EPTAnalysis of Macro - Page 23
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Mojar
Australia185 Posts
| ||
|
tosog
64 Posts
On May 06 2011 11:18 Mojar wrote: For some reason i had not read this post till now, but i will say that the underlying point of it is really coming out in today's play. Protoss and Terrans sitting on their 2-3 bases maxing out and just walking over 5-6 base Zergs. The extra bases provide no real benefit to the Zerg apart from slightly better production (as you are not going to be building more then 4-5 queens for the purpose of inject). As a terran player, let me tell you about how much mech would absolutely be not viable if we had to start securing more than 3 bases. Zerg can take all those bases because they are such a mobile race. If each base increased your income equally then Zerg would be quite overpowered in my theorycrafting opinion. | ||
|
Frozenserpent
United States143 Posts
On May 06 2011 11:36 tosog wrote: As a terran player, let me tell you about how much mech would absolutely be not viable if we had to start securing more than 3 bases. Zerg can take all those bases because they are such a mobile race. If each base increased your income equally then Zerg would be quite overpowered in my theorycrafting opinion. The thing is that the extra base doesn't increase your overall income at all. Essentially, 70 workers on 3 bases will mine just as much as 70 workers on 6 bases. What's the strength of mech? It's really strong in a straight-up fight, and it's really cost-efficient in such a fight. What's the weakness? It gives up map control. But what if map control doesn't provide that much benefit because having >3 bases isn't as helpful? Doesn't seem like it is a good design. Contrast this to BW where workers quickly get diminishing returns. Personally I think the curve of mining efficiency to # workers mining is quite nice in BW. Then, you get a bit of a boost in income solely for having more bases. It makes map control quite important. | ||
|
MurdeR
Argentina89 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/62/daygod.png) GREAT POST! Thanks a lot  | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
As both a fan and a casual player, if there was a poll, i'd vote for 300 food now, balance concerns later. | ||
|
thurst0n
United States611 Posts
If you're looking for differant ways at looking at things, it seems another simple elegant solution to making the 3rd/4th/5th/6th base more important is to reduce the amount of minerals at each node. This has been mentioned before I just want to elaborate some of my own thoughts. I do not claim this to be my original idea. This will not effect the amount of economy(Minerals per Minute) you have at early stages of the game, saturation requirements (workers per patch/base) remain the same; it only shortens the amount of time you can sit on 1 base, or 2 base before getting that 3rd base. If you happen to get your 3rd base early you will mine out of your main sooner than in the current maps. I'm no SC Guru, but I feel that the game should focus around expanding and having map control safely against all-in timings. After an all-in you should be punished since you haven't expanded, but in the current state it seems to me you can all in a few times before your main base runs out, not to mention 2 base timings.. I may be way off base (no pun intended) in the previous paragraph I'd love to hear more discussion about decreasing minerals in each node to force more expansions earlier and at every stage of the game, forcing you to have better map control. Perhaps it's just better in theory or in my own head. Perhaps just expansions have less minerals per node? | ||
|
dave333
United States915 Posts
| ||
|
theliman2000
United States45 Posts
| ||
|
zodde
Sweden1908 Posts
Good job LaLush! | ||
|
ArchDC
Malaysia1996 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=266019 This is a really good article and was there a follow-up? Plenty of people (myself included) have posted about how SC2 does not feel like BW (the fights feel less epic, less things are going on n battles last so much shorter). I thought this was due to camera size (everything is a lot smaller and players see a bigger piece of the map on the screen), lower mechanical ceiling (you can practically send an entire army forward w one click). Due to the article, it is clearer that it is also because there is less incentive to have more than 3 bases operating at one time (another lower mechanical ceiling) given both income and supply cap. I second the notion that Blizzard should increase supply to 300 and re-figure out balancing through new units and patching of old units through HoTs and the protoss expansion. This will also bring back the feel of having bigger armies fighting all over the map for longer periods of time which makes for much more epic games when two highly skilled players go at it. | ||
|
figq
12518 Posts
| ||
|
JuTo
United States30 Posts
plus you managed to keep my attention for the WHOLE article, which is an accomplishment hahaha. well done | ||
| ||
