EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
pycho
Paraguay372 Posts
| ||
|
minilance
Canada500 Posts
On March 17 2012 05:04 Diamond wrote: I'm actually shocked people took the time to read this. When Barirn previewed it for me I was SURE everyone was going to see the length and skip it. That being said, lots of good response thus far, maybe I'll throw a small no prize match on it with some pros to see it in action. do this please  | ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
[[ Note I'm not saying we _should_ change it, but it could probably be looked into? idk... just an idea~ ]] | ||
|
NuNi
United States21 Posts
| ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
On March 17 2012 05:50 Grumbels wrote: I think this is a bit of an arbitrary fix. Why not argue for reducing the number of minerals per patch or making the increase of income per worker less linear? Didnt you read the article? The actual "side effects" of cutting 1-2 minerals are mostly intriguing and appealing (less worker saturation and its benefit to varying the gameplay). The whole article is not about that we need lets say 20% cut to the economy. | ||
|
1st_Panzer_Div.
United States621 Posts
so the saying goes. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
This post was amazing to read and actually seems like the most logical fix. I hope to see this one day take effect. Great read Barrin. | ||
|
stanik
Canada213 Posts
Your graph of minerals per minute seems to be according to blizzard time. While the gas graph is according to real time (atleast the SC2) component. | ||
|
Beakyboo
United States485 Posts
Also, I can only imagine that mules would be ridiculously powerful with only 6 mineral patches, to the point that you'd probably want to do something about it to make testing even worthwhile. They completely go against the philosophy behind the change. It will certainly increase the incentive to expand, but the goal seems a bit lofty/idealized. You're still going to have brutal protoss timings and death balls, just getting there will be a bit different. And I'm not entirely convinced it will actually be any better. I could totally imagine this whole idea completely backfiring against your goals in unforeseen ways. The game just isn't that simple. | ||
|
13JackaL
United States577 Posts
On March 17 2012 06:03 NuNi wrote: Another claiming that Sc2 is broken because it's different from BW. I feel like there's alot more positional strategy rather then raw-skill-micro which leaves more room for mistake and makes it more accessible to those who haven't played alot of RTS games in the past. Though this makes the game seem easier, you end up taking more knowledge of the game into effect. IE a Terran player with alot of experience could easily out position and out engage a Protoss with more supply who knew less about the engagement he was getting into. On the other hand, late game TvP can be ridiculous in the sense that whoever's army dies first, loses the game in most cases. So even an inferior player can take games off someone better simply by getting sick EMPs/Storms. If there is less money per base along with more bases, we would not always be forced into these stupid deathball scenarios in which TerribleTerribleDamage occurs and the game abruptly ends. I know most people believe that TvZ is the most exciting match up because of all of the action that is going on with harass and drops and pushing... Imagine if all of the matchups were like that? | ||
|
Fealthas
607 Posts
| ||
|
TRAP[yoo]
Hungary6026 Posts
i want to see matches between pros to see how it changes everything | ||
|
Erik.TheRed
United States1655 Posts
| ||
|
DuBlooNz
United Kingdom103 Posts
This is a strange article in the fact that that it seems acheveable as opposed to most peoples ways of fixing the problems. | ||
|
Gnizz
Germany44 Posts
I agree with your premise and your solution, although I have one concern. While encouraging skirmishes and abolishing the "deathball syndrome" is the right thing to do in my opinion, this might break the game completely in its current state. The need to take more bases will at the same time create a need to control more space efficiently. And this is where the current mechanics in the game could fall apart. Not only is there a distinct imbalance concerning the availability of space controlling units or structures, but also I feel a lack of sufficient methods in total. Pickung up your MOBA example, the action all over the map only works decently because there are certain escape abilities/delaying abilities to allow for a somewhat organized response to aggression or movement on the map. You bring up the improved durability of bases caused by reduced overall army DPS, but I dont think that it is enough (certain critical masses to kill workers will still be reached fast). In Sc2, the only "space controlling" units are Sentries, Siege Tanks, burrowed Banelings, Infestors (although the reduced root duration kinda makes it very inefficient at controlling space). These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. The only reliable (read:easy to use) unit is the Siege Tank: Position once, never worry about the unit again for defensive purposes of a certain are, whereas the spellcasters require a certain amount of attention and burrowed Banelings require a mistake of the opponent. I don't want to explicitly make the comparison to Broodwar, it should be pretty obvious. The result or problem I fear is that the need to expand caused by your proposed changes may lead to a very confusing chaotic game, which undoubtedly will require a high amount of skill, but will be frustrating and hard to follow and maybe overall not as fun. I completely agree with your goals, and I think that your idea is very, very valid and MUST be considered by the community and Blizzard. But changes like this will require a lot of work and may cause other, seemingly unrelated problems which we can only adress in collaboration with Blizzard. I don't think the community can solve this on its own. TL;DR: Lots of bases may cause very chaotic gameplay due to the lack of space controlling/delaying mechanics in the game. | ||
|
VictorJones
United States235 Posts
| ||
|
Twiggs
United States600 Posts
On March 17 2012 06:09 Beakyboo wrote: People buy into posts like this a little too much I think just because they come off as sophisticated on the surface. No amount of theory crafting is going to convince me about something so untested. It would take a ton of testing to really draw any conclusions about this, you can't anticipate all the effects. Also, I can only imagine that mules would be ridiculously powerful with only 6 mineral patches, to the point that you'd probably want to do something about it to make testing even worthwhile. They completely go against the philosophy behind the change. It will certainly increase the incentive to expand, but the goal seems a bit lofty/idealized. You're still going to have brutal protoss timings and death balls, just getting there will be a bit different. And I'm not entirely convinced it will actually be any better. I could totally imagine this whole idea completely backfiring against your goals in unforeseen ways. The game just isn't that simple. The reason we receive these posts so well is because we want them to stand out on the message boards. I think this guy deserves mad props for putting the work into a subject he feels will help the SC 2 scene greatly. If you read his posts he says countless times that it needs testing. But the work he put into the post is a hell of a lot better than people just whining about not liking the game as much. Also this theory would never get tested if the community didn't voice their approval of it in such a grand scale. Ultimately we need Blizzards cooperation to do something like this and, as you can see by the numerous threads on Bnet about UI flaws, they take a lot of outspokeness to even get a response out from something like this... | ||
|
bamaman
United States1 Post
I think another thing besides LRB that would increase the tension around expanding would be decreasing the size of mains. This would push players to build more production facilities around the map, thereby increasing the value of each expansion and decreasing the value of 1 base plays. For any mapmapker thinking of trying out 6m2g or 7m2g, I'd also implore you to think about shrinking the size of the main bases at the same time. | ||
|
Ner0
United States131 Posts
On March 17 2012 05:53 Barrin wrote: I could not have asked for a better reception of this! <3 u all I will read every last post and reply where necessary when I get a chance (little later today probably) Yeah that zergling thing on Devolution was a little embarrassing lol >.< posting to say that it's fixed (so are the download links) I apologize for not telling Browder to do something about workers/food/cap at Blizzcon. Thank you for posting this it greatly reflects aspects of SC II that I think can be improved upon. | ||
|
Al Bundy
7257 Posts
This game is two years old, yet will regularly see non-existent positioning and unit control even at the highest level. Clumping everything together, a-moving the whole thing while micro'ing 2 spellcasters is common even at pro level. This Deathball phenomenon may very well be tied to the amount of resources per base, nonetheless I still believe that the players' playstyle and decision making skills play a big part too. Deathball not the only tactic available, nor is it the most efficient one, and it holds true even pre-7m2g. I think the difficulty of properly micro'ing a max supply late-game army is part of the reason why the skill ceiling is so high in Sc2. This game is very fast-paced, and the AI is inconvenient; these factors contribute to raise the skill ceiling in my opinion. So I wonder, will we ever see proper max supply, late-game army micromanagement in Sc2 ? On the contrary, will the players keep focusing on smaller armies' micro, and leave the max supply micro unrefined & underdeveloped like it is now? Is it even humanly possible to refine and perfect max supply micro in Sc2? | ||
| ||
