|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On March 18 2012 04:42 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 04:32 EternaLLegacy wrote: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.
Yes, but mules are a very very very bad mechanic and I was going to write about why I believe that to be the case in Part 3 of my articles. I think it's certainly enough of a problem that it's worth still writing the article and discussing why it's so bad.
|
On March 18 2012 03:51 Musiq wrote:
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.
I agree, Map makers take note! =D!
|
I like the way you handle terrible, terrible damage. Units that are just ridiculously efficient at killing one another en masse are a lowering effect on the breadth of gameplay. If it kills fast, you want to mass and you get results very quickly. If it kills slow, doesn't do AoE damage, the microing has a greater effect individually. Love it.
|
6m1hg is essentially the best suggestion ever made for SC2. It will not only leave more supply for armies, but also spread out game-play and make things significantly more interesting and dynamic.
|
This is an incredible post! Seriously hope blizzard implements them in HOTS
|
This may have been suggested in the thread already, but what about making main bases have 2 regular geysers and having the standard for other bases be 1 high-yield geyser? That way you keep the variations for openings.
|
On March 17 2012 04:04 architecture wrote:
...
Resource reduction is a reasonable idea. The only issue is that the races may not have been given adequate tools to deal with this. On one hand, T is really strong at low income play, and striking outlying expansions. Good luck holding 3rd/4th if you have to take them early as Z/P against bio. On the other hand, T is also awful at holding outlying expansions late game, since there's no way to convert excess minerals into foodless defense.
...
We see more and more Terrans building PFs as simple static defense, not only do they cause crazy damage but they can be repaired and can not simply be taken out by a pack of roaming zerglings.
|
On March 18 2012 05:01 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 04:42 HardlyNever wrote:On March 18 2012 04:32 EternaLLegacy wrote: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. Yes, but mules are a very very very bad mechanic and I was going to write about why I believe that to be the case in Part 3 of my articles. I think it's certainly enough of a problem that it's worth still writing the article and discussing why it's so bad.
Except MULEs should become less available. PFs are going to be needed to defend remote expansions. 5 orbitals won't cut it if you need to defend more than 3 close expos at once.
PFs are Terran's only real solution to prevent run-bys and drops for remote expos. P has warp-in, and Z has creep. Remove MULEs altogether, and Terran falls behind sharply in economy.
Edit - what Polygamy said.
|
I just played two games on lower resources maps. The first was on 7m2g Daybreak, and the second was 6m2g Devolution (with the Tank...).
I'm a Plat Zerg and my opponent for both was a Diamond Terran who I didn't know beforehand.
The first game he rolled me pretty badly, as I made some pretty big fundamental mistakes that led to myself never having much map awareness. Even so, after losing an early engagement to a larger Marine/Tank ball, the game wasn't purely over. Even though I didn't trade that efficiently, he didn't have enough to flat out destroy me immediately. He took out my work-in-progress 4th and my half-saturated 3rd, but I was able to at least stabilize on 2 base with Infestor/Roach/Ling while I tried to deny expansions with a modest pack of Lings. He picked off my Ling force and from there was able to contain me and won about 6-7 minutes later with a larger push that I couldn't hold off. Despite losing badly, I did see some traits of the positives that the resource change brought about.
The second game, as previously mentioned, was on 6m2g Devolution. There seems to be something wrong with the map where one player (me, in this case) spawns with a Siege Tank regardless of race. With the supply that it takes up, it makes it impossible to drone up to 9/10 as normal, so I used the tank to kill 2 SCV's and then let his SCV's kill me (or maybe I just have awful tank micro?) - overall I felt that this leveled the playing field and put us on roughly even trajectories. I went for a faster Lair than normal and was playing 1/1 Ling/Infestor on 3 bases, though my 4th was denied a few times before I finally got both a 4th and 5th. Meanwhile, I used Lings to put a hurt on his 3rd base and keep him somewhat contained. At that point I made a Muta switch and did a significant amount of damage, taking out his 3rd CC, and about 2/5ths of his workers. He moved out with Marine/Tank/Ghost and got a good EMP off on my Infestors, but my modest Ling/Bane/2-Infestors-with-energy force was enough to trade evenly with him after some fortunate Bane splashes. It was a good back and forth game and at one point I hit a nice Bane land mine that took out 19 Marines. We both grappled with harassment at our respective "extra" bases (bases beyond the 3rd). I was able to get Brood Lords out but only about 3-4 and he did a good job countering me. Eventually with drops he whittled away at my worker count (which, admittedly was never as high as it should have been, capping at around 62). We continued to trade in small/medium sized engagements and though I had a slightly better economy, I clumsily lost my 9 Infestors leaving me with only a handful of Lings and 12 Mutas against his ~40 Marines. My last mining base was about to mine out and I only had ~100 minerals left so I GG'd out.
Overall, the game went about 42 minutes and there were points when both of us were significantly behind but were able to stabilize and pull back, where I felt that in a normal game it would have just been over due to the higher production rate. With the 6 minerals, it's a more visible change than 7 minerals, and I loved the way that the game played out despite taking the loss once again. I'd love to play the map again once the Tank bug gets sorted out.
|
The OP should put as much time into possible downsides or imbalances caused by this change as he does for the benefits of this change, and not make unsupported statements such as "blizzard only wants money". I think i would enjoy a game balanced around the sort of game-play that is likely to come from the changes the op suggests. But at the same time i dont see how this change could possibly be implemented into the game without massive changes to every facet of the game. Certain units would become more powerful/useful, timings would change.. etc etc...I like the idea, but feel as if it is too large a change to be put into the game
|
If GSL and MLG switched to 6m, Blizzard will follow.
|
On March 18 2012 05:23 discomatt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 05:01 EternaLLegacy wrote:On March 18 2012 04:42 HardlyNever wrote:On March 18 2012 04:32 EternaLLegacy wrote: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. Yes, but mules are a very very very bad mechanic and I was going to write about why I believe that to be the case in Part 3 of my articles. I think it's certainly enough of a problem that it's worth still writing the article and discussing why it's so bad. Except MULEs should become less available. PFs are going to be needed to defend remote expansions. 5 orbitals won't cut it if you need to defend more than 3 close expos at once. PFs are Terran's only real solution to prevent run-bys and drops for remote expos. P has warp-in, and Z has creep. Remove MULEs altogether, and Terran falls behind sharply in economy. Edit - what Polygamy said.
True, but the power of the MULE early is the real concern.
|
On March 18 2012 01:59 Gfire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 00:42 Akta wrote:On March 18 2012 00:05 archonOOid wrote:On March 17 2012 23:42 Akta wrote: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 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? You're saying that the cost of the CC/Nexus/Hatch is going to be more relative to the actual income increase of expanding, and it takes longer to pay for itself. This true, and it should give less incentive to expand, early on in the game. It will still remove the base cap issue, and players will want 4-6 mining bases instead of maybe 3-4. Early on in the game, though, players won't have enough workers to saturate both bases so it won't take longer to pay for itself than usual, but a player who doesn't expand will have enough workers to saturate and thus will become weaker, with less ability to pressure an expanding player, making up for the fact that it takes longer to pay for an expansion. Agree it would make people want more mining bases late game but not sure about the other part. 1 and 2(and 3, 4, 5 .. too but that becomes vague to use as examples) base attacks will come earlier as well since the builds will spike earlier and(if someone thinks it wont matter because you can cut workers whenever you want already) those timings can't be as countered by just saturating your main/expans when both are fully saturated already. So like I said the main difference seem to be that you will have relatively more resources invested in the cc's/nexuses/hatches compared to now as far as I can tell.
I like the more late game bases part but there are already often advantages with taking more expansions than you can saturate with a reasonable amount of workers on minerals. As long you can defend them, which less mineral patches wont change. Terrans have mules and zergs usually need gas for example.
Seems more logical to try to make expansions return the investment faster and/or to somehow make them easier to defend.
I know there might be errors in how I structure rts econ, infrastructure and army costs though so I'm curious how it would play out with optimized builds.
|
On March 18 2012 05:39 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 05:23 discomatt wrote:On March 18 2012 05:01 EternaLLegacy wrote:On March 18 2012 04:42 HardlyNever wrote:On March 18 2012 04:32 EternaLLegacy wrote: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. Yes, but mules are a very very very bad mechanic and I was going to write about why I believe that to be the case in Part 3 of my articles. I think it's certainly enough of a problem that it's worth still writing the article and discussing why it's so bad. Except MULEs should become less available. PFs are going to be needed to defend remote expansions. 5 orbitals won't cut it if you need to defend more than 3 close expos at once. PFs are Terran's only real solution to prevent run-bys and drops for remote expos. P has warp-in, and Z has creep. Remove MULEs altogether, and Terran falls behind sharply in economy. Edit - what Polygamy said. True, but the power of the MULE early is the real concern.
A mule takes 3 scvs worth o build time to get. Until full saturation, mules are worse than simply making 3 more scvs. It's the mid/late game.
|
On March 18 2012 05:39 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 05:23 discomatt wrote:On March 18 2012 05:01 EternaLLegacy wrote:On March 18 2012 04:42 HardlyNever wrote:On March 18 2012 04:32 EternaLLegacy wrote: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. Yes, but mules are a very very very bad mechanic and I was going to write about why I believe that to be the case in Part 3 of my articles. I think it's certainly enough of a problem that it's worth still writing the article and discussing why it's so bad. Except MULEs should become less available. PFs are going to be needed to defend remote expansions. 5 orbitals won't cut it if you need to defend more than 3 close expos at once. PFs are Terran's only real solution to prevent run-bys and drops for remote expos. P has warp-in, and Z has creep. Remove MULEs altogether, and Terran falls behind sharply in economy. Edit - what Polygamy said. True, but the power of the MULE early is the real concern.
Agreed, but with a quick second, inject and chrono should be able to saturate the 2nd base faster than Terran could. This should level out any 1-base advantage, which in 6m1g should be much less powerful.
|
On March 18 2012 05:22 Polygamy wrote:
We see more and more Terrans building PFs as simple static defense.... and can not simply be taken out by a pack of roaming zerglings.
Bias detected. Sorry, but 25 mineral units should not be able to kill everything.
|
I played 6m2g entombed valley. it feels so good.
14pool 16hatch feels very weird vs p  . I played 14pool 14hatch
inject should adding +3 larvas, not +4. a bit too much because of less income.
|
Wouldnt this be a good final edit?
|
On March 18 2012 05:55 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2012 05:22 Polygamy wrote:
We see more and more Terrans building PFs as simple static defense.... and can not simply be taken out by a pack of roaming zerglings. Bias detected. Sorry, but 25 mineral units should not be able to kill everything. It's a little early to call bias. For all you know, he's a terran who hates zerglings. 
|
TSL 3 was probably (in my own opinion) the best sc2 tournament I've ever watched and kinda been the starting point of all this Esports thing. It was the start of everything, some kind of revolution (IMO). The other day, I was wondering how TL will achieve to make TSL4 as awesome as its predecessor since there's so much tournaments atm.
Well, with this post, I think we have a solution for that :D. Seriously, a tournament with 7m or 6m maps and with a nice prize pool would be the best way to test this new way of thinking the game. Furthermore, with all the BW fans on the site, I think TSL4 is probably the best tournament to start implementing such maps.
Plz teamliquid ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
