|
On July 05 2010 07:15 shawster wrote:
once you get to a higher level i think this game will become more of a macro game again. right now it seems like 80% of my matches are 2base 3base rather then intense macro games. that's just because this game is new and timings haven't been mapped out. I was thinking a lot about that too - why SC2 is so fewer bases compared to BW - and I think it has to do with having:
-- 2 more initial workers
-- 2 more mineral patches per base (so i thought; replace that with more workers to saturate the base)
-- 1 more gas per base (the return is the same, but you need again more workers for saturation)
-- high yield mineral bases in each official map
while the other costs in the game are fairly similar to BW, and the food cap is still 200/200. As a result actually we see people producing way too many workers very often, because they try to take as many bases as BW, but each base uses up almost doubled amount of workers. And the armies end up smaller. I think Blizzard have to think more about that, either increase the 200/200 food cap, so that it makes sense to want more bases, or reduce the resources per base, or something similar - because as of now it favors fewer bases, which makes the game variety lower.
Especially the quick economy start with 6 workers favors 1-base builds. I doubt that's the way to make the game entertaining, which was Blizzard's goal with these changes.
This is not new, but I went through a lot of old threads, and couldn't find a dedicated discussion about it. I'd like to know what others think about this issue.
Poll: Could SC2 benefit from increasing the food cap 200 to, say, 250?Worth of consideration, could improve the game complexity. (32) 50% SC2 could still match the macro scales of BW, if utilized optimally. (28) 44% This won't increase base numbers and army sizes, other tweaking is needed (specify in reply). (4) 6% 64 total votes Your vote: Could SC2 benefit from increasing the food cap 200 to, say, 250? (Vote): Worth of consideration, could improve the game complexity.
(Vote): This won't increase base numbers and army sizes, other tweaking is needed (specify in reply).
(Vote): SC2 could still match the macro scales of BW, if utilized optimally.
|
Didn't Starcraft 1 begin with mostly 1-base builds, too? It's really just that people aren't comfortable with holding everything off while going for an early expansion, and an earlier 3rd, etc...
|
The maps don't allow for long macro games and the maps that do are normally cheesed on. Add this to the fact that the game hasn't developed to the state BW is then you get a game with less big macro games. BW didn't start out having long macro games.
The game will change greatly in the coming years. Making changes now based on theories that really can't be proven isn't the way to evolve the game. Let evolution take place at it's proper pace then one can look at the game and evaluate like you are doing now.
|
I think having small maps was pretty intentional, at least at first. The game was very well balanced in the early game, but late game was very imbalanced early on. Things we've seen nerfed that have probably significantly balanced late game are roach nerfs, siege tank damage nerf, and colossi damage nerf.
Large maps will probably be added as the game goes on, but balancing larger armies is obviously going to be more difficult than balancing small armies. There's so many more possibilities when economy gets huge... it's difficult to see what is too strong and what is not.
|
'-- 2 more mineral patches per base'
??????????????
most broodwar maps had 9-10 minerals at the starting base, all sc2 maps have only 8...
also, guysers only return 4 gas per trip, so it ends up about equal for 2 sc2 guysers = bw guyser.
|
Don't you think that the clear superiority of having 1 SC2 base vs having 1 BW base, while the other costs and food caps are similar/same - plays the most crucial role?
I absolutely agree the game has to evolve, but at the same time SC1 started slowly with this growth, because people were inexperienced, while they come to SC2 with the BW experience, and they actually want to take more bases, but it ends up useless --> they would need larger food cap to utilize them properly. Even in top matches they sometimes take those 5-6 bases and they can't use them, because there's not enough food for so many miners and armies at 200/200.
On July 05 2010 08:42 Ftrunkz wrote:
'-- 2 more mineral patches per base'
??????????????
most broodwar maps had 9-10 minerals at the starting base, all sc2 maps have only 8...
also, guysers only return 4 gas per trip, so it ends up about equal for 2 sc2 guysers = bw guyser. Oh, I'm totally ignorant then. For some reason I thought the map pool there is again with # of workers + 2 patches. Okay, then the comparison is probably wrong.
|
First of all, each geyser only about half the gas you would get in SC:BW. So, really all that means is that you need twice the number of workers to get roughly the same amount of gas you used to be able to. Second, where are you getting "2 more mineral patches per base" from? Maybe you mean "SC2 has 0-2 (avg: 1) less mineral patches in the main?" Because then, you would be correct.
I don't really see what you're trying to argue or discuss here, but I don't think the above sits with your argument very well...
|
United States14 Posts
Well, one base play is easier to defend, and also the mineral was reduce from 8 in Bw to now 5 in SCII.
8+8+8=24 5+5+5+5+5=25...itll take about 3 trips in BW and 5 trips in SCII to get about the same minerals. So if u had 4 workers = 6 workers ...theyre just trying to increase more miners and make minerals work less...thougth more supply cap would enable for better games...i dont really want bigger supply cap because after all i am mentally retarded and have really bad late games. + My computer really sucks..so i don't know...u guys probably have awesome computers that support mapmaxx..but me and my friends dont 
|
The main thing: I noticed that the food cap 200/200 carried from BW doesn't suit SC2 that well, and relates to fewer bases or smaller armies. Because if there were to be as many saturated bases as in BW, and as bigger armies - the food required in SC2 would be larger (you need more workers). Which probably comes from:
On July 05 2010 08:46 Saracen wrote:
you need twice the number of workers to get roughly the same amount of gas you used to be able to And there's a similar effect to mineral mining - you need more workers per base. Hence, lower maximum number of bases, because the food cap is the same.
|
Even if you stay on one base..in general the amount of shit you can support off of said 1 base is generally the same imo
well atleast for toss i noticed 3 gates is max(with probe production)
you can squeeze 4 if you cut probes
might just be me though..
|
I sure hope that things don't go super macro based. Might as well just played fastest/zeroclutter if ur just looking to mass everygame ;P
|
I wonder when people will start to realize, its not BW -- and finally stop comparing them
Could SC2 benefit from increasing the food cap 200 to, say, 250?
No, the army sizes during the late game are already huge
|
As time progresses, new maps will come out, new builds will be made, and people will be a lot more comfortable with the game. If SC2 follows in the footsteps of Brood War, there will consistantly be new maps that inspire new game mechanics. If you compare today's Brood War maps to the maps of when Brood War first came out, you will see that some maps now have protected 3rds, and an easy defendable natural, while in the beginning, some maps didn't have a gas at the natural.
TL;DR The meta game will change.
|
On July 05 2010 09:30 ReachTheSky wrote:
I sure hope that things don't go super macro based. Might as well just played fastest/zeroclutter if ur just looking to mass everygame ;P On July 05 2010 09:32 anarkin wrote:
No, the army sizes during the late game are already huge That's related to having fewer bases in the game - the armies look too big already, because they are clumped together at fewer points on the map. If there were more bases, the army would be at 3-4+ points at the same time, having multi-forked complex action, and those armies that now look huge at 200/200, would be divided enough to look smaller at 250/250 (as an example). That all comes from the number of bases.
On July 05 2010 09:39 Najda wrote:
new maps will come out You compare with the BW evolution, which came from better maps with defensible bases, but now we start out with maps which have very well defensible and profitable bases, and that doesn't help much, because you just don't need to have so many of them at the same time, to be at the top productive capacity (miners-to-army) for your race. So: the problem isn't that you can't handle so many bases, but that you don't really need them. But yeah, one possible solution would be to gradually change the resources per base in the standard map pool.
|
'fewer' bases only because static defense isnt god-mode like in was in broodwar. few sunkens could hold any amount of infantry push early in the game, which was dumb and why bw was a flawed game.
Combined with things like reavers, sieged tanks, lurkers + defense bases weren't easily steamrolled.
|
I am thinking it is because of the saturation rate of a base.
SC2 saturates around 2.5 workers/patch.
SC1 saturates around 1.5 workers/patch.
This creates a greater incentive to expand.
Also, the pathing is better for SC2, so effective ground rush distance between bases is reduced, increasing the risk of expanding.
I think 25% miss chance on high ground and larger maps would benefit more defensive macro oriented play. I don't think we need to increase the supply cap, because that has little to do with the style of midgame play.
|
I really think it is mostly because of the map pool of the beta. They all are rather small compared to BW maps and less macro intensive. It is also because how the high-ground mechanic work (or doesn't work anymore...), it was easier in BW to sucessfully defend an expand without a gigantic army.
|
On July 05 2010 09:50 figq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 09:30 ReachTheSky wrote:
I sure hope that things don't go super macro based. Might as well just played fastest/zeroclutter if ur just looking to mass everygame ;P Show nested quote +On July 05 2010 09:32 anarkin wrote:
No, the army sizes during the late game are already huge That's related to having fewer bases in the game - the armies look too big already, because they are clumped together at fewer points on the map. If there were more bases, the army would be at 3-4+ points at the same time, having multi-forked complex action, and those armies that now look huge at 200/200, would be divided enough to look smaller at 250/250 (as an example). That all comes from the number of bases. You compare with the BW evolution, which came from better maps with defensible bases, but now we start out with maps which have very well defensible and profitable bases, and that doesn't help much, because you just don't need to have so many of them at the same time, to be at the top productive capacity (miners-to-army) for your race. So: the problem isn't that you can't handle so many bases, but that you don't really need them. But yeah, one possible solution would be to gradually change the resources per base in the standard map pool.
I think you're making some interesting points here. Having a lot of bases in SC2 is often somewhat detrimental due to the food used on workers. It doesn't matter if you can replenish your army incredibly quickly if the max size you can make it is half the size of your opponent's (he's going to roll you with practically no losses), especially if he can just roll around the map and take advantage of wide chokes to maximize his numerical advantage. In BW, this was somewhat negated due to a number of factors: more bases increasing the need for army spreading and mobility (as figg noted), and powerful defensive units for all races. SC2, however, encourages players to expand a bit less, resulting in more games where huge armies run straight at each other, the player with more units coming out hugely on top due to ai-smart targeting and focus fire. Some of the more important defensive spells, like spider mines, dark swarm, d-matrix, and plague have been removed completely, reducing the ability of a small force to defend against a large one. The spells that were added in their stead are often situational and easily countered, like force field, frustratingly ineffective against large numbers of units, like point defense drone or guardian shield, or weak and somewhat difficult to tech to, like hunter seeker missile. Ranged anti-ground aoe seems more and more like the only way to hold against an opponent with a larger army, and tanks, banelings, and colossai seem somewhat more counterable than their sc1 counterparts. This isn't because the units are worse at their roles than the BW version, but instead because air units, which they can't hit, are incredibly more effective at killing them. These differences reduce the value of a smaller food army vs a larger one, thereby limiting the effectiveness of choosing to field a faster-replenishing small army vs a slower replenishing big one.
I think the idea of making multiple expansions more attractive by reducing the number of workers / expansion is great. I don't think it's the only reason we fewer bases than BW, though, and a visit to some of the other issues would certainly be interesting.
|
I like the idea of increasing the food cap maybe even to 300. Mostly not because I'm worried about one base or two base strats but in sc2 the pathing is so much more better so that even 200 food armies can go up ramps in matter of seconds.
Also chokes aren't that big of a deal than they used to be.
|
I like the idea of increasing the food cap but I believe th one/two base plays comes largely from unites being more mobile in sc2 compared to bw. And I'm not just talking about "cliff walking" with collossii/reaper/stalker but, as someone already stated, it's much easier moving a big army up a ramp.
I actually went back and played through the brood war campaign and found myself constantly banging my keyboard in frustration over dragoons trying to walk around a cliff instead of up a ramp.. =P
|
each mining base is only worth 30 food max 24 for full saturation on minerals and 6 on gas. how often do you have more than 3 saturated bases mining all at once? I transfer as soon as i can from multiple bases to keep probe production up in all nexi.
If you play heavy macro style there does get to be a point where you will eventually stop making probes, but i don't think that would happen in many games. I never stopped to analyze how many probes I made in BW, but I would imagine it to be similar.
With the warp in ability protoss shouldn't have to worry about having too many probes especially since storm is available asap on a warpin.
zealot/temp/stalker/archon composition is brutal. Just have enough warpgates...
|
why do we want to increase viability of defensive macro oriented play... I think esports wants to see aggressive macro oriented play.
constant pressure and expo when you pressure...
|
This is normal about people don't expend a lot yet. Most of them try to find the good army composition and try to be confortable in so situation. When they will feel ready we will see more expend like we saw with Sc/Bw
|
The way the macro mechanics are designed makes it beneficial for certain races to play certain styles.
The terran macro mechanic for example, benefits aggressive 1 or 2 base play, and makes it very hard for the opposing race to expand without being under tremendous pressure. If the terran manages to keep you on the same amount of bases, he will have an advantage.
Same for protoss in PvZ. They have a stronger 1base timing due to their macro mechanic and the strength of their units.
For Z, they have to expand to make proper use of their macro mechanic.
All of the mechanics accelerate game play as well, which makes it harder to expand. It rather instead forces players to continue making units, because timing attacks are stronger in SC2 than in BW.
|
I think one of the main reasons are the maps. If the players have about 3 bases each then there are usually only a couple of expos left on the map. The exceptions are the 4-player maps, but on them we often see longer more macro intensive games. I think we only need to give SC2 some time so people get better at defending early pushes and all-ins and that will lead to longer games.
|
I think this will change when the maps will allow it, as in larger maps and expos are easier to defend
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
