EPTEDIT: Okay, finished. Truly a Boss post, and I would love for this to be added to the 1.5 PTR (if it even comes up).
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Fencar
United States2694 Posts
EDIT: Okay, finished. Truly a Boss post, and I would love for this to be added to the 1.5 PTR (if it even comes up). | ||
|
DomiNater
United States527 Posts
I just fired up the Devolution map 6M2G and I spawned Top right with a siege tank in siege mode in the 4th base that I owned. I made 1 drone and the game tells me to make an overlord lol. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On March 17 2012 06:04 bgx wrote: 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. I don't see anything in the article that's a convincing argument for reducing mineral patches. There's a bunch of analysis about problems the game has, but I don't buy the argument that this fix will help - and in fact there are more obvious solutions that are overlooked in the article. There are a whole bunch of variables to tweak here, # of mineral patches is only one, and it's completely untested what effect changing it will have. For all we know reducing income makes rushes more powerful (rush distance stays the same while gaining minerals for economy infrastructure takes longer). And the game needs to be rebalanced around this anyway, so it's actually possible to question all variables. For instance, the relative cost of tech, production facilities, supply, army, economy, max supply could all be subject to change - as it's not clear at all why the current ratios are necessarily any good, outside of the fact we have a functioning game. However that's probably not going to happen, as the game would have to change so much then. | ||
|
ElMacedonian
United States79 Posts
what if the initial base stayed at 8 minerals but the rest went to six? that way we wouldnt really have to relearn the game, idk just kinda seems like a more feasible transition you now? on your map devolution would making the two cliffs in the middle be better as holes? i can see collo and siege tanks really abusing them instead of using them as the positioning tools they are meant to be | ||
|
gCgCrypto
Germany297 Posts
| ||
|
marttorn
Norway5211 Posts
| ||
DivinO
United States4796 Posts
I think this is the sort of thing we need for dynamic gameplay. Possible changes to the roach might also do something. I'm a zerg by the way. | ||
|
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
It doesn't feel right to respond without putting a bit more thought into the response. You have obviously put a lot of thought into this. Before I really think this through and try to respond 2 quick things:
| ||
|
Cirqueenflex
499 Posts
| ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
On March 17 2012 06:32 JOJOsc2news wrote: This is such an interesting concept. It doesn't feel right to respond without putting a bit more thought into the response. You have obviously put a lot of thought into this. Before I really think this through and try to respond 2 quick things:
I'm guessing "Example 1" might end with something like "a single queen could suffice" or "work" , ... based on the context of the sentence | ||
|
hiro protagonist
1294 Posts
| ||
|
eNjiin
Germany27 Posts
| ||
|
Fanatic-Templar
Canada5819 Posts
| ||
|
leecH
Germany385 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On March 17 2012 06:28 Grumbels wrote: I don't see anything in the article that's a convincing argument for reducing mineral patches. There's a bunch of analysis about problems the game has, but I don't buy the argument that this fix will help - and in fact there are more obvious solutions that are overlooked in the article. There are a whole bunch of variables to tweak here, # of mineral patches is only one, and it's completely untested what effect changing it will have. For all we know reducing income makes rushes more powerful (rush distance stays the same while gaining minerals for economy infrastructure takes longer). And the game needs to be rebalanced around this anyway, so it's actually possible to question all variables. For instance, the relative cost of tech, production facilities, supply, army, economy, max supply could all be subject to change - as it's not clear at all why the current ratios are necessarily any good, outside of the fact we have a functioning game. However that's probably not going to happen, as the game would have to change so much then. Grumbels seems to not realize that user manipulation is very limited, and thus what he is saying is completely non-material. Only Blizzard can change the things you stated. What point would it be to argue over things we have no control over? We can change mineral patches. The change will improve the game play over all. Is it the optimal solution? No. Is it better than what we have now? Yes. | ||
|
Schplyok
64 Posts
On March 17 2012 02:33 Barrin wrote: This equilibrium, I believe, has been fundamentally broken (on purpose) by Blizzard. You are giving them too much credit. They couldn't have anticipated the results of their game design, in fact no one could have. | ||
|
Leetley
1796 Posts
| ||
|
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
On March 17 2012 06:34 zhurai wrote: I'm guessing "Example 1" might end with something like "a single queen could suffice" or "work" , ... based on the context of the sentence I agree. The context is quite clear and it is not a big issue. I just wanted to let the OP know. | ||
|
Rolezn
63 Posts
It might be a huge impact in the way we all play now, but it will have a great significant play in the future by having amazing games. | ||
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
All in all, i think such changes should at least be tried as they have a very, very good shot at improving the game by a ton. | ||
| ||
