|
Hey guys!
I was recently hanging out on TubbyTheFat's (GM Canadian Protoss) stream, when the conversation came up about how game tactics and styles would change under the influence of all resources being rich minerals and rich vespene. After a fair bit of discussion, I decided to chip in and contribute by converting the season six map pool into all rich fields. That being said, I have published the other seven maps (woefully, even the ones I have vito'd) up for play to encourage interesting matches and odd ways of thinking, just for fun!
Let me know what you guys think, or if there are any errors on the maps (or you can't access maps for some reason) that need adjusting and I'll make the adjustments as best I can (definitely not a pro at map editor) and republish them.
To find these maps:
When selecting map, enter +gold +edition into the search field, under the author Tyrian.
You can discuss strategy ideas or concerns below!
Hope this contributes to some interesting plays and thought processes, as well as some entertaining matches! Enjoy!
EDIT:
Anyone who tried and failed to access the maps on the first day, fret not, as the publishing has been updated and now correctly displays maps when searched for.
Also, Tal'darim Altar has been fixed and added to the map pool.
|
very cool i guess just to have around. i don't see how it would do anything but just speed the game up. but idk
|
This is pretty cool. Personally I've always been interested in how it would play if only the gas was high yield, or if the gas returned 5 per trip instead of 4.
I think it would allow players to have fewer workers and a bigger army if the minerals are all high yield, and you wouldn't need as many bases but you'd mine out faster so you'd still have to expand quite a bit.
|
It would not just speed the game up, but there would be so many minerals compared to gas that we'd see A LOT more mineral heavy units, perhaps more T1 units like lings/rines/zeals (we see enough rines already but O.O). Terrans would be slightly nerfed since mules would not be able to mine gold as quickly as they could before, but I think the strength of marines more than makes up for that.
What I'd like to see in future maps is perhaps expansions with mostly blue minerals but maybe 1-2 gold minerals in them, would create a very interesting dynamic on which expansions to take, how much to saturate it, etc.
|
Now that mules don't gain an extra bonus from this, it could be much more interesting than previously. I suppose the most obvious thing would be that 1 and 2 base pushes would become even more viable...Or maybe just anything would be more viable.
|
are these maps up on europe aswell?, sounds fun to try, if not please publish them there asap !
|
On March 06 2012 16:35 Superiorwolf wrote:
It would not just speed the game up, but there would be so many minerals compared to gas that we'd see A LOT more mineral heavy units, perhaps more T1 units like lings/rines/zeals (we see enough rines already but O.O). Terrans would be slightly nerfed since mules would not be able to mine gold as quickly as they could before, but I think the strength of marines more than makes up for that.
What I'd like to see in future maps is perhaps expansions with mostly blue minerals but maybe 1-2 gold minerals in them, would create a very interesting dynamic on which expansions to take, how much to saturate it, etc.
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.
|
What would change? The timing of normal builds would just come sooner because you have the same amount of resources sooner.
|
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.
Armies would be bigger, less worker count, more expansions (to contribute from maynarding)
|
I think this would give day[9] a good funday monday topic...maybe it could help lower leaguers to learn to spend resources faster? I dunno...
fun idea nonetheless^^
|
|
|
fastest mal possible Ladder Edition. cool stuff =)
|
These maps are available on all servers across the world, if I published them right. Though the names will all be in english. Also, I would give anything to see this as a funday monday topic. Day[9] makes me a better gamer, I'd love to contribute a good monday to him in return 
I just played a game on it, and it feels interesting. The builds are different, and the mineral counts didn't feel too off as there is rich gas as well, though they still felt like min crept up a little quicker than gas (though maybe I messed up my harvesters keeping up with everything else). It's very fast paced, trying to keep up with macro since your income comes in quickly, and you need to expand quicker. Two bases worth of SCVs makes for more than enough for me to keep up with, but I'm a lowbie anyway, so it's a challenge for me.
Ladder seems easier after doing this o.O easier to keep up with macro.
Though there has been a complaint to me that they can't find the maps, though I can - can anyone else confirm whether or not they show up when searched for as explained above?
|
Two rax now a three rax! rofl
I'm not sure if this would work very well in the long-run. It really depends on how you can spend your money and expanding would be quicker + macroing.
|
On March 06 2012 16:41 Gfire wrote:
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.
5 to 70?? I guess you mean 5 to 7? But thats 40% so that still doesn't make sense. 20% is just an increase of 5 to 6... Which one is it?
|
I'm thinking of Qxc's DBZ reference to playing under extreme conditions to get better. Imagine keeping your macro under control in this setting?!
|
On March 06 2012 16:59 Morphs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 16:41 Gfire wrote:
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. 5 to 70?? I guess you mean 5 to 7? But thats 40% so that still doesn't make sense. 20% is just an increase of 5 to 6... Which one is it?
Sorry. It's an increase to 7, %40. and the increase to 6 gas is %50.
|
I just searched for them on NA, couldn't find them. 
|
I think the math for resources works as such:
Per return trip,
Reg:
8 patches, 5 minerals on return
2 geysers, 4 gas on return
8x5 = 40 Minerals
2x4 = 8 Gas
Gold:
8 patches, 8 minerals on return
2 geysers, 6 gas on return
8x8 = 64 Minerals
2x6 = 12 Gas
So...
40/64 = 62.5%, or 37.5% mineral increase with gold
8/12 = 66.6%, or 33.3% gas increase with gold
That's compared balance at 1 worker per resource, without math for diminishing returns when you start adding workers. I'd imagine that at 2.5 workers per patch and 3 per gas, the numbers wouldn't fluctuate too much...
Those numbers seem almost negligable when I look at it that way... I think the math is right though.
|
On March 06 2012 17:04 Cylluus wrote:I just searched for them on NA, couldn't find them.
Edit: The maps were unproperly published as unlocked maps, and wouldn't show up publicly. This has been rectified now, and all maps should display properly when searched for as above.
|
On March 06 2012 16:44 bgx wrote:Show nested quote +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. Armies would be bigger, less worker count, more expansions (to contribute from maynarding)
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.
|
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).
|
On March 06 2012 17:12 Lobo2me wrote:Show nested quote +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).
My bad. It seemed like logic as it was coming out. Keeping up with the macro is tough either way :S
|
On March 06 2012 16:41 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 16:35 Superiorwolf wrote:
It would not just speed the game up, but there would be so many minerals compared to gas that we'd see A LOT more mineral heavy units, perhaps more T1 units like lings/rines/zeals (we see enough rines already but O.O). Terrans would be slightly nerfed since mules would not be able to mine gold as quickly as they could before, but I think the strength of marines more than makes up for that.
What I'd like to see in future maps is perhaps expansions with mostly blue minerals but maybe 1-2 gold minerals in them, would create a very interesting dynamic on which expansions to take, how much to saturate it, etc. 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 
|
6 pool imba! with queen even
|
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!
|
Probably marines.
or
A never ending baneling bust.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On March 07 2012 03:41 Thienan567 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
that costs drones. and drones cost larvae.
and... we already have bw sized armies, just not as dynamic.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
