Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 28

On March 18 2012 00:05 archonOOid wrote:


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.

On March 18 2012 00:42 Akta wrote:
I shouldn't have replied like I did without explaining what I meant but I probably had my previous post in mind as reference or whatever. I'll elaborate, RTS games basically work like this in my head:

Lets say you have to spend 10000 resources maximize your first base and that it takes 10 minutes to do it. The second base costs 10000 and takes 5 minutes to maximize if you don't build combat units.

If you build combat units only after you maximized your second base you will have a certain amounts of combat units 18 minutes into the game. If you expand while building the combat units you will have less units at 18 minutes than you would have had if you didn't start the third expansion.

If your opponent only builds combat units after finishing the first base the opponent will have a certain amount of combat units 13 minutes in and if he attacks your base at 14 minutes when you expanded you lose. If you start building combat units after you finished the second base while expanding to a third and your opponent finish 2 bases and only build combat units and attack you lose.

Short version: Resources spent on infrastructure and expansions means less resources for combat units until the infrastructure and expansions paid for themselves. Like I said in my previous post RTS games operate on a time axis where resources spent on economy puts you at a disadvantage until they paid for themselves. Like building 3 macro orbitals 18 minutes in can be detrimental if the out come of the game will be decided by a battle at 20 minutes.

There are built in functions in rts games to avoid autolosing(assuming equally skilled players) every time that happens. The time it takes for the opponents army to get to your base, static defense, that the defender might be able to decide how the armies engage etc.


What happens if bases cap earlier? Lets say it's cut by 50% so the cost is 5000 resources instead of 10000. It wont make it 50% faster to finish the base so there wont be a linear gain in defenders advantage from the relatively longer time it takes for the opponent to move the army across the map to your base. And if mineral/gas production cost stays the same or increases expanding becomes a larger disadvantage, not smaller. Assuming my RTS brain is working somewhat properly, then wouldn't the changes mean less incentive to expand?

On March 18 2012 00:51 Beef Noodles wrote:

No, I don't agree with this. There are certain ways to expand safely no matter what your opponent is doing. Whether its because of your scouting, your strategy, or your timing, you can expand safely vs anything your opponent can *reasonably* throw at you -- assuming you are keeping tabs on your opponent at all. How to expand safely varies each match up, but it's something every player has to figure out. It's fundamental to every RTS

On March 18 2012 00:34 EternaLLegacy wrote:


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.

On March 18 2012 01:43 lowercase wrote:
Remove the ability of MULES to "super saturate" mineral lines (i.e.: mine over the top of existing SCVs), and having fewer-resource bases sounds like a great idea.

On March 18 2012 00:42 Akta wrote:
I shouldn't have replied like I did without explaining what I meant but I probably had my previous post in mind as reference or whatever. I'll elaborate, RTS games basically work like this in my head:

Lets say you have to spend 10000 resources maximize your first base and that it takes 10 minutes to do it. The second base costs 10000 and takes 5 minutes to maximize if you don't build combat units.

If you build combat units only after you maximized your second base you will have a certain amounts of combat units 18 minutes into the game. If you expand while building the combat units you will have less units at 18 minutes than you would have had if you didn't start the third expansion.

If your opponent only builds combat units after finishing the first base the opponent will have a certain amount of combat units 13 minutes in and if he attacks your base at 14 minutes when you expanded you lose. If you start building combat units after you finished the second base while expanding to a third and your opponent finish 2 bases and only build combat units and attack you lose.

Short version: Resources spent on infrastructure and expansions means less resources for combat units until the infrastructure and expansions paid for themselves. Like I said in my previous post RTS games operate on a time axis where resources spent on economy puts you at a disadvantage until they paid for themselves. Like building 3 macro orbitals 18 minutes in can be detrimental if the out come of the game will be decided by a battle at 20 minutes.

There are built in functions in rts games to avoid autolosing(assuming equally skilled players) every time that happens. The time it takes for the opponents army to get to your base, static defense, that the defender might be able to decide how the armies engage etc.


What happens if bases cap earlier? Lets say it's cut by 50% so the cost is 5000 resources instead of 10000. It wont make it 50% faster to finish the base so there wont be a linear gain in defenders advantage from the relatively longer time it takes for the opponent to move the army across the map to your base. And if mineral/gas production cost stays the same or increases expanding becomes a larger disadvantage, not smaller. Assuming my RTS brain is working somewhat properly, then wouldn't the changes mean less incentive to expand?

On March 18 2012 02:06 lorkac wrote:
This is the best and most logical suggestion at improving SC2.

If you want to force players to spread their forces, reduce the minerals in the main so the have to expand, then reduce the minerals in the expansions so the have to expand a lot.

4gates, gone--too expensive.

111, gone--too expensive

11/11 FE, gone--too expensive.

Etc...

Cheese attacks and fast rushes will be smaller in size--which means it will be easier to defend them. Pulling workers will actually be a big deal.

4 bases in a 6m map will be the same income as 3base in an 8m map.

6m 1hg is the best combination because it gives us more supply open for army. Love it!

On March 17 2012 21:00 Perseverance wrote:


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.

On March 18 2012 02:12 SeaSwift wrote:


That isn't how it works. If you have less mineral patches in the main, that really only affects saturation when you have a lot of workers. Hardcore 4gates hit at <25 workers. Conversely, the player that is going for the economic opening, normally in a PvP, will probably be hit harder than the 4gater, because he will have more workers and so receive less per worker by a significant amount.

4gate will actually be made stronger by having less mineral patches, rather than weaker. I suppose it does mean that 4gating and then backing off and carrying on playing off of 1 base is weaker, but who the fuck does that anyway, outside of extra-ordinary situations in PvP? A 4gate is all-in, and if you fail you are really far behind regardless of mineral patches.