EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
ThisisRaider
Namibia153 Posts
| ||
|
Zrana
United Kingdom698 Posts
Take protoss (which btw i consider in dire need of a complete reworking or even removal) - protoss has 2 ways to play atm; turtle to massive deathball or all-in/timing attack. These are the only things keeping protoss in pro-level tournaments. How on earth is protoss supposed to defend 4 expansions from things like roach or mmm, which are by design stronger in small numbers than gateway units? My point is that zerg and terran bio units get less cost-efficient as armies become more deathballish and aoe is used more, while the opposite is true for protoss. As a zerg player i'm very happy to trade armies with the protoss to keep him from getting to his super-efficient deathball. Reducing the resources available per square inch of map basically does this for me. I love the idea of the OP but it requires a rework of many units. | ||
|
megapants
United States1314 Posts
| ||
|
DrJohnFever
Canada17 Posts
| ||
|
Gheed
United States972 Posts
| ||
Twiggs
United States600 Posts
If your proposal fixes this then hell, lets try it. | ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
Because you are the stallion who will mount the world. + Show Spoiler + This will have more impact on SC2 than Flash switching, positive impact | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On March 17 2012 05:28 Seronei wrote: Reducing the minerals patches will make some 1 base allins stronger (20 workers 4 gate for example) as it will not get weaker from this but all standard builds will have less economy to defend it from, not sure if this is a actually an issue though. Lowering the amount of resources from each mineral patch seems like a smarter idea to encourage more expanding, not that I've put in much thought in this. Pretty sure you cannot produce from 4 Gates with only 6 mineral patches. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
edit: I wanted to add an idea of mine: suppose you have the distinction between close and far away mineral patches more pronounced. In that case building more workers gets increasingly diminishing returns as eventually you're only building them to saturate far away patches and you'd be better off taking a new expansion to take advantage of its close patches once more. | ||
|
dicedicerevolution
United States245 Posts
It's well thought out and I think it deserves a considerable amount effort to try and test this. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
TelecoM
United States10686 Posts
 ... I am very interested to see how the harassment options / timings would change due to these changes, will def. be trying out the 6m2g maps, thanks! | ||
|
recklessfire
United States373 Posts
| ||
|
Ryndika
1489 Posts
 ).I really hope that this is posted in bnet forums and emailed to kim. They would need to change protoss functioning TOTALLY but if you make it work I'd prefer less deathbally toss, and less turtly too. I want more versatile toss. | ||
|
Domus
510 Posts
- Increasing worker cost, or - Decreasing worket pickup rates - Decreasing minerals per base Personally, I think mineral patches should be smaller, but also, workers should pick up less minerals on each run. But there is something I think is more important for the game, giving units lower damage output/more life. Currently, I feel that in SC2 the entire game always revolves around a single big mistake instead of various smaller mistakes. Catch the opponent off-guard once, do a quick build order win, and it is over. I think it should not work this way, a game should have multiple battles, and a battle should have influence, but not completely decide the games outcome on its own. There is no room for recovery, and things are decided in a split-second. Just some examples, a big baneling hit, some storms hitting completely destroying a bio ball within 2 seconds, muta flock catching/destroying a mineral line, a standard PvP where one player has 1-2 more stalkers and auto-wins. | ||
|
cmen15
United States1519 Posts
| ||
|
13JackaL
United States577 Posts
| ||
|
AlmightyRaiden
Mexico59 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On 8m Mains, Less At Expansions : For whatever reason, I kept hearing "what about 8m mains with less resources at expansions?". This encourages 1-base play and is therefore retarded. Sorry. I see you still have these one-less-patch bases even in your 6m maps? | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
I also feel like players like Grubby, Zenio and Stephano have shown that there's styles where you can expand a lot, constantly lose bases, but still come out ahead in the long run. The fact that you max out at 3 bases in terms of mineral income doesn't mean that players don't have use for extra vespene geysers, since gas becomes more and more important the longer the game goes. 4th and 5th vespene gas bases also make for great drone refugee camps where Zergs can send drones when they're not in a position to save one of their bases and still retain their 3 base mineral income. Only now in the development of SC2 we start to regularly see strategies that are aimed at trading armies to limit the opponent's possibilities, scout, and buy time to expand/ tech. Like Feast's 3 gate pressure after expand vs Terran, Marineking's constant mass bio vs Zerg, gas first hellion banshee pressure versus mass marine expands in TvT. What if mech play gets so solid TvT, that it becomes a mech only MU like BW? Players will keep pushing the boundaries of getting as many geysers as possible whilst finding solutions to defend. Dropship mech? Who knows. Personally I think the hellion is one of the most unexplored units in the game in terms of micro and positioning (mostly because the marine is such a reliable and straight forward mineral sink). I've been able to make them extremely cost efficient as early game harassment in TvT combined with scv repairs whilst taking myself an early expansion and getting reliable scouting with a rax float. Point being that there's so much left unexplored in professional play because most players are just trying to perfect current strategies to win, rather than focusing on a long-term development that isn't going to net them tournament results in the coming months. I got kinda lost while writing but you'll ge tthe gist of it I hope xD Kudo's on your research regardless, Barrin, you've clearly put a lot of thought into this. | ||
| ||
