WCSBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 105
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Valkola
Finland128 Posts
| ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
I got to thinking after my post in this thread that maybe 6m with spread out minerals might work out better if the mineral fields were double or even triple stacked. Obviously, this would work in 8m as well, but I think that it works better with fewer locations (i.e. 6 vs 8). The interesting thing*** is that workers still want to spread out to different locations, even if each location contains more than one actual mineral field. In essence, this helps to artificially make the AI more dumb like in BW. Eventually, with enough workers, double and triple mining will occur, and the actual mining rate of the base can get very high. But it seems like, at least with my rudimentary tests, that it helps to create a curve closer to BW which allows for increasingly better mining rate for each worker, even up to 40 workers or more on 6 mineral locations (12 or 18 patches). So if any of those guys are interested in charting this, here's are the tests: 6 double stacked mineral locations @ 750 per patch 6 triple stacked mineral locations @ 500 per patch 6 quadruple stacked locations @ 375 per patch 6 quintuple stacked locations @ 300 per patch ~ Use a base layout like the main on Devolution. The really interesting thing that I noticed when I did the triple stacked minerals (I haven't done the last two tests yet myself) is that it seemed to mine even more evenly than the double stacked or even normal (single, non-stacked) -- though this was without using mules. I can see mules perhaps being a little rediculous with this, but that shouldn't make the results of the test any less interesting. Any takers? (I did this using the test document feature in the galaxy editor and used some triggers to approximate the mining rate and spit the info into the chat so I don't know what the official mining rates are for these tests.) EDIT: *** With more stacked (3 or 4 or 5) the workers initially spread out less and less, so more manual micro is needed to spread out the workers so that each location doesn't get mined out as quickly (although, they still seem to mine fairly evenly). Also, the fact that patches will begin to disappear from each stack helps add to the diminishing returns of adding more workers after a certain point. That said, transferring 80 workers to a fresh base with a larger number of patches per location should start to mine at close to max efficiency. | ||
|
llKyonll
Netherlands10 Posts
 ). I played both 6m1hyg and 7m2g and was suprised at the difference both maps make in terms of army size and micro needed. I also like the way in which the need for expansions changed the way a game plays out (this was more obvious on the new 6m1hyg maps then the adjusted 7m2g maps ofc).Will try to keep up with all the news and hopefully be able to pitch in at some point. Gl gl ^^ | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I still think that it leaves some issues, though. Expansion rate doesn't have to increase from where it is now in SC2 (it's pretty similar to BW actually, as the mains in SC2 mine out around 15 minutes real-time and still being on 3 or even 2 base in BW at that time isn't really uncommon, even in a macro game,) though a slight increase might be nice. The 3-base cap might still be an issue, although Obviously these things are somewhat helped if you're doing 8lym1hyg. With only one geyser you still have 3 fewer workers per base and that will help quite a bit. I really like 2 geysers, though, so 7m or 6m with 2 geysers makes the most sense to me, if you could get the incomes right. Alternatively, an increase in mining time with 8m2g might work as that would mean fewer workers to saturate a base without changing the amount of patches/geysers (or even the amount of resources per trip.) It allows you to keep the min-gas ratio completely custom so it's the most easily balanced, as well. Still, I'm a lot more interested in 8lym than I originally was. It will make it so it takes a longer time to build up the same number of units, even if you expand a lot, unlike the current 6m1hyg where you can still max out really fast if you're opponent lets you expand. Although, maybe decreasing income alone would only make the game play out in a similar manner, but slower. Theoretically, this just increases the speed of moving and attacking with units relative to production. Would players just delay everything they did by %20 and we'd get more drawn out games but not better gameplay? Will players just sit in their bases for a longer amount of time and wait to attack until maxed? Is the ratio of income to unit movement and attack speed something will be beneficial to change in this way? I'm looking forward to seeing the answers to these questions. | ||
|
L3gendary
Canada1459 Posts
| ||
|
larse
1595 Posts
But 6m1g alone will not solve the deathball problem once and for all. The deathball problem mainly comes from three reasons. First, SC2 has a good path finding system which makes units to go to the destination in a optimal path. Since mathematically there is only one optimal path from one location to another, units will cluster around the optimal path. Also, in SC2 units can be pushed around. This makes units during movement not stuck each other. This is not the case in SC1 and many other RTS games because their path finding systems do not make units to go in optimal path and units cannot be pushed around in those games. So, in those games, units always wander around and stuck each other on relatively complex terrain. This makes SC1 player to command fewer units in such circumstances in order not to make units stuck too severe. The second reason is closely related to the first. In SC1, you can only select 12 units at a time but in SC2 you can select as many as you want (there is a very high maximum selection number; I forgot the number). So, in SC1 you always give separate commands to every 12 units, so they go in different path (don't tell me you can always command 150 supply army to go to a single dot in SC1; there will be some deviations of destination in SC1), plus the bad path finding system which makes units' movement more varied or "dynamic". In SC2 you select as many units you want, and they all move in a single optimal path, and they will not stuck each other (except when range units attacking). This makes the deathball emerged. But some may ask that you can select as many units as you want in other RTS games, why don't their units clump up? This can be answered by the third reason. The third reason is the collision radius in SC2 is relatively small compare to some other RTS games. The collision radius is similarly small in SC1 and SC2 but because of the aforementioned two reasons SC1 units are more spreadout than SC2. But in many other RTS games such as Supreme Commander, the collision radius is much larger than SC2. Even though you can manually and individually control units to cluster together in those games, the default formation always has a large collision radius. There are some other trivial reasons why there is deathball in SC2, but these three are the most essential ones. Solving the deathball issue and making the game more spreadout like chess or go requires more than 6m1g. It requires almost the total conversion of the movement system in SC2 which is impossible to do in this phase. They might consider it during the alpha phase, but it is definitely impossible to change this fundamental aspect of the game now. HOTS proposes some practical solutions to the deathball problem but I would expect that those solutions also cannot eliminate the deathball problem. You may remember Dustin said in the Blizzcon 2011 panel that shredder or oracle are something that are not "adding to the deathball". And the viper has the AOE spell to disable range units (it makes you want to spread out your range units), and the abduct to pull units out of the deathball. Those things in HOTS are definitely aimed to address the deathball issue in a not fundamental but practical way. But whether they will achieve the goal remains to be seen. | ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
You can watch all the live events (including this broadcast) at www.twitch.tv/pullsc And all the VoD's can be found at www.youtube.com/wiseoldsenex | ||
|
Sacrieur
United States32 Posts
Would it be possible to see the methods used to determine them? | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On May 11 2012 21:29 Sacrieur wrote: I'm a mapmaker affiliated with SEN. Normally I wouldn't come out of the shadows, but something stuck out when I was looking over the data for mining rates for probes and SCVs. The graph shows a difference between SCV and probe mining rates. These results do not agree with the ones I obtained. Would it be possible to see the methods used to determine them? LaLush, myself and at least two others in this thread found the same thing. All old wiki info and other threads and sites all confirm these results. Barrin hasn't addressed the issue as far as I am aware. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1641 Posts
On May 03 2012 09:51 L3gendary wrote: I fail to see how 8lym would be beneficial. It would only slow down the game and expansions would be taken slower since it takes longer to mine out. We would still have the 3 base saturation maximum. Your theorycraft is flat out wrong. Fewer resources per base means it takes shorter time to mine out, and the lack of doubly geyser has reduced gas by 25% ish. which means a 3 base toss now has 100% less gas to spend and should probably take a fourth ;p | ||
|
TopRamen
United States93 Posts
So in an attempt to revive this idea, I took a bunch of notes on income. First, I don't know if Barrin took starting income into account. SC2 starting income is much stronger than BW starting income. In a standard SC2 game you start with 6 workers instead of 4 (like BW). Even with a 6m limitation on mining, you still make 393 minerals a minute. In BW, you only made 192 minerals a minute on starting income. So, as a result, the builds in 6m are waaaayyyy faster. You saturate your minerals faster with a higher income. Since builds go by so quickly in 6m, expanding goes by a lot faster. That doesn't really create a big difference in how the game is played. Players will just find different timings and grab more expansions to get that optimal mining rate. That magical 3 base number is increased to 4. So you'll still find deathball games from lower resources per base. But, lets try low-yield minerals! I know you guys weren't looking for data editor solutions, but I thought it would be worth a try. I was thinking 4 minerals per trip with 5 starting workers That reduces your starting income to 262 minerals a minute. If we went down another worker (down to 4) it would reduce it to 209.6 minerals a minute, but I figure that might be too low for SC2. It also changes the effective minerals per minute. With 3 workers harvesting the same lym(low-yield mineral) patch, you make 116.4 per minute. With 2 workers harvesting the same lym patch you make 102.4 a minute. The difference is that the benefit of having an extra 3rd worker per mineral isn't as great as it is with regular minerals, just like BW. In 6lym, you would make 614.4 minerals per saturated base. Making it so that it would require 2 6lym bases to equal 1 8m base. Instead of 2 6m bases equaling 1.5 8m bases. Remember that magic number 4 for 6m games I mentioned earlier? Well, for 6lym, its the magic number 6. Now that deathball income is WAY hard to achieve. It creates a much bigger emphasis on spreading out (which is a big factor in Barrin's argument). Leaving you even more open to harassment/aggression as well as giving you more aggressive options. Idk, before I go too much into detail What do you guys think? | ||
|
cablesc
United States1540 Posts
They both have some similar aspects of resource limitation but the overall aims are different. FRB wants to change SC2 at a fundamental level to make the game more interesting/entertaining. My idea to limit late-game gas and/or minerals keeps the game largely the same but tries to address late-game imbalances. So I'm interested in what people have to say about the pros and cons of both ideas. And if some of these ideas can be incorporated into the other one. | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1329 Posts
I told myself I'd watch SC2 while I took time off from it, but that stopped happening to because a) once your not playing, the drive to watch/learn really drops. b) The game isnt really fun to watch, so many fast coin flip matches that rarely deliver a cool moment where you realize how intense an RTS can be. How many times have you been super hyped to see X play X to then sadly see a bo5 finish in 25 minutes because the Z player gets 1 based 3 games of 5. I think the caster combos/production value has really saved some face here and kept the game entertaining. There are many things to be done to fix this game and this definately isnt the magic bullet yet, but regardless someone has finally put there brain out of the box and gotten to work. hell its about time | ||
|
TheGGparadox
United States35 Posts
1. Impliment FRB like Barrin has suggested in this thread. His suggestion encourages smaller battles around the map for reasons explained in the OP. 2. MM (Modified Movement). The thread for this suggestion can be found here But to clarify on this one, I don't think this is the optimal change to deal with the "deathball syndrome". I think that the only way to really help with unit clumping is to change how units directly interact with eachother by changing the unit AI itself. However, MM is an easy implementation that can be done by tournaments or mapmakers. (Note: this is still unexplored territory and not enough testing has been done with this particular idea.) 3. This one is obvious. Make more units that require high levels of micro and babysitting. Blizzard is arguably trying to do this with HotS in some ways (Viper, Hydra w/ speed upgrade, widow mine for splitting units and area control, etc.) but at the same time making other units that require minimal micro (warhound, battle hellion, tempest). I think the best way to do this is to, again, change unit pathing and AI to function similarly to BW without the stupid bugs like dragoon AI (ewwww). I mean no auto-clumping, smart targeting or whatever its called, and other things like that. It makes me sad to see amazing posts like Barrin's forgotten. It also makes me sad to read posts saying that it wouldn't be worthwhile to put any major design changes into the game because it would reset the metagame and all of the time that people have spent developing strategies or tweaking balance for the past 2 years will go to waste (that was a really long sentence xD). While the above is true, I would gladly spend 1.5 to 2 years (if it would take that long) to rebalance the game if it meant that at the end, the game would be twice as enjoyable to play and to watch. If you assume that HotS comes out towards the end of this year, and LotV coming out in another 2-3 years, and that having a similar life-span if not longer than HotS, sc2 will have about 6 or 7 more years of life at the least. So here are 2 questions to think about: Why not dramatically change the game now instead of regretting keeping it the same for those 6 years? Why not play a game that has faulty balance (Note: not even WoL is perfectly balanced yet though it is very close) for 2 years to have a game on par with BW for the next 4, 5, or maybe even more after that? EDIT: I just found another good idea by NubbleST in this thread here. As stated in his OP, he originally posted it in the MM thread i referred to in point #2. this is possibly a much better idea than the #2 but I will leave it there because I beleive it still has potential. | ||
|
Gendi2545
South Africa50 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
3953 Posts
On March 17 2012 02:33 Barrin wrote: [Now don't get me wrong: I don't straight up dislike Terrible, Terrible Damage. What I dislike is how the way they used it fundamentally reduces the complexity of SC in a profound way. To me and many others (whether they're aware of it or not), it is less intellectually satisfying. The replayability/longevity of SC2 is severely hampered by it for us. I really don't want to offend anyone here, but quite literally Blizzard is catering to casual players at the expense of competitive/intellectual/hardcore players; essentially for the sake of making money and not for love of the game. Personally, I am really not cool with this.] This is a conspiracy theory, backed up by no evidence. You can argue that units doing a lot of damage is a bad game design decision, but to argue that it's to cater to casuals and to increase sales is to make a baseless and highly insulting accusation. Firstly, there's nothing to suggest that casuals like getting their armies blown up in a few seconds. Secondly, no one is buying this game based off internet research on how fast units die in SC2. Thirdly, of all the ways they can cater to casuals, hiding ranks, removing ladders, adding tutorials and practice leagues, why would they intentionally also increase damage to cater to casuals? Seriously, how much more money do you think they made off SC2 because you think units do too much damage? | ||
|
Ammoth
Sweden389 Posts
| ||
|
wcr.4fun
Belgium685 Posts
| ||
|
Meatex
Australia283 Posts
On July 14 2012 23:37 paralleluniverse wrote: This is a conspiracy theory, backed up by no evidence. You can argue that units doing a lot of damage is a bad game design decision, but to argue that it's to cater to casuals and to increase sales is to make a baseless and highly insulting accusation. Terrible terrible damage is a phrase coined by Dustin Browder - you know, the guy who designed Starcraft 2 - and while from memory he didn't say it was specifically to cater to casuals I seem to remember him saying something along the lines of more exciting for a broader audience | ||
|
Big J
Austria16234 Posts
On July 15 2012 00:10 Meatex wrote: Terrible terrible damage is a phrase coined by Dustin Browder - you know, the guy who designed Starcraft 2 - and while from memory he didn't say it was specifically to cater to casuals I seem to remember him saying something along the lines of more exciting for a broader audience If anything, it's a marketing phrase. In an RTS, people want to see armies. You are not going to get RTS fans that played SupCom to play SC2, by saying: "Watch small skirmishes including little groups of units slowly battling it out". You label the stuff as: "Watch epic battles where huge armies collide" Whether or not this has happened from BW to SC2 is a different story. Seeing how much AoE damage has been turned down in SC2, I absolutly don't think that this was a design philosophy. I mean, just WATCH the video in the OP. Not just listen to it. The one time it's 2 Archons, the next time it's 8 Stalkers, then it's 7 Hydralisks... that do "terrible, terrible damage". So what does a reaver do, if 8 stalkers do terrible, terrible damage? I guess: + Show Spoiler + Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, damage | ||
| ||
