• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 03:54
CEST 09:54
KST 16:54
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week1[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation14$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced6Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Season 1 - Final Week Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles
Tourneys
$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [G] Progamer Settings ASL20 Preliminary Maps [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Positive Thoughts on Setting Up a Dual-Caliber FX
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 579 users

Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 27

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 25 26 27 28 29 113 Next
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB
Supah
Profile Joined August 2010
708 Posts
March 17 2012 13:37 GMT
#521
I feel all it does is alter pacing of tech. You'll have more pressure and more pokes because those spikes of army effectiveness are flattened out, but why would it increase harass? Because there are more active mining bases? Wouldn't the compensation by static defense be enough (considering the army sizes will be smaller anyway)? Either way, by the time you have that many bases, the tech should have already caught up by then as per a normal game.I feel this would upset the way a lot of units work, and tweaking this (in addition to say unit spacing) would have huge ramifications. You nerf AoE tech units *cough*Protoss*cough* incredibly. Smaller engagements buff units with great single target DPS, and belittle range and map positioning, which is how units seem to be designed.

On the Muta post earlier.. limiting factor in a Muta rush is gas, not minerals, additionally the first batch of Mutas is warded off by Marines easily, I don't think I've ever seen a Terran lose to a "Muta rush" in quite a long time.
hzflank
Profile Joined August 2011
United Kingdom2991 Posts
March 17 2012 13:46 GMT
#522
As a former Age of Empires player I really like this. I complain constantly to my friends about the design of SC2 (and other mainstream RTS games). My biggest complaint has always been that each base is too valuable. With workers spread out over more bases then the game really opens up and you can also use more open maps (less chokes) since a raid killing one of your bases does not completely cripple your economy.
Advocado
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Denmark994 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-17 14:09:39
March 17 2012 14:09 GMT
#523
Would be kind of huge changes to bring in an expansion. perhaps an UMS with these changes would be interesting would be able to sway more favor for these changes.
http://www.twitch.tv/advocadosc2
Kiselstein
Profile Joined March 2012
Germany7 Posts
March 17 2012 14:25 GMT
#524
Maybe one should get some pros to play some games on those maps and give the replays Husky so he could explain the issue to wider masses ... and State of the Game should have to talk about it.
NeonFlare
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
Finland1307 Posts
March 17 2012 14:28 GMT
#525
I wonder if some sort of community funded small tournament would work to give incentive for pros to try it out, then again, since people have toned all their builds on the standard minerals it could end up pretty chaotic, which might not be a bad thing, but wouldn't give the most accurate results?

Has the post been translated into korean yet? Wonder how the community over there would react to it.
archonOOid
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1983 Posts
March 17 2012 14:29 GMT
#526
I played around with high gas geyser on devolution and my suggestion is to have the normal 2 gas or to even better make 2 low gas geysers. Because the mineral investment to get saturation on 1 high gas geyser is only 75 mineral + 3 workers as compared to 150 minerals + 6 workers. This means that teching while on 1 base is even easier than the current gas situation.

A single, normal, ideal and fully saturated geyser produces 121.15 gas per minute and two, 242.30 gpm. (4 per trip)
A single, high, ideal and fully saturated geyser produces 181.73 gas per minute. (6 per trip)
A single, low, ideal and fully saturated geyser produces 90.86 gas per minute and two, 181.72 gpm. (3 per trip)

With 2 low gas geysers in your base your teching takes 30s + 3*17s longer due to an extra extractor/assimilator/refinery and 3 extra workers. All of them costs minerals (75 + 150) which will create a greater incentive to expand and to later on tech. However once you have full saturation it will have the targeted gas reduction as OP aimed and keeping the blizzard gas/mineral ratio.

I don't know if this can be achieved via the map editor or not but i think that 2 low gas geysers (3 per trip) is the best way for a sustainable incentive for players to keep expanding throughout the entire duration of a game.
I'm Quotable (IQ)
Rassy
Profile Joined August 2010
Netherlands2308 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-17 14:42:18
March 17 2012 14:39 GMT
#527
I would love something like this.
The way the bases and minerals are setup in sc lead to somewhat boring gameplay, the target is always to kill an enemy base.
Personally i realy did like the way resource gathering was set up in command and conquer, with just 1-2 base and minerals all over the map
You had to control huge areas if you wanted to get minerals from afar, spreading out thin and leaving manny options for insurgerys
Now you only need to control your base and defend 1-2 chokes basicly, to be able to mine everything.
This is not exactly what you are sugesting but it is somewhat close.

Less minerals/minute would mean that the whole game would have to be rebalanced in a huge way.
Terran can be realy efficient with small groups of units, though this is less the case for protoss and zerg i think.
Akta
Profile Joined February 2011
447 Posts
March 17 2012 14:42 GMT
#528
On March 17 2012 23:29 archonOOid wrote:
I played around with high gas geyser on devolution and my suggestion is to have the normal 2 gas or to even better make 2 low gas geysers. Because the mineral investment to get saturation on 1 high gas geyser is only 75 mineral + 3 workers as compared to 150 minerals + 6 workers. This means that teching while on 1 base is even easier than the current gas situation.

A single, normal, ideal and fully saturated geyser produces 121.15 gas per minute and two, 242.30 gpm. (4 per trip)
A single, high, ideal and fully saturated geyser produces 181.73 gas per minute. (6 per trip)
A single, low, ideal and fully saturated geyser produces 90.86 gas per minute and two, 181.72 gpm. (3 per trip)

With 2 low gas geysers in your base your teching takes 30s + 3*17s longer due to an extra extractor/assimilator/refinery and 3 extra workers. All of them costs minerals (75 + 150) which will create a greater incentive to expand and to later on tech. However once you have full saturation it will have the targeted gas reduction as OP aimed and keeping the blizzard gas/mineral ratio.

I don't know if this can be achieved via the map editor or not but i think that 2 low gas geysers (3 per trip) is the best way for a sustainable incentive for players to keep expanding throughout the entire duration of a game.
Isn't the only relevant incentive at high levels what works best?
Vindicare605
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States16056 Posts
March 17 2012 14:49 GMT
#529
Holy shit.....

All I can say is. You make a compelling case. I'm willing to try your maps and test your theory for myself with my friends. If this turns out to work the way you say it can then I see no reason why it shouldn't be done.

But. The whole game would have to change because of it. Balance which is already heavily influenced by the professional level of play would have to trickle down into the ladder and ultimately force the ladder to adopt this philosophy also.

I can't say how this would turn out in the end. All I know is I also see that there is a problem with SC2, there are X factors missing that Brood War had, and I know thanks to Blizzcon that Blizzard recognizes that the "deathball" is hurting the game and they want to help fix it. Perhaps if this change works out, then they'll adopt it for themselves.
aka: KTVindicare the Geeky Bartender
WhiteDog
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
France8650 Posts
March 17 2012 14:53 GMT
#530
Should be put in PDF and directly mailed to blizzard. Such a work...
"every time WhiteDog overuses the word "seriously" in a comment I can make an observation on his fragile emotional state." MoltkeWarding
Vindicare605
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States16056 Posts
March 17 2012 14:55 GMT
#531
BTW that Video of Mike Morhaim was amazing. Just reminds me why I am such a devoted Blizzard fan. They've earned my respect over the years, and even though SC2 isn't their BEST work so far, it's still a fantastic product. Blizz has never let me down.
aka: KTVindicare the Geeky Bartender
mordek
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States12704 Posts
March 17 2012 15:01 GMT
#532
Wow this is a fantastic article. Thanks for taking the time to present this in such an organized fashion. Wholeheartedly agree.
It is vanity to love what passes quickly and not to look ahead where eternal joy abides. Tiberius77 | Mordek #1881 "I took a mint!"
Bengui
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada775 Posts
March 17 2012 15:05 GMT
#533
Great article, really thoughts provoking. I can't wait to get some pro feedback/replays on this. (I would try the maps myself, but since I haven't played a 1v1 in months and was only in plat when I stopped, I don't know if I would even notice the difference..)
archonOOid
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1983 Posts
March 17 2012 15:05 GMT
#534
On March 17 2012 23:42 Akta wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 17 2012 23:29 archonOOid wrote:
I played around with high gas geyser on devolution and my suggestion is to have the normal 2 gas or to even better make 2 low gas geysers. Because the mineral investment to get saturation on 1 high gas geyser is only 75 mineral + 3 workers as compared to 150 minerals + 6 workers. This means that teching while on 1 base is even easier than the current gas situation.

A single, normal, ideal and fully saturated geyser produces 121.15 gas per minute and two, 242.30 gpm. (4 per trip)
A single, high, ideal and fully saturated geyser produces 181.73 gas per minute. (6 per trip)
A single, low, ideal and fully saturated geyser produces 90.86 gas per minute and two, 181.72 gpm. (3 per trip)

With 2 low gas geysers in your base your teching takes 30s + 3*17s longer due to an extra extractor/assimilator/refinery and 3 extra workers. All of them costs minerals (75 + 150) which will create a greater incentive to expand and to later on tech. However once you have full saturation it will have the targeted gas reduction as OP aimed and keeping the blizzard gas/mineral ratio.

I don't know if this can be achieved via the map editor or not but i think that 2 low gas geysers (3 per trip) is the best way for a sustainable incentive for players to keep expanding throughout the entire duration of a game.
Isn't the only relevant incentive at high levels what works best?


Okay so are disregarding the OP? It's a theoretical reasoning. If you have a counter argument or a opposing viewpoint please bring it forth.
I'm Quotable (IQ)
Glockateer
Profile Joined June 2009
United States254 Posts
March 17 2012 15:07 GMT
#535
Awesome post, I've certainly been saying something similar.

We've really needed to increase supply and lower resources per base and you brought all the statistics and insight for what a some of us have been saying. I'd be quite happy if they lowered the minerals to 6/7 per base and increased the supply by 25 I'd be very happy. The supply cap is to offset the overall higher worker saturation needed (6 on gas for example) and overall higher supply units that we have in SC2.

One thing about going down to the 6 mineral patches is the mule will likely need to have lowered effectiveness. I'm not sure how they'd try to balance that and allow terran players to keep up with the other two races macro mechanics. Also, you mentioned you often had too much larva. I believe that means larva inject and chrono boost would need to be toned down a little as well by going to this new idea of lowered economy.

That is why I think we should have a good amount of people test the ins and outs of 6 vs 7 minerals (including pro players) to see how it all plays out. If it fixed the big problems we have and required a little tweaking then it'd be worth it in the long run. We just need Blizzard to be on board for the change in HotS.
GET SM4SHED
Darksoldierr
Profile Joined May 2010
Hungary2012 Posts
March 17 2012 15:11 GMT
#536
Meh, 7m is empty as hell on eu
What do humans know of our pain? We have sung songs of lament since before your ancestors crawled on their bellies from the sea.
Grr Arr Rawr
Profile Joined April 2011
United States108 Posts
March 17 2012 15:19 GMT
#537
Great write-up, I think it's definitely something that should, at the very least, be experimented with.

Anyone interested in trying out the 6m maps with a Plat zerg, feel free to hit me up. GrrArrRawr.356, and I don't mind getting rolled by higher-level players!
You can't rhyme against the dark side of the Force, why even bother? So many dudes been with your mom, who even KNOWS if I'm your father!
Masq
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada1792 Posts
March 17 2012 15:21 GMT
#538
Perhaps I'm wrong, but wouldn't some of these suggested changes create MORE terrible, terrible damage situations?

If reducing the amount of minerals in a base causes people to spread out more, and typically have a more macro-oriented play style, wouldn't that make "fast" all-ins even stronger? If bases had 65% minerals (keeping # of patches the same) or had less patches, people would be required to expand quicker.

This MAY eliminate builds like 1-1-1 where timings typically hit around 9-11 minutes (due to mining out faster) but people could execute it regardless as a "1punch" move with no follow up. But there are many scenarios where you cannot scout properly in the very early game, and pushing players into fast expand builds opens a whole new can of worms such as 4gate warpprism.

While I agree 1basing is certainly a problem in SC2, I think the root issue is a lot deeper than just mineral income. Map positions, unit movement speed, income/macro mechanics, and splash damage all need to be looked at.

We shouldn't have scenarios where colossus and psi storm destroy a 200/200 army in 5seconds, or an archon toilet destroys 50 supply of broodlords instantly, or 120 stimmed marines melt everything in sight.
Zandar
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Netherlands1541 Posts
March 17 2012 15:23 GMT
#539
On March 18 2012 00:11 Darksoldierr wrote:
Meh, 7m is empty as hell on eu


6m is not. make a game and people will join within minutes
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
EternaLLegacy
Profile Blog Joined December 2011
United States410 Posts
March 17 2012 15:34 GMT
#540
On March 17 2012 11:53 Zato-1 wrote:
I'm opposed to this idea. I think we're likely to see fewer expansions and less tech as a result of a change like this.

Why?

Simple. Let's say that making a Nexus means you have to forfeit 2 Stalkers. With 10 Stalkers vs. 12 Stalkers from your opponent, you might be able to defend and live if you have superior positioning (defender's advantage); but with 4 Stalkers vs. 6 Stalkers from your opponent, you're going to get rolled.

Now, you might argue that all this means is that you're just going to need to expand a bit later, when you can mimic that 10 vs. 12 unit scenario. Wrong. One big part of defender's advantage is that you typically have an extra production cycle over your opponent, because your units are ready to fight as soon as they come out of your production facilities whereas your opponents' units need to travel all the way across the map. Well, with fewer resources on all sides, that extra production cycle is worth fewer units, and thus a smaller defender's advantage.

TL;DR: With fewer units all around and a smaller defender's advantage, getting out more units quickly becomes imperative, or you can get rolled by an opponent investing strongly into his army. In contrast, expanding and teching become less appealing options, and you get a whole lot of unbalanced 1base, tier 1 play.


Wrong, because the addition of a handful of probes + the defender's advantage of reinforcements arriving faster matters a lot more in 4 stalkers vs 6 stalkers. Now, obviously your example is PvP and PvP is broken because of warpgate, but that's a different matter.

You see, in 12 stalkers vs 10 stalkers, it's not the same outcome as 6 stalkers vs 4 stalkers, even though it's a difference of two. Because of the exponential strength of armies, that 12 stalker army is going to probably walk out of that conflict with 6+ stalkers. Then those 2 stalkers that come on reinforcement + probes get cleaned up easy. The 6 stalkers might win the fight with 2, maybe 3 leftover, and then those 2 reinforcement stalkers + probes can handle it.

The fewer units = the greater effect of defender's advantage.
Statists gonna State.
Prev 1 25 26 27 28 29 113 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 6m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Hyuk 564
actioN 206
Noble 85
Sharp 35
JulyZerg 34
Sacsri 19
Bale 17
yabsab 13
Dota 2
ODPixel278
XcaliburYe241
League of Legends
JimRising 678
Counter-Strike
shoxiejesuss422
chrisJcsgo43
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor138
Other Games
summit1g10196
shahzam993
Stewie2K769
monkeys_forever312
ceh9172
Liquid`RaSZi90
SortOf86
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick22149
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH406
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• tankgirl 2
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2138
League of Legends
• Lourlo1253
• Stunt582
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
2h 6m
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
5h 6m
Replay Cast
16h 6m
RSL Revival
1d 2h
Classic vs Cure
FEL
1d 8h
OSC
1d 12h
RSL Revival
2 days
FEL
2 days
FEL
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
[ Show More ]
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.