|
Very good post. I personally think that Protoss would be the race most happy to macro off 3 bases, whereas Terrans and Zergs still have plenty of incentives to take a fourth perhaps.
I play Zerg and often times just plant bases at an attractive (Read: Easy to defend) 4th or 5th for the extra gas or as a macro hatch while slowly saturating those bases as my main and nat start mining out. Not all maps allow for this though.
I'm sure Terrans would also love to take a quick fourth as the game goes on, especially bases which give a positional advantage with a planetary there.
As far as my limited experience tells me, Protoss seems to have little need for a fourth outside of long macro games.
|
Great article but I disagree about maps favouring toss PvZ. More expos = more gas, muta ling might come back in fashion and the bigger the map the more the mobility of the protoss death ball can be exploited. I agree that terran will struggle enormously and TvZ will become grossly Z favoured.
|
Great post, the graphs really helped me visualize how base saturation works.
|
As far as I understand, the problem is that zerg has better production and economy for an ideal 3 base situation, but other races have better unit compositions once they also get capped and at 3 bases. In addition, the mule, able to mine at the same time as an scv, can push the terran economy to 1.5 or 2.5 bases, allowing for timing pushes that can kill Z or P while they are saturated on 1 or 2 bases, respectively. While the Z and P macro mechanics are designed to compete with the mule, they are limited by saturation of bases, unlike terran.
This is so interesting. The person who thinks of a solution to this in an elegant way could potentially fix some fundamental gameplay problems. I am going to try to be that person. At the very least, it points balance work in an entirely new direction.
|
Awesome post. One thing people tend to forget, though, is that the races are different. An odd thing to forget, but people do. Protoss and terran with the same amount of money don't spend it on the same thing. I'm not defending the balance or whatnot, just pointing out that equal economies =/= equal armies.
|
this was great, and I thank you for it
I really want to see the stuff you took out though 
|
I really like this post, it presents a different view on why starcraft 2 plays out the way it is. Great post!
|
Excellent post and read, I agree with a lot of what you stated.
|
This is incredibly enlightening. I I think as Zerg I will be less concerned about getting the third for additional mineral income, only for additional larva and gas as well as a new base to maynard to.
Maybe this new information will cause zerg to drone less in the later stages of the game, thus giving them a larger 200 food army?
I'm going to change my zerg mentality a bit 
|
On February 10 2011 13:17 DeltruS wrote:
As far as I understand, the problem is that zerg has better production and economy for an ideal 3 base situation, but other races have better unit compositions once they also get capped and at 3 bases. In addition, the mule, able to mine at the same time as an scv, can push the terran economy to 1.5 or 2.5 bases, allowing for timing pushes that can kill Z or P while they are saturated on 1 or 2 bases, respectively. While the Z and P macro mechanics are designed to compete with the mule, they are limited by saturation of bases, unlike terran.
This is so interesting. The person who thinks of a solution to this in an elegant way could potentially fix some fundamental gameplay problems. I am going to try to be that person. At the very least, it points balance work in an entirely new direction.
The solution is simple: change the worker AI so that diminishing returns don't come into play until after 24 probes harvesting minerals. Along with this I also support a 300 pop cap, which is a slightly separate issue but still falls under the umbrella of 'macro mechanics.'
|
What about production mechanics?
I think its another pretty huge difference between the 2 SCs
|
wow... just... wow...
This was an amazing write up, and a huge eye-opener for me. On large macro maps I can have easily up to 4 or 5 bases, but from what I just read, it is hardly any more efficient than having 3 bases.
The only counter argument I can see is that gas is not taken into consideration of the game. While mineral efficiency is best at 3 bases sometimes you need more gas and it is more effective for zerg to get more bases for production as well as gas harvesting for better mineral compensation.
I'm going to reread this later and try and make more sense of it; right now I'm too tired, but wow epic post, and I'm really excited to see what more we can find on this.
|
amazing write up. Enjoyable and informative read. I knew this for a while that realistically in a game you will never or very rarely have more then 3+ saturated bases running. So i agree GOGOGOGOGOGO 300 SUPPLY CAP!
|
Very interesting article !
|
What do you think about late game zerg upgrades that lower the supply cost of certain units?
|
I don't think Zerg's need to expand ever had anything to do with getting more minerals. Gas and Larva are the resources most zerg need, and a 4th base can still bring in quite a bit of both. Measuring the importance of an expansion in terms of minerals mined/minute doesn't seem sensible when lots of games we see Zerg sitting on 1k+ minerals and no gas.
Really enjoyed the article though, lots of great data I'm sure I'm not even properly processing at the moment. I'm not sure I agree with all the conclusions, but I sure as hell don't have enough time to gather all the data it would take to make a fair rebuttal of your arguments 
Edit: Full Disclosure: I don't play Zerg, so I reserve the right to be completely wrong about what I said.
|
Very good article and a step up from anything else trying to tackle the same problem (read: idra artosis). Using the power of science instead of the power of reputation - i like it.
One problem with it though is that the system of starcraft is composed of mechanics that are factors of other mechanics that eventually form the whole of the game. You've talked about about units, production, workers, and minerals but you missed gas. Frankly, its like talking about the flavor of cake in relation only to the amount of eggs. "If you wish to bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe" Carl Sagan.
On to my point: The function of minerals is to make units and buildings but it is incomplete without gas. You concluded that zerg should just race to 3 base and stop Protoss from taking his 3rd but you failed to note that a zerg with 10 gas geysers opposed to 6 is much much stronger. The unknown of how much each race benefits from additional gas completely nullifies your efforts on establishing a conclusion on ANY of your points. Zerg lategame is so ridiculously gas heavy that it would not surprise me if a 5 base zerg is an equal match to 3 base protoss. Lastly, the GSL maps will help this situation because taking 5 bases as zerg isn't out of the question and neither is taking a 3rd from protoss.
I doubt anyone will read this as whenever i post in this forum nobody ever does but I am just going to say until you include all the resources and not just minerals and supply you are just DEAD WRONG AND YOUR POINTS ARE INVALID. Thanks for the effort though your effort will be very useful to me.
|
On February 10 2011 15:17 Plutonium wrote:
What do you think about late game zerg upgrades that lower the supply cost of certain units?
Drones at 1/2 supply would be a fantastic upgrade.
|
I really enjoyed this post. Points made with actual unbiased evidence is always a refreshing thing to see. I definitely agree with the 300 supply idea.
|
The article tells us quickly each of the races can power an economy and gain resources. However, it doesn't tell us about how the production capabilities of each of the 3 races stack up to each other. There are also other things to consider other than resources when analyzing macro, such as who has the ability to gain map control/harass, and possibly deny the 3rd/4th/5th expos until the other race has reached a certain tech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
