance to catch up to someone who's macro lead has gotten out of control; it encourages the person with their macro lead to do something with it before too long (should I just attack, or should I make a lot of production facilities to keep sustaining a re-max.. how many production facilities?). Nope, that's the purpose of this idea, to make maxing largely theoretical and not practical. If maxing is still practical I'll mvoe it up and up until it becomes theoretical. That's the idea.
I know you're just trying to help.. oh wait.. you actually admitted to me that you're not.. you just wanted to show people that they don't know whats good and here you are telling us that you know what is good. You're full of shit. I admitted no such thing, you're free to quote me on where you think I said that.
|
I might've replied sooner, but I buried my face in my hands so hard I took a short nap. Sorry.
|
terrible "fix"
you max out too quickly because you build your economy too fast and more than 3 bases doesnt give u that much more (in terms of building supply)
i think the issue is that workers align perfectly 2 per mineral making over 16 workers almost useless and the fact that it gives efficient mining up to 16 (+6 for gas) workers where in bw u get efficient mining to 6-9 (+3 for gas) workers
lowering income per base and making the max efficiency mining lower would solve most of the issues with the game
highering supply is just silly and makes nothing better about the game just more clusterfuck beyond imagine.
the 6m1g concept along with making probes scvs and drones stay on their mineral patches to mine slightly longer would make things so much better so you dont actually just sit and max out on 3-4base. instead move out and build low tier armies to secure more bases to increase your income.
ofcourse the entire game would have to be rebalanced so it wont actually happen which is why this is pretty much not talked about anymore
|
On March 08 2013 02:32 MorroW wrote:
terrible "fix"
you max out too quickly because you build your economy too fast and more than 3 bases doesnt give u that much more (in terms of building supply)
i think the issue is that workers align perfectly 2 per mineral making over 16 workers almost useless and the fact that it gives efficient mining up to 16 (+6 for gas) workers where in bw u get efficient mining to 6-9 (+3 for gas) workers
lowering income per base and making the max efficiency mining lower would solve most of the issues with the game
highering supply is just silly and makes nothing better about the game just more clusterfuck beyond imagine.
the 6m1g concept along with making probes scvs and drones stay on their mineral patches to mine slightly longer would make things so much better so you dont actually just sit and max out on 3-4base. instead move out and build low tier armies to secure more bases to increase your income.
ofcourse the entire game would have to be rebalanced so it wont actually happen which is why this is pretty much not talked about anymore Great but ehh, did you actually read the post? It argues that by raising the cap to 300 your optimal amount of workers before it starts to comrpomise your max would probably go from say 70 to 130 thereby accomplishing the same thing as FBR in forcing you to take more than 3 bases but without affecting early game balance.
|
|
|
On March 08 2013 03:28 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 01:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:I know you're just trying to help.. oh wait.. you actually admitted to me that you're not.. you just wanted to show people that they don't know whats good and here you are telling us that you know what is good. You're full of shit. I admitted no such thing, you're free to quote me on where you think I said that. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TcBemj4.jpg) Apologies, you said "mostly" not "just". Lol. Please don't tell me you actually read from that 'You're not trying to help, you just want to show people what's good.'
Like I said before on this forum, in public and in that pm. I subscribe to a largely ignoramus et ignoramibus position. I don't think we can truly reliably calculate in something as complex as an RTS what's going to happen. In the end the only way to know is to try stuff and see what happens, that's all. That in no way implies that I'm not 'trying to help'.
I'm going to keep debunking your admittedly uninformed assertions as you keep making them, at least and especially anything in the realm of FRB. I was pleasant with you for a while despite your reputation, but I'm starting to think that you're a troll. Right below that picture above, my next quote started with "Surely it is a given that you're partly here to help?", a question that you never answered (should/can I prove that too?). 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.
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.
|
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.
|
A far bigger reason to not do this is alienation of players. When I first started playing 3 years ago, my computer would lag once any game got to 4+ bases vs 4+ bases. Many people do not play Sc2 because of the computer requirements, there just to demanding for some people. Now adding 50% more units on the field makes this an even bigger problem. Also Adding more supply is going to make things like spectating even more confusing for the player.
|
|
|
On March 08 2013 04:48 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Well you also have to consider maps filling up with 400 supply of units like caustic said. And other things. But yeah, about the cap itself:
I was trying to say what others are saying in a different way, using your own thought. Which is that it's a process of composition tuning. This doesn't change even if you have no cap. It just changes what you buy with your money, because supply isn't a consideration other than adding a marginal cost for supply structures. E.g. a marauder actually costs 125/25 because he uses 25% of a depot.
The point is, adjusting or removing the cap doesn't alter the underlying gameplay, when the argument is really about Lalush's position, namely that the economic system doesn't reward map control and expansion like it did in BW, which allowed a strategic axis that is severely stunted or nonexistent in SC2. By taking more bases and getting better mining from your workers, you could throw away money as a strategy that didn't depend on already having a bank lead (real or virtual). This only happens in SC2 when one player has a substantial lead and wants to shut down options for the opponent, closing the lid on the game.
If anything, the "one fix" simple mod worth trying for an otherwise unaltered SC2 would be to use the worker bouncing script from SC2BW, because this addresses the max out 3 base problem from the roots.
The supply cap adjustment isn't totally ineffective, it just doesn't get at the problem really.
|
|
|
On March 08 2013 06:45 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 04:48 SiskosGoatee wrote: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. Well you also have to consider maps filling up with 400 supply of units like caustic said. And other things. But yeah, about the cap itself: I was trying to say what others are saying in a different way, using your own thought. Which is that it's a process of composition tuning. This doesn't change even if you have no cap. It just changes what you buy with your money, because supply isn't a consideration other than adding a marginal cost for supply structures. E.g. a marauder actually costs 125/25 because he uses 25% of a depot. The point is, adjusting or removing the cap doesn't alter the underlying gameplay, when the argument is really about Lalush's position, namely that the economic system doesn't reward map control and expansion like it did in BW, which allowed a strategic axis that is severely stunted or nonexistent in SC2. By taking more bases and getting better mining from your workers, you could throw away money as a strategy that didn't depend on already having a bank lead (real or virtual). This only happens in SC2 when one player has a substantial lead and wants to shut down options for the opponent, closing the lid on the game. If anything, the "one fix" simple mod worth trying for an otherwise unaltered SC2 would be to use the worker bouncing script from SC2BW, because this addresses the max out 3 base problem from the roots. The supply cap adjustment isn't totally ineffective, it just doesn't get at the problem really. Why not? If the pop cap is 300 then people will not max on 70 but say 120 workers and therefore require more than 3 bases to actually use those workers, it does the same thing without affecting the basics of the game. 120 workers on 3 bases is mad oversaturation.
A pop cap of 300 forces you to hold more than 3 bases, or at least gives te advantage to the player that does, that'sall.
|
|
|
Wow you guys likes to argue, I say we simply take a test? Someone make a map and lets play a few games, if you can still stay on 3 bases and win versus a 5 base player (like its possible in the current 200 max pop), then this does nothing and we can look at other ways to improve the game. Theorycrafting and bashing each other leads to nowhere, actual testing might lead to fun and exiting new discoveries!
|
Give me your EU charcode I guess, I'll make a version of cloud kingdom.
|
Join the Melee Map Makers group 
|
On March 08 2013 07:41 moskonia wrote:
Wow you guys likes to argue, I say we simply take a test? Someone make a map and lets play a few games, if you can still stay on 3 bases and win versus a 5 base player (like its possible in the current 200 max pop), then this does nothing and we can look at other ways to improve the game. Theorycrafting and bashing each other leads to nowhere, actual testing might lead to fun and exiting new discoveries!
All you're going to find is that there are new timings at 4 bases on the way to maxed out. The game won't fundamentally change at all. And you'll get clogged up battles on maps made for 200 supply. And zergs would suffer a lot on some maps for lack of a viable 5th and 6th base.
|
On March 08 2013 10:36 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 07:41 moskonia wrote:
Wow you guys likes to argue, I say we simply take a test? Someone make a map and lets play a few games, if you can still stay on 3 bases and win versus a 5 base player (like its possible in the current 200 max pop), then this does nothing and we can look at other ways to improve the game. Theorycrafting and bashing each other leads to nowhere, actual testing might lead to fun and exiting new discoveries! All you're going to find is that there are new timings at 4 bases on the way to maxed out. The game won't fundamentally change at all. And you'll get clogged up battles on maps made for 200 supply. And zergs would suffer a lot on some maps for lack of a viable 5th and 6th base.
How can you know? I really don't get it, you can theorycraft all you want, but until you actually try it you can't know if you are right. Personally I think that there are many ways for this to turn out, but you guys are discarding it only because sisko was the one who came up with it. I am not saying it will make the game any better, but I am just saying it should get a few trys before everyone says its no good.
|
On March 08 2013 11:36 moskonia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 10:36 EatThePath wrote:On March 08 2013 07:41 moskonia wrote:
Wow you guys likes to argue, I say we simply take a test? Someone make a map and lets play a few games, if you can still stay on 3 bases and win versus a 5 base player (like its possible in the current 200 max pop), then this does nothing and we can look at other ways to improve the game. Theorycrafting and bashing each other leads to nowhere, actual testing might lead to fun and exiting new discoveries! All you're going to find is that there are new timings at 4 bases on the way to maxed out. The game won't fundamentally change at all. And you'll get clogged up battles on maps made for 200 supply. And zergs would suffer a lot on some maps for lack of a viable 5th and 6th base. How can you know? I really don't get it, you can theorycraft all you want, but until you actually try it you can't know if you are right. Personally I think that there are many ways for this to turn out, but you guys are discarding it only because sisko was the one who came up with it. I am not saying it will make the game any better, but I am just saying it should get a few trys before everyone says its no good.
Well, I'd love to see what happens and I'm open to being wrong, but this has been discussed about and thought about a lot before and set aside for good reasons. They might not be the end-all reasons, but they're good reasons. Siskos is just the latest one to bring it up in earnest.
If you want to know why it's easier to be confident about the theorycrafting, go the other direction. What if there was a 100 supply cap? Two base game where you take another base for gas sometimes (50 instead of 44 workers), probably involving lots of static defense if you're not terran (marines) while getting lots of upgrades and tech units, trading off tier 1 units with harass maneuvres when possible. Another composition game.
|
I very briefly skimmed this thread, but everyone seems to be arguing about maxed armies.
Am I wrong in saying that without a supply cap, there's no such thing as a maxed army?
I see 200 supply as a goal. I attack when I get 200 supply. Sitting at 200 supply is detrimental to me. So, I hit 200 supply and I attack.
If there wasn't a supply cap, you'd no longer have that "Oh, well, better attack now" train of thought. I feel like if there was nothing tell you: "Hey, you can't do any better than this", then people would start attacking more often. They'd attack earlier, with smaller armies, trying to gain an advantage by keeping their opponent on low tech armies, while using that advantage to tech up themselves.
I'm sorry if that didn't make sense, I'm very inarticulate.
|
On March 08 2013 12:24 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 11:36 moskonia wrote:On March 08 2013 10:36 EatThePath wrote:On March 08 2013 07:41 moskonia wrote:
Wow you guys likes to argue, I say we simply take a test? Someone make a map and lets play a few games, if you can still stay on 3 bases and win versus a 5 base player (like its possible in the current 200 max pop), then this does nothing and we can look at other ways to improve the game. Theorycrafting and bashing each other leads to nowhere, actual testing might lead to fun and exiting new discoveries! All you're going to find is that there are new timings at 4 bases on the way to maxed out. The game won't fundamentally change at all. And you'll get clogged up battles on maps made for 200 supply. And zergs would suffer a lot on some maps for lack of a viable 5th and 6th base. How can you know? I really don't get it, you can theorycraft all you want, but until you actually try it you can't know if you are right. Personally I think that there are many ways for this to turn out, but you guys are discarding it only because sisko was the one who came up with it. I am not saying it will make the game any better, but I am just saying it should get a few trys before everyone says its no good. Well, I'd love to see what happens and I'm open to being wrong, but this has been discussed about and thought about a lot before and set aside for good reasons. They might not be the end-all reasons, but they're good reasons. Siskos is just the latest one to bring it up in earnest. If you want to know why it's easier to be confident about the theorycrafting, go the other direction. What if there was a 100 supply cap? Two base game where you take another base for gas sometimes (50 instead of 44 workers), probably involving lots of static defense if you're not terran (marines) while getting lots of upgrades and tech units, trading off tier 1 units with harass maneuvres when possible. Another composition game.
Well even if it was brought up in the past already, unless there was actual testing all the discussions are irrelevant, it seems people here really likes to theorycraft, which is good and all but cannot replace actual testing.
Anyways about having a 100 supply cap, I doubt people would get 50 workers, I theorycraft that Protoss will be OP since in PvZ the Z cannot out macro the P with an early 3rd and P has the WG which makes for the fastest remax.
|
Sorry, but I disagree with this though I get where you are coming from with this idea.
My intial thought is:
roaches and bio are going to be broken.
4-5base economy of zerg is going to be broken as well, because zerg just gets those bases so much faster if they want to.
|
On March 08 2013 10:36 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 07:41 moskonia wrote:
Wow you guys likes to argue, I say we simply take a test? Someone make a map and lets play a few games, if you can still stay on 3 bases and win versus a 5 base player (like its possible in the current 200 max pop), then this does nothing and we can look at other ways to improve the game. Theorycrafting and bashing each other leads to nowhere, actual testing might lead to fun and exiting new discoveries! All you're going to find is that there are new timings at 4 bases on the way to maxed out. The game won't fundamentally change at all. And you'll get clogged up battles on maps made for 200 supply. And zergs would suffer a lot on some maps for lack of a viable 5th and 6th base. Of course the game won't fundamentally change at all, is that not the point of this solution with respect to FRB? The point is to make 3 base turtling a non viable strat without fundamentally changing anything thereby requiring the least amount of balance re-adjusting possible. Actually altering the mining behaviour of the map requires vast amounts of rebalancing.
Do you earnestly not concede that almost surely increasing the pop cap will make 3 base turtling a non viable strat?
|
Yeah agreed, I don't see how anyone can argue that turtling would still happen as much. Anyone with half a brain can see that it wouldn't.
Would the change affect some other things negatively? That is the question. But it would certainly deal a blow to turtling and the deathball.. at least to some degree.
|
On March 08 2013 16:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 10:36 EatThePath wrote:On March 08 2013 07:41 moskonia wrote:
Wow you guys likes to argue, I say we simply take a test? Someone make a map and lets play a few games, if you can still stay on 3 bases and win versus a 5 base player (like its possible in the current 200 max pop), then this does nothing and we can look at other ways to improve the game. Theorycrafting and bashing each other leads to nowhere, actual testing might lead to fun and exiting new discoveries! All you're going to find is that there are new timings at 4 bases on the way to maxed out. The game won't fundamentally change at all. And you'll get clogged up battles on maps made for 200 supply. And zergs would suffer a lot on some maps for lack of a viable 5th and 6th base. Of course the game won't fundamentally change at all, is that not the point of this solution with respect to FRB? The point is to make 3 base turtling a non viable strat without fundamentally changing anything thereby requiring the least amount of balance re-adjusting possible. Actually altering the mining behaviour of the map requires vast amounts of rebalancing. Do you earnestly not concede that almost surely increasing the pop cap will make 3 base turtling a non viable strat?
In an imaginary 300cap pro SC2 metagame on the maps we currenly have (I guess this is an accurate account of the present hypothetical?), the longterm would probably leave 3 base turtle behind. But...
At first you'd expect that since you can get 5 full bases that getting 66% more income than a 3baser would mean the 3baser has no chance. But it still takes time and investment to get 5 bases running, and still more time and investment to get the production to use that economy, and investment to defend those bases (cost of static defense, and cost of rebuilding units for fights, and the hit your composition takes due to both of those). Moreover, all the upgrades in the game can be got on 3-4 bases long before 5 bases fully kicks in, and as mentioned above the expander will be behind in tech/composition/production/something. So, I'm not sure about the math but I think a player could "turtle" on 3 bases and just dedicate themselves to producing a deathball. Even if the 5 base player maxes first, I doubt their army would win outright. It might lose outright. So I think, especially at first, 3 base would be perfectly viable. It might even be a mainstay for terrans who can make OCs for their supply and mule during the extra time it takes to get to 300/300.
However, I would assume that macro play would eventually dominate after timings were figured out, and more or less leave 3basers behind. Except for one thing, which is the maps. If it were played on the maps we have now, you'd never be able to 4 and 5 base. Why?
No one is going to "turtle" on 3 bases while their opponent takes a 4th and 5th. In that scenario, you're no longer stuck defending your 3 bases if your opponent is trying to invest further into things that aren't right-now-army. You're going to do a 3 base timing attack (if you don't want to expand too). It might not be quick, you might even let them get 4 bases running, or 5, but your goal is to win the game in one blow. This might be a killing sweep or just a base snipe with worker kills. If you have a better deathball and they wasted money on bases, workers, and production they can't use, you can easily play that lead into a win.
So with respect to FRB, I don't blame Barrin for taking this whole thread as a sleight because it comes off as a joke at best, no gratuitous disrespect intended. Neither this nor FRB maintains balance, but at least FRB admitted as much and specifically addressed maps as well, which is even more of a problem for higher supply cap.
On March 08 2013 17:56 Fatam wrote:
Yeah agreed, I don't see how anyone can argue that turtling would still happen as much. Anyone with half a brain can see that it wouldn't.
Would the change affect some other things negatively? That is the question. But it would certainly deal a blow to turtling and the deathball.. at least to some degree.
"To some degree."
I'll take this opportunity to illuminate how increased army size affects deathballs in combat. In the abstract, you can think of it as equivalent to increasing the radius of all units. It reduces the DPS density : map size ratio. Deathball play is all about delivering DPS on demand as well as possible, which depends on fluid pathing and packing a bunch of units together. Having more units sort of mitigates those things.
Then you have the feature that you have to defend more map locations (additional expansions sooner) which tends to pull armies apart as the defender splits off squads to handle harass and other attacker task forces.
Thinking more about this, it seems like a much better "quick fix" idea to try would be to make workers 0.5 or 0.75 supply. Then you can easily get 4 or 5 mining bases into a 200 supply game which otherwise has all the features of stock SC2. Maps don't need adjustment, other than larger building space for extra production (minor consideration). It would mess with some early timings but since you need units to attack and you can only build workers so fast anyway, I don't think it'd have world ending balance implications. Feel free to point out why this is stupid, everybody. ^^
|
On March 08 2013 17:57 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 16:45 SiskosGoatee wrote:On March 08 2013 10:36 EatThePath wrote:On March 08 2013 07:41 moskonia wrote:
Wow you guys likes to argue, I say we simply take a test? Someone make a map and lets play a few games, if you can still stay on 3 bases and win versus a 5 base player (like its possible in the current 200 max pop), then this does nothing and we can look at other ways to improve the game. Theorycrafting and bashing each other leads to nowhere, actual testing might lead to fun and exiting new discoveries! All you're going to find is that there are new timings at 4 bases on the way to maxed out. The game won't fundamentally change at all. And you'll get clogged up battles on maps made for 200 supply. And zergs would suffer a lot on some maps for lack of a viable 5th and 6th base. Of course the game won't fundamentally change at all, is that not the point of this solution with respect to FRB? The point is to make 3 base turtling a non viable strat without fundamentally changing anything thereby requiring the least amount of balance re-adjusting possible. Actually altering the mining behaviour of the map requires vast amounts of rebalancing. Do you earnestly not concede that almost surely increasing the pop cap will make 3 base turtling a non viable strat? In an imaginary 300cap pro SC2 metagame on the maps we currenly have (I guess this is an accurate account of the present hypothetical?), the longterm would probably leave 3 base turtle behind. But... At first you'd expect that since you can get 5 full bases that getting 66% more income than a 3baser would mean the 3baser has no chance. But it still takes time and investment to get 5 bases running, and still more time and investment to get the production to use that economy, and investment to defend those bases (cost of static defense, and cost of rebuilding units for fights, and the hit your composition takes due to both of those). Moreover, all the upgrades in the game can be got on 3-4 bases long before 5 bases fully kicks in, and as mentioned above the expander will be behind in tech/composition/production/something. So, I'm not sure about the math but I think a player could "turtle" on 3 bases and just dedicate themselves to producing a deathball. Even if the 5 base player maxes first, I doubt their army would win outright. It might lose outright. So I think, especially at first, 3 base would be perfectly viable. It might even be a mainstay for terrans who can make OCs for their supply and mule during the extra time it takes to get to 300/300. Well, I'm going to test this with mosko sooner or later. I suppose he's going to turtle on 3 bases and we'll see how long it takes before I overtake him with my 5.
However, I would assume that macro play would eventually dominate after timings were figured out, and more or less leave 3basers behind. Except for one thing, which is the maps. If it were played on the maps we have now, you'd never be able to 4 and 5 base. Why?
No one is going to "turtle" on 3 bases while their opponent takes a 4th and 5th. In that scenario, you're no longer stuck defending your 3 bases if your opponent is trying to invest further into things that aren't right-now-army. You're going to do a 3 base timing attack (if you don't want to expand too). It might not be quick, you might even let them get 4 bases running, or 5, but your goal is to win the game in one blow. This might be a killing sweep or just a base snipe with worker kills. If you have a better deathball and they wasted money on bases, workers, and production they can't use, you can easily play that lead into a win. That's the purpose, to force people to reach out and figure out how to defend 4-5 bases.
So with respect to FRB, I don't blame Barrin for taking this whole thread as a sleight because it comes off as a joke at best, no gratuitous disrespect intended. Neither this nor FRB maintains balance, but at least FRB admitted as much and specifically addressed maps as well, which is even more of a problem for higher supply cap. I'm not claiming balance at all. All I'm saying is that this will accomplish roughly what FRB was set out to accomplish, force people to move beyond 3 bases, but without altering the early game. How much it will affect the balance of the lategame I can't tell. My hunch says it will favour Z but it can go a lot of ways. Maybe it will favour P because P will be able to mass warpin huge armies to defend those expos? Maybe it will favour P because they can spam planetaries everywhere as expos? Maybe it'll even be perfectly balanced, who knows?
What I will say however is that in effect this is what BW had with respect to SC2, a 300 pop cap limit because in BW units just take soooo much less supply if you compare them that you effectively end up with a 300 pop cap limit of sorts. While workers take the same supply, an SC2 worker is effectively worth 1.5 BW workers, take that in mind too.
|
After reading some of what EatTheEarth said, I think you should also add 4-4 upgrades, as to be even with the increased supply cap.
|
|
|
So what I'm getting from this is that you consider it in SC2 too hard to feasibly hold 4 bases against a 3 base player even though it might yield tangible rewards if you do. You just cannot hold it before it pays itself back?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
