EPT[D] Feeding. - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
AnodyneSea
Jamaica757 Posts
| ||
|
yomi
United States773 Posts
The only way this strategy could not be optimal is if the gain of unit mixes that only two separate races can create would outweigh the benefit in cost savings resulting from only one player building the production structures. I don't think this is the case. Perhaps something like sentry forcefields to protect siege tanks or some such thing could be strong enough to beat the gain of resource trading. Also I believe the feeding player should always be Zerg, but it remains to be seen what the most optimal race to be fed is. I believe resource trading should be removed from the game, or have a flat percentage tax applied to it. It is strong enough that eventually both teams will have to play Zx vs Zx and feed each other's X. This results in a 1v1 with both players possessing a boosted economy. If the game is to be balanced in 1v1 around very particular timings, there is no way it can be balanced for regular 1v1 scenarios while also still being balanced when both players receive double the income right off the bat, it will throw off all of the delicate timings. | ||
|
crate
United States2474 Posts
On May 10 2010 13:19 yomi wrote: I believe resource trading should be removed from the game, or have a flat percentage tax applied to it. It is strong enough that eventually both teams will have to play Zx vs Zx and feed each other's X. This results in a 1v1 with both players possessing a boosted economy. If the game is to be balanced in 1v1 around very particular timings, there is no way it can be balanced for regular 1v1 scenarios while also still being balanced when both players receive double the income right off the bat, it will throw off all of the delicate timings. This is quite possible, but I think it needs to be tested. Yes Zerg can get drones faster than T or P can get SCVs/Probes, but T has MULEs so they mine faster on saturated bases and they can more easily take island bases (I think P is just a bad choice for econ compared to the other two though, since you can't Chrono allied buildings). Z does spend less on a hatchery than T on a CC of course. It's also possible, though probably exceedingly unlikely if the map pool remains similar to what it currently is, that early aggression would force enough spending from each player to make early trading (right when it becomes available) a nonissue. If 2v2 does end up being a "bigger 1v1" essentially, then yeah, something should definitely be changed since that's pretty boring. | ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
| ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
On May 10 2010 13:19 yomi wrote: Logically/mathematically resource trading has to be the most optimal strategy as it eliminates the redundant cost of tech buildings. One lair, one spire, one set of upgrades researched, etc. The only way this strategy could not be optimal is if the gain of unit mixes that only two separate races can create would outweigh the benefit in cost savings resulting from only one player building the production structures. I don't think this is the case. Perhaps something like sentry forcefields to protect siege tanks or some such thing could be strong enough to beat the gain of resource trading. Also I believe the feeding player should always be Zerg, but it remains to be seen what the most optimal race to be fed is. I believe resource trading should be removed from the game, or have a flat percentage tax applied to it. It is strong enough that eventually both teams will have to play Zx vs Zx and feed each other's X. This results in a 1v1 with both players possessing a boosted economy. If the game is to be balanced in 1v1 around very particular timings, there is no way it can be balanced for regular 1v1 scenarios while also still being balanced when both players receive double the income right off the bat, it will throw off all of the delicate timings. I think he's right. If the game is balanced for 1v1's, then 2v2 optimal builds have to be feeding centric. And I don't think that 2v2s should look like fastest 1v1s with 2 feeder players. I think it would be best to just not have resource trading. I dunno why it makes the game better. | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
|
CruSha
United States5 Posts
| ||
|
terrordrone
43 Posts
| ||
|
holy_war
United States3590 Posts
| ||
|
kidcrash
United States623 Posts
I've been in situations during team games where my production facilities were destroyed but my harvesters were unharmed causing a pile up of resources. All i wanted to do was plant a pylon to power my gateways or build a barracks so I have a means to spend this accumulation but the enemy was persitent in destroying these buildings. IMO I should have to pay the price of not being able to spend my resources instead of negating the disadvantage by giving those resources to my ally. The bottom line is, acquiring resources is easy. I'm not saying it's so easy that a noob can do it (keeping constant probe production is a skill) but it's easier than spending resources and macroing. It's skewing the advantage a team with better macroing skills has by giving you the ability to place it all in the hands of one player. | ||
|
RonNation
United States385 Posts
| ||
|
SC2Phoenix
Canada2814 Posts
| ||
|
BrTarolg
United Kingdom3574 Posts
Stop trying to make 2v2 like 1v1, its a different game lol | ||
|
Batssa
United States154 Posts
never encountered this problem, ever. | ||
|
crate
United States2474 Posts
On May 10 2010 16:05 kidcrash wrote: It's skewing the advantage a team with better macroing skills has by giving you the ability to place it all in the hands of one player. You can do that anyway by sharing control. | ||
|
mawno
Sweden114 Posts
| ||
|
kidcrash
United States623 Posts
Wow everyone looks at things in such a broad and general sense. Please read my whole post for a very specific example. Your production buildings are destroyed. Your workers remain unharmed and continue to mine the entire time. You have an abundance of minerals and gas that you want to spend but you cannot because the opponent is persistently destroying your buildings. In sc1 this would be an obvious disadvantage. In sc2, this disadvantage is almost completely negated. You should pay the price for being unable to spend your resources. Same thing when your supply is destroyed. Your minerals start to build up (a very bad thing in macro terms). This should be a serious problem that severely penalizes the worse player/team. edit: I'm all for keeping the mechanic, there just needs to be a tax of some sort to deter players for abusing it. | ||
|
Latham
9589 Posts
On May 10 2010 09:33 yarkO wrote: This is exactly how I see it as a problem. So Team1 decides to make use of keyboards and hotkeys while Team2 doesn't. Team1's advantage is so severe, that this one action has literally decided the game in their favor. So now we set a precedent that just in case the other team has decided to use keyboards and hotkeys, you now must also have implemented playing with a keyboard as part of your play, lest you get overrun by their better execution It just detracts from the fun of it, but that's just opinion. -.-. Trading resources is fine. Don't cry about it that it gives an unfair advantage because you can do it also. Just because a few strats rely on trading resources doesn't mean the game is broken. These strats rely on timing. Scout them and watch replays to find their weak points, and later abuse them. | ||
|
crate
United States2474 Posts
On May 10 2010 17:09 kidcrash wrote: Wow everyone looks at things in such a broad and general sense. Please read my whole post for a very specific example. Well, your third paragraph was in general terms. I'm sorry if it was meant to continue from the situation you described in the second and I misinterpreted. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States623 Posts
On May 10 2010 17:33 crate wrote: Well, your third paragraph was in general terms. I'm sorry if it was meant to continue from the situation you described in the second and I misinterpreted. Sorry, I see how you could of interpreted it like that. Yes, the statement in the third paragraph was in direct relation to the situation given previously. Basically what I'm saying is this function is giving a "cushion" to players that are worse off thus lowering the skill ceiling. If you can't spend your resources fast enough for whatever reason, that should be your problem. I'm not even talking about premeditated strategies. | ||
| ||
