EPTEDIT: I want this to happen so bad.
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
ReturnStroke
United States801 Posts
EDIT: I want this to happen so bad. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13405 Posts
On March 17 2012 12:32 WickedBit wrote: 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 ? The implication of this idea is that people would make new maps with a lot more expansions to be taken and not just having more minerals at the bases. 5 bases are the new 3 for income and sustainability. Thats the point I think. | ||
|
megapants
United States1314 Posts
| ||
|
Schlendrian
49 Posts
Just another thought: What if we lowered the amount of minerals of each patch (and gas), but kept the numbers at 8m-2g. This would also force you to expand faster in order to not be in an all-in-situation. Would this turn every PvP into a certain 1-base play as aforementioned, since the current builds stay the same this way? Or would it make expanding more appealing even in PvP... | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
Resistentialism
Canada688 Posts
Basically the one sentence Barrin gives about smaller armies leading to expansions being able to tank damage for a longer period of time is even more important than he emphasizes. | ||
|
Petninja
United States159 Posts
| ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13405 Posts
On March 17 2012 12:42 Resistentialism wrote: Earlier mine-outs with the same income speed would lead to more one base agression builds, especially from terrans who could lift to their natural while trading army supply. No, I don't think so. Imagine a 1-1-1, with 25% less gas available and with less minerals. Fewer scvs would be needed to hit max saturation, mules while more effective in providing minerals, the faster mineout would mean an overall weaker attack. Fast expands would be more efficient as well. Cutting probes at 36 to hold a 1-1-1 at 6 mineral 1 hyg would mean a much better economy vs the terrans compared to what 36 is now vs the terran one base. | ||
|
Resistentialism
Canada688 Posts
On March 17 2012 12:49 ZeromuS wrote: No, I don't think so. Imagine a 1-1-1, with 25% less gas available and with less minerals. Fewer scvs would be needed to hit max saturation, mules while more effective in providing minerals, the faster mineout would mean an overall weaker attack. Fast expands would be more efficient as well. Cutting probes at 36 to hold a 1-1-1 at 6 mineral 1 hyg would mean a much better economy vs the terrans compared to what 36 is now vs the terran one base. Was responding to the guy on this page advocating 8min2gys with lower mineral counts on each. Wherein a 1-1-1 would have the exact same amount of minerals and gas at the time it hit. Should have quoted him, sorry. On March 17 2012 12:39 Schlendrian wrote: Very nice idea! I'm definately gonna try out the maps (are they available on EU yet?) Just another thought: What if we lowered the amount of minerals of each patch (and gas), but kept the numbers at 8m-2g. This would also force you to expand faster in order to not be in an all-in-situation. Would this turn every PvP into a certain 1-base play as aforementioned, since the current builds stay the same this way? Or would it make expanding more appealing even in PvP... | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13405 Posts
[QUOTE]On March 17 2012 12:49 ZeromuS wrote: [QUOTE]On March 17 2012 12:42 Resistentialism wrote: Earlier mine-outs with the same income speed would lead to more one base agression builds, especially from terrans who could lift to their natural while trading army supply.[/QUOTE] No, I don't think so. Imagine a 1-1-1, with 25% less gas available and with less minerals. Fewer scvs would be needed to hit max saturation, mules while more effective in providing minerals, the faster mineout would mean an overall weaker attack. Fast expands would be more efficient as well. Cutting probes at 36 to hold a 1-1-1 at 6 mineral 1 hyg would mean a much better economy vs the terrans compared to what 36 is now vs the terran one base. [/QUOTE] Was responding to the guy on this page advocating 8min2gys with lower mineral counts on each. Wherein a 1-1-1 would have the exact same amount of minerals and gas at the time it hit. Should have quoted him, sorry. Ah i See, in that case, yes I would agree 8m2g with less min count not very helpful in dealing with the primary issues that concern the op at all  I look forward to trying a few games on these maps tomorrow, may try to obs a match tonight though if anyone is in the channel (im on my laptop and touchpad is not conducive to playing sc2) | ||
|
DamenPulse
United States37 Posts
Anyways, fantastic post. Hope this gets implemented in the future | ||
|
ckunkel1
United States181 Posts
| ||
|
Sapp
Poland173 Posts
On March 17 2012 12:36 megapants wrote: i hope to also see some mineral only bases considered in future map designs. This idea is stupid and unfair. Races has difirent mineral and gas needs, U cant just make bases that benefit one race more than other -.-' | ||
|
TyrantPotato
Australia1541 Posts
I only hope blizzard decide to take them on board and do some serious changes. hopefully HotS beta will last many months while these changes come to fruition and balance changes are made to accommodate them. Brilliant post is Brilliant | ||
|
ETisME
12700 Posts
The maps will need to have good defendable third if we need our economy running | ||
|
alexanderzero
United States659 Posts
With all of this said, I'm still not sure whether or not this game truly needs a fix. Players are still learning how to trade evenly with the very wide variety of unit compositions that can be made in Starcraft 2. I think the game needs to be more mapped out and stabilized before anyone can truly say whether or not with 100% certainty that the game should be re-tuned. EDIT: On the subject of the 3 base cap, where it's believed that 3 mining bases is all that is needed in Starcraft 2: With a supply cap of 300 there would be a 50% increase in that number, and it would become more like 4.5 mining bases, not including the huge banks players would need to start amassing once maxed to prepare to tech switches and army rebuilding. | ||
|
Deshkar
Singapore1244 Posts
| ||
|
Exempt.
United States470 Posts
| ||
|
Sapp
Poland173 Posts
On March 17 2012 13:09 ETisME wrote: The maps will need to have good defendable third if we need our economy running this point of view is not important. u wouldn't run out of money FASTER because U cant mine faster than 3drones on one crystasl. (alittle in zvt coz of mules, but mules would HAVE TO be nerfed to work on 6m1g so...) | ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
| ||
| ||
