EPTImagine a Zerg who can quickly max 200/200 in Muta/Ling/Bling before the Terran can going up to 300/300 while the terran is still plodding along. Or in ZvP getting 300/300 roach hydra corruptor. There seems a point where the zerg will max and then he is "stuck" somewhat while the opponent plays catchup. Allowing the zerg to go even higher might cause problems.
Analysis of Macro - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
wonderwall
New Zealand695 Posts
Imagine a Zerg who can quickly max 200/200 in Muta/Ling/Bling before the Terran can going up to 300/300 while the terran is still plodding along. Or in ZvP getting 300/300 roach hydra corruptor. There seems a point where the zerg will max and then he is "stuck" somewhat while the opponent plays catchup. Allowing the zerg to go even higher might cause problems. | ||
|
TheRealSnuggles
United States2 Posts
| ||
|
DarkGeneral
Canada328 Posts
One thing though, I hope they never slow down the game early economic pace... faster mineral gathering leads to the game "happening" faster, and things going down quicker, less downtime. Thats what makes it more exciting to play and even more exciting to watch. | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
| ||
|
DeltruS
Canada2214 Posts
On February 10 2011 04:17 whatthefat wrote: One factor that struck me on playing BW again was the role of concavity in the mineral field placement. To explain with a picture: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/xF0Tl.jpg) Mining from close mineral patches first was thus a bigger deal in BW, and made expanding more quickly more beneficial. It occurred to me that one interesting way to get a similar effect (with other interesting dynamics) in SC2 would be to have combined blue/gold mineral patches at both main and expos, e.g., ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/6ZJib.jpg) Now there is a clear incentive to expand early, to take advantage of the high yield patches earlier. I'm not sure whether anyone has yet experimented with this idea in map design. This would work great in conjunction with some tweaks:
The gold minerals do look kind of strange with blue minerals, though. | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
The insistence on keeping the status quo of 200 supply cap seems to be based more on nostalgia than anything. Surely with the UI improvements, players should now be able to manage armies on a larger scale? Instead, as you've pointed out... it limits players to 3 bases leading to an overall less interesting game. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On February 10 2011 04:17 whatthefat wrote: + Show Spoiler + One factor that struck me on playing BW again was the role of concavity in the mineral field placement. To explain with a picture: Mining from close mineral patches first was thus a bigger deal in BW, and made expanding more quickly more beneficial. It occurred to me that one interesting way to get a similar effect (with other interesting dynamics) in SC2 would be to have combined blue/gold mineral patches at both main and expos, e.g., Now there is a clear incentive to expand early, to take advantage of the high yield patches earlier. I'm not sure whether anyone has yet experimented with this idea in map design. Interestingly enough, I believe the person who started the Berkeley Starcraft Course stated that he used Data and Diffeq to prove that mining from the edges of the mineral patches actually gave you more minerals. :/ | ||
|
vega12
Japan73 Posts
| ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
On February 11 2011 09:25 mahnini wrote: 4 base zerg loses to 4 base anything else 5 base zerg loses to 5 base anything else the only thing worth discussing is really when to expand and how new mechanics affect traditional ideas of expanding. ex: is it better to take fast 3rd when you aren't fully saturated on 2 base yet or is better to use 300 mins to fully saturate then expand? is it better to stockpile drones and maynard or is it better to wait for an expo to finish then power drones? i'm not sure if even you believe that not using mules and chrono leaves you in a decent position. But zerg would hopefully be able to take it fast enough and get it running to deny a third base from another race. Its not a good reason but that's what he's saying. I don't know why you are getting riles up at my trying to clarify him. As for the second part, you wouldn't be in a completely screwed position like a zerg without its macro mechanic even in the early game. You can even neglect them later in game without disastrous results. How many Protosses have you seen with full nexus energy beat zergs macroing their butts off. Likewise, most Terrans don't have to drop a mule every chance they get. I guess Zerg can throw up macro hatches instead, but that makes them vulnerable to flying stuff. | ||
|
TzTz
Germany511 Posts
On February 11 2011 10:14 TheRealSnuggles wrote: wouldn't simply decreasing the number of mineral patches at a base be a simpler and more elegant solution than something drastic like increasing the supply cap to 300? Yes I think that, too. And the more I read here, the more I think really the mapdesign is gonna be what ultimately will be able to fix stuff more so than unit values. It's so great that we'll have a constant stream of new maps. It's what made SC BW so balanced ultimately. Less mineralpatches per base, some gold patches added in, that could all help. | ||
|
Elefanto
Switzerland3584 Posts
Less mineral patches that gain you more minerals (like the gold ones, just converted into blue) and only 1 gas (high yield gas) This could work beautifully, you would have less workers, bases would be faster saturated, and expansions would actually beneficial. Would also indirectly buff zerg, and only 1 gas per base would let them get speedlings faster, would lead to less drone sacrifices for extractors overall. I would love if for instance iccup could create such a map, or switch the current ones with such mineral patches / gas. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
That would be the simplest test. That and making the maps larger sized to favor map control strategies... which is the only type of strategy zerg has... because they don't make doom pushes and they are hard pressed to set up flanks off creep. | ||
|
brotosterone
United States260 Posts
| ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
I do not agree that the cap should be raised. This would make it less accessible to more people and that's not a good thing. I feel that its a quick fix for something deeper, which i guess would be the mining efficiency of the workers. I hope something gets done with the patches and expansions. Simply adding more units wont cut it lol. | ||
|
Cheeznuklz
60 Posts
| ||
|
Nourek
Germany188 Posts
I guess my conclusion from this would be: Each base in SC2 equals two bases in BW when it comes to optimal worker efficiency. You also have a relatively small window in SC2 between workers mining optimally, and an extra worker being useless. This is independent of the number of mineral patches in each base. Given these difference in basic design, I'd say it's unlikely that SC2 and BW will converge in gameplay styles eventually, but that doesn't mean improving SC2 is a hopeless cause of course. | ||
|
AnotherEon
United Kingdom250 Posts
There doesn't seem to be any easy solutions tbh.. but i have a few ideas: first of all making geysers give double the gas per trip but only has one per base just like in brood war, this would seriously reduce the amount of supply tied up in workers harvesting gas in the late game, on 4 base that would be 12 less supply, of course i acknowledge this is a MASSIVE change to the game and will completely change the metagame since all strategies revolve around how you get 4 gas per trip and have 2 geysers, so something like this may only be viable in the expansion My second idea is probably more viable and is for zerg - a hive level upgrade to reduce the supply of queens to 1, OR a hive level upgrade which increases the rate of larvae creation across all hatcheries, which would allow zergs to sacrifice their queens in the end game to free up more supply since they already have enough larvae to create an army. something like 200/200 with a long research time and researched from the hatchery. Only problem with this is it removes the macro mechanic from zerg but tbh as it stands now zergs just inject about 4 times per hatchery when maxed and then forget about injections after they have stockpiled enough larvae to remake their army. this would make zerg being +1 base ahead of terran/protoss more profitable instead of the current playstyle of desperately trying to prevent the enemy getting a 3rd base while getting your own 3rd as fast as possible just to get enough econ to launch attacks at the enemy 3rd base, which makes for shallow gameplay imo. Third idea sort of echoes what other people in the thread mentioned, reducing number of mineral patches in tandem with making 1 gas per base with double the resources per trip, mules may need to be tweaked since they aren't affected by full saturation, not really sure about that though thoughts? | ||
|
Bozotclown
United Kingdom60 Posts
| ||
|
dandan23
Malaysia101 Posts
was 18 drones.. now is it still 18 or 20 now ? | ||
|
droit
United States67 Posts
Protoss has chrono boost Terran has MULE's what if zerg's drones only cost .5 food after lair tech? | ||
| ||
