On April 14 2012 09:37 Quotidian wrote: what's the reasoning behind the high yield gas?
you have 75% minerals (6 instead of 8 patches) how do you provide 75% gas? solution is one high yield gas
The problem I see is that gas becomes cheaper this way, if you mine it more efficiently. This messes with the game design. To counter this, I suggest to put the gas further back, so that you need 4-5 (maybe 4.5?) workers to saturate it.
I am curious can you pinpoint any problems this creates in game design? It was pretty much like this in BW btw, the problems you have in mind might all be present there. I hate to use that argument >.< but perhaps it is just different.
Well, I guess its pretty obvious. You are getting gas 50% cheaper (need 50% less workers). So that makes gas-intensive units cheaper than in 8m2g. (which they were designed for) Of course you are limited by the amount of bases/gases you have. But on 1 or 2 bases the effect will be quite big like seen in the first couple games here. An additional factor is that you are saturated pretty quickly, so you normally won't delay your gas as late as in 8m2g games.
Maybe it will just be a different game, maybe even better. I'm sure you are thinking about this as well. I'm just concerned .
On April 14 2012 11:16 tgun wrote: Maybe you could just position the gas so it takes 4 drones to optimally mine, instead of 3?
that was exactly my idea
The problem is no matter what you do, players could place the hatch/CC/nexus closer to the game and one space farther from the minerals if they wanted too. I suppose you coulldddd really spread the minerals out and put the gas in the middle, but that would look really weird and would be kinda bad imo.
On April 14 2012 11:16 tgun wrote: Maybe you could just position the gas so it takes 4 drones to optimally mine, instead of 3?
that was exactly my idea
The problem is no matter what you do, players could place the hatch/CC/nexus closer to the game and one space farther from the minerals if they wanted too. I suppose you coulldddd really spread the minerals out and put the gas in the middle, but that would look really weird and would be kinda bad imo.
Imo, moving your main base to be closer to the gas to make mineral mining much less efficient is, and will always be, a very stupid move. Simple layout for map makers would be something like
MMMMMM
CC
GAS (4 worker saturation)
People would be able to move closer to the gas, but it would make mining minerals much less efficient: having that as a trade-off, in my opinion, would be fine.
I think rainbows game was probably one of the best examples. There were tons of expansions everywhere and a lot of small battles here and there. It was fun.
I enjoyed the cast. Great job guys!! You're both quite good.
Barrin and I actually talked about this idea (mostly just removing some minerals from the main and natural) about a year or more ago. At that point I was really excited for the FRB movement. I still am, and I support it.
However, I don't really know how much these games proved the theory though... given, the game isn't even close to being figured out on this new setup though. From a lot of recent games in the GSL and IPL, 8m2g maps have been playing out really well- there are more expansions, harassment, and diversity than I saw in these games. I'll just say that its because the players are of a higher caliber in the GSL and IPL, plus the metagame is exponentially more stable.
The problem is that I am beginning to have doubts that 6m will discourage cheese and all-ins; I'm starting to think that 6m actually encourages cheese because there is more of an opportunity to punish a player for expanding. Maybe it stays the same though, because expanding or building an army still costs the same in both versions.
Is it worth trying to implement in HotS? Maybe. The game will probably have to be rebalanced and completely re-figured-out by the players again anyway. 6m maps would probably just make the game better. That said, I do think that there are more fundamental issues with the game that are more prominant than 8m2g maps. Imo 8m will work as the metagame becomes more and more stable, as we are seeing in the GSL and very current tournaments.
On April 14 2012 13:17 Pull wrote: I think rainbows game was probably one of the best examples. There were tons of expansions everywhere and a lot of small battles here and there. It was fun.
Also the delta braxis game with tgun & sarovoti -- there were a decent number of bases, harass, trades, skirmishes... it was a fun game to watch, especially the trick ending. While some games definately seemed quick, part of the point was to see if the players could find what the effective cheeses are and see if there might be also effective counter play. Obviously, we are not going to see all of that in the same game -- it is going to take a number of games before we start to see a real metagame pattern emerge. That said, I still think in general the games tended to demonstrate the goals of FRB maps. Even the ones where there wasn't a lot of scouting or harass seemed to kind of "negatively prove" that the extra time multitasking with scouting or pressure or multiprong attacks could have made a big difference in those games. (That might be true of 8m games as well, but it definately seems like more of an option in 6m.)
Despite the first high yield gas giving a decent boost in gas early on for not much mineral input, I've felt from all of my watching and testing that actually, except for maybe some very early timings which I don't know are really viable against mineral heavy counter play, the gas levels off not too far into the late early game or early mid game. The proportion of mining is still the same, and after getting out those initial gas units or upgrades you are really not pulling in so much gas for the investment. Also, securing more gas is not really that much less mineral intesive because getting a new base costs more in relation to the per base income.
For P & T: 3 x 8m base = 400 x3 + 75 x6 + 50 x18 = 2550 4 x 6m base = 400 x4 + 75 x4 + 50 x12 = 2500
For Z: 3 x 8m base = 300 x3 + 75 x6 + 50 x18 = 2250 4 x 6m base = 300 x4 + 75 x4 + 50 x12 = 2100
Now that doesn't take into account the supply costs difference in terms of minerals (and I think the extra supply being used toward army is actually a good thing), but the necessity of extra bases really helps to even out the cost for equal gas income between 6m and 8m games. Add to that the fact that you will be more spread out and vulnerable to harass, and I think you are on pretty even footing without having to tweak things like gas mining distance.
Anyway, that's just my opinion as I've been playing the maps, watching, and testing in the galaxy editor. I was initially testing out other ideas but I think I've convinced myself against the other ways of making the FRB concept work out. I think the 6m1hyg is really probably the best way to go about doing it without some crazy changes.
Actually, I have a question for the tournament producers/Barrin -- I got to watch most of the tournament last night, and every so often I checked on the number of people watching... it seemed to peak near 220.
I'm sure there will be a number of other who will check out the VODS who did not watch live, and some like me who might go back and study some of the VODS even though I watched live.
What is the target you are shooting for roughly guestimated from all of the different number sources you are looking for to declare this tournament experiment a success? And beyond that what is the target where it is such a success that you are willing to put on another tournament? And beyond that what is the target where the next tournament is a liitle bit bigger than this one?
Also, is there anything being done to communicate with players to get their reactions on the 6m style? I know people could just come onto TeamLiquid and post, but what about Rainbow and Ganzi who might not have the best english? I would be very interested to see a feedback section somewhere from both the winners and the losers. Obviously, it will be somewhat theorycrafted, but it will be theorycrafted from very high level players who will have actually "been there, done that" to a certain degree.
On April 14 2012 23:45 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: Actually, I have a question for the tournament producers/Barrin -- I got to watch most of the tournament last night, and every so often I checked on the number of people watching... it seemed to peak near 220.
I'm sure there will be a number of other who will check out the VODS who did not watch live, and some like me who might go back and study some of the VODS even though I watched live. What is the target you are shooting for roughly guestimated from all of the different number sources you are looking for to declare this tournament experiment a success? And beyond that what is the target where it is such a success that you are willing to put on another tournament? And beyond that what is the target where the next tournament is a liitle bit bigger than this one?
Also, is there anything being done to communicate with players to get their reactions on the 6m style? I know people could just come onto TeamLiquid and post, but what about Rainbow and Ganzi who might not have the best english? I would be very interested to see a feedback section somewhere from both the winners and the losers. Obviously, it will be somewhat theorycrafted, but it will be theorycrafted from very high level players who will have actually "been there, done that" to a certain degree.
This is something we haven't talked much about. When we started out, our intention was just to have a small community based tournament, and if we were LUCKY we might get one or two players from some of the smaller teams. All three of us (myself, Pull & Senex) are new at what we're doing - this is my first organized tournament, and their first casted tournament.
Around the 45 minute mark of our stream last night, we actually had about ~475 people viewing live. By about the 3.5 hour mark (when NASL was also airing) we still had 175 people, so we're pretty happy about that. I could have done a much better job marketing the first week of play - for instance, I only made a Reddit announcement 6 hours before we went live, which I now see was very dumb. Part of that has to do with the fact that I'm in the last 2 weeks of my senior year of college (thesis, and capstone projects out the wazoo) and also with a lackluster marketing on my part.
The amount of community support - people offering to add to the prize pool, sponsors, and player involvement - for a spur-of-the-moment tournament that was organized in a few days shows us that an FRB Grand Tournament 2 is quite likely.
There are really only a few things that would deter us from putting on another one... 1. The community says "OK this sucks after all, we don't want to see this anymore" and it is reflected in both the feedback and the viewer count 2. Some MAJOR imbalanced strategy is discovered and is used by all players of that race (we don't want sponsors/community members to contribute money to a broken tournament!) 3. The three of us all turn into bunny rabbits and spend the rest of our lives gnawing on celery and carrots (wouldn't be the worst life, so long as the veggies are fresh!)
That being said, we're only 1/4 of the way through this, and a lot can go wrong from now to then.
TL;DR - Considering where we started, we're really happy with the viewer count, and it's a good sign for future FRB Grand Tournaments so long as nothing crazy/bunny-related happens.
On April 14 2012 13:42 monitor wrote: I enjoyed the cast. Great job guys!! You're both quite good.
Barrin and I actually talked about this idea (mostly just removing some minerals from the main and natural) about a year or more ago. At that point I was really excited for the FRB movement. I still am, and I support it.
However, I don't really know how much these games proved the theory though... given, the game isn't even close to being figured out on this new setup though. From a lot of recent games in the GSL and IPL, 8m2g maps have been playing out really well- there are more expansions, harassment, and diversity than I saw in these games. I'll just say that its because the players are of a higher caliber in the GSL and IPL, plus the metagame is exponentially more stable.
The problem is that I am beginning to have doubts that 6m will discourage cheese and all-ins; I'm starting to think that 6m actually encourages cheese because there is more of an opportunity to punish a player for expanding. Maybe it stays the same though, because expanding or building an army still costs the same in both versions.
Is it worth trying to implement in HotS? Maybe. The game will probably have to be rebalanced and completely re-figured-out by the players again anyway. 6m maps would probably just make the game better. That said, I do think that there are more fundamental issues with the game that are more prominant than 8m2g maps. Imo 8m will work as the metagame becomes more and more stable, as we are seeing in the GSL and very current tournaments.
First of all thank's to everyone involved in making this tournament happen! I'm having a lot of fun following all of this develop. It seems to me like the games so far didn't really show the intended effects yet. Of course this mode of playing is rather unexplored tho so every comment is very subjective at this point. But my first impression was that the games played out similar to 8m2g, just more slow-paced economically and equally brutal when it came to cheese. Aside from the numerous cheese-based games there were some interesting games that provided some food for thought:
- Game 1 Rainbow vs Puck: crazy back and forth obviously and 2 basetrades in one game. This seems to be a sideeffect that could be made stronger in FRB, because while multi-pronged drops are hugely effective with the spread-out-ness of FRB, combined with the lower economy it also leaves the player that goes for the agression with almost no standing army to defend his own bases. So it might be the case that as a result we will see more basetrade scenarios as it might be easier to just go counter attack seeing your own expansions taking a lot of damage. Also this is of course personal preference but I dont enjoy watching basetrade games that much, but others might like it so I'll leave it at that.
- Tgun vs Sarovati Mutas are obviously still strong, and I felt like the games played out in a similar fashion to usual zvps right now, with the zerg player taking the map and preventing the protoss player from ever moving out. Protoss has to turtle on however big of an area he can defend and try to hit the magic army. And the game traditionally ends with infestor/broodlord and the protoss trying to desperately land the archon toilet. This just makes me think that after all slowing down economy might not really change the dynamic in this matchup. Also the one single game-deciding battle in this case still exists because zerg and protoss try to circumvent direct conflict as long as possible - zerg because he doesnt want to fight directly, and protoss because he can't just push with his army because it would be game-ending if he loses the fight.
Overall my concerns boil down to this: with lower income, dividing your army also becomes more of a risk as the split off part of your army is a bigger part of the total army count. Specially protoss might be actually encouraged to still try and keep their army concentrated in one spot to maintain the needed critical mass. Am I probably missing something here?
Anyways with all this said I love what FRB is trying to accomplish and couldn't agree more with it's goals, so I'll be happy to continue watching things progress. I just hope the games will get good enough to really get this whole FRB thing going in a sense that people pick up on it as being superior to 8m2g (myself included I guess).
So everyone knows for future scheduling, I'm going to try to get them up within 24 hours of each broadcast. I'm sorry it takes that long, but I need do some noticable editing and wait for youtube to process them before everyone can check them out. Thanks for your patience, and I hope you enjoy!
We got through 6 of the 8 matches last night, and will be casting the last 2 asap. We'll make a post when they're ready and post them in the same playlist.
P.S. While all these games were really good, I particularly recommend Game 1 between ST_RainBow and PuCK and Game 2 between areaSaroVati and GoSuTgun. They were absurdly awesome.
I don't know about TvP being back and forth recently. I've seen two recent boring PvTs.
The games I recently saw (MC vs Virus + Parting vs Polt), it was just a big ball of death is going back and forth vs another big ball of death (that Parting vs Polt game was actually a good example of what I mean - they waited until nearly 200/200 then proceeded to simply attack the same exact spot back and forth). Was it back and forth? Yep. Did it take place all over the map? Nope. So, it's not really the back and forth full of action like BW or that Rainbow vs Puck game.
Now I haven't seen too much of 6m1hg but I really liked Rainbow vs Puck game 1. It was what I liked and it resembled BW.
Recent PvT in Brood War (Spoilers for the proleague finals): (Edit - I accidentally posted the wrong video previously, here's Flash vs Bisu) + Show Spoiler +
Also as for high yield gas being too effective (well if they are)?
An easy fix is to alter the gas amount back to 4 but simply reduce the mining time for gas by 40% (or some other percent). This would mean you can obtain gas faster but you need to invest more workers per gas.
Normally (under "Ability > Gather", you need to do this for all three worker units) the unit takes 1 second to mine gas. So if you reduce the time (under "Resource Time Multiplier (Vespene)") to 0.6, it'd take 5 workers or so to saturate the gas (and that combined with changing the gas amount back to 4 per trip, it'll be balanced out; well sort of. Actually try changing the mining time for gas to 0.65 instead which would mean that 4 workers will mine gas at approx the same rate, the 5th worker will only provide a slight increase in gas).
(The numbers can be adjusted. Reducing the time to 0.6 (by 40%) and allowing 5 workers to mine a gas at a time would mean approximately 70% more gas intake which is 20% higher than 3 on a high yield gas. Reducing the time by 25% (which means 4 workers can saturate a gas) would mean only around 33% increased gas intake while saturated. So I guess to mimic 50% gas in take, try reducing gas mining time to 0.65 or so. This would require 5 workers to saturate a gas but the 5th worker will only slightly speed up gas intake).
Since it's a gameplay change, you'd want to put the change in a mod (then publish) and place it all the maps (by making each map have the dependency/mod loaded).
EPT
.
Thanks for your patience, and I hope you enjoy!
