EPTOn March 17 2012 02:48 Barrin wrote:
Actually it's a direct result of this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UGkXZ.jpg)
But yes, golds only make it worse.
Actually it's a direct result of this:
But yes, golds only make it worse.
so if you were protoss in BW you got more cash?
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 23
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
so if you were protoss in BW you got more cash? | ||
|
Proko
United States1022 Posts
| ||
|
Clazziquai10
Singapore1949 Posts
But either way, great idea and write-up. I would love to see something like that in the future | ||
|
SgtCoDFish
United Kingdom1520 Posts
On March 17 2012 15:00 firehand101 wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 17 2012 02:48 Barrin wrote: Actually it's a direct result of this: But yes, golds only make it worse. so if you were protoss in BW you got more cash? Yeah, that's correct. Probes>Drones>SCVs in terms of mineral harvesting | ||
|
Resistentialism
Canada688 Posts
On March 17 2012 15:00 firehand101 wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 17 2012 02:48 Barrin wrote: Actually it's a direct result of this: But yes, golds only make it worse. so if you were protoss in BW you got more cash? BW probes accelerate from stops at little tiny bit faster than the other workers. | ||
|
Proko
United States1022 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On March 17 2012 15:00 Yosho wrote: 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. Believe me, me and barin have gone back and forth about this for a long time  | ||
|
GPThunder
Canada53 Posts
| ||
|
AGsc
Canada120 Posts
| ||
|
RaiKageRyu
Canada4773 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
I just hope Blizzard doesn't interpret this as 8 patches per base with 500 minerals each. | ||
|
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
Blizzard clearly made sc2 with the intent to increase the pace for the less hard core I want it now ADD audience they 'thought' they would be selling the game to. I think the reality is that the rts audience may in fact be far more intelligent then they give credit for. I for one would much rather see the 6m 1hyg style of base structure implemented. Slowing an sc2 game down that 25% ish wouldn't mean all games are 25% longer even. It just means you have 25% less resources to put into army production per base. IT merely slows the ability for people to gather up a ball of death down which I feel would make games much much more interesting. Putting slightly more value on units through out the game, and putting more emphasis on securing new expansions if you wish to hit that maximum army cap. As it stands currently any race 'can' max out on only 2 bases. I feel as though this would push it at least to 3 which would seem far more reasonable. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
I played with Sevii who was Terran and I, myself, as Zerg. We never maxed (200/200) the whole entire game. Was fun, lots of action. You can definitely tell when your economy is going down, since you can't spend most of your larvae (for Zerg). Great idea, and great thinking. Was fun! | ||
|
7Sevii
United States17 Posts
This was all 6min 1hyg First off it was a lot of fun, the games were long and pretty interesting. This was plat league so I dunno about the implications for pros. Devolution 6min hyg TvZ comments: The map is big, it took me several games to realize how big. It is much bigger than shakuras, and there is no convenient choke in the middle. This map is good for zerg, lots of counter attack paths, and good for mutas Deathballs are reasonably easy for zerg to manage, the length of the map makes it easy to set up surrounds, and gives lots of time to prepare for a push. I had more success with smaller armies killing expos. And 8 min muta is really powerful. There is an issue, where terran will run out of gas on 3-4 bases, on the "safe" 3 bases there are only 2 gas, taking it up to 3 for 4 base. They are rich geysers, but the total amount of gas is low. So if you sit on 4 base too long, you end up with a marine only army. I really really like the way the 4 "safe" bases are set up. The back door to the mineral only 3rd is awesome, basically zerg has 2 ground routes into the terran's production + muta harass I don't know if it is the mineral change or mental forcing, but the max supply I hit in these games was 175/200 100-120 was the usual supply throughout most of the games. | ||
|
LastDance
New Zealand510 Posts
| ||
|
Mongolbonjwa
Finland376 Posts
And on the other hand, I remember that Browser said somewhere that they wanted the action to happen faster in the game than in broodwar so I think it is never gonna happen what you are proposing. And about the "deathball", while it might seem that game is "predisposed" for that kind of gameplay, it does not neccesarily mean that. When players get better, they get better and using every opportunity in the course of the game and thus making more likely that we will see more small conflicts around the map. Actually we are seeing this kind of games already. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On March 17 2012 15:35 RaiKageRyu wrote: Amazing thought went into this. This might be one of the factors... but I am a bit skeptical on it and still believe fundamental designs with regards to some units and mechanics like warpgates influence more on the deathball effect. I think the number 1 deathball cause is the unit spacing. Units are spaced more tightly than their actual size. Number 2 would be lack of imba one-shot AoE. Number 3 would be unlimited selection. | ||
|
Jehct
New Zealand9115 Posts
On March 17 2012 15:12 Plexa wrote: Believe me, me and barin have gone back and forth about this for a long time Why can't we have both? Seems like there are two fundamental problems; rather than trying to find a bandaid that can cover both, why not implement two actual fixes simultaneously in HoTS (better/different unit design and different income rates)? After all, both aspects changed from BW to SC2. BTW I think there's no reason this change would make mineral-only bases work in SC2. A mineral-only base fundamentally changes (I'd argue homogenizes) the compositions possible; shit, the idea didn't even work well in BW. | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3484281522 | ||
|
nEAnS
Canada161 Posts
Changing the food cap is something that I can't really see happening. Anything higher means more units, therefore making it harder for less skilled players to control. A lot of changes in the past have affected all levels of play. A change like this would change harm causal players, thus a move Blizzard won't make because we know how Blizzard loves their causal players. It would be interesting to see how raising the food cap affects high level play though. | ||
| ||
