Ohh so deathballs would become even more accessible and easy to get to, gotcha!

I think the effect of rich minerals and gas is self explanatory and doesn't really need to be explored since it's not being used outside of bad tournaments and ladder.

Lobo2me

Norway1213 Posts

March 06 2012 08:12 GMT

#22

On March 06 2012 17:05 Tyrian wrote:
So...
40/64 = 62.5%, or 37.5% mineral increase with gold
8/12 = 66.6%, or 33.3% gas increase with gold

What you calculated was reduction from gold to blue. The increase from blue to gold is 40% for minerals (from 5 to 7, not 5 to 8), and 50% for gas (from 4 to 6).

TyrianSC2

Canada52 Posts

March 06 2012 08:14 GMT

#23

On March 06 2012 17:12 Lobo2me wrote:

Show nested quote +

What you calculated was reduction from gold to blue. The increase from blue to gold is 40% for minerals (from 5 to 7, not 5 to 8), and 50% for gas (from 4 to 6).

My bad. It seemed like logic as it was coming out. Keeping up with the macro is tough either way :S

Superiorwolf

United States5509 Posts

March 06 2012 18:23 GMT

#24

On March 06 2012 16:41 Gfire wrote:

Show nested quote +

I think the gas is increased from 4 to 6 and minerals from 5 to 70. That's %25 increase in gas and %20 increase in minerals, so there should be a decrease in mineral-heavy units.

One thing this would do is increase the speed at which things are produced but not the speed at which units move or attack, so you'd be able to make more units during a battle, or more units while moving across the map. It increases the defenders advantage somewhat with the same rush distances.

Ah my bad, I read it and thought it was only a change to gold minerals, forgot about high-yield gas

ejozl

Denmark3345 Posts

March 06 2012 18:28 GMT

#25

6 pool imba! with queen even

Micket

United Kingdom2163 Posts

March 06 2012 18:33 GMT

#26

Zerg would clearly be the worst race, as they are still limited by larvae, so unless they benefit disproportionately from the increased income (which they don't, since less workers needed to saturate a base), Zerg would have to invest more in supply in queens, lose drones and minerals for additional hatcheries, which will have a huge opportunity cost.

In fact, I would suspect a simple multirax rush is unbeatable vs Zerg because it takes far too long for Zerg to be able to spend their money as queens and hatcheries take so long to build.

Still, this seems like fun and actually fair, after the mule nerf.

As a Terran player, my build would have been 1 rax cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc then mass scv!

ProxyKnoxy

United Kingdom2576 Posts

March 06 2012 18:35 GMT

#27

Probably marines.
or
A never ending baneling bust.

VoirDire

Sweden1923 Posts

March 06 2012 18:41 GMT

#28

The games will be super cheesy. 1 base rushes will be all that's viable.

6-pool.
8/8 proxy gates. Cannon rushes.
11/11/11 proxy rax.

Thienan567

United States670 Posts

March 06 2012 18:41 GMT

#29

On March 07 2012 03:33 Micket wrote:
Zerg would clearly be the worst race, as they are still limited by larvae, so unless they benefit disproportionately from the increased income (which they don't, since less workers needed to saturate a base), Zerg would have to invest more in supply in queens, lose drones and minerals for additional hatcheries, which will have a huge opportunity cost.

In fact, I would suspect a simple multirax rush is unbeatable vs Zerg because it takes far too long for Zerg to be able to spend their money as queens and hatcheries take so long to build.

Still, this seems like fun and actually fair, after the mule nerf.

As a Terran player, my build would have been 1 rax cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc then mass scv!

Early game? Spines.

With the extra minerals, Zerg should be able to get up 2 or 3 spines. After that, though, I can't predict.

I'm actually excited to see say, a showmatch on a map with all rich resources. Bigger armies, maybe now we'll finally see BW sized armies.

FeyFey

Germany10114 Posts

March 06 2012 18:44 GMT

#30

its more interesting to reduce the patches and geysirs, so you have the same income per base under normal conditions, but less workers, then just replacing it all around. On the other hand, the mule nerf would have to be reverted on such maps, as its not economical to get an orbital and producing workers is just better. And thats really a downhill battle for the terran unless they force one base play, to have more mining with the mule, since this skip 3 workers to get 5 workers is a must for terran in the early game to stay even on eco.

Gamegene

United States8308 Posts

March 06 2012 18:45 GMT

#31

On March 07 2012 03:41 Thienan567 wrote:

Show nested quote +

Early game? Spines.

that costs drones. and drones cost larvae.

and... we already have bw sized armies, just not as dynamic.

TyrianSC2

Canada52 Posts

March 06 2012 19:06 GMT

#32

I played a match as zerg (offracing) and found that I had 2 macro hatches in my main simply because I could afford it. Mind you, I'm a low level player, but maybe it's because of that reason that I've found these games a lot more fun, entertaining and valuable to practice skill in macroing and focus, developing fundamentals instead of build/strategy. I definitely find it easier to hop into regular matches afterward and keep up with those same fundamentals at a slower pace.

I remember watching an old newbie tuesday from Day9 and playing some AI matches at slow game speed just to develop the rhythm of looking at the minimap, tapping, and checking minerals/gas/supply. I tried to jump into a faster speed game afterward and completely failed because of the speed difference (one step at a time next time, lol). It kind of feels like the same thing in this, except going backward and getting easier instead of harder. Though you are working on different fundamentals.

I definitely encourage developing players to try them out.

Coming from the perspective of a developing player. Though I'd love to hear feedback from masters who gave this a try, and hearing about their observations.

Gladiator6

Sweden7024 Posts

March 06 2012 19:09 GMT

#33

On March 06 2012 16:41 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
What would change? The timing of normal builds would just come sooner because you have the same amount of resources sooner.

I would say completely knew builds and everything, possibly metagame change as well.

Drunken.Jedi

Germany446 Posts

March 06 2012 19:39 GMT

#34

Why do people keep saying that the recent mule nerf makes this more fair? If anything it puts terran at a disadvantage because it means that the income of mules relative to normal workers is lower in an all high yield map. With the old mules, the ratio would have stayed the same.
Mules on high yield were only too strong because high yield expansions on normal maps are rare, but terran could still drop all their mules on the one gold expansion they hold, giving them a disproportionately higher income. If all bases are gold, that advantage disappears.
On top of that, chrono boost and spawn larvae allow the other races to make more workers, which do benefit from the change to all high yield.

I think overall this change would help protoss the most because we all know how strong a maxed protoss army is and with this change, even a two base max would be very fast. On top of that, protoss has the warpgate mechanic, which allows very efficient production and would make timing attacks even more vicious.
Zerg would of course also greatly benefit as their economy would become even more explosive. However, zergs are limited by how slow their tech is (just count up how long it takes to tech to ultras or broodlords and then compare that to things like Carriers or Battlecruisers, not to mention units like Thors or Collossi) and this limitation would be far more severe if the game were sped up like that.

Prev 1 2 All

Please or register to reply.

Live Events Refresh