EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 112
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
[]Phase[]
Belgium927 Posts
| ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On March 21 2013 18:49 Niyanyo wrote: So, apparently there seems to be a new KeSPA map that introduces 6 gold minerals and 1 high yield gas per base. Here is the source on a kespa forum. It is also on the Korean server as [Test] KeSPA Fighting Spirit v0.1 When i saw this I thought instantly of this thread, hope to read Barrin's opinion on this. Here is it in all its glory. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/40X1trI.jpg) HOOOOOhhhhhhh. Nerd chills man. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
We'll see how it plays. It's entirely possible that a lot of KeSPA maps end up being garbage, but if even one map a season is interesting and fun in a new way, it's great for SC2 long term. Neo Planet S is a great map, and it produces good games. The new Fighting Spirit takes adds the BW incentive to expand (it takes a lot of bases to utilize all your workers if you're making enough), but it turbo-charges the SC2 incentive (bases mine out faster compared to BW). If this map is even kind of balanced, it's sure to produce some crazy games. And crazy games, even if they're not good, are useful for learning! On February 08 2013 02:36 Gfire wrote: Ribbon, you always post such wisdom. It's on my list to make a map with scrap robots. Let me know how it works out ♥♥♥ | ||
|
GodTroll
Canada41 Posts
I think everyone can agree on SC2's resource mechanic missing something. I've always been saying that it's the core-mechanics that makes a game, not the variables like unit stats. I remember a while back, my buddies and I were experimenting with the High yield resources to mimic BroodWar resource mechanics, but I haven't had much success in it (mostly due to pre-nerf mules and saturation time problems). This change would also have huge impact on other aspects of the game balance, and as sad as it is, we've already come a long way with SC2's faulty mechanics. You'd have to throw away everything we've built, and start from building the correct mechanics. And knowing Blizzard, they will NEVER EVER touch upon their faulty core-mechanics. I remember Dustin Browder on GameDevPanel saying something along the lines of "Blizzard's approach has always been trying to tweak with small unit stats, not the mechanics of the game". | ||
|
Rake_EU
Sweden8 Posts
Are there HoTS versions to be found?  | ||
|
Senshin
Netherlands115 Posts
 | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
I don't think blizz really succeeded with the casuals tbh, I mean sure they got the sales but every time I want to mess around and try to play unranked or team games its a 3 min+ wait. Maps are really nice btw. edit: Also I felt as though there was more "terrible terrible damage" in BW because the action was less centered on a deathball which made it so things were dying all over the map, not to mention there were more units and the explosion + gore was much more plentiful than in sc2. | ||
|
lil emo
France109 Posts
the robe suits him like no one's business should revamp op | ||
|
jume
Germany25 Posts
They are also not available on the EU-Realm. Thx. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
| ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
| ||
|
IeZaeL
Italy991 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
Problem was never that people were unwilling to expand once their existing bases ran out of minerals. Problem was more along the lines of there being zero difference in economy between different play styles. Reducing mineral amounts on mineral nodes from 1500 ---> 1000 merely puts an aggressive timer on players. It will probably lead to less passive play. But it might just as well backfire completely and lead to constant forced all-ins from the player who falls behind once the first 3 bases mine out. Any player who fails to maintain constant 3-base-economy will be under much more pressure to act. Most games which are even will probably just keep featuring equal identical economic outputs with equal reward for equal risk. What starbow achieved, in contrast, was to reward increased risk with increased reward (you expand more means you risk more by spreading out more, but at the same time you gain more). With the new LotV model the 3 simultaneous bases ceiling still seemingly remains. Only difference is players are put on a tighter clock and forced into action earlier. Maybe leads to more action. Maybe backfires completely and forces desperate all-ins. Either way the first 6 months will be fun and succesful and everyone will praise it because the meta is new and chaotic. What happens after those 6 initial months is the interesting part. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On November 08 2014 06:00 LaLuSh wrote: They hardly changed anything. Problem was never that people were unwilling to expand once their existing bases ran out of minerals. Problem was more along the lines of there being zero difference in economy between different play styles. Reducing mineral amounts on mineral nodes from 1500 ---> 1000 merely puts an aggressive timer on players. It will probably lead to less passive play. But it might just as well backfire completely and lead to constant forced all-ins from the player who falls behind once the first 3 bases mine out. Any player who fails to maintain constant 3-base-economy will be under much more pressure to act. Most games which are even will probably just keep featuring equal identical economic outputs with equal reward for equal risk. What starbow achieved, in contrast, was to reward increased risk with increased reward (you expand more means you risk more by spreading out more, but at the same time you gain more). With the new LotV model the 3 simultaneous bases ceiling still seemingly remains. Only difference is players are put on a tighter clock and forced into action earlier. Maybe leads to more action. Maybe backfires completely and forces desperate all-ins. Either way the first 6 months will be fun and succesful and everyone will praise it because the meta is new and chaotic. What happens after those 6 initial months is the interesting part. Do you know if the rumor is true that base saturation has been reduced to 12 workers? If so then the 3 base economy standard is indeed greatly altered. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
| ||
|
Ammanas
Slovakia2166 Posts
And, most importantly, there is no way to tell how exactly the economy works just from playing it few hours at Blizzcon. Nobody would find out if they changed economy to work more like BW/STarbow (meaning the 'reward'for expanding more) or not. They very well may have. We will have to see what next couple of days bring. Just the sheer fact that they kinda acknowledged that current 3 base meta is a problem is amazing news, imo. | ||
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
The people who tried the game may not have noticed. I'll eagerly await the SC2 panel. | ||
|
L3monsta
New Zealand149 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9391 Posts
What starbow achieved, in contrast, was to reward increased risk with increased reward (you expand more means you risk more by spreading out more, but at the same time you gain more). With the new LotV model the 3 simultaneous bases ceiling still seemingly remains. Only difference is players are put on a tighter clock and forced into action earlier. Maybe leads to more action. Maybe backfires completely and forces desperate all-ins. I think you could say that the BW-economy rewarded the race which was mobile enough to defend multiple bases, but simultaneously gave the immobile race the choice to stay on fewer bases. Thus, PvZ and TvZ were very 2base heavy from toss and terran while zerg heavily outexpanded them. This allowed toss and terran to be aggressive against zerg. On the other hand, if they had to defend 3 or 4 bases at the 10minute mark, they wouldn't be able to put on the same amount of pressure on the zerg player, and it would more likely lead to stale gameplay with both races just defending their bases. My opinion is still that BW had the superior economy, but the effect of it is overblown. I think it's more effective to incentivize action in all phases of the game by buffing harass-units and escape-mechanics (so the puishment for losing a battle is less), than reworking the entire economy. When we have stale lategame such as Raven PDD and Swarm Hosts, I believe that's more an issue of poor unit design than a flaw with the economy. The argument that the mobile race can't armytrade efficiently against the immobile race becasue he doesn't have a signficiantly superior economy isn't neccesarily true in my opinion. With the BW economy, it's possible that you could have an efficient trade even if you are 40% cost-inefficient. While with an SC2-economy, the race that is spread out more has a smaller income advantage. But does that imply that it's impossible to incentivize armytrades against the immobile race? Or should the units just be balanced or designed to take that inot account? I think the BW-approach - in a vacuum - makes it easier to reward the desired behaviour, but I don't believe its a necesity. Unitdesign is still the most important factor in determining whether the game is fun to play and watch. | ||
| ||
