• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 18:07
CEST 00:07
KST 07:07
  • 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
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202547RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams4Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread RSL Season 1 - Final Week The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL20 Preliminary Maps BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
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
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 585 users

Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 31

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 29 30 31 32 33 113 Next
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB
drgoats
Profile Joined March 2010
United States310 Posts
March 17 2012 21:08 GMT
#601
I have felt exactly the same way as you have for a few months now. In fact, on another thread I proposed that they should slow down mining and in a way that is what your proposition does.

So I decided to play a game with your 6m2g entombed valley map. It was only against the computer but I wanted to see how it felt from my perspective with little interference from an opponent. I have to say that it felt fantastic. I played as Zerg and I felt that my queens were a little off but all in all the game played out much smoother. I felt that I had to make better decisions with my minerals and that there were plenty of times where I felt like I should attack because basically I had nothing else better to do. Basically what I mean is that I decided to not wait for more units since they were coming in much slower and attacked with much smaller forces.

I am really looking forward on seeing how this plays out.
deafhobbit
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States828 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-17 21:13:30
March 17 2012 21:13 GMT
#602
Speaking as someone who mostly watches BW, this change would make me watch more Sc2. Will be keeping an eye on this thread.
I cheer for underdogs and Flash
DemigodcelpH
Profile Joined August 2011
1138 Posts
March 17 2012 21:22 GMT
#603
I really don't want this to be another theory-crafting thread that eventually just gets forgotten about! TL we have to do something and we can as a community.
HyperionDreamer
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
Canada1528 Posts
March 17 2012 21:31 GMT
#604
I've never agreed with any OP so much on TL. <3 bw
BW4life! Jaedong ~ Savior ~ Shine ; "drowning sorrows in late night infomercials" - bnYsooch
AssyrianKing
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Australia2111 Posts
March 17 2012 21:33 GMT
#605
On March 18 2012 01:38 deo1 wrote:
My feeling has always been that low worker saturation is a bigger problem than the total amount of minerals per base and the high rate at which minerals come in. In SC2 there are countless times when the person with a way better economy just looses because they didn't cut workers and the increase in worker count had little return towards improving mining rate (as you pointed out in the OP as well).

All in all I think we have similar concerns with SC2 but I think OP is underestimating the effects of super-early saturation (i.e. one/two base play might even be stronger).

With this view I think what would improve gameplay more is more mineral patches with less minerals per patch where the total mineral count is the same. The result would be a bit different than the OPs.

1) bases would mine out more quickly but have the same total amount of minerals
2) The rate of minerals coming in would be higher for each player
3) ratio of minerals in to gas in would be higher
4) more workers would be needed to saturate (and to match the econ-ing player's income rate)

The effect would be the econ player would have more of an advantage, more overall food would go to workers (and less to army), expansion would be needed sooner and the extra workers would be even more critical when maynarding.

An increased income rate would mean armies are built faster, but this would apply to both sides equally. And the increased mineral rate would be (for perspective) nowhere on the order of the increased rate that terrans see when dropping mules. So timings would be bumped up, but not to an absurd amount.


I kind of agree with this, it just makes more sense as six min would just saturate so quickly
John 15:13
AssyrianKing
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Australia2111 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-17 21:38:28
March 17 2012 21:38 GMT
#606
On March 18 2012 04:56 Moliere wrote:
Show nested quote +
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."

What do you mean hurt e-sports, for all we know the crowd will love longer back and forth games, I know I would

Edit: Sorry for double post
John 15:13
Excludos
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Norway8072 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-17 21:38:40
March 17 2012 21:38 GMT
#607
What we, and blizz is looking for, is always the answer which changes the -least- to the gameplay, yet move the game in a slightly better direction. Changing the AI of workers will 100% never happen, and general touching on the races wont happen until hots.

But I have a solution (I havent read all the answers in here, so maybe its been suggested before). Instead of drastically changing the mineral patches, how about changing the mineral layout? Why not move 2 or 3 of the mineral patches a bit further back (further than the ones at the back now I mean). This will allow 3 workers to be more effective than 2, and thus having more workers than your opponent, even over 16, will actually yield an economic advantage.

More to the point, the above solution can be very easily implimented by any mapmakers. No real massive changes that completely changes the way he game is played.
AssyrianKing
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
Australia2111 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-17 22:01:11
March 17 2012 21:45 GMT
#608
On March 18 2012 06:38 Excludos wrote:
What we, and blizz is looking for, is always the answer which changes the -least- to the gameplay, yet move the game in a slightly better direction. Changing the AI of workers will 100% never happen, and general touching on the races wont happen until hots.

But I have a solution (I havent read all the answers in here, so maybe its been suggested before). Instead of drastically changing the mineral patches, how about changing the mineral layout? Why not move 2 or 3 of the mineral patches a bit further back (further than the ones at the back now I mean). This will allow 3 workers to be more effective than 2, and thus having more workers than your opponent, even over 16, will actually yield an economic advantage.

More to the point, the above solution can be very easily implimented by any mapmakers. No real massive changes that completely changes the way he game is played.

That is kind of true, like in Broodwar the minerals arent exactly curled around the command centre as much like in SC2, they are in a straight line where the end patches are pretty far away from the CC, and its correct that SC2 resource collection rate is quicker compared to BW, and for the sake of balance of the mule and more better saturation I think 7/8 min with further away min or resourse collection rate nerf would be more ideal
John 15:13
whatthefat
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States918 Posts
March 17 2012 21:59 GMT
#609
On March 18 2012 06:45 PiPoGevy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 18 2012 06:38 Excludos wrote:
What we, and blizz is looking for, is always the answer which changes the -least- to the gameplay, yet move the game in a slightly better direction. Changing the AI of workers will 100% never happen, and general touching on the races wont happen until hots.

But I have a solution (I havent read all the answers in here, so maybe its been suggested before). Instead of drastically changing the mineral patches, how about changing the mineral layout? Why not move 2 or 3 of the mineral patches a bit further back (further than the ones at the back now I mean). This will allow 3 workers to be more effective than 2, and thus having more workers than your opponent, even over 16, will actually yield an economic advantage.

More to the point, the above solution can be very easily implimented by any mapmakers. No real massive changes that completely changes the way he game is played.

That is kind of true, like in Broodwar the minerals arent exactly curled around the command centre as much like in SC2, they are in a straight line where the end patches are pretty far away from the CC, and its correct that SC2 resource collection rate is quicker

I was considering that a while back (see here). Since changing the number of mineral patches is the simplest solution, I think it's worth investigating first. But yes, changing the mineral layout is another possibility, although MULE balance has to be rethought in that case.
SlayerS_BoxeR: "I always feel sorry towards Greg (Grack?) T_T"
Excludos
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Norway8072 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-17 22:08:41
March 17 2012 22:05 GMT
#610
On March 18 2012 06:59 whatthefat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 18 2012 06:45 PiPoGevy wrote:
On March 18 2012 06:38 Excludos wrote:
What we, and blizz is looking for, is always the answer which changes the -least- to the gameplay, yet move the game in a slightly better direction. Changing the AI of workers will 100% never happen, and general touching on the races wont happen until hots.

But I have a solution (I havent read all the answers in here, so maybe its been suggested before). Instead of drastically changing the mineral patches, how about changing the mineral layout? Why not move 2 or 3 of the mineral patches a bit further back (further than the ones at the back now I mean). This will allow 3 workers to be more effective than 2, and thus having more workers than your opponent, even over 16, will actually yield an economic advantage.

More to the point, the above solution can be very easily implimented by any mapmakers. No real massive changes that completely changes the way he game is played.

That is kind of true, like in Broodwar the minerals arent exactly curled around the command centre as much like in SC2, they are in a straight line where the end patches are pretty far away from the CC, and its correct that SC2 resource collection rate is quicker

I was considering that a while back (see here). Since changing the number of mineral patches is the simplest solution, I think it's worth investigating first. But yes, changing the mineral layout is another possibility, although MULE balance has to be rethought in that case.



I think Mule balance is going to be way worse with fewer mineral patches than with a different layout. Some mineral patches still have to be "close" like they are now if you are going to move others further away. if not then you can simply place the command center closer. This will leave, say, 2 mineral patches still as close as they are today, and mules will be just as effective on them as they are now. But since every other patch now is further away, you have to constantly micro, as if you slip and start accumilating energy, you have to spend a mule on patches further away and gain way less.

See? This even fixes the old "mules are easy mode" whine

edit: In my mind I wasn't quite thinking about having the minerals in a straight line either, altough that could probably end up doing the exact same thing. I was more thinking of having them in the same arc, but only leave 2 patches close to the cc, have 3-4 as far away as "far away" is by todays standard, and then move 2-3 even further away.

edit 2: This would also spread the workers so things like hellions becomes less effective..but lets not get ahead of ourselves here.
Neverplay
Profile Joined May 2010
Austria532 Posts
March 17 2012 22:08 GMT
#611
i really like your idea! i hope tournaments will try out some of this lower resource maps
Better light a candle than curse the darkness
Natespank
Profile Joined November 2011
Canada449 Posts
March 17 2012 22:30 GMT
#612
What is the chance that a tournament would pick up one 6m map for it's pool? Somebody could choose it without having it forced on them, and those players could popularize the idea
Zandar
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Netherlands1541 Posts
March 17 2012 22:36 GMT
#613
On March 18 2012 06:38 Excludos wrote:
What we, and blizz is looking for, is always the answer which changes the -least- to the gameplay, yet move the game in a slightly better direction. Changing the AI of workers will 100% never happen, and general touching on the races wont happen until hots.

But I have a solution (I havent read all the answers in here, so maybe its been suggested before). Instead of drastically changing the mineral patches, how about changing the mineral layout? Why not move 2 or 3 of the mineral patches a bit further back (further than the ones at the back now I mean). This will allow 3 workers to be more effective than 2, and thus having more workers than your opponent, even over 16, will actually yield an economic advantage.

More to the point, the above solution can be very easily implimented by any mapmakers. No real massive changes that completely changes the way he game is played.


because terran will lift off at game start and land closer
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.
discomatt
Profile Joined March 2012
113 Posts
March 17 2012 22:38 GMT
#614
On March 18 2012 07:36 Zandar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 18 2012 06:38 Excludos wrote:
What we, and blizz is looking for, is always the answer which changes the -least- to the gameplay, yet move the game in a slightly better direction. Changing the AI of workers will 100% never happen, and general touching on the races wont happen until hots.

But I have a solution (I havent read all the answers in here, so maybe its been suggested before). Instead of drastically changing the mineral patches, how about changing the mineral layout? Why not move 2 or 3 of the mineral patches a bit further back (further than the ones at the back now I mean). This will allow 3 workers to be more effective than 2, and thus having more workers than your opponent, even over 16, will actually yield an economic advantage.

More to the point, the above solution can be very easily implimented by any mapmakers. No real massive changes that completely changes the way he game is played.


because terran will lift off at game start and land closer


Land closer how? They still need to be the same distance away from the closest mineral patch.
whatthefat
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States918 Posts
March 17 2012 22:38 GMT
#615
On March 18 2012 07:36 Zandar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 18 2012 06:38 Excludos wrote:
What we, and blizz is looking for, is always the answer which changes the -least- to the gameplay, yet move the game in a slightly better direction. Changing the AI of workers will 100% never happen, and general touching on the races wont happen until hots.

But I have a solution (I havent read all the answers in here, so maybe its been suggested before). Instead of drastically changing the mineral patches, how about changing the mineral layout? Why not move 2 or 3 of the mineral patches a bit further back (further than the ones at the back now I mean). This will allow 3 workers to be more effective than 2, and thus having more workers than your opponent, even over 16, will actually yield an economic advantage.

More to the point, the above solution can be very easily implimented by any mapmakers. No real massive changes that completely changes the way he game is played.


because terran will lift off at game start and land closer

If you have a convex mineral line, that shouldn't be possible.
SlayerS_BoxeR: "I always feel sorry towards Greg (Grack?) T_T"
Zandar
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Netherlands1541 Posts
March 17 2012 22:39 GMT
#616
ok I guess that's true.
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.
TurboDreams
Profile Joined April 2009
United States427 Posts
March 17 2012 22:40 GMT
#617
On March 18 2012 07:30 Natespank wrote:
What is the chance that a tournament would pick up one 6m map for it's pool? Somebody could choose it without having it forced on them, and those players could popularize the idea

I feel this has to happen, looking back at BW, Blizzard didn't patch the game to its current state, rather it was user maps (professional korean maps at that) made it the way it currently is.
Music is the medicine of the mind || Kill a Zergling and a hundred more will take its place.
Noyect
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Sweden129 Posts
March 17 2012 22:40 GMT
#618
Really awesome and well thought out post. Couldn't stop reading!

I do share the concern that one gas might be too vulnerable to gas steals though.

I guess what this idea needs is testing. Thousands of high level games.
It might be a minor catch 22 with getting this into tournaments as tournaments do what the players want and the players will most likely only practive these maps to that extent if they are in a tournament.

Getting some high community profile attention to this thread would probably be a great start though.
kewlpotato
Profile Joined July 2011
Canada41 Posts
March 17 2012 22:46 GMT
#619
great post, but like all things, this will probably take a long time too change
dsousa
Profile Joined October 2011
United States1363 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-17 22:46:58
March 17 2012 22:46 GMT
#620
I think your points are very good, however, rather than changing the number of mineral patches, why not just make the amount of minerals per patch 25% smaller?

Then it would force expansions earlier, while not changing the early game. Saturation would require the same amount of worker, but the bases would mine out sooner.
Prev 1 29 30 31 32 33 113 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 11h 53m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .267
Nathanias 211
BRAT_OK 44
Nina 0
StarCraft: Brood War
Sexy 30
Bale 8
Dota 2
monkeys_forever325
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1098
Foxcn293
Super Smash Bros
AZ_Axe112
Liquid`Ken26
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu407
Other Games
tarik_tv10053
summit1g7760
Grubby3233
FrodaN1584
C9.Mang0212
Sick44
Maynarde0
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV24
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 20 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta80
• poizon28 50
• musti20045 38
• Hupsaiya 34
• Kozan
• Migwel
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• Eskiya23 19
• Azhi_Dahaki3
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22524
League of Legends
• Doublelift3180
Other Games
• imaqtpie1362
• Shiphtur410
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
11h 53m
Reynor vs Zoun
Solar vs SHIN
Classic vs ShoWTimE
Cure vs Rogue
Esports World Cup
1d 12h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
5 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
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
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.