EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 103
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
JitnikoVi
Russian Federation396 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
;-) | ||
|
Patate
Canada441 Posts
| ||
|
Chicken Chaser
United States533 Posts
| ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
Also, often I hear casters claim certain aspects of the game to be characteristic to frb, while i see the same things with normal maps. And last, the longer i watch starcraft 2, the less i agree with the arguments against normal maps. i'm sorry, this feels to me like brushing you teeth before making a phonecall to make it a success; it may give you a confidence boost, but it's nothing substantial.. Note: this is just my personal feeling now i've watched some games. I could very well be biased due to habit. | ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
* This will encourage more passive (macro only) game play, as the price to build harrassing units/tech is higher, more apm/income goes into macro.. As a viewer i am pretty bored by passive macro-centric play. Currently the risk/reward for harrass seems not that good, that's why a lot of pros opt for a passive pure macro power-up-death ball play. Ofc the more spread out bases will create more weak points, but i dare that we will see bw-alike back and forth action. Instead we'll likely see just a longer road to the death ball. * The lack of gas (1 geysir/base) will hit some races harder, so you'll get serious balance issues. Basically the game needs 1) a higher reward for harrass, pokes (=> need to reduce the defenders advantage somehow) 2) a slowdown of production/growth/tech (=> chrono/mules/queens are too strong) to emphasize single unit micro 3) maybe some more impact of map terrain (hi/lo ground, maybe even more impact of ground type on fighting such as reduced damage in specific areas ..) I don't think reducing the income/base will achieve those targets, as some of the basic problems will persist. You'll get an even more macro centric game. For example in the beginning of SC2 PvZ was full of sling harass and poking, which was entertaining to watch. Today we see the zerg get 3 bases and 2 lings until 8 minutes, the FFE P gets his first units round 7/8 minutes. This is not entertaining to watch, i dislike the BLord/Infestor/Spine vs P Deathball slaughterfest and i am sure most of the spectators are also bored by this. | ||
|
FairForever
Canada2392 Posts
On April 30 2012 00:50 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: Hm, i don't think this will make the game more entertaining for viewers: * This will encourage more passive (macro only) game play, as the price to build harrassing units/tech is higher, more apm/income goes into macro.. As a viewer i am pretty bored by passive macro-centric play. Currently the risk/reward for harrass seems not that good, that's why a lot of pros opt for a passive pure macro power-up-death ball play. Ofc the more spread out bases will create more weak points, but i dare that we will see bw-alike back and forth action. Instead we'll likely see just a longer road to the death ball. * The lack of gas (1 geysir/base) will hit some races harder, so you'll get serious balance issues. Basically the game needs 1) a higher reward for harrass, pokes (=> need to reduce the defenders advantage somehow) 2) a slowdown of production/growth/tech (=> chrono/mules/queens are too strong) to emphasize single unit micro 3) maybe some more impact of map terrain (hi/lo ground, maybe even more impact of ground type on fighting such as reduced damage in specific areas ..) I don't think reducing the income/base will achieve those targets, as some of the basic problems will persist. You'll get an even more macro centric game. For example in the beginning of SC2 PvZ was full of sling harass and poking, which was entertaining to watch. Today we see the zerg get 3 bases and 2 lings until 8 minutes, the FFE P gets his first units round 7/8 minutes. This is not entertaining to watch, i dislike the BLord/Infestor/Spine vs P Deathball slaughterfest and i am sure most of the spectators are also bored by this. Have to agree with this. I watched one of the games and didn't really see the improvement. Also the higher mineral to gas ratio is going to push in the direction of specific strategies - mass bio play for Terran is going to be even more popular (since the one geyser really doesn't allow for much tank play), ling/roach play... and for protoss.... I have no clue since they're so gas-intensive. It could work but the game has to be balanced this - you can't just change the mineral/gas breakdown and expect things to just work. | ||
|
FairForever
Canada2392 Posts
On April 23 2012 00:46 Valravn wrote: This may have been discussed before, but I'm wondering what's the reason behind staying on 6 starting workers is? Would it be more benificial to lower to BW:s 4? It makes 0 difference in the game - unless the zerg is going 4pool or 5pool, 99.9% of the time you're just going to get to six workers anyway. Because 4 and 5 workers isn't enough to mine 50 minerals before a worker is produced, so you'll have idle CC anyway. | ||
|
FairForever
Canada2392 Posts
On April 05 2012 13:00 0neder wrote: To all the nay-sayers, you need to differentiate between the goal and the objective. The goal, is to reward macro and APM more and promote more action and less deathballs, more back and forth, and more comebacks. The objective Barrin proposes is fewer resources per base. You may think this needs proving. That is true. We are in the beginning stages of this right now. If you think other objectives meet the stated goal, state why you think they are superior, or better yet, make a mod that tests it (EG one with tweaked or eliminated macro mechanics). You can dispute the objective, but please refrain from not offering any alternatives. Additionally, you can't really dispute the goal, as the goal is the fundamental reason BW was exciting and has been a spectator sport for a decade. You can dispute the goal - some people enjoy the way SC2 is played as is. You haven't provided any concrete reasoning for a change. I can provide a lot of reasons against any change. 1) It's going to turn the casual player off - he's going to have to relearn the game. Most people on the TL forums are regulars, if you switch to 6m/1hg, we'll eventually adjust. But others are going to be "wtf" when they see the change. This is something that needs to be done at the infancy of a game, not 2 years in. 2) It's going to make certain units/strategies overpowered, and certain ones underpowered. We're two years in and the game is apparently still imbalanced. Switch to this and we're resetting the clock - EVERYTHING needs to be relooked at. It's such a radical shift in the game that I disagree with - it's not going to suddenly build interest from the general public in watching SC2 again and it will lower the quality of play for an extended period of time. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32274 Posts
On April 30 2012 00:50 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: 1) a higher reward for harrass, pokes (=> need to reduce the defenders advantage somehow) Reduce the defenders advantage? If anything SC2 needs more defenders advantage, not less lol. | ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330085 I quote here: PROBLEMS WITH FRB/6M I wrote this partly to highlight what I have learned to be the biggest problem with current FRB. "FRB adds the need to control more space, but not the means." -Gfire There is a fair deal of deathball-ishness happening in FRB games (no more than I expected really), and when people ask me why this is, I have told them "people are not good at FRB yet" or "FRB is a new game, give it time" which given what people have said defending SC2 seemed more than fair to say. But that's not the whole story. With all the extra bases FRB gives, there's not a whole lot tying it all together. There's not enough positional advantages driving the game into a spread out chess game as believers in FRB would prefer. By not using a strong high ground mechanic, Dustin Browder is essentially min-maxing Terrible, Terrible Damage. I've said it before, I don't actually hate Terrible, Terrible Damage. It does have it's merit. I'm afraid that 8m without high ground is even better than FRB without high ground. So, IMO FRB with strong high ground > 8M without strong high ground > FRB without strong high ground I'm really not trying to sugarcoat it so I'll say it again: FRB without a strong high ground mechanic is not an overall improvement. This is a rather big obstacle that wasn't adequately explored in the original article. The main problem with the FRB movement here is actually educating people (especially Dustin Browder I think) about the strategic potential of High Ground and Positional advantages (partly what this thread is for). So, after months of testing, it turns out that the 8m is still better. The FRB with strong high ground which Barrin claims superior has not been tested yet, so we don't know whether it's actually superior. Also, there is no "8M with strong high ground" in the equation. It may be better than "FRB with strong high ground" after months of testing. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2577 Posts
On April 30 2012 01:53 IntoTheWow wrote: Reduce the defenders advantage? If anything SC2 needs more defenders advantage, not less lol. I'm not actually sure how you could reduce the defender's advantage to less than it already is. Maybe grant vision up cliffs? Or bonus damage for shooting uphill? | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
Having too much income per base was never the problem as much as having too many workers per base, especially if you compare to BW. I hope you're still not going off the BW income stats in the OP, because many sources have said they were wrong. In BW there was an incentive to expand because 16 workers on 8 patches mined slower than 16 workers on 16 patches, which is not the case in SC2. In SC2 you don't need to expand until 16-20 workers on 8 patches. 6m fixed this problem, and, imo, gave an optimal solution. I agree that 6m1hyg requires too few workers to saturate overall, but the biggest issue is the high yield geyser with all the silly all ins. If you go with 6m2lyg you should fix both problems. | ||
|
Eurytos
Singapore97 Posts
As a player/spectator that only started playing and watching sc2, due to the high amount of content available ( I watch MLG, GSL, IPL, KSL, ETC) it's come to a point where most games end at the 3 base ceiling with 200/200 deathball clashes. Not that it's not interesting the terrible terrible damage concept but virtually every matchup (barring mirrors) only ends that way at the top level. P v Z : Mothership with colossus deathballs Vs. Brood/Ultra infestor corrupter ling roach P v T : Archon zealot colossus templar Vs. Mass Bio balls with viking medivac/ Mech(albeit super rare) Z v T : Brood/Ultra infestor corrupter ling roach Vs. Marine tank medivac/Mech Basically most of the matches that i watch where no player makes an early error quickly develops into a 3 base race to hit the 200/200 deathball. It's pretty exciting in the beginning when you don't understand the game, but as time grows it becomes tiresome as no small skirmishes happen because the deathball is incredibly powerful. Which is why this FRB concept might just be the answer to this problem. The point i do not agree with is the 6m1hyg part. The 1 hyg causes build orders that have been refined over the past 1.5 year also to be completely reworked due to no. of workers required to saturate and difficulty of reading a build from limited scouting information. Requiring professional players to completely rework their builds is quite a difficult ordeal as by law of action-reaction a radical change will be met with staunch opposition. Maintaining 2lyg at all bases and using 6m. It effectively preserves the builds that exist in the current metagame. Eg. T v Z - Terran goes 1 gas hellion expand, 2 gas banshee 1 base. If it was 1hyg it would be 1 gas hellion expand, 1 gas banshee 1 base or. P v T Terran goes 1 rax expand. or terran takes 1 gas Marauder timing or 2 gas banshee harass. Similarly 1 gas would make scouting a difficulty. Also, another foreseeable problem with 1 hyg would be gas steals. Stealing the gas of a terran would effectively render him to go mass marines or FE or protoss would be crippled worse due to no warp gate research??? All in all i hope to see this idea being tried out at least on a broader level if not implemented in the future! Keep up the goodwork  | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
If anything, two gas makes it easier to learn, and harder to master. In my opinion there are no downsides to having two gas geysers (other than increased workers per base, which is solved with 6m), it really doubles the complexity of scouting. Maybe it's not as punishing if you only scout the amount of gases, because that gives you a decent amount of information, but top level players will have to (when the overall skill level increases if not now,) do everything they can to gain any small advantage, not just worry about being punished for something. | ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
On April 30 2012 01:53 IntoTheWow wrote: Reduce the defenders advantage? If anything SC2 needs more defenders advantage, not less lol. its 2 sided. you need more defenders advantage against all ins, but less against poking/harass imo. i don't have any perfect solution, but i think the game needs a higher chance/reward for harassing agression, without reducing the defenders advantage against all-in attacks. current wall offs prevent most types of early harass while still not being strong enough to defend all-in'. This encourages passive macro-up play. I think the game would profit if this would be vice versa .. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On April 30 2012 04:29 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: its 2 sided. you need more defenders advantage against all ins, but less against poking/harass imo. i don't have any perfect solution, but i think the game needs a higher chance/reward for harassing agression, without reducing the defenders advantage against all-in attacks. current wall offs prevent most types of early harass while still not being strong enough to defend all-in'. This encourages passive macro-up play. I think the game would profit if this would be vice versa .. I guess that's related to critical mass in SC2 and how a small number of units dies so fast to a larger number of units. An All-in is hard to defend because they will likely have more stuff that you so you need enough defenders advantage to make up for it. But when defending harass, you have more stuff involved than them so they don't stand much of a chance unless you are out of position somehow. Shorter unit range and passive unit spreading would help with this, I guess. | ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
On April 30 2012 04:32 Gfire wrote: I guess that's related to critical mass in SC2 and how a small number of units dies so fast to a larger number of units. An All-in is hard to defend because they will likely have more stuff that you so you need enough defenders advantage to make up for it. But when defending harass, you have more stuff involved than them so they don't stand much of a chance unless you are out of position somehow. Shorter unit range and passive unit spreading would help with this, I guess. maybe its also related to macro mechanics (queen, mule, chrono) which enable you to build an army quickly (less scouting time). in fact the defenders advantage (wall in etc) is not that bad in sc2, its just pretty easy to all-in in SC2. So if blizzard tries to buff harrass, they also buff all-ins. if they nerf all-ins (large maps, easy nat wall in) they kill harass play also and encourage boring macro-your-deathball style. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On April 29 2012 22:38 Yorbon wrote: I watched some of the games, and may be the only one, but I found most of them to be quite boring ): Also, often I hear casters claim certain aspects of the game to be characteristic to frb, while i see the same things with normal maps. And last, the longer i watch starcraft 2, the less i agree with the arguments against normal maps. i'm sorry, this feels to me like brushing you teeth before making a phonecall to make it a success; it may give you a confidence boost, but it's nothing substantial.. Note: this is just my personal feeling now i've watched some games. I could very well be biased due to habit. Yeah I agree, I think this is being way overhyped. I have seen casters too claim some silly things(ie that this makes certain unit comps much better etc...) and yeah I have seen many games and I don´t see THAT much of a difference.Of course that is how I feel and I might just be used to normal maps. But the more I watch the less hype I think this deserves | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
One thing that really sticks out on these sort of maps, due to the games being slower paced and battles smaller in scope, is the "not so great unit design". | ||
| ||
