EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 104
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
OxyFuel
Canada195 Posts
| ||
|
nerak
Brazil256 Posts
But I don't see as 6m1hyg is much different from 8m. A little better maybe. But not the problem-solver we expected. I say, we need to go deeper. IMHO, we tested this hypothesis. It failed, but we also learned things we wouldn't learn just from theorycrafting. Now it is time to move on. On a side note, maybe 6m is the final solution. But not now. We still got a lot to learn about the game before figuring out what the solution actually is. | ||
|
-ForeverAlone-
274 Posts
On April 30 2012 15:41 nerak wrote: I think everyone working for this project to work are awesome. Starcraft needs this. But I don't see as 6m1hyg is much different from 8m. A little better maybe. But not the problem-solver we expected. I say, we need to go deeper. IMHO, we tested this hypothesis. It failed, but we also learned things we wouldn't learn just from theorycrafting. Now it is time to move on. On a side note, maybe 6m is the final solution. But not now. We still got a lot to learn about the game before figuring out what the solution actually is. What failed about this? | ||
|
Ameisenmann
Albania296 Posts
| ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
Perhaps it's time to explore more options such as having 8m2g mains but with expansions that are generally less yielding. The argument with the all-in on one base being too strong sounds too theorycrafty without testing it, we don't see much bitbybit style as of late. 6mhyg on most expansions or 7m on naturals could work especially once the expansions are out with more space controlling units. As of now, watching FRB games just make the unit design feel somewhat incomplete for me. I love the idea of maps like Atlantis Spaceship that have bases with 3 gases also. More creativity the better, no need to follow a certain cult of map design. | ||
|
Yonnua
United Kingdom2331 Posts
On April 30 2012 23:00 RavenLoud wrote: Life (and history) always taught me that when a miracle solution pops up claiming absolute confidence in itself, it will usually fail. Perhaps it's time to explore more options such as having 8m2g mains but with expansions that are generally less yielding. The argument with the all-in on one base being too strong sounds too theorycrafty without testing it, we don't see much bitbybit style as of late. 6mhyg on most expansions or 7m on naturals could work especially once the expansions are out with more space controlling units. As of now, watching FRB games just make the unit design feel somewhat incomplete for me. I love the idea of maps like Atlantis Spaceship that have bases with 3 gases also. More creativity the better, no need to follow a certain cult of map design. Alternatively having a 6m1hyg main and most bases but having the natural as 8m2g? That way you're incentivised to go in to a macro game but there's a lot more room for variation on 2 bases. Personally, 6m1hyg still looks to be interesting, but there's definitely room to investigate on the theme a bit more. | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
1) Overall 6m1hyg was wildly successful at what it set out to do. It was an intuitive, straightforward way for the community to begin experimenting with the concept of fewer resources per base, and was never intended to be a 'magic bullet' that solves all of Starcraft 2's problems. It got a ton of community involvement, attention from big organizations and a great tournament, but isn't the be-all and end-all of FRB. That said: 2) No one is giving up on FRB either. It's a great idea that has lead to awesome games and thought provoking situations as people explored its successes and limitations. Some of you have already found this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330085 where Barrin talks a bit about how the high-ground advantage from Brood War was critical to its gameplay and something similar is needed for FRB. Barrin is continuing to experiment, theorycraft and map design, and will be coming out with an all-new version of FRB sometime shortly after the FRB GT ends. I'm not a theorycrafter and can't really comment too much on it, but we're really excited to see what Barrin comes up with and will be using the new set of maps and mechanics he's creating for the FRB GT 2 (which is looking very likely at this point) 3) And on a quick final note for the FRB Grand Tournament and FRB Games in general, I'm not surprised at all that a lot of players, particularly in a tournament with money on the line, primarily used strategies we see from regular SCII. There's so much momentum and experience with using these strategies that a shift in the metagame will only occur when one of two things happens. The first is after many, many games have been played and discussed and people develop FRB-centered strategies superior to those imported from regular SCII. So far there just hasn't been enough time for this to happen. (Remember guys, the OP is from March 17th. The whole idea is only about a month and a half old!) Or, conversely, metagame shifts can occur inside a game when something weird or unexpected occurs that forces players to adjust their play on the fly. Again, I highly recommend areaSaroVati vs. GoSuTgun Game 2. How many times have you seen a Protoss aggressively expand to 5 bases and work to defend them while a Zerg focuses on harassment? Also, everyone should know that we have the Finals and Third Place match coming up this Friday at 8pm Eastern! GoSuViBe, coL.Ganzi, VileIllusion and GoSuTgun will be fighting to prove who's the very best FRB player and for a $200 prize pool. If you like FRB and want to see an FRB GT 2 definitely tune in, it directly helps support us and the more viewers we have the easier it will be to maintain and gain new sponsors for the event. FRB definitely isn't complete or finished, so support the end of 6m1hyg and help launch us into the next phase! | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
There's a long ways to go, but think about how far the last month took this idea. sarovati vs tgun was a great example of how legitimately good this idea is, but my protoss heart broke for seravati when that mothership popped... | ||
|
nerak
Brazil256 Posts
Sorry if I wasn't clear. In my opinion, 6m1hyg games aren't that different from 8m games. Is it to soon to judge? Definetely. But I watched some games and I didn't see any notable difference. Please tell me if I'm wrong - I wouldn't mind being wrong. In the other hand, I think that, if hypotethically 6m1hyg did failed, it's not the end of FRB yet. There are more ways to test it. Also, even if the FRB experiment as a whole "fails", it isn't failure. It would be an experiment and we'd had learned from that. Anything I could do to "spread conciousness" about FRB in Brazilian/LA forums, please let me know. Edit: Good to know there are more things to come, Senex. But could anyone here point out one moment when the FRB actually made a (positive/intended) difference? I know players are using the regular strategies because they want the money, but some time the FRB must had come into play. Also, do you count the speedling/reaper "rushes" we've seem in some of the first games as something positive? I know it was fun to watch, but it isn't what we're looking for right? | ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
Because Barrin said this: 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). | ||
|
WeddingEpisode
United States356 Posts
Also, I just played an FRB game, and it's exactly what I've been wanting: no throw-away units, but a focus of attention to the value of each unit (which I know is behind this type of gameplay). It's absolutely what this game needs. The early-game has always been my favorite part of the game and this plays to that style of micro-intensive video-gaming. | ||
|
Tsuki.eu
Portugal1049 Posts
| ||
|
WeddingEpisode
United States356 Posts
There would be staging points that were harder to break, and would require the entire gamut of units to help out, and not just to trick or surprise, but they'd be necessary. | ||
|
nerak
Brazil256 Posts
This is from a thread where he says FRB needs to take the next step (playing with higher/lower ground and chokes). I think this shows the experiment is progressing. But yeah, just FRB isn't enough. I'm excited to see what kind of dinamics the newest maps can bring. How much time does this idea needs to mature? Maybe months. So we need to go supporting it. It's been interesting so far. | ||
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
1.smart fire, unit attack priority - zerg kills everything in sight, who cares about scv or marines or tanks. i hate smart fire, so much. terran's tanks are about 10times more powerful than scbw and zerglings are neffed big time. 2.reactor/warp gate tech. ye. Shitty balance = no fun. only small population playing ladder now is the best proof that sc2 (the game) sucks. the esport aspect is still huge because we wanted to it big. the passion of our community is what makes esport/sc2 today. without us it is nothing, just another AA another title from blizz/activition. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On May 01 2012 04:50 BurningSera wrote: 1.smart fire, unit attack priority - zerg kills everything in sight, who cares about scv or marines or tanks. i hate smart fire, so much. terran's tanks are about 10times more powerful than scbw and zerglings are neffed big time. 2.reactor/warp gate tech. ye. I agree completely 100%. | ||
|
Ameisenmann
Albania296 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
dacimvrl
Vatican City State582 Posts
also, I do not agree with this tbh. It doesn't have to be a broodwar clone to be a good game. | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
It's true that some of the potential positive changes haven't occurred, but they weren't the main goals. For example, things like expanded hydralisk usage never really panned out. I can definitely understand people being disappointed when these didn't happen, but the central goal of FRB is to adjust the pace and emphasis of the game, not units or unit compositions. We'll leave that to Blizzard or other modmakers.  Does that address your concerns? When I started writing this it made a ton of sense to me but now I'm worried I started rambling. XD If you can give some more clarity with what you're asking I might be able to answer better. | ||
| ||
