|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 17 2012 07:34 fraktoasters wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 07:01 RoboBob wrote:
1. Fewer resources per base will increase the size of deathballs. Right now 1 base requires approximately 26 supply in workers. As you correctly pointed out, the cap in SC2 stands around 3 mining bases max, which translates into 80 supply of workers. However, by moving to 6m1hg we shed 8 workers per base. Which frees up 24 extra supply to increase the size of deathballs from 120 to 144 supply. More than a 20% increase in military strength. I will take 20% extra army and 33% less area to defend over 33% more income any day of the week. So would most people, which is why 2 base play has been so strong in SC2 for so long.
If you have 24 less workers than normal you're mining a lot less so this will have a humongous impact on deathball sizes (24 workers is a huge deal). We're not talking about having less workers but the same income. This change will make staying on 2/3 bases strictly worse because you're mining less.
No, I think you're completely wrong about this. Your mining rate has no impact upon your deathball size. In fact, mining rate is actually inversely relationship to deathball size. Just look at 5 OC builds. Players would get to 200 food slower with 6m1hg than they would with 8m2g. However, after reaching 200 food, those deathballs will be bigger and stronger than those under 8m2g. And "economy" style builds will be MUCH more difficult to defend.
Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 07:01 RoboBob wrote:
2. Fewer resources per base will make it more difficult to defend third and fourth mining bases. This wasn't a problem in BW because defender's advantage was strong. In BW, it was possible to repel 120 food deathballs with just 30-40 supply of defending units, as long as they were properly positioned. It didn't make sense to go up to 140 because the extra supply wouldn't help against a small defending force. But in SC2, the only thing that can stop a deathball is another deathball. This is especially true when dealing with Protoss, because with warpin there's no defenders advantage at all. Yes SC2 is poorly designed in other ways too. But this already happens in SC2 and people know how to deal with this scenario already.
You totally ignored my point. Wishing it away doesn't make it so. This is a serious problem under 8m2g SC2, and it would become a MUCH worse problem under 6m1hg.
Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 07:01 RoboBob wrote:
3. Fewer resources per base will make the process of remaxing more difficult. This will discourage agression, as everyone would become more fearful of losing their perfect 200/200 army. This will force players to bank more money and build more production facilities before thy feel safe to engage. Deathball games are boring enough to watch as it is, this change will simply add an extra boring SimCity game on top of it. Your ability to remax is more difficult for both sides. There's no reason why it would make someone not want to be the aggressor. Who but bronze level players go into a fight with your mentality? The point of attacking is to try to trade resources in an advantageous manner. You're pulling this I don't want to lose my perfect army out of no where; people aren't OCD when they play SC2.
The fewer resources that you have, the fewer units you can produce. For example, I can go balls-to-the-wall in TvZ with agressive tank placement because I can depend upon a massive amount of Marines popping back inside my base to defend against counterattacks. However, with 6m1hg I will have less reinforcements to defend against a max army base trade. The size of a 200 food Zerg army counterattacking remains the same under both 8m2g and 6m1hg. It's only the size of my defenses that change. To compensate for this, I would need to start leaving more units at home, which will require me to dial back aggression. Encouraging such passive play is a bad idea because it makes games more boring. It works in BW because defender's advantage exists there. It doesn't work in SC2.
Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 07:01 RoboBob wrote:
4. Fewer resources per base discourages fast tech builds. Its already very difficult (if not impossible) to successfully execute 1 base high tech builds such as 1 base BC/Collosus/Muta. Reducing resources by 20% will also delay any tech advantage you gain by 20% as well. Moving to 6m1hg would remove even more early attack options from the game, such as 1 base Banshee/Void Ray, while not affecting Zerg very much. Not only would that unbalance the game, it would also make early game play far more predictable and much more stale. Why is 2 port banshee a build worth defending?
Because the game is balanced to include it. We need MORE strategic options in this game, not LESS. 6m1hg doesn't add any new strategy to the game, it simply reduces the number of viable strategic options. Especially early agression builds, which would assymetrically benefit zerg (and protoss, too a lesser extent).
I think way too many people in this thread are trying to make SC2 be BW with crappier units and better graphics. Without considering the negative consequences. Let SC2 be SC2.
|
Ok I just played against AI on devolution with 6min and 1 high gas and it was a very enjoyable experience
|
I read the OP and got through page 5 of responses, sorry if what I say has already been mentioned a little later.
The OP is a very interesting idea. Strangely enough, right before I logged into TL today and saw this topic, I was thinking about RTS design and came to the same conclusion that an RTS game should require more bases for a maxxed army to create more small scale conflict all over the map. However, I do question lowering mineral patches as the method of achieving that goal. Especially in regards to the main.
The overall idea seems well reasoned, but I do have my doubts. Specifically, I think one point is very briefly brought up and then dismissed far too easily:
•When there is less resources per base, you are spending a greater percent of your overall income to expand (which by itself makes expanding less appealing). However, this effect is quite minor. Furthermore, having a relatively less percentage of the desired income rate makes choosing not to expand all the more risky. It's slightly harder to expand (which will be counteracted with fairly easier/closer bases, so not really), but not expanding will be even more dangerous. Since your opponent will be feeling this too, overall you will want (and need) to expand more often.
I don't think the effect is nearly as minor as you believe. The PvP matchup already shows us that it is extremely difficult to expand against an opponent who chooses not to let you do so. With the warpgate mechanic (terrible, I know, should just switch it with zealot leg-speed on the tech tree, but that's a different topic), the primary defenders advantage (walking time) is gone. With less resources, getting to robo tech (the typical way to bust a 4-gate contain) is a much more costly option that may already make you too vulnerable. Even if you manage to make the contain retreat, you still have to plop down 400 minerals into a nexus at the expansion and that will mean death unless you were really able to get your robo facility to pay off on one base (harder to do with less resources). Without a large enough mineral supply on one base, early aggressive contains could become too powerful. One player can force all games into either a win or a one base v one base stalemate if the starting base does not have enough minerals to allow for one base tech options.
PvP is the most clear example of that happening, but I think aggressive TvZ could completely eliminate early zerg expansions as they might be resource starved on making enough lings to break bunker contains. Same could potentially be said of PvZ with a ramp cannoning protoss. All early aggression plays (cheese) that limit opponents to one base become much more powerful if that one base is weaker.
Overall, the idea is certainly worthy of some playtesting. However, I fear that most playtesters will be trying to expand and create the desired effect rather than truly playing to win. Their play may create great games, but then take it to a stage with real money on the line and you may have a repeat of ActionJesus (not specifically 6-pool, but the same cheesy win > play-well mentality), except that there may not ever be any counter plays discovered.
|
I'm opposed to this idea. I think we're likely to see fewer expansions and less tech as a result of a change like this.
Why?
Simple. Let's say that making a Nexus means you have to forfeit 2 Stalkers. With 10 Stalkers vs. 12 Stalkers from your opponent, you might be able to defend and live if you have superior positioning (defender's advantage); but with 4 Stalkers vs. 6 Stalkers from your opponent, you're going to get rolled.
Now, you might argue that all this means is that you're just going to need to expand a bit later, when you can mimic that 10 vs. 12 unit scenario. Wrong. One big part of defender's advantage is that you typically have an extra production cycle over your opponent, because your units are ready to fight as soon as they come out of your production facilities whereas your opponents' units need to travel all the way across the map. Well, with fewer resources on all sides, that extra production cycle is worth fewer units, and thus a smaller defender's advantage.
TL;DR: With fewer units all around and a smaller defender's advantage, getting out more units quickly becomes imperative, or you can get rolled by an opponent investing strongly into his army. In contrast, expanding and teching become less appealing options, and you get a whole lot of unbalanced 1base, tier 1 play.
|
This should've been Final Edits
|
Canada13379 Posts
This is so smart and I am more than willing to try it out. Seriously, if only we had a equivalent to ICCUP in SC2 so people can meet others of similar skill level to try and enjoy these maps :O
|
amazing post... fully agree!
The OP is a very interesting idea. Strangely enough, right before I logged into TL today and saw this topic, I was thinking about RTS design and came to the same conclusion that an RTS game should require more bases for a maxxed army to create more small scale conflict all over the map. However, I do question lowering mineral patches as the method of achieving that goal. Especially in regards to the main.
|
On March 17 2012 11:51 RenSC2 wrote:I read the OP and got through page 5 of responses, sorry if what I say has already been mentioned a little later. The OP is a very interesting idea. Strangely enough, right before I logged into TL today and saw this topic, I was thinking about RTS design and came to the same conclusion that an RTS game should require more bases for a maxxed army to create more small scale conflict all over the map. However, I do question lowering mineral patches as the method of achieving that goal. Especially in regards to the main. The overall idea seems well reasoned, but I do have my doubts. Specifically, I think one point is very briefly brought up and then dismissed far too easily: Show nested quote +•When there is less resources per base, you are spending a greater percent of your overall income to expand (which by itself makes expanding less appealing). However, this effect is quite minor. Furthermore, having a relatively less percentage of the desired income rate makes choosing not to expand all the more risky. It's slightly harder to expand (which will be counteracted with fairly easier/closer bases, so not really), but not expanding will be even more dangerous. Since your opponent will be feeling this too, overall you will want (and need) to expand more often. I don't think the effect is nearly as minor as you believe. The PvP matchup already shows us that it is extremely difficult to expand against an opponent who chooses not to let you do so. With the warpgate mechanic (terrible, I know, should just switch it with zealot leg-speed on the tech tree, but that's a different topic), the primary defenders advantage (walking time) is gone. With less resources, getting to robo tech (the typical way to bust a 4-gate contain) is a much more costly option that may already make you too vulnerable. Even if you manage to make the contain retreat, you still have to plop down 400 minerals into a nexus at the expansion and that will mean death unless you were really able to get your robo facility to pay off on one base (harder to do with less resources). Without a large enough mineral supply on one base, early aggressive contains could become too powerful. One player can force all games into either a win or a one base v one base stalemate if the starting base does not have enough minerals to allow for one base tech options. PvP is the most clear example of that happening, but I think aggressive TvZ could completely eliminate early zerg expansions as they might be resource starved on making enough lings to break bunker contains. Same could potentially be said of PvZ with a ramp cannoning protoss. All early aggression plays (cheese) that limit opponents to one base become much more powerful if that one base is weaker. Overall, the idea is certainly worthy of some playtesting. However, I fear that most playtesters will be trying to expand and create the desired effect rather than truly playing to win. Their play may create great games, but then take it to a stage with real money on the line and you may have a repeat of ActionJesus (not specifically 6-pool, but the same cheesy win > play-well mentality), except that there may not ever be any counter plays discovered.
Don't forget, with 6m1g you can't 4-gate (at least without losing the game to a competent opponent). You can't support production off of 4 gates on 1 base in 6m1g.
Each player is affected by the change, whether they are cheesing or defending and trying to play 'standard' whatever that may be in 6m1g.
It needs play testing. Not having to expand is just too strong.
|
I was one of those who questioned blizzard's design philosophy in SC2, they seemed to be going with less bases, faster army production, and much faster battles while reducing mechanics drastically. I thought it would create a very volatile game (cough Command and Conquer), and indeed it is.
I would have assumed that they would have done the opposite and created a need for players to take and manage 5-6 bases across the map, with slow army production counterbalanced by the need to create 10+ factories (for example).
|
I think 2g should be standard, gas steal would be too strong
|
On March 17 2012 11:51 RenSC2 wrote:
I don't think the effect is nearly as minor as you believe. The PvP matchup already shows us that it is extremely difficult to expand against an opponent who chooses not to let you do so. With the warpgate mechanic (terrible, I know, should just switch it with zealot leg-speed on the tech tree, but that's a different topic), the primary defenders advantage (walking time) is gone. With less resources, getting to robo tech (the typical way to bust a 4-gate contain) is a much more costly option that may already make you too vulnerable. Even if you manage to make the contain retreat, you still have to plop down 400 minerals into a nexus at the expansion and that will mean death unless you were really able to get your robo facility to pay off on one base (harder to do with less resources). Without a large enough mineral supply on one base, early aggressive contains could become too powerful. One player can force all games into either a win or a one base v one base stalemate if the starting base does not have enough minerals to allow for one base tech options.
Fallacy that he explained in the section. With 6m1hyg there would be no 4gates. (logically there would be 3gates beacuse 8m/4gate=6m/3gate). There for your investment in robo would pay off greater because 1) 1HYG gives 50% more gas than 1G, So a 3gate would be mostly stalkers. 2) There would simply less units to kill. 3) Immortals are relatively gas cheap and since you have 1HYG you would be making mostly sentry's so FFing ramp while waiting for 2/3 immortals would be fine. Most negative feedback is that one fallacy.
Edit: If blizzard were to take this seriously, I'm thinking the best option would be to have it so workers only mine 4minerals(6gold) each trip (a reduction in income by 20%) with gas being untouched. The main drawback, it would go from 3 base ceiling to 4 base ceiling.
|
this is only the opinion of bw players & probably bw low$ players. myself i was a fmp player, never even played bw didnt like it, played nilla for about 8 years. the game was too slow paced and starcraft 2 is even faster low$ than fmp was on bw. the fast pace of the game is probably the best part about the game. i only read up until gas income chart but seems like the biggest thing ud be doing is lowering the speed of the game. and because a game is boring to some people doesnt mean it is for others, and also if a company catered to the hardcore gamers and not the casual fan they wouldnt make any money.
the game is still flourishing and i seriously doubt that everyone would get tired of it and the pro scene would die down. its going to continue to grow.
|
On March 17 2012 12:02 Ice Climber wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 11:51 RenSC2 wrote:I read the OP and got through page 5 of responses, sorry if what I say has already been mentioned a little later. The OP is a very interesting idea. Strangely enough, right before I logged into TL today and saw this topic, I was thinking about RTS design and came to the same conclusion that an RTS game should require more bases for a maxxed army to create more small scale conflict all over the map. However, I do question lowering mineral patches as the method of achieving that goal. Especially in regards to the main. The overall idea seems well reasoned, but I do have my doubts. Specifically, I think one point is very briefly brought up and then dismissed far too easily: •When there is less resources per base, you are spending a greater percent of your overall income to expand (which by itself makes expanding less appealing). However, this effect is quite minor. Furthermore, having a relatively less percentage of the desired income rate makes choosing not to expand all the more risky. It's slightly harder to expand (which will be counteracted with fairly easier/closer bases, so not really), but not expanding will be even more dangerous. Since your opponent will be feeling this too, overall you will want (and need) to expand more often. I don't think the effect is nearly as minor as you believe. The PvP matchup already shows us that it is extremely difficult to expand against an opponent who chooses not to let you do so. With the warpgate mechanic (terrible, I know, should just switch it with zealot leg-speed on the tech tree, but that's a different topic), the primary defenders advantage (walking time) is gone. With less resources, getting to robo tech (the typical way to bust a 4-gate contain) is a much more costly option that may already make you too vulnerable. Even if you manage to make the contain retreat, you still have to plop down 400 minerals into a nexus at the expansion and that will mean death unless you were really able to get your robo facility to pay off on one base (harder to do with less resources). Without a large enough mineral supply on one base, early aggressive contains could become too powerful. One player can force all games into either a win or a one base v one base stalemate if the starting base does not have enough minerals to allow for one base tech options. PvP is the most clear example of that happening, but I think aggressive TvZ could completely eliminate early zerg expansions as they might be resource starved on making enough lings to break bunker contains. Same could potentially be said of PvZ with a ramp cannoning protoss. All early aggression plays (cheese) that limit opponents to one base become much more powerful if that one base is weaker. Overall, the idea is certainly worthy of some playtesting. However, I fear that most playtesters will be trying to expand and create the desired effect rather than truly playing to win. Their play may create great games, but then take it to a stage with real money on the line and you may have a repeat of ActionJesus (not specifically 6-pool, but the same cheesy win > play-well mentality), except that there may not ever be any counter plays discovered. Don't forget, with 6m1g you can't 4-gate (at least without losing the game to a competent opponent). You can't support production off of 4 gates on 1 base in 6m1g. Each player is affected by the change, whether they are cheesing or defending and trying to play 'standard' whatever that may be in 6m1g. It needs play testing. Not having to expand is just too strong.
You do realize that the only difference would be the 4 gate would become the 3 gate. 6m1hg has exactly 25% less resources than 8m2g. 3 gate has exactly 25% less resources than 4 gate, so it's a perfect match.
|
Canada13379 Posts
On March 17 2012 12:02 Ice Climber wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 11:51 RenSC2 wrote:I read the OP and got through page 5 of responses, sorry if what I say has already been mentioned a little later. The OP is a very interesting idea. Strangely enough, right before I logged into TL today and saw this topic, I was thinking about RTS design and came to the same conclusion that an RTS game should require more bases for a maxxed army to create more small scale conflict all over the map. However, I do question lowering mineral patches as the method of achieving that goal. Especially in regards to the main. The overall idea seems well reasoned, but I do have my doubts. Specifically, I think one point is very briefly brought up and then dismissed far too easily: •When there is less resources per base, you are spending a greater percent of your overall income to expand (which by itself makes expanding less appealing). However, this effect is quite minor. Furthermore, having a relatively less percentage of the desired income rate makes choosing not to expand all the more risky. It's slightly harder to expand (which will be counteracted with fairly easier/closer bases, so not really), but not expanding will be even more dangerous. Since your opponent will be feeling this too, overall you will want (and need) to expand more often. I don't think the effect is nearly as minor as you believe. The PvP matchup already shows us that it is extremely difficult to expand against an opponent who chooses not to let you do so. With the warpgate mechanic (terrible, I know, should just switch it with zealot leg-speed on the tech tree, but that's a different topic), the primary defenders advantage (walking time) is gone. With less resources, getting to robo tech (the typical way to bust a 4-gate contain) is a much more costly option that may already make you too vulnerable. Even if you manage to make the contain retreat, you still have to plop down 400 minerals into a nexus at the expansion and that will mean death unless you were really able to get your robo facility to pay off on one base (harder to do with less resources). Without a large enough mineral supply on one base, early aggressive contains could become too powerful. One player can force all games into either a win or a one base v one base stalemate if the starting base does not have enough minerals to allow for one base tech options. PvP is the most clear example of that happening, but I think aggressive TvZ could completely eliminate early zerg expansions as they might be resource starved on making enough lings to break bunker contains. Same could potentially be said of PvZ with a ramp cannoning protoss. All early aggression plays (cheese) that limit opponents to one base become much more powerful if that one base is weaker. Overall, the idea is certainly worthy of some playtesting. However, I fear that most playtesters will be trying to expand and create the desired effect rather than truly playing to win. Their play may create great games, but then take it to a stage with real money on the line and you may have a repeat of ActionJesus (not specifically 6-pool, but the same cheesy win > play-well mentality), except that there may not ever be any counter plays discovered. Don't forget, with 6m1g you can't 4-gate (at least without losing the game to a competent opponent). You can't support production off of 4 gates on 1 base in 6m1g. Each player is affected by the change, whether they are cheesing or defending and trying to play 'standard' whatever that may be in 6m1g. It needs play testing. Not having to expand is just too strong.
And to those who say that warp in will weaken the defenders advantage, with only 6m1hyg, proxy pylons are more expensive. Much more expensive, losing that proxy pylon is also much much more painful. You won't have situations where they 3 gate for example and put 2 pylons down to proxy. The pylons the defender is already making because they need the supply is much more powerful from a defender's perspective in PvP.
I kill your proxy in PvP -- awesome I have my defenders advantage (I have a lot of pylons) you have none.
This adds another dynamic, how far back do your pylon for fear of losing it? Walking distance for you exists depending on where you put it. Sustained WG aggression is less powerful as well. We all know how 4 gate with 16 probes on minerals and 3 on gas quickly loses steam, this steam is reasonably going to be lost with fewer mins gas as well.
Further, since so few probes will saturate the main and WG research timing (even with a lot of chronos) its entirely possible that if one expands early enough the defender could have time to defend well with forcefields to start and more units later (much better income much sooner compared to the opponent, fewer wasted probes).
|
Holy shit this is an amazing post and incredibly interesting.
I'm not gonna pretend like I know what would happen if we changed like this, but it certainly seems worth trying.
It'd be really good if we got some high level players (pros are obv. best but they might not want to because they need to win at SC2, not how SC2 might potentially be) to play a tourney on 7m1hyg/whatever maps.
I'm definitely gonna test some of these maps out myself and see how it feels.
Finally, I think this post, with this level of effort put into it and explaining its point deserves a response from Blizzard. Something like a blog by Dustin Browder or David Kim, saying what they like/don't like about the idea and why they didn't do it this way in the first place. I wonder what made them settle on 8m6g.
|
What a great OP, that's exactly what would make SC2 an even better game.
|
I played 2 TvT's on 6m1hyg. They were lovely, the amount of potential is incredible.
I played a TvZ however, and the guy had 4 bases by 13 minutes, and my modification on the traditional terran tank+marine+medivac attack hard no effect on it at all.
I found that this build order is incredibly effective:
1 rax expand, before second depot
2 more rax and a gas
the scv building the third rax, then a factory, while the third rax itself gets a techlab for stim and combat shield.
While the factory is finishing get 2 reactors
Voila you have a good setup for making units, and have some extra money for upgrades and expanding. A lot of extra gas actually, a second factory could probably fit in, or put a reactor on the port.
|
On March 17 2012 12:21 ZeromuS wrote:
Further, since so few probes will saturate the main and WG research timing (even with a lot of chronos) its entirely possible that if one expands early enough the defender could have time to defend well with forcefields to start and more units later (much better income much sooner compared to the opponent, fewer wasted probes).
I'm thinking because WG timing can't change by much (~11 secs max) a gasless FFE could be possible PvP. Since your only making 6 probes to begin with, you would have enough money for enough cannons(maybe). Would have to pro sim-city though, so the opponent doesn't just walk past the cannons.
|
Canada13379 Posts
On March 17 2012 12:30 iTzSnypah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 12:21 ZeromuS wrote:
Further, since so few probes will saturate the main and WG research timing (even with a lot of chronos) its entirely possible that if one expands early enough the defender could have time to defend well with forcefields to start and more units later (much better income much sooner compared to the opponent, fewer wasted probes).
I'm thinking because WG timing can't change by much (~11 secs max) a gasless FFE could be possible PvP. Since your only making 6 probes to begin with, you would have enough money for enough cannons(maybe). Would have to pro sim-city though, so the opponent doesn't just walk past the cannons.
What I am trying to get at is that really fast WG builds would lose steam quick enough that defending it even by the skin of your teeth takes less time imagine getting one immortal out with an expand with a later WG timing. The stalkers would be useless.
|
Great post and interesting idea. I even played the maps and have some concerns about this
1. We have less minerals per base but same amount of minerals per patch which reduces amount of minerals per map. This makes the base mine out really fast. I think the better approach might be having each mineral path have 2000 minerals and each gas (in 6m1hyg map) have 5000 gas.
2. Workers saturate the minerals and gas very fast per base. But I guess this will be offset by faster expanding by better players I guess. The ultimate fix anyways is for blizzard to fix worker mining.
3. It seems that with less mineral patches it might make the mule more imbalanced but this wont be known till people play it.
What to people think about this ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
