EPT
Patch 1.1 Is Coming 09.22 - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zakka
Netherlands762 Posts
| ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On September 21 2010 06:17 MforWW wrote: The problem with this logic is that "small, tightly packed buildings" are NOT what zerg players are concerned about. They're worried about that barracks the Terrans built to block up a chokepoint, or that planetary fortress they need to take down. No, they're worried about the SCVs repairing it. The building on its own is easy to kill. Killing repairing SCVs is a big buff. eta: forgot to mention against a single target their dps is pretty much the same as with ram anyways. | ||
|
tieya
United States308 Posts
it is a good time | ||
|
ecomania
Germany35 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:06 tieya wrote: mine banelings will die a little bit slower to tanks tomorrow it is a good time Banelings are armored, so they will still receive the same amount of damage from tanks. | ||
|
TheSpaceMaggot
United States14 Posts
I trained in the broodwars for many years and I consider myself pretty knowledgeable. I think the patch/change that starcraft 2 needs the most is change 5 minerals/worker trip to 8 minerals/worker trip.. like in broodwar. I honestly think 8 minerals per scv trip would introduce much more minerals into the game and get units/tech everything out a faster and in higher mass. This would also mean that expansions and technology would be a lot more affordable, and would encourage non-1base play. At the moment, 5 minerals / trip makes me feel like I can only go 1 tech route. I can't go dt drop or something with robo, because its just way too costly with the small amount of minerals im getting. 5 minerals is also making it extremely hard to fast expand because I can't build up my army fast enough to stop a terran attack. In other words, expansions would be a lot more worth it if i get +8 minerals/worker trip than 5/trip. I truly believe 8 minerals/trip would majorly make this game much better, because right now its all about countering other units on small scales... And obviously, it would naturally increase the skill level to play, not artificially like these "macro mechanics". Maybe someone can experiment and make a map where workers gather 8 minerals/trip and see if this makes expanding/tech builds a lot more viable. | ||
|
tacrats
476 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:09 TheSpaceMaggot wrote: Hello I'm a new member and I got something on my mind so I'm going to semi-hijack this thread. Hopefully I won't get banned. I trained in the broodwars for many years and I consider myself pretty knowledgeable. I think the patch/change that starcraft 2 needs the most is change 5 minerals/worker trip to 8 minerals/worker trip. I honestly think 8 minerals per scv trip would introduce much more minerals into the game and get units/tech everything out a faster and in higher mass. This would also mean that expansions and technology would be a lot more affordable, and would encourage non-1base play. At the moment, 5 minerals / trip makes me feel like I can only go 1 tech route. I can't go dt drop or something with robo, because its just way too costly with the small amount of minerals im getting. 5 minerals is also making it extremely hard to fast expand because I can't build up my army fast enough to stop a terran attack. In other words, expansions would be a lot more worth it if i get +8 minerals/worker trip than 5/trip. I truly believe 8 minerals/trip would majorly make this game much better, because right now its all about countering other units on small scales... And obviously, it would naturally increase the skill level to play, not artificially like these "macro mechanics". strongly disagree. the game is already fast enough as it is to get tech and multiple production buildings down in a short amount of time due to the new macro mechanics. | ||
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
| ||
|
TheSpaceMaggot
United States14 Posts
5 minerals seems just like a number blizzard randomly picked because 5 is a nice number. I see hundreds of thousands reasons why they should change it back to 8 minerals/trip. + increase vespene rate to something too. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:09 ecomania wrote: Banelings are armored, so they will still receive the same amount of damage from tanks. Why do people post such weird nonsense.. | ||
|
robocup30
Canada21 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:09 ecomania wrote: Banelings are armored, so they will still receive the same amount of damage from tanks. Banelings are neither armored nor light, just biological. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:15 TheSpaceMaggot wrote: No, I think its way too hard to fast expand due to the fact 400 minerals seem very expensive in the early game of starcraft 2. In starcraft 1 400 minerals did not seem as much of an expensive thing, thus promoted fast expands/multiple-bases/longer games, but also promoted more all-ins, which, overall, made starcraft 1 a much less-limited game and more exciting. 5 minerals seems just like a number blizzard randomly picked because 5 is a nice number. I see hundreds of thousands reasons why they should change it back to 8 minerals/trip. + increase vespene rate to something too. Maybe because they said with the increased pathing/worker AI the 5 minerals per trip generates the same income as 8 minerals per trip in BW? Do you even remember how slow the mining was in BW? I suggest you play it again. | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:15 TheSpaceMaggot wrote: No, I think its way too hard to fast expand due to the fact 400 minerals seem very expensive in the early game of starcraft 2. In starcraft 1 400 minerals did not seem as much of an expensive thing, thus promoted fast expands/multiple-bases/longer games, but also promoted more all-ins, which, overall, made starcraft 1 a much less-limited game and more exciting. 5 minerals seems just like a number blizzard randomly picked because 5 is a nice number. I see hundreds of thousands reasons why they should change it back to 8 minerals/trip. + increase vespene rate to something too. There's literally nothing you could do to resource gathering rates that would change the way the early game plays out. People would just adjust their rushes to use the amount of resources newly available to them. The fact that it's difficult to FE in SC2 has a lot more to do with the macro mechanics enabling extremely quick resource gathering maximization for P/T, the mobility of Reapers/Nydus/Blink Stalkers, the lack of high-ground advantage, and the weakness of static defenses. | ||
|
TheSpaceMaggot
United States14 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:25 FabledIntegral wrote: Maybe because they said with the increased pathing/worker AI the 5 minerals per trip generates the same income as 8 minerals per trip in BW? Do you even remember how slow the mining was in BW? I suggest you play it again. No. 5 minerals does not generate same as 8 minerals. In sc1, early-game-workers were much more valuable than in sc2 because they gathered 3 more minerals per trip (early game, mining efficiency was 100%, until u get 2+ workers per patch)... Which allowed people to get more tech slightly faster or expo more safely. | ||
|
TheSpaceMaggot
United States14 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:27 theqat wrote: There's literally nothing you could do to resource gathering rates that would change the way the early game plays out. People would just adjust their rushes to use the amount of resources newly available to them. The fact that it's difficult to FE in SC2 has a lot more to do with the macro mechanics enabling extremely quick resource gathering maximization for P/T, the mobility of Reapers/Nydus/Blink Stalkers, the lack of high-ground advantage, and the weakness of static defenses. I disagree. Very much. I think people need to think of this much more before just throwing it out the window. Units in larger mass mean there's more of a defender's advantage, etc. edit: I think i should put more effort into my post so what I say makes more sense and people can understand more easily the advantages and problems 8 minerals/trip would fix. I'll make my own thread later. | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:30 TheSpaceMaggot wrote: No. 5 minerals does not generate same as 8 minerals. In sc1, early-game-workers were much more valuable than in sc2 because they gathered 3 more minerals per trip (early game, mining efficiency was 100%, until u get 2+ workers per patch)... Which allowed people to get more tech slightly faster or expo more safely. You can't seriously be arguing this. SC1 workers brought in 8 minerals per trip, but their trips took around 60% longer than SC2 workers, so they both bring in minerals at around the same rate. | ||
|
Ronald_McD
Canada807 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:09 TheSpaceMaggot wrote: Hello I'm a new member and I got something on my mind so I'm going to semi-hijack this thread. Hopefully I won't get banned. I trained in the broodwars for many years and I consider myself pretty knowledgeable. I think the patch/change that starcraft 2 needs the most is change 5 minerals/worker trip to 8 minerals/worker trip.. like in broodwar. I honestly think 8 minerals per scv trip would introduce much more minerals into the game and get units/tech everything out a faster and in higher mass. This would also mean that expansions and technology would be a lot more affordable, and would encourage non-1base play. At the moment, 5 minerals / trip makes me feel like I can only go 1 tech route. I can't go dt drop or something with robo, because its just way too costly with the small amount of minerals im getting. 5 minerals is also making it extremely hard to fast expand because I can't build up my army fast enough to stop a terran attack. In other words, expansions would be a lot more worth it if i get +8 minerals/worker trip than 5/trip. I truly believe 8 minerals/trip would majorly make this game much better, because right now its all about countering other units on small scales... And obviously, it would naturally increase the skill level to play, not artificially like these "macro mechanics". Maybe someone can experiment and make a map where workers gather 8 minerals/trip and see if this makes expanding/tech builds a lot more viable. Oh god no dude. Workers mine A LOT faster in SC2 than they do in SC1 Most bad players like me find themselves with a TON of extra minerals by the time they get their second expansions up It would be insanely hard for nubs to spend all their money. Income is fine the way it is man. | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:31 TheSpaceMaggot wrote: I disagree. Very much. I think people need to think of this much more before just throwing it out the window. Units in larger mass mean there's more of a defender's advantage, etc. Okay, if you're going to support an argument on TL you can't just hide part of it with "etc." You need to actually write out your points. And no, units in "larger mass" don't mean there's more of a defender's advantage, particularly with the maps we have--there's nowhere on almost any map for the defender to get a better concave than the attacker. Plus the maps are too small for the defender to accumulate additional units while the attacker is en route, plus Warp Gates eliminate reinforcement distances . . . you haven't really thought this out as much as you think you have | ||
|
TheSpaceMaggot
United States14 Posts
| ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On September 21 2010 07:40 TheSpaceMaggot wrote: i rather have 10 units vs 15 units than 5 units vs 10 units. If you're going to double your units, you have to assume the other guy will be able to double his units. Make it 10 vs 20. You're going to lose anyway because SC2 is SC2 in many more ways than 5 minerals vs. 8 minerals. By the by, the reason workers were worth more in SC1 has nothing to do with their gathering rate and everything to do with the fact that you can make workers much more quickly in SC2 than SC1. You simply don't lose as much mining time. | ||
|
TheSpaceMaggot
United States14 Posts
| ||
| ||
