|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 17 2012 13:45 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 13:36 ZeromuS wrote:On March 17 2012 13:15 Plexa wrote:
You already know my viewpoint on this barrin, I maintain that this is a unit design problem not a problem with minerals. Doesnt hurt to mess about with things as much as the community can though. I don't think you can argue with that in particular. Sure we can mess around all day with mineral numbers, but that isn't going to change how retarded colossus make the protoss matchups for instance.
+1
That would get even more extreme I supose. Because just two of them is enough to change the game, while u need 15 hydras(for example) at least to make a diffirence. So big expensive units would get cheaper & vice versa.
Also, i would like to highlight that that whole idea about "less units in a battle means more micro" it's not a 100% truth.
it's not like u can micro 3stalkers vs 3 stALkers while u sure can micro 6v6.
|
This is probably the best SC2 related thread I've ever read on SC2, and one of the few gigantic OPs that I've ever read from top to bottom.
I wholeheartedly agree with your take on the issues of SC2, and am definitely willing to give these maps a try. Hopefully tournament organizers are as well.
|
sooo much info x.x
Very well written and I totally agree.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On March 17 2012 13:45 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 13:36 ZeromuS wrote:On March 17 2012 13:15 Plexa wrote:
You already know my viewpoint on this barrin, I maintain that this is a unit design problem not a problem with minerals. Doesnt hurt to mess about with things as much as the community can though. I don't think you can argue with that in particular. Sure we can mess around all day with mineral numbers, but that isn't going to change how retarded colossus make the protoss matchups for instance.
I made 3 collossus in my 6 min pvp but it wasnt just sitting there rushing collossus, rushing collossus in the same way isn't really feasible on the devolution map but I was able to transition well because I contained my opponent to 2 base with 4 gates of aggression while expanding to a third
it was my first game on it but it feels very very different. 2 robo collossus is out of the question if you want any sort of ground force. Just the pure cost of collossus tech and range doesnt happen anywhere near as quick on a 6m1hyg map, would open up the possibility of blink stalkers a lot more.
|
There is one thing you skipped over in your article, and I'd like to return back to it for a moment.
On July 2010 by figq, thread OP of [D] SC2 - fewer bases, less macro - than BW?
"...either increase the 200/200 food cap, so that it makes sense to want more bases, or reduce the resources per base, or something similar - because as of now it favors fewer bases, which makes the game variety lower."
I think this deserves much more attention. One of the biggest problems in our current implementation of SC2 is how easy it is to macro. 200/200 situations are piecemeal to get to, and that makes the game less interesting. It turns into "who can remax fastest" or "who has the better deathball" instead of "who has the best macro skills and the better multitasking". Raising the supply cap could help to alleviate this.
Also, there's an issue that I believe you glossed over. This heavily, HEAVILY favors Terran. MULEs are increasingly powerful the less mineral patches there are at each base (which is why they were too good on gold bases, incidentally). Terran will now be hugely favored at every stage of the game, simply because they will automatically have a much better economy, always. MULEs are a fundamental part of Terran, and I don't think they can just be ignored like this. What this effectively means is that while you're rewarding Protoss and Zerg for expanding early, Terran can just wall off the main as always, put up a Refinery, and then transition into an expansion or an all-in. If they expand, they'll be even. If they all-in, they will have a MUCH more powerful army, because their opponent will be far behind on economy for that critical part of the game. Unless this can be accounted for, your solution can never, ever be implemented.
|
On March 17 2012 14:01 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 13:45 Plexa wrote:On March 17 2012 13:36 ZeromuS wrote:On March 17 2012 13:15 Plexa wrote:
You already know my viewpoint on this barrin, I maintain that this is a unit design problem not a problem with minerals. Doesnt hurt to mess about with things as much as the community can though. I don't think you can argue with that in particular. Sure we can mess around all day with mineral numbers, but that isn't going to change how retarded colossus make the protoss matchups for instance. I made 3 collossus in my 6 min pvp but it wasnt just sitting there rushing collossus, rushing collossus in the same way isn't really feasible on the devolution map but I was able to transition well because I contained my opponent to 2 base with 4 gates of aggression while expanding to a third it was my first game on it but it feels very very different. 2 robo collossus is out of the question if you want any sort of ground force. Just the pure cost of collossus tech and range doesnt happen anywhere near as quick on a 6m1hyg map, would open up the possibility of blink stalkers a lot more.
so U are looking me stright into eyes & telling me that i have EVEN less strats to play as a protoss? nice. Are u defending the thred or being against it? because i'm lost now ;<
|
There seems to be a lot of theorycrafting in this thread, but the truth is that we really can't predict exactly what changes this would bring about in the longterm.
That's why this idea is so good. The fact that it can be implemented without Blizzard means that we can just create maps, try playing games on them, even create some low level tournaments to try it out, and then see what actually happens, rather than just speculating about what players "should" do under the new conditions.
I know it's been stated a million times before, but I think raising the supply cap to 250 would go well with this change. Can this be implemented with the mapmaking tools as well?
|
6 Posts
I think people are getting too caught up in the "balancing" issues and not realizing how much this idea would open up the maps for new strats. Ofc there will need to be unit balancing and MULEs may need to be changed a bit, but that is OK. Hell, Blizzard is going to nerf whatever unit you really like even without this change. The important thing here is increasing the skill needed to play at a pro level. Bronze players will still do horrible 1 base all-ins and diamond players will still forget to build probes and pylons. But imagine the pro games. Everyone scrambling for bases, more drops, more mobility. We will get to see micro on it's highest level because ever unit will actually mean something. These changes may even highlight some unit concerns so they can be adjusted to (so help balancing) since we can actually see it unit shine. Not just big balls running into each other.
|
This is probably something that the map making community and tourney organizers would have to test before getting implemented by blizzard. Just like how Blizzard has begun to implement user created maps in ladder. If the community leads by example and tourney play begins to move in this direction then it will make sense that blizzard begins to support this.
Otherwise there is little incentive from their end to devote the R&D time and money into something that has little evidence (yet) of improving game-play. The implications of this move could break many balance and unit relationships that exist now on a fine thread.
I agree there are interesting aspects to this but lets test it and see how it works....casters, pro's if you like this idea then lead by example. This is the fastest and perhaps best way to implement a change of this scale.
|
On March 17 2012 14:16 FuRong wrote:
There seems to be a lot of theorycrafting in this thread, but the truth is that we really can't predict exactly what changes this would bring about in the longterm.
That's why this idea is so good. The fact that it can be implemented without Blizzard means that we can just create maps, try playing games on them, even create some low level tournaments to try it out, and then see what actually happens, rather than just speculating about what players "should" do under the new conditions.
I know it's been stated a million times before, but I think raising the supply cap to 250 would go well with this change. Can this be implemented with the mapmaking tools as well?
Yes, it can. Fastest Map Possible raises the cap to 300.
I'd also sure as heck join any playhem tournaments that use these maps exclusively. Provided I know about them, of course. 
|
Canada13389 Posts
On March 17 2012 14:07 Sapp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 14:01 ZeromuS wrote:On March 17 2012 13:45 Plexa wrote:On March 17 2012 13:36 ZeromuS wrote:On March 17 2012 13:15 Plexa wrote:
You already know my viewpoint on this barrin, I maintain that this is a unit design problem not a problem with minerals. Doesnt hurt to mess about with things as much as the community can though. I don't think you can argue with that in particular. Sure we can mess around all day with mineral numbers, but that isn't going to change how retarded colossus make the protoss matchups for instance. I made 3 collossus in my 6 min pvp but it wasnt just sitting there rushing collossus, rushing collossus in the same way isn't really feasible on the devolution map but I was able to transition well because I contained my opponent to 2 base with 4 gates of aggression while expanding to a third it was my first game on it but it feels very very different. 2 robo collossus is out of the question if you want any sort of ground force. Just the pure cost of collossus tech and range doesnt happen anywhere near as quick on a 6m1hyg map, would open up the possibility of blink stalkers a lot more. so U are looking me stright into eyes & telling me that i have EVEN less strats to play as a protoss? nice. Are u defending the thred or being against it? because i'm lost now ;<
Im saying that we don't need to blindly pump 2 robo collossus to win the game anymore, and we can attack a little more often and be more aggressive. I took my first expansion off 2 gates and a zealot pressure opening.
|
For the love of God do NOT raise the supply cap. This game is already taxing at 200/200 for many of us. For that reason I don't think Blizzard will raise the food cap.
Less minerals will be awesome I think. Toss turtling on 3 bases knowing if they can max out they win is kind of dumb. Constant aggression will raise the skill cap more than turtling.
|
Hmmm, the natural expansion to the top-right base on the 6m1g version of Entombed Valley seems to have 2 gasses instead of the 1 that the other equivalent natural expansions have.
|
This is something I've felt for a long, long time. It's so nice to see somebody else with the same idea (and more map making skill!) put it into words and get it out there. SC2 right now focuses heavily on 3 base, or maybe 4 base at a stretch (16 workers on minerals + 6 on gas = 22 per base with no efficiency penalty, and if you're shooting for ~80 workers...), and taking away a mineral patch, or a gas geyser, could really force people to reach for that one extra base - and maybe one extra base is all we really need.
|
On March 17 2012 14:16 FuRong wrote:
There seems to be a lot of theorycrafting in this thread, but the truth is that we really can't predict exactly what changes this would bring about in the longterm.
That's why this idea is so good. The fact that it can be implemented without Blizzard means that we can just create maps, try playing games on them, even create some low level tournaments to try it out, and then see what actually happens, rather than just speculating about what players "should" do under the new conditions.
I know it's been stated a million times before, but I think raising the supply cap to 250 would go well with this change. Can this be implemented with the mapmaking tools as well?
1. Yes we can ---> BIG FU***N CHANGES
2. No we can't. low lvl turnaments means nothing. Until midmasters, there are no strict buildorders in play, so U wouldn't be able to get any feedback out of it.
3.Yes it can, but why? with 6m1g U would get less workers, so bigger army anyway.
|
This is really insightful but I think it's still skirting around the main issue. This might make the death ball smaller or take longer to build up to, but it's still going to be the end that every game builds up to.
|
Read through the whole thing, awesome post. I haven't played much of SC2 (relatively) and barely played BW, but just from watching both (a spectators point of view) this have potential to make the game alot more interesting, with perhaps many smaller clashes as opposed to 1 big battle that will win or lose you the game. I find BW very entertaining to watch (and i really have no idea about the strats/ korean commentators are saying) with the harassment/ back and forth that occur in the games, its rare to see that in SC2, while SC2 sometimes gets a bit dry because its all-ins/"cheese" (see: Today's up/down matches for GSL), or macro games where one battle decides the game.
I do agree that SC2 is a very new game as opposed to 10+ years of mapping out BW strats, but i think this idea would be awesome to try.
TLDR; From a spectator point of view, BW entertainment value over time IMO is higher than SC2 (3 am, forgive for not nessecarily coherent post XD)
|
On March 17 2012 14:27 Sapp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 14:16 FuRong wrote:
There seems to be a lot of theorycrafting in this thread, but the truth is that we really can't predict exactly what changes this would bring about in the longterm.
That's why this idea is so good. The fact that it can be implemented without Blizzard means that we can just create maps, try playing games on them, even create some low level tournaments to try it out, and then see what actually happens, rather than just speculating about what players "should" do under the new conditions.
I know it's been stated a million times before, but I think raising the supply cap to 250 would go well with this change. Can this be implemented with the mapmaking tools as well? 1. Yes we can ---> BIG FU***N CHANGES 2. No we can't. low lvl turnaments means nothing. Until midmasters, there are no strict buildorders in play, so U wouldn't be able to get any feedback out of it. 3.Yes it can, but why? with 6m1g U would get less workers, so bigger army anyway.
When I say low level, I don't mean gold league, I mean like the Playheim daily or something where you can collect a lot of data really quickly.
|
Thanks for this post; it presents a very interesting solution to the recent sc2 gripes,
Of course every could always go back to BW  BW 4 lyfe
|
On March 17 2012 13:45 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 13:36 ZeromuS wrote:On March 17 2012 13:15 Plexa wrote:
You already know my viewpoint on this barrin, I maintain that this is a unit design problem not a problem with minerals. Doesnt hurt to mess about with things as much as the community can though. I don't think you can argue with that in particular. Sure we can mess around all day with mineral numbers, but that isn't going to change how retarded colossus make the protoss matchups for instance.
I don't think you're being very productive to the conversation. I think you're trying to start an unbalance thread when we are trying to find alternatives.
I've played some 6 mins 1 gas maps and noticed a huge difference, it's way fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
