|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 18 2012 02:13 HardlyNever wrote:
I'm almost positive mules would have to be changed if the mineral patches were dropped to six. As I'm sure you know, mules ignore other mining workers. Reducing mineral patches inherently favors the race that makes workers more slowly and has a mechanic that boosts economy regardless of worker saturation (terran).
I'd imagine this change would make the 1-1-1 against protoss almost impossible to stop without some sort of patch. The loss of the two mineral patches for terran would mean much less than the loss of 4 mineral patches (the expo) for protoss in that situation, largely because of mules.
Protoss and zerg would take a disproportionate hit to their income when compared to terran, because the mule brings in a fixed mineral income, regardless of saturation.
Actually--the crazy thing is that the mineral reduction will mean that Terran will not be able to 111. As is, making tanks, banshees and marines is not affordable at 1 base as in we need to cut production every few cycles. It literally is harder to pull it off with 2less minerals. It also makes all forms of 111 a true all in as opposed to current ones where so long as you snip the nexus you can pull back because you already have an expo up.
|
After thinking a bit more about this, I believe there are two balance issue that might come up, both regarding Terran. It seems as though Mules would be even stronger because other races would not be able to make up for mules by creating more gathers without expanding. Secondly in regards to expanding, it seems as though the PF would become and even strong structure for the Terran players. If ultimately players are expanding more and having less units and small battles are accruing more often, Zergs and Protoss would have to commit a much greater number of units to take down a PF than terran would have to commit to taking out a P or Z expo.
|
Due to a relatively high maximum resource collection rate per mineral field and therefore base (among other things), SC2 is mathematically predisposed to the "Deathball" side of the spectrum as opposed to "smaller, more frequent, more spread out" engagements.
And this is what WC3 had. God, it was FUN. The micro was so demanding and special!
|
On March 18 2012 03:06 Zythius wrote:Show nested quote +Due to a relatively high maximum resource collection rate per mineral field and therefore base (among other things), SC2 is mathematically predisposed to the "Deathball" side of the spectrum as opposed to "smaller, more frequent, more spread out" engagements. And this is what WC3 had. God, it was FUN. The micro was so demanding and special!
But SC2 has no heroes and units die too fast for micro to be as effective/demanding/fun :/
|
What's really interesting is that I haven't read a single comment that said: "Tried the map. Hated it. These changes felt bad."
All the negative comments are theorycrafted ones. Go out and play the game you haters. You might change your minds 
|
On March 18 2012 02:27 zeross wrote:
a lot of units, particulary true with protoss, work well when packed together. force more large scale battle without changing unit mechanism would just break the game.
Boring 200/200 Toss deathballs are killing the game on their own already (See TvP, this match-up's lategame is so boring and the clock on terran so bad in design). If you want SC2 to stay alive, you're gonna need this anyway - the sooner the better.
|
I played a crazy ZvZ on Devolution a couple of months ago, and really enjoyed it. Glad to finally the see the post come out, Barrin! Very convincing! It makes me want to pick up SC2 and not finish my damn grad work.
|
This is the right direction, which can fix alot of problems. For example huge maps with many expansions will make nydus viable the extra gas income can be put into nydus.
We need long and demanding games with alot of diversity and I realy love this solution.
I hope more pro level players try the maps and give their thoughts about it.
|
On March 18 2012 02:37 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 02:13 HardlyNever wrote:
I'm almost positive mules would have to be changed if the mineral patches were dropped to six. As I'm sure you know, mules ignore other mining workers. Reducing mineral patches inherently favors the race that makes workers more slowly and has a mechanic that boosts economy regardless of worker saturation (terran).
I'd imagine this change would make the 1-1-1 against protoss almost impossible to stop without some sort of patch. The loss of the two mineral patches for terran would mean much less than the loss of 4 mineral patches (the expo) for protoss in that situation, largely because of mules.
Protoss and zerg would take a disproportionate hit to their income when compared to terran, because the mule brings in a fixed mineral income, regardless of saturation. Actually--the crazy thing is that the mineral reduction will mean that Terran will not be able to 111. As is, making tanks, banshees and marines is not affordable at 1 base as in we need to cut production every few cycles. It literally is harder to pull it off with 2less minerals. It also makes all forms of 111 a true all in as opposed to current ones where so long as you snip the nexus you can pull back because you already have an expo up.
It would still be very possible. There are variants that use 2 barracks, and still have some tanks/banshees, they just come a little later. The super marine heavy variants would probably drop off, but the pure 1-1-1 would be even better. You have to consider protoss is going to have significantly less units as well.
|
i wanted to write a huge text about how this would change everything into the positive but i am just to lazy but it would also FIX a lot of thinks. the mirror matchups would be awesome for example pvp.
the game would just be better . i hope we as a community can make the change come fast. almost in every game since i read your article i was thinking: if we would just expand more it would be soooo much different.
i hope we can do this :/
|
As much as i want Blizzard to incorporate this, I strongly believe Blizzard won't do it. Blizzard has stated that they wanted the community to be more involved given the strength of the map editor. I believe it will be up to the map makers and tournament organizers if they want to use these kinds of maps.
|
Well spoken. But I think the current dynamic of the game isn't solely rooted in the economy of the maps. Units as the Collosus needs to be looked at aswell
|
I didn't even read a quarter of this yet, but it sounds so impressive I think they should hire you lol.
|
On March 18 2012 03:32 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 02:37 lorkac wrote:On March 18 2012 02:13 HardlyNever wrote:
I'm almost positive mules would have to be changed if the mineral patches were dropped to six. As I'm sure you know, mules ignore other mining workers. Reducing mineral patches inherently favors the race that makes workers more slowly and has a mechanic that boosts economy regardless of worker saturation (terran).
I'd imagine this change would make the 1-1-1 against protoss almost impossible to stop without some sort of patch. The loss of the two mineral patches for terran would mean much less than the loss of 4 mineral patches (the expo) for protoss in that situation, largely because of mules.
Protoss and zerg would take a disproportionate hit to their income when compared to terran, because the mule brings in a fixed mineral income, regardless of saturation. Actually--the crazy thing is that the mineral reduction will mean that Terran will not be able to 111. As is, making tanks, banshees and marines is not affordable at 1 base as in we need to cut production every few cycles. It literally is harder to pull it off with 2less minerals. It also makes all forms of 111 a true all in as opposed to current ones where so long as you snip the nexus you can pull back because you already have an expo up. It would still be very possible. There are variants that use 2 barracks, and still have some tanks/banshees, they just come a little later. The super marine heavy variants would probably drop off, but the pure 1-1-1 would be even better. You have to consider protoss is going to have significantly less units as well.
Not vs an early expand build, as having that 2 bases will yield a huge benefit. Remember, the less minerals, the more a fast expand benefits the expander, since he gains a greater income leap over fully saturated single base play.
|
On March 18 2012 01:04 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 00:34 EternaLLegacy wrote: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. So by your account, 50 Roaches vs. 48 Roaches should be a complete slaughter in favor of the 50 Roaches, but 4 Roaches vs. 2 Roaches should be a lot closer, when in both cases the smaller number of roaches have a positional advantage. I'm afraid you've got it backwards.
4v2 is better in terms of % of units that stay alive, but NOT absolute numbers.
|
I wish I could personally reach through my monitor and bitchslap everyone who is whining that they think this would upset balance and therefore shouldn't be done.
He's trying to fix FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS with SC2, and you're complaining about a POSSIBLE unit imbalance that could be fixed by flipping some numbers around in patches, or in the TWO EXPANSION PACKS coming out?
Baww mutalisks. Get the fuck out.
|
On March 18 2012 04:32 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 03:32 HardlyNever wrote:On March 18 2012 02:37 lorkac wrote:On March 18 2012 02:13 HardlyNever wrote:
I'm almost positive mules would have to be changed if the mineral patches were dropped to six. As I'm sure you know, mules ignore other mining workers. Reducing mineral patches inherently favors the race that makes workers more slowly and has a mechanic that boosts economy regardless of worker saturation (terran).
I'd imagine this change would make the 1-1-1 against protoss almost impossible to stop without some sort of patch. The loss of the two mineral patches for terran would mean much less than the loss of 4 mineral patches (the expo) for protoss in that situation, largely because of mules.
Protoss and zerg would take a disproportionate hit to their income when compared to terran, because the mule brings in a fixed mineral income, regardless of saturation. Actually--the crazy thing is that the mineral reduction will mean that Terran will not be able to 111. As is, making tanks, banshees and marines is not affordable at 1 base as in we need to cut production every few cycles. It literally is harder to pull it off with 2less minerals. It also makes all forms of 111 a true all in as opposed to current ones where so long as you snip the nexus you can pull back because you already have an expo up. It would still be very possible. There are variants that use 2 barracks, and still have some tanks/banshees, they just come a little later. The super marine heavy variants would probably drop off, but the pure 1-1-1 would be even better. You have to consider protoss is going to have significantly less units as well. Not vs an early expand build, as having that 2 bases will yield a huge benefit. Remember, the less minerals, the more a fast expand benefits the expander, since he gains a greater income leap over fully saturated single base play.
That is only true if mules aren't involved. Mules are involved. Hence the problem with mules and this idea to begin with.
|
as good of an idea this is, im going to have to disagree. Fewer MP per base = for longer games. The fact that the average game is 10 minutes is very good. Sure everyone likes a long macro game,but for major tournaments like MLG,IEM,etc; it becomes a nightmare to work out a schedule. Since they are already used to it being the way it is now, then i think it's 2 late for a change.Production value of these tournaments will definitely deplenish for the fact they would undercompensate for the extra time each match is being played.
|
51 Posts
On March 18 2012 04:43 GhostTK wrote:
as good of an idea this is, im going to have to disagree. Fewer MP per base = for longer games. The fact that the average game is 10 minutes is very good. Sure everyone likes a long macro game,but for major tournaments like MLG,IEM,etc; it becomes a nightmare to work out a schedule. Since they are already used to it being the way it is now, then i think it's 2 late for a change.Production value of these tournaments will definitely deplenish for the fact they would undercompensate for the extra time each match is being played. You forgot to add "this change will hurt e-sports."
|
On March 18 2012 04:43 GhostTK wrote:
as good of an idea this is, im going to have to disagree. Fewer MP per base = for longer games. The fact that the average game is 10 minutes is very good. Sure everyone likes a long macro game,but for major tournaments like MLG,IEM,etc; it becomes a nightmare to work out a schedule. Since they are already used to it being the way it is now, then i think it's 2 late for a change.Production value of these tournaments will definitely deplenish for the fact they would undercompensate for the extra time each match is being played.
Logistics come as a distant second to quality of gameplay IMO. I would hope the community would agree on that much, at least. And no, HotS makes it NOT too late for a change.
On March 18 2012 04:38 Hinanawi wrote:
I wish I could personally reach through my monitor and bitchslap everyone who is whining that they think this would upset balance and therefore shouldn't be done.
He's trying to fix FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS with SC2, and you're complaining about a POSSIBLE unit imbalance that could be fixed by flipping some numbers around in patches, or in the TWO EXPANSION PACKS coming out?
Baww mutalisks. Get the fuck out.
Completely agree. Again, unit balance is going to be fucked up after HotS anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
