|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
Having played a few games on the 6min Version of Entombed Valley, I can say I really like the idea of fewer mineral patches. I am still unsure whether I like the 1 gas or 2 gas version more, though.
And as a Zerg player, I feel like expanding all over the map just fits the race, the swarm theme etc.
However, I think this "expanding all over the map" could be a big concern, especially for Protoss and Terran. While Zerg likes being all over the map with their expansions and can handle aggression put on remote expansions well due to their high mobility, I feel like Terran and Protoss could have a lot of trouble defending this many bases at once since their units are slower, forcing them to take bases which are close to each other. Static defenses seem to be "more expensive", since P/T has to invest in an additional Nexus/CC anyway. + Show Spoiler +(Hopefully there is no major flaw in this argument, it's 1am over here...)
But I for one am really interested how the game would develop if this change would be implemented, especially when some of the pros start creating new builds/strats revolving around more expansions.
|
the games are already becoming anti death ball just due to the meta game, however i think its too early in the game to decided that you want to make such huge drastic changes,
that isnt saying that im happy with blizzards decision to make such power based unit play
|
Edit: NVM!! 7m it is 
|
Change is scary in a game like this; a lot of things would be changed and we would start all over with strats and seeing if the game is balanced around less mineral patches.
|
Amazing article! I support this. I want to see how strategies would change after a few months on pro level.
|
United States7166 Posts
This man deserves all the stars on TL. Great article, agree 100%. I used to say something similar to this,but that the issue was the addition of macro mechanics in SC2. Their removal would have a similar effect as reducing minerals per base. However mules/spawn larva/etc are so major and important for sc2's design that removing them would be an unreasonable move for blizzard. Reducing mineral patches however is a much more practical and also better overall solution.
|
Omnomnomnom long quality article, probably the most interesting thing i've read on TL. I certainly agree with the objectives of your proposed changes, in terms of slowing down the progression of matches and encouraging more and smaller engagements.
Your ideas are very well thought-through and are well worth experimenting with, I really hope this gains some momentum
|
best thing i read in a long time
i hate blizzard, they know all this, but CHOOSE to do differently because they are greedy cunts.
|
A very heavy read, difficult to parse, but I enjoyed your suggestions and their motivation. I feel the best way to move things forward would be a couple of high-level games adapted to these maps, coupled with a spoonful of time. I would like to see a top level game actually played out on a new <8m map. Considering the time it has taken for standard macro to develop in SC2, the horizon is quite dizzying. I also feel AOE and map control units would need rebalance for this to work, especially considering mech TvT, which unfortunately the community cannot be responsible for.
|
|
|
seems like a good idea, but is changes one of the fundamental design decisions blizz made, I don't see them such dratic changes at this point. Also to properly playtest this the whole game would need to be rebalanced, right now terran would be favored in this kind of maps imo
|
I upvoted, and I am fully on board. I will be on later looking for some games with this to try it out.
|
While I believe your idea is good, you've tainted it. You said at the very beginning that you weren't going to shit on SC2, or even really suggest that we change SC2 into BW. Only, you went on to do that exact thing. It's like you couldn't make this (really good, actually) suggestion without taking numerous unfounded and unnecessary shots at Blizzard.
What you essentially did was make a ZvP strategy thread with an ultra cool new build that we should all do, but waste it by throwing in half a page of Protoss imba whine. Really disappointing, actually.
|
I like this idea  One thing I've noticed, upon going back to BW occasionally, is that I have a much harder time amassing a supply-capped army, it takes sooo much longer and requires so much more work to pull it off in a standard melee game, whereas in sc2 it's something that happens relatively quick in a game. Cutting down on the amount of available resources per base would definitely help increase the longevity of each match, and would also help give a wider window of time for the players to play out a game that doesn't involve "death-ball" compositions. Great post, hopefully ideas like this get considered by Blizzard in the future :D
|
Took the time to read the entire post, and I just have to give my compliments. This was obviously very well thought out and is backed by an unreal amount of statistics and a lot time testing.
It would be sooo interesting to see this implemented. It would almost be like SC2 was suddenly a brand new game. I believe that's both the strongest effect this idea would have, but also the scariest. SC2 has matured over the time it's been out, and many strategies and build orders are finally reaching their refined state. But of course you covered that too. I agree HotS would be an excellent opportunity to give this idea a try.
I don't think it would kill blizzard to add a map like this to the map pool and give everyone an extra veto.
Excellent post OP!
|
I read it all in one sitting, quite impressed.
Lets really drive this one as far as possible with the release of HoTS, and pressure all tournament organizers to make maps with this ruleset of 6m2g, even some gas only bases, or mineral only bases.
At the time I made my thread 'I don't understand the viewer count for LoL' I could not quite articulate why I personally hated the game so much, so I will take the opportunity to try and articulate my thoughts now and also try to bring comparison to SC2.
The reason LoL is actually terrible, is because you are rewarded for not interacting with the enemy opponents. You will earn more money farming minions than killing enemy champions, unless you get a kill rate of 1 per 90s or faster. You are essentially making a big risk, high 'difficulty' move, for his relativity 'easy' way of staying alive. Every moment you aren't killing creeps for XP and Gold is time wasted, moving up the river from bottom to top to get a gank is not worth it, because the opponent just needs some decent map awareness and move from the middle of the lane towards his tower which is obviously a much smaller retreat walking distance. I also draw similar parallels in gaining XP from tower kills, and not being able to deny creeps.
This issue only gets increased as the gold value of an enemy player decreases as their score worsens.
Now I'm not saying that LoL is just the worst game ever for idiots with no skill. The people who play it are actually pretty damn smart, I've read some guides on how to play a hero and was quite amazed with how well articulated and thought out these people were. I'm saying that it is completely unviewable to any non-LoL player because there is hardly any reward for action.
Now how does this relate to SC2?
With a higher mineral count per base, you essentially tell the player that he can hold a position for a longer time. This will lead to a mentality that expanding is a less risky move than attacking, and quite frankly it is. As a result of this thought process, we get the complete IDIOCY that is PvZ right now, where zerg scouts a FFE, takes 3 bases incredibly fast, and as protoss scouts the third going up he takes his own third. The armies clash at 17:00, protoss attacks before broodlord and wins. This will be figured out as zergs make a countertiming to this, but the issue is that the fight will continue to revolve around ONE engagement.
Now, in regards to unit clumping vs AoE. I draw the comparison that, as you are limited in BW with unit selection, and must practise to get faster, in SC2 you do not necessarily practise to be faster, but rather more conscious of your units. The tendency to clump up will be easily circumvented as people start to continuously move in more spread out groups, and eventually this will continue on until we have hardly any dead-zones on the map.
|
I don't think map makers can make a difference here either, sure they can alter maps but the pros have been practicing on 8m2g for EVER and changing that now would be a big game changer. Would GSL catch on? would MLG be the first? I know a year ago I was saying custom maps would never make it into tournaments because pros practice on ladder and need ladder maps to be consistent, but that changed. However, changing the amount of resources in a map is a HUGE change that would affect the game in every way, I don't know if we're ready for that.
|
This seems like a cool idea... I might play my friend on it and post a replay somewhere. My question, before I play it, would be how many drones would it be to saturate an expansion with only 6 mineral patches?
|
On March 17 2012 09:59 emc wrote:
I don't think map makers can make a difference here either, sure they can alter maps but the pros have been practicing on 8m2g for EVER and changing that now would be a big game changer. Would GSL catch on? would MLG be the first? I know a year ago I was saying custom maps would never make it into tournaments because pros practice on ladder and need ladder maps to be consistent, but that changed. However, changing the amount of resources in a map is a HUGE change that would affect the game in every way, I don't know if we're ready for that.
I think one of the OPs points was that yes, it is a gigantic game changer. It means re-balancing the entire game.
But that will happen anyway in HotS (as the OP says) and maybe it is the opportunity to try it out.
|
On March 17 2012 09:59 emc wrote:
I don't think map makers can make a difference here either, sure they can alter maps but the pros have been practicing on 8m2g for EVER and changing that now would be a big game changer. Would GSL catch on? would MLG be the first? I know a year ago I was saying custom maps would never make it into tournaments because pros practice on ladder and need ladder maps to be consistent, but that changed. However, changing the amount of resources in a map is a HUGE change that would affect the game in every way, I don't know if we're ready for that.
I think you missed the part where he said the most realistic time to implement this is the HOTS release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
