EPTOn 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.
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 27
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Supah
708 Posts
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
United Kingdom2991 Posts
| ||
|
Advocado
Denmark994 Posts
| ||
|
Kiselstein
Germany7 Posts
| ||
|
NeonFlare
Finland1307 Posts
Has the post been translated into korean yet? Wonder how the community over there would react to it. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
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. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
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
447 Posts
On March 17 2012 23:29 archonOOid wrote: Isn't the only relevant incentive at high levels what works best?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. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16100 Posts
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. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16100 Posts
| ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
Bengui
Canada775 Posts
| ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
On March 17 2012 23:42 Akta wrote: 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. | ||
|
Glockateer
United States254 Posts
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. | ||
|
Darksoldierr
Hungary2012 Posts
| ||
|
Grr Arr Rawr
United States108 Posts
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! | ||
|
Masq
Canada1792 Posts
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
Netherlands1541 Posts
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 | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
