|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 17 2012 20:08 zeross wrote:
I already hate the mobility the mutas have, thus the harass potential they have vs 3 base, so i would just hate to see it vs 4-5 base.
Also, with less unit beiing produced, you increase too much the power of spellcaster/AoE... particulary storms, fungals and banelings. A well placed storm or fungal will melt your smaller army. Yes you can spread a smaller army more easly, but sc2 don't allow lesser skilled player to spread unit easly enough for this.
While you could say that lesser skilled played just need to get better, i think the game need to adapt to everyone.
What i'm trying to say here is that this would need a general AoE units debuff, and a mutalisk speed nerf.
There is already too much "shit didn't see that bane comming, just loose the game in 2s", and would hate to see more of it.
I have to disagree.
Spellcasters will still do the damage that the do, but instead of slaughtering my entire army with two templar you get to try and catch my marines one squad at a time. Ultimately smaller engagements debuff AoE while making casters more valuable if less effecient.
And as for mutas... as it stands now you can be hit by 8-10 mutas around the 8-9 minute mark, meaning if you weren't ready you auto lose. Reducing the mineral intake would mean that a muta rush would still hit around 8-9minutes, but with say 4-6 mutas instead. That means you aer less likely to instantly lose and that a single turret or two might actually be enough to ward them off.
|
Less gas/minerals intake per base means that fast mutas are less effective, but over time the snowball effect becomes greater, as you have to protect more bases over a wider area.
|
I think I would be a very good teacher, because it takes me less than 3 minutes to grade a 10k word paper an "A".
Cheers!
|
On March 17 2012 20:58 Skeggaba wrote:
I think I would be a very good teacher, because it takes me less than 3 minutes to grade a 10k word paper an "A".
Cheers!
Sounds more like a bad teacher to me.
|
On March 17 2012 20:51 SeaSwift wrote:
Less gas/minerals intake per base means that fast mutas are less effective, but over time the snowball effect becomes greater, as you have to protect more bases over a wider area.
but by thtis point u should have the tech to deal with them or the zerg would have spent his resouces on other units rather than mutalisks.
|
On March 17 2012 20:49 Ironsights wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2012 20:08 zeross wrote:
I already hate the mobility the mutas have, thus the harass potential they have vs 3 base, so i would just hate to see it vs 4-5 base.
Also, with less unit beiing produced, you increase too much the power of spellcaster/AoE... particulary storms, fungals and banelings. A well placed storm or fungal will melt your smaller army. Yes you can spread a smaller army more easly, but sc2 don't allow lesser skilled player to spread unit easly enough for this.
While you could say that lesser skilled played just need to get better, i think the game need to adapt to everyone.
What i'm trying to say here is that this would need a general AoE units debuff, and a mutalisk speed nerf.
There is already too much "shit didn't see that bane comming, just loose the game in 2s", and would hate to see more of it. I have to disagree. Spellcasters will still do the damage that the do, but instead of slaughtering my entire army with two templar you get to try and catch my marines one squad at a time. Ultimately smaller engagements debuff AoE while making casters more valuable if less effecient. And as for mutas... as it stands now you can be hit by 8-10 mutas around the 8-9 minute mark, meaning if you weren't ready you auto lose. Reducing the mineral intake would mean that a muta rush would still hit around 8-9minutes, but with say 4-6 mutas instead. That means you aer less likely to instantly lose and that a single turret or two might actually be enough to ward them off.
Well done.
This is the kind of logic that many people overlook in their quick attempts to try and discredit this idea simply because they don't like it on a personal level.
I'm 100% behind this change, for the good of SC2 as an eSport.
|
I lie this idea! What about other imagination:
5m2g but per mineral-patch increases from 2500 to 4000 or something like this?
|
I actually read all of this. Sounds really interesting. I hope a tournament will test this concept and evaluate the games with the players to hear how it feels.
|
On March 17 2012 19:36 Talin wrote:
It would be awesome if someone could record a couple of high level (~Master-ish) games played on these maps and youtube it.
Masters zerg here that would be willing to play at least if someone else wanted to record+upload.
PM me neosporin.833 on NA
|
I REALLY like the idea and the concept you're bringing up. I haven't read through the whole thing yet, so excuse me if I'm saying something that you allready have covered.
But my biggest concern is the high mineral to gas ratio. Especially since the maps are probably supposed to let you expand more easly and often, you'll just get a stupid amount of gas very quick.
But what about just making the gas geysers 3 gas per trip instead of 4? Sounds a bit weird, but when you think about it, it kinda balances out because players will also expand a lot more. Therefore they have access to a lot more geysers.
|
Well what are we waiting for then, lets make new maps and scrap rocks, 8mg2g bases and bring SC2 number one e-sports game in the world.
|
I read the whole thing and i am really impressed. The amount of thought and time you have putten into this alone shows your true dedication to E-Sports, SC2 and competitive gaming.
I think what we really need to do is have a profound discussion about the following:
When we look at the two kind of diametrical philosophies: "depth/breadth/longevity" on the one side and "terrible terrible damage" on the other side we have to find a optimal place for the community as a whole between the two of them.
And the importance here lies in "the community as a whole" which includes pro-gamers, hardcore gamers who enjoy the game because of its strategical depth, casual 1v1 players, casual non-1v1 players, and most important all the people just spectating. If we want to make SC2 the most successful in E-Sports for a long time we have to understand what would be the optimal balance between the two philosophies for all these groups and how big these groups are.
Greetings,
Mr. Peach
|
This what the game needs. I'll try for sure to make less R/B work on my own maps.
|
Just searched for the 6m custom maps and played a game on both vs a friendly zerg who also read this thread and went to find the maps.
I had a blast, was so much more fun than normal maps.
Losing a hatchery is not as a big issue. Even made a nydus, which felt much stronger with so many hatcheries.
I really think you should promote the 6m and not the 7m.
|
@Mods please add a Link for all the EU guys  we can't post and vote in US forums.
|
I was curious about your comment about Blizzard's desire to maintain some simplicity, and to certainly preserve the "terrible, terrible damage" psychology, particularly fro casual players. It occurs to me that, with league stratifications, it becomes possible to distinctly cater to both serious players and casual players without negatively impacting the other. Adding variety to the resources available at bases could reasonably be considered confusing for more casual players, but those maps could easily not be included in the bronze-platinum ladders. As such, the higher-tier ladder maps could easily be geared more towards more experienced, more skilled players, and the broader ladders could be geared towards more casual players.
|
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. I think unit design is the core of RTS games but it's not necessarily the easiest parameter to work on for making expanding more viable right now in sc2. But simple things like combat unit mobility plays a huge role for both defending and attacking for sure.
The way I think about things like these is usually a): what do we want. Then b): how do we achieve what we want. So what do we want?
I'll list a few things that come to mind.
Fun to play.
-Fun to play for new players. Should be good so called hooks.
-Fun to play for casual players.
-Fun to play for hard core and professional players.
Fun to watch.
-Fun to watch for new people. Should be built in hooks.
-Fun to watch for casual and hardcore fans.
Fun to play and watch both include things like balance, interesting game play, user interface, controls and polished graphics. That you can clearly see what the units are doing because of well thought out graphics and animations is important but rarely brought up it seems.
Easy/good control is often seen as negative which I generally disagree with. When people watch they usually think the players are sloppy if it looks sloppy regardless of how hard it happens to be. And new or casual players wont think it's fun not being able to control their units because pro's are so good they manage to control some of them.
And so on.
To be honest I'm not sure I really understand what Barrin wants which, from reading the replies must be my own fault. When reading I pictured typical PvP a lot, why is expanding often detrimental in pvp?
Main factors seem to be time, cost/income, unit design, the warp gate mechanic and being able to defend your stuff. You always need to be able to defend everything, both units and infrastructure so that part is hard to ignore. I'll focus on that, cost/income and time.
RTS games operate on a time axis. Cost is relative to income and income is based on time. Cost and time are extremely important here because they decide how long it takes for expanding to go from being a(often detrimental) cost to being profitable. It's not just about probes and nexuses because you need other infrastructure to use the resources as well. Let's say we want to make expanding pay for itself faster.
The relevant factors are:
-Cost of probes.
-Mining speed.(ignoring this because I haven't really thought about it)
-Cost of nexus.
-Build time of probes and nexuses.
Making probes build faster is probably not the best solution because their build time is so much shorter than the time they have to mine to pay for themselves. And making workers build way faster will probably make the whole game much faster because of larger "boom" effect potential.
So it's probably better to lower the probe cost if we want them to pay for themselves faster, should be a lot less side effects to worry about.
Not sure what I think about the build time and cost of nexuses. If the build time was like 10 seconds and the probe cost was lower I suspect people will figure out AoE-like booming builds by building a lot of nexuses just for probe production and chrono boosts. And same thing if they cost like 50 minerals.
On the other hand, perhaps for example 250 minerals and 60 build time instead of 400/100 would be better.
For other infrastructure I'm thinking it's mostly about cost. I always thought infrastructure cost seemed a bit high sc2, maybe it would be better with lower infrastructure cost(which could mean faster unit build time/cool down in some cases as well) and slightly higher combat unit cost.
I'll use what might seem like radical changes to illustrate, don't think of the numbers as thought out serious suggestions. Example:
-Probe cost lowered to 20.
-Nexus cost lowered to 250.
-Nexus build time lowered to 60.
-Cost of all other structures(except cannons probably) decreased by 50%.
-Cost of combat units increased by 30%.
I would guess a change like that would make expanding more viable because expanding should pay for itself faster and less resources would go to infrastructure and workers and more to battle units than now. It should also have a larger impact on the early/mid game than the late game. And worker production speed would probably basically stay the same(other than the 40 from faster nexus build time) unless the changes happened to be large enough to make macro nexuses the way to go.
"Defending your stuff easier" when you expand is included to a degree. Because when relatively more go into combat units than infrastructure(can include probes and nexuses in that for simplicity) the disadvantage from having less resources for combat units for the expanding player is smaller.
Apply same general ideas to terran and zerg.
Part of the reason I don't feel I understand the OP very well is that things like less minerals patches per base should increase the infrastructure per expansion cost instead of decreasing it etc.
|
Well this is at the top of the Team Liquid spotlight and the Official SC2 popular topics now, I really hope some pros see it and tell us their views and / or play some games on the maps.
As for me, I think it's a brilliant idea and I'd love to see Blizzard experiment with it.
|
I feel like a lot of people are overreacting to this idea a little bit, and hailing it as the ultimate fix for everything SC2 related. The best way to go about testing it is to put one map with one less mineral patch at each base into a high level tournament map pool. Then if it works out, try putting another one in. Very slowly reduce the number of patches as long as the games are still good and the players like the maps.
The only real way to find out if this idea is good or will work is to test it out.
|
Let Blizz make ladder pool for both hardcore players and for casual (Sunday players). Pros and community will be happy and on the same time blizz will sell the game to many people. Everybody can be happy :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
