EPTBreadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
IGotPlayguuu
Italy660 Posts
| ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
The issue is the saturation curve. In BW workers are dumb as hell and mining can be totally random at times once you get beyond one worker to per patch. In SC2 workers are super efficient and you hit maximum saturation on a single base quickly. You can easily take a look at a worker count and make a gauge as to who is ahead or not, whereas in BW need to take a look at whether they control gas bases, mineral only. BW's awful AI pathing gives you incentive to spread out, whereas SC2 returns seem almost but not quite totally linear. You'll never see zergs be like "whatever, i'll just put like 6 drones at this base because it will probably die anyway" in SC2 because there's no advantage compared to keeping an extra 6 drones in your nat, unless you're at max capacity there. There isn't a significant enough advantage in SC2 to having equal workers but being up 3 bases to 2. That's also why you rarely see insane situations where one players is up 5 bases to 2 in SC2 because there's no advantage to being up in bases beyond needing more CCs to grow your worker count faster. Not to mention that in BW there are infinity ways to make an entire worker line immediately go up in smoke, so holding perfect saturation is not only bad because you put all your eggs in one basket, it means that in certain situations you can't hold perfect saturation for long to begin with. | ||
|
Loire
Singapore1358 Posts
 | ||
|
Seiniyta
Belgium1815 Posts
| ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
TG Manny
United States325 Posts
On March 17 2012 03:30 Zanno wrote: You're actually so close to the mark but whizzing right by the real crux of the problem. The issue is the saturation curve. In BW workers are dumb as hell and mining can be totally random at times once you get beyond one worker to per patch. In SC2 workers are super efficient and you hit maximum saturation on a single base quickly. You can easily take a look at a worker count and make a gauge as to who is ahead or not, whereas in BW need to take a look at whether they control gas bases, mineral only. There isn't a significant enough advantage in SC2 to having equal workers but being up 3 bases to 2. That's also why you rarely see insane situations where one players is up 5 bases to 2 in SC2 because there's no advantage to being up in bases beyond needing more CCs to grow your worker count faster. Not to mention that in BW there are infinity ways to make an entire worker line immediately go up in smoke, so holding perfect saturation is not only bad because you put all your eggs in one basket, it means that in certain situations you can't hold perfect saturation for long to begin with. In terms of SC2 base counts, you forget the power of having an extra two geysers of gas. Those alone can allow you to power upgrades as well as a scary looking army with tech units in it. I do agree with worker AI and mineral lines, though. | ||
|
Gosi
Sweden9072 Posts
I hope some progamers/high profilers in the community take their time to read this and comment on this. Would be fun to read. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On March 17 2012 03:33 TG Manny wrote: I actually think the double gas is one of the few things in SC2 that is cool and adds depth to the game. I'm really wondering when terrans are going to realize they don't need to automatically take every single gas they control because they can't spend their gas bank anymore once they hit 3/3 outside of TvT.In terms of SC2 base counts, you forget the power of having an extra two geysers of gas. Those alone can allow you to power upgrades as well as a scary looking army with tech units in it. I do agree with worker AI and mineral lines, though. Anyway the point I was trying to make (which I realized I barely made) is that changing the resource counts per base won't do anything. The OP does skim by the saturation curve issue a bit but seems to think it's only one factor, instead of the entire cause of the problem like I think it is. Lowering the patches does cause you to spread out, but it doesn't give an advantage towards a player who is spread out against a player who is turtling unless the OP is suggesting that bases should literally dry up so fast that you shouldn't constantly produce workers anymore. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
I've thought along these lines for a long time. I hope this gets discussed a lot. Of course this idea won't get implemented into the ladder pool right away, but talking about it is conducive to people experimenting with it, which is conducive to tournaments adopting it, which could eventually lead to a change in ladder map pool policy. Of course the big issue is the entire metagame, because it currently sits on a foundation of 8m2g as a static starting point. I see that as a big potential barrier to tournaments adopting these types of maps. | ||
|
kevinthemighty
United States134 Posts
Well done man. | ||
|
Names
Canada328 Posts
| ||
|
TG Manny
United States325 Posts
On March 17 2012 03:36 Zanno wrote: I actually think the double gas is one of the few things in SC2 that is cool and adds depth to the game. I'm really wondering when terrans are going to realize they don't need to automatically take every single gas they control because they can't spend their gas bank anymore once they hit 3/3 outside of TvT. Anyway the point I was trying to make (which I realized I barely made) is that changing the resource counts per base won't do anything. The OP does skim by the saturation curve issue a bit but seems to think it's only one factor, instead of the entire cause of the problem like I think it is. Lowering the patches does cause you to spread out, but it doesn't give an advantage towards a player who is spread out against a player who is turtling unless the OP is suggesting that bases should literally dry up so fast that you shouldn't constantly produce workers anymore. To answer for Terran gas aquisition/spending--It is incredible how much gas we need in late-game vP and vZ to be able to defend from brood/infestor and HT/collosus. Viking masses large enough to fight corruptors and still kill broods are expensive, and same to get to 1 shotting collosus and still powering ghost production underneath it. Our midgame vP can be very gas light (3 gas) and vT can also be relatively light if you're powering your infrastructure/army numbers rather than ups/tank count. Protoss doesn't have the same dynamic since they are so gas starved they want the gas ASAP, and Zerg's dynamic depends on the greed of them. Do I get a 3rd before 4 gas or not? I think Zerg gas collection is the most interesting IMO. | ||
|
Mieszko
Sweden25 Posts
It makes me so happy that someone with influence in the mapping scene brought this to light. I hope that the mapping teams can push for this idea to be implemented into their tournament maps. | ||
|
MHT
Sweden1026 Posts
| ||
|
akisa
Jamaica98 Posts
| ||
|
ArrozConLeche
Peru41 Posts
| ||
Adebisi
Canada1637 Posts
| ||
|
ProxyKnoxy
United Kingdom2576 Posts
Ignoring that, all mapmakers should try to implement this idea into their maps | ||
|
DrN0
United Kingdom184 Posts
Having said that it really is ridiculous the amount of time Blizzard leave between games. We have been left with an unfinished product for way too long it is only too right for the community to start getting annoyed. Personally I think the best option would be to throw the communities' weight behind an entirely different RTS game, one designed with competitive play in mind, however organising a mass exodus like this is damn near impossible. I hate to say it but we are entirely at Blizzard's mercy at least for a few more years. | ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
| ||
| ||
