EPTI would be interested to know what the effects of reducing the amount of minerals brought back from every trip would mean? also how changing the number of starting workers would affect this? obviously an analysis of all the possible variations would be very time consuming but i do wonder if some combination of those two variables could achieve what we want from the game, also with map sizes being another variable. for that i mean greater potential for long games and greater incentive to expand and "cheesier" plays being more of a gamble and having greater potential to be scouted. i think what i state is wanted from the game is shared among the community and is relatively uncontroversial, i do think it would make the games better overall though
Analysis of Macro - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
rolfe
United Kingdom1266 Posts
I would be interested to know what the effects of reducing the amount of minerals brought back from every trip would mean? also how changing the number of starting workers would affect this? obviously an analysis of all the possible variations would be very time consuming but i do wonder if some combination of those two variables could achieve what we want from the game, also with map sizes being another variable. for that i mean greater potential for long games and greater incentive to expand and "cheesier" plays being more of a gamble and having greater potential to be scouted. i think what i state is wanted from the game is shared among the community and is relatively uncontroversial, i do think it would make the games better overall though | ||
|
[Eternal]Phoenix
United States333 Posts
There is almost NO benefit to taking more than 4 bases, and arguably more than 3, other than gas. Zerg needs something like 5 bases of gas to play their lategame units effectively. However, protoss and terran have pretty good mineral units - marines and zealots are great. It's a weird contradiction whereby it doesn't make sense for T or P to have tons of extra gas (unless you want mass high templar/sentry or mass ghost/tank/raven... lol.) It's also very very true that the 3 base limiting factor means that once zerg gets to 75 drones on 3 bases there is absolutely no reason for them to continue expanding, and all they should do is make nonstop roach vs protoss (and I don't know what actually works vs terran) and just smash into them nonstop until they don't have enough money to hold your attacks and take additional bases. I almost feel like once it hits 3 base vs 3 base for zerg it's really really ugly in tvz or pvz because of this. Likewise, the race that actually benefits from mass expanding is not zerg, but TERRAN. OCs and mules allow supply free mining, meaning terrans can spread 2 bases of scvs over 5 bases to get gas and supplementary minerals. Also, mined out bases still produce tons of income - either float the CC or use mules on another minline. It seems very counterintuitive that the race that's supposed to be the turtly race is actually best suited for mass expanding. Perhaps it's a fault of the mining system too. 5 minerals per trip dramatically shifted saturation curves. What would happen if it was 8, 10, 12 or more? It's definitely a problem I've noticed in my games. All I have to do is get to 3 bases as protoss and chill out getting a 200/200 death ball and upgrades. If I'm not constantly attacked by a zerg, it's over. VS terran, I just don't really have a reason to take more bases til I mine out, so I have no real pressure to gain map control over a large area. I can kinda turtle and get upgrades, HT, and carriers. I don't think it's going to lead to very good gameplay in the future. Lalush - you are very right in saying it creates stagnation. | ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
You speculate on what the future of the game will be like if nothing is changed, but we know for a fact that there will be huge changes to the game at least twice, once for each expansion. Imagine if someone did an in-depth examination of the balance and mechanics of Starcraft before Brood War came out. They'd speculate a future very unlike how Brood War actually turned out. Still, your information and speculation is interesting for the here and now. It's just unfortunately mostly going to be rendered useless with time. It'd be nice to see them up the supply cap in HotS though. That does seem like a very zergy thing for them to do in the Zerg expansion. | ||
|
Chambo
Brazil32 Posts
| ||
|
Abenson
Canada4122 Posts
Still reading lol | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
 | ||
|
Cyanocyst
2222 Posts
Thoughts on the 3 base cap + Show Spoiler + With that said you raise a lot of interesting points. Most interesting of which is the comparison of income with 3 base vs 6 base. Given that by that point having twice the bases only seems to yield minimal advantages, which as you stated is a huge disadvantage for Zerg. In fact its actually ironic that i read this thread today. I was watching the GSL Team league, there was a match on Crevasse between an IM protoss, and Kyrix. The Protoss happened to be very passive and just turtled and teched to a ultimate composition off of 2 base, before expanding to a 3rd to support his tech. Kyrix contrary to his style tried to play macro and went to 3 base fast and 4th right on time. However got stagnant and didn't expand again. I remember personally saying in my mind. " No Kyrix, 4 bases isn't enough on this map. Especially vs a 3 base Protoss. You need to have up at about 6 bases to be ahead." However apparently that is an incorrect statement more bases wouldn't have helped, or at least as much as they should have. I'm not saying Kyrix played optimally, he did a lot of things wrong, he didn't tech far enough, got stuck with mostly lair units. Though there was a strong perception in my mind that he didnt expand enough. Though that must not have been necessarily a factor. One thing that i would like to point out is normally i'm gas starved as Zerg during late game. While i'm not any good at this game, i feel like most Zerg seem to get limited mostly by their gas income late game. (i could be wrong) Obviously the ability of not being able to have significantly better efficiency on more than 3 bases is a troublesome thought. Though gas income should still give at least a decent incentive for Zerg's to expand a bit more late game. Thoughts on 300 food cap + Show Spoiler + Lastly i do feel that Zerg would benefit from a 300 food supply cap a bit. Right now when you think about it Zergs normally have the smallest (food) late game army. While the apparent ideal number of workers is 75 for all races generally Protoss see to stop around 65-70 or so same with Terran. Zerg a lot of times go up to 80 or even 85. Whether it is a mistake or not is not the point, this is just what i typically see when watching pro replays. Assuming these are the average number of workers per race has late game. Then respectively the late game supply of max armies for their respective races races should be T/P: 135 Z: 112. Zerg army supply isn't that low simply because of drone counts, you have to remember that Zergs macro mechanic costs 2 supply per queen. In this example i assumed Zerg would have 4 queens. Also it should be noted that while its not popular yet, Terran SHOULD be sacrificing a portion of their scvs late game, build more extra orbitals and be more dependent on mules for their mineral income for a greater max. Personally i feel that, a 300 food supply cap would help zerg at least a bit due to the fact it minimizes the effect of queens taking up supply during the late game. Also Allows Zerg's power units to have more mass fodder units. It seems one of the problems Zergs have is they try to get too many busting units such as ultras and Broodlords although don't have enough supporting units for back up. With a bigger supply cap Zergs wouldn't have to be so careful about overcommitment to busting units. I feel as though 300 food cap would help Zerg, however im not sure if would make a difference to the point of balancing the game. | ||
|
enigamI
Canada385 Posts
Though my experience is only as a mid diamond terran player, I have felt as though however many bases I have, if a protoss or zerg player has three (all mining) bases, I am not at any advantage. There have been several games where I've lost with a 5 to 3 base or similar advantage, and felt that I was not particularly out played. The concept that 3 fully saturated bases is close to optimal would explain that. Regardless of whether or not the conclusions drawn from your research prove correct, thanks for taking the time to do this research and share your thoughts with us! | ||
|
Klystron
United States99 Posts
I would like to see a graph with mining data vs number of harvesters for 1 base, 2 base, 3 base, and 5 maybe 6 base all on the same graph. On the 300 food cap. It wouldn't be hard to publish remakes of say the GSL maps, or the current Blizzard ladder maps with a 300 food cap limit. People could test this rather easily and see what comes of it. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Also, this is probably why Blizzard is reluctant to make bigger maps. Maybe they don't want people to realize that SC2 might not be the macro game BW was with over 3 bases. I hope not though. I think if the maps are big enough, we should be fine. *crosses fingers* | ||
|
Meteora.GB
Canada2479 Posts
Great analysis anyways. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On a side, tank AI, worker AI, and moving shot can all be quite easily be done in the galaxy editor. (I guess you know some of this already but I might mention it anyway) You can increase the time a worker spends mining minerals as well as how long they take before they return, and interestingly enough scvs start to become confused the same way as they did in BW, the issue is that workers return at such an optimal timing in relation to the distance between CC and minerals. Another thing is that workers also have deceleration, but not in SC2, again if you add deceleration they should slow down before mining the patch which also confuses them a bit. Mutalisk micro requires 2 weapons, a moving shot one and a stopped shot one. Either one is disabled by a "isMoving" validator. A mutalisk can't turn and shoot when moving, and has to stop first, unless the angle is right in which it can moving shot. This can be done without triggers. Tank AI is the easiest, just make it shoot a super fast [invisible] projectile. I honestly have no idea why blizzard doesn't at least want to try these things on PTR. Again great article. | ||
|
DocM
United States212 Posts
I dont like the idea of a 300 food army simply because of proportions. Giving more food for more workers doesn't mean that it will be used for workers. It could easily lead to 225 food armies (with 75 probes). I like the idea of slowing down the mining time or decreasing the minerals as long as the mule doesnt get imbalanced in the process. This way expansion is encouraged without changing army size or frame rate. I wouldnt mind 225 or 250 i suppose. | ||
|
Akill_
United Kingdom80 Posts
On February 10 2011 11:16 TedJustice wrote: This post is great and well written, but it's not taking into account the coming expansions that have the potential to change everything, Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void. You speculate on what the future of the game will be like if nothing is changed, but we know for a fact that there will be huge changes to the game at least twice, once for each expansion. Imagine if someone did an in-depth examination of the balance and mechanics of Starcraft before Brood War came out. They'd speculate a future very unlike how Brood War actually turned out. Still, your information and speculation is interesting for the here and now. It's just unfortunately mostly going to be rendered useless with time. It'd be nice to see them up the supply cap in HotS though. That does seem like a very zergy thing for them to do in the Zerg expansion. op: well written post i heartily agree to. tedjustice: this issue the op has highlighted relates only to the framework the game is based upon, expansions can only possibly bring about new units/tech, not change the basis of the game. Expansions will not solve this issue. in my own experiences i often feel taking a 3rd base is necessary only to prolong mining from more than one base. Otherwise taking a 3rd only really happens after armies clash. There is so much aggresion from alot of armies from all portions of the game that it doesnt feel viable to take a 3rd and be able to defend unless you are mirroring your opponants intentions. (if he decides tobe aggresive either he drags you into a slug fest or you outright beat him and take the game-sealing third) | ||
|
Lobotomist
United States1541 Posts
Hmmm. How defensible do the thirds in the new GSTL maps look? | ||
|
DCWasabi
United States368 Posts
Very well done. | ||
|
Fedor
United States42 Posts
| ||
|
Xandos
16 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:30 DCWasabi wrote: My thoughts exactly. Post on SC2 forums and everyone here can bump it :DSomebody needs to get this post into the hands of the Blizzard top brass. Very well done. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
| ||
| ||
